Mastering Things

[PyratePhil]

Plus - we really don't know how much empty space Eye has in his...

...oh, never mind - even scientific inquiry has its limits.

[LongTom]

In Yang there is Yin; in Yin, Yang.

Within your pretty glasses are a dark pair of welder's goggles; within my "Man Without Eyes" aviators are a cute pair of Elton John shades.

A meeting of minds? Don't bump your head.

[Matusalem]

QUOTE (PyratePhil @ Apr 12 2007, 04:16 PM)

In Yang there is Yin; in Yin, Yang.

Within your pretty glasses are a dark pair of welder's goggles; within my "Man Without Eyes" aviators are a cute pair of Elton John shades. 

A meeting of minds? Don't bump your head

You mean like Humma Kavula?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIMpvaj9VcY

[PyratePhil]

You mean like Humma Kavula?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIMpvaj9VcY

Now the question becomes - who is Zaphod and who is Humma?

[oderlesseye]

The only reason our feet don't fall through the floor is because the foot atoms push against the floor atoms in this way."

This is interesting...I have some phisical evedence of this when i machine metal, its properties change in nano degrees/make-up...ie hardness, flexability ect...

So even your chair, on a subatomic level, is sort of illusionary and primarily consists of empty space. Hardly an absolutely solid surface, eh?

It's all a matter of MATTER.. Matter is tangible and absolute.. In my world of emptyness according to Phil ....I fill that emptieness with my 5 senses of touch, smell, vision,taste, kinestetics-(feel). Just because our linguistic representation of it's make up is limited does not make [all things relative] which leads us back to the cognitive theory I posted earlier.. and OH of circular reasoning also spoken of earlier in this perpetual thread..

[Caraccioli]

Well, the quantum physical world is mostly space. It's just that we don't generally think in quantum physical terms - most people think in terms of their macro-world where the five senses rule. So from your macro-perspective, you're really not wrong when you think of it that way, but from a micro-perspective, you're also really not right, either. Confused? Read up on quantum physics and if you weren't confused at the outset, you soon will be. It confuses me when I get into it too deep. Much of it seems to be quite counter-intuitive. (Duchess probably understands it better than any of us. I suspect she's not reading this thread, though.)

As for circular, never-ending things...that's how the world works. What goes around, comes around and all that.

I like this perpetual thread. I think this is the longest we've held out on such a topic. I used to post on a mail list where the subject of circular reasoning alone would have gone on for a week, spinning off all kinds of other, related topics in the process. (That eventually got to be too much even for me.)

[oderlesseye]

It confuses me when I get into it too deep. Much of it seems to be quite counter-intuitive.

And it stands to reason when ye consider the use of a finite mind trying to comprehend the infinate... The bible puts it in perspective in that who can know the thoughts of God....His ways are not our ways ect... the understanding of the limitations of our grasp on explanations of reality is an inroad to wisdom....and can lead to spiritual growth.. not that science is of no use but it has a long way to go in measure to explain reality.

[PyratePhil]

Well, the quantum physical world is mostly space.

Like a cup - its usefulness lies in its emptiness.

I like this perpetual thread. I think this is the longest we've held out on such a topic.

I was just thinking this should be renamed The Viagra Thread...

[Caraccioli]

I was searching through the Feynman Lectures that I mentioned previously along with some modern commentary on them when I came across a very interesting explanation that I had not recalled of Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle. (This basically says that by observing something at the quantum level, we change it. He determined this through a series of thought experiments regarding the observation of electrons, the end result of which was that it was basically impossible to accurately determine both the speed and position of the electron because we altered the electron by trying to observe it.)

Heisenberg's Unc. Principle has led to some truly absurd metaphysical statements that try to co-opt a quantum level idea and apply it to the real world. ("If we observe another person, we change them.") While this may be true, it is not scientifically provable by the Uncertainty Principle.

