The Observer's Role

[Clara]

Ok, so I am playing the devil's advocate here...

It has been proven by experiments, and cannot be denied, that particles will react differently when being observed. Down the Rabbit Hole had a really good demonstration (and explanation) of the experiment with particles and it made sense.

Now, my question is "Isn't it a little bit of a stretch to say that, because particles act differently when observed, we have control over how they act?" I believe we control our reality much more than we realize, but this is a question that has been haunting me since I first watched the movie.

Also, I would say that the individual (post-movie) interview that intrigued me the most was the one with that Columbia University Professor. One of the things he said and that made a lot of sense to me was how we (humans) have a tendency to not accept at first theories that make us look inferior (or not as "special") as we believe we are. He talked about things like Copernicus being attacked for saying the earth is not the center of the universe; and how Darwin's theory was rejected at first because it claimed we probably came from apes, as opposed to being created in the image of god...

Could the need to say that, if particles react differently when being observed then it means we are controlling them just by observing them, just reflect this tendency we have to think we are semi-gods?

I sort of lean more towards feeling like we control our realities mostly because we have the power to choose how we interpret things and react to them, as opposed to believing we can modify solid things by watching them (although I do not discard the possibility that highly spiritually developed people may actually be able to do it).

While I don't feel that's what all (or at least most) people in the movie imply, I know that it is how many people who watched the movie understand it. So I thought I'd bring up the subject and see what others have to say about it.

Keep thinking and expanding your universe!
Clara

[LincolnBlazer]

Lets see. As far as controling particles goes, im sure there are people who can do such things. They say we only use 15% of our brains? Well that just makes me wonder what we can do when we figure out how to use the rest! Maybe certain ones are lucky enough to have, probably by accident, developed the part of the brain that can do such amazing things that we are still clueless about.

Id hate to get religion involved in this but there is too much order and too many coincidences in creation for it to be from an unitelligent source. So many conditions had to exist for life, and so many complicated occurances had to take place for life there is just no way there isnt intelligence behind the scenes.

I just wish the scientific community would admit, and some have, that this is the work of a supreme designer!


 6 After that Jehovah said: “Look! They are one people and there is one language for them all, and this is what they start to do. Why, now there is nothing that they may have in mind to do that will be unattainable for them (gen 11:6 NWT)

"Look!" he said. "If they can accomplish this when they have just begun to take advantage of their common language and political unity, just think of what they will do later. Nothing will be impossible for them! (gen 11:6 New Living Trans.)


 
----Joe

[Clara]

Hello Joe,

Actually, I believe it's more like we use 5% (as opposed to 15%) of our brains. If we can increase only 1% of our brain usage, I am sure we will already experience a completely new reality!

I'll write more later, got to get back to work now. But thanks for participating! It's nice to have a like-minded person to bounce ideas around with. 

Clara

[LincolnBlazer]

does anyone have any experiences with telekenisis (sp?) the ability to move things with the mind? i read about people like uri geller and i just think thats totally somthing im interested in!!!

also, i wonder how humans can explore increasing their brain usage. i watched a show on history chanel about LSD and how the CIA experimented with it to explore the "reactions". im not really interested in trying lsd tho. but post some ideas people!!!

[Clara]

You may wish to look into Russell Targ's books. He doesn't cover telekinesis per se, but if I am not mistaken, he has worked with Uri Geller, and works with remote viewing and such. He actually worked for the US government during the cold war, when they used remove viewing in order to learn about the enemy's plans.

I am pasting below a link to Amazon.com showing his books. Limitless Mind is a great book. Unfortunately, this is the only book by him I have read. I have a huge pile of books at home I hope one day to get through... 

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/102-0298031-0816932?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=russell+targ

Enjoy!
Clara

[desiderata_rules]

Hi Clara,

I believe you are correct, but I would further that and say not only do we have control over our reality we actually cause our reality, we create it by our perception, I will copy and paste my letter to Ken Wilber to illustrate this point...

