Is this a new idea? (Self-Created-Being)

[Sarona Collins]

I believe that I willed myself into existence in order to meet other beings that also willed themselves into existence. To some degree we might be mutually self-created.

If you had a puppet and I had a puppet and we decided to play some kind of game where the puppets had names and could talk to each other, I would learn something about you from the way you played your puppet. Of course, you would learn something about me from the way I played my puppet.

In the same way, our creating-selves (maybe this is what some people mean by the word "soul") learn about each other from the way our ordinary selves interact. That, I believe is the purpose of life.

[Mageth]

Originally posted by Sarona Collins
I believe that I willed myself into existence in order to meet other beings that also willed themselves into existence. To some degree we might be mutually self-created.

If you had a puppet and I had a puppet and we decided to play some kind of game where the puppets had names and could talk to each other, I would learn something about you from the way you played your puppet. Of course, you would learn something about me from the way I played my puppet.

In the same way, our creating-selves (maybe this is what some people mean by the word "soul") learn about each other from the way our ordinary selves interact. That, I believe is the purpose of life.

Wouldn't "you" have to already exist in some form to "will yourself into existence"? :confused: Isn't that what you're calling "creating-selves"? Sounds awful contradictory to me - a self wills itself into existence.

[Sarpedon]

Why can't the "creating souls" just talk to one another? ( Another weird supernatural theory falls to Occams Razor!)

Whats the point of this puppet game? I certainly don't find it very fun.

Why do some "creating souls" feel the need to destroy the creations of other souls?

Why are so many people unaware of these "creating souls?"

By the way, the only one I've ever heard this kind of theory applied to is God himself. Who is apparently the only one with the power to will himself into existence, since he doesn't have to behave rationally.

[Sarona Collins]

Originally posted by Mageth
Wouldn't "you" have to already exist in some form to "will yourself into existence"? :confused: Isn't that what you're calling "creating-selves"? Sounds awful contradictory to me - a self wills itself into existence.


So far, it appears that the energy for the self creation seems to come from the joy and happiness (gratitude) one feels after existing. That is why I think there may be some mutual creation involved, because love, for example has emotional energy that can be identified as gratitude and joy that another person exists.

The difficult part to understand is how can psychic energy flow backwards through time while physical energy and matter flow forwards through time.

[Karalora]

The idea seems to have something in common with Buddhism, which holds that the world and everything in it comprise an illusion called Maya. Colloquially, the whole setup can be described as God playing hide-and-seek with itself by deliberately fracturing into a squintillion things that forget that they are God, and seeing which pieces manage to remember.

[Sarpedon]

That is not a fair representation of buddhism Karalora, I recall reading in the Connected Discourses of the Buddha, where he was discussing the origins of life and suffering as being ignorance, name and form, desire, etc. all these things and many more preceding sense of Self.

When asked by his disciple: "Who is ignorant, who desires?"
the buddha replied; "not a valid question, these things precede self" since the self is maya it isn't real, so it can't be said that there is anybody experiencing things. It is not god behind everything. This was added later by various splinter sects of buddhism, and is happily adopted by many of the converts in the western world who are used to thinking in terms of god, and are uncomfortable with the Hindu/buddhist idea that action preceded the actor, and motion existed before object. This idea goes all the way back to the Rg Veda.

[Mageth]

It does indeed sound a bit Buddhist, or at least very Eastern.


Originally posted by Sarona Collins
So far, it appears that the energy for the self creation seems to come from the joy and happiness (gratitude) one feels after existing.

Seldom have I seen such a blatantly unsupported assertion on this board. Why does it "appear" so?

That is why I think there may be some mutual creation involved, because love, for example has emotional energy that can be identified as gratitude and joy that another person exists.

I love to flyfish. What does that entail for my next life?

The difficult part to understand is how can psychic energy flow backwards through time while physical energy and matter flow forwards through time.

Particularly difficult to understand since "psychic energy" has not been demonstrated to exist, much less "flow" in any direction.

[Sarona Collins]

Originally posted by Sarpedon
Why can't the "creating souls" just talk to one another? ( Another weird supernatural theory falls to Occams Razor!)

Whats the point of this puppet game? I certainly don't find it very fun.

Why do some "creating souls" feel the need to destroy the creations of other souls?

Why are so many people unaware of these "creating souls?"

By the way, the only one I've ever heard this kind of theory applied to is God himself. Who is apparently the only one with the power to will himself into existence, since he doesn't have to behave rationally.

.. .. ..
The point of the puppet game is establishing enough of a common reality that communication is possible. Even humans who speak different languages have enough similarity with living to be able to work out ways to communicate with each other over time. First perhaps by gestures or using a translator , then by a few words. So, the souls in and of themselves have no vehicle through which to communicate unless they enter the common reality with everyone else. (The more in common, the better the communication can become.)

or, think of "All the world's a stage, the men and women merely players." The stage is where the action is, where the communication takes place. People in one section of the audience are not communicating with people in another section - there is no context. Nothing outside the stage is really relevant.

People are not unaware of these creating selves, they just understand them differently or attribute creation to "God".

I do not understand why some creating selves would want to destroy the creations of others. Incorrect understanding of the meaning of life, I suppose.

[Sarona Collins]

Originally posted by Karalora
The idea seems to have something in common with Buddhism, which holds that the world and everything in it comprise an illusion called Maya. Colloquially, the whole setup can be described as God playing hide-and-seek with itself by deliberately fracturing into a squintillion things that forget that they are God, and seeing which pieces manage to remember.

... .... ...
The difference between SelfCreatedBeing and Buddhism as you describe is an emphasis on the self/individual rather than the totality of all. Reality is an intentional, useful mechanism for the individuals to know/meet each other by establishing commonality rather than an illusion for hide and seek.

[Sarona Collins]

Originally posted by Mageth
It does indeed sound a bit Buddhist, or at least very Eastern.


Originally posted by Sarona Collins
So far, it appears that the energy for the self creation seems to come from the joy and happiness (gratitude) one feels after existing.

Seldom have I seen such a blatantly unsupported assertion on this board. Why does it "appear" so?

That is why I think there may be some mutual creation involved, because love, for example has emotional energy that can be identified as gratitude and joy that another person exists.

I love to flyfish. What does that entail for my next life?

The difficult part to understand is how can psychic energy flow backwards through time while physical energy and matter flow forwards through time.

Particularly difficult to understand since "psychic energy" has not been demonstrated to exist, much less "flow" in any direction.


Regarding the appearance of energy for creation or self creation, and my assertion that psychic energy appears to flow backwards through time: this is how it looks to me. This is what I can observe and understand from the events I have experienced in my life.

Does it mean that it works the same way in your life? I don't know about that. I think if a person is limited by what they have been taught, that could prevent them from seeing things as they are, or as I see them.

I know that just because I make a wish and go through a ritual to make my wish come true and every time I do it every wish I do it for comes true, it does not mean that anyone else has the same experience. I can only explain things as I see them and how it appears to me.

But, I certainly would like to meet and discuss with others that see things the same way as I do, and that have a similar experience to having their wishes come true. And I am very interested in hearing about how it all looks to other people, especially because it forces me to explain more clearly.

re: flyfishing - it is not my belief that this has anything to do with your next life. Rather, I would be inclined to say that the joy and pleasure you are currently getting from fly fishing is a psychic magnet that pulled you to discover that pleasure and joy (in the first place). Here I am claiming that Your joy and pleasure is a juice or energy that reaches through time the way magnetism reaches through space. I am supporting my assertion with your experience as an example of what I mean. I am not aware of other people that have claimed the same. Nor am I aware of anyone providing proof of the same. But, this explanation of how energy flows helps me understand what I see better than any other explanation I have encountered to date.


