Thought-forms

[Limbo9]

I did a forum search but I coudn't find a thread on this subject, so I thought I would start one.

Basically, a thought-form could be the explanation for a great many phenomena throughout history. It can't be proved scientifically of course, but I believe there is a great deal of circumstantial evidence.

A thought-form can be described a few different ways. The description I favor is that thought-forms are imaginations of a collective consciousness or undifferentiated consciousness. If a particular person is a part of that consciousness, they can percieve and contribute to said thought-form.

Thought-forms are as old as Shamanism itself, and throughout the ages the methods of creating and controling them have advanced as one of the cornerstones of esoterics.

[grayman]

Carl Jung territory, perhaps?

[Limbo9]

Carl Jung territory, perhaps?

Perhaps. But I submit that thought-forms can be a little more...external than Jung pictured. Projected from out of our minds and into the collective or undifferentiated, where they could be shared by a group, perhaps?

[grayman]

Mass hallucination?

[Limbo9]

Mass hallucination?

Yes, similar to that, but much more. The mechanism that allows a group to share a hallucination could be the same mechanism which forms a large or small scale group consciousness. Analogous to a computer network with the same picture on all the monitors.

I submit that throughout the ages mystics and priests have been using their respective systems of esoterics to create and manipulate thought-forms.

[Carnivore]

So one persons internal consciousness is projected and literally experienced by others ?

[thaiboxerken]

So if two people are projecting thoughts on the same object, who wins?

[Carnivore]

Thought form fight! Soon you will all be thinking of the same number as me! My esoterics are unbeatable!

[Limbo9]

So one persons internal consciousness is projected and literally experienced by others ?

Thats an excellent question. I am leaning toward yes. But of course its not quite as easy as all that. Nothing ever is.

So if two people are projecting thoughts on the same object, who wins?

Heh heh. The one whose thoughts are closest to the shared conception of the object, I suppose!

Mythologies, religious and occultic symbols and training were used to synchronize thoughts and concepts, among other things.

[Carnivore]

Thats an excellent question. I am leaning toward yes. But of course its not quite as easy as all that. Nothing ever is.



Heh heh. The one whose thoughts are closest to the shared conception of the object, I suppose!

Religious and occultic symbols were used to synchronize thoughts and concepts, among other things.

OK, so we are talking direct mind to mind contact and information transfer without a readily observable medium. This is interesting stuff, can you give some specific examples of this phenomenon? What has made you lean towards it being real?

[Gr8wight]

I did a forum search but I coudn't find a thread on this subject, so I thought I would start one.

Basically, a thought-form could be the explanation for a great many phenomena throughout history. It can't be proved scientifically of course, but I believe there is a great deal of circumstantial evidence.

A thought-form can be described a few different ways. The description I favor is that thought-forms are imaginations of a collective consciousness or undifferentiated consciousness. If a particular person is a part of that consciousness, they can percieve and contribute to said thought-form.

Thought-forms are as old as Shamanism itself, and throughout the ages the methods of creating and controling them have advanced as one of the cornerstones of esoterics.

I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to describe. How would such a "though form" be perceived or experienced by a third party?

[Limbo9]

OK, so we are talking direct mind to mind contact and information transfer without a readily observable medium. This is interesting stuff, can you give some specific examples of this phenomenon? What has made you lean towards it being real?

Well one of the more famous examples that comes to mind is Socrates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daemon_(mythology)). He had a thought-form, which in their mythology was referred to as a daemon. Socrates was probably a highly trained initiate of a Mystery School. It seems He knew exactly how to make and use them.

Probably the most famous of these dæmons is the mysterious spirit which instructed Socrates, and of whom that great philosopher spoke in the highest terms. Those who have devoted much study to the invisible constitution of man realize that it is quite probable the dæmon of Socrates and the angel of Jakob Böhme were in reality not elementals, but the overshadowing divine natures of these philosophers themselves. In his notes to Apuleius on the God of Socrates, Thomas Taylor says:

"As the dæmon of Socrates, therefore, was doubtless one of the highest order, as may be inferred from the intellectual superiority of Socrates to most other men, Apuleius is justified in calling this dæmon a God. And that the dæmon of Socrates indeed was divine, is evident from the testimony of Socrates himself in the First Alcibiades: for in the course of that dialogue he clearly says, 'I have long been of the opinion that the God did not as yet direct me to hold any conversation with you.' And in the Apology he most unequivocally evinces that this dæmon is allotted a divine transcendency, considered as ranking in the order of dæmons." -Link (http://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/sta/sta25.htm)

Socrates, who himself was apparently gifted with precognitive perception, attributed his abilities to the aid of a personal daemon, which then meant demigod and not (evil) demon. In the Theagetes, Plato makes Socrates say:

By favour of the Gods, I have, since my childhood, been attended by a semi-divine being whose voice from time to time dissuades me from some undertaking, but never directs me what I am to do. You know Charmides the son of Glaucon. One day he told me that he intended to compete at the Nemean games. I tried to turn Charmides from his design, telling him, "While you were speaking, I heard the divine voice. Go not to Nemea." He would not listen. Well, you know he has fallen.

In his Apology for Socrates, Xenophon attributes to him these words:

This prophetic voice has been heard by me throughout my life: it is certainly more trustworthy than omens from the flight or entrails of birds: I call it a God or daemon. I have told my friends the warnings I have received, and up to now the voice has never been wrong. -Link (http://www.williamjames.com/History/GREECE.htm)

What has made me lean toward thought-forms being real? That I hope to make clear gradually throughout this thread.

[thaiboxerken]

Heh heh. The one whose thoughts are closest to the shared conception of the object, I suppose!

So belief constitutes actual reality and that reality is determined by popular belief?

[Limbo9]

So belief constitutes actual reality and that reality is determined by popular belief?

In a manner of speaking, yes. The beliefs of a collective consciousness could shape and define the thought-form. The thought-form could then act within those parameters.

Creating and defining the parameters of a thought-form is analogous to partitioning a hard-drive, and then installing an operating system on the partition. Expanding on this analogy, each computer in the network (analogous to a group consciousness) would give a partition, or some of their processing power over to the thought-form.

Although I'm not exactly sure what you mean by actual reality. If we all were to suddenly start believing that the sun won't rise tomorrow, I doubt that would stop it from rising!

[thaiboxerken]

In a manner of speaking, yes. ...


If we all were to suddenly start believing that the sun won't rise tomorrow, I doubt that would stop it from rising!


WTF are you talking about?!! A thought-form isn't reality? It IS reality?! Beliefs shape reality, but they don't?! You have an extremely vague position.

[Limbo9]

WTF are you talking about?!! A thought-form isn't reality? It IS reality?! Beliefs shape reality, but they don't?! You have an extremely vague position.

I'm not trying to be vague, I'm trying not to get pinned-down by uncertain terms such as "actual reality."

[TjW]

I'm not trying to be vague, I'm trying not to get pinned-down by uncertain terms such as "actual reality."

Sig material.

[Soapy Sam]

Can you define "thought-form" for the pignoratii amongst us (moi) who never heard of same? Are we talking about memes here, or some actual (presumably energy) object, in some way shaped by a thought? (A thought directly made manifest without mechanical modification).
A sculptor might describe a finished artwork as a thought made manifest, but that was done by manually knocking bits off a bit of inert matter. Is this a thought-form in your usage?

[Ririon]

Sig material.
:D

Anyway: How about a short demonstration? If 100 volunteers were instructed to think about something in a certain way, would it somehow influence somebody in the next building? Instant million for you right there. :)

[thaiboxerken]

I'm not trying to be vague, I'm trying not to get pinned-down by uncertain terms such as "actual reality."

Which is synonymous as declaring that you're going to be vague. Thanks for clouding up your position as much as possible.

[John Jackson]

If 100 volunteers were instructed to think about something in a certain way, would it somehow influence somebody in the next building?

Sounds like monkey business to me. :D

[Pup]

Basically, a thought-form could be the explanation for a great many phenomena throughout history. It can't be proved scientifically of course, but I believe there is a great deal of circumstantial evidence.

Do you mean the influence of thuoght-forms can't be proved scientifically right now by pointing to data from experiments already performed? Or do you mean it could never be proved scientifically?

If it could be proved, but experiments just haven't been performed yet, what sort of experiments would you suggest to show that thought-forms existed or caused certain phenomena?

[Ririon]

Sounds like monkey business to me. :D
Well, I just picked a number at random... ;)

[Limbo9]

Can you define "thought-form" for the pignoratii amongst us (moi) who never heard of same? Are we talking about memes here, or some actual (presumably energy) object, in some way shaped by a thought? (A thought directly made manifest without mechanical modification).
A sculptor might describe a finished artwork as a thought made manifest, but that was done by manually knocking bits off a bit of inert matter. Is this a thought-form in your usage?

A meme-field could be a good way to describe a thought-form, but I'm not sure as I've never heard it described that way before.

They could be described as a consciousness field, given form, shape, and appearance (if any) by the minds of the participants.

What it's made out of (energy, information, spirit, mind, life-force) is unknown.

Thought-forms can be bound to objects, animals, or people. When they are bound to objects they are typically referred to as a "talisman". When they are bound to an animal they are called a "familiar" or "animal guide". When they are bound to a person, the person displays behavior associated with "possession", and can "channel" communications from the thought-form. When thought-forms aren't bound to anything, they display characteristics associated with "entities" "ghosts" or "poltergeists".

