Conference hydra::dejavu

    
    I'd like to add 'feelings' as well, to the topic.
    
    Do thoughts and feelings influence reality?
    
    Cindy

I think that in order for this discussion to get anywhere, as Earl
pointed out somewhere in topic 1392, it would be useful to find a
qualitative distinction between things like "I can choose vanilla or
chocolate" and "I can choose to have objects to fall upward". In both
cases, thought affects reality, but something about the first one isn't
interesting -- it's trivial. It's the second possibility which would be
interesting to investigate. Is this sort of influence possible? If so,
how? If not, what's the difference between it and the first?

Note 1540.2                
ENABLE::glantz 
    
    I disagree with you, Mike.  It isn't the first or the second that
    is really interesting... it's the third.. the one you haven't
    mentioned.  The two choices you mention are 1. a normal, everyday
    choice similar to those we all make throughout the course of our
    existence,  and 2. a violation of the Strange Attractors... something
    that goes against the physical laws of reality in your own personal
    space.  What about 3... something that doesn't violate the physical
    laws of reality but also something that you, as an individual, isn't
    SUPPOSED to be able to do?
    
    Cindy... you are right to include emotion.

>    What about 3... something that doesn't violate the physical
>    laws of reality but also something that you, as an individual, isn't
>    SUPPOSED to be able to do?

  I can't think of one. Could you give an example?

    Category 3:  I think that you should choose chocolate!
    That is, I will control your normal behavior.
    

    :-) ... just for the sake of illustration now :-)
    
    ... blowing up someone's car.. or rather working through reality to
    arrange for someone else to blow it up.. a random act of vandalism..
    totally unrelated to you, but whose result is your intent..  an
    incident that could happen on the other side of the world from you..
    
    Another example  ...redirecting the course of a human event of some
    sort... 
    
    	

Note 1540.5                
CSLALL::FARNHAM                                       
    
>    Category 3:  I think that you should choose chocolate!
>    That is, I will control your normal behavior.
    
Yes... "it would be best for all concerned if you choose chocolate" .. for
    reasons that are far-reaching over time and effect the whole..  
    
    You got it.
    
    But there are others... when the Earth acts in concert with your 
    consciousness and (recent events aside) they are among the causes
    of the crop symbols...   not all of them to be sure... some are hoaxes
    but others are not.

Re .6 (Mary):

    >... blowing up someone's car.. or rather working through reality to
    >arrange for someone else to blow it up.. 

But Mary -- in an enlarged car, Jamie might not be able to see over the
top of the dashboard.

Just how big do you propose blowing it up to?

:-D

Steve Kallis, Jr.

    re: .0 (Condy-roo)
    
          I would add that emotions and beliefs are the major components
    of reality.  Remember Lazaris' equation?
         (Beliefs + Feelings) X Imagination = Reality
    [Read as "beliefs plus feelings, all multipliied by imagination, equals
    reality."]
     
    re: .6 (Mary)
    
          Those examples are prime examples of manipulation, not inflence
    nor thought redirection.  Better yet are the ones that are not subject
    to goofiness such as experimentation and testing...those which we feel
    in our hearts...those which we know and understand have had an
    effect, not only in ourself, but globally.  As Todd's entry earlier
    stated at the topic "act locally, think globally."  As I have altered
    my views of atomic warfare and global war, I have watched as the 
    Germanies have come together, I have watched as the Soviet Red Threat
    has been largely disarmed, I have watched as another potential for 
    war (Iraq) has "miraculously" been averted or avoided...I don't need
    or desire to have anyone, however jerk they may be, to come up to 
    me and tell me that *I* had nothing to do with that.  Why would I set
    myself up for that?  Forget testing...just continue trusting.
    
    Frederick
    

    Good one, Steve. :-)
    
    Maybe you're right, Frederick... 

    In that other note, I mentioned Einstein as an example of someone
    whose thinking altered reality.  I was thinking primarily of the
    development of nuclear weapons based on his theories.  Before
    Einstein, there was no way for humanity to destroy the planet,
    now that reality exists.  Isn't that true of all "inventors"?
    They think of something that hasn't been thought of before and,
    ultimately, provide the seeds for new ways of living, new realities.
    
    Sue

    re: .11 (Sue)
    
         You could even take it a step farther.  All the major 
    inventions or ideas we've implemented have come at the "hands"
    not of those who thought about them, per se, but those who
    *dreamed* about them first.  That is, before a thought was
    thought, a dream was dreamt.  That dream, then, became a thought,
    which then provided a new reality.
    
    Frederick
    

    yes :-)

Re .11 b(Sue):

    >In that other note, I mentioned Einstein as an example of someone
    >whose thinking altered reality.  I was thinking primarily of the
    >development of nuclear weapons based on his theories.  Before
    >Einstein, there was no way for humanity to destroy the planet,
    >now that reality exists. 

Actually, that was/is a misconception.  In terms of warfare, humanity had
ways to destroy the planet without nuclear weapons, well beforehand.  The
poison gases of World War I were one such (and interestingly, though
everyone was prepared for gas attack in World War II, it was almost newver
used in battle).

But that's not "altering reality."  The reality of nuclear power existed from
the formation of the heavy elements; their application was something else.
You can change alternatives without altering reality.

    > ............................. Isn't that true of all "inventors"?
    >They think of something that hasn't been thought of before and,
    >ultimately, provide the seeds for new ways of living, new realities.
    
A light may be beginning to dawn.  Maybe we're not all using "reality" in
the same way. 

An invention -- a technology -- can extend the scope of a person's control
of things without necessarily changing any of the underlying structure of,
say, matter.  Before humanity learned how to start fires, the early peoples
were unable to keep warm in cold climates (much less cook food) at will; 
developing a fire-taming technology changed that -- and people's options
(and opportunities).  However, this did not change "reality"; although it
provided means for social change, as did agriculture.

Whether humanity knew how to use fire or not, though, had no bearing on the
mechanism of oxidation.

If we equate "new ways of living" with "new realities," though, then 
"reality" is subjective.  Completely so.  And subjectivity -- individual
or collective -- is mutable through rhetoric: thus, using the term in that 
manner, thought can alter "reality."

Steve Kallis, Jr.

5848::KALLIS 
    
>Actually, that was/is a misconception.  In terms of warfare, humanity had
>ways to destroy the planet without nuclear weapons, well beforehand.  The
>poison gases of World War I were one such (and interestingly, though
>everyone was prepared for gas attack in World War II, it was almost newver
>used in battle).

    Just a nit, Steve ... but poison gas might have the capability to
    destroy humanity but I don't see how it could destroy the planet.
    
>You can change alternatives without altering reality.
    
    Well... thats really what you're doing though, isn't it?  Seems like
    semantics almost.
    
    >A light may be beginning to dawn.  Maybe we're not all using "reality" in
    >the same way. 

    Yea... I agree..  everyone doesn't equate scientific principles with
    existing reality.
    

    
    I believe that within the universal (natural?) laws, and using the
    building blocks (toys) that we have at hand, that thought
    influences/shapes reality.
    
    This can be taken many, many different ways (with many, many
    opportunities for some really deep ratholes (;^), so I'll enter a
    story that you can all pick apart.
    
    Last Christmas as I was driving from New Hampshire to Chicago, my car
    suddenly died (timing belt - I've told this here before).  Anyway, the
    thoughts I was experiencing at that very moment were *extremely*
    negative and I was exhausted on top of it all.  I remember exactly what
    I was thinking about too.
    
    Now, the timing belt was *supposed* to break within the mileage
    allowance that it did.  However, had it broken at any other place along
    the route, I would not have ended up spending Christmas at Kripalu -
    instead I would have simply waited until Monday and continued on my
    journey after having the car fixed by a local dealer.
    
    Quite a few people said, "Oh, that's too bad you couldn't spend
    Christmas with your family."  Had it been another time, I guess I would
    have been really disappointed too.  However deep down my *real* thought
    was, "I really don't want to go to Chicago.  I really want to be at
    Kripalu."  Having acknowledged this thought, I then knew that I'd
    shaped my reality.  No laws were broken, and nothing paranormal
    happened.  But what an interesting 'coincidence'...
    
    In cases like these, there is nothing to 'prove'.  It's more of a
    personal observation on one's own thoughts and becoming more conscious
    of the kind of thoughts we think and hold.  There have been countless
    other events like this in my life, so many so that there is no doubt in
    my mind that my thoughts shape my reality.
    
    So now that I'm more conscious of my thoughts and the overall process,
    it is up to me to take responsibility for sending out the thoughts to
    shape the world that I'd really like to live in.
    
    While at Kripalu last week, Yogi Desai dedicated one morning lecture to
    Will and Surrender.  The 'Will' is the part where we dream the dream,
    think the thought (consciously).  The 'Surrender' is the part where we
    allow the universe to do its thing to shape itself around our 'Will'. 
    
    To slip into Christianity for a moment, the prostitute was going to be
    stoned, however Christ thought and acted in love toward her instead. 
    Out of that love, she changed.  He didn't change her.
    
    Cindy

Re .15 (Mary):

    >Just a nit, Steve ... but poison gas might have the capability to
    >destroy humanity but I don't see how it could destroy the planet.

Depends upon the type and amount of gas released.  The capability existed,
at least as far as life was concerned.

>>You can change alternatives without altering reality.
>    
>    Well... thats really what you're doing though, isn't it?  Seems like
>    semantics almost.
 
This depends upon your philosophical perspective. Such perspective ranges
from the mystic "time/space is an illusion" to the deterministic "everything
is fixed in time/space from beginning to end" (predestinastion at all levels).
Somewhere betweeen these two positions is the one of nondeterminism -- i.e.,
"free will" without the religiomystic connotations required.  If you base 
your definition of "reality" in the purely mystic, reality perforce _must_
be subjective; if you base "reality" on a pure determinism, then one cannot
influence, much less create/alter reality.  This is less a matter of semantics
than of fundamental philosophy.  It's like echoing Jamie and saying, "I
altered reality because I stepped out of the way of an oncoming truck."

    >>A light may be beginning to dawn.  Maybe we're not all using "reality" in
    >>the same way. 
    >
    >Yea... I agree..  everyone doesn't equate scientific principles with
    >existing reality.
    
I believe is was a contemporary writer (maybe a poet) who penned:

A man said to the universe, "Sir, I exist."
And the universe replied, "I don't believe that gives me any sense of 
obligation."

The quote's close enough.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

    :-) ...good one, Steve... I like it.  

  Re Cindy (.16), I agree with your analysis. My personal opinion is
  that in a case such as the one you described, your will did influence
  the physical world, and not in the trivial sense of choosing
  chocolate. It falls into the category of "not explained by current
  physical models, but not in contradiction with them, either". It
  cannot, of course, be proved. Nor can it be disproved. It has the
  status of axiom in our system of reasoning. One can choose either to
  believe your analysis or not, and either way can result in a
  consistent model of reality. I happen to choose to believe it.

Re .9     

    >Those examples are prime examples of manipulation, not inflence
    >nor thought redirection.  Better yet are the ones that are not subject
    >to goofiness such as experimentation and testing...those which we feel
    >in our hearts...those which we know and understand have had an
    >effect, not only in ourself, but globally.
    
    If it has an effect globally it is by definition subject to the
    goofiness of experimentation and testing. 

    Frederick why do you so fear experimentation and testing? Is it because
    it keeps exposing all your theories to be false?

    Re .11 

    > In that other note, I mentioned Einstein as an example of someone
    >whose thinking altered reality.  I was thinking primarily of the
    >development of nuclear weapons based on his theories.  Before
    >Einstein, there was no way for humanity to destroy the planet,
    >now that reality exists.  Isn't that true of all "inventors"?
    >They think of something that hasn't been thought of before and,
    >ultimately, provide the seeds for new ways of living, new realities.
    
    Right let us suppose that Einstien had just thought up the theory of
    relativity and done nothing else, just the thought process, no action.
    Then nothing in reality would have changed. 

    However once he made the physical actions of communication this
    information to others, and they in turn used this information to make
    physical objects then reality can be changed, but not by though alone.

    Jamie.
                          

    One of the theories of how cognitive-affective processes
    (the individual's perspective of their own mental activity) affect
    externally verifiable events is through the influence of 
    the probability of events.   This model is related to some 
    forms of 'magic.'   However, their use of unverifiable concepts like The 
    Unmanifest and such make the base assumptions as unpalatable for
    scientific consideration as, say, Creationism, and with a much weaker
    lobby to boot.
    
    For example, any event that is normally possible, but highly
    unlikely, might be made more likely, so as to occur, or to occur
    more frequently than would be a statistical norm, in this theory.  It is 
    fairly easy I think to apply this for example to certain tests of 
    extrasensory perception, which are usually statistically based, e.g. one 
    person 'guessing' the shape read by another with better-than-random 
    accuracy.
    
    This is extended by some people to include events at the molecular
    level which would be 'highly unlikely,' such as my favorite example
    of a sugar cube that had dissolved in water reassembling into
    a cube, or into some other shape.  And by way of extension, this notion 
    is sometimes also applied to telekinesis or materialization in general.  
    The basis of the argument seems to be that some of our physical laws,
    such as those of thermodynamics, are 'usual cases,' and not 
    'neccessary cases,' as would seem to apply to gravity.   
    
    The distinction becomes more interesting when we read the work
    of, among others, Nobel Prize Winner Ilya Prigogine (Order_out_of_Chaos), 
    and see that the thermodynamic arrow of time does in fact reverse under
    certain conditions, causing systemic reorganization and decreased
    entropy (far from equillibrium).  
    
    The link that has yet to be made by those supporting the possibility
    of this kind of mind/matter influence is not so much that 
    thermodynamically 'unlikely' events do not occur, which they apparently
    do but that we can influence them by an act of will in a specific
    manner.   
    
