Beliefs vs reality or fact

[Alvin]

I'm trying to get a handle on some of the members' concept of "beliefs" (I posted the "sunrise" reply in the "How does one Suggestion Override another" thread). I assume beliefs may - or may not - be based on reality or fact.

Rather than me try to suggest a few analogies, perhaps a few of you could just offer some?

[Simple Guy]

Alvin,

The word "belief" connotes, to me, a more provisional attitude about things.
It may or may not be this way for others. It is for me, though, for those
things allowable to be challenged, questioned, reappraised. There is a
philosophical statement that says "question everything." Except for
those beliefs that are held to be sacrosanct (secular or religious),
putting something into a "belief" category eases the way to this spirit of questioning,
expansion of thought and discovery. You ask for an analogy; a non-
sacrosanct belief, in this context, is written in the mind like an unconfirmed
appointment may be penciled in on an appointment agenda. (For the
old fashioned paper using people, at least.)

[Hibbitty]

Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted...

[Merlin]

a belief is your personal understanding.
It may or may not be true, but it currently true from your understanding.

[Alvin]

>I don't particularly believe that would be beneficial as injury results if muscles are not coordinated and conditioned for use.

Interesting belief.

Merlin,

I know little about physiology - but the above sounds plausible, yet you seem to want to relegate it to a belief when it *could* be a fact (albeit, with possible exceptions - as opposed to a "law" (eg, gravity) which has no exceptions)

[Terry (existing)]

To begin with, we need to agree as to the meaning of the word "belief" and the word "fact". A belief is something we hold to be correct regardless of being able to offer any proof of it, since we see no need of any further proof than we have already. This holds true for all beliefs we have and need in order to negotiate our lives in a satisfactory manner..... This being so, I suggest that all our thinking is based on belief, and no such thing as fact is possible except as a basis for a discussion which we are now having perhaps with other people, or perhaps with ourselves in a dream. I can't prove you exist, you can't prove I do, we have never met. You have no proof that you exist except in your own dreams, and I am in the same position. Therefor there is no such thing as fact. If we met tomorrow, I would have no idea that you truly existed in flesh and blood,and not just in my dream, and likewise for you. (EG).......Oh yes, I believe you do exist because it suits my purpose to believe so....

[Merlin]

>but the above sounds plausible,

I agree, it 'sounds' plausible

>yet you seem to want to relegate it to a belief when it *could* be a fact

A 'fact' is also a belief
A 'law' is also a belief

[Cassandra 8]

A 'fact' is also a belief
A 'law' is also a beliefAny more spitting at each other and I suspect they'll make us mud wrestle naked for them. I just wanted to say that I use a form of this paradox as the set up to escape the party bore. They drop and you escape. I'll leave it as 'fact' and 'belief' here:

"If you're right and the statement "a fact is a belief" is a fact, so making facts beliefs, then the statement "a fact is a belief" is a belief itself and not a fact at all."

And now, mud wrestling...

Relax, boys. The belief we're mud wrestling for you is just a fact, and tickly noses!

[Don]

"I do believe! I do believe! I do, I do, I do!"
--The Cowardly Lion in "The Wizard of Oz"

[skip]

Cassandra,

If you were to say to me at a party, ""If you're right and the statement "a fact is a belief" is a fact, so making facts beliefs, then the statement "a fact is a belief" is a belief itself and not a fact at all.", I suppose I would continue to either bore or confound you.

Spaghetti noodle logical traps, no matter how impressive to the crowd you hang with, dont faze me, because they dont address the epistomology of the issue.

Oh nice visuals with the mud wrestling bit, and thats a fact. :)

[Cassandra 8]

Cassandra,

Spaghetti noodle logical traps, no matter how impressive to the crowd you hang with, dont faze me, because they dont address the epistomology of the issue. Ah, but the epistemology of the paradox aside, you've got a decent brain and I bet you're never the party bore.

How well it works comes down to how little the person boring you knows, how confident they are in what they know, and how eager they are to impress you with an instant answer. It only needs a second or two of trance time to escape their clutches. The eyes go and the mouth opens eagerly to answer but Mr Brain suddenly can't find first gear. A simple, "wait there a moment while I, um, you know..." is usually all it takes to escape.

People with good brains and something to say are, in my experience, very rarely boring. Even in disagreement, you have to admire their thinking ability.

[designedmind]

This is a question that has plauged philsophers (and laypeople who enjoy unanswerables just as much) since man has learned to question his own faith. The answer, is insightful but pretty much a cop-out, avoiding the question by proving its underlying premise false... check out this page for explination about why, to an individual, there is no difference...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivist_epistemology

Now, transpersonally, the meaning behind the difference of the terms is the transivity of experience; that is, 'belief' is the underlying assumptions about the nature of an idividual's existence/experience/'subjectivity', and 'reality' is the amalgam of quantifiable/verifiable/testable/recordable/'objective' events that have taken place

Key to note, however, that with an understanding of non-eculidian geometry and relativity, science asserts that the universe is different based on how you view it; that is, there is no ultimate transpersonal observational truth because any perspective is just as valid as any other, and yet perspectives vary!

[Alvin]

Terry (existing)To begin with, we need to agree as to the meaning of the word "belief" and the word "fact". A belief is something we hold to be correct regardless of being able to offer any proof of it, since we see no need of any further proof than we have already. This holds true for all beliefs we have and need in order to negotiate our lives in a satisfactory manner.....

I think I'd generally agree.

Terry (existing)This being so, I suggest that all our thinking is based on belief, and no such thing as fact is possible except as a basis for a discussion which we are now having perhaps with other people, or perhaps with ourselves in a dream. I can't prove you exist, you can't prove I do, we have never met. You have no proof that you exist except in your own dreams, and I am in the same position. Therefor there is no such thing as fact.

Um, is this one of the "get rid of the bore" remarks to which Cassandra refers? Or the "spaghetti noodle logic traps" Skip identifies? It is a fact that I am quoting The Marriam-Webster Dictionary which defines fact as "the quality of being actual; something that exists or occurs". Verification of a fact is another matter (there are several methods of verifying the fact I just submitted), Plato notwithstanding.

MerlinA 'fact' is also a belief
A 'law' is also a belief

A law (Webster again, to make this simple & brief) is "a rule or principle stating something that always works in the same way under the same condition". Whether or not you believe a law is irrelevant as it relates to its validity. If you think otherwise, try asking one of your clients that does not believe in the law of gravity to jump off a ten story building for fun.

Cassandra 8Any more spitting at each other and I suspect they'll make us mud wrestle naked for them.


Spit - spit - spit.
(And, I'll still admire your thinking ability even afterward.)

[Merlin]

Alvin,

>try asking one of your clients that does not believe in the law of gravity to jump off a ten story building for fun.

You obviously believe that something will happen.
Have you tested your belief?
Will your outcome change your belief?
Will it cease to be a belief?

[Cassandra 8]

Alvin,

>try asking one of your clients that does not believe in the law of gravity to jump off a ten story building for fun.

You obviously believe that something will happen.
Have you tested your belief?
Will your outcome change your belief?
Will it cease to be a belief?Oh, crikey, not again...

Alvin,

It'll be quicker if I just clue you in. For some reason, Merlin has this faulty, limiting belief that there's no such thing as a fact or a law of nature. This triggers a behaviour whereby she tries to make others think there's no such thing too. She has constructed an intricate set of false arguments to support this view, phrased in the form of questions but sometimes as statements, as you can see in the quoted post. These she trots out in the face of whatever argument you put up, in some attempt to make you think you're missing something. You're not. While her strategy may work very well with a person taken into a Meta-state as part of a hypnotherapy session, it's just really irritating in the context of reading it on a public web-based forum.

Do yourself a favour Alvin and don't rise to the bait. Just remember that Cassini-Huygens got to Saturn and Titan not by belief but by Newton's three laws, powered by the work of Von Braun, Volta, Fermi and others, and sent back measurements and pictures courtesy of Faraday, Marconi, et al. and not by a group of people believing they were sat around in Toullouse really wishing it would happen all by itself without an international team of thousands of engineers, geologists, astrophysicists, programmers, designers, managers, lobbyists, etc. Or, perhaps that's exactly what happened. Perhaps we all imagined those astonishing pictures of another world. Every single one of us.

Predictably, she'll now probably say that this is all just a belief itself, or attack my "learnings". Personally, I'd prefer it if she didn't reply at all. It leaves her open to the charge that whatever she says about anything is just her belief. Should we dismiss everything she says by her own admission, boys and girls? Or should we pick out the knowledge and discard the nonsense? In a world without facts or laws, how will we ever know the difference?

Damn. I've got mud under my finger nails now...

[parsa]

Cassandra 8,

That's not the way I understood Merlin's message at all. Of course that doesn't mean I understood her correctly.
I thought all Merlin was saying is that what might be a proof test for a belief to me doesn't mean that it will be for you. And that if you offer me your proof test I might not neccesarily accept it, no matter what the outcome is.
I kind of agree with that. I see it happen all the time.

And why drop from a ten story building, couldn't you just tell them to sit under an apple tree? Or drop an orange in their kitchen?

[Cassandra 8]

Cassandra 8,

And why drop from a ten story building, couldn't you just tell them to sit under an apple tree?By her own logic she'd still be forced to question your "belief" that the apple will hit the ground with a thud and taste good to eat. Or is it simply too convenient to believe in some "facts" for the sake of a sunny day under an apple tree? :)

[Alvin]

Cassandra 8J ust remember that Cassini-Huygens got to Saturn and Titan not by belief but by Newton's three laws, powered by the work of Von Braun, Volta, Fermi and others, and sent back measurements and pictures courtesy of Faraday, Marconi, et al. and not by a group of people believing they were sat around in Toullouse really wishing it would happen all by itself without an international team of thousands of engineers, geologists, astrophysicists, programmers, designers, managers, lobbyists, etc.



Cassandra - Wow! That's a lot of names you have knowledge & recollection of to do with the space program. Are you just well read or is it your hobby?

Thanks for the "heads up" on Merlin's "beliefs". I'm new here, trying to gather some info/knowledge before I seek hypnotherapy for self improvement, and I'm trying to get a handle on "beliefs", as generally used in your field, and how they can be changed.

At the risk of further antagonism (which is truely not my objective), Merlin's FAQ's looked really good to me (brief, understandable) - but how can I separate the wheat from the chaff?


parsa Cassandra 8,

I thought all Merlin was saying is that what might be a proof test for a belief to me doesn't mean that it will be for you. And that if you offer me your proof test I might not neccesarily accept it, no matter what the outcome is.


A law will be true (unless proven otherwise) regardless of whether you choose to believe it or not. The "scientific method" offers generally accepted methods for assesssing validity.


parsa Cassandra 8,

And why drop from a ten story building, couldn't you just tell them to sit under an apple tree? Or drop an orange in their kitchen?

Because that's sort of an "acid test" to anyone engaging in mental gymnastics. Dropping an orange in the kitchen allows you to play the games, but jumping from a (likely) death causing altitude puts an end to all that. Gravity will assert it's rightful place as a law.

[Cassandra 8]

Cassandra - Wow! That's a lot of names you have knowledge & recollection of to do with the space program. Are you just well read or is it your hobby?Just very, very well read.

[Merlin]

Hi Parsa,

There are different possible outcomes, aren't there.
I'm just sorry so many are too closed minded to consider possibilities.

-I might fall due to gravity. But laws can be broken, can't they?
-I might find the rope/harness holds fast.
-I might find the balloon I'm experimenting with will pull me upward.
-I might...
well, I hope you get the idea.

Now, it might be that your beliefs are experimentally true.
Anyone remember the 'law' (belief) that the speed of sound could not be exceeded? or
the 'law' (belief) that no one could run a mile in 4 minutes or less?

I only suggest that people not *absolutely* limit themselves to their beliefs.
Gravity will probably pull you a certain direction. But if the law is absolute, why dream of airplanes? Why dream that man may one day walk on the moon?

Some people, myself among them, prefer not to be stopped by *absolutes* We find it preferable to say 'I don't know how, *today*' rather than saying 'since I don't know how today, no one ever will'

One mindset allows growth. The other limits growth.

Why not just use the belief that works best at the time?