[Ririon]

A meme-field could be a good way to describe a thought-form, but I'm not sure as I've never heard it described that way before.

They could be described as a consciousness field, given form, shape, and appearance (if any) by the minds of the participants.

What it's made out of (energy, information, spirit, mind, life-force) is unknown.

Thought-forms can be bound to objects, animals, or people. When they are bound to objects they are typically referred to as a "talisman". When they are bound to an animal they are called a "familiar" or "animal guide". When they are bound to a person, the person displays behavior associated with "possession", and can "channel" communications from the thought-form. When thought-forms aren't bound to anything, they display characteristics associated with "entities" "ghosts" or "poltergeists".

It seems to me that all kinds of paranormal phenomena can be vaguely described as "thought-forms". How does this help in any way?

[Soapy Sam]

A meme-field could be a good way to describe a thought-form, but I'm not sure as I've never heard it described that way before.

They could be described as a consciousness field, given form, shape, and appearance (if any) by the minds of the participants.

What it's made out of (energy, information, spirit, mind, life-force) is unknown.

Thought-forms can be bound to objects, animals, or people. When they are bound to objects they are typically referred to as a "talisman". When they are bound to an animal they are called a "familiar" or "animal guide". When they are bound to a person, the person displays behavior associated with "possession", and can "channel" communications from the thought-form. When thought-forms aren't bound to anything, they display characteristics associated with "entities" "ghosts" or "poltergeists".

Or these might be objects, animals, people etc., mentally associated with certain concepts, which invokes mental concepts - a matter of common experience- instead of thoughtforms for which I know of no evidence.

How would you test these two models for relative accuracy?

[Limbo9]

Do you mean the influence of thought-forms can't be proved scientifically right now by pointing to data from experiments already performed? Or do you mean it could never be proved scientifically?

If it could be proved, but experiments just haven't been performed yet, what sort of experiments would you suggest to show that thought-forms existed or caused certain phenomena?

I don't think modern mainstream science has yet reached a paradigm under which thought-forms could be proven.

Much depends on the paradigm. The most traditional paradigm under which thought-forms were created was the spiritual/mystical paradigm. Under that paradigm, thought-forms were gods, angels, demons, ancestors, ect.

Today, there are many paradigms thought-forms could be created under, but none seem to be recognized by science as such.

The accidental creation of thought-forms by a culture or community goes on to this day. I strongly suspect that the vast majority of unexplained UFO sightings are thought-forms.

Most modern people overwhelmingly accept the possibility of alien life. Most people have strong conceptions about the characteristics a UFO would have, thanks to pop-culture. These are essential ingredients of a thought-form.

In ancient cultures, instead of UFOs, cultures would make thought-forms resembling fairies, gnomes, or whatever else the community accepted the possibility of and had common conceptions of.

We no longer accept fairies, so thought-forms accidentally created by modern cultures will not take the shape of fairies.

[Soapy Sam]

Are you rejecting the matter / energy "paradigm" ?
I would suppose that whether it describes an angel or an alien, a thoughtform has some objectively measurable component in the form of matter or energy.
Even if it is purely information in the meme sense (or in Shannon's rather inverted sense), it still must have a matter or energy form in which it is transmitted. If not, it's just another invisible unicorn, an untestifiable and apparently unnecessary notion.

[Limbo9]

Are you rejecting the matter / energy "paradigm" ?
I would suppose that whether it describes an angel or an alien, a thoughtform has some objectively measurable component in the form of matter or energy.
Even if it is purely information in the meme sense (or in Shannon's rather inverted sense), it still must have a matter or energy form in which it is transmitted. If not, it's just another invisible unicorn, an untestifiable and apparently unnecessary notion.

At this point I'm not commited to a particular paradigm. I haven't rejected any. I'm striving for a meta-paradigm...that is to say, that everyone exists within a set of beliefs (a paradigm) and that it takes something greater (meta) to explain the parallel workings of multiple belief systems.

I'm in paradigm limbo...hence my moniker. The view is great. :)

[Pup]

The accidental creation of thought-forms by a culture or community goes on to this day. I strongly suspect that the vast majority of unexplained UFO sightings are thought-forms.

Sounds like the sticking point is not that people tend to copy each other's ideas, but that those ideas become actual things. There's no doubt that fads come and go. UFO flaps. The concept of a local lake monster or bigfoot. Reports of alien abductions. Spirit rapping. Dragons or sea monsters or little green men. Orbs. Rods. Visions of the Virgin Mary. We can point to areas and times where such phenomenon are commonly reported, and other times and places where they're virtually unknown.

The sticking point is proving that the things exist outside of internal mental activity--delusions, mass hysteria, hallucinations, suggestibility, etc.--or common misinterpretation of real things, such as interpreting camera artifacts as orbs or rods.

So what does it take to create a "thought form"? If one can be created, it should be able to be seen by independent observers who have no knowledge of what they're supposed to see. That would separate the phenomenon from the more mundane explanation that people are telling other people to notice things, and by golly, once other people start scanning the skies for UFOs (or the grass for fairies, or the ocean for monsters) some of them see 'em too!

Can a dozen people create a "thought form" by all concentrating on the same thing? A hundred? What does it take?

[Limbo9]

^Excellent post.

Sounds like the sticking point is not that people tend to copy each other's ideas, but that those ideas become actual things.

Yes this is a big sticking point.

Let me continue the computer analogy I've been using to try to explain how I loosely conceptualize this. Remember that particular analogy? I'll be using it alot.

A thought-form is analogous to an image shared by a computer network. The processors of the individual computers are analogous to the minds of those in the group consciousness. The operating system is analogous to the shared mythology be it ancient or modern.

Ok, so we have a thought-form existing in the network, in the form of an image on all the monitors. Now we want to make the image an "actual thing." How do we do that?

Continuing that anaolgy... you hook up a printer to the computer network and hit the 'Print' button.

Now the "image" is an "actual thing".

There is an unknown mechanism involved, possibly similar to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_delusion), which is analogous to the "printer" and the "ink" which manifests the thought-form on the "paper". Do you follow?

So what does it take to create a "thought form"?

There are as many methods as there are esoteric systems. However, these esoteric systems can all be boiled down to a handful of common denominators:

*Altered states of consciousness
*Internally consistant system of symbols
*Internally consistant paradigm and absolute belief in that paradigm
*Rituals to bring the consciousness, symbols, intent, belief together

If one can be created, it should be able to be seen by independent observers who have no knowledge of what they're supposed to see. That would separate the phenomenon from the more mundane explanation that people are telling other people to notice things, and by golly, once other people start scanning the skies for UFOs (or the grass for fairies, or the ocean for monsters) some of them see 'em too!

If the independant observer is part of the "network", then yes they should be able to see it. If someone is outside the "network" and has absolutely no idea what they're supposed to see, then I suspect they would only percieve the effects (if any) of the thought form.

The brain-wave frequency of the observer (largely determind by their paradigm) as opposed to the frequency of the thought-form is probably a major factor.

Can a dozen people create a "thought form" by all concentrating on the same thing? A hundred? What does it take?

Yes, if they are all part of the same "network". An example of a world-wide "network" would be a "UFO" thought-form.

Individuals can create minor thought-forms however.

[Ririon]

So, can you think of a way to demonstrate this? Something like my question in Post #19 in this thread, perhaps? Please feel free to add the necessary details, as I freely admit that I don't fully understand this whole concept. Just something that can be done in a day to show this concept working.

[Limbo9]

So, can you think of a way to demonstrate this? Something like my question in Post #19 in this thread, perhaps? Please feel free to add the necessary details, as I freely admit that I don't fully understand this whole concept. Just something that can be done in a day to show this concept working.

By this do you mean something that a skeptic could do at home in one day to prove or disprove thought-forms?

[Ririon]

By this do you mean something that a skeptic could do at home in one day to prove or disprove thought-forms?
I was thinking more like something you, some associated people and some volunteers could do in a day given time to prepare, a few thousand dollars and a location like a college campus, a remote field or something else to your liking.

Something that would give surprising results to a person who thinks thought-forms is just some vague concept with no observable implications.

If you have something in mind that I can do on my own using common household items, that's fine, too. :)

[Limbo9]

I was thinking more like something you, some associated people and some volunteers could do in a day given time to prepare, a few thousand dollars and a location like a college campus, a remote field or something else to your liking.

Something that would give surprising results to a person who thinks thought-forms is just some vague concept with no observable implications.

If you have something in mind that I can do on my own using common household items, that's fine, too. :)

It's certainly conceivable. I myself am a long way from that point and I have no associates as such.

Right now I'm in the first stage - research. The second stage is to learn a method of achieving the nesessary state of consciousness. I am leaning toward some form of yoga but I haven't determined exactly what constitues the level of consciousness needed. The second stage will be the most time-consuming by far.

The third stage would be constructing a personal and simple system of symbols and rituals, or borrowing some from an existing esoteric system. Then I would be ready to construct a thought-form.

[Ririon]

It's certainly conceivable. I myself am a long way from that point and I have no associates as such.

Right now I'm in the first stage - research. The second stage is to learn a method of achieving the nesessary state of consciousness. I am leaning toward some form of yoga. The second stage will be the most time-consuming by far.