    Ambiguities in submolecular theory make for lots of interesting
    speculation in this regard, but I think the connection is still
    very weak.
    
    						todd

Very nice analysis, Todd! My favorite "bone" has been the notion that
spirit influences the material dimension at the level of quantum
choices (e.g., which slit the electron passed through), and that the
"Rube Goldberg" effect shows that individual quantum-level events can
ultimately have large observable effects.

Perhaps the more unlikely an event, the more "will power" it takes to
make it happen (because the greater number of quantum events must be
influenced). Certain mystical philosophers have said that this used to
be much more common, but that today, fewer people are trained in this
science, from which I surmise that there aren't enough "adepts" to
perform these feats as often. Not to mention that these phenomena are
not produced solely to satisfy curious skeptics.

    re: .20 (Jamie)
    
         I don't "fear" experimentation, per se.  It's just that I
    don't have a need for the kind of testing you seek.  I *know* I
    create my own reality.  Setting up this kind of test, therefore,
    means that I do not trust my ability to generate intended desires,
    it means that I do not *really* believe that I create my own reality,
    it means that I only say so but will succumb to some other "greater
    good."  Further, to me it also means that I can recognize that it is
    a game of my own negative ego...casting doubt on my own confidences.
    
         No, Jamie, I'm not worried about your falsehoods.
    
         
    Frederick
    

    Glad you entered this topic, Cindy. Doesn't "mainstream" (whatever that
    means) humanity call all this stuff coincidence? Never believed in it
    myself. Serendipity yes, coincidence no. 
    
    Small example. Here at DECDirect warehouse, I work in receiving,
    inspection, prepack, sort of. One of my duties is to determine if
    packaging is damaged to the point of rejection/rebox/tape up. We
    receive most material in browncraft boxes, but some come in in designer
    packaging and some in white boxes. Today a package came in in a white
    box and was torn. Because it was a oneshot deal, we contacted the
    customer and told him the problem. He agreed to accept the torn box and
    we agreed to tape it up and make it presentable for him.
    
    Now we have white tape for tape guns but rarely use it. (Less then
    every 6 months) All day I have been thinking. "I have to tape that box
    up. I have to dig out the white tape, load it on the gun and fix the
    box." At 3 I went over to get the tape and do the job. Well, lo and
    behold the gun was already loaded with white tape. Sems someone needed
    some for another job. I told this woman that i had influenced her
    thinking to do this for me and she said that maybe it was so, because
    she was going to put off the white tape job until tomorrow as she had
    other things to do, but "something" told her to load up and do it
    today.
    
    Long winded as I am, I think this is a case. 
    
    
    PJ

    
    PJ,
    
    Good going!  (;^)
    
    Cindy

    All perception is projection.
    
    Richard

    Re .23 

           > *YOU* can experiment to "your heart's content." 

    A minor nit, I can't. My heart has been gone these last three years.

   >      I don't "fear" experimentation, per se.  It's just that I
   > don't have a need for the kind of testing you seek.  I *know* I
   > create my own reality.  Setting up this kind of test, therefore,
   > means that I do not trust my ability to generate intended desires,
   > it means that I do not *really* believe that I create my own reality,
   > it means that I only say so but will succumb to some other "greater
   > good."  Further, to me it also means that I can recognize that it is
   > a game of my own negative ego...casting doubt on my own confidences.
    
   
    No Frederick, you set up your own fantasy. As this had no effect on
    reality any testing done on it would fail. Thus you dare not let any
    testing be done, as it would prove beyond all doubt that your fantasy
    existed only in your mind. To this end you cover your fear of testing
    with what to you, appears to be logical reasoning, but to the rest of
    us looks like a complicated attempt to avoid facing the facts.

    I am also interested in the way that you see self criticism of your
    thoughts as a negative function. I always find checking out my ideas
    and deliberately looking for, and correcting, errors a normal and useful
    part of my thinking process. You however seem to fear that you might
    notice something wrong yourself and so you avoid looking to preclude
    this possibility.

         > No, Jamie, I'm not worried about your falsehoods.

    No Frederick I wouldn't bother about my falsehoods if I were you. But
    you really should be worried when I'm telling the truth and you are
    blinding yourself to it.

    Jamie.

    All this talk about "reality" seems to be a load of airy-fairy nonsense
    to me; a lot of talk and jargon about something really simple.
    
    There is only one reality.
    
    We (individually and collectively) understand only parts of it, and
    that part grows as we learn and develop, both as individuals and as a
    "people". For example, earlier we were all talking about gravity.
    Gravity existed before Newton named and explained it. Primitive man
    knew that something set down stayed there, and something dropped fell
    until it hit something; he didn't know why or how, something still
    fuzzy today, but it did and that was enough. Newton's thought did not
    change the reality of gravity one jot.
    
    However, there are other subsets of reality, personal ones, but they
    lie under, and are part of, the parent "one reality". For example,
    Person A has a car and knows that if he doesn't put petrol in it it
    will stop one day and go no further. For Person B, who has no car, this
    is not an active or important part of "his" reality, but it is
    nevertheless part of it. No amount of thought by Person A is going to 
    change the fact that his car will stop, for it is a physical, known and
    inescapable reality. Anyone who claims otherwise is clearly in
    difficulties.
    
    However, there are other things that are also part of reality, but much
    more difficult to prove, and those who hold a contrary view, much
    harder to expose. First though, back to gravity again. There are those
    who claim to be able to levitate things. This doesn't change the fact
    that gravity as a reality exists, rather that they claim to have the
    ability to counteract that inescapable physical force by the power of
    the mind. This would be easy to prove or disprove, but no-one has ever
    done it. Lots of people claim the have seen it, and indeed believe they
    have seen it. But no sceptic has been allowed to inspect such a feat in
    sufficient detail to become a believer. I believe such claims to be
    false, and against the rules of reality, and those who believe such
    claims to hold beliefs outside reality. Their belief does not change
    that reality. Gravity I see around me every day, and I have no need to
    understand it; it levitation were likewise, I would feel the same. It
    isn't, so it needs to be proven possible. Since levitation differs from
    the norm, the burden of proof is on the claimant. Blind acceptance is
    naive.
    
    Much, much harder to challange are those who claim such things as
    mind-control, especially at a distance. Fredirick is a prime example.
    He believes that he can, by mere thought, influence world events. He
    has claimed, for instance that he personally influenced the outcome of
    the recent (unresolved) Iraq crisis re: weapons verification etc. Not
    only is he incapable of proving this to either himself or anyone else,
    the sheer magnitude of the task is such that it will forever be
    unprovable. The best we can hope for is that he can predict events and
    influence them so consistently that we come to accept what he's saying,
    simply because we have no choice but to accept the veracity of it. To
    claim in retrospect to have fixed something is easy, to predict it, and
    then to see it happen is something else. The inescapable conclusion is
    that it's a delusion, and I'd be very interested to hear how Fredorick
    believes that this delusion differs from those suffering from say,
    schizophrenia.
    
    Now, by this time, there will be those out there that will argue that
    there is a difference between physical reality, ie: petrol and cars,
    and "foobar" reality, ie: levitation, and will point to notes like the
    previous ones concerning cars breaking down, and white tape as
    evidence. Well, all I can say, is that if either of those people were
    able to consistently affect their lives in this way, at will, then fair
    enough. If they can't then it's simply coincidence. Whatever it is, it
    doesn't change reality one iota.
    
    Laurie.

Jamie (.27)
  >> To this end you cover your fear of testing
    with what to you, appears to be logical reasoning, but to the rest of
    us looks like a complicated attempt to avoid facing the facts.

    Please do not speak for 'the rest of us'.  To you this may appear to
    be so, but do not take the liberty of speaking for everyone.
    
    Geesh, who voted you as voice of the participants of this file.
    
    Ro
    

    Perhaps Ro you would like to give us your view on why he is so
    reluctant to face the facts?

    Jamie.

    Maybe he feels that you are not what you pretend to be.  Maybe he
    senses that your intentions are not honorable nor above board.  Maybe
    he resents your attitude and manner of seeking out information through
    manipulation.

        Hah, hah, hah!!  This is all very good for my sense of humor
    today!   No kidding!  Now I'm schizophrenic (well, almost!  ;-)  !)
    OKay!  You, win, Laurie...or is it Jamie---you two look alike.
    YOU both *MUST* be right!  There is only one reality...the one
    you (well, since you're both the same, "you" will be singular
    in this application) tell us about.  We're just stumbling humans
    who are a little off their rockers deluding ourselves.  You, 
    Laurie and Jamie, are "the establishment," grounded in truth,
    honor and the love of God (oh, and decency, too, no doubt.)
    Well, I do declare! (or something like that.)
    
         Listen, as long as you hold your rigid views, there is nothing
    that will ever impede your progress.  Just hold on...baby, hold on
    and hold on tight!  Don't ever let go!  Stay right where you are...
    reality is so predictable...but while you're at it you might want
    to start reading "doomsayer" predictions and prognostications...you
    might want to start stockpiling oxygen tanks, foods, ammunition and
    all the other survival gear you'll need to make it through the next
    40 or 50 years (if you somehow manage to make it that long.)  Don't
    forget to have a team of doctors and lawyers with you (that are on
    "your" side of *reality*, of course) and maybe one or two good 
    religious books---for a little bit of faith, whenever you are in 
    a clutch or some other scary place.  Then sit back, hold on, and 
    watch your one, true reality crumble around you.
         Hey!  No big deal, dude and dudette!  (DO-dah, do-dah!!)
    If all else has failed, and you live to an unpleasant old age,
    and then you escape into heaven or some other osteperous place,
    you can ask whoever is in charge there to be nice to you and let
    you have some peace and quiet for a change.  No problema!
         I'm all for it!  Go for it!  God-speed!  Fare-thee-well!
    Hasta la vista, baby!  Close the door on your way out!  Don't
    forget to turn out the lights!  Have a nice vacation!  See you
    later, gators!  Au 'voir!  Chiao!  Arrivederci, baby!  Sayonara!
    Bon voyage!  Have a nice trip!  Have a nice day!  Take care!  
    Don't eat yellow snow!  Don't take any wooden nickels!  Have fun!
    Take the past with you!  Yeah, that's the ticket!
    
    Frederick
    

    
    Laurie,
    
    I welcome your participating here, and you bring up some very valid
    points, however if you could cut down on your condescending approach
    somewhat, I would find it easier to enter into a dialogue with you on
    the points you brought up so that we might both come to a higher level
    of understanding.
    
    Cindy

    
    Same goes for you, Frederick.
    
    As the person who began this particular note topic in complete
    sincerity, can we please get back to the original intent?
    
    Cindy

    Oh Jamie, you rascal!!  .30   8^)  8^)
    
    
 <<   Perhaps Ro you would like to give us your view on why he is so
    reluctant to face the facts?<<

    How can I do that when I don't believe he is reluctant 'to face the
    facts'!!!   I guess it is just that his facts, your facts, my facts are
    all based on our own perspectives!!!
    
    I have known Frederick for quite awhile through this conference and
    also having met him in person several times.  In fact, he was a recent
    guest in my home for several days.  He is a loving, kind, charming, and
    gentle person.  Do I agree with his views, do I take on his beliefs as
    my own?  Naw, in fact we very often disagree.  But you know what!?!?
    I honor and respect his beliefs (as I hope he does mine).  We are on
    quite different paths, Frederick and I, but I believe they will
    eventually lead us to the same place - home to God/Goddess/All-There-Is.  
    
    Mine is a path based on what I believe to be a Christian (Cosmic
    Christ) perspective, while Frederick follows Lazaris.  Both paths have
    some things in common - taking responsibility, acting with
    impeccability, and one's spirituality being the focus of one's life.
    Because I think highly of Frederick and have enjoyed what he has
    written here, I have attended several Lazaris workshops and worked with
    his tapes.  There is much value there and I have gotten something out
    of them.  However, I'm called to another way.
    
    Um, does that answer your question, Jamie?  I'm sure if I met you in
    person, I would see the Light shining in your heart as well...I just
    have a hard time through this medium.
    
    Ro
    
    

    Re:  Basenote
    
    Do thoughts (and feelings) influence reality?
    
    NO.  Unless those thoughts are spoken, unless those feelings are
    expressed and made known to others they do not effect "external of
    one's self" reality.  God, for instance, is said to have *said* "Let
    there be light", but the thought of light came to his mind first. 
    Until he "spoke and things stoodfast" nothing that is made was made.
    
    Divine Utterance, Words of Power, the Spoken Word effects reality,
    through sound vibrations.  A thought does not emit vibrations...Jesus,
    said "NO man taking to thought can increase his stature (effect
    reality?).  
    
    On Feelings...feelings provide the power and force behind the spoken
    word.  Together, words and feelings make utterance powerful.  
    
    Confidence is a feeling and gives a word spoken "authoritative" power. 
    That's what Jesus is referring to when he teaches that if we don't
    waver in faith or doubt, we can speak to the mountain that it should be
    moved into the sea and it shall be moved...that's "authoritative"
    power!  But who has the confidence and faith that can move mountains?
    
    Playtoe

    The only thing I can think when I read the basenote question is how
    thoughts (and feelings) influence reality from a negative-thinking
    versus positive-thinking perspective...and from that perspective I
    definitely do believe that thoughts/feelings influence reality.
    What I mean is...if you think negative, act negative and expect
    negative out of life, that is what you will get...and the same for
    positive thinking.  Before people get up in arms, I'd like to qualify 
    that by saying that this is not a totally black and white observation. 
    I realize that positive thinkers sometimes have negative things happen,
    and that negative thinkers sometimes have positive things happen.
    
    But, I believe that overall (having been on both sides of the
    negative/positive fence at one time or another) thoughts do affect 
    reality.  Part of it is also in the way we perceive things I think.  
    If you have a positive attitude and something really rotten happens, 
    you are more apt to deal with it (and turn it into a positive
    experience) than someone with an already negative outlook.
                      
    Has anyone else had any experience with what I'm talking about??  For
    me at least, this realization has had a tremendous impact on every
    aspect of my life.
    