Anyhow, what interested me was the explanation for why attempting to observe an electron changes its velocity and position. The problem Heisenberg determined (as the author, whose name escapes me, explained it) is that in order for us to observe the electron, we need to apply light to it. Light may not seem like it has physical properties, but it does. (I'll save the "wave/particle nature of light" explanation for another long-winded explanation at another time.) Anyhow, the light required to observe is what alters the position and/or the speed of the electron. It basically smacks into it and changes either the velocity or the position or both. Therefore, whatever position the electron was in going at whatever speed it was going, it is not either in a new position or going a new speed from being knocked about by the packet of light. So Heisenberg said we can't see the properties of the thing because in order to see it, we need light and in order to apply light, we change its movement.

Maybe you all knew that and I'm just slow, but it sort of tosses all those silly statements about the mere act of observing something has some sort of mystical effect on the thing that causes it to somehow change. This is not necessarily true, once you realize that there is actually a physical effect going on according to Heisenberg. At the macroscopic level (where we perceive things like chairs and tables and whatnot) the physical effects of light are so minuscule as to be unnoticeable, so all that mumbo-jumbo you hear about science having proved that our observation of anything alters it is not actually, completely true. (Although this makes me wonder about that quantum security encoding stuff...how does that work?)

So, as I understand it, it is not us that is affecting things through observation at the quantum level, it is our need for light so that we can actually see what's going on that affects things.

Psychology has proven that there is another observation effect, of course, which basically has to do with people's need for attention and/or fears of being observed but that has nothing to do with quantum physics. That has to do with our perception. However, I'm tired of writing about this now...and anyone having read this far is probably tired of reading it.

[PyratePhil]

Psychology has proven that there is another observation effect, of course, which basically has to do with people's need for attention and/or fears of being observed but that has nothing to do with quantum physics. That has to do with our perception.

Since our senses are composed of electronic impulses, I don't see what the hubbub is about changing what we observe.

AS we observe, we're changing electronic clouds by the millions - as we're BEING observed, our senses pick up those altered clouds, either attracting or repelling them.

Thus, changing us.

*mutters* don't know why people have to make this so difficult...

[Caraccioli]

Electrons aren't really clouds (although that explanation was popular at one point.) Electrons move in ways that are like nothing physical that we have to compare them to.

Either way, the statement "as we're BEING observed, our senses pick up those altered clouds, either attracting or repelling them. Thus, changing us." isn't provable in every case. (Kind of like the effect of God, actually.) We may change our behavior when we know we're being observed (the psychological factor), but what happens when we don't know we're being observed? It's not a consistent effect, so I don't think it's possible to say that observing something changes it in every case.

In physics, it's the nature of the tool required for observation that changes the electron, not the act of observation itself. In psychology it is the nature of the mind that knows its physical manifestation is being observed that changes our behavior, not the observation itself. We do not always alter something simply by observing it. There are other, physical factors involved. That's important.

[PyratePhil]

Since the act of observation denotes a certain intent and (at least to me) intent involves giving off energy in a certain direction, I still maintain that observation changes not only the observer (in ways such as perspective and understanding and reactions to the object observed), but in the observed object itself (since energy can be sensed if we know how, it isn't a question of whether we CAN sense it - only the level of our awareness).

It doesn't matter if we KNOW we're being observed - our BODY knows it, not necessarily our conscious mind. If our bodies and minds weren't so clouded and disconnected by emotions and (here's that word again) societal concerns, we'd be more like animals - more natural - and would have much sharper senses, intuitions, etc. with which to "sense" someone observing us.

You mention the "tool" doing the observation - let's take it back to its simplest form - I stare at you from across the room. You're reading a newspaper. I'm not using any tools...rather, yes I am - my eyes, my brain and my mind. If those are the tools you're referring to, then yes, those tools are what change the observed object. YOU are changing because I am observing you - you'll act differently once your awareness senses kick in. I'M changing because I'm forming mental images and opinions of you as I observe you. The rods and cones in my eyes are dancing around, my body is making physical adjustments to remain comfortable as I observe you. Those physical adjustments I'm making create a minute pressure wave or differential in the room - if you're "sensitive" enough you'll pick up those changes ("I feel a disturbance in the Force, Luke"). Finally, you might smell my cheap aftershave or hear my shoes squeak - then you'll finally look up and see me. As all of those sensory inputs trigger your alarm buttons, you'll be changing - your adrenaline will start flowing, you'll shift your position, your brain will change tracks and your sense will go on full alert.