Dear Ken Wilber,

‘Integral spirituality’ thus far has proved to be a very fascinating read. It is indeed the framework. “It into you into I into Me” 3rd person to 2nd person to  1st person experience and identification of the ultimate attainment of the non-dual stage. A shift in consciousness from the fixed solid physical plain to the abstract wave form of infinite possibilities.
   Would I (“I” being “my” 3rd person perspective) be correct in thinking that no-one has ever had a first person experience of a non-dual stage? As in surely if one “achieves this then that consciousness shift would occur for all? Is it possible though that this stage can be ’glimpsed’ within a peak experience state from a second or third person perspective? You state that it is not possible so I’m a little confused. How do we know of this ultimate stage though without having some sort of connection with it? For it to be a theoretical stage.
   And I wonder if you agree with this premise I am to share with you. Is it possible that ego development is opposite to spiritual development and to the extent your ego is developed to the same extent you are spiritually aware. So its as if the two cancel each other out as far as reaching a non-dual first person experience goes. Take for instance Nietzche, he did have a great treatise for ascertaining the origins of how morals/beliefs came to be but yet at the same time he was equally prejudiced against black people.
   And so is it possible our spiritual guru’s of the day also have the ’biggest’ ego’s? They are close to a perfect ego, often touching on great insights from a third person perspective, but they perhaps have never truly transcended their ego, for it is ’my’ theory that if just one mind was to transcend the ego, all minds would follow, as this makes sense from the quantum perspective I think. I think the science behind it suggests this? And so without perception resting on the physical world, it would not exist as far as being perceived, and should this shift in consciousness/perception rest on the wave-form nature of reality then this world or “reality” could be deemed “heaven” and to transcend the ego is the only way to attain this non-dual stage. And this stage having no identification with an individual consciousness would be extremely peaceful?
   I hopefully will hear from you soon.
   
My best regards,


 Hope this helps Clara, and I did a typo, my username was supposed to be desiderata_rules, take one letter away and it reads completely disasterous!

With love,

D

[Clara]

Dearest D,

First, I wanted to welcome to the Forum and thank you for joining. Second, I wanted to thank you for the insightful and interesting post.

I only read one Ken Wilbur book (The Marriage of Sense and Soul) and found it quite interesting. It is definitely a content that offers excellent food for thought. Now I feel like I should get Integral Spirituality as well. Hopefully, I will get it shortly and be able to discuss it in more depth with you soon.

We do seem to share a lot of thoughts on the subject (you and me), and as I spend more and more time thinking about the subject, the more I feel like the greatest tool we all have in order to manipulate the universe around us may very well be perception and perception alone. I am pasting below an extract from a paper I wrote for school last year, which I feel expresses (maybe not as clearly as desired) my views on the subject.

"It has been the author’s theory that individuals are constantly dealing with their perception of reality, as opposed to dealing directly with reality. As people go through life, they develop their own individual personal interpretation of the world around them, which is their perception of reality. This perception is naturally distorted by many factors, such as positive experiences, childhood traumas, and all our experiences in general. By learning to influence positively individual perceptions and emotions, life can be experienced in an optimal and more enjoyable manner.

In order to manipulate perceptions, individuals need to be able to improve their thinking processes so they can take more control of their emotions through thoughts, which is what Emotional Intelligence offers. Expectations highly influence the way environments are perceived, which
in turn dictates reactions to events. In a cascading effect, these reactions dictate how others react to and perceive individuals, and their reactions back to them. When people are able to control their emotions, they can make more sensible decisions and present themselves to those they need to deal with in a manner that brings out positive results from their interactions. If in a moment of crisis emotions can be controlled, retaining a sense of calm, the person experiencing the crisis is able to have a clearer and more ample perspective, which allows them to make better choices and take better action (Santrock, 2008, p. 314)."

I hope you enjoyed the reading and look forward to your next post.  By the way, I changed your username to what you originally intended it to be. You may still need to use the old name when logging in (not 100% sure here) but the name will show as you wanted it to show.

Warmest regards,
Clara