[Cassandra 8]

Anyone remember the 'law' (belief) that the speed of sound could not be exceeded?How do you know it was a law, Merlin, and not just a well-understood problem in aerodynamics like those who solved it? :)

[voodoochild]

Since no scientist can absolutely proof that his or her equations are true
( there may be constants.. variables missing which could also be connected to what humans can change just which their body ) there is no such thing as a law.. at least not one which we are able to proof since we can't know "everything"... even if we knew everything.. how would we find out if that's true ? these law's are made up for making predictions more accurate.. no scientist can be 100% sure about something.. thus laws and facts are just beliefs ;)

oh my .. am I in a thinking trap there or does it make sense ?

[Terry (existing)]

Since no scientist can absolutely proof that his or her equations are true
( there may be constants.. variables missing which could also be connected to what humans can change just which their body ) there is no such thing as a law.. at least not one which we are able to proof since we can't know "everything"... even if we knew everything.. how would we find out if that's true ? these law's are made up for making predictions more accurate.. no scientist can be 100% sure about something.. thus laws and facts are just beliefs ;)

oh my .. am I in a thinking trap there or does it make sense ?
NO I don't observe a trap, but rather exposure of the weakness of all arguments on this subject. We are all human, at least I presume so, though I am open to correction....Being human we can all ere, and this being so, any conclusions we reach are open to error.
All we can do is conclude from our observations, that something is true, and therefor make it a law until such time as our understanding, or knowledge improves and we can then change the law. Meantime we go along accepting something that is not true, but will do until later, when it can be discarded to be replaces by something better, or closer to the truth. There is in fact, no absolute truth in this life, so accept and live with it guys....Oh well, I suppose we can accept after all these centuries that have passed, that we will be born, live for a time, and then die! Anybody going to offer an argument on that? (EG)

[Cassandra 8]

Since no scientist can absolutely proof that his or her equations are true
( there may be constants.. variables missing which could also be connected to what humans can change just which their body ) there is no such thing as a law.. at least not one which we are able to proof since we can't know "everything"... even if we knew everything.. how would we find out if that's true ? these law's are made up for making predictions more accurate.. no scientist can be 100% sure about something.. thus laws and facts are just beliefs ;)The difference, I'm sure everyone will agree, is that some "beliefs" are predictable under all known conditions and in those that can reasonably be modelled. As those previously only modelled circumstances are attained physically and the "belief" still holds true, that means the "belief" can increasingly be relied upon and used with confidence. Perhaps in some strange part of the universe, every tenth apple falling form a tree simply floats off, but they don't here. We have 100% faith in the "belief" that the mass of the Earth will attract all falling objects equally. For hundreds of years, people have dropped things of differing sizes but the same shape and materials to see how fast they fall. They all fall at exactly the same rate here on Earth. The only other factor is wind resistance, hence the need to use the same shape of object and materials with only the size differing. On the Moon, with no wind resistance, the experiment was tried with an eagle feather and a hammer to really test this "belief". Can you guess what happened? Yes, the hammer falls at exactly the same rate as the big feather. Odd, isn't it? But true. The video is probably on a NASA site if you don't believe me. Experimental data built the case for acceptance of attraction due to gravity. THAT's how we "know" rather than simply "believe" things. We find out. It's not the Middele Ages any more. So, ask yourselves why someone desperately wants you to believe something they only say is true without any experimental data (or just tell you they have data and won't let you see it).

Now, this evening I intend to go to the pub, where I will drink some splendid real ale and eat peanuts and watch the replay of Man Utd against Exeter City. I believe that Man Utd. will beat Exeter City by about three goals to nil, though I think it would be much more fun to see Exiter win. At the final whistle, all possible beliefs about the score held by all those with an interest in the final score collapse into the actual score. No matter how you look at it, the final score is the final score. People will rely on it for the fourth round of the F.A Cup draw. Merlin is obviously quite clever in exploiting transitive logic for muischievous ends, and should be applauded for such skill. Inthe context of tonight's football match, it runs like this: The final score is just a belief. There's a score and a whistle sound, but the whistle sound didn't cause the final score, which could be completely different. Do you see how, while perfectly useful when dealing with beliefs that form personality, tools of this type do not have universal applications in situations like this. In other words, would you knock a screw in with a hammer? In the case of the match, either/or thinking is perfectly adequate. The final score has no belief attribute, just as experimental data removes the need for belief, replacing it with something you can use.

In terms of physical laws and facts, it's the level of understanding about and repeatability of the "belief" that's important, but this is exactly what some seem wilfully and pointlessly not to understand. For what purpose, I couldn't possibly comment upon... I'm off to get drunk.

[voodoochild]

cassandra:
there are two roads we are walking on...
i do not doubt the observations but the implied meaning and explanations which humankind gives to them..
why a discussion about this ?
it seems there are many people who think facts and scientific laws are "rigid" and therefore not subject to change.. which was often enough proven to be untrue..
many people i know imply into fact or scientific law = rigid.. absolute truth...
if we now point out that these are also just beliefs we can make their model of the world less rigid and create an openness to learning which we all can benefit from.. just think about all these scientists which hold onto models with "facts" which have been proven wrong a long time ago..

which leads my mind to a site which i visited some time ago...

http://www.cheniere.org/

he has quite radical ideas... however, they make you think ;)

[Alvin]

voodoochild cassandra:

if we now point out that these are also just beliefs we can make their model of the world less rigid and create an openness to learning which we all can benefit from.. just think about all these scientists which hold onto models with "facts" which have been proven wrong a long time ago..


Plenty of scientists willingly attempt to disprove laws - but they accept the laws as valid unless/until evidence proves otherwise. They may not *believe* the law is correct, and may attempt to disprove it by experimental method. But, voovoochild, if you want to test your "openness to learning", then either you, or someone else you can influence, take the leap from the building. That will open your mind.


Merlin Hi Parsa,

There are different possible outcomes, aren't there.
I'm just sorry so many are too closed minded to consider possibilities.
-I might fall due to gravity. But laws can be broken, can't they?

No, laws of physics cannot be broken.


Merlin
-I might find the rope/harness holds fast.
-I might find the balloon I'm experimenting with will pull me upward.

Please tell me you are not serious. Do you really fail to understand that none of these examples "broke" the law? Resisting the force of gravity does not alter the law of gravity.

[voodoochild]

voodoochild cassandra:

if we now point out that these are also just beliefs we can make their model of the world less rigid and create an openness to learning which we all can benefit from.. just think about all these scientists which hold onto models with "facts" which have been proven wrong a long time ago..


Plenty of scientists willingly attempt to disprove laws - but they accept the laws as valid unless/until evidence proves otherwise. They may not *believe* the law is correct, and may attempt to disprove it by experimental method. But, voovoochild, if you want to test your "openness to learning", then either you, or someone else you can influence, take the leap from the building. That will open your mind.

No, laws of physics cannot be broken.


That will open my mind ? Thank you for making me visualise my head cracking open.. *urg*
So.. you believe in the laws of physics ?
I believe in in what my mind perceives... and not the explanation or a law made up by a human.. that is the difference between us..

[Alvin]

voodoochild
That will open my mind ? Thank you for making me visualise my head cracking open..

I apologize if I offended you - it was just an attempt at humor, perhaps an inappropriate one.

So.. you believe in the laws of physics ?

Yes

I believe in in what my mind perceives...

Please be cautious as you travel through life.

[voodoochild]

knowing of and using science is very different from believing that the explanations are correct.. when scientists believed in their models they would never be able to expand or change them.. and as no model is reality itself.. why should i believe in one ?

voodoochild
That will open my mind ? Thank you for making me visualise my head cracking open..

I apologize if I offended you - it was just an attempt at humor, perhaps an inappropriate one.

So.. you believe in the laws of physics ?

Yes

I believe in in what my mind perceives...

Please be cautious as you travel through life.

[Cassandra 8]

cassandra:

which leads my mind to a site which i visited some time ago...

http://www.cheniere.org/

he has quite radical ideas... however, they make you think ;)I don't quite know how to say this, but that web site does quite honestly make me think. Seriously, your whole post gave me a real jolt.

My first thought was that, as I've been in the pub all evening, I'm now marvelously drunk and that I've just won £20 on the outcome of a foregone conclusion of a footy match. Yay. Go me. Aren't boys' games marvelous, etc... Okay, let's climb on top of the old Thinking Engine before it finally collapses again and see where it takes us...

My next thought was "Why don't I do a US patent search on the name 'Tom Bearden'". So I went to: http://www.uspto.gov/ and did just that. It's the web site of the Us Patent and Trademark Office, you see.

The web page you quote says the device detailed has a US Patent, awarded in 2002. But Auntie Cassandra says you should never take assertions from strangers. So naturally I clicked on "search" and cut and pasted the name as the search pattern for "all fields" in the database.

Results of Search in db for:
"Tom Bearden" : 0 patents.

But it's always nice to see such a cunning linguist out and about in these apallingly unworthy and yet horribly receptive times. Impressed.

[voodoochild]

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,362,718.WKU.&OS=PN/6,362,718&RS=PN/6,362,718

http://www.cheniere.org/references/MEG_Patent.pdf

[Cassandra 8]

knowing of and using science is very different from believing that the explanations are correct.. when scientists believed in their models they would never be able to expand or change them.. and as no model is reality itself.. why should i believe in one ?

>when scientists believed in their models

Past tense. Good start.


>they would never be able to expand or change them..

The fulcrum point defined with a twist in the tense and movement clearly signalled. Excellent work.


>and as no model is reality itself..

Shifting into present tense and losing focus but gathering momentum all the way. Good. Good...


>why should i believe in one

Possibility of believeing, believeing belongs in the future so slingshot around into future tense and the false question that releases the momentum coiled ready inside the mechanism in the desired direction. Poetry, sir. Bravo.


Obviously, you're not doing this on purpose. Only a madman would. It's just a misconception of mine that I find personally amusing. I do appologise. Just ignore me. I'm harmless. Makes you think, though, doesn't it...

[voodoochild]

don't drink and surf ;)

[Cassandra 8]

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,362,718.WKU.&OS=PN/6,362,718&RS=PN/6,362,718

http://www.cheniere.org/references/MEG_Patent.pdfWell, that's profound!

How come the real US Patent office has the URL www.uspto.gov (http://www.uspto.gov) and yet in place of the "www", in the first URL above it has become "patft"? You've not been visiting the real US Patent Office site, silly! Where do the links point, by the way? I'm busy, just tell me.

[Cassandra 8]

don't drink and surf ;)Why ever not? It all makes perfect sense.

[voodoochild]

Well, that's profound!

How come the real US Patent office has the URL www.uspto.gov (http://www.uspto.gov) and yet in place of the "www", in the first URL above it has become "patft"? You've not been visiting the real US Patent Office site, silly! Where do the links point, by the way? I'm busy, just tell me.

then search yourself.. the patent number is 6,362,718 B1

most sites on the web you don't need to put a www in front of btw...

[Cassandra 8]

then search yourself.. the patent number is 6,362,718 B1

most sites on the web you don't need to put a www in front of btw...I might be a girl but I do know what a URL is and every part of it is significant. God knows I've mistyped enough of them.

Try Google's advanced search to get rid of all those crank sites, and you'll see how many hits there are on www.uspto.gov (http://www.uspto.gov:)

Wow! Absolutely none!

It seems the pages are marked not to be indexed by search engines. How odd. Anyone else wondering why?

[Merlin]

What does it matter? Law or not.
What would the world be like if we waited to establish 'laws' before the wheel was made?
What if fire was not used for warmth until all laws of combustion were proven?
Sciene is convenient. But don't let it limit you.

[Merlin]

>How come the real US Patent office has the URL www.uspto.gov (http://www.uspto.gov)

So that dummies can find them!

The www nomenclature is just for convenience.
It *implies* world-wide-web.
It's not required tho. www can map to any server.

.gov is the nomenclature for the US government.
.uspto is the US patent & trademark office.
-any name off of uspto would require access to the uspto name server
.www can be *any* system in the uspto domain
each name maps to an ip address: [www.uspto.gov=151.207.245.67] (http://www.uspto.gov=151.207.245.67%5D)
.patft would also be within the uspto domain.
[.patft maps to 164.195.100.11] which actually is an alias.
164.195.100.11 is actually pto.dwsearch.com

[Cassandra 8]

>How come the real US Patent office has the URL www.uspto.gov (http://www.uspto.gov)

So that dummies can find them!