At this time, I will also make it clear that what I believe is different than what I know for sure. How things look and how things appear and how I try to understand them and explain them to myself changes over time as I have new experiences.

In other words, I believe that I am a self created being as I explained in my first post, but I know that I am a human, an American, an English speaker, .... I know that different people have different experiences in their life that would lead them to believe differently than I do.

I find that believing that I am a self created being here (on the planet Earth) with the purpose to meet others leads me to a comfortable sense of ethics and morals. It leads me to prioritize having fun and adventures. The God and worship stuff doesn't work as well for that. So, even though the subjective probability I assign for self created being is less than fifty percent, I choose to use that as my basic outlook.

[Sarona Collins]

When I first thought of self created beings, I thought of them as living in some kind of solo universe or egg and reaching out for others after they achieved some level of maturity or curiosity.

I thought that the mere reaching out was adequate for finding the others who were also reaching out.

The idea of causative energy flowing back through time came to me later; it isn't a premise or requirement for the basic idea of self created beings.

[Sarpedon]

With all due respect, this sounds completely mad. First of all, Unless you deny Cause ---> Effect, you must find some MECHANISM that allows things that happen at time A to affect time A-B, or in other words, something that genuinely does move backward through time. You posit this "soul energy," or whatever, but you haven't the slightest evidence for it. You admit that you"thought" of all of this. Dare I say that you are "imagining" things? Now I did have a friend who is working on his Physics Phd tell me about temporal anomalies involving quarks. Apparently, some observations have witnessed effects appear before their apparent causes. (this is just my memory of what he told me) If you are serious about this, I suggest you do a little bit of RESEARCH into How Effect ---> Cause could occur. What I have said above is the only way I have ever heard anyone imply that it could work in any other way than Cause ---> Effect. If you are unwilling to do the research, then I suggest you write a book, convince some gullible people who don't require evidence to believe things, and become a cult leader. This seems to be somewhat common these days.

[hinduwoman]

According to Upanishads Brahman is self created; it has always existed, and has no begining nor end. it created the world to have companionship.

[tangiellis]

Originally posted by Sarona Collins
I believe that I willed myself into existence in order to meet other beings that also willed themselves into existence. To some degree we might be mutually self-created.

If you had a puppet and I had a puppet and we decided to play some kind of game where the puppets had names and could talk to each other, I would learn something about you from the way you played your puppet. Of course, you would learn something about me from the way I played my puppet.

In the same way, our creating-selves (maybe this is what some people mean by the word "soul") learn about each other from the way our ordinary selves interact. That, I believe is the purpose of life.

Hello, Sarona.

The way life appears to me is a bit different from what you experience, but I am young yet on the Path, so I have not come up with all the answers. I'm not sure I ever will.

I have been practicing the art of dynamic stillness, but before that I was deeply involved in Paganism, to a large extent I still am.

I too have made wishes that have come true from various rituals. I have had dreams since I was child of future events that come to me before they happen. I am extremely astute in that I can tell things about a person that I should not know within a few minutes of meeting them. For a while now, I have been reading tarot cards for people who ask it of me. I can read them without the cards, of course, but I force myself to do it that way because I don't want to get too involved with the person's life.

With meditation, it has come to me that all of us are One, just different expressions of the exact same thing. I have spent time trying to get in touch with the Self within, also called the inner witch in my pagan circles.

Life, to me, is experienced now in ripples, waves that beat to the same pulse. I find vibration in everything around me and have found that if I simply will something, for instance for a part on my body that is bothering me, it ceases to do so.

People around me can sometimes be seen with colors around them, auras if you will, but it is more of a mental sense than anything, and I can figure out things about a person without speaking to them at all.

I have memories from other times long before my own, but I'm not sure if this means that I was alive before or if because I am more in touch with the Self than others that I can just sense or feel the force of lives that have existed prior to mine.

I also believe that we are here to learn something, to follow The Path on a journey back to the Self, the energy that exists beyond thought and rationale. But I believe it is up to the individual whether or not he or she will accept the challenge and go forward with it.

What you posted has intrigued me. Were you raised in a certain belief system to come to these beliefs that you have or did you discover them on your own? I was raised Christian, but I left the religion for a great many reasons, not withstanding my uncanny ability to read people.
Tangie

[Sarona Collins]

Originally posted by tangiellis
Hello, Sarona.

The way life appears to me is a bit different from what you experience, but I am young yet on the Path, so I have not come up with all the answers. I'm not sure I ever will.

I have been practicing the art of dynamic stillness, but before that I was deeply involved in Paganism, to a large extent I still am.

.... ((snip)) ....

What you posted has intrigued me. Were you raised in a certain belief system to come to these beliefs that you have or did you discover them on your own? I was raised Christian, but I left the religion for a great many reasons, not withstanding my uncanny ability to read people.
Tangie


What is, " .. the art of dynamic stillness .. "?


I had to discover my beliefs on my own, but some things came to me in dreams and some through what I perceive as direct revelation (sometimes while in an altered state of consciousness or in meditation). Occasionally someone will tell me that words already exist for concepts, ideas or beliefs I am explaining to them.

I was raised with science, agnosticism, and atheism. (Mom's great-grandfather came over from E. Europe as a Free-thinker, and even my grandmother was an athiest.) Christmas was a social and secular holiday in my family; respect for the religion of others.

Strong disapproval from my parents was all I could expect if I tried to talk to them about spiritual feelings or psychic experiences. I was allowed to go to religious services and events with friends if they invited me, but mostly I tried to figure out everything myself with experimentation and contemplation.

Sarona

[tangiellis]

Originally posted by Sarona Collins
What is, " .. the art of dynamic stillness .. "?

Dynamic Stillness is actually a 2-part series on Trika Yoga by Swami Chetanananda. This process focuses on the breathing and the chakras, but allows you to focus in on the energy of Life: the stillness that comes between each and every inhale and exhale. Through meditation and yoga, one can achieve a state of complete calm and "oneness" with your surroundings as well as yourself. Basically, it entails slowing down the thought processes until thought no longer hinders the truth of a person. Often when people come to me and ask me what they should do, I tell them, "You already know." And it is true. By using thought processes to play the game of pros and cons, sometimes we end up confusing ourselves when all we really need to do is just listen to the inner voice inside us and follow that. I'm making it sound a lot less complicated than it is, but I do know that it works. I've been calmer, happier and more focuses since I started practicing it.


I had to discover my beliefs on my own, but some things came to me in dreams and some through what I perceive as direct revelation (sometimes while in an altered state of consciousness or in meditation). Occasionally someone will tell me that words already exist for concepts, ideas or beliefs I am explaining to them.

This is also very true of me. My dreams have revealed things to me often over the years. I too find that concepts that I believe in have been made into print, but I have a hard time trying to find others that believe as I do without calling me some kind of hippie.

I was raised with science, agnosticism, and atheism. (Mom's great-grandfather came over from E. Europe as a Free-thinker, and even my grandmother was an athiest.) Christmas was a social and secular holiday in my family; respect for the religion of others.

I was raised strict Seventh Day Adventist. No holidays with the exception of thanksgiving were celebrated in my house. Science was taught to me as the instrument of Satan (not that i ever believed that). And we practiced the Sabbath from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset (the best part of the weekend for a child). There was no music or dancing or play on the sabbath. No work or cooking either. We were only allowed to read the bible for the entire day and fast.
But it backfired. The more I read the bible, the more confused I became as to its contradictions, which eventually led me away from Christiainity all together. My family is still very very big on the satan concept.

Strong disapproval from my parents was all I could expect if I tried to talk to them about spiritual feelings or psychic experiences. I was allowed to go to religious services and events with friends if they invited me, but mostly I tried to figure out everything myself with experimentation and contemplation.

