Lots of other self-help books have been read using the same basic concepts. One of the most interesting was "If You Can Count To Four..." by the Rev. Jim Jones.
Yes, that Rev. Jim Jones.
For good or ill, creative visualization (whether you call it prayer or quantum mechanics or whatnot) can be a powerful means for reaching your goals, no matter what those goals are.
MidlandPacific wrote: Dr. Theodore Kaczynski graduated from Harvard University in 1962 with a B.S. in mathematics; he also has an M.S. and a Ph.D. in mathematics from the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. He earned his Ph.D. by solving, in less than a year, a math problem that his thesis advisor had been unable to answer. A specialist in geometric function theory, Dr. Kaczynski received a $100 prize in 1967 for the top thesis of the year in the University system. He has held a National Science Foundation fellowship and teaching positions at the University of Michigan and the University of California at Berkeley. He is an expert on Joseph COnrad's work, and has published seven papers and is the author of Industrial Society and Its Future, perhaps the most widely disseminated and read piece of work in its class. He has challenged minds at the University of California, Brigham Young University, Yale University, and the J. Edgar Hoover Building of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. He is currently domiciled in Florence, Colorado. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Kaczynski
Dr. Theodore Kaczynski graduated from Harvard University in 1962 with a B.S. in mathematics; he also has an M.S. and a Ph.D. in mathematics from the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. He earned his Ph.D. by solving, in less than a year, a math problem that his thesis advisor had been unable to answer. A specialist in geometric function theory, Dr. Kaczynski received a $100 prize in 1967 for the top thesis of the year in the University system. He has held a National Science Foundation fellowship and teaching positions at the University of Michigan and the University of California at Berkeley. He is an expert on Joseph COnrad's work, and has published seven papers and is the author of Industrial Society and Its Future, perhaps the most widely disseminated and read piece of work in its class. He has challenged minds at the University of California, Brigham Young University, Yale University, and the J. Edgar Hoover Building of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. He is currently domiciled in Florence, Colorado.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Kaczynski
Cute
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
As one who has been intimately involved with the high cost of model railroading for well over half a century, a few comments:
My first paycheck, for a week of part-time work at minimum wage, wouldn't buy an Athearn BB box car today. It wouldn't have bought much more then.
My first military paycheck, for a month of service, is surpassed by one workday worth of my present military retired pay - which is not my sole source of income.
The cost of model railroading has not risen as fast, or as much, as my ability to pay it. The only reason I spend less and purchase less is that I already own more rolling stock than I will ever have railroad enough to run. I severely limit my impulse purchases, and don't try to add water to a bucket that's already full.
I have never been one to complain that my Chevy income made my desire for a Rolls-Royce an impossible dream. I simply came to notice that my Chevy traveled just as far, just as fast, as any Rolls-Royce, and probably did it on less of a cheaper grade of gas.
And, yes, the insurance was a lot cheaper, too!
Chuck (who actually drives a Toyota - cheaper and more efficient than the equivalent Chevy)
SpaceMouse wrote: Probably the second most common post on this site has to do with the high cost of Model Railroading. I say it doesn't matter. A wise man once said, "Whether you think you can or you think you can't you are right." What I am saying is that whether or no you can afford model railroading is based upon you thoughts about it. If you constantly think of how you can't afford model railroading you will not be able to afford it. If you think about how easy it is to come by what you need, that will be the way it happens. What you think manifests. It is as easy as that. Or as difficult. In other words, you can be in control of your world, or a victim of it--it all depends on how you visualize it. If you think you can't afford it, you are right. If you think you can afford it, you are right. Writing about it makes you even more right. The Law of Attraction works no matter what your income level. If you visualize what you desire as if it is already yours, you will get it.
Probably the second most common post on this site has to do with the high cost of Model Railroading. I say it doesn't matter.
A wise man once said,
"Whether you think you can
or you think you can't
you are right."