Intent is one of those things that science is ill-equipped to explain. I have experienced the effects of intent personally, many times. There are stories of famous swordsmen facing each other down in a duel without ever moving - just their stares are enough to defeat the opponent. A yell, produced at the right volume and pitch, can momentarily disable the nervous system - think flash-bangs. I was once the target of an attempted mugging in NYC - as the perp came in close I gave what I guess was a "HUH!" - but focused and from the lower core of my body, a sort of primitive warning growl or grunt like an enraged male deer might give. The perp actually stumbled backwards, looked perplexed, then took off.

I trained in science and worked in science for many years - I know its strengths and its weaknesses. You have a very open-minded attitude - I can SENSE that. Don't blow it by buying into the myth of science being all there is to explain the universe. It does what it does very well - but it doesn't recognize its own shortcomings - namely, it won't acknowledge its inability to know the future. Science's standard response in those cases is, "We'll know eventually - it'll just take time and funding". No, uh-uhn - I don't agree. There are limits to what science can know, since they operate from a rigid sense of rules and believe that everything, everywhere has to follow those same rules. To advance, to truly evolve, you need to be flexible and open-minded - traits that are highly desirable (but rarely found anymore) in scientists - or most citizens, for that matter.

Re: electron cloud - that might give you an idea of when my science training took place LOL!

[Caraccioli]

To begin with, my original comment concerned the spiritual self-help industry's co-opting of the statement by physicists that "We alter things by observing them." This is not provably true in every case so far. The physicists were talking about the affect light has on electrons at the quantum physical level. That's it, no more.

When I first heard this statement used in spiritual self-help stuff, it bothered me because it didn't make sense at some level. So I didn't use it in my own material. However, like most errors of this type, it has acquired a life of its own and the error has been repeated enough that some people consider it fact because it pops up in so many places. I dislike repeating an incorrect statement and was pleased to finally figure out what I intuitively didn't like about it.

As to your assertion that our instincts or our body or our subconscious is capable of detecting all outside observers - that is not provable in every case either. You can dismiss science in this case, but it isn't repeatable and thus we enter the realm of faith. I have no problem with faith, but I would not repeat something like this simply because it could be proven wrong in many specific cases. "I can't do that." "I tried doing this and it didn't work." We can make excuses for this (yes, they probably have to be regarded as excuses) and say that this person is not sensitive enough and so forth and they may be true. But until you can prove it, you don't really know - unless you take it on faith. Faith is a pretty poor method in my mind when I'm trying to teach others something. (Especially in the case of something I consider to be a minor point in what is most important. There are far greater latent skills most people need to be made aware of IMHO.) I suppose I could dismiss the people who "can't do (something)" as hopeless or stupid (If there's a hobby more popular among we humans than deciding that there are a large mass of "other people" much dumber and hopeless than we individually are, I'm not sure what it might be. I've been guilty of it myself.), but that just makes me a poor teacher.

Now, as for intent...I doubt we have the same view of intention at all. However there are some things I've noticed in my case about intention (and who else can I reliably report upon than myself?) First, intention is the key to accomplishment of anything. If you want to do something, you must develop enough intent to take action. Second, intent directed at making someone else do something will fail unless that person adopts your intent.

You cannot "force" people to do anything. You can cajole, convince, pressure, scare or somehow or another get them to adopt your intent for them into their consciousness IF AND ONLY IF (IFF) they are willing to accept it. They are ALWAYS free to resist, however. ALWAYS. The consequences may be dire to them, but it is their choice as to whether or not they are willing to accept your consequences (providing you can indeed impose them) for resisting your intention for them. So, in the case of your swordsman, it is the fault of the other swordsman who was cowed by the gaze (or whatever) of the first swordsman. He chose to alter his world such that he quit without fighting. Anything else hints at mind control, which I believe is impossible.

