Posts by electrictiger70

Gary James88 said:You’ve got stuff here from before 1930. Got anything a bit more recent? 😁

I must have developed some sort of psychic intuition on this forum, because I knew exactly when Gary James88 would ask this question. 😁 One needs to master the fundamentals first; everything else follows naturally from there. I am certain that even at an Ivy League university, you wouldn't start your studies by jumping straight into a textbook from 2007. 😉

Gustav Le bon: The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind

And here is a critique of that work 😁 : Sigmund Freud: Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego

plus

McDougall: The group mind

It seems clear to me... whether we are talking about OCD or perfectionism, there is this deep-seated need for control. It’s an attempt by the individual to exert influence over their environment and the world at large. At its core, this behavior often stems from a mental blueprint formed during childhood or a specific turning point in one's life. For instance, consider a child forced into a caregiver role for a younger sibling before they were emotionally ready. Or perhaps it was a disproportionate amount of responsibility thrust upon them by parents—essentially forcing a child to shoulder parental burdens long before they had the maturity to handle them. Then, you have subsequent life events—a sudden trauma or a situation where control is completely stripped away—which leads a person to subconsciously compensate through perfectionism or develop OCD. There are countless scenarios, but the underlying theme is always some form of fear regarding the loss of control.

The focus really needs to be on learning how to simply "let things go." Meditation and similar practices can be incredibly helpful here; even if you strip away any spiritual context, it serves as a practical method where you are required to sit still for twenty minutes and consciously refrain from controlling anything. I am also certain that physical activities, such as dance, offer similar benefits. In those settings, a person learns to physically surrender to their impulses, and the positive effects of that training can eventually bleed into every other area of their life.

So, yeah, that actually feels much more normal 🤣

This just goes to show that even therapists are only human 😲 🤣 (just kidding)

redharbor9, please refrain from attacking the professional integrity of psychotherapists 😲🤣

It’s a bit of a paradox, really, but it seems even here you’ve managed to build yourself a dedicated fan club 😁

redharbor9, what kind of public statements are you even talking about? You’re going to hold the entire "Homosexuality is a Disease" thread against me? 🤣 😉

p.s. how did I just know 😍

wiredcrane11 said:I'm on the same page here🙂 (referring to what Roger King4 said)

I also have a feeling that when Jesus spoke about removing the plank from your own eye, he was actually referring to a psychological projection.🙂

David Morales: I think that's definitely possible.

👍 Setting aside that questionable bit about being the "son of God" (and look, my apologies to all the believers here—this is just my atheist perspective speaking :mig)—it seems to me that Jesus might have been a much sharper individual than people initially realize. It looks as though many of his teachings actually contain hidden psychological instructions. It’s almost as if he had to wrap them in parables just to get them through to people. 🤣 But really, who would even be capable of decoding that? 🙄

wiredcrane11 said:Well, nobody ever actually said that.😉 I simply mentioned that politicians take this phenomenon, which is a universal human trait, and exploit it for manipulative purposes.

This is especially prevalent in international relations. If you project certain traits onto other nations—say, labeling foreign groups as "terrorists"—you can convince a population that they have an external enemy. This effectively distracts them from what is happening domestically. It’s more accurate to say that politicians actively incite and weaponize these mass projections.
Mass projection is a fascinating subject. Take World War II, for instance, and how the Nazis projected their own darkness onto Jewish people. You can clearly see the unrecognized Jungian shadow at work there. Ultimately, that shadow manifested by striking back at the Nazis through the literal destruction of their walls—a classic example of paranoid projection, executed on a massive and catastrophic scale that is difficult to fully comprehend.😲

This is a fascinating topic 👍 In my view, pulling back those projections and actually recognizing them marks the beginning of true clarity. It’s that moment where you realize, "Okay, this is me, and this is reality. This part is just happening inside my own head because of X and Y, but *this* is how things actually are." It feels like finally stepping out of the mental fog and starting to live in the real world...

Apropos Jung, there was a great quote in Star Trek once—something along the lines of what Jung suggested about needing to confront the darker side of your psyche, which he famously called "mastering your Shadow" 😍 because that's exactly where projection originates.

placidranger said:I’m not entirely sure what you're getting at here.