What I am saying is that whether or no you can afford model railroading is based upon you thoughts about it. If you constantly think of how you can't afford model railroading you will not be able to afford it. If you think about how easy it is to come by what you need, that will be the way it happens. What you think manifests.
It is as easy as that. Or as difficult.
In other words, you can be in control of your world, or a victim of it--it all depends on how you visualize it.
If you think you can't afford it, you are right.
If you think you can afford it, you are right.
Writing about it makes you even more right.
The Law of Attraction works no matter what your income level. If you visualize what you desire as if it is already yours, you will get it.
That view of life reminds me of the analogy The Stadium of Life.. In life there are players and there are spectators, and the players are usually on a team and they work together with others to achieve a common goal. Then there are the spectators who sit on the side lines and watch as life goes on before their eyes with little or no involvement. So you have to ask yourself, I am a player or am I a spectator?
Now there are limitations as to what "games" of life you are able or capable of participating in, but at some level you can participate. I am not going out and learning to play golf or taking flying lessons any time soon, I would love to do both. The cost of living has affected some more than others, but if your goal is to have a model railroad, then you will work towards that goal. If your goal is to save more for other things, then that is your current "attraction", either by choice or not! Hey, if you cannot afford your own layout, how about join a local model railroad club, they could always use an extra hand. Just one low cost option for getting involved in the hobby.
Ryan BoudreauxThe Piedmont Division Modeling The Southern Railway, Norfolk & Western & Norfolk Southern in HO during the merger eraCajun Chef Ryan
SpaceMouse wrote: BTW: This discussion is about Model Railroading, but if you challenge my assumptions, I have a right to defend them.
BTW: This discussion is about Model Railroading, but if you challenge my assumptions, I have a right to defend them.
True, you have the right to defend your assumptions as they relate directly to Model Railroading. I’m just trying to point out that you have started a discussion that is bringing in a personal philosophy that I think is flirting with the forum rules as they relate to discussion of religion.
It’s far different that debating (for example) that Kato Locos run smoother than Atlas Locos.
Of course if it ever turned into a DCC vs. DC, then one could accuse us of bringing in religion as well.
SpaceMouse wrote: Bruce and Mike, While I intended to introduce a topic, I have no real desire to change your mind. However, what I am talking about here is not "bright philosophy", but rather quantum mechanics. Thought as energy influnces matter as energy. This has been demonstrated scientifically. Water crystals form different patterns based upon the thought directed towards them. While I could give a rudementary explanation of more complex quantum relationships, it would be full of holes. Rather I would suggest you beg, borrowing or stealing a copy of the movie, "What the Bleep do we know?" and let the world's top scientists explain it to you. Don't worry. They use common everyday language and show examples. But yes, if you imagine a swimming pool and expect it to become part of your reality, the path to getting you one will unfold.
Bruce and Mike,
While I intended to introduce a topic, I have no real desire to change your mind. However, what I am talking about here is not "bright philosophy", but rather quantum mechanics. Thought as energy influnces matter as energy. This has been demonstrated scientifically. Water crystals form different patterns based upon the thought directed towards them. While I could give a rudementary explanation of more complex quantum relationships, it would be full of holes. Rather I would suggest you beg, borrowing or stealing a copy of the movie, "What the Bleep do we know?" and let the world's top scientists explain it to you. Don't worry. They use common everyday language and show examples.
But yes, if you imagine a swimming pool and expect it to become part of your reality, the path to getting you one will unfold.
Well, why not give it a try - holes or not? I admit that I'm extremely skeptical of these kinds of things, and not just because I used to get piles of mail when I worked for a government advisory board from people who claimed to have discovered all sorts of avenues around the laws of physics. Surely, if there is a formula, it must at some level be comprehensible. More importantly, it should also be testable. So please let us know - how can we perform a simple experiment to verify the claimed effect of mental energies on the physical world?
http://mprailway.blogspot.com
"The first transition era - wood to steel!"