The www nomenclature is just for convenience.
It *implies* world-wide-web.
It's not required tho. www can map to any server.

.gov is the nomenclature for the US government.
.uspto is the US patent & trademark office.
-any name off of uspto would require access to the uspto name server
.www can be *any* system in the uspto domain
each name maps to an ip address: [www.uspto.gov=151.207.245.67] (http://www.uspto.gov=151.207.245.67%5D)
.patft would also be within the uspto domain.
[.patft maps to 164.195.100.11] which actually is an alias.
164.195.100.11 is actually pto.dwsearch.comYou suddenly seem to know an awful lot about this, Merlin...

[Cassandra 8]

What does it matter? Law or not.
What would the world be like if we waited to establish 'lawsa' before the wheel was made?
What if fire was not used for warmth until all laws of combustion were proven?
Sciene is convenient. But don't let it limit you.Do I detect a thawing of those rigidly-held beliefs?

[Merlin]

>You suddenly seem to know an awful lot about this, Merlin...

Suddenly? I know networking.
bet I got it right too.

You still lurking steve? wasn't I close?

[skip]

Yours or hers, Cassandra?

I find it very interesting that you seem to feel compelled to 'prove' that Merlin is wrong. I think you are applying one set of "rules" in a place where they dont necessarily apply.

Especially when 'science', the God of YOUR idolitry, isnt any more conclusive than what Merlin suggests.

Lets look at a few examples. (This is called counter exampling for those of you unframiliar with sleight of mouth, and is the only claim to topicality for this post.)

There is no lumineferous ether (the explanation of how light travels thru space) as Newton (If you recall he included lumineferous ether in his "...Principal Mathematica...") and Descarte, and damn near everyone else believed up until Michealson and Morley.

Drakes equation indicates that we are only one of millions of advanced civilizations, and few would doubt it, but it has not one shred of 'real evidence'. This is called a belief folks.

Zwicky was the first to realize there isnt enough visible mass to hold the universe together (if our assumptions were correct) so he 'came up with (pulled out of his ...) "dark matter." It took four decades before his ideas were given any attention, and we still arent sure he was right, prolly so, but not sure.

Read on ...

The nucleus of an atom is tiny, one billionth of a billionth, of the full size of the atom, Cropper's analogy that if an atom were expanded to the size of a cathedral, the nucleous would only be the size of a fly, but thousands of times heavier than the cahtedral, because the nucleus contains almost all the mass of the atom. It is still a fairly astounding notion that atoms are mostly empty space, that the solidity we experience all around us is actually an illusion. Timothy Ferris explains, "When two billiard balls collide, they dont actually touch each other, the negatively charged fields repel each other ... were it not for the electrical charges they could, like galaxies, pass right thru each other unscathed." When you sit in a chair, you dont actually sit there you 'hover' over it. Smoke and mirrors, but I believe it, so far.

In the 1960's physicists were trying to bring about some "simplicity" into matters. Murry Gell-Mann invented a new class of particles, essentially in the words of Steven Weinberg, "to restore some economy to the multitude of hadrons." - a collective term used by physicists for protons, neutrons and 'other particles' governed by the strong nuclear force. Gell-Manns theory was that protons were made up of even smaller particles. Richard Feynman wanted to call them 'Partons' after Dolly. :) Instead they became known as quarks. Unfortunately the funadmental simplicity of quarks was short lived. As they became understood, it became necessary to 'intorduce' (read imagine, as if we can see the larger stuff anyway) subdivisions. Although quarks are too small to have color, or taste, or any other physical charactaristics we could recognize, they became clumped into six categories - up, down, strange, charm, top and bottom, which physicists refer to as their 'flavors', and they are further divided into the colors, red, green and blue. (YES I am serious, and NO Im not making this up someone else did! It gets better? :)) I suspect it is not coincidental that these terms were first applied in California, during the age of psychedelia.

Eventually this all merged into what is called the "Standard Model" which is essentially a sort of parts kit for the subatomic world. The Standard Model consists of six quarks, six leptons, five known bosons, with a postulated sixth, called the Higgs boson, plus three of the four physical forces, the strong and weak nuclear forces, and electromagnetism.

The arrangement is essentially this. Quarks are held together by gluons, and together quarks and gluons form protons and neutrons, this makes the atoms nucleus. Leptons are the stuff of electrons and netrinos. Quarks and leptons together are called Fermions. Bosons are particles that produce and carry forces. The Higgs boson may not actually exist, it is invented simply as a way of endowing particles with mass. Mass is something somewhat necessary, as I understand it. (Do you get the smoke and mirrors parts yet?)

As you can imagine it is a bit unwieldy, but it is the simplest model that can explain all that happens in the world of particles. Leon Lederman remarked, "It is too complicated and IT HAS TOO MANY ARBITRARY PARAMETERS. Physics is a search for ultimate simplicity, but so far what we have is an elegant messiness."

Now lest you fear, the Standard model isnt only ungainly and full of arbitrary assumptions, it is also incomplete. For one thing it says nothing about gravity. Absolutely nothing in the standard model explains why you arent floating at the cieling right now. Nor does it explain mass (Remember the Higgs Boson?)

As Richard Feynman observed, "So we are stuck with a theory, and we do not know whether it is right or wrong, we do know it is a little wrong, or at least incomplete.

Sooooooooo in order to tidy things up, physicists came up with the super string theory. This POSTULATES (is that a belief?) that all those little things like quarks, and leptons that we had previously thought of as particles are actually "strings" - viabrating strands of energy that oscillate in ELEVEN DIMENSIONS, consisting of the three we already know, plus time, plus seven others that are, well, unknowable to us.

WOW is that pure freaking magic or what!

It did, believe it or not, "simplify?" things. By intorducing the 'extra dimensions' superstring theory enables physicists to pull together quantum laws and garvitational ones, into one comparative tidy package. Thank God!

Unfortunately it also means that anything scientists say about the theory begins to sound like the sort of thoughts, that would make you edge away from a stranger on a park bench. For example, Michio Kaku 'explaining' the structure of the universe from a superstring perspective: "The heteroitic string consists of a closed string that has two types of vibrations, clockwise and counterclockwise which are treated differently. The clockwise vibrations live in ten dimensional space. The counterclockwise vibrations live in a twentysix dimensional space, of which sixteen have been compactified. (We recall that in Kaluza's origional five dimensional, the fifth dimension was compactified by being wrapped up in a circle.)" And so it goes for another 350 pages.

Now string theory has spawned a further something called "M" theory, which incorportaes surfaces known as membranes or 'branes' for short, to the hipper souls of the physics world. The New York times offered this simple explanation of the "M" theory, "The ekpyrotic process begins far in the indefinite past with a pair of flat empty branes sitting parallel to each other and wraped in five dimensional space... the two branes, which form the walls of the fifth dimension, could have popped out of nothingness as a quantum fluctuation, in the even more distant past, and then drifted apart."

Well there is no arguing with that! And for most of us no understanding it either. It might be worth noting that Ekpyrotic comes from the Greek word for "conflaguration".

The "burning question" (Does anyone remember the question?) comes interestingly to a head in the fall of 2002, when two French physicists, Igor and Grickha Bogdanov (French?) produced a theory of ambitious density involving such concepts as 'imaginary time' and the "Kubo-Schwinger-Martin condition", proporting to describe the nothingness that was the universe before the "Big Bang"

Almost at once it excited debate among physicists as to whether it was twaddle, a work of genius, or a hoax. (You mean they didnt know, or couldnt tell?) "Scientificaly it is clearly more or less complete nonsense," Columbia University physicists Peter Woit says, "but these days that doesnt much distinguish it from a lot of the rest of the literature."

As facinating as this all is, we need to get back to the point. ANYONE who proports to tell you that science "knows" is compactifying you! And the people who really know this, freely admit it!

Science cant explain why water when freezing expands, a charactaristic completely unlike any other known compound. It is against all known 'rules', and yet it does.

Now make no mistake, I am not knocking science. I believe a lot of what science offers, and I damn sure enjoy its benifits. BUT I also know that the so called "Laws of Nature" have, thru time, been regularly repealed. And I dont care one whit, if it was because there are really no laws, or we just had them wrong. The fact is they will (I believe) continue to be regularly repealed, as we go on.

AND THAT IS THE ISSUE! We simply dont now which "law" will be the next to fall.

As such, these so called laws, rightfully should all be treated as belief, illusion, false. And for someone to tell others different, is either ignorance, indifference, or deliberate intellectual dishonesty.

There is another factor to be considered. This isnt a place where we need to know if the earth weighs this much or that much. Or if this theory is right or that. The rules for working with peoples minds, are different than those, in the chemistry lab, or the golf course.

It is certain that beliefs play vastly important roles in our behaviors. And it is known that the so called unconscious mind makes no distinction between truth and falsehood. As such, truth ceases to become the final measure. Not just because we dont know the truth, but because in many situations it is completely irrelevent.

When someone says something that challenges your beliefs, is the really intelligent thing to do, to rush to the defense of your beliefs? Thats very human and what most of us do.

The question is, does deliberately closing onesself off to new information, really serve to expand someones knoweledge?

The world requires and rewards the right answer. We teach children in school to "get there first with the correct answer." I think we have done a disservice neglecting to also encourage people to try and forstall that moment of certainty, where we think we "know."

In my trainings I realized that people stopped learning when they "knew". When they had that "Ah Ha" moment, they stopped learning, and often, all too often, they had reached the "AH Ha" prematurly or erroneously. And that slowed their eventually learning it correctly. The mind works that way. If you "know" you cant learn, it is only when you are uncertain, curious, that your mind reaches out to grasp understanding.

If you want to stop learning, then it is easy, just "know" and you will definately come to a full stop.

If you want to continue to learn from this point on, then know that you dont know.

Do this and you will find the world a vastly different place. Oh the sun will still 'rise' (it actually doesnt you know), and cars will run and water will still seek it s own level. The difference will be that you can now feel free to have a curiousity about things that were simply 'wrong' before. It doesnt mean that you will fall willy nilly into wulla wulla land. You will only go where your natural intellectual curiousity, and your good senses lead you.

IMO thats much better than sitting behind some artificial fence of what you think you know. And personally as one who has been on both sides of that fence, I much prefer to be outside than in.

Ill leave you with one final thought. When selecting accountants, ask them "What is two plus two?" Reject all the prospects that say, "Four." Hire the one that says, "Whatever you want it to be."

cheers,

skip

PS I borrowed heavily, phrased and paraphrased, from a number of works for this post. I am especially indebted to Bill Bryson's "A Short History of Nearly Everything." I rate this book with Hawking's "Brief History of Time" for a readable understanding of complex theory.

[Alvin]

That's quite a post, Skip. Thanks for expending the effort.

Certainly, nothing I've said (nor, in my opinion, that Cassandra has said - but I cannot speak for her) was meant to imply that something science/physics recognizes as a "law" will never be disproved. Nor that it is not a worthwhile endeavor to attempt to do so, if you think the law is incorrect (or incomplete). Nor that there is not significant disagreement between brilliant intellectuals about several issues (the origin of the universe or the theory of matter among them). And, you correctly (in my less intellectual opinion) recognize that "postulates" (and theorems) and "laws" differ.

But as a practical matter, why bother yourself with challenging the validity of the law of gravity (as just one example) when it is 1. a generally accepted law, 2. has (thus far) withstood the scrutiny of the scientific community, and 3. is easily verified based on anencdotal evidence every day of our lives? (I'm not saying "don't think" or stop learning - we can easily direct our thinking/learning elsewhere). Let's assume a client is in your care, who does not accept the validity of the law of gravity, and "believes" (s)he can jump - (unaided by any of Merlin's ropes, balloons, etc) from the top of a high building and land safely in order to validate his "belief" - pray tell, what would be your response? Would it be: go ahead, because his "belief" "IS THE ISSUE! We simply dont now which "law" will be the next to fall.
As such, these so called laws, rightfully should all be treated as belief, illusion, false. And for someone to tell others different, is either ignorance, indifference, or deliberate intellectual dishonesty."
In other words, would you in the interest of "intellectual honesty" accept his "belief" on the matter as being as valid? Or, would you somehow say in the (interest of safety - practicality - professional liability - etc etc) "Well, maybe you shouldn't try that, even though I know the law of gravity is just a belief, an illusion, or false."