Look—What do Bleep do WE know is basically just a wannabe cult🤣—let's try to maintain some level of intellectual standards here😁—when I talk about "self-help," I'm referring to something else entirely. 😉

Sure... but it’s incredibly popular, much like D Sikret and those other tropes. Whether they intend to or not, they market it as self-help.
I haven't encountered a single coherent argument linking quantum physics to consciousness yet.

What I am trying to convey is that you mentioned yourself that the existence of the cup isn't the point—it's whether it's full or empty. In other words (at least, that was my takeaway), our perspective on the situation is what matters. It comes down to perspective and consciousness, which has nothing to do with physical measurement. Though, truth be told, I am also unclear on what exactly you were referring to. 🤷

Furthermore, it is difficult to debate when we are operating from two opposing viewpoints. Mine leans toward the subjective, while yours is more objective. You might use measurement to establish certain objective values, but how you actually experience those things is tied to your own consciousness and psyche. Therefore, it is hard to claim that thoughts don't influence reality; you will generate a specific type of behavior based on your perception, and that behavior will be fundamentally different from someone else's, even if their circumstances are identical but their subjective view differs. That is my connection between thought and reality—and I am not talking about some esoteric link. I don't know enough about esotericism to engage in a debate there. There are certainly indications that positive thinking can lead to an easier life, but on the other hand, the idea that "my thoughts dictate reality" always strikes me as smelling a bit like psychosis. If someone tells me that, I am more likely to label them as "slightly psychotic" rather than a "guru." 😁

Quincy:

Yeah... but it's incredibly popular, just like the Da Vinci Code and all that. Whether people want to admit it or not, it’s sold under the guise of self-help.

I know, but to me, that falls straight into the category of junk self-help. Even the book itself feels like it was written for a target audience with a significantly lowered IQ 🤷. Anyone with even a modicum of intelligence can see exactly what is going on here. Presumably 😲

Quincy:

I haven't seen a coherent thesis linking quantum physics to consciousness yet.

I have seen it, but—damn it—I cannot recall where I came across that paper 🤷 😢 I am surfing, surfing, and I just can't find it... And it wasn't even from the self-help genre; it was more of a legitimate study. I think I found it on some academic server containing psychology scripts. 😁

placidranger said:As Gary James88 mentioned—there are massive debates about this, far beyond just some internet forum. It's a much broader conversation. Again, we aren't actually talking about the moon here; it's a metaphor for incredibly minute particles 🙂 it's less about consciousness and more about the mechanics of measurement.

I think our influence is limited to our own perception of reality—essentially, changing our perspective. It's about consciously defining the quality of the things and concepts surrounding us. The real question isn't whether a glass of water exists, but whether it's half full or half empty; whether the world feels welcoming or like a combat zone; whether we take responsibility for what happens to us or hunt for external excuses; whether we take risks or play it safe; optimism versus pessimism...

I'm not talking about self-help gurus, and that whole connection between quantum physics and self-help can't really be generalized like "self-help gurus try to sell the idea that quantum mechanics proves thoughts can shape reality"—there are too many different claims and different types of gurus. Be more specific ☕

It can be generalized—there are plenty of them. "Quantum" has become a buzzword slapped onto almost any nonsense found in New Age self-help books. The first names that come to mind are Chopra, Dyer, the people behind D Sikret, and the folks behind that pseudo-documentary What do Bleep do WE know... plus the endless horde of clones following suit.

That is precisely my point. This implies that consciousness is the core variable here, not just some matter of objective measurement. 😉

I think it’s fair to generalize, as there are plenty of them. "Quantum" has become a lazy adjective tossed onto almost any nonsense you see in the endless sea of New Age self-help books. The first names that come to mind are certainly Chopra, Dyer, the folks behind D Sikret, and even the people involved with that pseudo-documentary What do Bleep do WE know... along with a whole horde of similar types.