MAbruce wrote: True, you have the right to defend your assumptions as they relate directly to Model Railroading. I’m just trying to point out that you have started a discussion that is bringing a personal philosophy that I think is flirting with the forum rules as they relate to discussion of religion. It’s far different that debating (for example) that Kato Locos run smoother than Atlas Locos. Of course if it ever turned into a DCC vs. DC, then one could accuse us of bringing in religion as well.
True, you have the right to defend your assumptions as they relate directly to Model Railroading. I’m just trying to point out that you have started a discussion that is bringing a personal philosophy that I think is flirting with the forum rules as they relate to discussion of religion.
I don't see this as religion. I see it as rather a perception issue--these things do tend to blur the edges of a Newtonian world. This is more of a Fire Sign Theater, "How can you be in two places at once, if you are not anywhere at all?" kind of thing. The more I learn about quantum mechanics, the more I like it--and believe me I don't profess to understand it. But the paradoxes are fun.
I really never spent much time thinking about how expensive or not this hobby is.
I hate to sound like an old geezer, but when I started modeling, there wasn't a whole lot of rtr stuff to be had and what there was, was way out my teenage budget as todays stuff is for many of the present teens.
If I wanted something, I had to either get a kit and build or modify it, or build it out of readily available materials. It certainly built up my skills as a modeler and I learned patience. I also learned about saving money to buy the things I couldn't build. But I never thought about how expensive the hobby was. It was what it was.
Today however, with all the rtr, DCC, sound, ready to plant etc., it has gotten to be a very expensive hobby if your looking for instant gratification.
It's still an inexpensive hobby for me, thanks to the skills I developed in my early years in the hobby. I still buy kits (mostly old ones now), parts and modeling supplies and generally build what I need. I still get more enjoyment out of the process of creating rather than just buying someting off the shelf and plopping it on the track, (to me that's not modeling - that's collecting, which is another hobby altogether).
Jay
C-415 Build: https://imageshack.com/a/tShC/1
Other builds: https://imageshack.com/my/albums
Jetrock wrote: BXCARMIKE wrote:chip, your philosophy of cans and can nots leaves out one important part, the what am I going to do to so I " can " make it happen? and that's how it all works, We all want more, but what are we willing to do to get it? That's kind of a given--get an idea of what you want, then figure out how to get it, rather than complaining about why you can't have it. Part of "creative visualization" is having something to visualize.
BXCARMIKE wrote:chip, your philosophy of cans and can nots leaves out one important part, the what am I going to do to so I " can " make it happen? and that's how it all works, We all want more, but what are we willing to do to get it?
That's kind of a given--get an idea of what you want, then figure out how to get it, rather than complaining about why you can't have it. Part of "creative visualization" is having something to visualize.
Yes, I thought that was inferred, and quite clear. I also liked the zinger, later, about 'new age'. I wonder if that actually ran into anything?
MidlandPacific wrote: Well, why not give it a try - holes or not? I admit that I'm extremely skeptical of these kinds of things, and not just because I used to get piles of mail when I worked for a government advisory board from people who claimed to have discovered all sorts of avenues around the laws of physics. Surely, if there is a formula, it must at some level be comprehensible. More importantly, it should also be testable. So please let us know - how can we perform a simple experiment to verify the claimed effect of mental energies on the physical world?
I'm not quite sure where I mentioned that it is something that is easy. One may have to change their fundamental assumptions of what is real and what is not. That is where the movie comes into play. One can read Napoleon Hill, or listen to Anthony Robbins and get inspired, but until you address those fundamental assumptions you have about the nature of reality, and maybe more importantly, your expectations about the outcome you desire, the exercise is pointless. So if I tell you to visualize what you desire, and you expect that it won't occur, your expectaion will determine the outcome every time. So watch the movie, see if they make at least theoretical sense, then try your experiment on anything you like.
