Tippaporn

It'll never happen without a serious examination of and reconsideration of the validity of the ideas he currently holds. I doubt he goes there. Could be many reasons. The sad desire to be "right" no matter what might be one. Throughout my long experience I've found that most people wouldn't even attempt to look at what they belief with any true objectivity. Their intent is to merely defend it to the death. And when severely challenged resort to the old personal destruction tact like, "To many ramble around stating beliefs as facts, and believe in it, and when finding someone who have as wild beliefs as themselves, petting their back and backing each other up." Utter nonsense but when one is out of valid arguments this is what they're reduced to. Sad.

"Simple careful approach is always the best until you know for sure." That's been my approach my entire life. But you see, I'm just an unknown, insignificant peon incapable of coming to correct conclusions on my own. That is what you believe, correct? It's a pathetic and completely untrue belief in my opinion. But I'm just some guy rambling around stating silly, outlandish beliefs which I foolishly believe in. I'm stupid, right?

Yes, you are certainly correct in that you like to cherry pick. The tough questions, the questions that require hard thinking, those are not the ones you pick. You're like a politician who has a media interview and all they ask are softball questions. Once during o crisis, which one I can't remember, Biden was eating an ice cream cone in front of an ice cream shop whilst surrounded by reporters. "President Biden, what ice cream flavour do you like?" Here's the post again. Now I've been explaining what ideas are and pointing out that they produce the world we live in. Like children's building blocks people pick and choose amongst all the ideas available, all of the possible ideas which exist, and create not only your personal experience but along with the interactions of other entities just like yourself so together mass reality is created. From your individual choices you create your life, your particular experience to every last detail. Your life, and everyone else's, is a reflection of the ideas one chooses to accept as being 'true.' Ideas... ...are mental transformations of energy by an entity into physical reality. Idea constructions... ...are transformations of ideas into physical reality. Action... ...is idea in motion. Just to clarify, every action you take is based on an idea that is in your head on which you choose to act upon. No exceptions. No one acts randomly. In my post above I'm pointing out that for all of it's faults, and there are many, at least religion provides the individual with the ideas of self worth and purpose. Those accepted ideas are then acted on in one way or another depending on the individual's unique propensities. Those ideas generally provide beneficial results for the individual and for the rest of the world. Now here's an incomplete list of the building blocks, ideas, of science which are also used to create a different kind, or a different version of the world. There is no purpose in life other than the reproduction of the species. There is no control in one's life. Their is no value in life. The survival of the fittest determines who lives and who dies. Emotions are only due to the chemical interactions in one's brain. Biology does not determine sex. Personal choice is an illusion. If you were to design a functional, operational world are these the ideas you would choose to build that reality? And yet these ideas are being used. If the physical world is a reflection of the ideas we hold then these ideas can only produce one result. They cannot produce anything different. That is an impossibility. Now take a look at the world around you and identify areas in which these ideas play out, e.g. manifest. Do you like the results? If you don't thenyou best get to work and examine the ideas you personally subscribe to as 'true' and do some hard questioning as to whether or not they are beliefs about reality or beliefs taken as conditions of reality. Big difference. "Sometimes we just have to make certain decissions in life that also benefits us and the society." I'll repeat, you cannot discover the secrets of life by desecrating it. Sacrificing the life of other living creatures to sustain your own is a horrible idea. It plays out in many, many more ways than you are probably aware of, with equally horrid outcomes. There are other ways but unfortunately science rejects those approaches. Now be brave enough to address the tough questions.

It always amazes me that people find someone who accomplishes a great deal in a given field and all of a sudden everyone hangs on his every belief about the rest of life's issues, of which he may be wholly inadequate to provide any worthwhile opinion. Asking Elon about the 'meaning of life'? What a joke. You may as well ask your next door neighbor and would probably get a better reply. Elon's answer is a bunch of generalised woo.

