Tippaporn

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.

You don't ask questions. Ever.

Religion offers much more than that and thus serves a greater purpose in the lives of those who follow it. It at least grants an individual purpose and worth in life. Science does neither. And no one, least of all the science types, considers the effects of teaching an entire world that there is no purpose in life, that one is no more than a leaf blowing in the wind with no control over their life's direction, that fulfilling their most heartfelt desires is a coin toss decided by chance, that their only value lies in their ability to breed, that life is nothing more than the survival of the fittest, that their emotions are due only to chemical interactions in their brains, that girls can be boys and boys can be girls, that a person's sex is not determined by biology but by their subjectivity, and perhaps the worst new fad in scientific thinking which postulates that personal choice is a mere defective mental illusion. And these same people then wonder how it is that the world slides into madness in so many respects. Dumb and dumber.

I can't believe you read my entire post and you're right back with your rote "rigorous scientific analysis" condition before others can believe it. I'm not interested in convincing anyone of anything nor do I care whether or not they choose to accept any of the ideas I offer. The only thing of importance to me is that the ideas I hold to be true have practical application in my most practical life and work for me. Why the hell do I need science's blessings before I can use a practical idea that works? Science has it's view of reality. Science's ideas have undoubtedly manifested in some wondrous things. Great. I love it. I rejoice with science. But, since no one is ever right all of the time, and everyone has their imperfections then in those areas in which I disagree with science's ideas I will not rejoice with science but rather challenge them on their conclusions. Anything wrong with what I'm saying yet? On the other hand I am free enough to explore ideas in a way that science doesn't allow itself due to it's rigid "scientific method" approach. I'm smart enough to recognise the limitations of that approach. I find many ideas to be true and do not wait to put them to use until science sanctifies my findings which, again, may and probably never will come in my lifetime. Now I offer up different ideas here which taken together form a very different view of how reality works. I'll contrast that viewpoint with the other viewpoints here. Show me how your ideas work and I'll show you how mine work. What becomes painfully obvious very quickly is that with science so many theories that are even accepted as fact don't hold water. They can't be shown to work to any great detail. Again, how do you mesh freedom with evolution? You won't touch that. Neither will any other science minded person. Why? Because you can't. There is no place for individual freedom within the theory of evolution. Well, damn it, then it's bogus. Again, I offer a different, and in my honest opinion, a much more accurate view of reality than that which science or religion is able to offer. Not only is it accurate but it accounts for, as much as I can tell, everything. It doesn't omit obvious aspects of reality that science kicks to the gutter because it's a puzzle piece that they can't fit. Again, what blows me away is that both science and religious types won't even take the time to consider an ideas validity. That, to me, is rigid thinking. Setting boundaries for acceptable thought. Not a single idea residing on the outside of their paradigms gets in. I've said this before, the source of objective reality is subjective reality. Without subjective reality your precious physical could not exist. Do any of you even attempt to understand that concept? Are any of you inquisitive enough to ask questions as to why or how that would work? Hell no. It flies in the face of your protected view of reality and you dismiss it out of hand with the mechanical retort of, "prove it." Are you people truly inquisitive? I say no. I can meet common people on the street that are far more open minded than science types. Science types are another level of close minded thinkers perhaps even more so than the religious types. Try to at least ask some questions rather than simply standing on and defending your hallowed ground.

Sorry, not taking your bait, mikebike. Find someone else to troll.

Once more . . . The only thing i rail against with science minded folks is their rigidity of thinking. It truly is not different than the rigidity of religious thought. Both set their boundaries of acceptable thinking and no matter what you can't get them to venture outside of their boundaries. For the religion acolytes it's the word of God. Anything else they trash. For the science acolytes it's proof. No proof and it gets trashed. You see, Fat is a type of crazy, I've realised long ago that there is so much more . . . so much more . . . that lays outside of either of those two realms of limited thought and neither are expansive enough to contain all of that other information which exists. I simply cannot imprison myself like that. My personal propensity is to follow ideas and explore where they lead me, no matter where that brings me. Now this does not at all mean that I willy nilly believe in anything. Quite the contrary. For one an idea has to make sense. It has to have airtight logic. Most importantly it has to show that it's practically functional in the world. Show me an idea and then show me how it works in practical terms. If you can't then I'll reject it. But perhaps more important than any of the above considerations which must satisfy me it has to include everything. All must be accounted for. Freedom, for instance. You may disagree but freedom is the very basis of existence. All existence. A theory such as evolution does not account for freedom at all. Natural selection is a determinative force which does not allow for my freedom. I, the individual, have no say, no choice in my own experience. Natural selection decides for me. And according to religious belief it is God who decides for me. If you or anyone else is willing to construct and accept a reality in which the individual does not have the freedom to determine and create their own lives in every respect as they see fit through their choices in order to fulfill themselves then bless you, sir! But that is a reality I most strenuously reject to the marrow of my bones. My sole effort in engaging with those science minded folks is to get them to at least try and expand their thinking. For God's sake there is more to existence that what can be proven. To deny ones self the rest of reality because it falls outside of what has been or can be proven is a choice which is beyond ludicrous to me. I would never willingly confine myself to such a limited existence and experience. One last comment. Who the hell says that one cannot be science minded and at the same time follow unproven yet worthy ideas? I do both without a problem. And again, my time here is short. Too short to wait for the demands of science to prove my existence and my experience before I am allowed to accept it as real. Knowledge is everywhere and it's yours and everyone's for the taking. I'll take however much I can grab from wherever it exists.

My point is, which I think you're missing, is that every creature has something different to offer the world. Just because animals, or plants, can't offer what we as humans can doesn't mean that their contributions to the world are any less. Or even that they don't have the power to make the world a better place. They do. But the way they make the world a better place is different than the ways in which we can make the world a better (or worse) place. Ever see an animal of one species helping an animal of another? Go on YouTube. What "power" they have is simply different than what we have. I recall a video someone posted here a good while back. It was a behavioural scientist who was comparing chimps to humans. He was holding an experiment with the chimp and some children to see if the chimp could behave in a certain fashion comparable to the children. He then mentioned having an epiphany in which the sudden realisation dawned on him that chimps couldn't do what people can. I shook my head thinking of the money he had spent on the higher education he received in order to come to that conclusion.

I made the statement but didn't intend to imply that it was your meaning. Animals don't throw nuclear bombs because they know better. Animals contributions to the world are obviously different that ours. It's said that we are the thinking part of nature. That's our contribution. Or at least one of them.

If you're an avid reader try reading this. 1972 - Seth Speaks.pdf

My apologies if I have.