Joseph Farkasdi
Posted April 26, 2015 by Joseph Farkasdi
What gurus fail to teach and people following gurus fail to realize is that it is not your thoughts, what you think about, that affects and even, at times, changes reality. It is the awareness that you have about your thoughts that does the affecting towards change. Descartes so had it wrong, when he placed emphasis upon a limitation. Correcting our focus, the self-evidence is obvious. I am, therefore I think. Yes, having positive life-affirming thoughts, like peace and equitable justice and oneness amongst all and so forth, can and does over generations time change the social behavior and outlook of a society of people. Yes, focusing on a desired outcome elevates the spirit, and occasionally motivates a few into achieving under fortunate circumstances. But, intending and meditating and willing these thoughts themselves are not what does any changing. Just as misplaced emotional investment often does not generate one's desired results.

For the universe cares not what we think. The universe holds no value of one or one's ideals over that of another. As well, the universe does not respond to our moral views about life, as if somehow things should indeed be this way. Instead, the universe portions the same chance of events to anyone and everyone equally and, then for some, from our perspective, terribly unfairly. The reason for this is observable, in that the universe does not respond to what we think, the use of limited in meaning and imagination words we directly focus upon. Rather, it is affected by our observation, and all the modern science points directly to this with evidence. It is our wordless observation of life that causes responses, both within us and in what we perceive around us. No matter how we might want things to be on an intellectual and emotional level, the universe unfolds in its logical impartial way based directly on our observation alone. Or, the lack of observation, observant awareness, as is most often more often the case.

For example, an atom will not change state in a laboratory so long as it is being observed, shifting from particle to wave before an active watcher. Entangled atoms traveling at different distances will amazingly, somehow, anticipate an observation of it before this observation even happens. For example, a person achieving a state of deep wordless meditative awareness is able to survive normally deathly conditions unharmed, or is able to remiss a normally death-incurring disease, returning fully to a healthy state until his or her lifespan has expired.

These are documented scientifically verified events that have occurred numerous times amongst numerous peoples. But, never once has it been shown that any of these events have occurred during or because of a conscious focus on a worded image. Rather, what is demonstrable in all of them is the affect upon the universe, and upon ourselves in this universe, during these moments we transcend meanings and expected outcomes. It is in these moments of just being, of mindful awareness, that amazing surprises find their appearance. During the moments we suspend our expectations, however so briefly. I am, therefore I think. Therefore, I am aware that I am thinking, and now I am simply genuinely observing. The universe cares not what we think, only whether we are in fact fully observing. All the rest is commentary upon this. Commentary that may or may not take root at a social and pocket level.

Are we aware of our thinking, when we are thinking? Are we aware enough? What would happen if we all together, for just a brief moment, suspended our thoughts and just observed?

Thoughts on my reflection this Shabbat?
Comments
View All Comments (17)
Joseph Farkasdi wrote at May 6, 2015
0 Votes
I appreciate your attempt, Stan. Really do, but evidence of a perception happening is not evidence of a reality event happening. Where are the scientific demonstrable measurements of intact energy beings that have separated themselves from individuals experiencing physical death? Where are the quantum mathematics or physics mathematics the clearly shows this reality is in part comprised of energy beings transferring in and out of physical bodies? I do not discount possibilities, but possibilities are not necessarily probabilities. We cannot see gravity or electromagnetism, until it has a direct affect upon the world of matter. A causal effect from interaction. But, we can predict it mathematically and demonstrate the evidence of it by way of cause and effect within the universe. The same is not the case with an immaterial spirit being. ... I'll explain my stance this way, I don't hear anyone in the scientific community questioning the existence of gravity or of electromagnetism, because the evidence for it we all experience daily as a reality within our world. It is self-evident. A whole lot of people, not willing to face the demonstrable reality that we are not eternal - we have a birth point and a death point - find consolation from this horrible reality through an ancestral idea of gods and spirits and other worlds. No proof has been needed, because the reason for it is not scientific, but rather emotional fear of the reality of things and an emotional feeling that it is terribly unfair. Thus, there has to be more, proof or not. Then, in comes the realm of science, which literally explain so many aspects of this universe, to include how it came about, how it is and how it works, and how it's most likely to end. We have uncovered the world of psychological disorders which explain people related events that used to be seen as possession of demon (spirit world) influence. It took reason to face this reality and see some things as they are, despite the fact that it tends to take the emotional comfort factor away when we do so. ...

