Forums IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ Beyond Human Can i really fulfil my dreams?

Do dreams really become true if we have the right mindset?Don't you thing that there's a difference between what we want and what we are capable of?Are we capable of achieving all we want with the right mindset?

If you are talking about having success in life then having your own internal program to get what you want and what you need can be almost automatic once you have done the work to set it up.

Alot of time they give the example of riding a bike the first time. It took alot of concentration and effort to keep everything going. With practise you can relax and eventually you just ride the bike without even thinking about it, so it is with becoming successful in life and having anything you desire.

There are always levels to success. Once you hit one level then you start figuring out ways that will take you to the next level.

Usually the principles are the same, your understanding of how to use them increases.

Everyone is different in their make up and thought patterns. Because of belief systems and experiences you have , something that works for one person will not work for another.

It is something of a Treasure Hunt to find all these things and put them together for yourself.

One of the best things is to stay connected to successful people and focus on this successful energy they create. It really does help you.

Hope that helps.

Jeff

No.

Dreams do not come true if you have the right mindset.

Anyone who tells you different is trying to sell your something... like a bunch of overpriced CDs.

If a dream is simple, it is simple to achieve. If I dream of eating sushi, all I need is the time, money, and means of getting to a sushi bar that serves the quality of food I desire.

No amount of changing my mindset will get me there. No matter how many times I exercise my "play" finger and listen to CDs or visualize or meditate will bring me magically to the sushi bar and pay for my meal.

Anyone who tells you otherwise is trying to sell you something.

Usually, "dreams" are fairly grand desires that need to be researched and planned. In short, how you create your dreams is through intelligent, hard, and persistent work and overcoming obstacles.

Anyone who tells you otherwise is trying to sell you something.... or to reinforce their own delusion belief system of magical thinking.

I suppose you *could* say that it does require the right mindset. That is, the mindset that if you crap in one hand and wish in the other, one is going to get filled first. Work towards your dreams, take your risks, and put up with the crap between you and what you want, if you have the guts... and you might get it. Then again, you might not. But if you fail, let it be a failure as a result of trying your best. And yes, I mean try. Despite the oft spouted bamboolzement around the word try, trying is how we learn about our present limits and trying is how we learn to overcome them.

Whether you think you can or think you can't you are right.

What is the right mindset? It's different for every goal. Ultimately it's you who motivates you to fulfil your dreams. Sure you can use programs that guide you but they are only as good as what you put into them and what you expect out of them. Like driving for Sushi. If you can't be bothered going out to get it you're not going to get it. If you had to climb Mount Everest to be allowed to have Sushi you might be even more reluctant.

As said it isn't only about the right mindset. Its about how important your dreams are and how you face the obstacles on your. path. For there are obstacles and sacrifices to be made for your "dreams"

Alex

Anyone interested in buying a bicycle?

Fulfilled your dream of learning to ride and now ready to move on Jeff?

Alex

If you define the right mindset as the one that makes your dreams come true, than logically the right mindset makes your dreams come true.

But one shouldn't think that it is somehow easy to get a right mindset.
In addition dreams are a part of the mindset, so they change as your mindset changes.

I do not think that it is a coincidence that old Buddhist monks weren't allowed to own anything. They tried to drop their execptions, their dreams to get a better mindset.
And it also locially that they were rather able to fulfill their remaining dreams after dropping most of them.
And they were happy with that fact.

Mindest is only the foundation, the preparation for success - success is based not on thinking but on acting. Success is determined by the actions you take not how you think about things. Get the Thinking- Doing equation in balance. If we are not careful we put ourselves in believing the next tape program or mindset change is going to get you your dreams. Yes its critical to think that you can, but its no point thinking you can if you don't DO anything. Action speaks louder than words. Intention is great but its doesn't put food on the table, create your prosperity or give you security - that comes about by taking ACTION. Please let's consider getting the balance right.

Bicycles are really good for developing intention and action. They take you from point A to point B. Once you get the mechanics hardwired into the body from regular practice you just go and don't think about it.

Lance Armstrong, Bicycles, Success all seem to work pretty good together.

Yes Alex I think I've exhausted the bicycle craving and am in need of something with a little more zip to it. Gas Turbines maybe?

Jeff

Believing you can do something is certainly no guarantee of success. But believing you can't do it is, beyond doubt, a guarantee of failure.

Believing you can do something is certainly no guarantee of success. But believing you can't do it is, beyond doubt, a guarantee of failure.

The trick, I think, is to start out with baby steps to convince yourself that success is not just possible, but probably. These baby steps may be steps along the path to your specific goal, or they may be unrelated, things that give you confidence--perhaps learning public speaking, getting into shape, starting conversations with 100 women in one month, whatever.

To qoute from the "Crusty Ol Sailors Successful Management Technics Manual", the 7P's to getting anything done (there are no copies left in print or I'd try to sell you one).

Prior Proper Planning Prevents P#%s Poor Performance.

This would indicate that a well thought out plan would provide the desired or better results. You have to follow through with action to get it done.

Another truism from the same book, "Prepare for the worst and expect the best".

When you are going on your long bicycle ride you need some things that ensure you get where you are going, map, food, water, snake bite kit, matches, helmet, first aid kit, compass, etc. Trying to foresee any mishaps, you may have to deal with, that can occur in your travels. Other than that, have a really nice day and we'll see you when you get there.

Aloha

Jeff

Does not having the right mindset direct one's energy to action in the right direction?

I guess the appropriate combination of both, is critical. Action without the right mindset could have one running around in circles and not accomplishing anything, or worse, leading to destructive actions.

On the other hand, having the right mindset, but not taking action, will also not achieve anything!

[This message has been edited by InquiringMind (edited August 09, 2005).]

How about having the right mindset which prompts one that it is time to act, and guides one in the right direction?!

In all truth I believe there are many layers to achieving anything. At first you start off with some idea and just go for it anyway possible. Many times you fail with this approach.

Depending on how hard headed you are and resist being flexible it can take longer to learn how to achieve your target. I know I was.

After alot of experience getting what you want, things change and you develop some idea and then put your plan into action except that you really work at enjoying every step of the way. Your confidence is high, you have certainty that you will hit the target no matter what. You have the experience at achieving things within the time frame and under budget.

You can always get better at doing anything and you can teach others to do the same thing.

Another rule that is helpful "The long way is the short way". If you try to take shortcuts you will waste alot of time, money and effort only to have to go back and do it all over again the right way. Take the time and do , whatever it is, the right way the first time. Then you can move on to your next Dream with no lose ends. Unless you are trying to leave a mess for someone else to clean up.

My personal beliefs ...

Do dreams really become true if we have the right mindset? Yes, or the dream changes into something better.

Don't you thing that there's a difference between what we want and what we are capable of? To quote some aphorism, "Inherent in the desire is the seeds of it's accomplishment." Capable is a long-time sequence word.