    Just another perspective,
    Nancy
    
                

> Jesus said "NO man taking to thought can increase his stature"

What Jesus meant by this was that no amount of reasoning or indulgence
in thoughts (which are simply patterns of neural activity in the
material brain) can result in the higher form of awareness which is
direct contact with God.

Jesus also said that turning inward in silence to be in His presence
was the way to miracles. And He also said that one should invoke His
name, speak it out loud, to remind oneself of His promise to protect us
from all danger and evil. Jesus tells us that silence, speech, action,
and calm are all forms of behavior by which we may know Him and be in
His presence, be in contact with the Real, and realize the potential of
the Will.

I'm afraid that it's possible to support absolutely any philosophical,
political, or religious position by quoting scripture (and history
certainly bears evidence, here).

        <<< Note 1540.35 by ATSE::FLAHERTY "That's enough for me..." >>>
                                    -< 8^) >-

    
>    Um, does that answer your question, Jamie?  I'm sure if I met you in
>    person, I would see the Light shining in your heart as well...I just
>    have a hard time through this medium.

Yes !  You would !  Both Jamie and Laurie are complete and utter treasures in
real life.

(from one who knows)

Wendy
:-)
    
    

    
    Re.37
    
    Hi Nancy,
    
    Yes, I have.  I also feel that positive thinkers are more consciously
    perceiving reality than are negative thinkers, who have far less
    control over their thoughts than positive thinkers.
    
    To go one step further, both kinds of thinkers shape reality.  Positive
    thinkers are more consciously creating than are negative thinkers, but
    *both* shape reality just the same.
    
    However, most of us waver between these two end points, since we aren't
    fully conscious or fully unconscious beings.  I know myself beyond a
    shadow of a doubt that my thoughts shape my reality, because I have
    spent a lot of time in self-observation of my own thoughts and their
    relationship to the external world.  
    
    It is up to each person to *prove* it to their own selves.  Don't take
    somebody  elses word for it - observe your own thoughts for a while. 
    Ponder the question, "Could my thoughts actually be shaping my
    reality?", and see what conclusion you come to.  I've come to mine
    already.
    
    Cindy

    As a composer, I have to say YES, my thoughts influence reality; not
    just mine, but others.  I'm bathed in music every moment (including
    sleep, I often dream of playing or hearing music) of my day.  When I
    have time, I go in my studio, and if I'm lucky, I can approximate a
    tiny bit of the shower of music I heard in my head.  Some of that makes
    it to tape.  Over time I get enough material of a kind to put on an
    album.  The album sells moderately well, for an independent release.
    The green energy that generates goes back into equipment for the studio
    for the next album or into more stock of the current one(s).  Also I've
    gotten wonderful feedback from those people whose reality was altered,
    temporarily or permanently, by my music.  And that helps the process
    too.  
    
    And for those that say "that's cheating; we mean 'thoughts directly
    influencing external reality', I would respond that it was my thoughts
    that caused me to believe that the music I hear could be made flesh, so
    to speak.. so THOSE thoughts changed my life as well
    
    best. karl

    re 38
    
    Of course you're entitled to your opinion, however, I do disagree.
    
    Please define "stature".  
    
>What Jesus meant by this was that no amount of reasoning or indulgence
>in thoughts (which are simply patterns of neural activity in the
>material brain) can result in the higher form of awareness which is
>direct contact with God.
    
    I disagree.  What is "prayer"?
    
>I'm afraid that it's possible to support absolutely any philosophical,
>political, or religious position by quoting scripture (and history
>certainly bears evidence, here).
    
    When one gets use to bending scriptures to suit their personal needs
    indeed it becomes quite easy and possible to support ANY position. 
    However, barring all religious allusions.  I ask you to show were one's
    thoughts or feelings, should they be concealed, effect reality. 
    
    Perhaps, we should define "reality" as well.  I think of it as things
    which can be sensed (ie taste, touch, see, smell, heard).  If it cannot
    be sensed it is not "real/reality".  If you do not speak the word, or
    express emotion, who could acknowledge them?  
    
    I submit that, in order to effect reality one must create a force able
    to move things of reality (ie atoms and molecules), and SOUND/Words of
    Power is that force associated with thought.
    
    The gentleman who claims "his thoughts effect reality because he is an
    artist"...well I submit that it is infact his "art" the effects others
    reality, it is that which can be seen.  Unless the artist puts his
    thought into some "sensible" format (ie. sculpture, painting, writing,
    poetry, etc.) his thoughts will not effect anyone's reality.
    
    Playtoe

    Thoughts ARE an aspect of reality, that is, they are experiences we all
    have that are products of chemical, physiological, and quantum level
    events.  "Reality" also "creates" thought.  Our native (genetically
    transmitted) capabilities generate thoughts upon presentation of a wide
    variety of stimuli: e.g., oncoming bus, danger to one's child, etc.
    
    Furthermore, our attitudes (positive, hopeful, generative vs. negative,
    foreboding, destructive) pre-determine the thought patterns one is
    capable of.  In fact, if you'll look at the notes in this series,
    you'll see ample evidence of these (usually unconsciously held)
    paradigms. They are difficult to see and to know, in oneself, but very
    visible to others.
    
    Richard B

    RE: 43
    
    Hi Richard!
    
    I see what you are saying.  Perhaps, the topic question fails to
    indicate "directly" or "indirectly", thoughts, as an influencer of
    reality.  Our thoughts, feelings and attitudes, may compel us to act
    and/or speak, but unless we do, thoughts, feelings and attitudes mean
    nothing in a real world.
    
    Perhaps, it is relevent to point out that "WILL" has no power.  We may
    "will" to do something, but unless we act, perhaps compelled by a
    little emotion, our "WILL" becomes merely our imagination and dreams.
    
    >  Furthermore, our attitudes (positive, hopeful, generative vs. negative,
 >  foreboding, destructive) pre-determine the thought patterns one is
 >  capable of. 
    
    I like that idea.  Our attitudes do have a way of predisposing us to
    certain patterns of thought...but I'd question if "capable of" is
    properly used here.  Because, oftentimes it's our self realization of
    our attitude (i.e. why am I so angry/upset/sad/depressed/etc) that
    causes us to change our patterns of thought.  I think "attitudes" are
    an intrinsic part of thought, but reality is separate from thoughts and
    attitudes/feelings.
    
    We must put forth effort to effect our reality, and that entails more
    than taking to thought and copping attitudes.  That's what I believe
    Jesus meant by saying "No man can take to thought and add one cubit to
    his stature."  It is also written, "Where there is a willing mind let
    there also be a performance out of that will", and also "faith without
    works is dead".  The term "stature" is related to "status".  What man
    do you know that has added to his "level achieved" just by "taking to
    thought"?  Don't you know if it was that easy, we'd all be doing it!
    
    Thought and feelings, IMO, do not effect reality *directly*, but they
    do compel us to speak and act, and it is that speech and action which
    effects reality.  Also, factored by the intensity of emotion and
    ability to articulate ourselves, which perhaps accounts for the
    different "levels achieved" by individuals, though they think and
    believe and feel the same way.
    
    
    > In fact, if you'll look at the notes in this series,
 >  you'll see ample evidence of these (usually unconsciously held)
 >  paradigms. They are difficult to see and to know, in oneself, but very
 >  visible to others.
    
    Yes, difficult for those who do no self reflection, but not impossible
    for self to perceive.  It is no mystery that some have not evolved to
    the stature of the man "Christ."  We all perhaps have our peak and
    should somehow of higher evolution come unto us, could look upon us and
    say we need deeper self reflection, to evolve more...it was beautifully
    stated once by a man, "God is infinitely greater than man, therefore
    our path to God is an infinite path, if you think you GOT IT, you have
    infact lost it, because God's path is an infinite path."
    
    Playtoe, In the Spirit of Truth

    Re .32 

    > Now I'm schizophrenic (well, almost!  ;-)  !)
    
    I believe the question was, how do you tell the difference between your
    "personal" reality and the delusions of a schizophrenic. I trust that
    there are some.
                   
    >(well, since you're both the same, "you" will be singular in this
    >application) 

    No we are not. Laurie is small fat and ugly, I am taller, slimmer and
    marginally better looking.

    >You,  Laurie and Jamie, are "the establishment," grounded in truth,
    >honor and the love of God (oh, and decency, too, no doubt.) Well, I do
    >declare! (or something like that.)
    
    I speak only for myself. I am not for the establishment, I despise
    organised religion as a parasitic entity leaching on the poor and weak.
    And it you ever suggested to anyone who has ever met me that I was for
    decency they would roar with laughter or ask if you were both talking
    about the same person. However I am most interested in truth and I do
    think that I have some honour.

    >Listen, as long as you hold your rigid views, there is nothing
    >that will ever impede your progress.  Just hold on...baby, hold on
    >and hold on tight!  Don't ever let go!  Stay right where you are...
    >reality is so predictable...but while you're at it you might want
    >to start reading "doomsayer" predictions and prognostications...you
    >might want to start stockpiling oxygen tanks, foods, ammunition and
    >all the other survival gear you'll need to make it through the next
    >40 or 50 years (if you somehow manage to make it that long.)  Don't
    >forget to have a team of doctors and lawyers with you (that are on
    >"your" side of *reality*, of course) and maybe one or two good 
    >religious books---for a little bit of faith, whenever you are in 
    >a clutch or some other scary place.  Then sit back, hold on, and 
    >watch your one, true reality crumble around you.

    It would appear that you have had some form of diarrhoea of the
    keyboard. You make me sound like some gun freak with raving survival
    overtones. I suggest that you contact some of type these people,
    WORLDFORUM is as good a place as any. There you will find that I am
    diametrically the opposite of your description.
         
    >Hey!  No big deal, dude and dudette!  
                                 ^^^^^^^

    I am a gay male and I strongly object to being referred to by any form
    of female label.

    >If all else has failed, and you live to an unpleasant old age,
    
    Highly unlikely in my case.

    Re .35 

    How can I do that when I don't believe he is reluctant 'to face the
    facts'!!!   I guess it is just that his facts, your facts, my facts are
    all based on our own perspectives!!!
    
    He demonstrates a reluctance for any form of testing of his theories.
    Could you possibly explain that then?

    [Massive deletion to save disk space etc]
    
    >Um, does that answer your question, Jamie?  

    In no way does it even address the question, never mind answer it.

    I'm sure if I met you in person, I would see the Light shining in your
    heart as well...I just have a hard time through this medium.

    I doubt it. The formalin in which my heart floats tends to dim the
    light.

    Re .41 

    >As a composer, I have to say YES, my thoughts influence reality; not
    >just mine, but others.

    Well I can write, not just this stuff, and I suppose that my thoughts
    in some way changes reality. However neither of us changes reality by
    thought alone. We must both take our abstract creations and give them
    a physical form in reality. Then and only then does reality begin to
    change. If you never let the music leave you mind then reality would
    not be changed, and no doubt this would be a loss for those who like
    your music.

    Jamie.

    Here is an attempt at defining the basic laws of Thought-energy ;-)
    
    1. To demonstrate visible effects of "thought" energy, the mind of the
    thinker must be free of any doubt that it is possible to, say, move a
    glass across a table.
    
    By implication, if you attempt to measure the effects, you are doubting
    the the possibility and therefore are not in the pure frame of mind
    required to move the glass. 
    
    Any attempts to measure is an indication of lack of faith and therefore
    you or anyone involved will fail to measure the effects. If you are
    moving the glass to prove that it is possible, you will also fail...you
    are doubting. This is also why a 'privately' observed effect will fail
    in public demonstration repeatedly.
    
    This is why a skeptical mind would be least likely to appreciate the
    elements of thought control as skeptism implies "doubt". Doubt is the
    grave-digger of faith. 
    
    Yes, I know this sounds very much like creating a fantasy reality
    however, the two are very close, they resemble each other but
    the one is fantasy and the other, truth. 
    
    "Prove to you that this is so?" Sorry! you have just doubted by
    mentioning the word "proof"...no effects visible now. 
    
    Feasible? <--( you see! doubting again ;-)
    
    	-Brian
    

    Well Brian it sounds more like "Catch-22". 
    
    A similar form of no win "logic" was used with witches. You threw them
    into the water and if they floated, then they were witches and you then
    stoned them to death. However if they were innocent then they sank and
    drowned.

    Blind faith requires gullibility to a greater degree than I possess.

    Jamie.

Just to add another point of view.......probably expressed already..

I feel that most of the arguements here have been due to two different
conceptions of reality.  I don't want to use the word semantics, but
rather two different ways of looking at it.

I believe there is just one reality.  I will qualify this term by 'that
which is happening objectively'.

However, I also believe that we (as humans) do not perceive this 
(objective) reality, we meerely create models of what we call reality,
and then project them onto reality.  Thus what we see/think of reality
is a model, a self created/choosen model.

Thus what we think of as 'my reality' is subjective.  This type of 
(my) reality can and is within my power to alter and create.  

Thus 'there is only one reality' and 'I can create reality' are both true.
Except that possibly they should be stated as
'there is only one objective reality' and
'I can create my own reality'.

Hope this makes sense.

Dave

    re Jamie..
    
    >A similar form of no win "logic" was used with witches. You threw them
    >into the water and if they floated, then they were witches and you then
    
    Well...not quite...Throwing them into the water puts them in a "looking
    for proof" situation....if this is so, their magic, if they have such,
    may fail... Also, it is unlikely that a humanoid has developed a
    pureness of mind and purpose to activate his/her positive potential
    under such conditions? ;-)
    
    -Brian

     I guess Jamie, I'm not explaining myself too clearly...
    
    What I'm trying to say; "I have seen how under hypnosis, when the
    logical/measuring/doubting mind is turned off, the person is capable of
    almost super-human feats." This *is* demonstrable, all it takes is a
    competant hypnotist and a good subject. This leads me to believe that
    the very logical mind which we so revere, actually masks other
    potential.
    