Seth has discussed science quite a bit. He advocates for a loving science. I'm all in favour of that. As it stands now, however, science is not a loving one in many respects. I'll have to dig up one of my more recent posts. Science is valueless. In other words science has zero moral principles guiding it. It leaves philosophical questions to the philosophers. I can certainly understand why since science would have an impossible time trying to prove any wisdom as being true or false. At least physicians have the Hippocratic Oath. Well, until Covid came along. So please try and answer what the effects are of science's views, which are taught the world over, which I listed in my quote above? Those views don't produce chaos? Seriously, I will be waiting for an in depth answer. Perhaps the vilest perspective that science holds is that life has no value. "WHAT?!?!?!" you might protest in a screeching tone. "That's not true!!! It's the opposite!!!" They had to cut the beagles' vocal chords so they didn't have to listen to their cries of pain. You cannot discover the secrets of life by desecrating it. The cruelty done to animals in the name of science is beyond words. "But it's to save human life!!" So the argument would be that to defile other life is okay as long as it's for the benefit of humans? A pathetic argument indeed. Is there no other way? Yes, there is. Freethinkers? You make that sound as though freethinkers are a dangerous pox unto humanity. How about getting the ideas of reality right? You think that might be a solution? The science types are extremely sensitive to being called out on their long list of unworthy and despicable contributions to society and the world. From the creation of weapons of mass destruction, to pesticides, to GMO's, to the creation of chemicals such as Agent Orange and all the way to Covid. How many have died in the name of science? Or would you rather talk about the uniting effects of Covid? The united protests across the world to put an end to the unscientific Covid restrictions put into place in most every western country? No chaos created there, that's for sure. Science isn't universally bad, as I've stated over and over again. I'm not anti science. I appreciate science's loving accomplishments. Are you asking that I ignore their darker side and consider only their geniune triumphs? You picked the wrong poster, Hummin, to try to sell the pathetic idea that only science can unite the world and prevent the chaos that would arise from a bunch of radical freethinkers. I, least of all, have a need for science to "back up my ideas," hint: validate. Change my mind? About all I've learned in my long life? What do you expect? An, "Aw, gee, I was wrong about everything my entire life. Thank god (with a small "g") for the God of Science to save me from my backward and wrong-headed thinking." And for what? Science hasn't a clue as to what makes this world go round. If you've read my most recent posts, and I don't know that you have, then you just don't get it. Here we go again with the doll with the pull ring coming out of it's back. To be frank, Hummin, that was one of the most audacious posts I've read on this thread. Talk about consummate hubris.

Jane Roberts, the author of the Seth material, was raised Catholic. There were some who wanted her to comment on the similarities or differences of the Seth material and Christian theology. She had no interest to do so. I share her sentiment. I have no interest in making comparisons between the Seth material and the concepts taught by other religions. I see no point in it.

For my next hat trick I'd like to dispel the notion that the die hard science folks here hold, and claim over and over ad nauseam, that science is capable of proving everything and anything using the scientific method, and thus is the only discipline capable of determining the truth of all things? For this exercise we'll make the assumption that the theory that one creates his or her own reality using thoughts is true. In order for science to prove this then it would need to know what someone's true thoughts are in order to match the thought to the reality created. Since thoughts are private no one can know what another's thoughts are. And how can one produce evidence of a particular thought since it's not physical? Any science die hard here (I think VincentRJ was the last but I haven't seen him of late) who would be willing to take that one on? Could science even prove that the reverse, which is the only other option, is true . . . that we don't create our reality via thoughts, or otherwise? Or would they object using the argument that it's not their obligation to prove a negative? How often have I tried to convince them that the scientific method has it's limitations due to the fact that not everything is something physical that one can probe, categorise, and measure?

That's very true. That only goes to show that there isn't anything that's a waste of time. It's all good.

Okay. Now that you've used the terms in an example I can understand the concept. They're not terms I would use if I had to explain the process of swapping beliefs. When replacing a false idea, thought to be true, with another idea that is true, yet doubted to be true, there's a lot of back and forth . . . or push and pull . . . where you accept the new idea but then fall back on the old one. However many times one goes round and round before a new idea becomes the predominating one varies depending on a number of factors. I think the ideas which are the most emotionally charged are the most difficult to displace. Then again there's no guarantor of the permanence of any newly accepted idea. One can always go back to the original idea.