I would ask anyone the following, for I ask it of myself daily: If more than one explanation or reason can be given for an event not yet fully understood, where experimental evidence does not conclusively define or demonstrate, is the reason most often hoped for and given really correct? For example, Near-Death Experiences - this is simply just this, a cognitive experience that has occurred within the body-mind during a time of near-death. A perceptual generation of the mind. To add anything more to this is to take a position out of the realm of reasoning science and into the realm of emotional-driven superstition. But, what of examples of no brain activity, you might ask? Who says the mind of the collective cellular body called human is solely and completely in the brain itself, and not just focused there? The experience itself suggests on its own nothing more, just a near-death experience that has occurred for the individual experiencing this near-death. Another example, humans claiming to remember past lives, and it can be demonstrated that somehow they know incredible historical detail about an event or place or life of a different time, even though they had no discernible prior exposure to this information. Again, this is simply what it is, they know things they were not taught. Now, pseudoscience will tell you that this is the workings of reincarnation, and is a form of proof of it. But, this is NOT the only possible explanation for such occurrences. In fact, there is a higher probable chance that we will discover in the future that such occurrences of knowledge are due not to reincarnation but, rather, are due to either ancestral memory being tapped into - memory stored in unexpected places in the body, such as the recently discovered centrioles for gene expression - or due to a demonstrable form of collective conscious that can tap into periods of time one is presently not living in. This theory is just as valid as the theology that somehow we are energy bodies inhabiting multiple physical bodies over eons of time. A theology many have attempted to address scientifically and have yet to incorporate into our scientific view of the world evidence of a spirit world permeating reality. But, we have discovered worm holes, dark matter, and singularity points, which are mathematically demonstrable and, through proof of the device that I am typing this on, applicable and able to be manipulated in some real world way. Apparitions and after-death communications are again, no different than reincarnation and no different in that they demonstrate the possibility of a stored ancestral collective conscious, rather than independent free floating spirits. Again, a perceptual generation of mind and/or singular/collective imagination. Each person has their moment of living on the time line but, through genetic connection, their life experience is not entirely lost through this entanglement of information carried forward - even though they themselves in all that they once were is no more, dead and decayed, and recycled into the basic building blocks of the universe (in time), never experiencing life ever again beyond this timeline presence.

Just because we intuitively want something to be the reality, does not make it a demonstrable reality, especially when a probable counter theory equally exists. I know of no counter theories to gravity and electromagnetism, just further attempts to refine experiential knowledge on what was known (without emotional self-serving bias) before scientist were born to investigate and study it. I'm not trying to be argumentative here, ... I'm really not! But, just because humans have perceived a spirit world for almost as long as we have been aware of the effects of gravity and lightening, does not make the spirit world real. It took scientists no hard effort at all to demonstrate the self-evident reality of gravity and electricity and magnetism and so forth. After this many years of scientific study, for every assumed proof of an individual existing spirit that is separate of the body-mind, there is a just as much, if not more plausible, demonstrable explanation that fits within the realm of the reality we all experience. I know this sucks! I emotionally hate it, too. Because, I, too, want to live forever in all my emotional naivety. But, this does not make me rational to believe this is so or will be so, until there is scientific evidence that supports what everyone of any time period has been able to see and know as self-evident reality. The realm of religions, a human creation, has never been without competing views on the same topic. It is inappropriate, in my opinion, to apply scientific studies to try to prove the existence of what always has been contended, rather than focusing on establishing the evidential and demonstrable facts. ... Where is the evidence?! If it is real, it is self-evident to anyone and everyone - regardless, how they name it, express it and explain it - in any time in history. It was not that long ago in our short history, thus far, of evolutionary adaptation into thinking and reasoning human beings that we believed collectively that lightening strikes and volcanic eruptions were the real world expressed anger of the imagined world of gods and goddesses. If it is real, it is self-evident to all, regardless how we perceive in our given times. Personally, I doubt the belief of spirits being anything other than our way of explaining the energetic generation of conscious, produced by the body-mind or collective cellular body, that occurs when a formed human being discovers his/her self-consciousness. The self-evidence of a separate eternal spirit existence is not a reality in my experience of this world. So, how is it self-evident, when it is not universally self-evident? I don't doubt gravity, even though I believe that gravity is not a "force" as most scientists believe but, rather, a causal effect of the fundamental forces we know about. Regardless the diverging views, all humans know that something is keeping us to this planet, which we call in our times gravity. ...