The third stage would be constructing a personal and simple system of symbols and rituals, or borrowing some from an existing esoteric system. Then I would be ready to construct a thought-form.
OK, good luck! Hope you come back ready to do the Million Dollar Challenge. (Or alternatively figure out it is all nonsense.)

[Thing]

Sounds like Sheldrake's Morphic Resonance bull-hockey to me.

[Ririon]

Sounds like Sheldrake's Morphic Resonance bull-hockey to me.
Not really. That bull-hockey is easy to demonstrate. No advanced yoga, rituals or absolute belief required. This is like a more advanced, more difficult and much more vague version of it.

[Limbo9]

Not really. That bull-hockey is easy to demonstrate. No advanced yoga, rituals or absolute belief required. This is like a more advanced, more difficult and much more vague version of it.

I've never heard of Rupert Sheldrake, I'll have to check his website out and see if he has any ideas or techniques I could apply to the creation of thought-forms.

[Soapy Sam]

Basically, a thought-form could be the explanation for a great many phenomena throughout history. It can't be proved scientifically of course, but I believe there is a great deal of circumstantial evidence.

Does this mean you feel circumstantial evidence is not open to scientific analysis?


Thought-forms are as old as Shamanism itself, and throughout the ages the methods of creating and controling them have advanced as one of the cornerstones of esoterics.
What are these methods?

The mechanism that allows a group to share a hallucination could be the same mechanism which forms a large or small scale group consciousness.
Why would that mechanism be anything other than the fact of seeing and misinterpreting the same thing? Do you know of any shared neural mechanism which might generate either shared hallucination or shared consciousness?

I submit that throughout the ages mystics and priests have been using their respective systems of esoterics to create and manipulate thought-forms.
Submit away, it's your thread.



Mythologies, religious and occultic symbols and training were used to synchronize thoughts and concepts, among other things.How would these have such effects? By what mechanism?

Well one of the more famous examples that comes to mind is Socrates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daemon_(mythology)). He had a thought-form, which in their mythology was referred to as a daemon. Socrates was probably a highly trained initiate of a Mystery School. It seems He knew exactly how to make and use them.
Please clarify what you mean here. What did Socrates make apart from statements of fact and opinion? What makes you think he did anything any good teacher does not do?

What has made me lean toward thought-forms being real? That I hope to make clear gradually throughout this thread.How do you think you are doing with this?

The beliefs of a collective consciousness could shape and define the thought-form. The thought-form could then act within those parameters. Act independently of the people?


Creating and defining the parameters of a thought-form is analogous to partitioning a hard-drive, and then installing an operating system on the partition. Expanding on this analogy, each computer in the network (analogous to a group consciousness) would give a partition, or some of their processing power over to the thought-form. What is the equivalent of the hard drive here? Where is the form stored?

Although I'm not exactly sure what you mean by actual reality. If we all were to suddenly start believing that the sun won't rise tomorrow, I doubt that would stop it from rising! Here we agree.:D

I'm not trying to be vague, I'm trying not to get pinned-down by uncertain terms such as "actual reality."
Please choose one. Discussion can only proceed within certain tolerances of precision. I for one still have no idea what these thought forms are in your opinion. Discussion is impossible until that is explained in some physical terms.

A meme-field could be a good way to describe a thought-form, but I'm not sure as I've never heard it described that way before. Nor have I heard of a "meme-field". A meme is a unit of information with potential for replication in appropriate environments (sometimes, but not always, minds). They are conceived of as essentially particulate. I do not know what a meme field would be.

They could be described as a consciousness field, given form, shape, and appearance (if any) by the minds of the participants.

What it's made out of (energy, information, spirit, mind, life-force) is unknown.
With respect- You admit you do not know what you mean by "thought form". You do not know what it is made of. You do not think it is open to scientific analysis. How do we differentiate between a thought form and an invisible unicorn for purposes of this thread? Can you tell us something you do know about them- and on what evidence you know it?

Thought-forms can be bound to objects, animals, or people. When they are bound to objects they are typically referred to as a "talisman". When they are bound to an animal they are called a "familiar" or "animal guide". When they are bound to a person, the person displays behavior associated with "possession", and can "channel" communications from the thought-form. When thought-forms aren't bound to anything, they display characteristics associated with "entities" "ghosts" or "poltergeists".
Bound in what way? In the case of poltergeists- do you mean the thought form can actually propel material objects? Where does it get the energy? Is the process subject to the conservation laws?

I don't think modern mainstream science has yet reached a paradigm under which thought-forms could be proven.
What do YOU understand to be the meaning of "paradigm" here? Your own opinion, not that of any philosopher of science.)

Much depends on the paradigm.
Why would that be, do you suppose?
The most traditional paradigm under which thought-forms were created was the spiritual/mystical paradigm. Under that paradigm, thought-forms were gods, angels, demons, ancestors, ect.
World population is larger than at any point of antiquity. There are more living believers than at the time of Socrates. Why would this "paradigm" no longer apply?

Today, there are many paradigms thought-forms could be created under, but none seem to be recognized by science as such. So you think science is non paradigmatic then?

The accidental creation of thought-forms by a culture or community goes on to this day. I strongly suspect that the vast majority of unexplained UFO sightings are thought-forms.

Most modern people overwhelmingly accept the possibility of alien life. Most people have strong conceptions about the characteristics a UFO would have, thanks to pop-culture. These are essential ingredients of a thought-form.

In ancient cultures, instead of UFOs, cultures would make thought-forms resembling fairies, gnomes, or whatever else the community accepted the possibility of and had common conceptions of.
Have you read a novel called "Mythago Wood", by Robert Holdstock?

We no longer accept fairies, so thought-forms accidentally created by modern cultures will not take the shape of fairies.
Google search-Results 1 - 10 of about 14,500,000 for fairies [definition]. (0.09 seconds). I'm not so confident as you seem to be about that.

At this point I'm not commited to a particular paradigm. I haven't rejected any. I'm striving for a meta-paradigm...that is to say, that everyone exists within a set of beliefs (a paradigm) and that it takes something greater (meta) to explain the parallel workings of multiple belief systems.
I admire your attempt to think outside all the boxes, but some things are real and rejecting them would be perverse. You accept that our thinking about it will not prevent sunrise, so you accept conservation of planetary angular momentum and a great deal else that is boringly materialistic. Have you considered also the faint possibility that scientific materialism might be substantially correct and that thought forms do not, in fact, exist except as a rather vague concept in certain minds? That the very idea of thought forms might itself be a meme which parasitises people who think outside the box of rational materialism? Or would such an obvious and rather banal thought be too radical even for metaparadigmatic thought?;)

I'm in paradigm limbo...hence my moniker. The view is great. :)[/QUOTE]
I dare say it's great- but is it clear?



Let me continue the computer analogy I've been using to try to explain how I loosely conceptualize this. Remember that particular analogy? I'll be using it alot. I counsel caution. This board crawls with nerds. If you get your analogy wrong, your purpose will be buried in an avalanche of bits and bytes.

A thought-form is analogous to an image shared by a computer network. The processors of the individual computers are analogous to the minds of those in the group consciousness. The operating system is analogous to the shared mythology be it ancient or modern.

Ok, so we have a thought-form existing in the network, in the form of an image on all the monitors. Now we want to make the image an "actual thing." How do we do that?

Continuing that anaolgy... you hook up a printer to the computer network and hit the 'Print' button.

Now the "image" is an "actual thing".

There is an unknown mechanism involved, analogous to the "printer" and the "ink" which manifests the thought-form on the "paper". Do you follow?

There are as many methods as there are esoteric systems. However, these esoteric systems can all be boiled down to a handful of common denominators:

*Altered states of consciousness
*Internally consistant system of symbols
*Internally consistant paradigm and absolute belief in that paradigm
*Rituals to bring the consciousness, symbols, intent, belief together

If the independant observer is part of the "network", then yes they should be able to see it. If someone is outside the "network" and has absolutely no idea what they're supposed to see, then I suspect they would only percieve the effects (if any) of the thought form.

The brain-wave frequency of the observer (largely determind by their paradigm) as opposed to the frequency of the thought-form is probably a major factor.Eh? OK we have smoked some mushrooms, said the magic words and we now have a thought form made manifest. What does it look like, what is it made of and can you show us an example?

Edit to add:-
How can you be certain it was Rupert Sheldrake you had not heard of, as opposed to say Fred?
Did you Google "Morphic Resonance" or could this be your first thought form made manifest?

[Ririon]

I've never heard of Rupert Sheldrake, I'll have to check his website out and see if he has any ideas or techniques I could apply to the creation of thought-forms.
I hope you don't freak out because you have thought some of the same thoughts as he has... Just like his ludicrous thinking predicts...

[Soapy Sam]

Oh come on, where's your sense of fun, Ririon? Sheldrake reminds me of Dinsdale Piranha; he's a looney, but he's an interesting looney.

[Limbo9]

I hope you don't freak out because you have thought some of the same thoughts as he has... Just like his ludicrous thinking predicts...

Heh heh, I promise I won't freak out. Not much freaks me out anymore!

Anyway, I found something pertaining to thought-forms that I think you might find interesting.