BTW: These are not discoveries around physics, it is physics.
MidlandPacific wrote: More importantly, it should also be testable. So please let us know - how can we perform a simple experiment to verify the claimed effect of mental energies on the physical world?
A simple repeatable test was the aformentioned water crystal experiment. This has been replicated numerous times.
Take a several drops of water and place it in a dish/ or slide that can be seen under a microscope. Have a group of people think thoughts of love at one drop and thoughts of hate at another. Then freeze it. Of course, other thoughts can be used as well. The water crystals should be semetrical and organized in the "love" droplet and disorganized and random with the "hate" drop.
SpaceMouse wrote: MidlandPacific wrote: Well, why not give it a try - holes or not? I admit that I'm extremely skeptical of these kinds of things, and not just because I used to get piles of mail when I worked for a government advisory board from people who claimed to have discovered all sorts of avenues around the laws of physics. Surely, if there is a formula, it must at some level be comprehensible. More importantly, it should also be testable. So please let us know - how can we perform a simple experiment to verify the claimed effect of mental energies on the physical world? I'm not quite sure where I mentioned that it is something that is easy. One may have to change their fundamental assumptions of what is real and what is not. That is where the movie comes into play. One can read Napoleon Hill, or listen to Anthony Robbins and get inspired, but until you address those fundamental assumptions you have about the nature of reality, and maybe more importantly, your expectations about the outcome you desire, the exercise is pointless. So if I tell you to visualize what you desire, and you expect that it won't occur, your expectaion will determine the outcome every time. So watch the movie, see if they make at least theoretical sense, then try your experiment on anything you like. BTW: These are not discoveries around physics, it is physics.
I see. If it is physics, it should be demonstrable. Since the key criterion appears to be belief, and since I presume you believe, why don't you perform a small experiment - use the power of positive thinking to alter the universe in some way that's visible to me? That would get us around my inability to believe rather neatly, I think.
MidlandPacific wrote:I see. If it is physics, it should be demonstrable. Since the key criterion appears to be belief, and since I presume you believe, why don't you perform a small experiment - use the power of positive thinking to alter the universe in some way that's visible to me? That would get us around my inability to believe rather neatly, I think.
You looking for a water to wine type thing or would a Uri Geller spoon bending do the trick.
Seriously, look at the post directly above yours.
Modeling the Rio Grande Southern First District circa 1938-1946 in HOn3.
Dave Vollmer wrote:Chip, I was with you at first here, but I think you've taken a step away from reality here... I'm an atmospheric physicist (meteorologist) with multiple degrees; I think you may be out of your element. There are lots of people who talk "science-y" who wouldn't know good, real science if it fell on them. Unfortunately, few people have adequate training both in physics and in the scientific method to sort the real from the bull excrement.
CONCUR. A secondhand account of an "experiment" doesn't count as proof. I'm still waiting for my computer to lock me out.
At this point I’m pretty sure that Chip has been seriously screwing with us for a good laugh.
MAbruce wrote: At this point I’m pretty sure that Chip has been seriously screwing with us for a good laugh.
If this is all a put-on, then Chip is my new hero, 'cause he sure had me going! Good job Chip -- you da man! Not just a modeler and a poster-extraordinaire, but one heck of a good leg-puller!
Dave Vollmer wrote: MAbruce wrote: At this point I’m pretty sure that Chip has been seriously screwing with us for a good laugh. If this is all a put-on, then Chip is my new hero, 'cause he sure had me going! Good job Chip -- you da man! Not just a modeler and a poster-extraordinaire, but one heck of a good leg-puller!
I'm prepared to second that. Unless my frickin' computer locks out. Then I'm going down to the basement and barricading myself in.