Look—What do Bleep do WE know is basically a wannabe cult 🤣. Let’s try to maintain some level of intellectual standards in this discussion 😁. When I refer to self-help, I am thinking of something entirely different from that genre. 😉

Gary James88 said:This is honestly one of the better threads on this site. You've got experts from all over—philosophy, physics, math, social sciences—alongside regular people who just find the topic fascinating. It tackles whether the moon actually exists when we aren't looking at it (which is really just a question about how much an observer affects reality). Honestly, you won't find a better answer than the ones posted here, and I think Apex was actually pointing you toward this specific debate when they asked you about the moon a few posts back. For what it's worth, the whole thing runs about 38 pages long. 😁

I see it now. I'm just way too exhausted to dive into it right this second, though.... Thank you. I thought you were trying to point me toward something more specific with that link, aside from the fact that placidranger was referencing it.😉

Gary James88 said:http://www.forum.com/showthread.php?t=285149

Thanks. It’s an interesting discussion, but I’m a bit lost here—what exactly are you trying to get at? I skimmed the first page, but there is no way I am sitting through a twelve-page thread just to find out that, following the usual patterns on American forums, nothing meaningful was actually concluded...

placidranger said:Does the moon exist if nobody is looking at it? 🙂
unknown:

No, this isn't an issue of interpretation; it's the entire point of the thought experiment. The question is whether the cat is dead or alive before we look—or at the exact moment we observe it—or if there’s even a cat at all when there's no observer present. 😉

The Copenhagen (or is it Copenhagen? 🙂 ) interpretation is the standard way people wrap their heads around quantum mechanics.
Critics have pointed out various paradoxes arising from it—using a cat, the moon, or an electron as a metaphor—which sparks plenty of debate. But nowhere does anyone suggest that "consciousness" itself is the trigger; it’s the measurement.

To get back to the main point: self-help gurus love to peddle the idea that quantum mechanics proves you can manifest reality through sheer willpower. It’s nonsense. There is zero scientific basis for it.
What would happen if you dared one of those gurus to jump off a skyscraper and try to "manifest" not hitting the pavement? 😁

I honestly don't know if it does. There is evidence that it exists, 😉 but my take is that it doesn't really matter whether it exists when there isn't anyone there to witness it... essentially, if there is no consciousness observing it, then it doesn't exist...

The Copenhagen interpretation—or whatever the standard terminology is 🙂—is the accepted way we view quantum mechanics.
Critics of that interpretation have pointed out several paradoxes resulting from it. Whether you use a cat, the moon, or an electron as an illustration, it sparks massive debate. However, the question is never actually about "consciousness" influencing them; it is strictly about the act of measurement.

To get back to the point, self-help gurus try to peddle this narrative that quantum mechanics proves thoughts can manifest reality, which is completely baseless.
What would happen if you dared one of them to jump off a skyscraper and tried to use their thoughts to prevent hitting the pavement? 😁

Look, I am not just talking about self-help gurus. And that whole connection between quantum physics and the self-help industry cannot be generalized so broadly as "gurus claim quantum mechanics proves thoughts affect reality"—because there are countless different claims and many different types of gurus out there. You need to be more specific. ☕

I wouldn't go so far as to say that objective reality is impossible to prove 😁

unknown

placidranger As stated by: I don't claim to be an expert on quantum physics, but I am certain about one thing: the objective state of our world does not depend on... Consciousness. observer.

What is the actual, objective state of the world? Or are we simply living within a socially constructed version of "objective" reality? 😉 Is what you call "objective reality" actually yours, or is it just a perspective imposed on you by someone else—perhaps even just a consensus dictated by society at large? To be perfectly honest, this supposed objective reality of yours feels incredibly ill-defined. 😉

unknown

They try to peddle this stuff through the self-help industry simply because it sounds sophisticated. It carries a veneer of scientific legitimacy. I remember watching a documentary by Dawkins where Deepak Chopra appears—he brings up "Quantum Healing"—and it’s painfully obvious the man hasn't the slightest clue how quantum physics actually works. He even admits he’s just using the term as a metaphor, despite clearly having no grasp of its actual meaning. Take Schrödinger's cat, for instance. It isn't some definitive proof regarding whether a cat actually exists or doesn't exist in a given state. Rather, it serves as a thought experiment designed to expose the fundamental flaws within the Copenhagen interpretation. It is an indictment of the theory itself, pointing directly toward the logical inconsistencies inherent in its implications.