How to Create a Ghost (http://ghostspirit.tribe.net/thread/aa07cd24-4141-458e-8d0b-e05ec541d6f1)

(snip)
Many researchers of the paranormal suspect that ghostly manifestations and poltergeist phenomena (objects flying through the air, unexplained footsteps and door slammings) are products of the human mind. To test that idea, a fascinating experiment was conducted in the early 1970s by the Toronto Society for Psychical Research (TSPR) to see if they could create a ghost. The idea was to assemble a group of people who would make up a completely fictional character and then, through séances, see if they could contact him and receive messages and other physical phenomena - perhaps even an apparition. (snip)

[Ririon]

Oh come on, where's your sense of fun, Ririon? Sheldrake reminds me of Dinsdale Piranha; he's a looney, but he's an interesting looney.
It's personal... :) Not "De_Bunk-personal", but still.

[Ririon]

Heh heh, I promise I won't freak out. Not much freaks me out anymore!

Anyway, I found something pertaining to thought-forms that I think you might find interesting.

How to Create a Ghost (http://ghostspirit.tribe.net/thread/aa07cd24-4141-458e-8d0b-e05ec541d6f1)
Ah, I see where your yoga angle comes from. Several neat superpowers are there for the taking. All of which are eligible for the Million Dollar Challenge, of course. So you will basically become a wealthy superhero (or supervillain). Nice. IF it works, of course. :)

[Limbo9]

Ah, I see where your yoga angle comes from. Several neat superpowers are there for the taking. All of which are eligible for the Million Dollar Challenge, of course. So you will basically become a wealthy superhero (or supervillain). Nice. IF it works, of course. :)

I must say, you're a pretty insightful cat.

Actually though my yoga angle comes from my study of comparative mythology, comparative religion, and comparative esoterics.

In a nut-shell, they all converge at one point. The MIND.

[Soapy Sam]

Thinking, study, evidence and fact meet there too.
Choose one.

[Limbo9]

Thinking, study, evidence and fact meet there too.
Choose one.

I'm sorry, your meaning escapes me.

[Soapy Sam]

I'm sorry, your meaning escapes me.

It's the drink.:D
Did you perchance miss post #40? It goes into greater detail, and makes it clear that your meaning also escapes me. I confess, I suspect your meaning also escapes you, but I'd be delighted to be proved wrong. (By some answers to the questions in that post)

[Limbo9]

Did you perchance miss post #40?

Yes, I did. Quite a large post. I'll address what I can.

Does this mean you feel circumstantial evidence is not open to scientific analysis?


I guess I need to rephrase my statement. Hows this:

"It can't be proven to a degree that would satisfy a hard-nosed skeptic who is determined not to accept it. But I feel there is enough to satisfy an open-minded person."

What are these methods?

Here you go! (http://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/sta/index.htm) Study it well. Once you're done, you'll have an incredibly deep understanding of the origin, evolution, common denominators, influences, and impact of esoteric and religious thought and techniques throughout the ages. If you read it insightfully, you might just figure out the secret. ;)

Some of it is out-dated, but most of it is applicable.

I started a thread about it. If you need help understanding something in it, ask me about it here (http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?t=61242).

Why would that mechanism be anything other than the fact of seeing and misinterpreting the same thing? Do you know of any shared neural mechanism which might generate either shared hallucination or shared consciousness?

You mean something like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_hallucination)?

How would these have such effects? By what mechanism?

I don't know. What, you think I have to have all the answers before I can use a natural talent that we ALL have? No my friend, it can remain a "black-box" and still be used.

Please clarify what you mean here. What did Socrates make apart from statements of fact and opinion? What makes you think he did anything any good teacher does not do?

I think it's pretty clear what I mean there. Did you read it all closely? Nevermind, you'll get to it as you read Secret Teachings...

Act independently of the people?

Does a program running on an isolated partition act independantly of the computer or the network it's in?

So you think science is non paradigmatic then?

No, science IS a paradigm.

Have you read a novel called "Mythago Wood", by Robert Holdstock?

No, is it good?

Did you Google "Morphic Resonance" or could this be your first thought form made manifest?

I googled "Morphic Resonance".

What is the equivalent of the hard drive here? Where is the formstored?

What, I gotta do all the work around here?! :crowded:

You tell me, where do YOU think a hard-drive would fit into my analogy? Lets see if you can think outside the box.

With respect- You admit you do not know what you mean by "thought form". You do not know what it is made of. You do not think it is open to scientific analysis. How do we differentiate between a thought form and an invisible unicorn for purposes of this thread? Can you tell us something you do know about them- and on what evidence you know it?

I'm thinking outside of the box, and in order for you to understand me, you have to either step outside of your box, or I have to step into yours.

My ideas won't fit into your box.

I have this same problem with highly religious people. Both hard-nosed skeptics and hard-nosed religious folk have a very hard time stepping out of their highly protected paradigm box, and post heavy guard at the entrance.

I don't mean to insult you so please don't take it that way.

I can only suggest you step outside your box using whatever slieght-of-mind technique you can muster, leave behind any a priori judgements, re-read my entire thread, and really think about it.

[Pup]

Continuing that anaolgy... you hook up a printer to the computer network and hit the 'Print' button.

Now the "image" is an "actual thing".

A printed piece of paper is without a doubt an actual thing. Problem is, we don't know if a "thought form" is an actual thing yet. Seems that demonstrating that is an important step before going too far into theories about how it's done (how the "printer" works).

Of course, that hasn't stopped theologians from arguing for centuries about the fine points of prayer and salvation without any objective proof that there is a god. So I guess it can be an interesting exercise if you're into that kind of thing. To skeptics, though, there's more interest in demonstrations and proof before getting too far afield in theories based on theories.

To continue the analogy, sometimes my computer and printer think they've printed something out. The paper jams, but it trips the feed sensors (or whatever they're called) in such a way that the printer and computer think the paper is feeding fine. So the printer keeps on printing, but all that comes out, with a little bit of tugging, is a blank piece of paper.

If you "asked" the printer and the computer they'd say there was no doubt something had been printed. Every possible way they had of gauging the process would indicate a printed piece of paper now existed in their reality. So it must be true!

But all I gotta do is look at the blank sheet, to see that nothing printed. The computer and the printer are "imagining" there's an actual thing, when there isn't.

So how can you show that "thought forms" are actual independent entities and something more than subjective delusions/hallucinations/misinterpretations, or responses common to most human beings such as pareidolia, ideomotor effect, facial recognition templates, etc.?

[Limbo9]

So how can you show that "thought forms" are actual independent entities and something more than subjective delusions/hallucinations/misinterpretations, or responses common to most human beings such as pareidolia, ideomotor effect, facial recognition templates, etc.?

Short of actually creating one ourselves (which is my plan) or participating in the creation of one all we can do is see if thought-forms fit historical and modern accounts of ALL paranormal phenomena. It does. I can think of no other explanation which could account for darn every single type of mystical, paranormal, religious, or just plain weird experience - group or individual. A grand unified paranormal theory.

Most modern people just don't have the historical, esoteric, religious or mythological perspective to see it. A scientism based perspective is too narrow for now.

I mean, we're not giving our ancient ancestors enough credit, and we are giving ourselves too much. This is based on ignorance more than arrogance. Our ancient ancestors were just as fooled as we are.

Explanations such as delusions/hallucinations/misinterpretations might work, but we need ONE explanation for both individual and group experiences. That explanation is thought-forms created by an as-of-yet unknown mental mechanism.

So if a group is sharing the same delusions/hallucinations/misinterpretation in their mind, what mental mechanism is allowing groups to share them? Some part of their brains must be operating and interfacing on the same frequency. I should know, I've been in two of them.

There are four types of thought-forms:

*Accidental created by an individual
*Purposely created by an individual
*Accidental created by a group
*Purposely created by a group

There are 5 main models under which thought-forms are typically created:

*Spirit model
*Energy Model
*Psychological Model
*Information Model
*Meta-Model

The spirit model is by far the oldest and most wide-spread. Esoteric systems based on the spirit model would create thought-forms that took on the characteristcs of spirits. Entire cultures and esoteric sciences were based on it for centuries. Does it make sence that so much resource was built around something that was nothing more than day-dreams and wishful thinking? No. The historical accounts don't support that kind of easy, convenient answer.

Of course the average ancient person didn't realize that the 'spiritual entites' were actually created by consciousness. Just like the average modern person doesn't realize that UFO's are created by us.


"Are there spirits?"
"In the spirit model, yes."
"And in the energy model?"
"In the energy model there are subtle energy forms."
"And what about the psychological model?"
"Well, in the psychological model we are dealing with projections of the subconscious."
"What happens in the information model, then?"
"In the information model there are information clusters."
"Yes, but are there spirits now or not?"
"In the spirit model, yes."

Don't you see? They are all the same thing.

[Soapy Sam]

Yes, I did. Quite a large post. I'll address what I can.



I guess I need to rephrase my statement. Hows this:

"It can't be proven to a degree that would satisfy a hard-nosed skeptic who is determined not to accept it. But I feel there is enough to satisfy an open-minded person."

Nobody is satisfied by an explanation which explains nothing. Nor is any human wholly open minded. I'm not. You're not. You're not open minded about sceptics for a start, to judge by the sentence above.

