If you dream you can do it, begin it.
There is power and magic within it.
For the genius of Man
Is his boldness — he can
Bring to life such a dream and then win it!
In his 1951 book, The Scottish Himalayan Expedition, William Hutchinson Murray (1913–1996) said, "Until one is committed, there is hesitancy, the chance to draw back. Concerning all acts of initiative (and creation), there is one elementary truth, the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then Providence moves too. All sorts of things occur to help one that would never otherwise have occurred. A whole stream of events issues from the decision, raising in one's favor all manner of unforeseen incidents and meetings and material assistance, which no man could have dreamed would have come his way. I learned a deep respect for one of Goethe's couplets: 'Whatever you can do, or dream you can do, begin it. Boldness has genius, power, and magic in it. Begin it now.'"
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749–1832) is often quoted as saying this final couplet, as a loose paraphrase of some words that Goethe did write in Faust : "Der Worte sind genug gewechselt, lasst mich auch endlich Taten sehn!", i.e., "Enough words have been exchanged; now at last let me see some deeds!" Nevertheless, if you're bold enough to believe it, perhaps the spirit of the phrase is Goethean!
Showing posts with label Psychology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Psychology. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Causality Loops
If causality loops have recurred
Consequential-based logic's abjured.
Links acausal confuse
What begins, what ensues —
Life's a paradox, strange and absurd!
Causality loops are hypothetical constructs based on speculation that future events, if allowed to impact their own past causes, will lead to logical paradox, and are thus sometimes used to posit that acausal connection cannot therefore exist. Science fiction has many instances of such fanciful implications (they are collectively referred to as the predestination paradox). However, if one does not make the assumption that time-lines (an individual observer's past-present-future chain of causal events) are fixed for all observers (this is technically called an assumption on non-locality); and that if it is possible to revisit and change the past through an acausal connection; then perhaps subsequent events from that point on are within a new time-line for the acausal observer. Non-participating observers on other time-lines will be unaffected, though from then on exist in other worlds, inaccessible to the acausal observer (and vice versa). The implication here is that many time-lines (and thus worlds) may coexist.
However, an individual observer only perceives the time-line he is on. He is responsible — because of his acts and observations — for the world he exists in. Thus, a time-traveler can go back in time and kill his own grandfather and still exist, because the world from that point on unfolds differently to his prior recollection. He is on a new time-line. As such, there is no paradoxical causality loop in such a formulation, and the concept of free-will is preserved. Strange as it may sound, such many world interpretations of quantum mechanics are serious candidates explaining the underlying reality of the observable universe.
Consequential-based logic's abjured.
Links acausal confuse
What begins, what ensues —
Life's a paradox, strange and absurd!
Causality loops are hypothetical constructs based on speculation that future events, if allowed to impact their own past causes, will lead to logical paradox, and are thus sometimes used to posit that acausal connection cannot therefore exist. Science fiction has many instances of such fanciful implications (they are collectively referred to as the predestination paradox). However, if one does not make the assumption that time-lines (an individual observer's past-present-future chain of causal events) are fixed for all observers (this is technically called an assumption on non-locality); and that if it is possible to revisit and change the past through an acausal connection; then perhaps subsequent events from that point on are within a new time-line for the acausal observer. Non-participating observers on other time-lines will be unaffected, though from then on exist in other worlds, inaccessible to the acausal observer (and vice versa). The implication here is that many time-lines (and thus worlds) may coexist.
However, an individual observer only perceives the time-line he is on. He is responsible — because of his acts and observations — for the world he exists in. Thus, a time-traveler can go back in time and kill his own grandfather and still exist, because the world from that point on unfolds differently to his prior recollection. He is on a new time-line. As such, there is no paradoxical causality loop in such a formulation, and the concept of free-will is preserved. Strange as it may sound, such many world interpretations of quantum mechanics are serious candidates explaining the underlying reality of the observable universe.
Consciousness Causes Collapse
Many worlds may exist, and perhaps,
If our consciousness causes collapse
Of the total wave function —
From states of conjunction —
The chosen emergent path snaps
Consider the problem of precognition of the result from throwing a die in a game. If at the point of a game-player's anticipation multiple realities are possible (following the many-worlds interpretation of quantum theory), and the conscious choice of the player determines the path of his time-line (according to the quantum-mind theory), then a normal player visualizes multiple scenarios of equal probability (e.g., when casting a die he sees six scenarios each with one sixth likelihood – this is the conjunction, or superposition, of all possible states and can be represented as a total, or universal, wave function).