Are we capable of achieving all we want with the right mindset? Yes, but we do live in a physical universe so action and effort are important also.

Thanks for the rich questions.

My 2cents.
Anything worth doing, is worth doing badly the first time.

Anything your mind can conceive & believe - it can achieve. WHEN you can believe you can achieve something AND work towards it without doubt, you can achieve it.

I'm with Purgo on this one.

I can add my own "Debbie Downer" perspective :-)

...Literal, nighttime dreams are coded, subconscious processing and desires. You may be getting a wrong read on them.

Daydreams, or lofty desires and ambitions, are still part of the fantasy world. They may be coming out of some deeper, unmet need, compuslsion or insecurity.

If they are about self-interests, (like the perfect mate, car, home or job), then you may realize they're really moving targets- leading to further desires and dissatisfaction (or "dukka") after achieving them.

I tend to think if you have a vision of how you can improve the life of others and the world around you, then you may get some long term, spiritual fullfillment from actualizing them.
JMHO

You can doubt something like hell and still achieve it. Count on it.

History, including your personal history, is full of examples where people doubted but still kept on. In fact, many of our most compelling and dramatic stories are about people who faced challenges they didn't know they could overcome, yet did. History, including your personal history, is full of examples to the contrary.

Reality is what persists despite your beliefs to the contrary, despite what you may think about it, despite your "mindset."

You do not need to believe in order to achieve. People achieve results they do not believe they can all the time, and these people may fail to notice because they fail to believe, yet they achieve all the same.

If you doubt yourself too much, your energy will be dispersed, of course. You may be hesitant, there are things you may not try. Yet if you are absolutely convinced you know you can, and you have a certain idea as to how, you may not be open to other options or feedback to the contrary. You may end up hitting your head against a brick wall. You may be able to simply walk around it.

Doubt. Consider. Think. Ruminate. You don't have to mindlessly believe.

Try. See what happens. Experiment. You do not have to have your mind ruled by programmed in foregone conclusions about what is, what you can do.

People have limits. Some limits can be overcome, some can't. Try and see.

But whatever you do, don't neglect, ignore, or shut off your mind with new age crap that is selling itself as the magical map to truth and success. There isn't any.

So go ahead and doubt. If it is worth it, try to get what you want, and learn from your experiences. You don't have to believe, but you may need the guts to get out there and try.

quote:

---

You do not need to believe in order to achieve. People achieve results they do not believe they can all the time, and these people may fail to notice because they fail to believe, yet they achieve all the same.

---

You argue on the basis that all people have the same dreams. In fact different people have different dreams.
So one result can make one people happy and fulfilled while the same result doesn't make another person fulfilled. What the difference between the two persons?
Their mindset.

Brutha,

I am not assuming that everyone has the same dreams. That is your presumption about my point of view. If you read my message again and assume that I am arguing from the basis that people have different dreams and different criteria for their achievement, you may understand my point as I intended to make it. In other words, this is a case where changing your mindset may help.

The difference between people is more than their mindset. Their bodies are different. One portion of food may satisfy one where it leaves the other longing for more. One kind of food is just the ticket where the same food is found disgusting by another. Biology and factors other than mindset come into the mix.

If you are talking about the notion that you can make a hell of heaven or a heaven of hell because thinking makes it so, then, sure, I agree. The mind can make one thing seem like another, for a time... until reality comes a-knocking. I repeat, reality is what continues to persist despite your mindset.

If you push your standards low enough, you can feel satisfied by anything. But this is changing your dreams to meet the situation, not keeping your dream constant and changing your mindset to acquire what you envision in that dream.

My beef is with the notion that if you just fiddle with your ideology, your dreams will magically manifest. That's just plain BS.

It's the argument made by many people selling their religions. I had Buddhists argue that once they had become Buddhist that so many good things came their way. Magickal thinking. It's the same BS as the mindset argument. Just believe this way, and you'll have abundance for your entire life.

No magical mindset will rid you of the necessity of going out and trying, learning, making mistakes, and generally doing what it takes to make your dream, whatever that is, a reality.

The downside of the whole "just change your mindset" thing is that people may buy into it, do it, fail to achieve, and then blame themselves, when they were just acting on bad information. Or, worse, someone who is just wanting to be told they can get something for nothing has the erroneous belief behind that want reinforced (at the profit of another individual or company), and that person still ends up with nothing.

Hmm, must be because the mindset isn't good enough yet. Gotta buy more books and CDs and get that mindset really, really buff.

The fact is that when it comes to most reasonable aspirations, we have everything we need to achieve. We have brains that can learn and bodies that can move around and manipulate objects. We have voices that can communicate information, make requests, and persuade. We have wills that can help us keep going when things get rough and the path ahead looks barren, dangerous, or difficult. We have creativity to come up with new approaches.

Mindset schmindset. Leave your mindset alone. It'll take care of itself. Research, plan, make preparations, and then just go out there and do it (read: try, success is not guaranteed). Look at your results, repeat if necessary. If you're a healthy, intelligent individual, you will learn and your mindset will adapt on its own.

On a side note, here is where the "mindset" argument can become deadly. An individual on a show on the National Geographic channel was of the mindset that he could not be injured by cobra venom. He wished to show his power to some girls, so he allowed a cobra to bite him. They watched. He developed increasingly dramatic symptoms caused by the cobra venom. The people around him began to beg him to get help, but he refused. He replied, "My blood is snake's blood." He believed, a la Henry Ford, that he could and the snake venom could not.

When man was nearly unconscious, his loved ones decided to bring him to a hospital. Too late. He died for his beliefs. Perhaps some believers in belief can make him a saint?

What caused this man's death was the belief in belief. The belief in mindset.

On the same show, another individual handled a cobra poorly and was bitten. He knew the dangers. He was clear about the reality of the situation and threat. He stayed calm. He had a friend drive him to a hospital.

His mindset wasn't that his mindset made him better or worse, but rather that reality is real, and it's best to be informed by the facts and act according to what you know. Antivenom was what he needed, not belief, and he knew it. His mindset helped him stay calm and act reasonable, yes, but it's the antivenom that saved him. He's alive because of it. Compare it to the other guy.

In my mindset, it can't get any clearer than that.

In case anyone has tried to suggest that the human mind is incapable of exerting a deliberate and systematic effect on phenomena in the observed universe..or "reality" as some might call it, here is a double-blind study to the contrary:
http://www.dnaperfection.com/pages/4/index.htm
(scroll down a bit to get to the study)

...Apparently the "mindset" of the those individuals offering prayer and positive intention made quite a bit of difference in the health and well-being of the patients under examination in these studies.

There are many other such double-blind studies which prove
exactly the same thing. (see the work of Larry Dossey)

Not new-age crap; hard scientific evidence.

Actually just confirmation of Bell's non-locality theorem in
physics, which demonstrated that the mind of
the observer established instantaneous action-at-a distance in the observed
"physical" universe.