    -Brian ..again 

    But are they capable of doing anything that is normally truly
    impossible? Or can they just do things that their conscious or sub
    conscious would normally rather not try as it might cause some sort of
    overload. By this I refer to the ability to lift heavier things when
    hypnotized or otherwise stimulated. 

    For example I nearly sipped between a ferry and the quay when my
    motorbike went into a front wheel skid. Stimulated by fear I lifted the
    front wheel well clear of the ramp. On later testing I found that this
    was impossible for me to do. In this case I think that the various
    hormones that were released into my blood caused me to gain the extra
    strength. 

    Jamie.
                      

    Another small example. I take the bus home and walk the last 2 miles.
    On some weeks, I have to, like all of us, pay bills. I usually run out
    of money by Sunday. I always save enough for bus fair. (Maximum: $10)
    These "broke" weeks may happen 3-4 times a year. On these weeks,
    without my having to mention it to anyone, offers of rides come to me.
    Usually right to my door. Always someone different. This week, it was
    from someone who doesn't even work in my building. They just called out
    of the blue and said that if I was going their way at a certain time,
    they'd be glad to give me a ride. On weeks when I have money enough to
    survive, people who know me will see me at the bus stop and just wave.
    Once in a while someone will stop, but mostly not. Again on broke
    weeks, rides will just come to me. I think about getting one, but I
    have never verbalized it.
    
    PJ

    In that case spend your money and don't bother about keeping any for
    the bus as every time you need one you will get a ride.

    Jamie.

    I have done that, but not purposely. Just poor planning on my part.
    Jamie, I have never been one to "tempt fate".  Reality, at least mine,
    would see that as making a demand on it. One can't do that. Then it
    wouldn't work. It's called working with and for reality, At least by
    me. If you demand something, and deliberately depending on fate to
    bring me ride would have the opposite effect. Reality would wait for
    the worst possible weather day and then make me walk the 5 miles home.
    
    I think the common expression is called Don't tempt fate.
    
    PJ

>    But are they capable of doing anything that is normally truly
>    impossible.
    
    This I do not know as my "source" is reluctant to indulge in humans as
    guinea pigs. The point, I guess is that there may be more potential
    than is immediately obvious and the logical/doubting mind may be a
    hinderance. In your case, fear/desperation overcame the logical mind?
    
    -Brian

This discussion reminds me of a story.

But first, a proverb attributed to Mohammed the Prophet: "Trust in God,
but tie your camel".

The story (somewhat paraphrased):

A man who hoped to learn how to survive by placing his trust totally in
God one day observed that a legless fox managed to survive on the
scraps left behind by a lion who lived nearby. So the man thought that
if he prayed diligently and waited, God would provide for him in some
manner, as He provided for the fox. The man prayed and waited for many
days, and became hungrier and hungrier. He began to despair, and his
faith began to weaken. Suddenly, a voice spoke to him: "Why do you act
like a lame fox? Why don't you instead act like a lion, and take
action, so that others who are less fortunate may also benefit from
your efforts?"

    Your mind controls your body through several nervous systems. Your
    sensory nerves give you the five senses, but touch and pain do not
    share the same nerve. You make your body move by using your motor
    nerves. There is also the autonomic nervous system that is not under
    the direct control of you. It controls all the bits that are supposed
    to run without you taking any part of in it.

    For example the rate at which your heart pumps is under the control of
    the autonomic system. If you get a fright a signal is removed from the
    vegal nerve causing your heart to speed up. With practice you can
    convince you autonomic system to make changes to your heart rate, and
    other things like your blood pressure.

    A hypnotist convinces his subject of things that are not actually true.
    Should he convince his subject that he is afraid, the heart rate will
    rise, if he continues and convinces him that the danger has passed, the
    rate will drop.

    My contention is, your brain can control your body, and through the
    interface of your body alter reality. However without using your body
    your brain cannot change reality one jot.

    Jamie.
                                                                       

Here are two topics at the interface of the `rational-materialistic' and 
`suprarational-psychic' viewpoints which would merit informative input from
persons of all shades of `belief':

1. THE `SHELDRAKE' EXPERIMENT

I have not been keeping up with Sheldrake's activities, but when I last met him
he was assembling data (supposedly with all scientific safeguards) to verify 
preliminary evidence that words actually used in one language and part of the 
world were easier to learn than similar nonsense words when put to people in 
other parts of the world who could not know which was which. I think Turkish 
and Hebrew were among the languages involved. The real and nonsense words were 
obviously checked for equivalence in various ways so that hidden effects from 
the inclusion of archaic roots or awkward spellings did not enter the picture. 

The point being explored was that when a word, thought or memory exists in one 
human mind, in any one part of the world, this facilitates its appearance in 
other minds elsewhere. Not a big claim, seemingly, but potentially veriable by 
experiment, and worth checking.

Does anyone know of the outcome?


2. HOMEOPATHY

Here we have a factor within the international health care `industry' that is 
much too big to be `swept under the carpet'. And yet, homeopaths and orthodox 
scientists agree that the remedies cannot be acting by molecular processes.

What does all this mean?

Is it possible that, in a way that the practioners themselves do not claim to 
explain, they are tapping into the domain of mind-psychic-energy-matter action?
Alternatively, is there is a mass delusion which can facilitate healing at very
little risk or cost? If so, don't we need more of it, in *appropriate* cases?

Or is there simply no valid statistical support for homeopathy, but it is 
coming to be accepted because we are witnessing the beginnings of a worldwide 
anti-technological backlash in the direction perhaps of less abuse of the 
planet but certainly more `superstition'?    What do you reckon?

Yours,      Chris.

    
    Re.57
    
    Jamie,
    
    >However without using your body, your thoughts cannot change reality
    >one jot.
    
    Then for you, this is true, at least at the conscious level.
    
    Cindy

    Cindy, exactly. I was reading a story once, where to people, one a very
    powerful adept, and one a person trying to decide between majic and
    science, were exploring various facets of majic to help the person make
    his decision. fiction, but a classic plotline. In their travels, they
    met a debunker of majic and supernatural phenomena. this person
    proceeded to tell them how in decades of research and investigation, he
    had yet to come across one example of real majic. ie. Manipulating
    reality through just thought, ritual, or chants and spells.
    
    The two companions (teacher and student) discussed this. The student
    after listening said, "Then majic doesn't exist." The teacher said,
    "No, majic doesn't exist.....   For him, that is. He refuses to see and
    consequently will never know majic. That is his truth and it is as
    valid as any other."
    
    
    PJ

    I'm beginning to understand this...
    
    Anyone can claim whatever they like, and we should all believe them,
    because for them, it's true. And just because they can't prove it,
    and/or need not prove it, doesn't make it untrue. Nor does the fact
    that no-one else apart from the individual believes it make any
    difference.
    
    Laurie.

    
    >That is his truth, and it is as valid as any other.
    
    Wonderfully said, PJ.
    
    Cindy

    re .61
    
    exactly :-)

    
    Close, Laurie.
    
    We should *accept* them, and believe that from their perspective they
    are doing the best they can to explain what happens to them in their
    experience.
    
    I cannot prove anything to you.  I could take up disks full of space
    explaining all of the times that my thoughts directly manifested in
    shapting, creating, whatever, reality.  The problem is though, that
    there is no way I can ever make you privy to my thoughts, thus no way
    to 'prove' my position sufficiently to you in a way that it would
    become real for you.  I presented to you one story that happened to me
    last Christmas.  From your eexternal perspective, you chalked it up to
    cooincidence.  Your perspective is as equally valid as mine.  For how
    could you have known my thoughts at the time?
    
    One more story - I was standing in the Kripalu (Yoga Center) checkout
    line with *lots* of merchandise.  I looked at a poster on the wall that
    was around $6.00 and although I wanted it, I couldn't justify spending
    a cent more that day.  The cashier, upon ringing up the merchandise
    exclaimed, "That's the biggest sale we've had in a long time!"  Then
    she looked around and said, "Let us give you something - would you like
    that poster?"  (;^)  With all the hundreds of items in the store, she
    chose the one thing that I really wanted.  And on and on.  So, does
    this prove anything to you?  Probably not.  Nor would I expect that it
    would.
    
    I *live* my reality.  I know that my thoughts shape it.  The kind of
    proof you are looking for is at the level of a parlor game (my
    opinion), and I'm not going to use my ability in that way.  Instead I
    will hold you surrounded with light and love in my thoughts, for this I
    believe is a far more productive use of my thoughts in this harsh world
    we live in today.                                                    
    
    There is the story of a person who studied for half a lifetime to be
    able to walk on water.  A friend came along and the person said, "Here,
    let me show you what I can do!" and proceeded to walk on water.  The
    friend said, "You spent all those years learning to do that, when all
    you had to do was spend a few coins to take the boat across!"  Then the
    friend got in the boat and crossed.
    
    Cindy

    re: .44 (::DOTHARD_ST "PLAYTOE")
    
          I found the words you used in that reply very interesting...
    if you take some of the words out of your reply and rearrange them
    them *might* look something like the following words:
    
        "The physical plane ("reality") is composed of choices and
    decisions which are *propelled* by our thinking and feeling and
    are *compelled* by attitudes and beliefs into manifestation onto
    the loom of intention (will) and desire (imagination.)"
    
         I first wrote that in this conference in May, 1987, in note
    358.26.  This quotation came from Lazaris.  A little later, in note
    358.28, there is a discussion describing what the sub-conscious
    mind holds--(demonstrating that reality can and does therefore
    manifest from the sub-conscious) and in 358.29 there is a
    description of feminine and masculine energies (which tie in 
    together to balance the situation as you described it in 1540.44.)
    (Again, this was information I presented that I received from 
    Lazaris.)
    
    Frederick
    

    re: 46
    
    Well, I won't discount that, because I've heard of it and do believe in
    levitation and moving things with the mind...but does constitute
    "influence of reality".  Furthermore, I need to know if "say" means
    "say out loud" creating sound vibrations in the air.  Or, does saying
    a word within the mind only said to move mountains.  I don't believe in
    the latter.  NO man just by taking to thought can move any physical
    thing.  Unless he speaks the word of power he will not effect reality.
    
    Playtoe

    re54
    
>    Jamie, I have never been one to "tempt fate".  Reality, at least mine,
    
    Ah HAAAA!  So it's "FATE" and not your "MIND" in control, influencing
    reality.  Could it be that God in looking out for you, heard you
    heart's sincere desire and sent someone to help you...but on days when
    you would tempt the powers, you also fail to be 100% sincere in your
    heart in requesting help...God knows the heart!
    
    

    re: 61
    
    Laurie, accordingly to Digital policy, which asks that we respect the
    "dignity" of the employee, you are correct.  One does not have to prove
    anything in here...just have fun!
    
    But Universally, or realistically I'd say we're too concerned with
    appearances and images!  I mean what is "dignity" if you don't know
    truth and appear foolish in everyone's eyes, and out of respect of
    dignity of person we sit back say, "Yes...I see...yes...yes"
    
    Playtoe

    
    Coming back from being ill all last week, and finally catching up (been
    a busy week in this notefile), this may sound like a confused entry. 
    But I want to adress several issues brought up in this discussion.
    
    The first has to do with the senses:
    Jamie stated something that I interpreted as meaning empathy is just
    sub-conscious usage of reading body language.
    And Playtoe mentioned that if it can't be sensed, it isn't real.
    
       I believe that we have at least one more sense that the 5
    conventional ones.  I have come to this personal belief from empathic
    experiences dating back to preschool (when I didn't even consciously know 
    of such a concept as empathy).  Although these experiences could not
    pass rigorous test requirements, they have been frequent enough for me
    to verify that my empathic abilities are not a creation of my
    imagination.  I have known the emotional state of a roomate that is in
    another part of the house, that I have not had any visual, physical, or
    oral contact with in 24 hours.  The emotional state detected did not
    match the state they were in when I last saw them.  My perceptions
    where confirmed when I proceeded (within a minute of the perception) to
    the same room as them, and saw from their facial expression, or words,
    or other body language, that they were indeed either angry or sad, ...
    
    I do not expect the above to convince anyone that doesn't believe in
    empathy that empathy is real.  But, for this discussion, I would ask
    the non-believers to pretend to accept empathy as a sense that (some?)
    people are capable of.  I have explained for myself that I am capable
    of this perception of others emotions (which is a kind of thought???)
    because I am using an "organ" that is designed to do this.  Just as
    organs and muscles must be exercised to function properly/completely
    (e.g. you can allow eyes to become tired, hence they won't function
    properly, but with exercise, the vision problem is corrected), this
    "organ" needs exercise.  If you don't know you have the "organ", you
    won't think to use it (just like by taking karate, I became aware of
    muscles I didn't know I had).  But, if something occurs to force
    awareness of this organ, you will use it.  Otherwise, it atrophies
    (like a leg muscle will atrophy some while in a cast for extended
    periods of time).  Exercise and (re)training is required in order to
    (re)use the "organ".  While (re)training, the capabilities of the organ
    will be small (using the muscle comparison, you can't bend your knee
    fully, nor raise the leg if a weight is on the ankle).  To use this
    "organ" to perform a large (I equate this with visible to the
    conventional senses) feat requires a lot of training and practice (just
    like using the hands to be a virtuoso musician), as well as an inborn
    natural talent (again the comparison to the musician).  From biblical
    histories and secular history, I have come to the conclusion that there
    have been very few people with the inborn talent that have taken the
    great amounts of time necessary to become powerful enough to perform a
    large feat - so few, that most people today consider those accounts as
    exagerations or myths (given the amount of time between the occurances
    and today, even I doubt the full details of the accounts).  Personally,
    I would love to have the opporunety to spend all of my waking hours
    investigating the possibilities of the human mind (and my mind in
    particular), but instead, I must (currently) spend my time at tasks
    that pay money (in a reliable way).
    
    
    Another issue I want to address is Jamie's belief that Frederick is
    reluctant to have the abilities tested: I have interpreted Fredericks
    statements NOT as reluctance but as a conscious decision that he does
    not wish to spend the time and energy necessary to provide proof to
    others.  The doubts in his beliefs expressed by others, who have not
    had his experiences, do NOT cause doubt in himself.  I obviously do not
    agree with you, Jamie, that Frederick has displayed "reluctance" to
    testing.
    