Well, not 100% in control. I doubt anyone is. But 100% free . . . certainly. The greater fool is one who argues with one. I've fallen victim often enough so I'm guilty as charged.

There was a lot of push and pull involved.

Thanks, mauGR1. To my mind there exists no force which can dictate my reality. Every last stitch is created by me via my thoughts, emotions and imagination. I'm 100% free.

Sorry but this humourous thought just popped into my head. When you live the life of a leaf blowing in the wind aren't you playing an endless game of 'Whack a Mole'? But in this case it's the constant putting out of fires?

One more thing, Fat is a type of crazy. You create your reality whether or not you believe you do, whether or not you agree with it, whether or not you like it. Again, reality is what it is and works the way it does regardless of what you may believe. So, you have two choices. Continue to create your life by default, which is to say you exert no control over what's in your head, allow any idea in without discrimination, and allow yourself to entertain whatever idea . . . meaning you hold the thought for a length of time. Or, you can be discriminating in your choice of thoughts and choose them on the basis of beneficence to you. If it's merely a belief which is holding you up then simply get rid of that belief. Done and dusted. That simple. Good luck to you, mate, even though there is no such thing.

Choices are dependent on freedom. Without freedom choices cannot exist. Life is an endless series of choices. Existence cannot be possible without freedom. This is why "chance," "accident," and so forth have no true reality. Those concepts are in direct opposition to freedom. Again, those are all terms used to provide an explanation for what can otherwise not be explained. As humans we demand explanations for everything. To answer your first step, absolutely yes. To answer your second step, absolutely yes. The process of creating ones own reality is done with thoughts. I've previously made the analogy, hat tip to Seth, that an artist uses paints to create his 2-dimensional painting. Thoughts, in this analogy, are the artist's paints. Our thoughts are manifested into a 3-dimensional medium rather than paints applied onto a 2-dimensional canvas. Yet the 3-dimensional medium, unlike the canvas, is an interactive medium as well. Not only do we get to create the living picture but we are in that living picture, also, and can then react to what we've created. In movie terms we are the producer, the writer, and the actor of our productions. I'll go off on a tangent here but It's important to mention that just as the paints are not the artist neither are our thoughts who we are. They are simply, well, the tool for lack of a better word. The reason I want to emphasise this point is to give awareness to the prevalence in mass society to conflate thoughts with people. If you were to express an idea that someone disagreed with then you may very well be labeled with an expletive. You may even be physically attacked. You see this occur especially in the political realm where the ideas are not attacked but rather the individual who is expressing the ideas. Now we do have absolute control over our thoughts. Whether or not we use that control is, as you say, another matter. There is nothing preventing us from exerting control, however, except ourselves. So it is something which can be achieved. I need to add that controlling ones thoughts is something that everyone already does. It's nothing new. Nothing you haven't done before. It's what you're doing now and what you'll be doing in all of your tomorrows. It's only a matter of degree. There is much information readily available which can assist one in that endeavour. Reading can be of great assistance. Once you understand how it works you can, for example, be a lifelong smoker, one day quit and thereafter never entertain another thought about smoking. To quit smoking can become the easiest of accomplishments. In truth it's not really a matter of 'controlling' thoughts as it is choosing them. Trying to police what ideas go through ones head is not the proper approach and I wouldn't recommend it. Choosing thoughts, on the other hand, is not difficult. There can be impediments with that as well but again it's just a learning process no different than any other learning process someone goes through in life. One of the major roadblocks to paying attention to and showing discrimination as to what ideas flow through ones head is the fallacious yet well accepted, and learned I might add, belief that thoughts do nothing. That they do not produce any physical effects or possess even any power of influence. If I were to identify and rank the leading misconceptions we have about reality then the mass belief, which is held almost universally, that thoughts create no physical effects would take one of the top spots due to the idea's negative impact. It completely strips and robs one of their personal power and is the main cause of the feelings of helplessness, despondency, and rank and unnecessary misery. If you wish for evidence that your thoughts create your experience then the evidence is all around you. As long as the belief is held that thoughts do nothing then it's only logical that one would never attempt to connect the dots. There are times, though, as you've just admitted, that one can't help but connect the dots. They become plainly visible. To see the evidence requires one to look for it, though. If you look for it then it will become apparent. Yes, that garage angel of mine, the same one that Sunmaster uses, does exist. And she's hot, hot, hot, too!!! Of course she's Thai!! If I may hammer it all home once more . . . "So it's not simply say laziness or busyness as such that makes me look no further but a belief that it would not be productive." To this I say that your belief is a belief about reality and not a condition of reality. Physical reality is changed from the inside out. Change your subjective reality and the physical, outside version must mirror the subjective, inner one. That is law. You're absolutely correct about the Ouija board. It moves on it's own. I've had it literally fly off the board. Both my partner and I were only gingerly touching it. What makes it move? That's for another time.