No, this doesn't mean that everyone can sit around controlling everything telepathically. But it is a skill, that can be cultivated and developed, and integrated with an overall program for change in the individual case (including effort, persistence, etc.)

I say, each should (responsibly) learn to use it as they are able, as it has been largely brainwashed out of us in the west by our inheritance of scientific materialism and naive "realism".

Isn't that what many of us are involved in doing already...?

[This message has been edited by garics (edited August 16, 2005).]

And then why do you think that the guy how died by the venom had the better mindset?

quote:

---

His mindset helped him stay calm and act reasonable, yes, but it's the antivenom that saved him.

---

I think the kind of reality you speak about is deterministic? If so why itsn't it than the flow of events: He became injured - He decided to act responsive - He got antivenom - He was healed.

I do see that acting responsive has resulted in becomming healed.

quote:

---

But this is changing your dreams to meet the situation, not keeping your dream constant

---

So you believe that things can be constant and that 'constant' is an absolute term, and no realitive one.
Whetever something is constant comes only from your perspective.
For example, while you drive in your car you don't move when your focus point is your car, the tempo your car show's if your focus point is the street and a lot more if your focus point is the sun.
So whetever something is constant depends on your perspective with is a part of your mindset.

quote:

---

Hmm, must be because the mindset isn't good enough yet. Gotta buy more books and CDs and get that mindset really, really buff.

---

I don't think that buying books and CDs can make a right mindset.
It is nothing which you can have withoud crossing selfdeveloped limits. What is neither easy nor can be accomplished passivly.

Garics,

I tend to believe that healing is possible through the use of "energy." I don't know what happens, exactly, in these cases, but I believe that something DOES go on that can be measured, as the studies you refer to show.

I personally had the healing of an ailment assisted by two energy workers. I don't know how to explain what happened, but I know they had an influence on the healing process. A drastic one.

It wasn't simply an attitude of theirs or mine that did it. They had to DO specific things with their minds, bodies, and energy systems to do it.

Attitude and mindset can help or hinder, no doubt about that. A lot of this faith healing stuff can be accounted for by the placebo effect, some, I think, can't. But it isn't just a mindset creating a reality. There is more to it.

I don't think it's a healthy attitude to think that things will magically work your way if you just think positive.

But, whatever. If someone wants to fantasize and hope, then that's their choice. I'll plan and work.

quote:

---

Originally posted by babayada:

It wasn't simply an attitude of theirs or mine that did it. They had to DO specific things with their minds, bodies, and energy systems to do it.

---

Well that's the key distinction then, isn't it?

I wasn't sure you were clear on this, because of the reference to Buddhist practioners. A legitimate Buddhist practice is a discipline of body, mind, emotions, and breath; it certainly amounts to a lot more than changing one's mindset or beliefs.

The same goes for a lot of manifestation programs available commerically or in books. It is a specific process for visualizing, one of the key components being to visualize with energy, i.e. feeling emotion as part of the visualization.

Of course there is a huge variation in how technical or sophisticated these different systems can get.

Pretty much every time I've heard a version of this recipe, whether from Napoleon Hill, Jonathan Parker, or a more esoteric source, concrete effort in the world is always emphasized as a necessary ingredient of the process.

Hmm... looks like peopel are going back & forth with this simple idea.

"Anything your mind can conceive and believe, it can achieve" - PROVIDED you believe you are capable of achieving those dreams & goals AND you are willing to work on a CONSISTENT & PERSISTENT basis. Otherwise, it becomes difficult and sometimes almost impossible.

Babayada, when people helped you with energy healing, they believed beyond doubt that they can help - otherwise they would have a difficult time. Whether you believed or not was different.

The comment about some people don't always believe they can achieve certain things but work for them anyway - guess what... consistent & persistent work still pays off - eventually your mind believes that you can achieve as you start putting action toward your goals.

About cobra ... people do stupid things hoping to impress the opposite sex - how do you know about someone else's mindset? There is (still living, I don't remember where) another person who worked with poisonous snakes to extract venom. He almost got bitten once, then he started injecting very negligable amount of venom in his bloodstream everyday and gradually increased the amount hoping to be safe if there was any future attacks. Guess what? After a couple of years or so, he was badly bitten by a snake but he survived. He didn't have a mindset to impress some girls to take them to movies.

Bottomline is to get the fastest result, you do need to believe, have faith that you can accomplish, make your goals and targets and work toward them consistently.

Well....

Have you guys considered the danger of giving yourselves an inaccurate mindset when you're trying to think positive?

There was a study done on incompetence. Across the board, incompetent people were found to have an erroneous belief that their ability at something was much greater than it actually was. They also demonstrated consistently an inability to perceive negative feedback in that area.

Once these individuals were shown the painful truth in a way in which they could not deny it, something miraculous happened. They started to actually improve their performance in the areas in which they were incompetent.

So, the whole "if you believe it, it is true" thing doesn't hold water.

More on cobra venom. The body can grow resistent to cobra venom to an extent. The body can develop a response to the proteins in it. However, the kind of venom from cobra to cobra can vary. Where you think you might have an out and out immunity, along may come a cobra with venom that is just significantly different enough that it kills you. They actually talked about that on the National Geographic special.

So, in terms of mindset and generalization, believing you can can can is what can get you into real trouble in some situations.

[This message has been edited by babayada (edited August 20, 2005).]

quote:

---

There was a study done on incompetence. Across the board, incompetent people were found to have an erroneous belief that their ability at something was much greater than it actually was. They also demonstrated consistently an inability to perceive negative feedback in that area.

---

The point is that this isn't a good or right mindset.
After the law of reverse flexibility the amount of power you have over something rise proportional to the rise of flexibility in that area. That means the more reponses you can generate to feedback whetever it is positive or negative you have available the more you can accomplish. Most people are extremly unflexible and can improved based on a more flexible mindset.

In addition constant and focused effort is more powerfull than unfocused effort.

quote:

---

So, in terms of mindset and generalization

---

Thinking that people have the ability to make no generaliziation is irrealistic. If you don't make your generaliziations consciously you make them unconsciously. If you make them consciously your flexibility is greater and so are your results.

I read how the professional (and amateur) skeptics have been trying to blow holes into the double blind prayer research. Time will tell, I suppose.

I'd like to believe that "Magickal Thinking" could produce success all on it's own. But, I'm more inclined to think that it works by decreasing stress, selfishness and negativity, so you can be more open to noticing and acting on the opportunities already around you.

But, like any effective myth or faith, it only really "works" when you believe in it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lad:
I read how the professional (and amateur) skeptics have been trying to blow holes into the double blind prayer research. Time will tell, I suppose.

---

Time has already left the skeptics far behind.