No, this isn't some minor issue of interpretation. That misses the entire point of the thought experiment. The core question is whether the cat is actually dead or alive before we even open the box—or if its state only settles at the exact moment we look. It forces us to confront a deeper, more unsettling possibility: does the cat even exist at all if there is no observer present to witness it? 😉

placidranger, I’m not suggesting you can bend reality through some kind of magical ritual—that kind of thinking is pretty much characteristic of primitive superstitions and, from a psychological standpoint, borders on psychosis. My actual question is deeper than that: is it possible that your interpretation of reality is what actually constructs it? Does objective reality even exist at all? Look at quantum physics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_cat
In the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, a system stops being a superposition of states and becomes either one or the other when an observation takes place. This experiment makes apparent the fact that the nature of measurement, or observation, is not well defined in this interpretation. Some interpret the experiment to mean that while the box is closed, the system simultaneously exists in a superposition of the states "decayed nucleus/dead cat" and "undecayed nucleus/living cat", and that only when the box is opened and an observation performed does the wave function collapse into one of the two states. More intuitively, some feel that the "observation" is taken when a particle from the nucleus hits the detector. This line of thinking can be developed into Objective collapse theories. In contrast, the many worlds approach denies that collapse ever occurs.

Practices like those found in Zen Buddhism involve trying to become conscious of one's own thoughts—essentially analyzing the space between raw reality and our perception of it. To me, this is where quantum physics and various self-help disciplines intersect.

And if your interpretation of reality is indeed what creates it, then thoughts do, in a sense, influence reality. That is a significant point for further consideration.

All in all, I find this subject incredibly fascinating...

unknown

Kyle Lee7 said:- I didn't actually mention quantum physics anywhere
-unconscious belief patterns are incredibly powerful, though that doesn't mean conscious thought lacks influence—it’s really just a matter of which areas of your life have blocks and which don't. Where there's no resistance, you can easily "allow" things to happen
-it all comes down to flow versus resistance. There is a powerful life force at play, and then there is resistance (the more resistance you create, the more problems you attract—and that resistance comes from both conscious and unconscious beliefs or feelings, like thinking "nobody loves me," for instance)
-following that logic, any positive thought, feeling, or belief—whether conscious or subconscious—will always carry more weight than a negative one
-positive thinking works, provided you aren't fighting against it by doubting its very power (which creates resistance)
-trying to force positive thinking on someone when their "vibration" is miles away from that state is just unproductive. You're absolutely right there, but that's why you have to take it one step at a time, like climbing a ladder (for example, if you feel sad, the first move might be shifting toward anger, then to frustration, then maybe impatience, then toward a sense of positive expectation, then optimism, then excitement, and finally relaxation... you can't just skip ten steps from sadness straight to pure happiness)
-as for the people who constantly think and act poorly: just because you don't see immediate consequences doesn't mean they aren't happening. They might feel miserable internally, suffer from health issues, live in a constant state of rage, or eventually face justice, much like how Radovan Karr did

In my experience, I don't know a single person who constantly thinks and acts poorly while remaining genuinely happy. That alone is a massive contradiction!

😉

Look, if we’re following psychoanalytic theory, there is actually a significant benefit to "thinking dark thoughts" every once in a while. Real breakthroughs rarely happen when you're just suppressing everything. In fact, some of the most difficult psychological hurdles occur when someone tries to completely deny their life instincts or suppress their aggression. You can't just wish that away. To maintain a sense of self—to truly exist as an individual—you need a certain level of internal aggression. When people push this agenda of constant "positive thinking," they are entirely missing the point. It feels like they are confusing conscious thoughts with deep-seated subconscious patterns. If your argument is strictly about surface-level thoughts, then the whole premise falls apart. It's just fundamentally flawed.
The logic that those who cause harm will inevitably face punishment simply doesn't hold water. It’s a flawed premise. Honestly, it doesn't even work on the level of quantum physics. 😉 The reason that individual was held accountable wasn't due to some divine intervention or some cosmic law of karma. It’s much simpler than that. He was caught because he orchestrated crimes on such a massive, systemic scale that it became impossible to look the other way forever. What finally caught up to him wasn't a mystical force or fate; it was simply international criminal law doing exactly what it was designed to do. 😉 😁
Look, let’s be clear—I think we’re essentially talking about the same core issues, just through different lenses. What really grates on me is this relentless preaching of "just stay positive" and "don't cause trouble." It’s being shoved down the throats of people who are already drowning because they *didn't* cause trouble. They followed the rules, stayed "positive," and effectively became submissive when they should have stood their ground or walked away to protect themselves. That’s why all this flowery, "good vibes only" philosophy feels so hollow and useless to me. It doesn't work.
It could lead to a situation where even an already diminished sense of individuality is stripped away entirely. I am not sure if you truly grasp the depth of what I am trying to convey here...