"It is certain that beliefs play vastly important roles in our behaviors. And it is known that the so called unconscious mind makes no distinction between truth and falsehood. As such, truth ceases to become the final measure. Not just because we dont know the truth, but because in many situations it is completely irrelevent."

Now THAT is, to a certain extent, where I was headed with this thread from the beginning. In *MANY* situations it may be completely irrelevant, but not all. And it is what I'm trying to get my arms around as I seek hypnotherapy for self improvement. Now, if you'll allow me to collect my thoughts and follow me to a new thread (perhaps tomorrow or later) I have a few more specific questions I'd love to have answered by the hpynotherapy practitioners in this forum.

And thanks to all posters for making this an intellectually stimulating and entertaining exchange.

My final thought on Skip's advice for selection of accountants: Wonderful way to do business as long as you are prepared to accept a LOT of liability. GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) will not likely support your (and your accountant's) assertion that $1,000 + $1,000 = $50,000 whether you're making a bank deposit or listing a tax deduction. (But Your Honor!! I really "believe" I deposited $50,000 to my account!! What do you mean it's a "fact" that I didn't???)

[skip]

Alvin,

Well thought reply, and an interesting approach. I cant speak for anyone but me and what I think is right for me. With that understanding, my responses.

Alvin:
"But as a practical matter, why bother yourself with challenging the validity of the law of gravity (as just one example) when it is 1. a generally accepted law, 2. has (thus far) withstood the scrutiny of the scientific community, and 3. is easily verified based on anencdotal evidence every day of our lives? (I'm not saying "don't think" or stop learning - we can easily direct our thinking/learning elsewhere)."

Skip:
Because if we dont challenge all of them, how do you select the ones to challenge? It is specifically the ones that we are so sure about, that need challenging the most. Since you dont know, in advance, which ones will fall, wouldnt you be making a self limiting choice by somehow selecting which ones to leave alone? I wonder where science would be if we had made the same choice you are advocating here, and kept sacred cows? And why pray tell do some people feel so threatened when someone does make a case for challenging them. Are they afraid their carefully crafted "hallucination" will fall apart? It is nothing to fear, if you know it is all hallucination in the first place.

Ill give you one to chew on. I plan to live forever. I know no one has succeeded in that so far, that we know of. But I cant find any plausable reason why I cannot, other than no one has done it. Now I dont know how much belief comes into play, in how long I might live, but my belief, is certainly one thing I can control. I do know it plays a huge part in healing, and vigor, and overall health. And if it has a big part to play in aging, and it seems as if it does, then I am way ahead of the game. If it doesnt, then how much worse off am I? But you can call me foolish if you want to, and I'll plan on watching your funeral. :)

Alvin:
"Let's assume a client is in your care, who does not accept the validity of the law of gravity, and "believes" (s)he can jump - (unaided by any of Merlin's ropes, balloons, etc) from the top of a high building and land safely in order to validate his "belief" - pray tell, what would be your response?"

Skip:
I believe it is best with any client to enter into their model of the world and work from within it. I would set up a demonstration. He might just be right you know! And if he isnt, then we might explore what makes him think he can, and one of us, we cant be sure which one, in advance, may indeed change their mind.

Alvin:
"In other words, would you in the interest of "intellectual honesty" accept his "belief" on the matter as being as valid? Or, would you somehow say in the (interest of safety - practicality - professional liability - etc etc) "Well, maybe you shouldn't try that, even though I know the law of gravity is just a belief, an illusion, or false."

Skip:
We could figure it out pretty quickly without any liability exposure. If he can fly from the empire state building, he can fly from a foot stool. And it wouldnt be practical to use a high building for the first experiment anyway. Since he hasnt done it yet (assumed) then we know he hasnt worked on landings and to ensure that he doesnt just fly off forever, maybe best done in a room! It is too much hassel on a high building, and if there was some little something off in the "calculations", it would be best not to risk all the knoweledge being lost because of a small error. So since we are imagining a client, I can imagine we could easily agree to work from a lower altitude, inside, till we have all the bugs worked out.

The key point here Alvin, is dont doubt first. Suspend disbelief, for just a bit, hours, days ... it doesnt matter how long. You do not have to leave your good sense at home, just be open first, and explore from their model. Lots of times, even if they can't do it, you can help find a way to succeed where they couldnt, from within the model.

Sometimes that success is actually flying, sometimes it is the agreement to accomplish hovering at 3 feet before going on to greater heights.

Alvin:
"My final thought on Skip's advice for selection of accountants: Wonderful way to do business as long as you are prepared to accept a LOT of liability. GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) will not likely support your (and your accountant's) assertion that $1,000 + $1,000 = $50,000 whether you're making a bank deposit or listing a tax deduction. (But Your Honor!! I really "believe" I deposited $50,000 to my account!! What do you mean it's a "fact" that I didn't???)"

Skip:
You assume that the people you mention are better accountants than mine. Thats an assumption that is yours to make. You also assume liability that isnt necessarily there. That also is your assumption to make. In the meantime Ill keep the 30 years I have used this fellow and consider it money well spent.

BUT you also missed the point. So called "Truth" is context dependant. And while there may be some Universal truths, and while we might know some of them, we have no assurance which of them they are.

It probably also must be pointed out that I speak from years and years of experience with clients who for the most part only have one problem. They have aquired a belief that limits them in some way, and that belief isnt valid. Once we dispell that belief and or replace it with a better one, the so called 'problem' dissappears. I percieve this addiction to science, or "reality" as those particular cultists like to call it, as just as severely limiting as a belief that people cant swim.

But thats my take, other opinions vary, and it is just an opinion.

AND there is one more thing to be considered. In this particular instance I dont get the impression that Merlin is insisting that anyone else believe as she does. I do see other people insisting that Merlin cowtow to their particular hallucination. Whats up with that?

cheers,

skip

[Hibbitty]

Ultracrepidation gets a yare tend . . . thanks for shakin' it down Skip.

Great question Alvin.

[Alvin]

Skip:
You assume that the people you mention are better accountants than mine. Thats an assumption that is yours to make.

Alvin:
I'm assuming the majority of mathematicians, whether in a university setting or practicing as accountants, would not agree with your premise that 1+1 can equal whatever you wish. And neither would GAAP, which is WIDELY accepted by accountants (at least in the U.S.) as the standard.

Now, I don't know about you, but I live in a world where I conduct my affairs based on generally accepted societal practices and laws (or face consequences), not in a philosophical/intellectual world where "anything goes". But, let's see where you live: I'm willing to make a public wager of $1,000 USD that you and your accountant cannot open an account in any bank officially chartered by the country in which it resides, make two deposits of $1 USD each, and get the bank to honor a withdrawal of $50,000 USD (or any other currency) from that account. (We'll both agree on any further stipulations of the wager.) If you do it, I'll joyously pay you the $1,000 and immediately and humbly ask your accountant to accept me as a client.


Skip:
BUT you also missed the point. So called "Truth" is context dependant. And while there may be some Universal truths, and while we might know some of them, we have no assurance which of them they are.

Alvin:
Perhaps I did miss the point. For the sake of theoretical/philosophical discussions, the "truth" may be context dependant. But in the realm of practical living - and what would be the reason for hypnotherapy other than to improve one's ability to function in this world in which we live - surely certain truths may be accepted (as profitable rather than limiting). Science (gravity) simply explains why certain things happen in a cause/effect relationship. Mathematics (accounting) likewise.

While we're at it, I assume you'd allow this accountant to let another client that owes you $500 to say it is really only $5? Surely, you would not rely on any "proof" that you're owed $500 if the client has a "belief" that he only owes $5? After all, the "truth" is context-dependent. What if ALL of your clients come to "believe" that they owe nothing for your services? Ahhh, the joys of living in the philosophical world with no absolutes, facts, or truths...

Skip:
Ill give you one to chew on. I plan to live forever. I know no one has succeeded in that so far, that we know of. But I cant find any plausable reason why I cannot, other than no one has done it. Now I dont know how much belief comes into play, in how long I might live, but my belief, is certainly one thing I can control. I do know it plays a huge part in healing, and vigor, and overall health. And if it has a big part to play in aging, and it seems as if it does, then I am way ahead of the game. If it doesnt, then how much worse off am I? But you can call me foolish if you want to, and I'll plan on watching your funeral.

Alvin:
As a method of living as healthy as possible during your lifetime, I'd call your idea meaningful and profitable. As a prediction of your ability to live forever, yes - foolish.

Skip:
I believe it is best with any client to enter into their model of the world and work from within it. I would set up a demonstration. He might just be right you know! And if he isnt, then we might explore what makes him think he can, and one of us, we cant be sure which one, in advance, may indeed change their mind.

Alvin:
Surely you do not mean something akin to the scientific method, where you state a hypothesis and control variables in order to prove (to a level of statisitical significance) an outcome? And if he could not fly, you would change your mind? And accept the law of gravity? Surely not....

[skip]

Alvin,

Oh my! More challenges! And over bean counters yet!

Alvin:
I'm assuming the majority of mathematicians, whether in a university setting or practicing as accountants, would not agree with your premise that 1+1 can equal whatever you wish. And neither would GAAP, which is WIDELY accepted by accountants (at least in the U.S.) as the standard.

Skip: You are right! (There doesnt that feel good.) Now exactly what does it accomplish? It isnt what we are talking about, but it must have been important cause you go on.

Alvin:
Now, I don't know about you, but I live in a world where I conduct my affairs based on generally accepted societal practices and laws (or face consequences), not in a philosophical/intellectual world where "anything goes". But, let's see where you live: I'm willing to make a public wager of $1,000 USD that you and your accountant cannot open an account in any bank officially chartered by the country in which it resides, make two deposits of $1 USD each, and get the bank to honor a withdrawal of $50,000 USD (or any other currency) from that account. (We'll both agree on any further stipulations of the wager.) If you do it, I'll joyously pay you the $1,000 and immediately and humbly ask your accountant to accept me as a client.

Skip: Well he is pretty busy, so you would have to 'come to him' rather than him 'come to you'. But thats beside the point. I wouldnt make the bet with you. I would bet that he can take the same income and expenses, and save me more on taxes, and actually help me make more money, than you or your accountant can, and I have no fear of standing in front of a judge, or he in front of a review board. Now do you want to play at racing bean counters, or discuss what you came here for?

Alvin:
Perhaps I did miss the point. For the sake of theoretical/philosophical discussions, the "truth" may be context dependant. But in the realm of practical living - and what would be the reason for hypnotherapy other than to improve one's ability to function in this world in which we live - surely certain truths may be accepted (as profitable rather than limiting). Science (gravity) simply explains why certain things happen in a cause/effect relationship. Mathematics (accounting) likewise.

Skip:
No one ever said to throw out the practical. That is another assumption. I even went out of my way to state that I believe in science, and benefit in many ways from its accomplishments. The only place where my path takes a turn is in the notion that 'science knows'.

Science presents a model. the closer that model is to reality (whatever that is) the better it works. Mendelev created the periodoc chart. It worked and worked damn well. It expalined a lot and even accurately predicted unknown elements. BUT he was wrong. And later his chart was revised to go by atomic weight, and the chart was rearranged. It still works and presumably better, than Mendelevs first effort. My question would be, "Whats the next chart going to be based on?"

Skip:
Ill give you one to chew on. I plan to live forever. I know no one has succeeded in that so far, that we know of. But I cant find any plausable reason why I cannot, other than no one has done it. Now I dont know how much belief comes into play, in how long I might live, but my belief, is certainly one thing I can control. I do know it plays a huge part in healing, and vigor, and overall health. And if it has a big part to play in aging, and it seems as if it does, then I am way ahead of the game. If it doesnt, then how much worse off am I? But you can call me foolish if you want to, and I'll plan on watching your funeral.

Alvin:
As a method of living as healthy as possible during your lifetime, I'd call your idea meaningful and profitable. As a prediction of your ability to live forever, yes - foolish.

Skip:
Ive been called worse. And what makes you assume that I am living 'healthy' according to someones standard?

Skip:
I believe it is best with any client to enter into their model of the world and work from within it. I would set up a demonstration. He might just be right you know! And if he isnt, then we might explore what makes him think he can, and one of us, we cant be sure which one, in advance, may indeed change their mind.