They are clinging to an archaic materialist worldview, which has been experimentally disproven by modern quantum physics research.

quote:

---

I'd like to believe that "Magickal Thinking" could produce success all on it's own.

---

I wouldn't.

It requires a specific process, and there are different levels of skill and sensitivity with regard to manifestation.
Like in everything, some are very naturally talented at it, and can develop it to agreat degree, and some can't.

Those who have little or no ability at all in this area, or who never bother to investigate the matter for themselves first-hand, become "skeptics".

quote:

---

But, like any effective myth or faith, it only really "works" when you believe in it.[/b]

---

Wrong; It works when you effectively engage the process, practice it, and refine it.

And there are different technologies which produce different kinds of results, as our friends in the SFQ forum can surely tell us many stories about.

[This message has been edited by garics (edited August 22, 2005).]

[This message has been edited by garics (edited August 22, 2005).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by babayada:
So, in terms of mindset and generalization, believing you can can can is what can get you into real trouble in some situations.

---

You always seem to pick up examples of some arrogant people in not so normal (like facing a cobra) circumstances. Picking up some negative examples do not mean much - actually that's why most people are negative and don't get much accomplished in life. They just wake up, go to work to report to a boss, come back home, watch TV and sleep. Positive thinking, having goals and working toward accomplishing them with the faith and belief that it can be achieved by him/her is what gets you to your destination. Success is a journey and a series of events. It is not a TV with a remote control.

Most new age interpretations of quantum mechanics by non-physicists are MISinterpretations of it.

Skeptics are not the ones who are behind.

If you know anything about history you will see that we are supposed to be on the other side of the age of reason, in which we use the advanced methods of reasoning (a la the scientific method) to discover the truth and advance our thinking.

The new age and attendant movements are movements backwards into magical and superstitous thinking ... you know, the stuff the age of reason was supposed to be a movement AWAY from?

Praise pseudo-science and muddled thinking if you want, I am sure it feels good, but the thinking of most people who believe in superstition is not critical, rigorous, or advanced. In all reality it's rather primitive.

And just because hearing someone talk about quantum foam makes it SEEM like anything is possible and reality is just an ever shifting set of probabilities tending towards one outcome or another based on our perceptions, that doesn't mean that's what it is. The cat in the box IS either alive or dead. Our perception of it does nothing. The metaphor was intended to help explain our perception of events. It wasn't meant to be taken literally. Keep your wits about you. Quantum mechanics is just describing what we know to be true in new ways. It does not throw common sense out of the window, although it may appear to if you can't manage to keep your head on straight.

Just because we cannot measure location and speed of quantum particles simultaneously does not mean that a quanta does NOT have a location when we measure its speed or that it doesn't have a speed when we measure its location.

Give me a freaking break.

Did you know that a physics professor wrote an often quoted paper that, basically, proposed all the statements about the world that many would like to believe? It is a magical ever shifting morphic field subject to influence by will and yada yada yada. He did it to show how easily people can be made into fools. Its contents were completely erroneous. It was filled with glaring logical errors. But no one but hard scientists saw them, because what he said was pretty.

This essay is STILL being quoted. I wish I had a link to it so I could show you.

But, there you are. Deepak Chopra (his degree is NOT in physics, by the way) and others can talk about quantum mechanics all they want. The thing is, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and taking discoveries out of context can lead to a whole bunch of nonsense.

A lot of so-called support of various new age ideas is just drawing wrong conclusions from good science by pushing ideas outside of their proper contexts. For instance, many use that example of the rotation of one particle being affected by another over great distances to be proof of telepathy. Ummm, ok. The logic is: because it can be seen as analgous, it must be true. And that is NOT proof. It might be poetry, but it's not reason and not science.

Lets take the growing amount of evidence that everything in the universe is connected. The rotation example serves to support that. Some people say, "See! We are all connected, we are all one mind!" Well, that's a hell of a leap. I think we are all connected, more or less, but connected HOW is the question. And the examples from quantum mechanics do not answer that question. As far as I know, they don't know HOW it's all wired together, they just have evidence that it is. Adding the how because something is analogous is, again, not scientific and it's not scientifically proven. Sorry.

DesertSphinx,

Yes. And an example I use to explain a point is not my life.

I am not against planning and having goals. If you read what I have written you'll probably see where I agree that planning and pursuing goals is a good thing.

[This message has been edited by babayada (edited August 25, 2005).]

You know what ... I was just thinking, words are cheap. Let's put this crap to a test.

Why don't we agree on a sum of money. You guys can talk to each other in email if you want and come up with a sum of money. Keep it secret from me, but all make sure you agree on the same sum. Make it something significant. Over two-thousand dollars US would be nice.

Then, using your powers of mindset, try to actualize me receiving this sum within a specified period of time. If mindset can affect reality in measurable ways in this regard, I should receive the money.

Up for it?

If I receive the sum (in one lump sum, not in small parts) by a certain date, I will post a message in which I eat crow and admit that I was wrong and so many others here are right.

Want to put your money where your mouths are?

quote:

---

Originally posted by babayada:

Just because we cannot measure location and speed of quantum particles simultaneously does not mean that a quanta does NOT have a location when we measure its speed or that it doesn't have a speed when we measure its location.

Give me a freaking break.

---

"I believe that the existence of the classical path can be pregnantly formulated as follows: The path comes into existence only when we observe it."

-Werner Heisenberg

(BTW classical path means distinct location and velocity of a particle in the sense described by Isaac Newton)

Perhaps you would accuse Werner Heisenberg, one of the founders of modern quantum theory, of being a new-age pseudoscientist.

BTW, I was a math major in college who took five semesters of physics, including quantum mechanics with multivariate calculus.

Based on your descriptions of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and Bell's Theorem, I can surmise that YOU aren't getting your information from a physics textbook.

I will respond more to this later but am currently too busy with work, moving into a new apartment, and other fun stuff like that

[This message has been edited by garics (edited August 25, 2005).]

I would like to examine more fully the context of that quote, but as far as I have read, his philosophy on the subject is bunk.

I have to state that his proposal can be put this way:

The limits of our measuring tools are the limits of the universe.

Following this logic, if the tree falls and no one is there to see or hear it, it doesn't fall at all. But any person with a developed brain learns object permanence. When mommy and daddy go "peek a boo!" and then cover their faces with their hands, they don't disappear from existence. They are hidden behind their hands. The same with position and velocity.

So, which shell is the pea under? Velocity or position?

When people hear "observing a phenomenon changes it" they are bamboozled, because they don't know what measuring devices are being used. If you say, "Observing someone changes them fundamentally by the act of observing" they may or may not understand. But when you add, "Well, by 'observe' I mean eviscerate so we can get a look at their insides," the picture becomes perfectly clear. The way we measure quanta often affects the nature of the quanta because we're bouncing stuff off of them!

Much of what you propose is a regression not only historically in terms of the progress of reason, but even the progress of basic cognitive ability and mental functioning acquired early in childhood. In this light, the new age is quite literally retarded.