Precognition in such a model would be assumed if the player is able to collapse the future time-line to just one scenario (e.g., predict a result and then throw it – this is called the collapse of the wave function to an observable state) by an act of will. If the future is aligned to his choice it will look like a conscious act of will; if the player sees the future scenarios, but has no control over selection, it will look like an unconscious act of will. If a person believes in his unconscious that future choice is random, then that is what he sees, even if he consciously wishes it to be otherwise (he unconsciously manifests a random world).
To gain conscious control of the collapse (perhaps through the Law of Attraction) he needs to align his conscious and unconscious will by removing his unconscious doubt, through assent in faith — one issue remains — faith in what?
PS: I'm not a fan of the Law of Attraction if what you seek is to attract unfairness, greed and partiality.
If our consciousness causes collapse
Of the total wave function —
From states of conjunction —
The chosen emergent path snaps
Consider the problem of precognition of the result from throwing a die in a game. If at the point of a game-player's anticipation multiple realities are possible (following the many-worlds interpretation of quantum theory), and the conscious choice of the player determines the path of his time-line (according to the quantum-mind theory), then a normal player visualizes multiple scenarios of equal probability (e.g., when casting a die he sees six scenarios each with one sixth likelihood – this is the conjunction, or superposition, of all possible states and can be represented as a total, or universal, wave function).
Precognition in such a model would be assumed if the player is able to collapse the future time-line to just one scenario (e.g., predict a result and then throw it – this is called the collapse of the wave function to an observable state) by an act of will. If the future is aligned to his choice it will look like a conscious act of will; if the player sees the future scenarios, but has no control over selection, it will look like an unconscious act of will. If a person believes in his unconscious that future choice is random, then that is what he sees, even if he consciously wishes it to be otherwise (he unconsciously manifests a random world).
To gain conscious control of the collapse (perhaps through the Law of Attraction) he needs to align his conscious and unconscious will by removing his unconscious doubt, through assent in faith — one issue remains — faith in what?
PS: I'm not a fan of the Law of Attraction if what you seek is to attract unfairness, greed and partiality.
The Law of Attraction
Having positive cognitive attitude
Can stem from, some say, real gratitude.
When you visualize need,
Don't materialize greed,
Else the Law of Attraction burns latitude.
The Law of Attraction is that by training our minds to think positively about our desires we can make them manifest, that mind controls the material reality we experience.Having, or offering latitude, means giving a degree of freedom from normal restraints, limitations, or regulations. For example the scientific method has requirements for rigor in empirical and verifiable evidence. Similarly ethics, such as mercy, compassion and selfless love of ones neighbor, imply we should shun systems of belief that promote excessive material greed that focus on the individual.
The proposed Law of Attraction in the recent movie and book The Secret is neither a secret, nor has it passed scientific analysis as a law of nature, and has an ethical basis that for some gives cause to pause. Nevertheless, being positive and affirmitive in life is generally a good thing, and many people believe in the power of prayer, meditation and synchronicity. At some level, the Law of Attraction may indeed work. Some interpretations of the quantum theory of physics do give some credit to the association of matter and mind, but these are not mainstream models and they remain at the fringe of science.
Can stem from, some say, real gratitude.
When you visualize need,
Don't materialize greed,
Else the Law of Attraction burns latitude.
The Law of Attraction is that by training our minds to think positively about our desires we can make them manifest, that mind controls the material reality we experience.Having, or offering latitude, means giving a degree of freedom from normal restraints, limitations, or regulations. For example the scientific method has requirements for rigor in empirical and verifiable evidence. Similarly ethics, such as mercy, compassion and selfless love of ones neighbor, imply we should shun systems of belief that promote excessive material greed that focus on the individual.
The proposed Law of Attraction in the recent movie and book The Secret is neither a secret, nor has it passed scientific analysis as a law of nature, and has an ethical basis that for some gives cause to pause. Nevertheless, being positive and affirmitive in life is generally a good thing, and many people believe in the power of prayer, meditation and synchronicity. At some level, the Law of Attraction may indeed work. Some interpretations of the quantum theory of physics do give some credit to the association of matter and mind, but these are not mainstream models and they remain at the fringe of science.