    
    The last issue: perception affecting reality.  Somewhere, I forget
    where, but do recall that it was a reputable scientific source, I read
    about how the act of perceiving quantum behavior DID affect the outcome
    of a test.  The way is was described seemed to imply that the result of
    the test in the physical reality was caused by someone attempting to
    perceive it.  Could someone more knowledgable on this topic fill in the
    gaps for me?
    
    Beth   

    PLAYTOE, you play at words here. :-) We all do. One person's fate is
    another person's God. Whatever it is. It works. The person I rode with
    last night, called to say that she couldn't offer the ride today. We
    had talked about it. She has errands that take her to the other side of
    town. 20 Minutes later, another person came over and said that he
    wasn't going to class tonight and if I wanted a ride, He'd be able to
    give me one. He, too, is totally unaware of my monetary situation. This
    will probably stop tomorrow, as I pick up some money on the way to work
    and won't be in this situation again for a few months.
    
    Maybe it's God. Maybe it's Goddess.(My preference) Maybe it's my
    "Guardian Angel". the point is, if I really need it, it happens. It
    very much could be my thoughts. rationalizing it, with out resorting to
    "incredible coincidence". My thoughts go out to the universe. The
    universe or some controlling entity or entities, all powerful or not,
    cause what i want to be real. Maybe not. Maybe I'm fooling myself. I
    don't think so. 
    
    My personal preference is that there is a Creator and this Creator set
    it up so that when a being has learned enough to be able to safely do
    something, then that ability becomes manifest in that being. After all,
    we wouldn't want just anyone to be able to play with a malleable
    reality. We'd all be in trouble. Also, those of us just beginning on
    the learning path in this cycle wouldn't be able do much or effect
    anyone else's reality accept in a general way. This is also a safety
    valve of sorts.
    
    PJ
    

re:       <<< Note 1540.69 by DSSDEV::GRIFFIN "Throw the gnome at it" >>>
   
    
>    The last issue: perception affecting reality.  Somewhere, I forget
>    where, but do recall that it was a reputable scientific source, I read
>    about how the act of perceiving quantum behavior DID affect the outcome
>    of a test.

	I too have heard that observation can affect the results of
	experiments.

	At the very simplest level, the temperature of the room I am in is
	affected (minutely, I agree) by the fact that I have gone into it
	to read the thermometer.  How the presence of a remote sensor could
	influence it I haven't worked out, but I'm sure that in some
	instances even remote observation could have some effect.  I'd
	certainly be out of my depth if I tried to understand how different
	types of feedback could influence an outcome.

	As far as quantum theory is concerned, I find a lot of this just as
	way out as any of the views expressed in this conference.  For
	example, the many worlds theory.  This really is a sort of
	"create your own reality" theory, but I heard it mentioned (Monday (?)	
	night on the BBC WS "Discovery" programme, where they called it the
	"many universes" theory) in the context of something I didn't
	really follow about a fuzzy universe, and our well-defined
	perception of objects that ought, in theory, to be fuzzy too.

        What (I think) was said, (very much paraphrased) was that, although
        the many universes theory postulates a separate universe for every
        possible outcome of every possible event (from particle level
        upwards, though I'm not sure they said this on the programme) the
        minute you introduce an observer to perceive the actual event you
        limit this.  (I use the word "minute" loosely!)  An observer could
        be any consciousness.  But I assume that one observer would
	perceive only one of the possible outcomes, and therefore be
	conscious of only one of the many universes.

        (That sounds like perceiving your own reality, rather than creating
        it.  Unless you can choose, consciously or otherwise, which of all
        the possible outcomes you perceive.  Like Jamie and Mary S. are at
        opposite ends of the possibilities spectrum, and many of the rest
        of us are near the middle.  However, I find the many worlds theory
	a little hard to accept, as do many quantum physicists.)

        They said something about such an observer needing to be outside
        the universe, and unless it was God...  My mind gave up at this
        point and I went back to reading the MUFON crop circles report
        extracted from this file.

	Well, now that I've clarified that... :-)

	Perhaps a physicist would like to have a go.

	Delia

    Cindy, you really do underrate your and others abilities to read body
    language. You stand looking longingly at a poster, the cashier notices
    this and, as you have spent a lot of money, decides to reward you with
    a gift of one. Your actions of looking at the poster influenced reality
    not your casual thoughts. Or is this explanation too simple?

    As to the excuse put forwards for Frederick not wishing to waste his
    energy in testing. Well Frederick seems to have enough time and energy
    to write endless wordy notes in here. That must take up a lot of time
    and energy. I cannot see why he should not use some of this energy to
    verify his claims. In fact he probably uses more time and energy
    thinking up excuses for avoiding such testing than he would use if he
    did the tests. Of course it also saves him from being proved wrong.

    Jamie.

Jamie,

	Only recently after reading other accounts have I remembered several
	occasions with close friends, or girlfriends where emotions or messages
	were transferred *without* there being any possible explanation of the
	phenomenon due to physical body language.

	For example, spontaneous speaking of the same phrase, or "speaking out
	loud" *exactly the same* words, at *exactly the same instant*. A couple
	of cases, for me are especially noteworthy - although I encountered this
	many, many times. For example, one time when a friend & I exclaimed a
	word at exactly the same time, but the word was not a proper word, it
	was a perversion of a word or mis-pronounciation in response to a 
	previous part of our conversation - i.e. the word was not a real word
	so how could we both say *that* word at exactly the same time? 

	Other instances of similar experiences include one of my girlfriends,
	in a couple of cases, had "forseen" small glimpses of things I would
	say or situations I would be in. The particular situations or things
	I would say were, incidentally, completely un-noteworthy! At other times
	we would "share" emotions when separated. One day I suffered an acute
	and, unexplainable depressive feeling (there was no logical source of
	depression) and I felt puzzled because it seems to just hit me for no
	reason. The next time I contacted my girlfriend she told me that she
	had been in an incredibly depressed mood, and by deduction I realised
	that this was at the same time as I had felt this unfounded wave of
	depression. On another occasion I was staying over in her room (in a
	hotel where she works) and the situation between us had been fairly
	stressful, we were talking of splitting up. Some time after she had
	left the room to go to work, I (similarly) suffered pangs of extreme
	grief at the situation, and longed to stay with her (rather than split
	up). About a minute or so after this started, she entered the room and
	came to hug me, saying (strangely) that she just "felt" that I was
	somehow "calling" her and she just had to stop work and see if I was
	alright. The important thing is the timing. You could say "coincidence"
	but I have only related the instances where I can remember the details,
	this sort of thing happened so often at one point that some friends
	& I joked that we were telepathic! ("Oh yeah, I forgot we were
	telepathic :-)  ).

	These case are cited for no particular reason, save to suggest that
	you must have had similar experiences, Jamie, which you could not put
	down to being inside the percentage chance of reasonable coincidences?
	I will be surprised if not. How do you classify such cases, if they 
	have happened to you?

								- JIM CAD*

    re: .58, Chris,
    
    >	1. THE `SHELDRAKE' EXPERIMENT
    
    	I'm not too familiar with this.  Do you have any references ?
    
> 	2. HOMEOPATHY
    
    	There is an interesting alternate model of medicine proposed
    	by a small subset of doctors, called Infomedicine.  My
    	understanding of this is that it is supposed
    	to incorporate the effects of the health care support system
    	and information given to the patient with the medical treatment
    	itself, as all being part of a single system.   This would then
    	provide a better foundation for treatment that dealt with the
    	patient's total well-being, rather than dealing with them
    	as a technician deals with a faulty piece of equipment.
    
    	I know there is at least one popular published work (Shamhala
    	publications) about this field, but I don't know how well accepted
    	it is.
    
    								todd

    re: .61
    
    Laurie, you're not quite there yet.  Anyone *can* claim whatever they
    like.  "We all" (I'm not sure who you are referencing by the we) can 
    believe or disbelieve.  Or you can choose to think something is possible, 
    but not likely.  Or whatever.  
    
    What is not acceptable is calling people "gullible" or other names
    because their beliefs and experiences differ from yours.
    
    Mary

    Re .73

    After 17 years living with the same person I usually can tell you what
    he will say or do in any given moment. Each of us knows exactly how the
    other one's mind works. Sometimes we too have had a fight and made a
    spontaneous and simultaneous attempt to patch things up.

    This is not telepathy. It is just the learning of the thought processes
    of the other.

    BTW his niece has an annoying habit of finishing everyone's sentence for
    them. This she can do because the thinking process is much faster than
    speech and she usually knows how the sentence is going to end long
    before it happens. 

    No mystery.

    Jamie.

    Back when I was 14, my family travelled to Europe.  I remember one
    interesting incident when we were driving through the Swiss
    countryside.  We have run out of conversation and were driving in
    silence for a least a half hour, just watching the scenery and lost in
    our thoughts.  Out of the blue, my sister and I started singing
    simultaneously, of all things, the commercial for GI-Joe dolls (GI Joe, 
    GI Joe, fighting man from head to toe).  Same key.  Same starting
    pitch.  Same tempo.  I'm not sure what body language started that
    sequence.  It had nothing to do with the conversations that had taken
    place earlier.
    
    In my mid-twenties I had a boyfriend who used to always "read my mind." 
    We only dated a short time (6 months total) but from very early on, he
    would answer questions before I had a chance to ask them.  We might be
    fixing dinner and I would suddenly think of something I had wanted to
    ask him.  No sooner had the question popped into my mind, and he would
    turn to me and answer it.  It reached a point where I would laughingly
    snarl at him to "quit reading my mind," to which he would always
    answer, "well, then, quit broadcasting so loud."  Again, the questions
    were unrelated to previous conversation and body language.
    
    And then, of course, there was the conductor with whom I sang for 6
    1/2 years.  We were very close emotionally, although we never spent
    private time together due to the nature of our relationship. 
    Sometimes, though, we had brief exchanges of a nonverbal nature.  On
    several occasions, he "called to me" while I was leaving.  My back was
    turned and I was in the middle of the crowd of people leaving, yet when
    I would turn, he was there waiting for me.  I have outlined some of my
    other experiences with him elsewhere in this file.  Specifically,
    dreams that I always assumed were wish-fulfillment (until the dream in
    which we were evacuated from his building, which was on fire, and other
    clairvoyant dreams which later events proved to have actually been
    happening as I was dreaming them).
    
    Mary

    
    Jamie,
    
    	I agree, *in most cases*, this is why I gave for example the case
    	where my friend & I both said an impossible word at the same time.
    	There was a similar non-explainable example I was going to give,
    	but it shot out of my mind (typical!) and I still can't remember
    	it now.
    
    	The situations with my girlfriend too, were IMHO *more* than what
    	you claim, because the transference of feelings occured when we
    	were separated - when I had no "clues" to go on. I do know what you
    	mean but I feel there were many cases in my experience outside of
    	that model.
    
    	Do you still say that the above cases (& others if I remember them)
    	are perfectly normal body-language or familiarisation-born 
    	experiences?
    
    	Although I didn't initially want to say this, I began to realise
    	that I could manipulate my girlfriend's feelings as previously
    	mentioned too.
                                                                          
    								- JIM CAD*

    RE: -2
    
    Mary,
    
    	Just read your note - that's *exactly* the sort of thing I mean!
    	
    	:-)
    
    	I've remembered the other "notable" case... there were 3 of us
    	watching the film "The Entity". This portrays the true story of a
    	woman who is repeatedly molested and raped by an unseen entity.
    	Whenever any frightening action occured in the film there was a
    	load "BAM! BAM! BAM!" dramatic beat...
    
    	At one point in the film, we had been silent for a long time and
    	nothing much had happened... suddenly I "knew" something was
    	about to happen so I jokingly started mimicking the beat of the
    	"dramatic bit" music and thumping my foot on the carpet (I was
    	young at the time - blush	#
    				       :-|
    					#   ). Anyway I stopped in complete
    	surprise as one of my friends did *exactly* the same thing at 
    	*exactly* the same time. We both stopped, stunned & looked at each
    	other in amazement! It is important to note that this was not an
    	obvious reaction to the moment of the film ... there was actually
    	no "action" at that moment and no music beat - I just did it as a
    	joke, so did my friend just coincidentally think the same joke at
    	the exact same instant (a quiet instant too) and procede to do the
    	exact same action in the exact same tempo? I don't think so - the
    	absurdity of the "coincidence" was why we both were so shocked -
    	it can't have been body-language either because we were engrossed
    	in the film. Very strange again.
    
    								- JIM CAD*

    I'm very good at reading other people, even strangers.  
    I am willing to acknowledge that most of the time this is probably
    due to being very aware of subtle clues - body language, facial
    nuances - that other people might ignore.  But occasionally I have
    picked up emotions in ways that cannot be that easily explained.
    For example, I was once sitting in my car at a red light - there
    were several cars in front of me and several behind - when I became
    "aware" that the person behind me was very angry, frighteningly so.
    I mean, I wan't looking at him and he wasn't doing or saying anything,
    but I sensed this anger.  A few moments later, he butted his car into
    the back of mine.  He did this twice. I got out to look but there
    wasn't any noticeable damage. I went over to his window and said
    something inane, "what are you doing?" or some such.  He didn't
    meet my eyes, continued to stare straight ahead, and
    had a small tight smile on his face.  He muttered "sorry."  I
    figured he was totally round the bend, got back in my car, and got
    out of his vicinity as soon as possible.  
    
    I am not claiming this as an example of thought influencing reality
    because I don't think my picking up his thoughts changed anything.
    It is just an example of something that is not that easily explained.
    I've had experiences like this repeatedly throughout my life.  Because
    of these, I'm less than enamoured with the status quo in the scientific
    community.
    