Try this on for size:
http://www.skepticreport.com/tools/quantum.htm

[This message has been edited by babayada (edited August 25, 2005).]

What I said is very simple:
"...Bottomline is to get the fastest result, you do need to believe, have faith that you can accomplish, make your goals and targets and work toward them consistently."

It does not require people to learn quantum physics or string theories. You'd like everyone to focus on you making $2000+ to prove your point? I think most people have better things to do with their time (like practicing Qigong - do you know how that works?). Please go and research some of the medical reviews about Qigong and mind-body concentration technics.

Everything has to exist in the unseen before the seen. An architect visualizes/imagines a building before it is being built. How do scientists explain a thought? A geometric point (it is a definition by the way)? When you mention about visiting a friend, in your mind/thoughts/imagination, you have already gone, visited, greeted, had meals, had fun & came back home in less than a fraction of a second. When you want to drive to a certain place, you already visualize the whole route, possible stop points, traffic, weather conditions, etc before going there - that's why it makes it smoother and you are more confident that you can certainly go there. When you go somewhere for the first time and have no visual guidelines, your mind keeps wondering "what if, is it, how come, where the heck is that street, ...." etc. What will you eat for tomorrow's dinner? Well, you see, you already visualized all possible items. This is visualization, imagination. The more you use it with your projected goals and plans, the better result you get WHEN you work. You don't need a magic wand or Einstein's theory or particle physics to understand that.

As we grow, we learn new things. A few hundred and thousand years ago people thought earth is flat, center of the universe - science evolved since then - the idea of science and scientists is that it is an ever evolving subject. Our thought process, belief changes as we learn new things and accept new realities (like wow! we can fly!!).

Our current scientists have never seen God or heard his voice but over 5 Billion people believe in God. What scientific explanation? What is the perfect scientific explanation of feeling, love, dreaming - only opinions and we are still learning.

What would happen if you are in a car next week and someone hits you from behind and gives you $5000 for compensation? Would you consider that an accident or it happened because some of us read your question and thought about you getting $2k+?

Have you ever practiced Qigong? Photoreading? Aren't they weird/different? Are they hypes?

DS,

I agree that to get your goals quickly, belief in your capability helps if that belief accurately reflects your ability.

If you have an inaccurate belief, it can slow things down. That is, if you believe in yourself too much you risk incompetence, if your believe too little you risk not trying.

What I do not believe are notions like "everything has to exist in the unsees before the seen." The unseen where? A mind? Your point of view presupposes a cosmology in which I do not believe. So should the universe disappear? According to the logic in such statements, apparently it should. Ahh, but then we get all manner of speculative crap as to the reason it does not. You could use Occam's razor and cut all through that.

Scientists might explain thought as the result of electrochemical activity in the brain. You could go to a forum where people who have spent their lives studying this issue discuss it and ask your question there.

You are confusing imagination with reality, my friend. Try eating imaginary food and drinking imaginary water for a month. Perhaps then you'll learn that thoughts are not, in fact, things.

Our imaginations are the result of brain activity. We use our brains to process information about the world. The information only exists as a relation between our brains and the world by way of our senses. We use our brain activity to do things in the world and make differences in the world around us. What happens in our brains is just processes in the meat. This is why we have to actually DO THINGS. You go to the store and buy food. Real food. You eat it with a real, not imaginary mouth, and you digest it not with thoughts but with your squishy internal bits.

The new "realities" we learn about come about through the process of experimentation. (They aren't new realities, BTW, reality remains constant, our perceptions of it change.) This is where we test our ideas against reality. According to your world view, any idea should work because it's an idea. But every idea does not work. Ideas aren't realities, ideas aren't things. Ideas are the result of wet processes in the brain and do not exist without brains to create them.

I have played around with Qigong. Here is my recommendation for you: go buy The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat by Oliver Sachs. It offers undeniable proof that thoughts as we conceive them and much of what we think of as ourselves or our spirits or souls are simply results of the brain being the way it is. He documents cases of unusual brain damage in which a person's perception of reality is completely transformed. Sadly, it's all in the brain. Read it and you'll see what I mean. Reading it made me very sad, but it is better to look the ugly truth in the eye than live with pretty lies. You may want to take the blue pill. Sometimes I do to. But it's best to have guts and swallow the bitter red one.

More faulty logic in your post: quantity equals truth. Because so many people believe something, it must be so. You say this right after saying that people erroneously thought the world was flat. So was the world flat when everyone believed it to be so? Or is it possible for large quantities of people, such as yourself, to be totally wrong?

If someone hit me in a car next week and I got $5000.00 dollars I would post it here. It may have been a coincidence, but then again it may not. It would give me pause. It'd also make me think that if someone caused that, they were a real jerk and that I hope that karma actually works so that they'd get a nice accident, too.

I have to say it is very convenient that people have better things to do than perform experiments that would confirm or eradicate their beliefs. That is, put their rhetoric to a real test. I understand you're busy believing what makes you feel comfortable and just don't have time to see if those beliefs really reflect reality or not. The truth hurts sometimes.

I think there is something to Qigong, but the mechanics of how it actually works are speculative, as far as I am concerned.

I think Photoreading is pretty much a sham. When they say, PHOTOREAD ZILLIONS OF WORDS PER MINUTE! And then say, well, we don't really mean read ... by photoread we mean ... blah blah blah. Intentionally misleading advertising and flim flammery. That being said, there are parts to it that are helpful.

[This message has been edited by babayada (edited August 26, 2005).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by babayada:
I would like to examine more fully the context of that quote, but as far as I have read, his philosophy on the subject is bunk.

But any person with a developed brain learns object permanence. When mommy and daddy go "peek a boo!" and then cover their faces with their hands, they don't disappear from existence. They are hidden behind their hands. The same with position and velocity.

---

Well, the problem with your argument, is that no one has ever
"seen" an electron. Electrons are only detected to exist
through the filtering mechanism of high-precision laboratory
equipment, which can provide various clues as to what they
are, but do not, in any sense, provide the observer with a first-
hand glimpse of an actual electron.

Therefore, your analogy is invalid, as are the
conclusions you drew from it.

Additionally, you seem to be suggesting with this argument,
that any scientific result, which violates the laws of
"common sense" as they appear to our five senses, is
(necessarily) pseudoscience and is invalid...
Well all I can say is, I'm glad that this point-of-view
didn't carry the day when Einstein's Theory of Special
Relativity arrived on the
scene, in the early part of the last century.

As you probably know, many of the conclusions of special
relativity, completely violate the reality-picture afforded
by our naive experiential perception of the world through the
medium of our five senses.

(Or maybe there's a skeptical website somewhere, that argues
against the conclusions of Special Relativity...?)