We create our own world. It is a central tenet in my personal philosophy that I mentioned and you agreed with previously. As such, another person only molds our world if we allow them to. Even small children resist the instruction of their parents.

I like to think that I'm open-minded. I'm interested in everything. The purely scientific approach has several limitations, but so does the purely spiritual approach (I'm being very broad here with my definition of "spiritual.") Being open-minded, I like to find a balance and understand both. I do believe they can co-exist quite comfortably.

Incidentally, I do believe in God. I even attend regular spiritual services. However, I don't adopt all (or even most) of the facets of the particular religion I observe, but I find a sort of formal connection soothing on some level. I personally think God is pretty hands-off and has a wonderful sense of humor. God also gets to get the real insight on what is actually true and what isn't - something we don't appear to get. Maybe we're lucky. The more we understand, the more responsibility we have.

[Duchess]

Actually I do check in from time to time.

And unfortunately I'll have to burst your bubble about the light interaction idea. This is an explanation that makes the absurdity of quantum mechanics palpable to our brains. But fundamentally the Uncertainty principle applies regardless of interaction. I believe that Feynman explains this in the lectures, but I'd have to read them again to be sure. The HUP pops out of the math (and thus QM) all over the place with out regard to interaction of anything. One could argue that the mathmatics was built around it but that isn't the case. And attempts to remove the HUP and reinvent qm have been spectacularly unsuccessful. As in failing within a few pages of work or less.

[Caraccioli]

So the mystics are right about physics?

[Duchess]

See your pm, you can copy the (probably inadequte) anwser here if you like.

Keep in mind that nobody understands quantum mechanics. It is in very real sense the frontiers of physics.

[PyratePhil]

This is not provably true in every case so far.

I don't think anything is.

You can dismiss science in this case, but it isn't repeatable and thus we enter the realm of faith.

Even science is based upon faith - faith that the universe has to always obey their "laws".

And at least in my own, personal, me-myself-and-I sense, it IS repeatable. It works for ME. Like I said, I'm not here to bury Caesar, but to praise him - I'm not out to convert anyone to my Way (mainly because, truthfully, I don't think many could handle it) in these discussions - merely providing brainfood. I know what works for me and have no need to sway anyone of its reality.

But until you can prove it, you don't really know - unless you take it on faith.

According to that definition then, I know because I've proved it and don't require faith.

(Especially in the case of something I consider to be a minor point in what is most important. There are far greater latent skills most people need to be made aware of IMHO.)

Tell that to the 32 kids at VA Tech - they could have used some awareness training, I believe.

I suppose I could dismiss the people who "can't do (something)" as hopeless or stupid... but that just makes me a poor teacher.

Having taught in one capacity or another for over 30 years, I used to believe that. Now? Now I KNOW there are some that are just beyond reach.

Now, as for intent...I doubt we have the same view of intention at all.

Somehow, I doubt it also.

However there are some things I've noticed in my case about intention (and who else can I reliably report upon than myself?) First, intention is the key to accomplishment of anything. If you want to do something, you must develop enough intent to take action. Second, intent directed at making someone else do something will fail unless that person adopts your intent.

You cannot "force" people to do anything. You can cajole, convince, pressure, scare or somehow or another get them to adopt your intent for them into their consciousness IF AND ONLY IF (IFF) they are willing to accept it. They are ALWAYS free to resist, however. ALWAYS. The consequences may be dire to them, but it is their choice as to whether or not they are willing to accept your consequences (providing you can indeed impose them) for resisting your intention for them. So, in the case of your swordsman, it is the fault of the other swordsman who was cowed by the gaze (or whatever) of the first swordsman. He chose to alter his world such that he quit without fighting. Anything else hints at mind control, which I believe is impossible.

Weeeeeeellllllllll...

With the swordsman - it's one of those "you have to experience it to believe it" kind of things.