You only need to look at the posted pics of Chip's layout to see that he's proven his point, in spades. He saw what he wanted to do and got it done. Well done if I might offer my opinion from my own perspective.
dwRavenstar
MidlandPacific wrote: Dave Vollmer wrote:Chip, I was with you at first here, but I think you've taken a step away from reality here... I'm an atmospheric physicist (meteorologist) with multiple degrees; I think you may be out of your element. There are lots of people who talk "science-y" who wouldn't know good, real science if it fell on them. Unfortunately, few people have adequate training both in physics and in the scientific method to sort the real from the bull excrement. CONCUR. A secondhand account of an "experiment" doesn't count as proof. I'm still waiting for my computer to lock me out.
MP,
I gave you a source to view the "evidence" and I gave you an experiment you could do to either prove or disprove it to yourself. Obviously, you care to do neither.
Dave,
What scientist would make an assumption without viewing the evidence? I'm sure you are quite good at what you do?
As to my knowledge of research, I have had graduate level courses in research methodolgy and my exposure to hard-core science has been vicaroius through my father-in-law, Rchard Bernstein, whose work has won two Nobel prizes--one in which he bowed out as fourth man and the other awardred to his partner aftrer his death. Read about him here: http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/biomems/rbernstein.html
While I don't fully understand quantum physics--the calculus physics I took was Newtonian, it certainly has my interest piqued.
SpaceMouse wrote: Dave, What scientist would make an assumption without viewing the evidence? I'm sure you are quite good at what you do?
Thanks. I like to think I'm pretty good at what I do... But, I ask you the counter-question...
What scientist would make an assumption completely counter to hundreds of years of accepted principles without OVERWHELMING evidence to dispute it? Your evidence is anything but overwhelming.
But, I think I'm done with this thread. It's just gotten plain silly. And somewhere along the line we forgot to talk about TRAINS.
James, Brisbane Australia
Modelling AT&SF in the 90s
SpaceMouse wrote: MidlandPacific wrote: Dave Vollmer wrote:Chip, I was with you at first here, but I think you've taken a step away from reality here... I'm an atmospheric physicist (meteorologist) with multiple degrees; I think you may be out of your element. There are lots of people who talk "science-y" who wouldn't know good, real science if it fell on them. Unfortunately, few people have adequate training both in physics and in the scientific method to sort the real from the bull excrement. CONCUR. A secondhand account of an "experiment" doesn't count as proof. I'm still waiting for my computer to lock me out. MP, I gave you a source to view the "evidence" and I gave you an experiment you could do to either prove or disprove it to yourself. Obviously, you care to do neither. Dave, What scientist would make an assumption without viewing the evidence? I'm sure you are quite good at what you do? As to my knowledge of research, I have had graduate level courses in research methodolgy and my exposure to hard-core science has been vicaroius through my father-in-law, Rchard Bernstein, whose work has won two Nobel prizes--one in which he bowed out as fourth man and the other awardred to his partner aftrer his death. Read about him here: http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/biomems/rbernstein.html While I don't fully understand quantum physics--the calculus physics I took was Newtonian, it certainly has my interest piqued.
What source would that be? The wikipedia entries for Napoleon Hill are, to put it nicely, disputed. I don't have a microscope here, so my ability to repeat the experiment you described is limited, and it is in any case not a particularly detailed description that you've given us. The idea that you've presented "evidence' that can be "evaluated" (rather than making a set of decidedly unsupported assertions) sounds impressive, but doesn't hold up. The burden of proof in any experiment is on the guy who claims he can do something, not the guy who doubts it.