I.e., everyday reality suggests that the mass of an object stays constant
even if it moves relative to an observer. It would
also seem plausible, from everyday common sense, and the notions derived
from our senses, that velocities are
additive; this, if I am moving at a speed A and I throw an object
with a speed B, the velocty of that object as measured by a
stationary obeserver will be A + B. This isn't true either, it is
only approximately true, for speeds much less than the speed of light.

Profound scientific discoveries, are always about
violating our notions of "ordinary common sense," and without
exception, there is always a pool of sceptics who decry them
on this basis. (Just as there was a LARGE group of people who considered the Special Theory to be rubbish, until it was repeatedly confirmed experimentally.) However, as in the case of special relativity, the
"focusing mechanism" provided by advanced laboratory experimentation
has confirmed these un-commonplace notions, to be
correct. Thank God there are indivduals wiling to
inquire into the nature if reality, no matter how paradoxical
or bewildering the results may seem....

quote:

---

Try this on for size:
http://www.skepticreport.com/tools/quantum.htm

---

I've tried it on for size...and its a couple of sizes too small,
unfortunately. This guy seems to be proposing the idea
that electrons are merely "flying billiard balls", that always
travel with a definite trajectory, and not anything else.

Unfortunately this does little to explain the two-slit experiment;
in fact, the two-slit experiment, which any physics major
has contact with in his freshman year at college, completely
invalidates the notion that electrons are merely "tiny billiard
balls", flying around with definite trajectory.

Here's a description:

Two streams of electrons are fired at a screen, which can register
their impact and measure the number of electrons hitting the screen. A barrier
is placed in between the electron source and the screen, and two small holes,
just large enough for the electrons to pass through, are
made in the screen. When both sources are firing, let's say that
a value of 60% of the elctrons are found to arrive at the
incandescent screen on the other side of the border.

When one of the holes is covered, however, it is found thsat a
GREATER PERCENTAGE of electrons hits the incandescent screen.
This completely violates the notion that electrons are "tiny billiard balls" for they
are obviously interfering with each other in some wave like
way, when both slits are open...even materialistic observers
are baffled by this, and quantum physics has yet to really
explain the "wave-particle duality"; i.e., sometimes electrons seem
to behave like particles, sometimes they seem to behave like
waves.

So the a priori notion that electrons are tiny billiard balls, and nothing more,
is totally invalid,
and is contradicted by the facts of experience.
Where did that idea come from, anyway? Why is that more
sensible or intelligent than another expalanation? Because its
easier to understand? That's a pretty poor criteria for the
validity of a scientific assumption, if you ask me.)

BTW, what are your credentials and education in this area?

You earlier attacked Deepak Chopra (whose books I've never read,
and whose views on quantum physics I am completely unfamilar with)
for not having credentials....Then you invalidated the statements of one of
the scientists who originated the theory (and with that comment, by extension
you invalidated the ideas of Niels Bohr, one of the greatest scientific
geniuses of the 20th century, who said..."Anyone who is not shocked by
quantum mechanics has failed to understand it.")...
So which is it? Do credentials and university education matter, or do they
not?
Or do only consider that someone has "credentials" in this area
if they write for a skeptical website??

If so, this is a perfect example of "mere belief", which you usually criticize.

BTW, your evaluation of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, and the reason for the Uncertainty relation, are not correct; nor are the opinions of that guy on the website....its the wave-like nature of the medium used for measurement, as well as the inherently wave-like properties of the "particle" being measured, that is the true source of the uncertainty, not the size of the particles, or the limits of the measuring equipment...

I'll explain it more later, but I only have so much time and space here....

(edit)...the area
of experimental results derived from investigation of the focusing
mechanism provided by high tech laboratory equipment..you have attacked others and parrot what
the skeptical websites say, even though they **edit*
..don't necessarily have the proper credentials for discussing these matters.

And likewise, with technologies like yoga, qigong, meditation, and other exercises
which "focus" the mechanism of human consciousness, and thereby disclose
greater, and in some cases, non-"common-sense" truths about the different levels of reality, you *edit*are don't necessarily have experience with those either.

The spiritual reality
is not a matter of mere belief; the great truths of the wisdom traditions
are not afforded by people who are merely "offering an opinion", without any experience.

They are offered by those who have actually DONE THE EXPERIMENTS (the experiments being, yoga/qigong/
meditation poractice, for 20-30 years, for an entire lifetime, until
the "focusing mechanism" is precise enough to yield information about
the higher subjective truths of reality.

(For more information about the difference between TRUE spiritual
practitioners (i.e., those who have actually DONE THE EXPERIMENTS), and those merely offering mythological beliefs and opinions,
see Ken Wilbur and his commentary on the "pre-trans fallacy", an error
indulged in by skeptics, postmodern poststructuralists, and other naive realists...)

You have not done these experiments... therefore
all your cynical criticism and aggressiveness towards
those who are actively pursuing these options, *edit* not as valuable as it could be.

What you should do, instead surfing the internet
and trying to talk down to people who are
engaged in "the great experiment" (of human consciousness), or instead of indiscriminately criticising
someone who offers something besides the "billiard ball"
theory of reality, is go out and experiment with a
movement or meditation practice for yourself, for about five years. Daily.

With sincere dedication, and open to whatever phenomena arises, and whatever
truths and levels of reality begin to unfold.

Your whole disposition will change thereby, and only in that case will your views on the
matter have any legitmacy, or claim to truth-value.

[This message has been edited by garics (edited September 02, 2005).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by babayada:
DS,

I have to say it is very convenient that people have better things to do than perform experiments that would confirm or eradicate their beliefs. That is, put their rhetoric to a real test. I understand you're busy believing what makes you feel comfortable and just don't have time to see if those beliefs really reflect reality or not. The truth hurts sometimes.

---

And I have to say, it is very ignorant for someone to assume that they could scientifically establish the truth-validity of a general proposition, which in this case is "Can the mind, to any degree, affect objective reality"....

by setting an arbitrarily high standard for the "proof" of the proposition, and then proposing to test it with one individual case.

Not a very good method for evaluation.

That is like a cancer researcher saying.."Oh yeah? Your cancer drug works, eh?? Well, if it works, then I want to see it completely cure all 1000 patients! Otherwise I don't believe you!"

The way theories like this are tested, is statistically, i.e., by means of a p-test, over many cases, to establish the probability that the results observed are consistent with the null hypothesis, i.e., the hypothesis that NO CORRELATION exists between the two variables.

THAT is how you correct for and eliminate blind error, and individual variations, etc; and actually establish a definite and mathematical level of confidence about the BASIC PROPOSITION, i.e., does mind or intention have ANY EFFECT AT ALL on the results achieved in the realm of objective reality.

[This message has been edited by garics (edited September 02, 2005).]

Ok. I'll do my best to address your points one at a time, Garic.