    Sue
    
    
    
    

    Re: .78
    
    I've felt the possibility of changing anothers emotions (and may have
    done it once), but I refrain from it as a talent with too much
    potential for abuse.  If I ever come across someone whose emotional
    state is such that they will do themselves harm, and their mental
    barriers are not too strong, I may consider it.
    
    
    Getting back to my earlier note, and the original topic:
    The "organ" I referred to, IMO, is the brain, the functions of which at
    the least produce thoughts and feelings.  I believe, through my
    experiences, that it can also perceive on the psionic/psychic "wave
    length", and is capable of manipulating those wave lengths as well,
    which enables us to manipulate reality (within scientific bounds) by
    brain activety alone (which is not necessarily thought alone).
    
    
    And, Jamie, given the experiences I described earlier in this topic,
    can you suggest what clues I was using if the information (the persons
    emotional state) was NOT gained by the brain directly perceiving it?
    Remember, I had not had any contact whatsoever with the person for 24
    hours, had not idea why she was angry until she told me why, and had no
    reason to suspect that the action that angered her would anger her
    (having not done it before, nor discussed related topics with her or any 
    of her friends before).  If I had known it would anger her, I would not
    have done the act (this is a personality trait, obviously - not
    everybody is so considerate :-).
    
    Beth

    Beth,
    
    To play devil's advocate, I think it is easy for someone
    who hasn't experienced telepathy to dismiss examples of
    telepathy between friends and family.  Not to say that
    they aren't examples of telepathy, but that there are too
    many other possible explanations.  You might never have done
    this one particular thing but you know the person and can
    reasonably predict how she might react based on that knowledge.
    
    Sue

    Reading through some of the prior notes made me think of something that
    happens on the rare occassions where my wife and I, under stress, will
    dissagree strongly. 
    
    While her back was turned I went to verbalise a strong reply, thought
    twice about saying it and said the sentence in my mind, and did not
    utter a single sound. My wife would spin around and say, (a little
    annoyed)" What did you just say?" I would say; "Nothing!" It only
    happens when there would have been very strong emotion behind the words
    I was about to say... but in "Jamiespeak", no hard evidence as yet ;-)
    
    While at school, in a revenge-filled trance, an egg-cup moved to the
    edge of the table under my transfixed gaze. A little annoyed, I pushed
    it back with my hand (without leaving my "trance") and returned to
    visualizing how I was going to get even with the school bully. The
    egg-cup moved toward the edge of the table again and I pushed it back
    again. 
    
    The second time snapped me out of the trance. No matter how I tried, I
    could not repeat the effect. I was left with the feeling of; "Did it
    really happen or did I imagine it?" 
    
    I thought it may have been the air expanding under the cup after
    receiving the boiled egg and tried all kinds of experiments, to no
    avail. I was rather ashamed that I could think of someone with such
    intense hatred.
    
    	-Brian

    Sue,
    
    I hadn't known her very long, just a couple of months.  We had only just
    started to be roommates.  I don't feel I had the time to develop enough
    knowledge of this person to know that the act would produce that
    reaction.  And, another time I was aware of her anger was upon waking
    one morning - she was not angry at me, but at another, who I didn't
    even know had done anything to anger her.  But after I got up and
    talked to her, she conveyed the cause of her anger.  The only
    information I perceived was that she was angry - not why, not at whom. 
    There was no way for me to know that someone 20 miles away had called
    her, and that they had an argument (I was on the top floor, she in the
    basement, when they had the phone conversation; she was in the basement
    or first floor at the time I woke up and perceived the emotion; I
    didn't hear anything, smell anything, see anything, didn't even know
    the phone had rung, hadn't even gotten out of bed, but upon seeing her
    and talking with her, the perception, in my mind, was validated; and,
    no, sound did not carry easily from the basement to the top floor - she
    could have violently trashed the basement and I would never have heard
    anything if I had been awake and listening for it).
    
    Beth

    re: 83
    
    For me, too, these things happen more frequently when strong emotion is
    involved.  In any event, they only happen with people that I know at
    least a little.  There are some possible exceptions to the latter, but
    since I didn't know the people, I couldn't prove the experiences to
    myself!
    
    Mary

    Beth,
    Yes, I think that description is better because it gets rid
    of several other possible explanations.   Don't you find it
    tiring picking up emotions/thoughts from others?  I do. Especially,
    because I often wonder if I'm just imagining - but then, 98%
    of the time, what I picked up turns out to be true so I can't
    just dismiss it.
                   Sue
    

    Ok! Just remembered this one. It happenend in 1982. My son was playing
    at a neighbor's house. THis house was around the corner and a block
    away from my house. At the time my (then) wife worked 2nd shift. I took
    care of the kids in the evening. It was around 5:30 PM. I was trying to
    make the decision of whether or not to bring him in then or give him
    another 30-60 minutes of play. We didn't regiment play time away from
    the house. Just basing it on the daily situation of weather,
    convenience to us, mood or other factors. Not time of day. Anyway, I
    stood at the back door and thought about whether or not to call him.
    After several minutes of thinking, I decided to let him play a little
    longer. Approximately 5 minutes later, he came home and said, "What do
    you want Daddy. I heard you call me and came right home." I said that I
    didn't call him, only thought about it. He said OK and went back. My
    daughter was home and she swore that I didn't call him. She was in the
    same room at the time I stood at the door. Neither my son nor I could
    see the other from where we were at the time.
    
    Now, did I influence his reality? Was it telepathy? Or some combination
    of the 2. he did not come home based onn any external influence.
    Hunger, weather, need to "potty". He was 5 years old and would have
    stayed out until dawn, if we had let him. I have to feel that this was
    a true paranormal experience. 
    
    Now I'll repeat the Sneaker's That Walked 100 Miles By Themselves story
    if anyone wants to hear it. It's in here somewhere.
    
    PJ

    Things I've known and haven't the foggiest idea why:
    
    that there would be an earthquake the day before it happened-
    
    that one of my children would be in an accident involving a
    metal swing the day before it happened- (I "saw" a metal swing hitting
    her head. The school nurse called the next day to say that my
    daughter had hurt her wrist. I kept asking "is her head ok?" and
    the nurse probably thought I was hard of hearing.  My daughter later
    told me that she'd hurt her wrist putting up her arm to stop the
    swing from hitting her head.)
    
    that an unmarried woman I met briefly (and we only talked about
    traveling) was trying desparately to get pregnant.  I found out
    later from an unexpected mutual friend that this was true.
    
    that I knew the first name of a stranger sitting next to me on
    a plane (and there were no visible name tags or monograms)
    
    Things like these happen all the time.  (Obviously, given the
    replies, to quite a few people.)  I can't easily prove it
    and can't control it.  If I could, I'd play the lottery :-)
    
    
    Sue
    But they obviously happen to me and  
    
    

    RE: 65
    
    I'm not sure if I understand, well actually I am sure that I don't
    fully understand, your use of the terms "propelled and compelled".  But
    let me elaborate a little more on my understanding in respect to what
    you just said.
    
>        "The physical plane ("reality") is composed of choices and
>    decisions which are *propelled* by our thinking and feeling and
>    are *compelled* by attitudes and beliefs into manifestation onto
>    the loom of intention (will) and desire (imagination.)"
    
    First, the term "reality" has two conatations, one objective and the
    other subjective.  In other words, one composed of atoms and molecules
    and manifests in form that can be sensed (ie Objective Reality).  The
    other is commonly thought of what we as individuals regurgitate in the
    form of our unique perception of Objective Reality (ie Subjective
    Reality).  
    
    Objective Reality, no doubt, was here before anyone of us, including
    Adam and Eve, manifested on the "physical plane"...surely you must
    agree.  Therefore it is evident that 1) there is an "Objective Reality"
    separate and independent of our thought and feelings, or ability to
    control.  As we, nor Adam and Eve, created themselves, something prior
    to them caused them to manifest beyond their will and control.  2) That
    Objective Reality is ultimately beyond our control and we merely, at
    best, can come to understand it's operations and order and laws and
    either abide within them, which gives us a relative sense of mastery
    over our lives, or we are mastered by them.
    
    Objective Reality, is Truth (capital T).
    
    Subjective Reality, or Pragmatic view of reality, is truth (small t)
    and to the extent that it does not jive with Objective Reality (ie does
    not agree with the operations, order and laws intrinsic to Objective
    Reality, our truth becomes a lie, a delusion, and the cause of our
    personal frustrations and trouble in life.
    
    Playtoe

    re 69
    
    Beth, glad your well and back again.
    
    I can relate to your conception of a sixth sense, "empathy".  
    
    In the course of my studies I've come to believe that we have 8 senses,
    but mentioned only five to avoid any trouble.  However, you affirmed my
    statement, "What is sensible is only real".  Your "sensing" of the
    emotional state of your roomate and your verification of the accuracy
    of your senses, makes both the emotional state and your empathic sense
    a reality!  
    
    Of course, one must agree that if you cannot "sense" a thing how can we
    possibly acknowledge it as something real.
    
    I actually believe we have 8 senses, as follows:
    
    1) Taste
    2) Touch
    3) Smell
    4) Hear
    5) See
    6) Understanding (which in this usage denotes a broader meaning than
    commonly understood.)  Animals have this sense.  They sense the
    emotional state of their masters all the time.  That we could sense
    each others emotions is not unique to humanity.
    7) Speech (is a sense, as from the tone and inflection of our voice we
    sense nervousness, anger, gladness, etc., more definite than the 6th
    sense.  Also, Bats, who send out sonic noise to guide their flight use
    it as a sense more explicitly.
    8) Intuition (is the highest level of human senses.  It relates to the
    trance state that we enter into to (in to it = intuit) to discover
    subjective/subconscious realities and truths.  Trance states are
    actually more common among us than we know, "dreaming (day- or REM)" is
    the sense of Intuition at work.)
    
    Playtoe

	Do thoughts influence reality?

	Are brain waves thoughts?

        I read online about three or four years ago a report (could have
        been in VNS?) about an experimental aircraft or cockpit (USAF?)
        that allowed pilots to control some of the aircraft's functions by
	using alpha brain waves.  No hands.  Just thought.

	The report indicated that there was some degree of success.

	I've heard elsewhere that there is other evidence of the directable
	power of alph waves, but (as usual for me!) I can't produce
	references.
	
	I think that there is a strong possibility that the human race once
	used these "normal" powers, but forgot how as they developed other
	areas of ability that seemed more important to their survival at
	the time.  Now, such abilities are not considered normal.  Perhaps
	one day they will be.

	I can't help wondering though what would happen if one idividual's
	(or group's) alpha waves were in direct conflict with another's.
	Psycho-warfare?  Spare the body but destroy the soul?  Maybe we're
	better off with conventional science...

	Delia

    RE: 70
    
    If looking at things from a different angle or perspective is
    considered to be "playing with words", then I guess you're right.
    
    We find many instances in the Bible, where it is said that God placed
    it upon the heart of another to help so and so...eg the ass that Jesus
    was to ride, the home to which Saul/Paul was to stay at when he was
    blinded, etc.
    
    The Gnostics speak of the "Totalities", and "Aeons", where we in modern
    times speak of the "body of Christ".  We think of just a group of
    evolved humans, whereas to the Gnostics it denotes a ONENESS of all
    things.  
    
    When you "lean to thine own understanding", or have a remedy for the
    solution to your life, of course, you tend to follow after it.  To the
    neglect of what the "Totalities" might be impelling you to do.
    
    But sometimes we are at a lose for a direction or remedy, and seek an
    answer, moreso a remedy.  We must remember that in the Bible how Jesus
    taught about the "Sparrow" and the "lillies of the field", how God
    cares for them...God cares for you and I too.
    
    So some may not believe in God and Jesus, and what did Jesus say, "If
    you don't believe in me, believe in my WORKS"...in that light, though
    we may not believe in God, yet find certain things written in the Bible
    to occur in our lives, at least believe in these things.  So we don't
    say that "God" did this for me...know that *something* out there cares
    for you...and perhaps show a little gratitude and say "Thank You,
    whoever you may be"...don't fall into perdition.
    
    Playtoe 

    re: .91,
    
>        I read online about three or four years ago a report (could have
>        been in VNS?) about an experimental aircraft or cockpit (USAF?)
>        that allowed pilots to control some of the aircraft's functions by
>	using alpha brain waves.  No hands.  Just thought.
    
    I recall two sets of experiments in this area, one with vocal commands
    and retina reflection technology, and one with an EEG hookup.  In the 
    first case, the pilot would free up their hands for more important 
    control functions by being able to aim their weaponry simply by
    looking in that direction, and then say 'BANG' to fire the weapon.
    
    I think the second, which was closer to the case in .91, was successful but
    somewhat less so.  It involved EEG measurement equipment placed on
    the subject's head, detecting the noticeable spike that occurs with
    certain (trainable) kinds of mental activity.   I think it was less
    successful for two reasons; the obvious one of the practical difficulties
    of measuring such a small voltage spike in the frantic activity
    of a cockpit, and the serious problem of the pilot being able
    to control their own mental activity with enough discipline to 
    produce the desired effect when desired, and not at other times.
    
    Did the article referred to in .91 indicate that this was done
    'at a distance ?' or from locally applied leads ? Makes a tremendous
    difference, obviously.   I didn't think they could detect 
    electroencephalogram patterns without a topical lead (?)
    
    							todd

    re: 81
    
>    I've felt the possibility of changing anothers emotions (and may have
>    done it once), but I refrain from it as a talent with too much
>    potential for abuse.  If I ever come across someone whose emotional
    
    If you feel you should refrain because you might abuse the talent,
    perhaps you might consider studying with Practioners of "Science of the
    Mind" (student's of Dr. Ernest Holmes).  They speak to that very fear
    and teach you perceive and address each individual's inner "perfect"
    self.  Which says that sometimes people don't realize their inner
    perfect self and do things harmful to themselves due to their
    ignorance, but you'll be taught to see it in them, and can confidently
    do the best thing for them, inspite of themselves...and that's actually
    the best thing, as they will justify for you as well.
    