Here you go! (http://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/sta/index.htm) Study it well. Once you're done, you'll have an incredibly deep understanding of the origin, evolution, common denominators, influences, and impact of esoteric and religious thought and techniques throughout the ages. If you read it insightfully, you might just figure out the secret. ;)

Some of it is out-dated, but most of it is applicable.

I started a thread about it. If you need help understanding something in it, ask me about it here (http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?t=61242).

I will look through the links tomorrow (later today actually. It's past 02:00 here).



You mean something like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_hallucination)? As above



I don't know. What, you think I have to have all the answers before I can use a natural talent that we ALL have? No my friend, it can remain a "black-box" and still be used.
I think before you propose an untestable (by your own statement) hypothesis on a sceptic board, it would be wise to have some data in support of your case, yes.
You have yet to demonstrate that you have any natural talent. Nor have you demonstrated it's existence. I know people who claim humans have the ability to recall everything they see or hear, to send healing (though not harmful) energy anywhere in the world by thought alone, to remotely view the contents of a locked box, to levitate, to spontaneously ignite objects by thought and to bend silverware by the power of the mind alone. None of these has yet demonstrated any of these abilities when challenged to do so. Perhaps you are different.

As for using something in a black box which you do not understand, this may be possible. It may also be dangerous. If you do not understand the process, how can you judge its safety? In any case, it's always more interesting to understand as much as you can.



I think it's pretty clear what I mean there. Did you read it all closely? Nevermind, you'll get to it as you read Secret Teachings...I did not understand your meaning at all. I will reread it.



Does a program running on an isolated partition act independantly of the computer or the network it's in? No program is independent of the hardware it runs on. It is entirely dependent on the hardware. If properly written , the hardware may make no significant difference to run speed or output. It depends what you mean by "depend".



No, science IS a paradigm. Then you mean something different by "paradigm" than I do. You also seem to be using the term to mean at least two different things in this thread.



No, is it good? I enjoyed it. Many characters in it are what the author calls Mythagos- living representations of archetypal figures- which seem to match personal thought forms as you describe them- what Terry Pratchett calls "Anthropomorphic Personifications".


I googled "Morphic Resonance". Yes. So I surmised.



What, I gotta do all the work around here?! :crowded: Yes. You are the one making the unusual claims. You are expected to provide the evidence and the arguments to back them. I do not think you can do this, but will be interested if you can.

You tell me, where do YOU think a hard-drive would fit into my analogy? Lets see if you can think outside the box. I don't think it would fit anywhere, as I don't see the point of the analogy. That's why I asked you to clarify it.

The advantage of thinking inside a box- in this case within a widely tested and accepted scientific framework- is that there are common referents, so we can each know what the other is talking about. It's an extension of language. If we use words tomean different things, we simply talk past each other.
If you are thinking outside the box and I am also thinking outside the box, there is no guarantee that anything I think will be isomorphous in any sense with anything you think.
For this reason , the box must be expanded from within. You need to be able to expain your concept in terms I can understand. Anything else is logically impossible.
If you can disprove this , you will have achieved a great deal, even if you do not prove your hypothesis .



I'm thinking outside of the box, and in order for you to understand me, you have to either step outside of your box, or I have to step into yours.


My ideas won't fit into your box.

Then we are wasting each other's time. In order to explain your ideas, you must find the projections of them into the box and point those out to me.

I have this same problem with highly religious people. Both hard-nosed skeptics and hard-nosed religious folk have a very hard time stepping out of their highly protected paradigm box, and post heavy guard at the entrance. Is everyone who fails to agree with you "hard nosed"? There is no guard on my box; it is wide open to anyone with a basic grasp of school level science. (I'm a bit more advanced in the Earth Sciences, but I doubt that's relevant here).

I don't mean to insult you so please don't take it that way. Oh, never fear. I've been insulted by experts.

I can only suggest you step outside your box using whatever slieght-of-mind technique you can muster, leave behind any a priori judgements, re-read my entire thread, and really think about it.

I don't do sleight-of-mind. Just the facts, thanks. (Some of which are ... truly strange.) Evidence carries more weight here than opinion. So far , I see none at all to support your view that thought forms exist as anything other than metaphor. I will read the links later, but would prefer that hereafter you argue your own case rather than answer questions with a succession of links. If I responded in kind, we should have a truly dull discussion.
Anyway, Im off to bed. A bientot!

[thaiboxerken]

Limbo should've taken the blue pill instead.

[Flange Desire]

Does this mean you feel circumstantial evidence is not open to scientific analysis?

... etc, etc, etc ...


Big job, well done!
If only the paradigm shifters put in half the effort that Soapy does ...

[Limbo9]

Limbo should've taken the blue pill instead.

I took both. Was that wrong?

[Limbo9]

Evidence carries more weight here than opinion. So far , I see none at all to support your view that thought forms exist as anything other than metaphor. I will read the links later, but would prefer that hereafter you argue your own case rather than answer questions with a succession of links. If I responded in kind, we should have a truly dull discussion.
Anyway, Im off to bed. A bientot!


Well first thing I have to do is get across the basic concept, which I'm trying to do through metaphor. Based on responces I've failed to do that. How can I move on to attempts to make my case for thought-forms if no one is able to demonstrate to me that I've gotten the basic concept across?

[thaiboxerken]

I took both. Was that wrong?

Obviously, yes.

[Limbo9]

Obviously, yes.

I think that remains to be seen. In any event, it's not like I had a choice. I see what life shows me.

[thaiboxerken]

You see what reality shows you, but you don't seem to think critically about it. There is no scientific evidence for your beliefs, ever wonder why that is instead of just making excuses for it?

[Limbo9]

You see what reality shows you, but you don't seem to think critically about it.

Yes, I do. Thaiboxerken, do you know me well enough to judge whether I've thought critically about it? What the hell do you know about what I've experienced and studied for years? You insult me. Thats twice now I've been offended by you.

There is no scientific evidence for your beliefs, ever wonder why that is instead of just making excuses for it?

Why that is? I know why. For the same reason that the old guard of ancient dogma refused to look through Galileo's telescope...until they had no choice. It's a mixture of arrogance and cowardice. I've seen it a million times. I come across it every time a 'priest of modern scientism' tries to hand-wave away what I've learned and experienced with glib, armchair, half-assed, inapplicable "scientific" explanations. It's always obvious to me that they don't know what the hell they're talking about...and afraid to find out what I'm talking about.

Some areas are taboo, even in science. Especially in scientism.

Dang, see what you did? You got me started on a rant on skeptics.

Welcome to my ignore list thaiboxerken.

I have a very low tolerance for skeptics like you. I don't care if 99% of this forum is like you. I'll ignore them all and talk to the remaining 1%, until I move on.

[thaiboxerken]

Yes, I do. Thaiboxerken, do you know me well enough to judge whether I've thought critically about it?

Yes.

What the hell do you know about what I've experienced and studied for years?

What you've posted.

You insult me. Thats twice now I've been offended by you.

So?




Some areas are taboo, even in science.

Wrong.


Welcome to my ignore list thaiboxerken.

I have a very low tolerance for skeptics like you.

Of course, we threaten your unsane beliefs.

[Pup]

Explanations such as delusions/hallucinations/misinterpretations might work, but we need ONE explanation for both individual and group experiences.

I gave some examples in the second half of my sentence: "...responses common to most human beings such as pareidolia, ideomotor effect, facial recognition templates, etc.?" I might add sleep paralysis, similar responses to altered states of consciousness either due to particular drugs or hunger or sleep deprivation, odd quirks that a percentage of the population has like synesthesia or an excess of apophenia, and other things which, taken singly, seem unpredictable and unexplainable, but nonetheless are simply part of the complex way our brains function, that will either affect all of us to some degree, or a small but consistent percentage of the population.

For example, the ideomotor effect can be used to explain why both dowsers and ouija board operators typically sense that an object is moving without being consciously controlled by them. One could trace dowsing through various cultures, and point to the invention and subsequent popularity of the ouija board. But there's no need to assume ouija boards or forked sticks which convey information, have become independent entities that humans have brought into existence, to explain why they seem to work for so many people. Once a person is introduced to them, the ideomotor effect in that person's brain will most likely kick in, because all our brains are similar enough, and the planchet or the stick will perform like it's supposed to. Dowsing might even have been independently discovered in different cultures by accident.

I'd like to see a "thought form" created, and--here's the hard part--see it tested in such a way to show the thought form theory was the only reasonable explanation.

[Limbo9]

pareidolia, ideomotor effect, facial recognition templates, etc.?" I might add sleep paralysis, similar responses to altered states of consciousness either due to particular drugs or hunger or sleep deprivation, odd quirks that a percentage of the population has like synesthesia or an excess of apophenia,

Pareidolia, first used in 1994 by Steven Goldstein, describes a psychological phenomenon involving a vague and random stimulus being mistakenly perceived as recognizable. Not nearly broad enough. Seeing faces in clouds or the man on the moon is supposed to account for paranormal phenomena? Nope.

Do you really think it's possible that countless intelligent, rational, mentally disciplined people throughout history, people like Socrates, would have been fooled by such a psychological phenomenon? No, this explanation doesn't cover nearly enough ground.

For example, the ideomotor effect can be used to explain why both dowsers and ouija board operators typically sense that an object is moving without being consciously controlled by them.