I'm not familiar with Hinduism. Or any other religion. I prefer reality explained in contemporary terms and without having to sift through religious teachings that are ripe for the potential of dogma.

If being a creator is a function of God then creator describes us as well.

What a pearl of wisdom you laid on us, Sparktrader. I wanted to explain partly why I find this a pearl of wisdom. Help is often in the form of advice. As one is giving advice it may be realised that the advice being given isn't being followed by ones self. Every one is student and teacher alike.

Years ago when I was still actively using the Ouija board and my daughter was about 4 years old I asked, for fun, what, if any, advice our friendly contact might have for her. This was his reply: "Life is like a game. Learn to play by the rules." My contention here is, and has always been, that reality is what it is and that it functions as it does . . . despite anyone's personal beliefs about what it is or how it functions. Given the above then what are the rules of the game? And are we playing by the actual rules or have we made up our own? I'll quote Twain again: "What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so." That statement is confirmation that we have made up our own rules. So why does it seem so difficult to recognise the fact that some of the rules we make up about the way reality works aren't in fact the real rules? Part of the answer lies in another eloquent and perceptive Twain quote: "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." The way I would interpret that statement using different terms is to say that we all have beliefs about reality and that the fatal mistake we often make is not recognising that we treat our beliefs as conditions of reality rather than beliefs about reality. Once we conclude that a particular belief is a bedrock condition of reality we 1) no longer question it's validity and 2) due to the unwavering conviction we hold about a particular belief then any idea which opposes it is automatically labeled "false" and rejected without further questioning. That, my friend, is the textbook definition of close-mindedness. It is when one does not question the validity of their own ideas and rejects all others out of hand. So why would anyone want to learn what the real rules of the "game" are? Well, if you're going to play a game wouldn't you want to "win?" If playing the "game" gets you results you don't like ("losing") because you're playing by rules which are erroneous and made up, and therefore can never produce the desired results, and you're scratching your head wondering how things could go so horribly wrong, wouldn't you be interested in dumping those erroneous rules and then adopt and follow the actual rules which would produce the results you want ("winning")? The question really is that simple. What's your answer? Following are two widely held beliefs: 1) the rules of life cannot be known and 2) anyone who claims to know is a liar. Again, these beliefs are not seen as beliefs about reality but rather viewed as conditions of reality. So, if I, or anyone else, were to claim that I know what the rules are no one would believe. Not only that but anyone making such a claim would be severely critised and ridiculed. Perhaps even nailed to a cross. Now to address the content of your post, Fat is a type of crazy. I'll begin with your provided explanation that you gave in which you attempt to fit individual freedom into the theory of evolution. Everything you wrote is, in essence, "making up the rules" since all of it is 100% conjecture and contains little logic. Ultimately none of it reflects how reality truly works. Given that verdict I won't try to point out any of the fallacies of your explanation via posing any of the many questions which your thesis prompts. Next would be this quote: "I doubt anyone's theory is one thousandth as detailed as physics or biology." Fortunately you've qualified your belief with the word "doubt" and so left yourself some wiggle room for being wrong. I'm here to say that you couldn't be more wrong. The Seth material goes into excruciating and extensive detail. But I understand that since you've never read any of it then you wouldn't be aware of the extent of it's detail. In fact the material is detailed to the extent that there were a number of scientists so intrigued that they had personal sessions with Seth. The quality of the Seth material is considered such that the University of Yale, not by any means an insignificant university as it is ranked No. 5 in the U.S., houses the Seth material in it's archives. This is anecdotal but I've heard that it is one of the most frequented archives at Yale. Take a peek if you wish. Yale Archives - The Seth Material And now this final quote: "Give me the one page theory that says what is - biology and physics can do this - then you can look deeper if it feels like it is beneficial." What you're asking can and can't be done. I can provide a Cliff Notes version of the rule book that can run a page. But the rule book