The "peek a boo" argument was for using the knowledge you have as to what you know to be true in order to determine how you are to intepret new information, in terms of what is sensible. Whether or not we have seen an electron, we should abide by what we know to be true, what is common sense. On the macroscopic level, at least, things don't pop in and out of existence. I disagree with you about the validity of my argument and its conclusions, and from discussing the issues with others more educated in physics than I (which I have done since our argument began) I am not alone in this.

Occam's Razor.

I agree that we should accept what our experiments show us, but we should remain careful about our interpretations of it. I suppose what I am arguing here is what is elegantly demonstrated by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle in his Sherlock Holmes novels. There are, at times, clues and evidence that points to a supernatural explanation. Instead of ignoring the facts, Holmes keeps going, but he is reluctant to give in to superstitious notions. You can tentatively hold on to what you've got (even if it is unsatisfying and seems crazy, as Holmes did when he found the apparent cause was supernatural), but still try your best to work things out. It's not just in fiction where reason wins the day.

So, yes, something can shock you and not make sense and be true. I am not arguing against that. I am arguing for doing your best to make sense of a situation and not checking your brains at the door and believing in something willy nilly.

The discoveries of Quantum Mechanics were mind numbing. Especially around the 1920s. Something might not make any sense, but the more you learn about it, the more sense it should make. It may take a little stretching and expanded knowledge, but it should always make sense in the end. It isn't chance, I think, that people attribute supernatural traits to something we don't really understand that much and are learning a great deal about ... and it isn't surprising that this new, somewhat fuzzy area is used to validate superstitious nonsense.

And, by the way, let's say I am completely wrong about everything I've said about Quantum Mechanics. The logic you use is something like this: the world that quantum mechanics shows us looks magical in nature, so, therefore, a lot of stuff considered magical must be true! It's associative rather than logical, poetic rather than scientific. It's like saying because the two particles rotate correspondingly with no apparent physical link, our minds are psychicly linked to each other and we're connected by one mind. Nope. Doesn't work that way. A strong correspondence has to be shown between one area and another other than the subjects being similar to one another (sharing the idea of connectivity between them).

More on common sense: common sense was the basis of Einstein's conclusions from his thought experiments, so I am glad that he used it. If he didn't stick to what made sense to him, we may not have many of his accomplishments.

So you found the article a few sizes too small. Ok. I am not surprised.

They are particles, not waves. Light behaves, at least according to Mr. Feynman, as particles in ways that leads him to believe that photons are indeed particles. (And I understand that the particles do not move stictly like billiard balls.... but I have seen physicists I trust more than you use the analogy for teaching purposes.) The author of the skeptic article was using an analogy, one that I found pretty informative and made a great deal of sense. If you can propose something, from your educated point of view, that makes more sense, I'd love to read it.

It seems you go with the Copenhagen interpretation. There are other interpretations.

Feynman addresses the phenomenon in the two-slit experiment in the lectures given the links on the skeptic article's web-page. It was interesting to watch. What he says matches much more what David Morgan said in his article than the sketchy information you post here. You're certainly more educated than I am in the subject, but from where I am standing, you appear to have reached the wrong conclusions. And it's always possible for a well educated person to process good information in bad ways.

Believe it or not, I read and consider what you say and earmark it in my mind to see if it will jive with what I experience in the future. My bet is it won't, but that is just a bet.

My emphasis on credentials re. Chopra was for the reason that because he is a Dr. and talks about Quantum physics... some believe that he is an authority on the subject (I did for a while). He's not.

As for myself, I am no authority. I don't publish books with the word "Quantum" in the title. I hope this information is enough to help you understand my reasons for emphasizing qualifications. I can only seek to learn as much as I can in a realistic fashion and do my best to have an accurate view of the world. My educational background is in Communications, English Writing, and Computer Science. I have Bachelor degrees in each. My knoweldge of physics comes from my own personal interest in the subject and self-education (aside from rudimentary education for high-school and university).

As for me parroting ideas, no. I have the same opinions as the person who wrote the article. Why would I link you to an article that stated opinions I disagreed with? The author appeared to be much more knowledgeable in the subject than I am, and he put it more lucidly than I could. And I have to say that I did learn some very interesting things from it.

As for mere belief, I continue to check what I learned against knowledge I continue to find. If I find something that clashes, rings untrue, then I update my knowledge and change my opinions. My beliefs change over time based on what I find to be accurate, pertinent, and helpful. I'll take a 180 turn (a while ago I'd be arguing your side of the issue) when I have to. My beliefs change not based on comfort but on what I find to be reasonable and accurate, do yours?

This is why I was so mad at Chopra, I actually believed that stuff and would argue for it at one time, until I started to sit down and really think about what I was being told, and then sought more information. You don't have to imagine my reaction. You've seen it.

I go with what Schrodinger believed about the whole observation collapsing the waveform thing. It's silliness. A simple dose of common sense (and also some knowledge of philosophy, cognitive science, and general psychology) shows you where Heisenberg and others made their mistakes.

It IS very much about our measuring tools and how we think about things. It IS about confusing a mathematical formula with reality.

Things are no more or less in a state of non-existence than the average American family with 2.5 kids has an indeterminate child that suddenly appears or disappears based on whether or not you visit the home of a specific family in order to observe them.

Some things don't make sense, sure. But you know what? A lot of the times they do. And the goal is to find out how to think about what is in ways that our reason can manipulate and understand. Otherwise, it's voodoo.

Special universes that only the initiated and trained can perceive, huh? The argument from special knowledge is not a new one. You may be right, but then again, you also may be deluded.

As for the openness of my mind and heart, you don't know what you're talking about.

It's a nice little web you've constructed. If you don't do the experiments, you'll never know. If you do the experiments you'll never know. Nice.

How is my aggressiveness parasitic? Am I sucking your chi through the internet?

As to my bet....

Actually, it's like saying, "You can create stuff with your mind? Then show me!" I'm not asking for a double-blind study... or for the double-binds you describe in order to explain why people don't believe in this stuff. I am asking for something that would convince me that there is something to it, other than wishful thinking.

You know, I meant it mostly as a joke. But apparently you take it as an opportunity to interpret it as something that defines absolutely my point of view and ability to think.

Hey, come up with a counter offer. My point is, if you can create stuff with your mind, you can create stuff with you mind. Why not prove it to me in some concrete way without weasely arguments about how you can't while arguing, essentially, that you can.

And a p-test. Sure I know what it is. That's when they give you the little cup when you go to the doctor, right?

You know, even from here, I can detect a lot of negative vibes in your aura. I think you might want to harmonize your charkas with the morphic field of unlimited, creative intelligence before continuing with this conversation. You're at risk of having the negativity put your existence into an indeterminate state until someone comes by and observes you.

[This message has been edited by babayada (edited August 28, 2005).]

Quoting Babayada:
You know, even from here, I can detect a lot of negative vibes in your aura. I think you might want to harmonize your charkas with the morphic field of unlimited, creative intelligence before continuing with this conversation. You're at risk of having the negativity put your existence into an indeterminate state until someone comes by and observes you.