Now, I appreciate the attempt being made here to find evidence that executing deliberate willful "intent" directly affects the physical universe we live in, and demonstrating that it is a usable act of energetic force that we can use to manipulate our world. At least, to some degree that natural tendency towards disorder and competing intentional desires will allow for. I believe that, like atoms entangling, we, too, socially entangle on an unconscious collective consciousness level, when competing intentions are similarly aligned for mutual benefit of those intending. But, this is a far cry from taking an irrational leap of saying that the universe directly responds to our worded and intended thoughts and creates itself based upon them, or that our existence has meaning beyond our self-generate reasons created in the moment of living and experience. So far, the physics only shows that, somehow and in someway that we do not yet fully understand, the universe is aware when we are observing it. Nothing more, just simply responding to our observation and going from a wave state of probability to a physical particle state of existence, based on this observation. Present conducted experiments, thus far, only reveal that the probability of being becomes a potential predictable physical reality when we are aware of it. The data suggest nothing more, and I am not inclined to put a mystical spin upon it, just because it would make me feel better about this reality, or that I have some greater measure of control over it than I actually do, or that it would give meaning and order to a universe that is throughout in competition with itself. At times, I do wonder, just how many similar thoughts that four-legged, six-armed, four-eyed conscious and creatively-intelligent reasoning "living being" across on the other side of the universe, on its home planet looking up at the night sky, is having that are like mine? Does this being have the same fears and hopes and struggles between reason and emotional wishful thinking? Does it, too, have science to explain things, and religion for that which science cannot confirm? Has it been around as an adapted species of evolutionary development and experimentation on its planet for, say, far longer that we have on our planet? Say, for our fifty thousand years of existing as a species, maybe they're at four hundred thousand? Have they learned to differentiate, yet, between valid emotional hope governed by rational wisdom, and unbridled emotional need to somehow validate that which is not self-evidently obvious to all - even across the universe by us on our planet? ...

I am all for the intention experiment, but to say it is more than a test of whether we can as a species find others to entangle with on matching intent and working together, knowingly or unknowlingly, together or apart, in same or different time periods is not rational. For, the self-evidence of our history on this planet shows that, like the rest of the intelligent evolved life on this planet, we within our own species are constantly in competition over what intent we should be focussed on. Maybe, in time, a threshold will occur where the majority will share similar intents (say such as peace, goodwill, and justice), but it is unscientific and presumptious and even irrational to think that we will have universal order on a set of intents. The reason is self-evident. The universe stagnates on sameness, and we are not the only intelligently aware lifeforms in existence. Just one small recent branch of cosmic experimentation. And, we haven't been here that long. ... I know it sucks! But, we each have our religions to take care of that part, if we can't handle reality as it is and just accept it. Accepting it does not mean sitting down and doing nothing. It can equally mean being truly scientific and testing the boundaries realistically and rationally, for greater understanding and discovery of possibilities.
Last Update on May 6, 2015 by Joseph Farkasdi
Joseph Farkasdi
Stan Ellis wrote at May 8, 2015
1 Vote
Joseph, I don’t see anyone refuting the selected physics you use to support your belief. What I do see are equivocations that suggest your conclusions are rife with “Confirmation Bias,” defined as a heuristic that leads a person with a particular belief to perceive observations & evidence as reinforcing their belief even when other observers disagree based on plausible explanations that have been replicated in other fields of science. I do agree with your discounting Theology from Real Science in making conclusions.

I also see examples of an "Authority heuristic" occurring in your explanations. It is manifest in presenting your scientific opinions as authoritative primarily based on your personal understanding of selected Physics. People apply this heuristic all the time in matters such as science, politics, and education. This simply does not agree with valid “Scientific Inquiry” or the “Scientific Method.”

I am retired from the field of Behavioral Psychology. I was Certified in Behavioral Analysis and Therapeutic Intervention. I mention this to establish that I am thoroughly familiar with the parameters of Scientific Inquiry and The Scientific Method. A real scientist does not look at evidence or information with bias. In the hypothesis testing phase of The Scientific Method a researcher uses the rule-out paradigm (i.e. not an invalidation paradigm) on information (empirical & anecdotal, objective & subjective) that has no clear cause & effect or catalytic relationship. The information that is ruled-out, is then catalogued for future consideration as new evidence arises to further test or challenge a hypothesis.

Finally, we should also remember that Branches of Physics are far from being the final scientific authority. Physics demonstrates many unexplained anomalies such as Einstein’s “spooky action of electrons” (locality vs non-locality). Gariev and Proponin’s Phantom Effect on DNA involving the relationship of light to the DNA Helix, Dr. Clive Baxter’s non-locality effect (at a distance up to 300 miles) of each subjects emotions on DNA that was removed from each subject, Physics inability to prove life exist due to not being able to perform objective measurements based on the collapse of the wave principle, etc.

Thank You For Presenting This Dynamic Topic For Discussion. The IEC Has Not Had Many Noteworthy Presentations & Discussions Like This In The Past Few Years. I Wish More Old-Timers Would Weigh-In.
Last Update on May 8, 2015 by Stan Ellis
Stan Ellis