is, in fact, much more extensive than what can be fitted onto a single sheet of paper. There's more to consider though. Do you play chess? The rule book for chess isn't that great in length. Any one wanting to play the game can easily read and understand the rules. Actually playing the game is quite another thing. Especially if one's intention is to master the game. That would require perhaps a great dealing of reading. Reading which would explain in minute detail how to play the game. Actually playing the game is obviously instructive, too. And for some they may excel without every reading a single book. Now if you're still asking whether or not learning rules of the "game" would be beneficial then reread the above. But who knows, you might prefer to just wing it in life. Take things as they come and deal with whatever as it pops up. To me that's living life as a leaf blowing in the wind. It's a reactionary approach. My preference would be to be the captain of my own ship. That's a proactive approach. In closing I'll satisfy your request for a one-pager listing some of the rules of the "game." Some of it you may find intriguing but you will also find that in and by itself it's quite useless for the purpose of utilising it in practical terms. The Physical Universe As Idea Construction Energy... ... is the basis of the universe. Ideas... ...are mental transformations of energy by an entity into physical reality. Idea constructions... are transformations of ideas into physical reality. Space... ... is where our own idea constructions do not exist in the physical universe. The physical body... ...is the material construction of the entity's idea of itself under the properties of matter. The individual... ... is the part of the entity or whole self of which we are conscious in daily life. It is that part of the whole self which we are able to express or make "real" through our idea constructions on a physical level. The subconscious... ... is the threshold of an idea's emergence into the individual conscious mind. It connects the entity and the individual. Personality... ... is the individual's overall responses to ideas received and constructed. It represents the emotional coloration of the individual's ideas and constructions at any given "time". Emotions... ... are the driving force that propel ideas into constructions. Instinct... ... is the minimum ability for idea constructions necessary for physical survival. Learning... ... is the potential for constructing new idea complexes from existing ideas. Idea complexes... ...are groups of ideas formed together like building blocks to form more complicated constructions in physical reality. Communication... ... is the interchange of ideas by entities on the energy nonphysical level. Action... is idea in motion. The senses are channels of projection by which ideas are projected outward to create the world of appearances. Environment... ...is the overall idea constructions with which an individual surrounds himself. Physical time... ..is the apparent lapse between the emergence of an idea in the physical universe (as a construction) and its replacement by another. The past... ...is the memory of ideas that were but are no longer physical constructions. The present... ...is the apparent point of any idea's emergence into physical reality. The future... ... is the apparent lapse between the disappearance of one idea construction and its replacement by another in physical reality. Psychological time... ...is the apparent lapse between the conception of ideas. Aging... ...is the effect upon an idea construction of the properties of matter of which the construction is composed. Growth... ... is the formation of an idea construction towards its fullest possible materialization following the properties of matter. Sleep... ... is the entity's relative rest from idea construction except the minimum necessary for physical survival. The physical universe... ... is the sum of individual idea constructions. I'll add a few more: There are only two things to think about: what is wanted or what is unwanted. All issues are the same issue. They all work by the same principles. Argue for your limitations and they're yours. Freedom is the basis of all life. More closing comments . . . "I have enough hard work in my day job to have some puzzle within a puzzle that I have to solve to get there." You are in the process of solving that puzzle every single day simply by living life. In life all of the answers are contained. You figure it out as you go along. That's one of the reasons you are, granted thoroughly unbeknownst to you, here in this world to begin with. Now if you'd like to use the fact of leading a busy and demanding life as an excuse to not further your "education" then you would have to explain me. My life is no less full than yours. You may be amazed to learn how much reading one can get done sitting on the crapper. Advice on how to live one's life? This simple statement encapsulates it in a nut shell. "Don't worry, don't hurry, and don't forget to smell the flowers."