Alvin:
Surely you do not mean something akin to the scientific method, where you state a hypothesis and control variables in order to prove (to a level of statisitical significance) an outcome? And if he could not fly, you would change your mind? And accept the law of gravity? Surely not....

Skip:
Heaven forbid. :) I go along just so far, say up to your conclusion. If he didnt fly, that only means the didnt fly that time. It most assuredly doesnt mean he cant fly. You surely wouldnt want to make a leap of faith like that, would you?

Now in truth, perhaps he cant, and attempting is a fools errand. We dont know that for sure, and practical considerations will come to play. Do I want to continue to spend time and perhaps resourses on this, when other things promise ...

But just because he didnt, doesnt mean he cant. How many things did Edison try before he 'suddenly discovered' tungsten worked as a filiment in a light bulb?

Alvin, it isnt about truth or accuracy or practicality. Those things take care of themselves in the real world. Nor is it about the theoretical world of acedemia where small minds fight viciously over small stakes. It is about a way of living in this world. A personal philosophy, that is deliberately chosen, despite some honest misgivings, that is far more rewarding to both yourself and to those around you, than is one where things are certain.

Now I have made an interesting journey. Graduate degree in physics, post graduate degree in biology and computer science, and now I am espousing the voo doo of psychology, and even heaven forbid energy medicine, and prolly more.

All of that is entirely meaningless.

There is either iron in my words or there isnt.

I know how it feels to contemplate taking a leap that feels like it is so loose it is scarey, the whole world might be thrown into chaos if everyone believed this ****.

The sad truth is that it was delusions of grandure. I wasnt the one holding the world together, my beliefs about that notwithstanding. It was only my world that was thrown into chaos, and for the better, much too late IMO, but I wasnt open to it earlier.

cheers,

skip

[Merlin]

Thanks for the fun remeberances Skip.

BTW, Anyone remember the Banana Quark? :)

[Alvin]

"Alvin:
As a method of living as healthy as possible during your lifetime, I'd call your idea meaningful and profitable. As a prediction of your ability to live forever, yes - foolish.

Skip:
Ive been called worse. And what makes you assume that I am living 'healthy' according to someones standard?"

Alvin: Just to be clear, foolish was the word you suggested - but I certainly do not consider you to be a fool. And I assumed you were living "healthy" (at least by your own standard) because you said "I do know it plays a huge part in healing, and vigor, and overall health."

Skip:
No one ever said to throw out the practical. That is another assumption. I even went out of my way to state that I believe in science, and benefit in many ways from its accomplishments. The only place where my path takes a turn is in the notion that 'science knows'.

Science presents a model. the closer that model is to reality (whatever that is) the better it works. Mendelev created the periodoc chart. It worked and worked damn well. It expalined a lot and even accurately predicted unknown elements. BUT he was wrong. And later his chart was revised to go by atomic weight, and the chart was rearranged. It still works and presumably better, than Mendelevs first effort. My question would be, "Whats the next chart going to be based on?"

Alvin:
I do not take issue with any of that, and I think I went out of my way to I suggest I do not accept science as infallible. But I must admit that it seems as though several posters in this forum do suggest throwing out the practical.

Skip:
Now I have made an interesting journey. Graduate degree in physics, post graduate degree in biology and computer science, and now I am espousing the voo doo of psychology, and even heaven forbid energy medicine, and prolly more

Alvin:
I defer to your education (no sarcasm, as I am prone to use). My undergraduate is psychology, graduate is counseling.

My purpose here is to attempt to gain a baseline, foundational understanding in the subject of hypnosis and determine if I want to experiment with it (not self hypnosis [at least, not initially], but under the care of a professional practitioner - probably Chaplain Durbin, based on the recommendations of several on this forum and his proximity to me; any comment/suggestion?)

I became enamored with the idea of using subliminal suggestions since the early days of Psych 101, but never obtained satisfactory results or improvements (at least, nothing beyond what may be attributable to placebo). Perhaps because of poor subliminal materials, poor playback equipment, my own hearing limitations, etc - OR, a faulty theory.

But now that I'm getting to the heart of the matter, let me stop & begin a new thread soon to hopefully engage others who may be bored with our playful and largely irrelevant antics here.

But - indulge me - I cannot leave without one last "shot across the bow": Back to the bean counters, facts, and beliefs: I think you should lend me, Cassandra, and Merlin enough money to travel to Tennessee, after which we will repay you. We can all meet and have lunch at a nice restaurant. While we're all enjoying a stimulating conversation, Cassandra will get drunk and challenge some other female to remove their clothing and join in a wrestling match (with or without a mud pit). Cassandra will win because we have cheered her on so fervently. As we get ready to depart, you ask to be repaid. Merlin does not "believe" she owes you the money you say you lent her. Cassandra and I are wide-eyed with incredulity, but you - knowing what we are about to say - cut us off and suggest we cannot ask Merlin to kowtow to our "beliefs". Cassandra and I immediately see the brilliance of Merlin's logic, and also come to "believe" we do not owe you any money - after all, there are no "facts" or "truth" in this world, only beliefs. Your accountant, adding 1 loan plus 1 loan plus 1 loan, calculates a tax deduction for 10X the amount you actually loaned (he knows of no facts or truths either). A good time was had by all.

[EC]

Alvin,

>> My purpose here is to attempt to gain a baseline, foundational understanding in the subject of hypnosis and determine if I want to experiment with it (not self hypnosis [at least, not initially], but under the care of a professional practitioner - probably Chaplain Durbin, based on the recommendations of several on this forum and his proximity to me; any comment/suggestion?)

I became enamored with the idea of using subliminal suggestions since the early days of Psych 101, but never obtained satisfactory results or improvements (at least, nothing beyond what may be attributable to placebo). Perhaps because of poor subliminal materials, poor playback equipment, my own hearing limitations, etc - OR, a faulty theory. <<

Alvin, if I may be so bold as to intrude in your banter with Skip, I am going to assume (dangerous I know) that you may be involved in the counseling field. I am unclear whether you desire to experiment with hypnosis for personal improvement, or, to utilize in a practice with clients.

First, and either way, I think you could do lots worse than Durbin. Even though I have no personal experience with him, I hear from good authority that he is all he is supposed to be. In the event you wish to learn more of hypnosis to utilize in a practice with clients, I assure you that it will be the best move you ever made. When it comes to truly helping folks overcome issues, hypnosis leaves conventional psychology in the dust. No competition, hands down. Everything you learned in academia will be replaced with a true understanding of human nature, how we learn, how our beliefs mold our future, and most importantly, how easy that model is to change. Rather than two years in your chair regurgitating emotions, your client will realize results in two hours. The brain is a computer, it runs programs. Programs are quite easy to alter, delete or replace.

Go for it...

EC

[Charlie]

I plan to live forever. I know no one has succeeded in that so far, that we know of. But I cant find any plausable reason why I cannot, other than no one has done it. Now I dont know how much belief comes into play, in how long I might live, but my belief, is certainly one thing I can control.

A cool move.

'Skip' the resurrection myth, and instead shift the referential index to self.

Go for it.

I have a strong belief, that if anyone can live forever, it will be you.

Skip, limitations are quashed in your path.

And I believe that you will continue to serve as a superb inspiration........... ad infinitum.

http://forum.hypnosis.com/images/icons/icon14.gif http://forum.hypnosis.com/images/icons/icon14.gif http://forum.hypnosis.com/images/icons/icon14.gif

[skip]

Alvin,

Alvin: Just to be clear, foolish was the word you suggested - but I certainly do not consider you to be a fool. And I assumed you were living "healthy" (at least by your own standard) because you said "I do know it plays a huge part in healing, and vigor, and overall health."

Skip: Indeed it is/was, and it doesnt bother me for you to feel that way. As a counselor you know those are your feelings not mine. Oops I just re-read that and didnt mean for you to feel foolish. It doesnt bother me for you to feel that I am foolish. Better? I left the first one in, and the explanation, because they were such beautiful presuppositions and embedded commands that I couldnt help but admire them. Please forgive the vanity. :)


Alvin:
I do not take issue with any of that, and I think I went out of my way to I suggest I do not accept science as infallible. But I must admit that it seems as though several posters in this forum do suggest throwing out the practical.

Skip: I havent noticed that, but I must admit to probably having a different view of practical than you. I have a book by Tolly Berkin called "Extreme Spirituality", in it he teaches, using scientific studies, and his own experiments, how to influence/control random number generators in computers. To test this, he gambles on computer slot machines. Now I dont know his success rate, but several hundred people a year pay big bucks to learn his method, and acid test it immediately, in Vegas. I suspect he wouldnt last very long if he didnt produce at least some measure of success. Although one requirement of his, based around forgiveness, is too extreme, for me to be successful under his model. Maybe I have some work to to there, eh? You would prolly like the read. It is all about how to make the transition from concept, to belief, to real faith, without pushing any religious agenda. Good stuff.


Alvin:
I defer to your education (no sarcasm, as I am prone to use). My undergraduate is psychology, graduate is counseling.

Skip: I dont know exactly why I did that, because I wanted it to be completely out of the consideration when you and I speak. So please dont defer. Like I said there is either iron in my words or there isnt. That is the standard IMO, not some pedigree hanging on my "I love me." wall. I also wish I had gone the route that you have, instead of the one I took. Not that I havent had a good time, I am on my third career, and while all have been fun and rewarding, discovering that psychology wasnt the voodoo I thought in my collegiate years, has been the most gratifying. It seems that everything I have done as a vocation has gravitated towards teaching in some way, and now I get to teach people how to have happier, more fulfilling lives. Who could ask for more?

Alvin: My purpose here is to attempt to gain a baseline, foundational understanding in the subject of hypnosis and determine if I want to experiment with it (not self hypnosis [at least, not initially], but under the care of a professional practitioner - probably Chaplain Durbin, based on the recommendations of several on this forum and his proximity to me; any comment/suggestion?)

Skip: I dont know Durbin, but I do respect those who have recommended him. I suspect that you will discover a whole new world of possibility opened up for you when you observe and experience the power of hypnosis and the mind in general. You are possibly in for a paradigm shift of the best order and I envy you. Some shake ups are fun.


Alvin: I became enamored with the idea of using subliminal suggestions since the early days of Psych 101, but never obtained satisfactory results or improvements (at least, nothing beyond what may be attributable to placebo). Perhaps because of poor subliminal materials, poor playback equipment, my own hearing limitations, etc - OR, a faulty theory.

Skip:Subliminal suggestion is a lot trickier than most people think. I would get a hold of Richard Bandlers "Personal Enhancement Series" cassettes. With them you can experience conversational , irresistable IMO Ericksonian trance and trance work. If that doesnt give you great insight to subliminal, and get you more excited about this hypnosis buzines, then I dont know what will. I paid $125 US for the tapes long ago, I have no idea what they cost now.

Alvin:
But - indulge me - I cannot leave without one last "shot across the bow": Back to the bean counters, facts, and beliefs: I think you should lend me, Cassandra, and Merlin enough money to travel to Tennessee, after which we will repay you. We can all meet and have lunch at a nice restaurant. While we're all enjoying a stimulating conversation, Cassandra will get drunk and challenge some other female to remove their clothing and join in a wrestling match (with or without a mud pit). Cassandra will win because we have cheered her on so fervently. As we get ready to depart, you ask to be repaid. Merlin does not "believe" she owes you the money you say you lent her. Cassandra and I are wide-eyed with incredulity, but you - knowing what we are about to say - cut us off and suggest we cannot ask Merlin to kowtow to our "beliefs". Cassandra and I immediately see the brilliance of Merlin's logic, and also come to "believe" we do not owe you any money - after all, there are no "facts" or "truth" in this world, only beliefs. Your accountant, adding 1 loan plus 1 loan plus 1 loan, calculates a tax deduction for 10X the amount you actually loaned (he knows of no facts or truths either). A good time was had by all.