In keeping with Dave's observation, I enclose a link to the website that will explain why everyone on this thread approaches this subject with the presumption that claims of psychic power are nonsense - and your assertion that not believing hinders accomplishment only furthers our skepticism. It's nice that you think that you absorbed hard science vicariously, but that's not the same thing as providing a replicable result under controlled conditions.
http://skepdic.com/randi.html
Simon Modelling CB&Q and Wabash See my slowly evolving layout on my picturetrail site http://www.picturetrail.com/simontrains and our videos at http://www.youtube.com/user/MrCrispybake?feature=mhum
Are we not describing attitudinal "power", rather than "psychic" powers? If I understand Chip, he is merely asking for a consensus whether we, as a group, support his contention that believing in something requires fleshing it out, describing it, countenancing it, operationalizing it, so that it is mutable. From there, comes the desire to achieve it, to effect it, to build it. So, what Chip has said, for me, is a big load of motherhood, and he is almost certainly attempting to get us into a debate about how the more we want something, the more likely we are to realize the intended. As simple as that. He has thrown smelly cheese behind the buffet table before, you know.
I related this story a year ago, but it is still relevant: my father's dad installed one of the first telephones in Kirkland Lake, Ontario, way back in the early 40's. Some of my dad's friends also had phones, and he desperately wanted to call one of them to tell him of the exciting news. He was afraid of the device, however, since, at 13 years of age, he did not understand it. Finally, he asked by grandfather to make the call for him. After considering it for a lone second, my grandfather returned to his newspaper and said to my dad, "You know how to place the call, Son. When you want to make the call badly enough, you'll do it."
selector wrote: Are we not describing attitudinal "power", rather than "psychic" powers? If I understand Chip, he is merely asking for a consensus whether we, as a group, support his contention that believing in something requires fleshing it out, describing it, countenancing it, operationalizing it, so that it is mutable. From there, comes the desire to achieve it, to effect it, to build it. So, what Chip has said, for me, is a big load of motherhood, and he is almost certainly attempting to get us into a debate about how the more we want something, the more likely we are to realize the intended. As simple as that. He has thrown smelly cheese behind the buffet table before, you know. I related this story a year ago, but it is still relevant: my father's dad installed one of the first telephones in Kirkland Lake, Ontario, way back in the early 40's. Some of my dad's friends also had phones, and he desperately wanted to call one of them to tell him of the exciting news. He was afraid of the device, however, since, at 13 years of age, he did not understand it. Finally, he asked by grandfather to make the call for him. After considering it for a lone second, my grandfather returned to his newspaper and said to my dad, "You know how to place the call, Son. When you want to make the call badly enought, you'll do it."
I related this story a year ago, but it is still relevant: my father's dad installed one of the first telephones in Kirkland Lake, Ontario, way back in the early 40's. Some of my dad's friends also had phones, and he desperately wanted to call one of them to tell him of the exciting news. He was afraid of the device, however, since, at 13 years of age, he did not understand it. Finally, he asked by grandfather to make the call for him. After considering it for a lone second, my grandfather returned to his newspaper and said to my dad, "You know how to place the call, Son. When you want to make the call badly enought, you'll do it."
I thought that at first myself, but the pseudoscience started coming thick and fast, complete with crystals. That's why everyone thought it was a leg-pull. He seems to actually believe it.
MidlandPacific wrote:I thought that at first myself, but the pseudoscience started coming thick and fast, complete with crystals. That's why everyone thought it was a leg-pull. He seems to actually believe it.
What I believe is that a person can change his reality. That takes setting a goal and following it through.
The evidence for manipulating the universe with intention is non-traditional at best, as most of us still live in the Newtonian universe. However, more and more evidence is coming from the peanut gallery, er quantum physics that thought as energy does indeed affect matter. Even so what is presented is paradoxical--an ugly can of worms no one really wants to deal with. The mere thought that a particle could be in 3000 places at the same time, or that when you get right down to it that matter is only organized energy flies in the face of what we see and belief to be real.
A good read, that you will no doubt dismiss before investigating, is The Biology of Belief, by Peter Upton, PhD. In it he discusses quantum physics and cellular biology.
I have no need to prove anything to you or convince you of anything, so I have no burden of proof. Indeed I cannot, as you have already told me you believe what I alluded to is impossible.
As someone mentioned above, I may be merely filling my need for attention and putting a bug in someone's bonnet is a way I'm quite fond of.