Sarona

Dreams were common place in my family. The art of fortelling the future via dreams is something that is passed from generation to generation. My grandmother, surprisingly, was very well versed in Roots, or Southern Voodoo, which she told me about. She never practiced it herself, but she knew the signs of it when she saw them. But if I related to any of my dreams or my thoughts in other than a Christian light, it was extemely dangerous for me. I've been a loner for a long time, separated from my family because they are a very dysfunctional and violent lot.
My grandmother, who raised me, got into a fist fight with me when she discovered that I had a deck of tarot cards. She said I was being influenced by satan and proceeded to jump on me, knocking me and the washing machine over in my aunt's house. It took two of my relatives to pull her off me. Since then, I keep my religious preferences to myself.
They are constantly talking to me about coming back to Jesus, but I find Christianity to be the art of dynamic fear, not of dynamic love.
So my path began with misunderstand and religious hatreds. But I have grown far beyond that.
I have several decks of tarot cards, which I read for people at no cost. I tell them that if the information helps them, then that is all the payment that i need.
So my views are an odd mixture of Buddhism, Celtic and Egyptian Paganism, and Science. I believe in God, but not as a personified image of humanity. I just think God is the energy that exists in all things and creates and destroys in an endless cycle.
Tangie

[Sarona Collins]

Originally posted by tangiellis
I have several decks of tarot cards, which I read for people at no cost. I tell them that if the information helps them, then that is all the payment that i need.

In my teens and early twenties (I am 47 now), I experimented with Tarot cards and other divining tools, but I never liked formality and restriction or having to do something by the book.

For example, I remember one time I had several sea shells which I cast and used to get a perspective on my situation. It taught me that I could use any natural thing at hand if I wanted to apply tools.

A friend of mine used to take her Tarot cards to the race track and bet on horses, but that didn't seem to work well for her. I had success (read: failure) equal to hers or better by imagining I was telepathicly asking the horses which one most wanted to win, and I didn't have to mess with a lot of objects.

This was well before I had any idea of Self-Created-Being, or even of subjective probability.

[tangiellis]

I make myself use Tarot cards when reading people. I can do it without it, but I find that I have a hard time blocking other people's information the more I do it without. For example, I was at work one day and I shook hands with a coworker and "saw" that someone close to her boyfriend was in serious trouble that might result in death. Rather than get in her buisness further, I offered her a tarot reading.
Once I placed her cards out, I told her that there was a young man immediately close to her boyfriend, a person like a son, that was seriously drinking. He should be supervised and also should not drive because he was going to have an accident in the next few days that could kill him.
I scared her enough that she went home and talked with her boyfriend about it. They didn't know it, but the boyfriend's daughter had just slapped her husband with divorce papers. The son-in-law had been drinking ever since and had been going out drinking and driving in a poor attempt to try to commit suicide. They got him into a program the next day.
Honestly, I chose the tarot because sometimes touching people or talking with them is enough for me to know things that I shouldn't. My husband says that it has a great deal to do with my sense of smell (a hound dog has nothing on me...i can tract down a scent like no one else he's ever known), but i told him that doesn't explain how i can see stuff that hasn't even happened yet.
He insists that I'm very astute, since he doesn't believe in this type of thing. But whenever something happens, he's the first to ask me not only what I feel about, but sometimes, he asks me what my cards say. :D
I don't do the betting stuff....mostly because I don't believe in using the gift that way. I just try to help people with it whenever I can.
Tangie

[Sarona Collins]

Originally posted by tangiellis

...
because sometimes touching people or talking with them is enough for me to know things that I shouldn't.
...
that doesn't explain how i can see stuff that hasn't even happened yet.

Tangie

This is how I interpret your experience using my beliefs:

You are in good communication with your Self of the future and are able to understand what you are trying to tell yourself in the past. (Even now, ) As you write and recall these unexplainable events, you are sending the communication to yourself of the past.

From the way you describe things, it sounds like sometimes your own energy to send communication to yourself of the past is enhanced by those you help - their gratitude helps give the messages enough engergy to penetrate your consciousness when you (for example) shake hands. Touching them or using Tarot cards can be the tube through which energy of their calling future blends with yours.


For me, I usually find it very scary to know what is going to happen in the future, to know those things science and reason tell me I shouldn't know. As you say, I am knowing something I "shoudn't". But, I don't find it so scary to be at cause - perhaps because I feel like I have more control, or perhaps because doing successful magick was so outside of my parents' belief system they were never able to convince me it was wrong.

[Occams_Razor]

I believe that I willed myself into existence in order to meet other beings that also willed themselves into existence. To some degree we might be mutually self-created.

I seriously have no idea what you are on about. No really. You believe this why? I believe that the sandwich I am half done eating, substantiated itself in response to my hunger.

[Sarona Collins]

Originally posted by Occams_Razor
I seriously have no idea what you are on about. No really. You believe this why? I believe that the sandwich I am half done eating, substantiated itself in response to my hunger.


I believe this because it works best for me. It helps me live my life and understand my life better than any other way of looking at what the truth might be.

Primarily, I think the self-created-being approach leads me to maximize my interaction with other humans on the planet. Humans are certainly the most interesting playmates I have found in existance to date. (sandwiches are never able to hold my attention as long, no matter how much of them I have eaten)

I never doubt that I am the captain of my own ship, or the cause of my own life situation, or responsible for my own destiny, when I hold the belief that I created myself in the first place. This makes me much happier than thinking my well being is up to someone else.

So far, thinking of myself as a self-created-being has helped me understand why things/events happened the way they did. Some experiences seemed psychic to me, and I need to give myself an explanation I can believe. (Nothing else is better at helping me understand, "Why?")


and no, your sandwich did not "substantiate itself". Your sandwhich does not think nor have consciousness of itself, so it could not be self created. It lacks psychic juice.

[Occams_Razor]

I believe this because it works best for me. It helps me live my life and understand my life better than any other way of looking at what the truth might be.

Okay it may work for you, etc., but that is a rationalization of the reasons you have for why you want to believe this. It is not an explanation of why these things are worthy of believing in.

I would love it if there was an afterlife. Because of this, it would work very well for me to believe in one of the many religions that proffer just such wish-fulfillment tenets.

So why don't I believe in one of those religions? Because what I want to be true and the truth are very different things.

By the way, how dare you accuse my sandwich of not having enough psychic juice.

[Sarona Collins]

Okay it may work for you, etc., but that is a rationalization of the reasons you have for why you want to believe this. It is not an explanation of why these things are worthy of believing in.

I would love it if there was an afterlife. Because of this, it would work very well for me to believe in one of the many religions that proffer just such wish-fulfillment tenets.

So why don't I believe in one of those religions? Because what I want to be true and the truth are very different things.

By the way, how dare you accuse my sandwich of not having enough psychic juice.


Your sandwich has only the psychic juice you or another person gave it. That can't have been enough for it to create itself. You must have created it. Or someone created it for you.

You don't believe in certain things you wish were true because you value truth above fantasy. You need proof.

I started from the opposite side, which is more like "prove it's not" rather than "prove it is" , and came up with five alternatives under subjective probability. But, "self-created-being" as an alternative was not one I had heard of before and I think I made it up, or figured it out. I think it is a new idea, but maybe someone else thought of it before me, hence my question, "Is this a new idea?"