Skip: So now I am a dating service? :) Id love for you guys to come, tell me where to send the money? Merlin and I could go to the Jungian Society group and the Metaphysical Group meetings, while you and Cassandra can go to the University's Library. Since it isnt my business to tell any of you what to believe, and given your conditions, what happens if Merlin believes that you and Cassandra owe me her money? Would conversationally induced trance be considered out of bounds? My real hesitation tho is that since both Merlin and Cassandra are in GB, they would likely be on the same flight over, Now if those two decided to gang up on us, we poor boys wouldnt stand a chance. In fact if it were to go like most of my relationships, we could just send them the money and save all the heart ache and lawyers. :)

'E's a slippery one e is.

cheers,

skip

[Alvin]

'E's a slippery one e is.

You got THAT right... Am I dreaming, or did you amend your post since I first read it this morning? I didn't know you could invoke a "conversationally induced trance" just by writing it. Perhaps I'm more suggestable than I think.

Alvin:
I defer to your education (no sarcasm, as I am prone to use). My undergraduate is psychology, graduate is counseling.

Skip: I dont know exactly why I did that, because I wanted it to be completely out of the consideration when you and I speak.

Alvin:
I don't know exactly why either, but I suspect it had something to do with a smart a** junior member's rants in an area where he has only elementary knowledge.
BTW, I'm a counselor only by education, not experience or vocation. I work in the more mundane business area of insurance and investments.


Skip:Subliminal suggestion is a lot trickier than most people think. I would get a hold of Richard Bandlers "Personal Enhancement Series"

Alvin:
Would you do me a favor? I found his web site (http://www.richardbandler.com/) and the series you mentioned is available on CD. Would you take a look at his product listing and see if you'd recommend any other item? If you bought your years ago, he may have something else more "current". Otherwise, I may try the one you have.

As to subliminal - I'd like to discuss it further with you. Would it be (potentially) profitable for other members to do it here, or is it far enough off-topic that we should converse by email?

Skip:
My real hesitation tho is that since both Merlin and Cassandra are in GB, they would likely be on the same flight over, Now if those two decided to gang up on us, we poor boys wouldnt stand a chance.

Alvin:
You know, on further reflection, I'll bet one or both of them pulled your "conversational induced trance" routine on me and I only thought the proposal was my idea - and, they knew you'd agree with it. We may have been drawn into the spider's web.

[skip]

Alvin,
You got THAT right... Am I dreaming, or did you amend your post since I first read it this morning? I didn't know you could invoke a "conversationally induced trance" just by writing it. Perhaps I'm more suggestable than I think.

Skip: Oh this is tempting, but I must resist. I did amend it. I thought I might have gotten it in quick enough to not be noticed but you are too fast for me.

Alvin:
I don't know exactly why either, but I suspect it had something to do with a smart a** junior member's rants in an area where he has only elementary knowledge.
BTW, I'm a counselor only by education, not experience or vocation. I work in the more mundane business area of insurance and investments.

Skip: I dont think it is that, Ill just have to trust that my unconscious knew what it was doing by including it. I dont give much credence to the rankings, especially since junior and senior are determined automatically by number of posts and have nothing to do with quality. Team mamber is different, meaning that you have been voted in by the other team members. Moderator of course is equivelent to the all powerful OZ.

Alvin:
Would you do me a favor? I found his web site and the series you mentioned is available on CD. Would you take a look at his product listing and see if you'd recommend any other item? If you bought your years ago, he may have something else more "current". Otherwise, I may try the one you have.

Skip: I consider the "Personal Enhancement Series" to be an epiphany accomplishment. But make sure it is the 'origional' and not some later rendition. Mine is a six cassette set, including; Using Your Brain For A Change, Wealth Planning, Tenacious Resolve, Time For A Change, Passion Enhancer, and Life Supercharge. Listen to them in order first, and be sure you arent driving! I also like "The Adventures of Anybody", I did my own audio from the book. His origional book "TranceFormations" is the one book to have on trancework if you had to do with just one. "Structure of Magic I & II", "Persuasion Engineering" are others.

If you want a suggested reading list I'll send you one, and Merlin's web site also has a good one. Andy Bradbury's "Honest Abe's NLP Emporium" http://www3.mistral.co.uk/bradburyac/ is THE site for NLP and Hypnosis book reviews.

Alvin: As to subliminal - I'd like to discuss it further with you. Would it be (potentially) profitable for other members to do it here, or is it far enough off-topic that we should converse by email?

Skip: This isnt to get squirrelly on you or to put you off, but get some reading "Structure I&II" and "TranceFormations" and some CD listening behind you first, because the nature of the questions will change drastically.

Alvin:
You know, on further reflection, I'll bet one or both of them pulled your "conversational induced trance" routine on me and I only thought the proposal was my idea - and, they knew you'd agree with it. We may have been drawn into the spider's web.

Skip: May? Id say we are long gone. Im so weak.

skip

[AnthonyM83]

To begin with, we need to agree as to the meaning of the word "belief" and the word "fact". ...This being so, I suggest that all our thinking is based on belief, and no such thing as fact is possible except as a basis for a discussion which we are now having perhaps with other people, or perhaps with ourselves in a dream. I can't prove you exist, you can't prove I do, we have never met. You have no proof that you exist except in your own dreams, and I am in the same position. Therefor there is no such thing as fact. If we met tomorrow, I would have no idea that you truly existed in flesh and blood,and not just in my dream, and likewise for you. (EG).......Oh yes, I believe you do exist because it suits my purpose to believe so....

I think the word 'fact' includes the things you mentioned. It's like arguing that the place we spend each day might not be reality, we might just be a dream. But the word 'reality' in most contexts refers to such world (be it a real real reality or a dream reality).

"Fact" includes things that might not actually be 100% true for sure (since we can't be sure of anything). The word "fact" works WITHIN the context of not being able to know anything for sure. It means something we're most sure of. One might call it a 'relative term'...if we're using that definition of fact, then it works fine. Ummm, right?

[Charlie]

I also like "The Adventures of Anybody", I did my own audio from the book.

Ah, coincidentally I'm off to collect "The Adventures of Anybody" book from the library this morning, so it's nice to see a recommendation by the SkipMeister himself.

I am SO looking forward to reading it.

His origional book "TranceFormations" is the one book to have on trancework if you had to do with just one.

"TranceFormations" is truly a classic.

Also, IMHO, The Munich Tapes are exceptionally good as well.

http://forum.hypnosis.com/images/icons/icon14.gif

[Unregistered99]

Hey, just because you guys can't understand something like quantum mechanics, don't think its nonsense or crazy. Its the most powerful and successful thing yet. It predicts so much that turns out correct later. Even Einstein layed the foiundations for it when he realised light had to be in quanta and told everyone to look at it as a wave and a partical at the same time. Too bad he didnt like what they found. Like you guys LOL!

Theres only one law in the universe and youll never change it:

"Nothing exists until it is measured" -- Nils Bohr, 1930.

Measure things. Dont just say they are wrong. LOL!

[Merlin]

> just because you guys can't understand something

Just because one disagrees with something, doesn't mean we don't understand it.

BTW, the only real law is that 1+1=2
The rest are just best guesses.

[AnthonyM83]

You guys are changing the definition of a law...

[skip]

Anthony,

You say that as if it is a bad thing.

skip

[Voce]

wow you guys are amazing! My question is: where do you get the time to consider all that stuff let alone write it down.?.. I gotta get up at 5:30 am. I must be in the wrong business! lol

[AnthonyM83]

True, it's not a bad thing. Just seems like it can create arguments about what's a belief and what's a fact where there wasn't one.

[Unregistered99]

Merlin> Just because one disagrees with something, doesn't mean we don't understand it.
Merlin>BTW, the only real law is that 1+1=2


Let's see if your new found "belief" in "laws" LOL holds water. Starting with the simple equation:

a = b

multiply both sides by a

a^2 = ab

subtract b^2 from both sides

a^2 - b^2 = ab - b^2

factor both sides

(a+b)(a-b) = b(a-b)

cancel out (a-b) term

a + b = b

Now, since we originally said a = b, then let a = b = 1, and we have

1 + 1 = 1
2 = 1

As I told you, there is only one law: "Nothing exists until it is observed." If your observation is faulty you get a false belief. My observation is as false as yours, but you don't know why mine is false but I know why yours is false. LOL!

[parsa]

Unregistered99,

>factor both sides

>(a+b)(a-b) = b(a-b)

>cancel out (a-b) term

But can you cancel out (a-b)? That's dividing by zero, isn't it?

[skip]

Unregistered,

You said: "As I told you, there is only one law: "Nothing exists until it is observed." If your observation is faulty you get a false belief. My observation is as false as yours, but you don't know why mine is false but I know why yours is false. LOL!"

This got me to wondering.

Isnt there some axiom generated by the particle physics folks, that mere 'observation changes the result'?

I wonder, "How does that impact your "Only one law?"

skip, who obviously has nothing else to do. :)

[Alvin]

skip
Isnt there some axiom generated by the particle physics folks, that mere 'observation changes the result'?


I think you're correct. I seem to recall a TV program some time ago where such an experiment was reported...

Forget I said that... it weakens my assertion that facts exist (Help me out here, Cassandra - Merlin & Skip are going to pounce on me for this faux pas)

Parsa - My math skills are too rusty (actually, too undeveloped) to follow unregistered 99's logic, but there must be a flaw. Perhaps you found it.

[Unregistered99]

Unregistered99,

>factor both sides

>(a+b)(a-b) = b(a-b)

>cancel out (a-b) term

But can you cancel out (a-b)? That's dividing by zero, isn't it?

Exactly. I know why, you know why, but Merlin probably dont know why. Its my point that saying something is so doesnt make it so... you must find out by observing it

[Unregistered99]

Unregistered,

You said: "As I told you, there is only one law: "Nothing exists until it is observed." If your observation is faulty you get a false belief. My observation is as false as yours, but you don't know why mine is false but I know why yours is false. LOL!"

This got me to wondering.

Isnt there some axiom generated by the particle physics folks, that mere 'observation changes the result'?

I wonder, "How does that impact your "Only one law?"

skip, who obviously has nothing else to do. :)

Observation makes the result become real, Skip. The particles and what theyll do are just probabilities until you see them do something for sure. Theyre in the future until then. What you see them do is now. Get it? Thats quantum mechanics. You only know for sure when you know for sure LOL! The wave function collapses from a probability of things happening to a fact of what they actually did. There was this show over here last week about how Einstein couldnt handle that little fact even though he suggested it!

Anyway your not the only one with nothing to do. I read some ofthe other threads on here this afternoon. It seems like you people just like taking sides and arguing to prove eachother wrong wether your right or not. I love it because arent hypnotists supposed to to confince people what to believe? LOL!

[Don]

> just because you guys can't understand something

Just because one disagrees with something, doesn't mean we don't understand it.

BTW, the only real law is that 1+1=2
The rest are just best guesses.


Actually, 1+1=10

There are 10 types of people in the world:
Those who use binary and those who don't.

:)

[Unregistered99]

skip
Isnt there some axiom generated by the particle physics folks, that mere 'observation changes the result'?


I think you're correct. I seem to recall a TV program some time ago where such an experiment was reported...

Forget I said that... it weakens my assertion that facts exist (Help me out here, Cassandra - Merlin & Skip are going to pounce on me for this faux pas)

Parsa - My math skills are too rusty (actually, too undeveloped) to follow unregistered 99's logic, but there must be a flaw. Perhaps you found it.

Yeah wether theres a flaw or not is my point. You need to observe it by working through the proof to see either way. If you dont or cant you can only believe its there, right? But why do you believe there is one to find to start with?

[Unregistered99]

Actually, 1+1=10

There are 10 types of people in the world:
Those who use binary and those who don't.

:)
You mean 3 LOL!

[skip]

I recall, one winter I was hiking the Appalachian Trail. It was sub freezing weather, and I had the hood of my parka up, which cuts down on my ability to hear, and on my periferal vision.

I was comming down a mountain, and the trail was 'doing switchbacks' which meant that I could see the trail for some considerable 'distance' ahead and below me. Suddenly out of the corner of my eye I detected movement, and looked just in time to see a large tree limb, fall across the trail, ahead of me. I heard absolutely no sound. It was somewhat surreal to see that large a limb fall, and hear only silence.

Later as I was climbing over the fallen limb, in order to continue on down the trail, I reflected on the fact that if a tree falls in the forest, and you dont hear it, it really does fall. I seriously suspect that this holds true even if I hadnt observed it, or later experienced the result.

cheers,

skip

[Unregistered99]

I recall, one winter I was hiking the Appalachian Trail. It was sub freezing weather, and I had the hood of my parka up, which cuts down on my ability to hear, and on my periferal vision.