Not nearly enough explanatory power to cover the range of paranormal experiences I alone have had, much less the rest of Humanity throughout history. No, thought-forms are too broad to be encapsuled by narrow ideas like the ideomotor effect. The reverse isn't true, however!

I'd like to see a "thought form" created, and--here's the hard part--see it tested in such a way to show the thought form theory was the only reasonable explanation.

So would I! Did you read this (http://ghostspirit.tribe.net/thread/aa07cd24-4141-458e-8d0b-e05ec541d6f1)?

[Soapy Sam]

Pareidolia (pronounced (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPA_for_English) /pɛɹaɪˈdoliə/ or /pæraɪˈdəʊliə/), first used in 1994 by Steven Goldstein[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia#_note-0), describes a psychological phenomenon involving a vague and random stimulus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stimulation) (often an image or sound) being mistakenly perceived as recognizable. (Wikipedia definition 14 8 06).

Please acknowledge sources when you quote them. Makes it easier for everyone. It also makes it clear that you had to look them up.

Under 50 posts and already using your ignore list, I see! You seem very familiar with the working of this board , Limbo9. Here am I on 8k+ and still don't know how to use ignore. One might wonder if you have been here before.

Manly Hall by Teutatis! I had forgotten all about him. (I also tend to confuse him with Monty of that ilk). That's an excellent link, for which thanks. You expect me to read it all? , (I've read most of it, but many years ago) or is there one bit in particular you consider relevant?

Here's how to get your concept across.
1. Explain it in plain English. Where specialised terms are used, or common words assigned a special meaning, carefully define them.
2. Give illustrative examples of the phenomenon, clarifying why your model is the only one able to explain it or the one which best explains it.
eg-a) Socrates' "Demon" may have been the same metaphorical "demon" grub street often assigns to any high output writer, artist or worker of any sort.
b) Socrates' demon may have been an actual demon. He was pagan after all, Satan had a free hand in those days. There may have been imps all over the place, for all we know. Perhaps all the myths are true. Perhaps Satan is fooling you into believing the demon was a thought form , when actually the idea of thought forms is a demonic meme planted in your mind to lead you away from salvation.
(You asked me to think outside my box. I find such nonsense tends to be the result, but by what argument will you prove me wrong?)
How is your model a better explanation?

So far in this thread, you have failed to explain your meaning. You have mentioned a concept, the thought-form, without any rigorous definition. You have claimed such forms can be "made" by various esoteric means, but have not explained what the process involves.
You have used vague metaphors involving computers and mass hallucinations, but have not explained in which ways these metaphors represent the postulated thought forms.
(The idea of metaphor is to clarify by comparison. If two concepts have no relevant comparable aspects, the metaphor will obstruct rather than assist the discussion . You used computer data storage as a metaphor. The critical element of most computer data stores is a hard drive. When I pointed out that your metaphor failed to explain what element equated to the hard drive, you dodged the question by asking me to supply your answer. This leads me to doubt the accuracy of the metaphor and to wonder if you have an answer to a question you can not immediately google.)

[Starthinker]

Are you saying that if you take, say, an island full of monkeys, let's say 1000 monkeys, and if on one side you teach, say, 50 monkeys to crack open a coconut with a rock that because of the collective consciousness of the 50 monkeys with this knowledge that monkeys on the other side of the island, who never came in contact with the 50 you taught, would suddenly start breaking open coconuts with rocks?

[Limbo9]

This leads me to doubt the accuracy of the metaphor and to wonder if you have an answer to a question you can not immediately google.)

I've no doubt you would love to believe that. Some skeptics, due to their arrogance and willful ignorance, leap on a chance to believe quick and easy things that do little more than boost their own ego at the expence of others.

The hard-drive, as well as the other hardware, I think, would be the brain and body. There, how tough was that smart guy?

Now I've had about enough of your smug and insulting attitude Soapy Sam. Go rinse yourself. Repeat, if desired.

Welcome to my ignore list.

[Limbo9]

Are you saying that if you take, say, an island full of monkeys, let's say 1000 monkeys, and if on one side you teach, say, 50 monkeys to crack open a coconut with a rock that because of the collective consciousness of the 50 monkeys with this knowledge that monkeys on the other side of the island, who never came in contact with the 50 you taught, would suddenly start breaking open coconuts with rocks?

If such an experiment were being done and I had to hazzard a guess I would say no, the two groups make two separate collective consciousnessess, and the link between the two groups isn't strong enough to allow the other group to suddenly start breaking open coconuts with rocks.

[Dredred]

Are you saying that if you take, say, an island full of monkeys, let's say 1000 monkeys, and if on one side you teach, say, 50 monkeys to crack open a coconut with a rock that because of the collective consciousness of the 50 monkeys with this knowledge that monkeys on the other side of the island, who never came in contact with the 50 you taught, would suddenly start breaking open coconuts with rocks?

I believe that what Limbo means by thought forms is not the same as Sheldrake's morphogenetic fields, but rather a hologram consciously or unconsciously projected by an individual or collective mind, by an unknown mechanism, made out of an unknown substance or ernergy. He explained this earlier in another thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=61242).

Limbo, i fail to see why you want to convince sceptics of the value of a vague theory for which there is no evidence.

[Limbo9]

I believe that what Limbo means by thought forms is not the same as Sheldrake's morphogenetic fields, but rather a hologram consciously or unconsciously projected by an individual or collective mind, by an unknown mechanism, made out of an unknown substance or ernergy. He explained this earlier in another thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=61242).

Wow Dredred, I'm impressed by your display of comprehension.

Limbo, i fail to see why you want to convince sceptics of the value of a vague theory for which there is no evidence.

Can you think of ANY paranormal, religious, mental, mystic, or otherwise unexplained phenomena, historical or modern, group or individual, that COULDN'T possibly be explained by the thought-forms theory as you understand it, vague as it is?

[Dredred]

Can you think of ANY paranormal, religious, mental, mystic, or otherwise unexplained phenomena, historical or modern, that COULDN'T possibly be explained by the thought-forms theory as you understand it, vague as it is?

Precognition? Telepathy?

Anyway, no matter how much your theory can explain, without evidence it won't be accepted by sceptics.

[Limbo9]

Precognition? Telepathy?

Precognition and telepathy are acts of recieving information from a thought-form or a collective consciousness.

If you recall the post in this thread in which I submitted the testimony of Socrates, he recieved precognitive information from his thought-form.

[Dredred]

Precognition and telepathy are acts of receiving information from a thought-form or a collective consciousness.

If you recall the post in which I submitted the testimony of Socrates, he received precognitive information from his thought-form.

How would a thought form receive precognitive information? I don't see how your theory explains that.

[Limbo9]

How would a thought form receive precognitive information? I don't see how your theory explains that.

I don't know, but I have a guess.

A thought-form or collective consciousness would have access to an incredibly deep and wide pool of information. Trends, large-scale circumstances, individual intentions/plans, probabilites, ect beyond the scope of an individual awareness.

It's best guess based on all that information could be defined as precognition, prophesy, ect.

[Dredred]

A thought-form or collective consciousness would have access to an incredibly deep and wide pool of information. Trends, large-scale circumstances, individual intentions/plans, probabilites, ect beyond the scope of an individual awareness.

It's best guess based on all that information could be defined as precognition, prophesy, ect.

I like that idea. In this case of telepathy and precognition, though, your theory only makes an already existing explanation (that of the existence of a collective (un)consciousness) more complicated by adding another factor (thought forms). So now, instead an explanation based on one thing for which there is no evidence, you now have an explanation based on two things for which there is no evidence, leaving us further from home.


Can you think of ANY paranormal, religious, mental, mystic, or otherwise unexplained phenomena, historical or modern, group or individual, that COULDN'T possibly be explained by the thought-forms theory as you understand it, vague as it is?

Some more: the Bermuda-triangle, spontaneous combustion, cattle mutilations

[Limbo9]

I like that idea.

Thank you!

In this case of telepathy and precognition, though, your theory only makes an already existing explanation (that of the existence of a collective (un)consciousness) more complicated by adding another factor (thought forms). So now, instead an explanation based on one thing for which there is no evidence, you now have an explanation based on two things for which there is no evidence, leaving us further from home.

But thought-forms are "made" from the same stuff of a collective or individual consciousness. Like ice is made from water. In essence what we are doing when we make a thought-form is mentally grabbing a "chunk" of consciousness and giving it form, identity, characteristics, purpose ect.



Some more: the Bermuda-triangle, spontaneous combustion, cattle mutilations

Noted for future reference.

[Dredred]

But thought-forms are "made" from the same stuff of a collective or individual consciousness. Like ice is made from water. In essence what we are doing when we make a thought-form is mentally grabbing a "chunk" of consciousness and giving it form, identity, characteristics, purpose ect.

Still I think adding thought forms to the explanation makes it more complicated, leaving us further from home.

Now, besides the existence of a collective consciousness, you also have to prove that it's made of "stuff" that can be attributed properties such as visibility, form, identity, characteristics, and purpose.

[Ririon]

...
Explanations such as delusions/hallucinations/misinterpretations might work, but we need ONE explanation for both individual and group experiences. That explanation is thought-forms created by an as-of-yet unknown mental mechanism.
...
(Emphasis mine.)

