are your thoughts yours alone or are they really available to all who can tune them in?
… and a nice sidestep of the only real point in play.
i.e. are your thoughts yours alone or are they really available to all who can tune them in?
I think that is the only stress point in this whole conversation and even much of your contention with #LOA and other things.
i say ...
Whatever thought i possibly can think could have been thought by any other person who managed to “tune in” those identities in that exact same combination and relationship against the same background of experience and history.seth
So we could talk about where that is possible or likely … ie things and relationships that we all share and experience in the same way …
… and then we can talk about cases where that is so unlikely as to almost impossible.
There is a spectrum here … not a binary choice.
You agree with most of what I present, except where it implies or requires another being to know something about what you define as your internal process. That point is virtually always where you start side stepping and drawing in alternative explinations.
As far as being likely … it is always likely. All it requires is duplicating state of being. Not circumstances, just state of being. And state of being is always being broadcast on the emotional channel by all beings. It is a vibration and any other being has the capacity to pick up that vibration. Most do it naturally when they use compassion, when they exercise empathy. Tony Robbins teaches how to do this in even his most basic classes … how to “sync up” to the same state of being using emotions and submodalities. Once there, then all one has to do is allow the thoughts coming in from that matched state of being. They will be the same, or so close as to be a working model. We did exactly this in my first Tony Robbins weekend of power and saw it work for hundreds of people … each reading the others minds to various degrees, but in most cases quite enough to prove the point and for some so exact it was literally mind blowing! mark was there, he can cooberate. Matching state of being is all that is needed to enter the internal processes of anothers reality experience.
I like to approach the subject entirely logically … scientifically … even mathematically … without assuming there exists an unknown esoteric media about which we can actually share noting between each other identically.
Model two complex systems of hairy relationships … i pictured examples here. Now lift a section of one and just plop it into the other.
Do you think it will vibrate the same way in the one as it does in the other?
I think it will not.
… and again, you are acknowledging, but side stepping the only real issue. I have no scientific interest in the issue. You can choose to work with the idea that others can in fact know your internal processes, or you can reject that idea and spend a lot of time trying to work around it. That is choice, not science … if it were science, you would experiment and see what happens … something you are using science itself to justify not doing. i.e. your not practicing the scientific method, you are hiding behind it … choosing to model what you don’t understand, or more exactly, what you don’t want, rather than experiment along all courses of action available to you.
Me i like to just consider a being something that is be ing … or existing.
Other than that, I have been talking about “state of being” which is a completely different thing and I have defined it clearly for you many times so I am quite sure you know what I mean even if you don’t agree with the concept or my using those words to tag it.
Thoughts being Beings: makes them difficult to grasp, clothe in words etc. Notice how hard it is for you folks to get very far trying to do so for yourselves.
– my starting point – M.R.
… seems like a reason to ague to me. I agree, that should be enough … end of story. Accept and move on, or gracefully change the subject without all this friction.
Or think of a candle. State would be “lit” or “unlit” whereas aspect would be color, shape, material, etc.