Where do you fit in as a believer or skeptic?

[trainedobserver]

Is belief the natural consequence of the evaluation of information or a conscious act? I think belief as most people use the term refers to a state that was arrived at through largely unconscious means. It does have to do with presets though.

If you are trained or presupposed to use sound techniques and processes during the evaluation of the information your belief about the information may prove useful.

If your standards of evidence and evaluation processes aren't sound your belief probably won't be useful and most likely harmful.

A belief therefore is a conclusion arrived at through unconscious or subconscious means. I don't think it is a conscious choice, like a vote. You can change your beliefs by consciousnessly challenging them and seeking out new techniques and information.

One can be traumatized through fear and intimidation to accept unsound techniques, processes, and information on which to base their beliefs, or one can just be the victim of their own ignorance.

There is nothing magical about beliefs. They are ideas that we hold in our heads about something. The largest effect beliefs can have on physical reality is in influencing an individual to take an action.

Other than that they just rattle around in our heads causing problems. Or so is my belief.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Beliefs are purely a product of instinct. Specifically our programming as it reflects upon the most important driver we have, the instinct to survive. From there beliefs are applied universally via the memory's correlative bearing on required process.

BTW, beliefs can and do absolutely effect reality apart from "taking action" if by "taking action" one is referring to that which is physically elected.

This has been proved.

 

[Tyger]

RL work supervenes for me in it's accustomed manner - but I do think about the points raised here.

Here is a fascinating conversation between two out-of-the-box-thinking scientists - near and dear to many. They have a very honest conversation about science, politics and research funding. The first 30 minutes covers many topics raised here - and they range far and wide throughout the entire hour and a half conversation. Very interesting, I think.

Belief is discussed. It is in the realm of the mind-body connection where the essence of this gets illuminated. Beliefs undermine our power. Consciousness is key.

Rupert Sheldrake and Bruce Lipton: A Quest Beyond the Limits of the Ordinary
LINK:

 

[trainedobserver]

You guys bring up some good points, and I was going to bring up Lipton.

Jeff,
I don't know that it has actually been proven that "beliefs" have direct effect on physical reality other than their control of human behavior. If believing something made it real then the world would be a very different place. Working in a nursing home or hospital would be extremely challenging as patients would be manifesting all sorts of bizarre alternate realities simultaneously. Or am I misunderstanding you?

Tyger,
I've read Lipton's book and listened to that and other talks of his. He has some good stuff, but loses me with the "field" business. Describe the field Bruce! Never does that I've seen.

Here is something to think about though. The fact that "thoughts" are actually electrochemical events occurring in the brain confirms that they have a direct physical effect on the thinker, because electrochemical events are "physical" in nature. You can certainly think yourself into a diseased state. I've seen it done. Usually though, problems in the thought life are directly related to the physical/chemical state of the thinker, which of course are dictated by the environment. As the thinker himself is an intrical part of that environment itself he is part of a feedback loop of sorts. It kind of gets back to the business of there being only one thing (the universe) and one thing happening to it (constant transformation.)

 

[Tyger]

Tyger,
I've read Lipton's book and listened to that and other talks of his. He has some good stuff, but loses me with the "field" business. Describe the field Bruce! Never does that I've seen.

The linked conversation is really comprehensive - they cover a lot of ground. I particularly found Sheldrakes's connection to Watson and Crick at Cambridge interesting - and how the Human Genome Project came into existence - and how the public continues to use what is really an 'artifact' of a failed 'new idea' as though it were living science. That's interesting to me.

Anyway, regarding Lipton's 'field' - he does a pretty good description of it in the linked conversation above. He is working with the idea of 'field' as described in quantum mechanics.

 

[Randall]

Is belief the natural consequence of the evaluation of information or a conscious act? I think belief as most people use the term refers to a state that was arrived at through largely unconscious means.

Everything that we're conscious of seems to be arrived at through "largely unconscious means", so I don't get the point of that statement.

 

[Randall]

Beliefs are purely a product of instinct. Specifically our programming as it reflects upon the most important driver we have, the instinct to survive ...

There are some instinctual survival based beliefs, especially emotional ones, but I'm not so sure Freudian psychology is the only motivating force behind belief.

 

[trainedobserver]

Anyway, regarding Lipton's 'field' - he does a pretty good description of it in the linked conversation above. He is working with the idea of 'field' as described in quantum mechanics.

Could you illustrate the field and its action?

 

[Randall]

Could you illustrate the field and its action?

Aren't we still waiting for the explanation of "spirits' and "spiritual realms" as requested back here: Where do you fit in as a believer or skeptic? | Page 9 | The Paracast Community Forums
Tyger still seems to have a habit of dodging the core issues and attempting to build beliefs on quicksand.
There's an old saying, when someone is lost and you're searching for them, the assumption is that they want to be found.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Could you illustrate the field and its action?

TO,
There are many theories with respect to the aspect of field relative consciousness. Some demonstrable, some not. To best understand quantum random selection, the transient effect of consciousness via field transmissions and subsequent random correlations, please start here:REG Design

 

[trainedobserver]

TO,
There are many theories with respect to the aspect of field relative consciousness. Some demonstrable, some not. To best understand quantum random selection, the transient effect of consciousness via field transmissions and subsequent random correlations, please start here:REG Design

Yes. But can you (or anyone else for that matter) illustrate (draw a diagram of) the field and its interaction with a cell?