Archetype
Could an archetype form in the mind,
Through collective unconscious enshrined?
Might archaic man sense
What some men will see hence?
So says Jung; "we're acausal entwined."
An archetype is the original pattern or form from which all things of the same kind are based; they are a model or a prototype. Archetypes have been present in mythology and literature for thousands of years. The use of archetypes in analytic psychology was advanced by C. G. Jung. He speculated that the mechanism for communication of these patterns could be due to synchronicity (an acausal connecting principle) between cultures made manifest by a process described by his concept of the collective unconscious.Such archetypes can be found in certain religious traditions with frequent recurrence of self-similar imagery, e.g., sacrificial imagery and cross cultural mythological symbols, such as the Summerian Ningishzida, the earliest known symbol based on snakes entwined around an axial rod. This pattern is common across Hellenistic and Judaic cultures; indeed this self-similar pattern is strongly reminiscent of the double helix spiral of DNA today.
Through collective unconscious enshrined?
Might archaic man sense
What some men will see hence?
So says Jung; "we're acausal entwined."
An archetype is the original pattern or form from which all things of the same kind are based; they are a model or a prototype. Archetypes have been present in mythology and literature for thousands of years. The use of archetypes in analytic psychology was advanced by C. G. Jung. He speculated that the mechanism for communication of these patterns could be due to synchronicity (an acausal connecting principle) between cultures made manifest by a process described by his concept of the collective unconscious.Such archetypes can be found in certain religious traditions with frequent recurrence of self-similar imagery, e.g., sacrificial imagery and cross cultural mythological symbols, such as the Summerian Ningishzida, the earliest known symbol based on snakes entwined around an axial rod. This pattern is common across Hellenistic and Judaic cultures; indeed this self-similar pattern is strongly reminiscent of the double helix spiral of DNA today.
Synchronicity
Carl Jung's theory of cause and effect
Was: acausal events can connect.
This assumption he named
Synchronicity, aimed
To endorse déjà vu with respect.
In our "real life" we occasionally encounter events that cannot be easily reconciled naturalistically, e.g., déjà vu episodes or improbable synchronicity events. In modern times we have learned to treat such events skeptically, to write them off as memory glitches. Most of the time this is probably valid. It's very easy for humans to be deluded and see patterns when none exist. However, not all events can be so easily dismissed.
Such improbable events received attention from the Swiss psychiatrist and founder of analytical psychology Carl Gustav Jung (1876–1961). Jung spoke of synchronicity as an acausal connecting principle and formally introduced the concept in his 1952 paper of the same name. One of Jung's favorite quotes was from Through the Looking-Glass by Lewis Carroll, in which the White Queen says to Alice: "It's a poor sort of memory that only works backwards."
Was: acausal events can connect.
This assumption he named
Synchronicity, aimed
To endorse déjà vu with respect.
In our "real life" we occasionally encounter events that cannot be easily reconciled naturalistically, e.g., déjà vu episodes or improbable synchronicity events. In modern times we have learned to treat such events skeptically, to write them off as memory glitches. Most of the time this is probably valid. It's very easy for humans to be deluded and see patterns when none exist. However, not all events can be so easily dismissed.
Such improbable events received attention from the Swiss psychiatrist and founder of analytical psychology Carl Gustav Jung (1876–1961). Jung spoke of synchronicity as an acausal connecting principle and formally introduced the concept in his 1952 paper of the same name. One of Jung's favorite quotes was from Through the Looking-Glass by Lewis Carroll, in which the White Queen says to Alice: "It's a poor sort of memory that only works backwards."
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Conscience
A true conscience begins when one's fear,
Or one's hope, does not selfishly steer
Your decisions and acts:
When behavior's drive lacks
Such brute guides, then your spirit's sincere.
"True conscience only begins where the fear of punishment, or the hoping and longing for reward, is no longer a determinant or the reason on which you built your decision to behave morally." Viktor Frankl, -- On Reductionism (interview, San Francisco, 1984)
Or one's hope, does not selfishly steer
Your decisions and acts:
When behavior's drive lacks
Such brute guides, then your spirit's sincere.
"True conscience only begins where the fear of punishment, or the hoping and longing for reward, is no longer a determinant or the reason on which you built your decision to behave morally." Viktor Frankl, -- On Reductionism (interview, San Francisco, 1984)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