I was comming down a mountain, and the trail was 'doing switchbacks' which meant that I could see the trail for some considerable 'distance' ahead and below me. Suddenly out of the corner of my eye I detected movement, and looked just in time to see a large tree limb, fall across the trail, ahead of me. I heard absolutely no sound. It was somewhat surreal to see that large a limb fall, and hear only silence.

Later as I was climbing over the fallen limb, in order to continue on down the trail, I reflected on the fact that if a tree falls in the forest, and you dont hear it, it really does fall. I seriously suspect that this holds true even if I hadnt observed it, or later experienced the result.

cheers,

skip
LOL! Dead easy. You observed the fallen tree to see it in the state of being fallen. Until that time you couldnt say that particular tree had fallen or not. It was in both and neither state at once. Observing it collapsed the function into the fallen state. See?

[AnthonyM83]

LOL! Dead easy. You observed the fallen tree to see it in the state of being fallen. Until that time you couldnt say that particular tree had fallen or not. It was in both and neither state at once. Observing it collapsed the function into the fallen state. See?


As I told you, there is only one law: "Nothing exists until it is observed." If your observation is faulty you get a false belief. My observation is as false as yours, but you don't know why mine is false but I know why yours is false. LOL!

You consider yourself pretty smart for that statement, but it seems there are many physicists who disagree with you. We covered that idea in astronomy and dismissed it, early on.

[Merlin]

Clever
But you're dividing by zero in your manipulation :)

Later: saw your post Parsa. Good catch.

[Merlin]

>but Merlin probably dont know why

Merlin saw it first thing.
That's an *OLD* one you're using

[Unregistered99]

Clever
But you're dividing by zero in your manipulation :)

Later: saw your post Parsa. Good catch.
:
:
:
Merlin saw it first thing.
That's an *OLD* one you're using


thats whats interesting about what Ive been reading on here. Ive got the idea that in flame wars it doesnt matter what people say as long as it either supports your view or its against it. I had the ide to ask a bunch of people whod know but when I found you lot I found flame wars here too. So I changedthe experiment to do it on you instead of asking you LOL!

you see I >>>told<<< you the proof had a flaw. The >>>point<<< of it was observing it otherwise youd not know either way and would have to rely on what someone tells you. Im not a psychiatrist but I had a hunch that picking someone anti science would produce the effect that the >>>point<<< would be lost and itd be used to prop up their argument. Now thats an observation!!!! LOL!

The other interesting thing is Im not getting at you particularly but you cant prove you worked it out first before reading parsas post. We can make new experiments like that to see if you really saw it though or wether youre just saying you did. Obervation see? Always observe becasue nothing exists for sure until someone measures it. LOL!

[Unregistered99]

You consider yourself pretty smart for that statement, but it seems there are many physicists who disagree with you. We covered that idea in astronomy and dismissed it, early on.
Was that where someone got time at c wrong by thinking the clock stops on the spaceship and that light becomes a streak across the universe all with the same time? I read that lot last night and it made me LOL a lot! Have you not read "on the electrodynamics of moving bodies" by a little paytent clerk from Swizland? somebody Einstein? LOL!My english might be a bit duff without a spell checker but I can read!

[Frog420]

i'd recomend the books 'conciousness' by Gerald m edelman & Giulio Tononi and 'mapping the mind' by rita carter

both books explain what reality and beliefs are quite well, and both use physics as a way of explaining how it all works,

my position on reality vs beliefs is kinda cloudy

i know that what you class as fact is only a fact due to it being fact under your particular belief system

now what is fact i can't say because my belief system prevents me from saying with any certanty because after all, my belief system could be wrong,

so i'm taking the easy route out, its solipsism all the way for me, and me and me and me, and you, which after all is me

[Merlin]

Interesting that you would base a person's understanding on when they happen to log on and read posts.

I did respond, but later read Parsa's post and reedited mine giving Parsa credit.

But your judgement of others is up to you.
It doesn't bother me at all.

[skip]

Hummm you are pretty clever arent you.

So exactly how much do you love your mother?

Or yourself?

How much anger do you feel at being cut in front of in line?

How much rapport do you have with me at this moment?

Observe and neasure or it doesnt exist.

skip

[Unregistered99]

Hummm you are pretty clever arent you.

So exactly how much do you love your mother?

Or yourself?

How much anger do you feel at being cut in front of in line?

How much rapport do you have with me at this moment?

Observe and neasure or it doesnt exist.

skip

thats it! you got it! its all observation again. I dont think of how much I love my mother until I think about it or somoene asks me to, so I collapse the function to a value nd I suppose the only place to get that value to observe is from my mind. (What if shed done something terrible since I last observed it though. My new observation is needed to get a view of it now LOL!) I now know the value I do but for the person asking it it could still be anything from insest to hate. LOL! The wave function collapses >>>>for him<<<< when I tell him how much. THe same goes for the other questions. Whats rapport? Do I like you? Youre okay I suppose. You might be a horrible person. Questioninng you will help that particular function to begin to collapse. Heres the kick though. its up to you how it collapses. Im still just the observer watching to see what a partical wil do like in my first answer remember? But im also interacting to get a response so IM influencing the observation! LOL!!! THe more observations I make the nearer I will be to understanding if your a nice person or a nasty one. See? were saying the same thing. We know something happend when we observe it happening even if its a trick! Everything esle is just what someone tells us or falsifies for us to observe so when you were on that winter mountain trail was it sunny at all or do you fear you just didnt see the sun shine yourself LOL!!! :))))) so it can be sunny in one part of the mountains and snowing in another and you can answer yes and no to the question was it sunny or snowing in the mountains when you were on the trail!!!!! The mountains were in the state of snowing and sunny all at the same time.

[Unregistered99]

Interesting that you would base a person's understanding on when they happen to log on and read posts.

I did respond, but later read Parsa's post and reedited mine giving Parsa credit.

But your judgement of others is up to you.
It doesn't bother me at all.
so its relative!!!! LOL! i can only base my beliefs about you on what i can observe you doing myself so thats what you type. the wave function of whether you read parsas post or worked out what was wrong with my proof has colapsed into my belief LOL! in quantum physics you can reinflate the wave function again by putting a partical into super position with a blast of energy. im thinking that new information would put my belief back into undecided so it can fall another way. i cant think what though LOL! but see what im on about yeah.

[skip]

Actually I think you missed it.

You may know how much you love your mother, but I can't know, even if I know you do.

I can observe the results, and inferr it, but I cant obersve it directly, even if it is really there.

Thats why I asked how much rapport you have with me. The first two you can feel even if you cant really observe it, but what is your evidence that you have x amount of rapport with me, or that you have any at all?

skip

[Unregistered99]

Actually I think you missed it.

You may know how much you love your mother, but I can't know, even if I know you do.

I can observe the results, and inferr it, but I cant obersve it directly, even if it is really there.

Thats why I asked how much rapport you have with me. The first two you can feel even if you cant really observe it, but what is your evidence that you have x amount of rapport with me, or that you have any at all?

skip
Hey were talking about the same thing from diferent ends. the more observations i make the nearer i get to knowing how much i feel about a completely new word you threw at me! thats how i see it. just asking one question about rapport isnt enough data! more observation needed! keep talking and well see if i think your trust worthy or not. LOL!!!! Thats what rapport is isnt it? trust worthy???

[AnthonyM83]

Was that where someone got time at c wrong by thinking the clock stops on the spaceship and that light becomes a streak across the universe all with the same time? I read that lot last night and it made me LOL a lot! Have you not read "on the electrodynamics of moving bodies" by a little paytent clerk from Swizland?
No, it wasn't even that far into the course. It was in the intro when discussing wave-particle duality.

And no I haven't read much of Einstein's writing directly, including that one.

[Unregistered99]

No, it wasn't even that far into the course. It was in the intro when discussing wave-particle duality.

And no I haven't read much of Einstein's writing directly, including that one.
Ive reread all that forum now. Well "melvin higgins" tried to tell everyone that you can influence an experiment with prayer not observation! thats daft! The nest time it was from a "buryl payne" and he talked about wave partical duallity and how photons are electromagnetic and how they react in the photoelectric effect. I dont get it? what have i missed where you dismised it? i cant find anything. its all just an argument between some bloke called merlin and a woman called casandra and thats making another wave function begin to collapse for me about you! LOL!!! :))))))) maybe in beliefs an uncolapsed wave function is your mind open on a subject. I like it!!!

you should really read einstein. Its a three skinner head mash! I mean to say my written english isnt much but if you can read theres simplified versions so anyone can read it and sites on quantum mechanics that take you in deep even if youve never thought about it before.

[skip]

No it isnt, the feeling of 'trustworthy' is a by product.

But thats a close guess.

skip

[Unregistered99]

No it isnt, the feeling of 'trustworthy' is a by product.

But thats a close guess.

skip
so whats rapport if it isnt the idea that well you seem okay so what the hell ill go with it?! LOL!

Anyway tghats not important. What I want to know is do you get what I mean about the mountain trail being sunny and snowy at the same time. I think its what were both on about.

[Zanther]

knowing of and using science is very different from believing that the explanations are correct.. when scientists believed in their models they would never be able to expand or change them.. and as no model is reality itself.. why should i believe in one ?Inaccurate statement. Many many scientists believe in many models, yet either they themselves or others find evidence against it and those who used to believe no longer believe. If your statement was true either science would never advance or scientists don't generally believe in their models. I don't think this is the case.

[AnthonyM83]

Ive reread all that forum now. Well "melvin higgins" tried to tell everyone that you can influence an experiment with prayer not observation! thats daft! The nest time it was from a "buryl payne" and he talked about wave partical duallity and how photons are electromagnetic and how they react in the photoelectric effect. I dont get it? what have i missed where you dismised it? i cant find anything. its all just an argument between some bloke called merlin and a woman called casandra and thats making another wave function begin to collapse for me about you! LOL!!! :))))))) maybe in beliefs an uncolapsed wave function is your mind open on a subject. I like it!!!

you should really read einstein. Its a three skinner head mash! I mean to say my written english isnt much but if you can read theres simplified versions so anyone can read it and sites on quantum mechanics that take you in deep even if youve never thought about it before.I'm talking about your statement of something existing and not existing until observed. This has been examined, reflected upon, and rejected by many physicists as faulty logic based on wave particle duality theory on the small scale. It was dismissed in my astronomy class, not on this forum, but in my college astronomy class by physics teacher.

By the way, I have read the simplified versions, as well as sites on quantam mechanics, just not the direct writings of Einstein. It's fun reading.

[Unregistered99]

I'm talking about your statement of something existing and not existing until observed. This has been examined, reflected upon, and rejected by many physicists as faulty logic based on wave particle duality theory on the small scale. It was dismissed in my astronomy class, not on this forum, but in my college astronomy class by physics teacher.

By the way, I have read the simplified versions, as well as sites on quantam mechanics, just not the direct writings of Einstein. It's fun reading.
Its not my place to convince you your wrong. oh well. Wave partical duality isnt the theory its how the subatomic works LOL! how did you disprove bohr with it though LOL!!!!

[Thinking Things]

I’m interested in all your views because they are so singularly held, and because there’s a tiny fear in us all that the pleasure found in a sincerely held belief may, in fact, mask our discomfort at the possibility of doubt. Doubt can be as surprising and as distasteful to us as the fear that we may be mistaken, just as re-assessing our beliefs can bring great joy in the relief of confirming that we were in fact right all along. Examining our beliefs banishes doubt, but do we dare take the chance or do we simply refuse and live in the shadow of the fear of doubt?

Well, we can safely stand back to evaluate the whole of a belief we hold to search it for possible faults or contradictions, and this leads to better understanding of our own and the beliefs of others, because we know we can ignore any faults if the rest of a belief is a good and sincerely held one. And because these are our beliefs, we know that we can maintain them come what may. So it doesn‘t matter if we listen to that we consider foolish because we know we can find it wanting when tested against what we know to be true, and that’s so safe and comforting to know. So, rather than our beliefs about the world being this or that, we can easily see them as a jury of factors that come together to produce an overall verdict about what we feel is the truth, even if sometimes the jury returns the wrong verdict or can’t decide. We can find which juror returned the faulty belief, hung the jury or swung the vote against us and see why.