This is one of the things I have to disagree with. We do not need ONE explanation for all paranormal phenomena. Several explanations for each phenomenon works just fine. You have chosen to think inside a box where there is one and only one explanation. That is very limited as seen from my box. It looks very much like the view of a person who attributes everything not understood to a god or a collection of spirits. I could claim that all paranormal phenomena are caused by Quantum Harmonic Metavibration (QHM), but that would still explain nothing, just label it. And worse still, it would limit me when investigating one such phenomenon. Even worse, it would predispose me to believe that all kinds of paranormal phenomena are real, since they fit so neatly in my QHM-theory. It is indeed a dangerous box to be in.:boxedin:

[Nihilanth]

Sig material.

Indeed. Consider the quote ninja'd.

[Limbo9]

Indeed. Consider the quote ninja'd.

Ha-ha, what I meant was "actual" reality as opposed to what? Imaginary reality? Reality is by definition, actual. Saying something like "actual" reality is redundant and silly, don't you think?

[Limbo9]

Now, besides the existence of a collective consciousness, you also have to prove that it's made of "stuff" that can be attributed properties such as visibility, form, identity, characteristics, and purpose.

What do you suggest I do? Call up the National Science Association and ask for a grant? Maybe they will let me use one of their facilities. I'm sure the tax-payers won't mind.

[Dredred]

What do you suggest I do? Call up the National Science Association and ask for a grant? Maybe they will let me use one of their facilities. I'm sure the tax-payers won't mind.

I'm not suggesting you do anything. I'm pointing out that you take one theory for which there's no compelling evidence (the existence of a collective consciousness that enables telepathy and something that seems to be precognition but is guessing based on all the information known by the collective conciousness), and, while that theory already explains mentioned phenomena, you needlessly complicate things further by adding another factor for which there is no compelling evidence, thus increasing your lack of evidence. Anyway, there's no need for your theory in the first place because all of the phenomena you want it to explain can be explained in simpler ways or simply don't exist. There's a reason no one has ever won the JREF million.

I didn't assume it's your wish for scientists to study these thought forms, but if that's what you want you'll need a bit more than a vague theory. How about showing them one of those thought forms? You wrote earlier that you're working on it; you're in the first level now and when you're in the third, you can project thought forms, right? Good luck with that.

Of course, you could just forget about evidence and just believe in your theory because it's convenient. But then it won't be of value to anyone accept for some who need something convenient to believe in. People who choose their beliefs that way are hard to find on a sceptics board, which is why I don't understand what you're doing here. But when you've mastered that skill of producing thought forms, please come back here and tell us about it. Then you'll be asked for evidence again, and maybe then you can deliver.

[nescafe]

Ha-ha, what I meant was "actual" reality as opposed to what? Imaginary reality? Reality is by definition, actual. Saying something like "actual" reality is redundant and silly, don't you think?
Not really -- reality is used in several different senses by different people, and each of them have different meanings in different contexts. Subjective reality, intersubjective reality, noumenal reality, etc. If there is some doubt (as in this conversation -- do thought-forms exist primarily in subjective, intersubjective, or noumenal reality?), explaining which one you are talking about can avoid confusion.

[Limbo9]

I'm not suggesting you do anything.

Oh, ok then.

Of course, you could just forget about evidence and just believe in your theory because it's convenient.

That is not fair. I believe my theory because it matches experiences I've had, alone and in groups. It matches experiences friends have had, whom I trust. I don't suppose you've ever been in a position where your personal experiences must trump science. Probably not, or you would be more sympathetic.

What do you know of the agony of being alienated from society by personal experiences? To being forced down a unique path alone? Being forced to seek answers alone?

What do you know, sitting there in the nice comfy intellectual shelter science has made for you? Better hope the Universe doesn't curse you with the wrong kind of experience, or science will evict you. She is a harsh mistress.

If I wanted convenient, easy answers there are much easier ones out there for the taking. But no, I decided to dig deeper. For years I dug into the history, development, and back-and-forth influences of mythologies, religions, and esoterics throughout history in the search for an answer. And you know what? There's a pattern. You know what else? The pattern supports my theory.

[Nihilanth]

What do you know of the agony of being alienated from society by personal experiences? To being forced down a unique path alone? Being forced to seek answers alone?


I can't speak for Dredred, but I can tell you that I know EXACTLY what it's like being alienated from society based on personal experiences. And I think a lot of the skeptics and atheists here will agree with me.

How do you think some of us feel when we're in a conversation with friends that turns to ghosts or aliens, and our good-natured questions lead to stony silence. Seriously, one time I got into a conversation about how the Mothman was nothing more than a barn owl blown way out of proportion, and was called an "information nazi" for my trouble.

Haha...information nazi...

Anyway, I'm sorry, I'm not really following this thread. I just have to tell you that skeptics have it harder than believers any day. You want acceptance? Go to any New Age board out there, post what you've just posted here, and I GUARANTEE you'll get all the acceptance you need, along with all sorts of corroborating evidence that may or may not have actually happened.

However, if you want to test your theory, to find out if it's wrong or not, by all means, keep posting. Just keep in mind, IT MIGHT JUST BE WRONG. If it is, we'll call you on it. We can't help it, and it doesn't make us friends, but that's what we do, man...

[Nihilanth]

Ha-ha, what I meant was "actual" reality as opposed to what? Imaginary reality? Reality is by definition, actual. Saying something like "actual" reality is redundant and silly, don't you think?

Sorry, got sidetracked. Addressing this, I'll have to agree with whatever that other guy said; reality has all sorts of different definitions. I took the quote because I thought it sounded funny. Like, "I'm trying not to be bound by things like reality." I know that's not what you SAID, but it sounds like it. If it offends you, I'll gladly remove it and put up some other quote from somewhere else. Maybe some Carl Sagan. I sure do like me some Carl Sagan.

[thaiboxerken]

That is not fair.

True, but it's accurate.

What do you know of the agony of being alienated from society by personal experiences? To being forced down a unique path alone? Being forced to seek answers alone?

Well, I'm an atheist and I can personally say that I know this agony, probably a bit more than you. Ever had your family look "down" on you because you don't share their superstitions?

[Dredred]

Oh, ok then.



That is not fair. I believe my theory because it matches experiences I've had, alone and in groups. It matches experiences friends have had, whom I trust. I don't suppose you've ever been in a position where your personal experiences must trump science. Probably not, or you would be more sympathetic.

What do you know of the agony of being alienated from society by personal experiences? To being forced down a unique path alone? Being forced to seek answers alone?

What do you know, sitting there in the nice comfy intellectual shelter science has made for you? Better hope the Universe doesn't curse you with the wrong kind of experience, or science will evict you. She is a harsh mistress.

If I wanted convenient, easy answers there are much easier ones out there for the taking. But no, I decided to dig deeper. For years I dug into the history, development, and back-and-forth influences of mythologies, religions, and esoterics throughout history in the search for an answer. And you know what? There's a pattern. You know what else? The pattern supports my theory.

Ok, I'm sorry. I fully accept the possibility that strange things happen for which science doesn't have an explanation, and that they may have happened to you. I understand that must be alienating.

[Soapy Sam]

Oh, ok then.



That is not fair. I believe my theory because it matches experiences I've had, alone and in groups. It matches experiences friends have had, whom I trust. I don't suppose you've ever been in a position where your personal experiences must trump science. Probably not, or you would be more sympathetic.

What do you know of the agony of being alienated from society by personal experiences? To being forced down a unique path alone? Being forced to seek answers alone?

What do you know, sitting there in the nice comfy intellectual shelter science has made for you? Better hope the Universe doesn't curse you with the wrong kind of experience, or science will evict you. She is a harsh mistress.

If I wanted convenient, easy answers there are much easier ones out there for the taking. But no, I decided to dig deeper. For years I dug into the history, development, and back-and-forth influences of mythologies, religions, and esoterics throughout history in the search for an answer. And you know what? There's a pattern. You know what else? The pattern supports my theory.

Any sign of the slightest hint of a shred of evidence yet? Or have we skipped that and gone straight to the "They laughed at Galileo" fallacy?

[calebprime]

I want to respond in a way that might surprise you and will certainly lower my credibility here.

I've experienced a handful of "altered states" and they were some of the most interesting, spooky, thought-provoking experiences of my life! But they were only altered states! It was the drug! (Or the dream, or the sleep-paralysis, or the sleep-deprivation, etc.) In every case, when my brain got back to more-or-less normal function, the effect went away.

I want to say that young children understand the distinction between what is real and what isn't. It takes a kind of sophistication to ignore the distinction.

I don't follow your Wiki quote about the "mechanism" because that's about mass hallucination. Hallucinations aren't real, by definition.

you say:

"The brain-wave frequency of the observer (largely determind by their paradigm) as opposed to the frequency of the thought-form is probably a major factor."

Is there such a thing as a "brain-wave frequency"? There is, for example, a ca. 40 hz. synchronized frequency that Crick talks about in _The Astonishing Hypothesis_, and there is a chaos of other frequencies going on all the time. But the brain isn't some kind of radio...

What's this about Socrates? (Here's a quote off the Internet: "Socrates (469-399), despite his foundational place in the history of ideas, actually wrote nothing. Most of our knowledge of him comes from the works of Plato (427-347), and since Plato had other concerns in mind than simple historical accuracy it is usually impossible to determine how much of his thinking actually derives from Socrates..."