Good. Now that hits the nail on the head.

What a pearl of wisdom you laid on us, Sparktrader.

"Science is what it is." Science is what men have made it. The same with religion. You'd be amazed at the parallels between the two. From rigidity of thought all the way to fanaticism and more. "As a different aim you could look to explain your new ideas or theories in a way that does not have proof but might resonate with others." My ideas do resonate with some here. Evidenced by the reactions to some of my posts. They'll never resonate with everyone but that's only common sense. I'd be foolish to have such an expectation. I do fully understand the types of people my ideas wouldn't resonate with. Those people who restrict themselves to their self made, limited boxes and never dare to tread foot outside of their confines. "For example, it appears you cannot explain the actual mechanism such that freedom and evolution are intertwined." I've never suggested that science's theory of evolution and freedom are intertwined. My point was that the theory is based on a select set of information and that it does not account for any other information. Nowhere does the practical application of the theory take into account freedom. Evolution is said to be determined by the theory of natural selection. Natural selection, by it's own definition, cannot incorporate freedom. So what happens to the idea freedom? It's conveniently excluded because it's a puzzle piece that can't be made to fit into the theory of evolution puzzle as constructed. Too many of the puzzle pieces would have to be rearranged. Or even discarded and replaced. Personally, I'd discard all of it. Now since you're the science guy and you believe that the theory of evolution is correct then where does individual freedom fit in? Now this is the important part. You will refuse to answer that question. You'll ignore it. Or you'll argue that freedom doesn't exist. Or it doesn't apply in this instance. Or you'll make up some reason or another which will not be backed up with proof. Better to just not answer it. Your non reply will be no different than the correction VincentRJ made to patch together the theory of the Big Bang. First it was a Big Bang created from nothing. Well, that couldn't hold logic so the theory was changed to a condensed ball which contained the entire universe-to-be. When I asked VincentRJ what medium this ball existed in I got no reply. That's what you science type folks do when challenged to explain in greater detail your own scientific held beliefs. You can't show how they actually work so you quietly move on. But then you turn around and suggest to me that perhaps I should take a different aim to make my ideas more plausible? When challenged to make yours plausible you skedaddle. I address any questions. Here's another point regarding my ideas. Do you really think it possible that I could cover the entire ground of an alternate view of reality and provide full explanations as to how it all works in a few posts? How many books do you think one needs to read just to get a PhD in physics, or astronomy, or biology, or in any other branch of science? By the way, the books on the theories I present have already been written. Would you care to download them if I supplied them to you? And another point? Do you think anyone who takes these courses asks questions? Isn't questioning a vital part of learning? A vital part to discovery? Again, I don't see you asking any questions about anything I write. Here's yours, and all of the other science types cookie cutter response to different ideas: "Ah, duh, where's your proof, fella?" Sometime I feel like I'm talking with one of those dolls with the pull ring coming out of it's back. You know, you pull the ring and the doll says something. You pull it again and it repeats what it said the first time. Let's just be blunt. You wouldn't give a new idea more than a sideways glance, let alone put any real thought into it. Why? For one, because if it's not proven then it automatically receives the stamp of rejection and gets unceremoniously tossed into the rubbish bin. For another, it's the belief that many science types fanatically subscribe to: only science, using only the scientific method, can discern the truth of reality. No one, and I mean no one else who is not in the field of science can. What a load of rubbish. I'd genuinely be surprised to get a reply to this post.

I never said there was much more to evolution. What I am saying, and have been saying all along, is that evolution, as it is scientifically accepted, is a scientific fairy tale. Evolution has not been proven despite your insistence.

No worries. I'm not religious.

He's trolling, Sunmaster. Don't feed him. He'll get bored from lack of reaction to his prodding and fade away.