Can you prove to me that I am not dreaming you up? That I am not the creator of everything? That I am not playing a game with my consciousness?
(I am just picking solipsism because it is simple, not because I give it a high probability.) Can you prove with science that some kind of God does not exist?

because i use subjective probability rather than scientific method, i allow for anything that might not be impossible and give it a probability based on my experience.

i choose to live by Self Created Being because it is pretty good at guiding me to be a good person regardless of what the truth turns out to be. when i feel a need for a spiritual connection or contact with something higher than myself (which most people might call God), i put myself in a meditative state and do what feels like "making contact".

i dont use thinking methods to make contact
i dont use making contact methods figure out the truth
i use self created being to live by, not for surety of truth nor for achieving connection with the spirit world.

In other words, I try to apply the right tool to the task.

[Sarona Collins]

With all due respect, this sounds completely mad. First of all, Unless you deny Cause ---> Effect, you must find some MECHANISM that allows things that happen at time A to affect time A-B, or in other words, something that genuinely does move backward through time. You posit this "soul energy," or whatever, but you haven't the slightest evidence for it. You admit that you"thought" of all of this. Dare I say that you are "imagining" things? Now I did have a friend who is working on his Physics Phd tell me about temporal anomalies involving quarks. Apparently, some observations have witnessed effects appear before their apparent causes. (this is just my memory of what he told me) If you are serious about this, I suggest you do a little bit of RESEARCH into How Effect ---> Cause could occur. What I have said above is the only way I have ever heard anyone imply that it could work in any other way than Cause ---> Effect. If you are unwilling to do the research, then I suggest you write a book, convince some gullible people who don't require evidence to believe things, and become a cult leader. This seems to be somewhat common these days.


You flip a coin. It will turn up heads sometimes. It will turn up tails sometimes. Flipping is the cause and tails or heads are the effect. You would say that betting does not influence the results. I would say that it appears to me that the gratitude for winning the bet caused the heads or tails that won. I do not say there is no relationship of cause and effect, just that there is a causal influence which runs in reverse to our perception of time. This causal influence can be seen more easily if one does not blind oneself to it.

For evidence, I have my experiences. I am aware of times I have caused events to fall one way or another with my own emotional/psychic energy. Most events have nothing to do with me, but sometimes I have received my intended result. For your own evidence, you must use your own experiences. Then, it is a question of how you interpret your experiences. If you want to perform psychic magic, it helps to believe in what you are doing. If you want others not to be able to perform psychic magic in your life, it helps to believe in pure science.

As for becoming a cult leader - I think it is a good idea. But I cannot do it if Self-Created-Being has been thought of or published by someone else. That is why I need to know if it is a new idea or not.

[Occams_Razor]

Originally posted by Sarona Collins
You don't believe in certain things you wish were true because you value truth above fantasy. You need proof.

I started from the opposite side, which is more like "prove it's not" rather than "prove it is" , and came up with five alternatives under subjective probability. But, "self-created-being" as an alternative was not one I had heard of before and I think I made it up, or figured it out. I think it is a new idea, but maybe someone else thought of it before me, hence my question, "Is this a new idea?"

Can you prove to me that I am not dreaming you up? That I am not the creator of everything? That I am not playing a game with my consciousness?
(I am just picking solipsism because it is simple, not because I give it a high probability.) Can you prove with science that some kind of God does not exist?

because i use subjective probability rather than scientific method, i allow for anything that might not be impossible and give it a probability based on my experience.

i choose to live by Self Created Being because it is pretty good at guiding me to be a good person regardless of what the truth turns out to be. when i feel a need for a spiritual connection or contact with something higher than myself (which most people might call God), i put myself in a meditative state and do what feels like "making contact".

I can't tell you how to live your life but I value truth. I cannot imagine "choosing" to believe in something "regardless of what the truth turns out to be." Saying "I use subjective probability rather than scientific method, I allow for anything that might not be impossible and give it a probability based on my experience" is the equivalent of shutting your eyes to the fact that things either are or are not true. We debate whether there is or is not a god, but empirically there actually is or is not a god, regardless of the debate. The same is true of most things in our worlds. All viewpoints are not equally valid. For instance, starting from the viewpoint "prove it's not" is not a logically defensible position. If you choose to continue to hold this position that's fine, but you're going to have a much more meager share of the true nature of things because your methodology for finding answers is not sound (I'm not talking about spiritual answers, I'm talking about ever situation where an answer must be derived using logic).

You ask "Can you prove to me that I am not dreaming you up? That I am not the creator of everything? That I am not playing a game with my consciousness?...Can you prove with science that some kind of God does not exist?


The short answer is yes. Here's the explanation:

There is no affirmative proof that you are not dreaming me up, or that you are not the creator of everything, or that God does not exist. There's also no affirmative proof that Santa Claus does not exist. The same argument can be made for ifrits, Mother Goose, invisible pink unicorns, astral projection, and that my gerbil is the secret ruler of the world. I can propose an infinite series of things that are unprovable because they are incorporeal, invisible, unsmellable--unfalsifiable.

When I am asked whether I believe Mickey Mouse is a real person I, and I think you too, would not say the jury is out because it cannot be disproved. I'm not absolutely certain of anything, but I'm damn sure enough to unwaveringly make the statement, "Mickey Mouse is not a real person," because there is no proof he is a real person and lots of evidence that he is not, in fact, a real person.

Note also that when I declare that Mickey Mouse is a real person, it is not your burden to show that I am wrong, it is my burden to prove that I am right. If this wasn't the case, any absurd statement would be substantiated by the fact that it was posited, rather than by what evidence exists for why it should be believed.

Ultimately it all goes haywire when we start debating "proof" because, at least in my experience, people in general use this word very loosely, without the logical rigour that is demanded by scientists and philosophers when they use the word.

Nothing can be absolutely proven, even by affirmative evidence, except possibly the kind of logical proof we talk about in mathematics. In both philosophy and science, we can never absolutely prove anything. What we usually mean by proof are those things which cause us to say: "it is very likely that..."; "all these things tend to show that..." X is the case, or is not the case.

So no, I can't prove you are not dreaming me up, or that you are not the creator of everything, or God's nonexistence absolutely and deductively because they are unfalsifiable claims. But inductively, I can offer a legion of evidence which tends to show that all these unfalsifiable claims are very likely not the case.

Just a few of the numerous threads of evidence, for instance, againt the existence of god: Insoluble contradictions in the manifestos of religion (omnibenevolence verses monstrous accounts of evil in religions' own guidebooks, unjustifiable suffering, innumerable inconsistencies of facts from one part of a religion’s manifesto that are soundly contradicted in another place in the manifesto, etc.); accounts of the physical makeup of the world that are at odds with the makeup of the world that no one but the lunatic fringe would deny (age of the earth, heliocentrism, round[ish] earth, fossil record and archeology showing age of humanity, etc.); that the various religions are mutually exclusive and each one's adherents believe they have the real grapevine to he correct god; me (Occam's Razor); Arguments from Divine Hiddenness and Nonbelief; Argument from Evolution; Argument from Physical Minds; and so on. This is quite an abbreviated list.

Now I know that the religious may counter, "but what about the evidence and proofs for God's existence?" The problem is that all such "proofs" I am offered are logically baseless. Most beg the question by assuming the validity in the first instance of the Christian Bible or the Koran or the O.T. etc., or make an appeal to authority, or engage in post hoc ergo proctor hoc argument, or a host of other logical fallacies. Such arguments, thus, offered as evidence of God's existence, are no evidence at all.

There are certain assumptions that are implicit in what constitues proof. An argument that provides logical evidence for some postulate cannot, by definition, engage in a recognized logical fallacy for the very reason that the fallacy has been recognized by the world at large (including philosophers that are theists) as not providing substantiation of the argument debating using such logic.

