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?
View All Comments (17)
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
Joseph Farkasdi wrote at May 8, 2015
0 Votes
Think you misunderstand me, Stan. I am refuting "Confirmation Bias" and "Authority heuristic" in my responses. Apparently, I still need more practice on getting such across, for by your response I am apparently not achieving this. Interesting, and will have to study this further. You have it correct when saying that "A real scientist does not look at evidence or information with bias," even though some who have responded below would disagree with this, our shared view. Science does not "prove" anything. But rather, science seeks to observe objectively, without adding personal beliefs or attitudes to the results of experiments, and attempts to better "explain" what is going on. This is done by amassing evidence for a theory, or modifying/rejecting a theory based on the evidence. A white light is simply this, a white light, a spectrum of energy within our visual range that is either perceived objectively or subjectively. It is not proof or demonstrable evidence of reincarnation, as some misusing scientific results would have us believe. Reincarnation is a religious theology (an ideology) designed to take the sting out of the self-evident, that we are born and live for a moment and then die. It is this need for rational focus to our experiments, born out of intuition and curiosity over what will result, that I was attempting to express in my post above.

I am not interested, personally, in dogma, no matter where it comes from. But, I do note some patterns. There is the objective world that any living being, regardless of species and place within this universe, can attest to, in whatever ways of attesting each prefers. This is the demonstrable self-evident universe that we all share. This is also the universe, that to our chagrin, does not play favorites with any life or any part of it. It simply is in all its ordered chaos, and each lifeform makes its decision whether this is good or bad for them, or in need of redefining. There is the subjective world that is demonstrable and believable only to those who experience this world. This world is often expressed in the form philosophical, religious, or mystic theology and beliefs. Science attempts to study both, but the results of scientific experimentation is never a proof of anything, but rather an explanation offered base on (hopefully, sufficient) evidence.

In the realm of humans and, specifically, in regards to this experiment being conducted, objective awareness of the universe clearly shows that there are many competing intents at work in the universe, each trying to get its way. This is at every scale of the universe, from microscopic to our human social level and, larger, to the competitions of the macroscopic. A realistic expectation to the efforts of this Intention Experiment would be that we will gather evidence on whether we socially can influence each other to "whatever" some degree. Maybe out of this, we will be able to discern the probability of such things as a human consciousness field. Then, again, maybe we will ultimately disprove it. Especially, if we are regularly weighting the evidence with personal/social bias of beliefs and expectations, which distorts the view of objectivity. Some things are simply self-evident, and we use science to explain better the inmate workings of this self-evidence, to the best that we can discern. To apply anything more to it in meaning is to cloud this aware observation with biased beliefs and judgments. Use of intuition and intent and, of course, a belief that is ever evolving with the self-evidence can and is a useful tool in this process. But, it is not the self-evidence itself, just an applied aspect of our human approach to discerning and coming to terms with what is self-evident.

This brings me to the question of my post - What would happen if we all together, for just a brief moment, suspended our thoughts and just observed? Is it possible for us humans to collectively do so? Curious as to what would indeed happen.
Last Update on May 8, 2015 by Joseph Farkasdi
Joseph Farkasdi