    Playtoe

    Re: The replies regarding sensing other's thoughts
    
    In the previous stories about how we sometimes can sense another's
    feelings or even know another's thoughts, I submit that thoughts of one
    person may influence those of another, but I don't think we'll talking
    about the "reality influence" in question here.
    
    Playtoe
    

    re: .89 (Plaything)
    
         That quotation was from Lazaris, not from me.  Lazaris has
    used various definitions for reality...that one was simply one of
    them.  Is it accurate?  It seems to be (to me.) 
        
         AS for reality, we do not agree.  I do not begin to agree
    that things were here before *I* (in some form) was.  All time
    is simultaneous...all those things exist in the now.  If I am 
    now, they did not precede me.  But even buying into a past, 
    which I am currently creating, I do not believe in the objective
    reality you and so many others want to believe in.  To me reality
    is subjective...and objectivity lies within (as a sub-set of)
    subjectivity.  Your premise or conclusion drawn around truth and
    reality are therefore not something I can agree with.
    
    Frederick
      

    Re: 91
    
    In your example an apparatus is used to convert brain waves into a
    force able to control reality...no different from the tongue turning
    thoughts into speech, or thoughts compelling actions which alter
    reality.  Whatever, the thought of the pilot was not able to unaidedly
    effect the aircraft...less someone on the ground override his commands
    and bring him down!
    
    I don't think we realize the full implications of the possibility of
    THOUGHTS influencing reality...not just you, but me and everyone else.
    
    Playtoe

    snicker, snicker, snicker :-)

    
    <-- (;^)

    hee!hee!hee!

    One things for sure... things are going to be a lot more fun than they
    have been. :-)

RE: .71 (Delia)

    <<Many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics>>

    Actually, the many-worlds (MW) interpretation of quantum mechanics
    (QM), unlike most other interpretations of QM, places no special role
    at all on anything called the "observer".  QM says that at times things
    act like all "possible" outcomes are simultaneously true, and that
    those alternate outcomes act like they interact with each other (I'm
    using the word "act" here so as to avoid any interpretation as to what
    is "really" going on).  MW says that this is literally true, and that
    furthermore, it continues to be so when other interpretations say that
    one or another of the possibilities are "selected" in some way (which
    involves something refered to as an "observation" in the Copenhagen
    Interpretation and its variants).  In the MW interpretation, the
    different simultaneously true alternatives simply become decoupled so
    they no longer interact.  The observer basically splits to become
    multiple observers, one for each alternative.  There is no choice by
    the observer applied to the observed, nor vice versa.  Nor does the
    observer limit what has occured (that would more accurately describe
    the Copenhagen Interpretation -- but one *should not* assume that an
    "observer" implies consciousness, or a mind or any such thing -- there
    are physicists who make that association but they are proposing non-
    standard interpretations, and are not in any way "mainstream").  The
    observer will observe all the alternatives by becoming multiple
    observers.  Any particular observer, however, will have only observed
    one of each of the preceding alternatives (think about it).

    I have yet to see a convincing argument, by the way, that we should be
    expected to "see" the universe in a fuzzy way according to MW.  Maybe
    there is a technical point I have missed.

					Topher

    
    Topher,
    
    Would you consider Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose 'mainstream'
    physicists or not? 
    
    I'm not really sure how they are looked upon by the physics world in
    general.
    
    I just love Penrose's last chapter of "Emperors Of The New Mind" -
    "Where lies the physics of the mind?"   (Thank, Earl, for the pointer
    to the Philosophy conference on this topic.)
    
    Cindy
         

RE: .79 (JIM CAD)

>    	I've remembered the other "notable" case... there were 3 of us
>    	watching the film "The Entity". This portrays the true story of a
>    	woman who is repeatedly molested and raped by an unseen entity.

    Just for accuracy -- this movie claims to be "based on a true story."
    In other words though it leaves the impression of being a "true story"
    it actually claims to no factual content at all.  Steve Kallis and I
    had an interesting discussion about this film somewhere in this
    conference.  Its the only film I know of where it would seem that you
    are better off seing it in the "edited for TV" version.  I saw the
    uncut version and found the rape sequences, violent, repetetive,
    exploitative and (if it is relevant) non-erotic.  Steve saw the cut
    version and enjoyed the film much more than I did, since the truly
    offensive (and I am anything but a prude) parts had been removed.

    I do not know anything about the specific case, but it was rather
    interesting to see through the unusual story they were trying to tell,
    the vague outlines of a rather different, fairly standard, not
    necessarily paranormal case history.  For the most part it took a
    pretty expert eye (that is, you have to know something about the
    typical characteristics of poltergeist cases).  It was rather like
    reading a palimpsest.

    The denoument was, I am quite sure, wholly ficticious.  I would almost
    certainly have heard about such an experiment (I can, for example, be
    pretty sure who the parapsychologist in the story is based on), and
    besides, it would have used up virtually the entire "free worlds" budget
    for parapsychology for the entire year.

					Topher

    "The Emperor's New Mind", by Roger Penrose
    
    One passage from the book:
    
      "I take the word 'consciousness' to be essentially synonymous with
       'awareness' (although perhaps 'awareness' is just a little more
       passive than what I mean by 'consciousness'), whereas 'mind' and
       'soul' have further connotations which are a good deal *less*
       clearly definable at the present.  We shall be having enough 
       trouble with coming to terms with 'consciousness' as it stands,
       so I hope the reader will forgive me if I leave the further 
       problems of 'mind' and 'soul' essentially alone!"
    
    Cindy

RE: .103 (Cindy)

>    Would you consider Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose 'mainstream'
>    physicists or not? 

    I definitely would not.  They are both well respected and admired and
    in regards to the interpretation of QM among other things, generally
    disagreed with.

    Penrose is not even considered, by himself or others, a physicist.  He
    is a mathematician who has made some important contributions to the
    mathematics of the theory of quantum mechanics.

				Topher

    
    Re.106
    
    Topher,
    
    RE: Penrose being a mathematician - yes, thanks for the correction.
    
    Cindy

    Having been traveling and vacationing the last 2 1/2 weeks, I have come
    to this topic rather late, but what are psychosomatic
    symptoms/illnesses but examples of thought/emotion altering reality,
    i.e. the person's health? There is a branch of medicine, Psychosomatics,
    that deals exclusively with this phenomenon. My sister has suffered,
    albeit in a very minor way, from these types of symptoms all her life. 
    
    Re. various previous entries, Playtoe,
    
    I seem to have missed the connection in some of your notes, but, seeing
    as you believe in God, then God is real for you. Which of your 5 or the
    additional 3 you mentioned allow you to decide God is real? Since we
    cannot perceive God with the conventional 5 I assume you see Him as
    real using one of the other 3, but which one?
    
    
    Marilyn 

    Sorry , Playtoe, of course I meant which of the senses....

    RE: 96
    
    Frederick:
    
    Hey, no problem, but if you think that it is accurate, should you also
    be able to explain it and answer for it, according to how you
    understand it?
    
>         AS for reality, we do not agree.  I do not begin to agree
>    that things were here before *I* (in some form) was.  All time
                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^
    I imagine you are including "thought forms" as well.  If so I agree
    with you.  But is thought and "Objective" or "Subjective" reality?
    You may have been, and I too, somewhere in the subjective undifferiated
    energy/matter soup bowl, but before you arrive on this scene as "YOU"
    proper, a physical body and an earth to sustain you was prepared first.
    
    Playtoe
    Playtoe 

    re: 108
    
    First, I stated in my first reply "thoughts and feelings do not effect
    reality *external* to one's self."  Psychosomatic illness arise as
    result of nervous tension, lack of oxygen to parts of the body, etc,
    all side effects of holding certain problematic thoughts and feelings. 
    The thoughts and feelings do not cause the illness but they compel the
    physical to produce adrenalyn or causes one to hold their breath.  We
    often hear the phrase "Scared to death", but "fear" has never been the
    cause of death, "heart failure" is the cause of death.
    
>    Re. various previous entries, Playtoe,
    
>    I seem to have missed the connection in some of your notes, but, seeing
>    as you believe in God, then God is real for you. Which of your 5 or the
>    additional 3 you mentioned allow you to decide God is real? Since we
>    cannot perceive God with the conventional 5 I assume you see Him as
>    real using one of the other 3, but which one?
 
    None of our Senses sense God.  By "reason and belief" do we come to
    perceive God.  For that matter, our Senses only supply the MIND with
    raw data, and depending on one's ability to "reasoning" do we conclude
    or perceive all that we believe as truth and reality.  Senses can
    function but if we ignore them and do not reflect on them they
    virtually mean nothing.  
    
    Consider this, I didn't know this before but... I was in Miami, a few
    years ago, and a dog got ran over by a car...and I mean his whole hind
    end was crushed to the ground.  When I arrived on the scene the dog was
    just sitting there looking around.  I said to a person standing by,
    look at that dog, a human would be unconscious from shock or crying or
    screaming or something, why isn't that dog in PAIN.  The person said,
    the dog doesn't feel pain because PAIN is an emotion transmitted to the
    brain and humans translate it as PAIN.  But the dog doesn't have the
    ability to think PAIN.  He yelped in the beginning from the initial
    blow from the car, but now he doesn't know PAIN.
    
    Playtoe
    

    Re .83

    >While at school, in a revenge-filled trance, an egg-cup moved to the
    >edge of the table under my transfixed gaze. A little annoyed, I pushed
    >it back with my hand (without leaving my "trance") and returned to
    >visualizing how I was going to get even with the school bully. The
    >egg-cup moved toward the edge of the table again and I pushed it back
    >again. 
    
    Was the base of the egg cup wet? Because if it was an air seal can form
    and as the air heats and expands the egg cup could be lifted slightly.
    If the table was not dead level it would then slide. I notice it
    appeared to go in exactly the same direction both times. 

    Way back before we had a dishwasher I observed this effect regularly
    with wet inverted cups. I would put them down and after a few moments
    they would slide.

    Re .90

    Sense 6 is using the information supplied by one or more of the first
    five.

    Sense 7 is a bit strange use of the word sense. Our senses are inputing
    information from outside. Speech is outputing information to the
    outside. Our interpretation of the speech of others is a function of
    the brain on the information supplied by hearing. Bats make a squeak
    then use their sense of hearing to guide them.

    Sense 8 is again an incorrect use of the word sense. Intuition is part
    of the processing of the information supplied by the five senses plus
    any previous knowledge. 

    Jamie.
                    

    re: last
    
    Actually, according to the dictionary here at my desk (Websters)
    intuition is:
    
    "The capacity of knowing without the use of the rational processes."
    
    Which emcompasses data obtained from the five (accepted) senses, but
    does not preclude the existence of other means of obtaining data.
    
    Mary

    
    Re. .111 (Playtoe)
    
    Actually, the first part of my reply was not meant as a comment to you
    specifically, but to the base note. I believe psychosomatic illnesses
    are thought/emotion affecting the person's health or physical reality.
    
    My comment to you was based on reading your notes in this, as well as
    other topics. If only what we can perceive through the senses, then is 
    God not real?
    
    Marilyn 
    real? 

    RE: 112
    
>    Sense 6 is using the information supplied by one or more of the first
>    five.

    Ok, if that's true, which of the other five would you say supply the
    information?  For instance, the situation where the roommate was in the
    kitchen and sensed his roommates emotional state, who was in the living
    room.  
    
    Personally, I feel that this ability to sense tension in the air,
    other's emotional states, or that there is something bothering someone,
    is a separate sense from all others.  
    
>    Sense 7 is a bit strange use of the word sense. Our senses are inputing
>    information from outside. Speech is outputing information to the
>    outside. Our interpretation of the speech of others is a function of
>    the brain on the information supplied by hearing. Bats make a squeak
>    then use their sense of hearing to guide them.

    "Sonic Radar" is the point of mentioning the Bat.  But, how about this. 
    We often times say certain things to others to "check them out", see
    where their head is at.  
    
>    Sense 8 is again an incorrect use of the word sense. Intuition is part
>    of the processing of the information supplied by the five senses plus
>    any previous knowledge. 

    No, that is called "Intelligence".  Intuition is defined as "The act or
    faculty of knowing *without* the use of rational processes; immediate
    cognition."  Intuition is the highest human sense and in the realm of
    human divinity.  When you've processed all the information from the
    senses and any previous knowledge and come to a good comprehension of
    it, it is intuition that tells you, "Hey, I bet that can be applied to
    such and such a thing/situation."  No "Sense" or previous knowledge
    told you this...some call it an "educated guess".
    
    The source of this information is from the book "The Aquarian Gospel of
    Jesus, The Christ".  I didn't rationalize it, but reflected upon it to
    see and affirm or disaffirm its truth.
    
    Don't let "tradition" block you from exploring these ideas.  We often
    use two more more senses in conjunction to form an intelligent
    conclusion.  We taste it, smell it, we look at it, and we reflect on
    our past experiences (understanding), we turn a few ideas around in our
    minds (speech within our minds) and then we reach a conclusion about
    it.  Speech within our minds is called "thinking", speech from the
    tongue is called "talking", there is also "body language" which is also
    a form of speech...
    
    "Wisdom" is the knowledge of "distinction", being able to distinguish
    one thing from another is "Wisdom".  
    
    Playtoe

    Re: 114
    
    Marilyn,
    
    I knew that wasn't directed to me specifically, but I thought I'd
    comment on it...I hope you don't mind.
    
>    Actually, the first part of my reply was not meant as a comment to you
>    specifically, but to the base note. I believe psychosomatic illnesses
>    are thought/emotion affecting the person's health or physical reality.
    
    But again, the thought/emotion does not "directly" effect the health or
    physical reality.  Health is due to the harmonious energies in the
    body, a radiance, perhaps of positive thought and emotion.  Illness, is
    DIS-EASE, or tension and stress, disharmonious (ie with your body's
    natural harmony) energies...this is according to Plato.
    