He's a bad example because he is remote in time and little is known about him... Do you know something from some reputable source that I haven't heard of? (I realize Socrates is only someone you're using as an example)


Oh come on, where's your sense of fun, Ririon? Sheldrake reminds me of Dinsdale Piranha; he's a looney, but he's an interesting looney.

THIS is paranormal: I was just going to post something about the Piranha brothers!

I think that remains to be seen. In any event, it's not like I had a choice. I see what life shows me.

I once smoked some Salvia, and for about 30 seconds I was convinced the solid-state entities were speaking to me. Great fun in retrospect, but not something I'd want to build my life around. Absolutely vivid. But not real!

I gave some examples in the second half of my sentence: "...responses common to most human beings such as pareidolia, ideomotor effect, facial recognition templates, etc.?" I might add sleep paralysis, similar responses to altered states of consciousness either due to particular drugs or hunger or sleep deprivation, odd quirks that a percentage of the population has like synesthesia or an excess of apophenia, and other things which, taken singly, seem unpredictable and unexplainable, but nonetheless are simply part of the complex way our brains function, that will either affect all of us to some degree, or a small but consistent percentage of the population.

I'd like to see a "thought form" created, and--here's the hard part--see it tested in such a way to show the thought form theory was the only reasonable explanation.

Limbo9, I would urge you to study neurology, too, to get that perspective.


Soapy also sez:

"Socrates' "Demon" may have been the same metaphorical "demon" grub street often assigns to any high output writer, artist or worker of any sort."

Well said, Soapy. Sorry I can't manage the quotes.


Limbo9, you say:

"But thought-forms are "made" from the same stuff of a collective or individual consciousness. Like ice is made from water. In essence what we are doing when we make a thought-form is mentally grabbing a "chunk" of consciousness and giving it form, identity, characteristics, purpose ect."

I wonder if "thoughts" are things at all. I mean, aren't they are more like verbs than nouns, more like motions than like objects? What makes you think that thoughts are discrete objects, if you do? (Pardon vagueness here, but I don't know how else to put it.)


(Emphasis mine.)

We do not need ONE explanation for all paranormal phenomena. Several explanations for each phenomenon works just fine.

Exactly.




That is not fair. I believe my theory because it matches experiences I've had, alone and in groups. It matches experiences friends have had, whom I trust. I don't suppose you've ever been in a position where your personal experiences must trump science. Probably not, or you would be more sympathetic.

What do you know of the agony of being alienated from society by personal experiences? To being forced down a unique path alone? Being forced to seek answers alone?

What do you know, sitting there in the nice comfy intellectual shelter science has made for you? Better hope the Universe doesn't curse you with the wrong kind of experience, or science will evict you. She is a harsh mistress.



It seems anger inspires in you a certain eloquence, but as others here have said, many of us feel alone in various ways. I'm more of an artist-type, and of course I feel like I've struggled--misunderstood and alone--too.
It's not being snide to say that many people feel this way. The odd thing about this sentiment is that New Age thinking is very popular, so you shouldn't have trouble finding people to talk to...

Some advice, albeit from a newcomer:

-Don't assume that everyone here shares the same background or the same views. Think of the people here as sharing no more than some skepticism.

-Don't compare yourself to Galileo. It's sort of a cliche' of people who feel misunderstood and persecuted.

-Listen to Soapy Sam: Don't ignore! The guy is being pretty patient!

-You, also, must be patient! If you want people to believe you without grilling you, you came to the wrong place!

-It would sound less grand but would actually be more meaningful if you spoke more concretely of the kinds of experiences that have inspired your quest for theory, as opposed to just jumping right to the theory itself.

(apologies to anyone i've seriously misquoted--still getting the hang of it...):boggled:

[thaiboxerken]

It should be noted that Galileo had plenty of evidence to support his conclusions, scientific evidence at that. Limbo9 has NO evidence to support his beliefs.

[tomgv15]

When Limbo9 posted in Welcome New Posters! "he" said "I'm ready for my skeptic training!" Limbo9 is getting hazed and is hanging in there. In his Secret Teachings Of All Ages thread Limbo9 describes a UFO experience 15 years ago in his home town, Colorado Springs, Co., which powerfully affected him. I lived in The Springs in the early '80's. I hope to shed some light as to where he's coming from.

Colorado Springs:1) NORAD, Peterson Air Force Base, Space Command, Fort Carson Army Base and the Air Force Academy. A source of great military power and secrecy. Also the source for many angry lost individuals who left early or were kicked out of the military

2) Home of Focus on the Family and Center for Family Values which causes Turnleft.com to warn its readers that "One can bet any amount of money that Colorado Springs is THE most conservative place in America. This city has become a mecca for the religious right..." Let that sink in folks.

3)Colorado Springs is the site for Nikola Tesla's largest electrical experiments.

4)Garden of the Gods, a "park" with fabulous red sandstone formations, great for rock climbing(maybe not anymore), and an annual Easter Sunrise service, where site is a spiritual pink of the sun is out.

5)A former healing mecca. The Springs has a mineral springs. Also many TB victums moved there over 100 years ago hoping to dry out their lungs at 62500ft.

6)Manitou Springs, nestled in the mountain foothills has the popular Cave of the Winds, wall paintings, Santa's Workshop amusement park and a slew of artists, craft artisians, musicians and the wooism that comes with this group.

7)At one time Manitou Springs was thought to harbour ritualist Satanists.

I met Air Force officers, ambitious Zoomies (Academy), and pissed off jerks who couldn't cut the mustard. Saw separate readings from Allen Ginsberg and William Burroughs , (whom I met.) I also met people into various kinds of Woo.

Colorado Springs is a town of mystery, full of determined people with different ideas as to The Way Things Work. This is the environment Limbo9 grew up in, and now he's here. Yowzah.

[PBTree]

phew. i've just finished reading all of the posts on this subject and i think i have been traumatised from all of the schizophrenic ramblings.

limbo there must be one hell of a party going on at your place. i'm sure there is a room full of people there, drinking beer and eating pizza, busting their sides with laughter every time someone on the list responds to your theories.

[Soapy Sam]

5)A former healing mecca. The Springs has a mineral springs. Also many TB victums moved there over 100 years ago hoping to dry out their lungs at 62500ft.


Well, 62, 500 ft would probably do it!:D

It's an odd place, the Springs- full of fundies denying evolution and the Morisson formation running right along the flatirons. I like the place. Anyone who likes rock would like it.

[tomgv15]

Well, 62, 500 ft would probably do it!:D

It's an odd place, the Springs- full of fundies denying evolution and the Morisson formation running right along the flatirons. I like the place. Anyone who likes rock would like it.

OOPS! I still visit. Limbo9 just shook loose a lot of weird memories.
Also, Limbo9 has left the building.

[calebprime]

When Limbo9 posted in Welcome New Posters! "he" said "I'm ready for my skeptic training!" Limbo9 is getting hazed and is hanging in there. In his Secret Teachings Of All Ages thread Limbo9 describes a UFO experience 15 years ago in his home town, Colorado Springs, Co., which powerfully affected him. I lived in The Springs in the early '80's. I hope to shed some light as to where he's coming from.



Colorado Springs is a town of mystery, full of determined people with different ideas as to The Way Things Work. This is the environment Limbo9 grew up in, and now he's here. Yowzah.



thanks for this. too bad if he's left the b. in whatever sense

[calebprime]

When Limbo9 posted in Welcome New Posters! "he" said "I'm ready for my skeptic training!" Limbo9 is getting hazed and is hanging in there. In his Secret Teachings Of All Ages thread Limbo9 describes a UFO experience 15 years ago in his home town, Colorado Springs, Co., which powerfully affected him. I lived in The Springs in the early '80's. I hope to shed some light as to where he's coming from.

Colorado Springs:1) NORAD, Peterson Air Force Base, Space Command, Fort Carson Army Base and the Air Force Academy. A source of great military power and secrecy. Also the source for many angry lost individuals who left early or were kicked out of the military
(snip?)


(snip?)
Colorado Springs is a town of mystery, full of determined people with different ideas as to The Way Things Work. This is the environment Limbo9 grew up in, and now he's here. Yowzah.



One more response:

Thanks for pointing me to Limbo9's other posts. I should have read them first before making suggestions. live and learn.

But:

One sighting of bright lights in the sky and that's IT? I was expecting something more. You know, an encounter of the third or fourth kind. This seems inadequate cause to change one's life. Inadequate cause to need to invent a whole theory of thought-forms, etc. Perhaps there was more to it.

and:

Limbo9, maybe you've read some Ken Wilber? If not, check him out.
IMHO one of the best of the somewhat-woo philosophers. Like you, he is interested in comparing religion and mythology within an overall framework. (Curious what other people here think of him.)

[Soapy Sam]

Link?

Is this the one you mean? http://www.kenwilber.com/news/list/1

[calebprime]

Link?

Is this the one you mean? http://www.kenwilber.com/news/list/1

yikes! That's the guy. I wasn't prepared for the beefcake and bruises.

His website is partly wu, partly woo, partly flash, partly just ouch. Reading his books gave me a different impression.

Reading him couldn't hurt someone who wanted to ground his far-out experiences in some kind of philosophical tradition.

I'm what Wilber would call a metaphysical Flatlander, and that's ok.

I see the value of posting a link like you have done.