Not that I agree or disagree with anything that has been see-sawing back and forth here for some time now (I have my own ideas about creative thought, and for the time will keep them mine - they certainly won't become fodder for this particular agrument ), however, I'd like to point out that the ferocity with which you (Babayada and Garics mostly) are attacking each another seems to have deteriorated almost to name calling.

Perhaps to clarify: When you point your finger at someone (as the above quote strongly suggests being done), just remember you have four fingers pointing back at you. What I have also learned anent this, is when we are giving someone a strong suggestion of what "they" need to be doing, as we are all reflections of one another, perhaps we need to be looking at ourselves as well.

As to the parties this quote was said to, this does not mean I am or not siding with you either - and the same advice stands. If any of you had a clue as to what creative thought is or isn't, you certainly would be putting it to better use than battering one another with your argumentive rants.

(And I suppose I should now duck for cover - I remember well when I pulled my young children apart from clawing each other to shreds, all of a sudden they were "buddies" and I was the "bad guy". Oh well.... ;D

Cheers!
Unis

"Create something infinite today - Smile!"

[This message has been edited by Unis (edited August 28, 2005).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by babayada:

You know, even from here, I can detect a lot of negative vibes in your aura.

[This message has been edited by babayada (edited August 28, 2005).]

---

Ha!

babayada accusing me of "negative vibes" over the internet >> Elvis Presley accusing me of being the "King of Rock n Roll"...j/k...

I don't want to fight with you, babayada, and i regret the insulting comments I made.
I guess I do feel a lot of "talking-down", negativity and such from you, towards other posters as well as myself, and I reacted to this, trying to give you a dose of your own medicine.

So I'm sorry. However I would also invite you to examine your own comments and conscience, to see if the above feedback makes any sense.

I will respond with more comments later (if it feels appropriate or necessary), but I don't have the time right now to organize my thoughts.

How about instead of "parasite" I'll call you "ladybug" instead...LOL

Peace

Garic

[This message has been edited by garics (edited August 28, 2005).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Unis:
(And I suppose I should now duck for cover - I remember well when I pulled my young children apart from clawing each other to shreds, all of a sudden they were "buddies" and I was the "bad guy". Oh well.... ;D

Cheers!
Unis

"Create something infinite today - Smile!"

[This message has been edited by Unis (edited August 28, 2005).][/B]

---

Don't worry, Unis, you're safe....thanks for the input.

Guys, when you start slinging derogatory comments about your discussion loses merit. And even though it doesn't answer the original question very well. I thought thought the discussion raised some interesting comments.

However they are starting to flame. So please stick to the subject.

The questions was with the right mindset can I fulfill my dreams?

If you have the mindset of a victim you play the role of the victim. If you have the mindset of a leader you play the role of a leader. I could list a number of mindsets that one can adopt that would change ones life.

Unfortunately one can pretend to be a leader and still be playing the role of the victim in their own mind and that does affect how you respond and how you react to challenges that take you off your path. Unfortunately we cannot see into a persons mind to know that they say believe is true is in fact what they believe. Since lying is a human trait.

How much this has to do with quanta. I don't know. But I do know your mindset affects your own attitude and motivation. And your attitude is your bargaining chip with the rest of the society. How they react to you and how they will support you. Your motivation is your forward motion to taking action.

There is no one right mindset. You adopt a different one for each area of your life. So while one can be a leader in business one can still be a victim in relationships.

Alex

Yes, you can!

Thanks for the good contributions to this topic. I'd like to add the following:

When people use the word dreams they often think about a very big goal. Something they have never done before. So there is often an underlying expectation that this is to far out and beyond our reach.

This expectation/feeling is the reason why we don't get it. I takes away our motivation and to take action and makes us hoping that somehow from outside our "dream" will be fulfilled.

On the contrary when we talk about goals or plans that is ususally something they have done before or it looks achievable or realistic to them. E.g. Let's say my goal is
earning $ 120K p.a.. This looks achievable because I'm already on $ 70K right now. A few years ago I was on $ 40K and moved up to my current income level. So the goal looks achievable to me.

Mindsets: Mindsets are like roadmaps or concetps. A certain mindset may good for some goals but not for others. There is no ideal mindset which can map our way to every goal since reality is fast that it cannot be described in singel concept/mindset.

Cheers,

Ladybug I can handle.

Whether or not mindset can do anything, I'd like you all to extend your best wishes to New Orleans. I am from there.

They need a lot of help.

I haven't gotten on here in a while because I have been dealing with my own stuff. My family lived there, and I have been staying in touch while they have been traveling around.

So, with you intentions, but more importantly with your donations of money, canned goods, water, whatever, please lend the suffering people in New Orleans a helping hand.
http://www.craigslist.org/about/help/katrina_aid.html

Oh, and Garics, please go on about Quantum Mechanics. Please spell it out where you see total misconceptions. I really do want to learn from you.

And, of course, it's like the King of Rock.... I was going to say something like, "That's right ... feel your hate, let it FLOW through you."

baba (or lady)....

Thank you for your comments.

*sigh of relief*

I grew up in New Orleans and still have grandparents and cousins that live(d) there. Fortunately they had the means to evacuate before the storm hit, unlike so many others.

My mother still has a couple of friends in the area who are unaccounted for.

Let us all support the people of New Orleans, Mississippi, and Alabama, however we can. I am donating matched contributions through my employer to the relief efforts, and hope others are able to do the same.

Puts our ideological differences into perspective, doesn't it...

Maybe we can resume the theoretical chat (on friendlier terms) after some of the chaos dies down.

Yes, please let's support by whatever donation we can. My company is donating $1 million and they will match the total of employee donation. So I'm donating through them to double the amount.

Yes, it does.

I am filled with feeling of gratitude, sorrow, and anger with and for what is going on.

My best wishes are with your loved ones. I hope they make it out.

Right now, as we all know, it is looking bad. I hope they can create order and get those damn people out.

I also hope that those who predate on others are quickly discovered and socially contained where the refugees are settling.

Some of my friends are holed up in an apartment building in the French Quarter. I thought they had gotten out. They have collected rainwater and have food for about five days. I really hope they can get out safely soon.

I hope they get rescued soon. Please keep us updated. Looks like these days it is easier to mobilize to bomb a place than to throw some water bottles. But then again, which government branch has the money to buy food & water? Missile is on sale - buy 10, use 10 and get 1 free.

Ok.

Many people are out and safe.

A few are on their way out, out of the city, I think, but still not established anywhere yet.

I am hearing about more and more people I know that are out of New Orleans. It's good news.

Once they get themselves settled, they need to figure out what they are going to do next. So, the sorrow permutates and the new hardships come. These people are going to need ongoing support to help them through troubles, long after the drama of the event is over.