 

[Jeff Davis]

Yes. But can you (or anyone else for that matter) illustrate (draw a diagram of) the field and its interaction with a cell?

Are we talking consciousness here, or biology?

 

[trainedobserver]

Everything that we're conscious of seems to be arrived at through "largely unconscious means", so I don't get the point of that statement.

I mean to say that things that appear in our consciousness (beliefs in this case) can only get there through brain processes which run prior to them emerging into consciousness. We are ignorant of all the pre-processing that occurs before we are aware of our thoughts.

 

[trainedobserver]

Are we talking consciousness here, or biology?

I think you've asked the wrong question about "realms" haven't you? It shouldn't matter.

Lipton's "morphic field" is either an object or a concept. We should be able to easily draw objects and their interactions.

Does it have a shape? Is it an object? Or is it an idea held in the mind, a concept, like justice for example.

 

[Jeff Davis]

TO,
I honestly "BELIEVE" (because the matter is falsifiable at this point) that you are 100% correct, provided we are strictly referring to beliefs. Beliefs begin as reflections of our survival and propagation instincts. They are not forcefully elected to action as if these basic formulations are by definition a matter of volition. They are the product of instinctual memory derived information prior to experience. These beliefs are allegorically developed instinctual subsets of information. This is how instinct becomes animate. A new born child feels hunger and instinctively believes the mother to be the source for nourishment. The child instinctively believes (not "knows", as knowledge is a product of learning through conscious awareness, for which a baby has very little programming to go on initially) themselves to be edified and therefore satisfied. From here such matters are individuated via sentience.

Here is what you are looking for TO. The brain itself is NOT the producer of sentience, but rather the deterministic agent responding to a field of consciousness induced sentience. The term consciousness is very confusing as many people view it many different ways. The thought process IMO is not a product of consciousness, but rather the brain responding to consciousness. Consciousness delivers environmentally relevant information that the brain receives and then acts upon. All consciousness information is received by the brain remotely and stored in the memory wherein temporal demonstrations are synchronized to be routinely reproduced as experience. The basic combined outcome of the human brain & consciousness create relativity wherein the human condition stabilizes itself environmentally. This is an act of survival no different than a baby's first breath and the suckling of it's mother.

 

[trainedobserver]

Here is what you are looking for TO. The brain itself is NOT the producer of sentience, but rather the deterministic agent responding to a field of consciousness induced sentience. The term consciousness is very confusing as many people view it many different ways. The thought process IMO is not a product of consciousness, but rather the brain responding to consciousness. Consciousness delivers environmentally relevant information that the brain receives and then acts upon. All consciousness information is received by the brain remotely and stored in the memory wherein temporal demonstrations are synchronized to be routinely reproduced as experience. The basic combined outcome of the human brain & consciousness create relativity wherein the human condition stabilizes itself environmentally. This is an act of survival no different than a baby's first breath and the suckling of it's mother.

Could you define what you mean by consciousness and field for me? I'm thinking just a line or two should do it. It's hard for me to discuss things like this unless I understand the terminology being used. It's like when a Mormon says "Jesus" and a Southern Baptist says "Jesus." They won't know they aren't talking about the same character until they each define their "Jesus."

 

[Jeff Davis]

I think you've asked the wrong question about "realms" haven't you? It shouldn't matter.

Lipton's "morphic field" is either an object or a concept. We should be able to easily draw objects and their interactions.

Does it have a shape? Is it an object? Or is it an idea held in the mind, a concept, like justice for example.

Just as a thought, are there not many such theoretical concepts where we would have difficulty drawing as much? If we draw a picture of relativity, because it has so many demonstrations within the physical universe, are we going to capture, even capitulate, such a demonstration comprehensively?

Sheldrake and Lipton are brilliant scientists TO, I hardly think our artistic skills would do either justice, let alone substantiate their hypothesis and possible subsequent theories.

 

[trainedobserver]

Just as a thought, are there not many such theoretical concepts where we would have difficulty drawing as much? If we draw a picture of relativity, because it has so many demonstrations within the physical universe, are we going to capture, even capitulate, such a demonstration comprehensively?

Sheldrake and Lipton are brilliant scientists TO, I hardly think our artistic skills would do either justice, let alone substantiate their hypothesis and possible subsequent theories.

Relativity is a concept and not an object.

An object has shape. It can be drawn. A concept does not have a shape and cannot be drawn.

A concept does not interact with a cell. Objects do.

If the morphic field were a real "thing" Lipton (or anyone else for that matter) would have no trouble illustrating it.

This is why I say Lipton loses me with the morphic field business. It's a religious belief and not a scientific reality.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Could you define what you mean by consciousness and field for me? I'm thinking just a line or two should do it. It's hard for me to discuss things like this unless I understand the terminology being used. It's like when a Mormon says "Jesus" and a Southern Baptist says "Jesus." They won't know they aren't talking about the same guy until they each define their "Jesus."

Consciousness = frequency based energy

Field = a plane where we as relative points of reference are defined via sentience. Sentience provides experience via the metabolic results of the reception of consciousness in the brain.

 

[Jeff Davis]

I would have to study Bruce, or Rupert's work to really understand more. I know that Sheldrake has REALLY been drawing fire lately due to the wiki crowd, but apart from finding their speculations sincerely interesting, I am not familiar enough to defend or dismiss either. Does Lipton profess a belief in religion based creationism?