Example: In a debate with a theist, a person state that Christians have a record of immense inhumanity for their fellow man, offering this as evidence. (http://www.buckcash.com/opinions/temp/Christian_Crimeline.htm)

The theist then says "Ah, but no true Christian would commit such acts. Thus you are only listing the acts of heretics and not true Christians (this is actually occurring on a current thread) This, as you may know, is a classic example of the No True Scottsman Fallacy. It is appeal to an utterly illogical, obfuscatiing rationalization, that is used often enough and is recognized by enough people as illogical, etc., that it has been named a category of fallacy.

So what are we left with? A host of disparate lines of evidence which tend to show that it is very likely the case that God does not exist, opposed by no evidence or extremely weak evidence that God does exist-- and this latter claim, offered by the people who refuse to provide any evidence to back their extraordinary claim, when they have the burden of proof. When we combine all this together, the result is proof--not absolute proof--but strong inductive proof that is very likely the case that that god does not exist.

The evidence that you are not dreaming me up are or that you are not the creator of everything are much easier to state than the above argument against the existence of god.

Starting from "prove it's not" is not going to take you far toward the truth, nor is making up things about the world, that do not follow from the reality of the world before you.

[Light]

I believe that I willed myself into existence in order to meet other beings that also willed themselves into existence. To some degree we might be mutually self-created.

If you had a puppet and I had a puppet and we decided to play some kind of game where the puppets had names and could talk to each other, I would learn something about you from the way you played your puppet. Of course, you would learn something about me from the way I played my puppet.

In the same way, our creating-selves (maybe this is what some people mean by the word "soul") learn about each other from the way our ordinary selves interact. That, I believe is the purpose of life.

Sorry Sarona, if you really had willed yourself into existance then you would KNOW about that so you cannot be telling the truth.

Now if you were God you would have always existed so it would not be necessary to will yourself into existance.

What do your parents think of your theory?

Btw, you ARE a puppet, either of the State of of the Church.

NOW then, IF you really ARE God then you would be a Puppet of NEITHER, Like Me.

So you see what it is ....... Freethinking.

FREE Thin KING

It is a Universal Condition, You See.

[Sarpedon]

you say that the gratitude of winning the bet makes the coin land the way we want it to???? that is absurd. Have you never been to Vegas? There you have twenty or more people standing around a table, all betting on a single pair of dice and all begging it to land the same way. Yet it doesnt. By your logic, it should win every time if it is the gratitude of the people who win that makes it land a winning number? What is wrong with you that you have to reverse cause and effect? Its so much simpler to believe that the gratitude is produced by the dice toss, not the other way around. Why do you choose to believe the more convoluted and less plausible explanation? How perverse!

You have not answered my question as to HOW the force acts backward in time. You asserted that the "gratitude" produces the desired toss retroactively. You did not say HOW a thing affects things that occured before it. You did not tell me what MECHANISM is used. If you don't understand what these things mean, I will explain. If I push my mouse accross the table, the impulses from my brain cause my muscles to contract, moving my arm. My hand moves the mouse, because the force of the fact that I am touching the mouse, times the coefficient of friction produces a force on the mouse. Thus the mouse moves. How does the "feeling of gratitude" cause the dice or coin to fall a certain way?

And don't worry about whether anyone else has already thought of this. There's no patent or copyright on fuzzy thinking. Every cult is based on earlier cults or other precedent. Odds are the people who are mentally defective enough to believe this really bizarre belief wouldn't have studied relgion, philosophy, or indeed, anything; so you don't have to worry about them thinking you're ripping someone else's ideas off.

[Light]

You must not gamble, as the Pope says that it is immoral to do so.

[Sarpedon]

What does the pope have to do with non-abrahamic religions?

And besides, people are always casting lots in the bible. Gambling, Drinking, Prostitution, and Polygamy are all endorsed by scripture.

[Light]

However modern belief systems and the rule of Law And Order prohibit many of these activities on the grounds that they are anti-social.

The CORRECT ideal founded in the original Egyptian belief system and translated into Christianity is that ONE Husband marries ONE Wife so that they may become an immortal couple.

This is the love that is spoken about according TO Christianity.

ALL other "systems" and/or deviations are false.

ALL countries should examine the suitability of people to actually be accorded the right to vote.

This should be the province of REspectable And REsponsible people ONLY.

The law according to RE and not to RA in order that it may be seen to be fair.

Bad Laws are the worst form of Tyranny.

Criminals should not have any right to vote, nor should "priests" and so-called "holy" men.

I have NO need of any of them.

The right to vote should be accorded by the State.

[Sarpedon]

Light would you make some attempt to stay on topic? Sarona and I were talking about coin flipping and dice rolling as an example of things she believes could be caused after they occur, and you but in with the morals of gambling, and now this off topic nonsense. Make your own thread for discussion of your weird ideology, this is Sarona's weird thread.

[Sarona Collins]

You have not answered my question as to HOW the force acts backward in time. You asserted that the "gratitude" produces the desired toss retroactively. You did not say HOW a thing affects things that occured before it. You did not tell me what MECHANISM is used. If you don't understand what these things mean, I will explain. If I push my mouse accross the table, the impulses from my brain cause my muscles to contract, moving my arm. My hand moves the mouse, because the force of the fact that I am touching the mouse, times the coefficient of friction produces a force on the mouse. Thus the mouse moves. How does the "feeling of gratitude" cause the dice or coin to fall a certain way?


(apologies for being busy lately, only answering this one today)

I am saying that the emotional energy of the joy which is experienced creates a kind of pull on an event, something like gravity or magnetism. I am saying there is a kind of electrical charge from emotions and that this charge or energy can sway events (not cause impossible events to happen) much like magnetism pushes opposite magnets away, or perhaps like gravity pulls objects.

In a situation like a Las Vegas casino, there might be many pulls in many directions because everyone wants something different.

[Sarona Collins]

We debate whether there is or is not a god, but empirically there actually is or is not a god, regardless of the debate.

The evidence that you are not dreaming me up are or that you are not the creator of everything are much easier to state than the above argument against the existence of god.

Starting from "prove it's not" is not going to take you far toward the truth, nor is making up things about the world, that do not follow from the reality of the world before you.

(quoting a few snippets from a previous communication on this board)

Yes, there actually is or is not a god/dess or god/desses. But I want to go beyond this yes/no question. If actually there is not any kind of diety, then there is no harm in imagining what alternatives other than science there could be to diety, is there? (No offense can be committed if there is no god to be offended.)

Even more interesting questions for me than god/nogod are, "If there is some kind of god(ess/s), what types or categories could there possibly be", and "Other than the god/ess/s idea and godless science, what ELSE could explain the cause or reason of the universe?", and "Is there any way for me to live my life such that I make all possible options happy at once, .. even if the empirical truth turns out to be an option anyone may not have thought of yet?"

Self Created Being is something that is not god/nogod , it is another option altogether just like solipsism (i am dreaming everything up) is also quite different from the god/nogod alternatives.

"Prove it's not" does indeed follow from the world before me. In the world before me, I see a series of events. This includes seeing predictions come true, and seeing (sometimes unlikely but never impossible) wishes that I make come true.
. . .Looking around me, both those types of things are something beyond the realm of hard science. I want to know what COULD be the cause; on the chance that something other than cold, hard science exists. Randomness could be the cause of these funny-feeling events, or some kind of god, or I could be dreaming everything, or there is some kind of (non-god) energy that I can learn to understand by figuring it out what it is rather than pretending it doesn't exist just because it cannot be proven.

[premjan]

what exactly is a god? there are so many versions of this idea floating around...

[Sarona Collins]

Sorry Sarona, if you really had willed yourself into existance then you would KNOW about that so you cannot be telling the truth.

Now if you were God you would have always existed so it would not be necessary to will yourself into existance.

What do your parents think of your theory?.


It might be part of the rules for willing myself into existance that I not know it as firmly as you think think a willer ought to.