We can find happiness in some beliefs because we have them confirmed to us so very often. We’ve explored some beliefs thousands of times and found them to be both sincere and truthful, but are we too scared to stand back and examine our other beliefs, those that cause us distress and pain, that we only assert to ourselves and others but never test? An unexamined belief is where fear and doubt live and fester. Left unexamined, there's a great fear that they may make us act in ways that are bad for us in the eyes of ourselves or others. Examining them reveals why they cause us fear, uncertainty and doubt, and why they force us to act in ways we might not want to. We may even find ourselves holding views that mask doubt. In examining what we believe we discover what we can happily embrace as true and what to discard as wrong, fearful, hurtful or false.

[AnthonyM83]

Its not my place to convince you your wrong. oh well. Wave partical duality isnt the theory its how the subatomic works LOL! how did you disprove bohr with it though LOL!!!!And mine isn't to convince you either, rather to inform the other readers that the theory you presented is accepted in mainstream (not b/c it's whacky, but b/c it has been heavily contemplated and found faulty).

There wasn't a need to disprove Bohr. The faultiness came from the application of subatomic behaviors to the large scale.

[AnthonyM83]

That last post of course is meant to say NOT accepted. I was doing too much editing of my sentence and left that vital word out.

[Unregistered99]

And mine isn't to convince you either, rather to inform the other readers that the theory you presented is accepted in mainstream (not b/c it's whacky, but b/c it has been heavily contemplated and found faulty).

There wasn't a need to disprove Bohr. The faultiness came from the application of subatomic behaviors to the large scale.
Okay I read your post and you mean ,not accepted,.

Anyway quantum mechanics has nothing to do with classical mechanics LOL!!!!!!! Thats why Einstein chased his tail for the last twenty years of his life trying to fint the common ting theyre both made from!!!! THats why we have classical mechanics for the big stuff like planets and time but quantum mechanics for how come your computer doubles its speed like magically every too years!!!! What you dont know is really LOL!!! If you think otherwise youve got the unifield field theory and noones got that yet LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!

And can you really disprove bohr without maths? You need maths becasue thats the language he spoke. Ive never hear such a thing LOL! Not yet anyway!!! Bohr rulez! We cant find a problem with it. None of us!! Never have in all the decades of looking. WE just find more things it can do!!!!!! No one and theres BILLIONS of obervations every single day!!!!! BIG LOL!!!

[AnthonyM83]

Okay I read your post and you mean ,not accepted,.

Anyway quantum mechanics has nothing to do with classical mechanics LOL!!!!!!! Thats why Einstein chased his tail for the last twenty years of his life trying to fint the common ting theyre both made from!!!! THats why we have classical mechanics for the big stuff like planets and time but quantum mechanics for how come your computer doubles its speed like magically every too years!!!! What you dont know is really LOL!!! If you think otherwise youve got the unifield field theory and noones got that yet LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!

And can you really disprove bohr without maths? You need maths becasue thats the language he spoke. Ive never hear such a thing LOL! Not yet anyway!!! Bohr rulez! We cant find a problem with it. None of us!! Never have in all the decades of looking. WE just find more things it can do!!!!!! No one and theres BILLIONS of obervations every single day!!!!! BIG LOL!!!How old are you? Maybe it's the language barrier, but it seems you're having difficulty following my posts. You keep replying with things that aren't relevant, as well as random statements like "What you don't know is really LOL!!!"

Einstein didn't waste his time searching for a theory. Physicists today are still looking for / working on that great unified theory. And quantam mechanics ARE connected to classical mechanics. Different rules, but there are conversions you can do. They are separate, but connected mechanics. But this is irrelevant.

Who cares about disproving Bohr? Why are we talking about this? My last post said you don't need to disprove Bohr. You're creating meaningless arguments. No one said we needed to disprove him. I only said that experts disagree with your earlier statement about something existing and no existing until observed. That's it.

[Unregistered99]

How old are you? Maybe it's the language barrier, but it seems you're having difficulty following my posts. You keep replying with things that aren't relevant, as well as random statements like "What you don't know is really LOL!!!"

Einstein didn't waste his time searching for a theory. Physicists today are still looking for / working on that great unified theory. And quantam mechanics ARE connected to classical mechanics. Different rules, but there are conversions you can do. They are separate, but connected mechanics. But this is irrelevant.

Who cares about disproving Bohr? Why are we talking about this? My last post said you don't need to disprove Bohr. You're creating meaningless arguments. No one said we needed to disprove him. I only said that experts disagree with your earlier statement about something existing and no existing until observed. That's it.
I like it! If you knew the equations for quantum mechanics you wouldnt be doing this! What are these conversions LOL! Im not being snide or any thing. All I can do is ask for your observations and see if quantum mechanics are falty.

Did you not read anything about einstein. He was upset that we can prove theres chance and uncertainty at the heart of matter. He thougt you should be able to see everything about it but you cant. He spent 20 years trying to unify classical and quantum mechanics. he thought by doing that hed know the mind of God but you cant becasue of the planck units. Its all there in the history books for you to >>>observe<<< but its also in his work for you to read in his own words! LOL! I think it would be great if you read it and we could get on better?

[Unregistered99]

I’m interested in all your views because they are so singularly held, and because there’s a tiny fear in us all that the pleasure found in a sincerely held belief may, in fact, mask our discomfort at the possibility of doubt. Doubt can be as surprising and as distasteful to us as the fear that we may be mistaken, just as re-assessing our beliefs can bring great joy in the relief of confirming that we were in fact right all along. Examining our beliefs banishes doubt, but do we dare take the chance or do we simply refuse and live in the shadow of the fear of doubt?

Well, we can safely stand back to evaluate the whole of a belief we hold to search it for possible faults or contradictions, and this leads to better understanding of our own and the beliefs of others, because we know we can ignore any faults if the rest of a belief is a good and sincerely held one. And because these are our beliefs, we know that we can maintain them come what may. So it doesn‘t matter if we listen to that we consider foolish because we know we can find it wanting when tested against what we know to be true, and that’s so safe and comforting to know. So, rather than our beliefs about the world being this or that, we can easily see them as a jury of factors that come together to produce an overall verdict about what we feel is the truth, even if sometimes the jury returns the wrong verdict or can’t decide. We can find which juror returned the faulty belief, hung the jury or swung the vote against us and see why.

We can find happiness in some beliefs because we have them confirmed to us so very often. We’ve explored some beliefs thousands of times and found them to be both sincere and truthful, but are we too scared to stand back and examine our other beliefs, those that cause us distress and pain, that we only assert to ourselves and others but never test? An unexamined belief is where fear and doubt live and fester. Left unexamined, there's a great fear that they may make us act in ways that are bad for us in the eyes of ourselves or others. Examining them reveals why they cause us fear, uncertainty and doubt, and why they force us to act in ways we might not want to. We may even find ourselves holding views that mask doubt. In examining what we believe we discover what we can happily embrace as true and what to discard as wrong, fearful, hurtful or false.
That sounds great. I dont know what it means exaclty but it sounds great. what does it mean? LOL!

[Unregisteredfrog]

lol, it's amazing some of the arguments i can come up with, and skip, thanx i didn't know i could write such great replies, but then again, i supose i did really write romeo and juliet, and the bible wow, i'm so great

only trouble with my new belief structure is it feels kinda shalow writing to myself

[AnthonyM83]

I like it! If you knew the equations for quantum mechanics you wouldnt be doing this! What are these conversions LOL! Im not being snide or any thing. All I can do is ask for your observations and see if quantum mechanics are falty.

Did you not read anything about einstein. He was upset that we can prove theres chance and uncertainty at the heart of matter. He thougt you should be able to see everything about it but you cant. He spent 20 years trying to unify classical and quantum mechanics. he thought by doing that hed know the mind of God but you cant becasue of the planck units. Its all there in the history books for you to >>>observe<<< but its also in his work for you to read in his own words! LOL! I think it would be great if you read it and we could get on better?No, the quantam mechanics equations would STILL only apply to the quantam level. I don't know the conversations. I didn't take advanced physics courses. But unless the physicists I know are lying to me, there are conversations/ways to link quantam to classical mechanics. No unifying theory yet, though. SO STOP TRYING TO GET ME TO DISPROVE QUANTAM MECHANICS OR OTHER WELL-ESTABLISHED THEORIES. It's not necessary for my argument.

And yes, I did read about Einstein, as said earlier. I just disagree that it was a waste of time because people are still to this day looking for that unifying theory. Just because HE didn't find it doesn't mean a one won't be discovered eventually.

All I'm saying is that your original existing and not existing until observed on the large scale statement is weak. No disproving of laws of physics necessary.

[Unregistered99]

No, the quantam mechanics equations would STILL only apply to the quantam level. I don't know the conversations. I didn't take advanced physics courses. But unless the physicists I know are lying to me, there are conversations/ways to link quantam to classical mechanics. No unifying theory yet, though. SO STOP TRYING TO GET ME TO DISPROVE QUANTAM MECHANICS OR OTHER WELL-ESTABLISHED THEORIES. It's not necessary for my argument.

And yes, I did read about Einstein, as said earlier. I just disagree that it was a waste of time because people are still to this day looking for that unifying theory. Just because HE didn't find it doesn't mean a one won't be discovered eventually.

All I'm saying is that your original existing and not existing until observed on the large scale statement is weak. No disproving of laws of physics necessary.
Ok right yes I get you boss! Ok Ill try to explain it. So you put a cat in a box with a botle of poison that will open and kill it or it wont. Once you shut the box can you say the cat is dead or alive without looking into the box? NO! the wave function for wether its alive or not only colapses when yo do look. the cats not dead to yoy but its not alive either so maybe its both LOL!!!!

[voodoochild]

Ok right yes I get you boss! Ok Ill try to explain it. So you put a cat in a box with a botle of poison that will open and kill it or it wont. Once you shut the box can you say the cat is dead or alive without looking into the box? NO! the wave function for wether its alive or not only colapses when yo do look. the cats not dead to yoy but its not alive either so maybe its both LOL!!!!

And what does that have to do with existing and non existing.. Do you want to pressupose there's no reality except in our head ?

[Unregistered99]

And what does that have to do with existing and non existing.. Do you want to pressupose there's no reality except in our head ?well if the cats dead it doesnt exist as your pet but if its alive it does. But until you open th box it has not got a definite state. its not completely your pet cat or a corpse until time t. See? LOL!

[AnthonyM83]

Ok right yes I get you boss! Ok Ill try to explain it. So you put a cat in a box with a botle of poison that will open and kill it or it wont. Once you shut the box can you say the cat is dead or alive without looking into the box? NO! the wave function for wether its alive or not only colapses when yo do look. the cats not dead to yoy but its not alive either so maybe its both LOL!!!!Ok, good. And the only point I wanted to make was that the physics professor presented and disregarded this theory as faulty the first week of class. He said it's faulty because extremists are using submolecular properties on the large scale. I know you disagree, that's totally fine, this was just my original comment. =)

[Merlin]

>But until you open th box it has not got a definite state.

The cat has a definite state.
The point of the illustration of *Schröinger's cat * is simply that you do not know the state until you look.

[Unregistered99]

>But until you open th box it has not got a definite state.

The cat has a definite state.
The point of the illustration of *Schröinger's cat * is simply that you do not know the state until you look.Yeah the cats got a state all along but >>>you dont know<<< what that state is until you open the box and observe the cat puring away or its dead body. Thats the point! you cant know until you observe it LOL! Im wasted here everything i say people just use it to prop up what ever their argument is no matter what I say LOL! its like youve hipnotised yourselves! LOL!!!!

[Merlin]

>>The point of the illustration of *Schröinger's cat * is simply that you do not know the state until you look.

>>>you dont know<<< what that state is

Isn't that what I said?

[AnthonyM83]

Yeah the cats got a state all along but >>>you dont know<<< what that state is until you open the box and observe the cat puring away or its dead body. Thats the point! you cant know until you observe it LOL! Im wasted here everything i say people just use it to prop up what ever their argument is no matter what I say LOL! its like youve hipnotised yourselves! LOL!!!! That's different from what you've been saying, though. You said it neither exists or doesn't exist until you observe it.