While I generally agree in a theoretical sense that you can lead a horse to water but can't make him drink, I also have experience in certain martial arts techniques that give NO choice but compliance. There is no mental process of "should I give in?" or "I'm going to resist this as long as possible and keep struggling until the end" - no, with these techniques applied correctly your dance partner ceases to struggle.

And I don't believe that in certain cases there is a struggle for the intent to take hold at all. It's an automatic reaction of the human body and mind to a certain input, a specific genetic-patterned recognition of a threat display perhaps, that triggers acquiescence.

We create our own world. It is a central tenet in my personal philosophy that I mentioned and you agreed with previously. As such, another person only molds our world if we allow them to. Even small children resist the instruction of their parents.

Yes, I did and still do agree - with the proviso that, just as planets are influenced by their satellites, we are influenced by those around us.

The child changes the parent as much, if not more, than the parent changes the child. Just look at me - before I raised my two boys I was trim, handsome and possessed a full head of hair.

I like to think that I'm open-minded.

Of course you are. I'm just wearing that red suit with the horns and the pitchfork...

No, not Satan Clause...

I'm interested in everything. The purely scientific approach has several limitations, but so does the purely spiritual approach (I'm being very broad here with my definition of "spiritual.") Being open-minded, I like to find a balance and understand both.  I do believe they can co-exist quite comfortably.

Coolness. Agreed.

Incidentally, I do believe in God. I even attend regular spiritual services.   However, I don't adopt all (or even most) of the facets of the particular religion I observe, but I find a sort of formal connection soothing on some level. I personally think God is pretty hands-off and has a wonderful sense of humor. God also gets to get the real insight on what is actually true and what isn't - something we don't appear to get. Maybe we're lucky. The more we understand, the more responsibility we have.

I kind of figured that whatever spiritual belief you professed, it would turn out that you followed the spirit and not the structure - good for you.

"Religion" is a curse upon mankind - "belief" a blessing.

[Caraccioli]

I suppose I could dismiss the people who "can't do (something)" as hopeless or stupid... but that just makes me a poor teacher.

Having taught in one capacity or another for over 30 years, I used to believe that. Now? Now I KNOW there are some that are just beyond reach.

Beyond human reach? Doubtlessly. Beyond one individual's reach when it is not beyond another's...I have doubts that that's true. (Call me an optimist. Why not? I have become an optimist. I used to be a realist (This is the code that pessimists use to describe themselves. I digress again...))

I think there are things that people are not inclined to achieve (through a combination of personal preferences, beliefs, lack of natural skills and (most importantly) lack of true desire.) I think there are things that people would like to achieve until they reach the point where they have to really work or persevere in the face of challenging situations. I even suspect there are subconscious elements that subvert our ability to achieve. (We could speculate all day on where these things come from, so I won't even touch that.) And I will even concede that there appear to be some very select things that might be physically impossible for certain people to achieve. (Although I wonder if this isn't in some weird way stemming from a lack of will or subconscious fear or some such, rather than true impairment.)

However, I like something a teacher once said to me. It goes sort of like this: Take out your favorite reason (or excuse) for why you can't achieve __X__. Then make it your business to search through history and see if anyone has ever achieved __X__ despite having the same reason (or excuse). If they have, you know it is at least possible. Then take out your next favorite reason (or excuse) and...well, you get the idea.

Disagree with me? I've no doubt some of you do and nothing I say will make it otherwise for you. However, I think our minds are much more powerful than we can even begin to comprehend. But I'm an optimist.

"For myself I am an optimist- it does not seem to be much use being anything else." - Sir Winston Churchill

[PyratePhil]

Beyond human reach? Doubtlessly. Beyond one individual's reach when it is not beyond another's...I have doubts that that's true.

Beyond my capacity, perhaps, to reach them - in which case, for all intents it's a waste of my time to try.

(Call me an optimist. Why not? I have become an optimist. I used to be a realist (This is the code that pessimists use to describe themselves. I digress again...))

Geez, they changed the code again??? I thought I was still a pragmatist...