If I were God, then I would at least have to create/will-into-being the "always" you speak of ; even if always existing means (which I don't think it necessarily means) that that it would not be necessary to will myself into existance.

My parents think/thought my ideas are completely impossible/unbelievable.

[Sarona Collins]

what exactly is a god? there are so many versions of this idea floating around...


There seem to be two main categories of "god".

One is a separate sort of being that influences events in the part of reality that we can perceive. The Abrahamic, Greek/Roman and Multi-Hindu (different names, charateristics, histories for each god) types fall into this category.

Then there is the "all is one" way of looking at it. Everything that exists is part of god, god is divided into bits of diety within everything, ... I think maybe Buddhism or Taoism or some kinds of Hinduism or Yoga or NewAge spirituality fall into this way of looking at what god is. Not a separate or seperable part of reality, but real and existing.

Each of these two types have many varieties and variants ... but I don't know of a type of god belief that does not fall into one category or the other.

[premjan]

There seem to be two main categories of "god".

One is a separate sort of being that influences events in the part of reality that we can perceive. The Abrahamic, Greek/Roman and Multi-Hindu (different names, charateristics, histories for each god) types fall into this category.

Then there is the "all is one" way of looking at it. Everything that exists is part of god, god is divided into bits of diety within everything, ... I think maybe Buddhism or Taoism or some kinds of Hinduism or Yoga or NewAge spirituality fall into this way of looking at what god is. Not a separate or seperable part of reality, but real and existing.

Each of these two types have many varieties and variants ... but I don't know of a type of god belief that does not fall into one category or the other.

I think these can be classified as theism/panentheism, and pantheism/monism respectively. The difference between pantheism and monism is that monism does not need the "one" that "everything" is, to have the attributes of "mind". Rather, it could be like an "ether" or "tao" or a form of energy. Theism and Panentheism differ in whether God is completely separate from the world, whether he includes the world within him, and adds his own attributes in addition.

I think where people like to believe in God, theism or panentheism are always the most popular. The other one: pantheism or monism or atheism generally appeal only to philosophers. Also, I think atheism generally is a disguised form of monism. E.g. in Buddhism, sunya is basically an inverted monad which provides unity in disintegration rather than synthesis.

[Sarona Collins]

what exactly is a god? there are so many versions of this idea floating around...


I believe that I will be better tomorrow than I am today. Much further in the future, I will be much better than I am today.

A being greater than me that I can believe in with my rational mind is this Self of Mine in the future.

[DougP]

Ive been willing myself to believe what you say, yet it hasnt happened. Its an interesting theory though, and something I havent heard before, so I thank youfor that. It is always good to think and contemplate new ideas.

[Sarona Collins]

Ive been willing myself to believe what you say, yet it hasnt happened. Its an interesting theory though, and something I havent heard before, so I thank youfor that. It is always good to think and contemplate new ideas.


Thanks for finding my theory interesting, and for verifying that you haven't come across it before.

Today, I have an idea for something you can try to do that might be easier than willing yourself to believe the writing of a person that is not you. Anyway, you only have to will yourself to believe your own ideas , not my ideas, if you are indeed a self created being.

I dont know which if any of these you might be able to will yourself to believe when it happens .....

Perhaps you could try this: the next time something good happens to you, be a little extra thankful, then imagine that your extra thanks helped to bring the event into being. If this works for you, then it isn't much of a step to looking at events in your life as evidence for your own self-creation.

In other words, when something happens, pretend the event happened because you caused it and find a reason why you caused that event. You might say to yourself, something like it makes you feel happy or it taught you an important lesson or anything at all that makes you feel even a little more thankful than otherwise.

Or, you could try on the perspective of thinking, "I'm glad my present self willed my past self to take the course of action that led to being here now" the next time something good happens to you.


Like I said, maybe you can't believe your self-createdness until you experience it in your own life.

[Yeshi]

Is this a new idea? (Self-Created-Being)

Negative. As old as Aryan (white) human race:

Rgveda is the oldest available literature of the mankind.

Creation: There about 6 to 7 suktaas in Rgveda regarding the genesis of this Universe. The Naasadiya, Hiranyagarbha and Purusha suktaas are the most famous. Naasadiya sukta (10.129) describes the condition before the creation, and evolution of the Universe. In the beginning there was nothing. There were neither worlds nor sky, neither momentum nor pace, neither birth nor death nor immortality, neither day nor night. Only the Omnipotent, supreme consciousness, existed in dormant form. Desire was born in His heart and the seed of creation was born, where from He Himself was born or his creation, whether the devas were born before the creation or after ? Who has ever understood? The supreme consciousness, the supreme Lord is the only Lord of
this creation and he alone should known and understood.

[lulay]

"birther" at it again. usurping the more obvious natural insight and image of a feminine WOMB which births

[Sarona Collins]

Negative. As old as Aryan (white) human race:


the passage you quote indicates only one lord, one creator

the difference in my belief is that multiple self creators want to meet each other (of which I am one)

[Yeshi]

the passage you quote indicates only one lord, one creator


excerpted from RgVeda axplanation above: where from He Himself was born or his creation, whether the devas were born before the creation or after ?

The dichotomy of one-to-many is common in mysteries, and also is the transcended wisdom of the Dhyani Buddha Ratnasambhava.

The oldest middle-Asian scripts will refer to consciousness, or mind as "Supreme Lord". The scope of sentiency, diversification into other Devas, its omnipotence and power of creation as deliberate act or not, as a poetic form, etc. can be discussed ad nauseaum.

For me it suffices to remember that even the Buddha Shakyamuni did not find it relevant to philosophise/discuss such issues. Your or mine currrent mind cannot understand all of it, and the conveying of mystical insights through limite, descriptive words is futile.


the difference in my belief is that multiple self creators want to meet each other (of which I am one)


"It is this mind that creates the world." - Buddha

This is your right as a sentient being. Being human now, you can also grasp it :)

Welcome to Buddhism ;)

[Heathen Dawn]

"It is this mind that creates the world." - Buddha

This is a load of New Age nonsense.

[Yeshi]

This is a load of New Age nonsense.

I am sorry you feel offended by the age-old wisdom (and feel the need then to be rude).

Buddha Shakyamuni was born somewhere in 580 BC, so his words precede also almost any other religion recorded we have today.

If it rings of "new" or "nonsense", then it must be in the subjective eyes of the observer.

[Uncle Ants]

This is a load of New Age nonsense.

Be fair HD - its no more New Age than your professed beliefs on the afterlife and no more nonsense (or less ;) )

[Heathen Dawn]

I am sorry you feel offended by the age-old wisdom (and feel the need then to be rude).

Offended by Buddha’s saying? No, I just don’t accept it, but I’m not offended. Offended by your telling me, in Philosophy, that my afterlife scenario is a “New Age heaven.”

[Heathen Dawn]

Be fair HD - its no more New Age than your professed beliefs on the afterlife and no more nonsense (or less ;) )

See this (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=1814533#post1814533) and the next two posts below it.

[Yeshi]

[deleted comments]

Are we to expect you now to go from thread to thread and badmouth Buddhism?

[Heathen Dawn]

[deleted quoted remark for consistency; deleted comment on use]

[Yeshi]

guess she can now float into that rosy heaven much more unimpeded then before :Cheeky:

[Sarona Collins]

[deleted for consistency]

Are we to expect you now to go from thread to thread and badmouth Buddhism?


Hello from Sarona to Yeshi and Heathen Dawn ... and Uncle Ants. Thank you for recently posting in my thread and thinking about some of my ideas.

First of all, I do not agree that self-created being is a variant of Buddhism.
Also, I am not sure that it is NewAge, but maybe it is. The people I know with the greatest tolerance for my beliefs are Pagans and New Age people.