    However, I'd like to submit that their is a difference between
    "feelings" and "emotions".  Feelings are seated in the heart or solar
    plexus, and Emotions are a cerebral/mental event.  I feel bad, so I
    cry; crying is an emotion that results from the feeling of bad.
    
    Playtoe 

Re: quantum stuff

The best discussion of these issues that I know of is "Quantum Reality" by 
Nick Herbert.  It was on bookstore shelves a couple of years ago and could 
probably be ordered through a bookstore.  Penrose's "The Emperor's New Mind," 
mentioned earlier, has a clear discussions of this, too.

I know of four principle interpretations of quantum mechanics:

Conservative Copenhagen:

As Topher noted, this is by far the most widely accepted interpretation.  It
holds that many subatomic features of a system have no definite value until
they are "observered," but an "observation" can consist of just about any
change at the macroscopic level.  Thus, a click of a geiger counter or the
appearance of a spot on a photographic film count as "observations" even if no
living mind ever experiences them.  This interpretation was invented by Neils 
Bohr of Copenhagen, hence the name.  This interpretation is also favored by
Werner Heisenberg and John Wheeler.

The standard criticism of this interpretation is that it divides the world 
into a microcosm and a macrocosm in a purely arbitrary manner.  Why should a 
physical change *so* big count as an observation when another change a tenth 
that size does not?

Radical Copenhagen:

This is the interpretation made by some of the people who voice the criticism
of the conservative version.  They claim that physical systems remain 
partially indeterminate until observed (just like the conservatives) but they 
hold that only perception by a conscious being counts as an "observation."
Radical Copenhagenism is supported by John von Neumann and Eugene Wigner. 

The standard criticism of this interpretation is that it gives an unnervingly 
central place to human, or at least sentient, observers.  (Of course, this 
smae feature makes it popular with other people.)  Another criticism is that 
this rule about sentient observers is arbitrary, imposed on the theory by the 
interpreters, not derived from quantum mechanics itself.

Hidden Variables or "Neo-Realism":

This is the most "common-sensical" interpretation.  It holds that the 
subatomic features of a physical object really *are* determinate in character, 
but we don't happen to know the details, so our description is necessarily in 
terms of probabilities.  Its supporters include Albert Einstein, Erwin
Schroedinger, Louis de Broglie, and David Bohm 

The standard criticism of this interpretation is that, in order to match 
quantum mechanical theory and experimental evidence, the hidden variables have 
to operate across space faster than light or (which is the same thing in 
relativity theory) backwards and forwards through time.  This criticism may 
have lost its force, though, since recent work indicates that ALL quantum 
interpretations have to have this "non-local" character.

Many Worlds:

According to this one, the subatomic indeterminacies are resolved in every way 
possible, each possibility showing up in one of an infinite array of parallel 
worlds.  Sorry to contradict Topher, but, to the best of my understanding,
these parallel worlds do not interact; the interference of probability waves
takes place at an earlier point in the process.  This interpretation was
coined by Hugh Everett in 1957 and recently popularized by Paul Davies.  John
Wheeler supported it at one time, I believe. 

The major criticism of this theory is that infinities of parallel worlds seem 
a high price to pay, a lot of excess baggage.  Also, there are mathematical 
difficulties with the theory.

Earl Wajenberg

RE: .117 (Earl)

    I second your recomendation of Quantum Reality -- but with a fairly
    minor caveat.  Herbert does not make it sufficiently clear that his
    catalog of quantum interpretations -- on which Earl's is based -- is
    arbitrary based purely on the rhetorical needs of the particular book.
    Interpretations are lumped or not, excluded or included, and even
    described in ways which would be rather confusing if different, equally
    valid, points were trying to be made.

>worlds.  Sorry to contradict Topher, but, to the best of my understanding,
>these parallel worlds do not interact; the interference of probability waves
>takes place at an earlier point in the process.  This interpretation was

    It kind of depends on what you mean by "worlds" -- you'll notice that I
    don't use the term.  I don't really like the name for the
    interpretation at all -- it is a name chosen to maximize the "boggle
    factor" and to avoid talking about what the theory is about.

    It comes down to the role of the "wave-equation", which is the basic
    mathematical description (in the most widely used formalism) of QM.

    In the Copenhagen Interpretation (CI), the wave equation is not in
    any sense real.  It is merely a formal description of the results
    on "classical reality" of the interaction between classical reality and
    "quantum reality".  It represents particles as waves which split and
    interact and which only really mean something at the moment when
    the interaction between classical reality and quantum reality takes
    place -- a moment called "an observation".  At the moment of
    observation, the wave equation determines the probability that each of
    the multiple possible outcomes will actually "be observed".  Note that
    in CI, although there is clearly a relationship between the macroscopic
    world and classical reality, the exact relationship is ill-specified
    and need not be identity.

    There is another informal, not entirely coherent interpretation which I
    call the Folk Interpretation (FI).  The people who use this interpration
    usually claim to be using the CI, but are not.  It is this
    interpreation which is "really" the mainstream one.  In the FI, the
    wave equation *is* real and represents the state (which consists of a
    "superpostion of states") of the particle between observations.  When
    an observation (generally equated to a macroscopic interaction) occurs
    the wave equation is "collapsed" and is externally reduced to a single
    value (however, the reduction is nondeterministic and not controlled
    or even influenced by the system doing the observation).

    The Many-Worlds interpretation (MWI) takes the FI, formalizes it, makes
    it coherent and eliminates the extraneous baggage of classical/
    macroscopic reality.  It simply takes the wave equation as real, and
    QM as complete.  The wave equation evolves as it does (as a formal
    description) in the CI and as it does (as real) in the FI.  A particle
    exists as a superposition of states.  However, where the FI imposes an
    external reality to arbitrarily collapse the wave equation, the MWI
    simply allows it to evolve.  What happens is that the wave equation,
    if left to itself, predicts that certain interactions -- for the most
    part interactions with macroscopic systems -- result in the states
    splitting, i.e., no longer interacting with each other.  If you want
    to define "world" to only refer to the state of the universal wave
    equation at which its "parts" are uncoupled, then by definition the
    "worlds" do not interact.  If you define "world" to mean a possible
    trajectory through time in state space, then before the uncoupling
    the worlds interact and after the uncoupling they do not.

    The cost of eliminating the "excess baggage" of the infinities of
    "parallel worlds" (decoupled states in the universal wave equation), is
    to posit a magic unobservable mechanism whose only function is to
    "collapse" the state-space so that quantum reality is kept safely far
    enough away from "us" so as not to give us the willies.

    Some additional notes:

    Yes, Wheeler was originally a suporter of the MWI.  In fact the other
    official name for WMI is the Everett-Wheeler interpretation, since
    Wheeler did much of the development of the original idea.  Wheeler
    abandoned the interpretation when it was shown that it had no
    observable consequences differring from the CI.

    I think that if you follow through carefully on the MWI (despite some
    criticisms I've seen) you will find that the "teeth" have been
    effectively pulled from non-locality.  The decoupling needs only to
    propogate at light-speed, which is the same in every reference frame.
    As in some other interpretations, MWI replaces non-locality with
    what has been called "delayed determinism".  The radical CI is also
    non-locality safe, but only as long as only one conscious observer is
    involved (note that the experiments which purport to show non-locality
    effectively fulfill this condition).  The CI is not frame-invariant
    and violates the postulates of SR.  This is not true of the MWI.

    As I understand it, the mathematics of MWI is simply the mathematics of
    QM.  If there are problems they exist equally in all formal
    interpretations.

    A recent result in MWI concerns the results of introducing
    non-linearities into the wave equation.  There has been a lot of
    interest lately in examining the observational consequences of
    modifying the wave-equation, which is strictly linear, so that there
    are slight non-linearities.  Most of the work has been concerned with
    figuring out what limits exist in current experimental results or in
    currently plausible experimental results to the size of various kinds
    of non-linearities.  For the most part the non-linearities have to
    be very small.  One interesting theoretical development is the effect
    this would have on the MWI.  Many non-linearities would result in the
    possibility of decoupled states being able to influence each other --
    in other words, the alternate worlds could signal each other.  (Keep
    in mind that there is absolutely no evidence that this could occur;
    its just a matter of examining slight deviations for what was
    previously a basic assumption in QM).

				    Topher

Re .118

   "...his catalog of quantum interpretations -- on which Earl's is based 
    -- is arbitrary based purely on the rhetorical needs of the particular 
    book."

Herbert *does* use a list of eight issues that is purely his own, but my own 
list of "hidden variables," "Copenhagen," and "many worlds" is based on catch 
phrases I have seen used in many different places.  However, it is also true 
that you get a different interpretation for each authority, in a subject like 
this.

I think we have heard different versions of the Many-Worlds Interpretation 
(MWI).  In the version I heard, there was a world for each value of an 
observable, not for each component in the superposition of the wave function.

About the "teeth being drawn from non-locality":  It is the thesis of 
Herbert's book that non-local effects have been observed, in the Aspect 
experiment, so that, even if quantum mechanics should prove false and 
interpreting it become academic, we would still have non-locality to cope 
with.  Also, if I recall rightly, I think Herbert said that Bell's Theorem 
implied that quantum mechanics required non-local effects.

To me, that suggests that the light-speed decoupling is irrelevant; if Herbert 
is right, MWI has to live with non-locality as an empirical fact.  In fact, if 
MWI requires locality, this would be a flaw in it.  But Herbert, at least, 
felt that the Aspect experiment did not allow us to reject any of the 
interpretations.

I like the term "FI," the "Folk Interpretation."

Earl Wajenberg

    
    Re. a few back
    
    Playtoe,
    
    I believe God can be perceived through the senses.  When one feels
    one's energy field (which I can), that is perceiving prana, or the Holy
    Spirit, or a myriad of other names that this energy is referred to.
    
    It is the energy that permeates all of Creation.
    
    Cindy

RE: .119 (Earl)

    I used the lurid phrase about the teeth being drawn from non-locality
    rather than saying that the MWI interpretation implies locality because
    it does not.  Whether or not there are other philosophical problems in
    MWI, non-locality does not appear to be problematic within the MWI,
    since, as near as I've been able to discover, there is no need for
    simultanaety or instantanaeity within the MWI as there is within the CI
    and the FI, only that correlated states retain their correlation as
    they seperate and are reunited at non-superluminal velocities.

    There are some problems with the Aspect experiment, in any case.  First
    off, even taken at face value it only disproves local realistic causal
    interpretations.  The broadly defined "non-locality" in the MWI ends
    up as a violation of Aristotealian realism (though it may be considered
    a realist interpretation in a broader sense of the term).  Second there
    are apparently a number of loop-holes in the Aspect experiment.  The
    most serious one I have seen concerns the interpretation of the results
    in the presence of noise.  It is claimed (and I have not seen a
    rebuttal though I've been looking for it) that Aspects corrections
    for the non-0-error rate of his detectors is flawed in that it requires
    further, unjustified assumptions.  Something weird is definitely
    happening, but it is not clear just what it is.

>I think we have heard different versions of the Many-Worlds Interpretation 
>(MWI).  In the version I heard, there was a world for each value of an 
>observable, not for each component in the superposition of the wave
>function.

    Again, it depends on what you want to label a "world", but as I
    understand it, there is not much distinction between those concepts in
    MWI following the decoupling of components of the wave function.  Of
    course you can get situations where the one or more of the decoupled
    components include superimposed, interacting components -- but that
    corresponds to "partial collapse" in the FI.  Remember, the observer is
    part of the system in the MWI, an "observation" is simply making a
    correlation between the components of one part of the system (the
    observer) and another (the observed).  If the interaction which results
    in that correlation is a non-reversable one, then the components
    of both parts of the system become decoupled.

				    Topher

    Re .113

    >"The capacity of knowing without the use of the rational processes."

    Yes Mary, intuition may well be a subconscious thought process however
    it is not a sense in such that it supplies the raw information. It is
    more of a processing of the raw information and reaching a conclusion.

    BTW My dictionary defines intuition as; 1a (knowledge gained by)
    immediate apprehension or cognition. b the power of attaining direct
    knowledge without evident rational thought and drawing of conclusions
    from evidence available. 2 quick and ready insight.

    As you see it does not exclude unconscious thought processing.

    Re .115

    >Ok, if that's true, which of the other five would you say supply the
    >information?  For instance, the situation where the roommate was in the
    >kitchen and sensed his roommates emotional state, who was in the living
    >room.

    I can regularly tell the emotional state of my roommate when he is in
    the kitchen and I am in the lounge. The sense that I use to achieve
    this is called hearing.

    When I was younger I used to work with blind children. I well remember
    the first day that I went to the School for the Blind. I was walking
    down the corridor with a totally blind man when suddenly two
    youngsters, both totally blind, came running round the corner. I was
    worried that they would run into us. My blind guide spontaneously said
    to me, "Just keep walking and they will avoid you." And that is exactly
    what happened.

    After they had passed he said, "I expect that you want to know how they
    did it. Well they stamp their feet a bit to hear the echo. We have no
    sound absorbing things in the corridor and we are a dead spot thus they
    avoid us. Simple isn't it?" I said that it was but I still didn't know
    how he knew that I was worried and had told me to just keep walking. He
    laughed and said that the rhythm of my walking had become "uncertain"
    and putting one and one together he had worked out the answer.

    I must admit that working with blind children made me realise exactly
    how much you use your five senses and never even think about it.

    >"Sonic Radar" is the point of mentioning the Bat.  But, how about this. 
    
    That is not a sense per se. It is sending out information with a view
    to using your hearing to interpret intercept the results. Just as the
    children in the example above used sound to make an echo which in turn
    they could sense by listening.
    
    >We often times say certain things to others to "check them out", see
    >where their head is at.  
    
    Asking someone his opinion of some thing is not a sense, it is an action.

    >The source of this information is from the book "The Aquarian Gospel of
    >Jesus, The Christ".  I didn't rationalize it, but reflected upon it to
    >see and affirm or disaffirm its truth.
     
    Well it does seem to heavily misuse the word "sense".

    Jamie.