"For myself I am an optimist- it does not seem to be much use being anything else." - Sir Winston Churchill

“The man who is a pessimist before forty-eight knows too much; if he is an optimist after it he knows too little” - Mark Twain

[Caraccioli]

Beyond human reach? Doubtlessly. Beyond one individual's reach when it is not beyond another's...I have doubts that that's true.

Beyond my capacity, perhaps, to reach them - in which case, for all intents it's a waste of my time to try.

So you choose not to try. I do the same. We all do. There's nothing wrong with that IMO. It sort of reminds me of a story I heard.

A woman came up to the pianist after a piano recital and said, "You play beautifully. I would give anything to play like that." The pianist responded, "No you wouldn't." The woman was taken aback, of course, and said, "What do you mean?"

"I mean you wouldn't actually 'give anything' to play like I do. I spent 20 years learning to play like this, practicing my instrument for 4 hours every day. If you would have done likewise, you could play similarly to the way I do, perhaps even better. But you didn't. And that's all right, because most people are like you."

Blunt? I suppose so, but it was true. Whatever we would like to do can probably be done by us if we are committed to doing it. But few people are natural geniuses at anything. (Note: we're back to talking about mastery again. )

[PyratePhil]

(Note: we're back to talking about mastery again.  )

Oh - is THAT what this thread is about?

I agree - you have to make a conscious decision to master anything. But you know something funny? The longer you stay on that path, the more you hate the idea of stopping, of giving up - I suppose it's related to the investment of time thing...

I also believe that mastery of any subject will follow the 1/9/90 Rule:

• 1% of the people will achieve mastery
  
• 9% will be making the effort to achieve mastery
  
• 90% will sit back and watch the masters
  

[Caraccioli]

But you know something funny? The longer you stay on that path, the more you hate the idea of stopping, of giving up - I suppose it's related to the investment of time thing...

Perhaps. I suspect there are other important components as well.

Usually, someone whose willing to stay with something long enough to master it likes it. This doesn't mean they are natural geniuses (to use the term once again), it just means that they're interested. I think interest will actually take you much further than natural skill.

I also think that when you struggle to learn anything you start out interested and then sort of lose interest when you encounter a significant obstacle in your learning path. It's at this point that the 90% you propose wander off to do something else that looks fresh and shiny and trouble-free. So you have to have the will to stick with it.

Finally, I think once you get past the rote aspects of learning something, it begins to unfold and reveal the really interesting parts of itself to you. you begin to understand its secret and, like all mastery, you understand its power. Once you grasp this magnificence, you are inclined to stay with it. This is where the teaching aspect I mentioned wayyyyyy back in the beginning comes to bear. You understand the beauty of what you've learned and you want to help others to understand it as well. (If for no other reason than to make sure they get it right.)

(The physics thing is not dead. Duchess and I are still talking about it. I think she's trying to figure out where the heck I'm coming from with all this noise. )

[Duchess]

ooo now that you say noise...

Stochastic Resonance pretty much encompasses the idea that application of white noise to random (or chaotic depending on your alignment) systems can produce predictable patterns.

Just wait 'til the new agers get their hands on that one!

[PyratePhil]

Stochastic Resonance pretty much encompasses the idea that application of white noise to random (or chaotic depending on your alignment) systems can produce predictable patterns.

Just wait 'til the new agers get their hands on that one!

Sorry - too many big words to get my hands around

[Mission]

ooo now that you say noise...

Stochastic Resonance pretty much encompasses the idea that application of white noise to random (or chaotic depending on your alignment) systems can produce predictable patterns.

Just wait 'til the new agers get their hands on that one!

Possible noise? I'm trying to see if I understand it correctly. You know, I could put that track I was listening to on CD and send it to you so you can listen to it.

As for chaos...there is order in chaos. That's what's so fascinating about Chaos Theory. I believe what you're saying is that applying one chaotic pattern (white noise) to another chaotic pattern produces order. Perhaps it just reveals the underlying order that chaos theory suggests exists? Not sure what the spiritualists can do with that...