In either case, I do not consider the childishnes or lack thereof of Buddhism OR New Age philosophy to be relevant to my topic, except as an example of how difficult it is for two self created beings to communicate with each other and hence the need for a common reality and common symbolic representation in order to establish inter-being communication. Thus the necessity of a place like Earth (also known as reality) so that such beings can have a common frame of reference. Also, it is nice for you to demonstrate that whatever is said online does not hurt your physical being - a parallel to how what happens in reality to the body does not hurt the essence of the self created being's creative force or soul.


If you have a question about self created being, or a comment about it, or see a similarity between it and something else, this is the correct thread in which to discuss it.

If you know of a philosophy which says many beings self-create independently and find, create or establish reality as a way to interact with each other, I would like to hear of it. One being self creating and establishing the universe is different than what I am proposing.

[Yeshi]

If you know of a philosophy which says many beings self-create independently and find, create or establish reality as a way to interact with each other, I would like to hear of it.

Well with you disagreeing and me agreeing, i tell you this is the view of Buddhism.
(I cannot know what depths/widths/attributes does the term "self-created" carry for you in the deepness or poetical splendor of inner insight though, subjectively - and what special but unspoken value it carries for you).

The original concept of "self-arising" is much older then buddhism, stemming from Rg-Veda. "We" have been reborn billions of times already, as Devas, Asuras, Humans, Animals, Ghosts and Hell-Dwellers since aeons. So the self-arising of Buddha (Awakened) Nature goes on and on unimpeded.

Anyhows:
According to Buddhism, we have not been created by a higher being.
According to Buddhism, we re-create ourselves independently (if liberated) AND dependently (if blinded by karma) in every second.
The future mind of mine is dependant on my actions/thoughts/etc of before.
The future body of mine is dependant on the mind i generated/modelled.
The two core features of the minds (which make our mindstream = ourselves) are the voidness/purity and unlimited potentiality of creativity (kadak and lungdrup in Tibetan).

The "reality" in which we meet is created by our minds, and each sees it differently according to own karma, but somehow we manage to influence each other and communicate. Due to this communication the self-arising can also be viewed as interconnected. (Indra's net)

[Sarona Collins]

"We" have been reborn billions of times already, as Devas, Asuras, Humans, Animals, Ghosts and Hell-Dwellers since aeons. So the self-arising of Buddha (Awakened) Nature goes on and on unimpeded.




Unlike Buddhism, I give a very low probability to reincarnation. I think "once only" is enough. Doesn't mean I'm not wrong.

[Yeshi]

I think "once only" is enough.

That would break the logic of causality, i.e. one would have to beleive in "miracles" that are non-explainable because something pops out of nowhere and dissapears into nothing.

More probable is that what we think is not there is not there because we didn't sucessfully discern "where it is" aka were yet unable to perceive it.

Like the physical law of the conservation of energy, so is the causal dependance a law in the universe.

So maybe better stated is that buddhist position is that we define ourselves in transforming from previous parameters. That we do not remember previous states is the fortunate/unfortunate consequence of our lack of memory/attentivity. If we want to be free in our redefinitions, we have to be attentive.

[Sarpedon]

Ok, back to topic!

Sarona, you claimed that the gratitude produces an "emotional energy" analogous to a "electrical charge" which had the ability to alter reality. here are my major problems with this theory:

1. If such an "electrical charge" powerful enough to influence events resulted from emotional states, they would have been detected and studied. The human brain uses as much electricity as a small light-bulb, this is definately not enough energy to account for the changes you are talking about.

2. The idea of "emotional energy" seems to stem from the primitive belief in "soul" which was current before science revealed that the workings of the human brain are chemical and electrical in nature.

3. You say that "emotional energy" is like magnetism or gravity, hence a fundamental force of nature. There are four such forces known. Is it one of these or a yet unknown force?

4. Though you have posited that emotions produce energy, you have not explained how such energies work backwards in time, i.e. contrary to the laws of thermodynamics. Saying that emotions produce energy is insufficient to put to rest my original (and I admit now, somewhat rude) objection. I'm more concerned with how something effects things that at an earlier time. In Newtonian Physics, energy and force are transmitted through contact. No physical contact is possible between objects at a different point on a timeline.

5. There is no evidence to show that an emotionally active person's brain uses significantly more energy than a person who is calmly thinking. Though you claim that emotions produce energy, you have not SHOWN it.

[Sarona Collins]

Hello Sarpedon from Sarona. You have five good points and it is taking me a little time to figure out how to address them. This message is to let you know I am thinking about what you said.

So far, I can say that it sounds like you understand very well what I am trying to say. Yes, I believe the chemical and electrical stuff of your point 2 causes the magnetism or gravity of your point 3. (below) Just as in reality, chemical stuff can make an electrical charge.

Ok,
2. The idea of "emotional energy" seems to stem from the primitive belief in "soul" which was current before science revealed that the workings of the human brain are chemical and electrical in nature.

3. You say that "emotional energy" is like magnetism or gravity, hence a fundamental force of nature. There are four such forces known. Is it one of these or a yet unknown force?



Where you and I are having a lack of understanding is this idea of proving. What I see myself as doing is trying to come with a possible explanation of phenomena I observe/experience. This is a bit more primitive than knowing how it works.

It is as if I were saying, "I see birds fly"
then you say, "what makes birds fly?"
and I say, "it looks like wings make birds fly, or maybe tails"
then you say, "feathers fall, so please explain how feathers in wings and tails can cause flying"

So that is why it is taking me a little time to figure out how best to answer you. Anyway, I think your questions are good for helping me figure stuff out. Maybe together you and I will be able to define what I see more scientificly.

It is a very good question you ask, "How can energy from the future influence events in the past?" And I know you are not satisfied with my regular answer, "I can't think of anything else that could be doing it." or my other answer, "that is what it looks like to me". In fact, I am quite sure that you believe you are unable to communicate with your Self of the future, so it is a challenge for me to figure out how best to explain it, as I would also have difficulty explaining sound or light to a deaf or blind person.


Meanwhile I have a simple question for you,: Do you think that dividing by zero (or using Limits to approach dividing by zero) proves that positive infinity equals negative infitity?

[whichphilosophy]

Unlike Buddhism, I give a very low probability to reincarnation. I think "once only" is enough. Doesn't mean I'm not wrong.

Reminds me of the joke about two Bhuddists meeting for the first time at a gathering.

One says to the other, "Have you ever been to France?"
The other replies, "Not this lifetime."

(If this offends, please let me know so I can send apology as I have the highest respect for Buddhism).

However continued existence seems real to me, but we all have our views.

Regards,

[Sturmrabe]

Reminds me of the joke about two Bhuddists meeting for the first time at a gathering.

One says to the other, "Have you ever been to France?"
The other replies, "Not this lifetime."

(If this offends, please let me know so I can send apology as I have the highest respect for Buddhism).

However continued existence seems real to me, but we all have our views.

Regards,
if anything beyond this life exists it only stands to reason... that in one-form-or-anouther that energy would be perpetuated... the main differance between soul/no soul debate is cohesion of that energy...

and to whichphil: finally something in this thread worth replying to :Cheeky:

[Sarpedon]

Ok, so you say that you are coming up with possible explainations for things you observe. Please give me some more examples of things that you observe that makes you think that energies are working retroactively. I, for my part, have never observed anything that makes me see that. One of the points of my earlier diatribe is that everything in my experience is adequately explained by classical physics. Also, since I was not the one who came up with classical physics, I can conclude that many other people agree that physics is the best explanation. The examples you have given so far are not exotic enough to warrant such a radical explanation as time warping photons or temporal emotional wormholes or whatever. Personally, I don't think this is as simple as you say: "I see birds fly" etc. I think the situation is more like this:

You: I see birds fly
You: (thinking) birds fly because of magic.
Me: Classical Physics explains the birds' flight in a more satisfying way
You: Nevertheless, magic is involved.

I don't mean to be insulting, but I think you have made an observation, jumped to a conclusion, and are now searching for any kind of argument or piece of evidence to support the conclusion, rather than gathering a lot of evidence, forming a hypothesis that unifies the data, then testing the hypothesis through experimentation (the scientific method)

How could we test your theory about emotions influencing previous events?
We have someone roll a die. We have other people, unaware of the die rolling, someplace else. On a roll of an even number, these people are rewarded with chocolate. On an odd roll, the receive electric shocks. If your theory is correct, even rolls should occur more often then odd rolls, no? (I assume it wouldn't work on lab rats?)

[Sarona Collins]

I listed 3 things (exercises) in my message number 40 ("Maybe try this") that a person might do to experience their self-created-beingness and/or the creative energy that I claim flows backward in time. Then you might not need the scientific proof you are asking for. (But I am still thinking about what else I might say to prove or show what I mean.)

The experiment with the dice odd/even and electric shock or reward would probably not work with people who don't believe they can do magic/k in the first place. Even most people who think they can do magick don't think they do it after the fact.

Gravity exists, but people can jump and have made airplanes that work even though there is gravity. Like that, magick, wishing for something and then it happens, is opposite to what I claim is the normal flow of causative energy. Some people believe they have the techniques to do magick ... they have the equivalent of an airplane or exceptional jumping technique.

As I was growing up, I made wishes on my birthday. I wished I could fly, but that never happened except in my dreams. Later, I wished for things that were possible and my wishes always came true. This is some proof for me, but it is not proof for you. You already know that telling what you wished for on your birthday "breaks" the spell. There is something about doing magic for testing and showing and proving that interferes with the process. I have not yet figured out what that is, but given that is the case, it should be easier for you to prove it to yourself than for me to prove it for you.

As for proving that causative energy naturally and regularly flows back through time, I'm still mostly caught in the observation phase (I see birds fly), and thinking a lot about how I might prove it.

[Sarpedon]

This is getting nowhere. you have to show why your explanation is more reasonable than the current explanation. We can fly because we understand air pressure, it isnt magic. If you are trying to scientifically explain how magic works, first you will have to demonstrate that there is magic.

This kind of reasoning won't get you anywhere on an atheist site.

[Sarona Collins]

Maybe I am the only person who believes that positive infinity is the same as negative infinity, and that because it works that way with numbers then it can work that same way with time. :huh:

Lets take the number 8 and divide it by numbers that approach 2.

so I divide 8 by 3 and by 1 and I get 2.6something and 8. Then I divide 8 by 2.5 and by 1.5, and I get numbers that are closer to 4 (3.2 and 5.3something). Then I divide 8 by 2.25 and 1.75 and the answers are even closer to 4 (3.5something and 4.5something). As the numbers I am dividing by get closer to each other, the results get closer to 4, and 4 is equal to 4.

so, if i take the number 8 and divide it by positive 1 and negative 1 , I get postive 8 and negative 8 as a result. then if I divide by postive 1/2 and negative 1/2, I get postive 16 and negative 16 as a result. If I divide by 1/10 and negative 1/10, I get positive 80 and negative 80. As the numbers I divide by get closer and closer to zero, my results get closer and closer to positive infinity and negative infinity.

This gives me the impression that positive infinity is equal to negative infinity. Applied to Time, I believe that the far future and the far past are connected closely or the same.

Can you use this as a way for me to show you how causative energy might be able to flow backwards?

[Sarpedon]

No I cannot, because it cannot.

Numbers describe reality; they do not control it. This is what separates mathmatics from numerology. Time can be described by numbers, true, but just because you can do such and such with numbers doesn't mean that reality can be affected in the same way. You can add and subtract numbers, but you can only add time, because of the laws of Thermodynamics. Energy cannot flow backwards in time because that would mean that entropy was decreasing. This cannot be.

Also, your statement about positive and negative infinity is untrue: the fact that they are both incomprehensible numbers does not mean that they are both equal. The fact that both numbers are obtained by dividing by a tiny number almost equal to zero doesn't impress me; just imagine what you are doing when you divide. You are merely counting the number of times the smaller number goes into the larger. There is no mystery or magic to it. Also, remember what negative numbers represent; merely a change, a taking away of quantity or material, not an actual negative or anti-something or other (unless you are talking about magnetic charge or something, and even that is a something that is expressed as a negative, rather than something that is negative by actual quality)

Don't mistake the expression of something for the thing itself.

[Sturmrabe]

No I cannot, because it cannot.

Numbers describe reality; they do not control it. This is what separates mathmatics from numerology. Time can be described by numbers, true, but just because you can do such and such with numbers doesn't mean that reality can be affected in the same way. You can add and subtract numbers, but you can only add time, because of the laws of Thermodynamics. Energy cannot flow backwards in time because that would mean that entropy was decreasing. This cannot be.

Also, your statement about positive and negative infinity is untrue: the fact that they are both incomprehensible numbers does not mean that they are both equal. The fact that both numbers are obtained by dividing by a tiny number almost equal to zero doesn't impress me; just imagine what you are doing when you divide. You are merely counting the number of times the smaller number goes into the larger. There is no mystery or magic to it. Also, remember what negative numbers represent; merely a change, a taking away of quantity or material, not an actual negative or anti-something or other (unless you are talking about magnetic charge or something, and even that is a something that is expressed as a negative, rather than something that is negative by actual quality)

Don't mistake the expression of something for the thing itself.

a mathmatitian can make numbers dance... and even a back woods preacher and multiply the number of gospels by the books of the original torah and divite it by the number of chapers in the book of revelation and tell you jesus is coming back soon... I've heard them do it... its funny

[Sarona Collins]

Ok, so you say that you are coming up with possible explainations for things you observe. Please give me some more examples of things that you observe that makes you think that energies are working retroactively. I, for my part, have never observed anything that makes me see that.



Here are some examples not of energy working retroactively, but of magic in general. However, being in the right place at the right time is a constant example to me of the energy working retroactively.

I think I was a junior in high school when I did a personal experiment with the weather. I would choose a day and a reason as to whether I wanted it to be sunny or cloudy on that day. Like, I might want to go on a picnic or I might have a dance the night before and be out late so I would want to sleep in. I wanted to be sure that I was CAUSING rather than PREDICTING the weather. I tried it ten times and had 100% success.

I would frequently wish on a star and have my wish come true. Maybe about one failure in 20 attempts, but I didnt keep track of the number of times I did this and this one in twenty is a kind of guess looking back on it.

My definition of magick uses the concept of probability.

If something has a 50/50 chance of happening and I can make that thing happen 2/3 of the time, I consider that some magic. If something has a 1 in 4 chance of happening and I can make it happen 50% of the time, that is also some magic. There are times when I am absolutely positive that I will have magical success - like I know it with a different part of me. And there are times when I am absolutely positive that I will not have magical success, sometimes with reasons or explanations. When I have this sense of absolute knowledge, it has always been right.

So, I spend my time trying to figure out what are the rules for the magic that I practice rather than spending so much time trying to explain the physics of it to athiests. I think that if I can learn to understand these rules, I will be able to teach as well as practice magic.

[whichphilosophy]

Wouldn't "you" have to already exist in some form to "will yourself into existence"? :confused: Isn't that what you're calling "creating-selves"? Sounds awful contradictory to me - a self wills itself into existence.

I agree with what you are saying. In fact I am puzzled why a person can have a concept of creating themselves for they exist already. They can only create something else or perhaps in theory a duplicate.