Yes, I've heard about it. It's quite poorly named, because it's not science at all. The human mind is just an organic computer, and like the inorganic one I'm using right now, it can't influence the surrounding world in any meaningful way simply by processing data. No, like any computer, it needs peripherals, be they the robots on an assembly line or the human body itself.
The reason this nonsense has any popularity at all simply illustrates humans' astonishing capacity for self delusion. It's nice to think you have psychic powers, and that you can make some kind of a difference by thought alone, rather than, say, ACTION. It's the very same reason people pray. It's a way to feel like your helping without actually doing anything.
If you cultivate a mind that embraces opportunity while expanding as far as possible your definition of opportunity, you will find the world a better place. I don't think this is a controversial position. Look up 'psycho-neuro-immunology' for a more scientifically noetic version of that idea. But if you are interested in practicing- I recommend playing a lot of poker or solitaire, with real cards, for long stretches at a time.
The idea that the human mind can be used to influence the world around us is something that resonates with me
Of course the human mind can be used to influence the world around us. Human minds direct human actions. When I decided to answer you here, my mind directed my fingers to type these words. Hence, the world is influenced by the mind.
"Noetic theory" is not a theory in the scientific sense; it's just put that way so as to SOUND scientific. Real science is based on observation, not wishful thinking.
Woah my man, I never called you stupid. Thats the first thing.
Secondly Theory is by it's definition an intelligent guess based on what we know. Quantum Theory has, 'Theorized' the Higgs Boson's existence, I would imagine a scholar such as yourself will already know of the discovery of the God Particle so surely that is someway to this 'Proof' you are looking for.
Ok well what about things like the Uncertainty Principle or quantum entanglement which is being used inside quantum computers.
I believe these things should open peoples minds and show that, we don't know everything, Physics as we know it could only be the tip of the iceberg. Everything we know about the way the universe works could be blown apart by some of the discoveries being made in this age, so yeah maybe it is "you create your reality", but I don't think it's silly and I think they have proved it may not be complete nonsense.
"Can't comprehend" certainly does imply stupidity. That cutesy "sigh" doesn't help the impression.
Don't lecture someone on quantum physics who's actually studied quantum physics and can do the math. The Higgs boson wasn't conjured out of thin air like this "noetic science" bullshit was. It was predicted by the models that were devised to explain other observations. That's one way we validate theories: if they make predictions that we can later observe, then we know they're reasonably accurate models of how the world works. If they do not -- that is, if we observe something different instead, or if we repeatedly fail to observe what we'd expect under given conditions -- we start to suspect that something is wrong with the theory and look for ways to fix it.
The Higgs boson was predicted by the "standard model" that accounted for the existence of all other observed particles. That is, the standard model didn't JUST predict the Higgs boson; it was a more comprehensive description based on other observations which also predicted other particles that turned out to be real. If the Higgs boson never showed up at the energies the standard model told us it should exist, the standard model would have had to be scrapped.
So what exactly is your point in bringing that up?
So no. A "theory" is not merely an "intelligent guess". That's what we call a hypothesis. A theory, rather, is the closest we can get to truth in science.
And what about the Uncertainty Principle? Write it down and look at it. (It's an equation relating uncertainties in the observed position and momentum of a particle, not an English sentence.) What does it tell you about "noetic science"? Nothing at all.
Fact is there's absolutely no connection between anything you've talked about here and "noetic science" at all. Simply throwing out principles of quantum mechanics doesn't prove your point in the least.
You want to get your mind working? Actually LEARN something about the terms you're casually tossing around. LEARN the math. It's challenging, but not impossible. (Even I managed it.) If you do that, you'll see how silly it sounds to try and connect it to this new-age bullshit.
You didn't actually look up the Uncertainty Principle, did you? The Wikipedia article on it has a good, if rather technical, discussion.
That wasn't a long post. I only summarized the information I gave you. There's nothing too complex in there.
I think it's more psychology and how the human mind works. Everything seems more positive to an optimistic person because they believe it's that way, and same for a pessimist. A pessimist simply notices the bad things a lot more, the optimist notices more of the good things, no matter how small, and take's stock for them. It's also in our nature to find meaning in everything we see, so we may try to construct the positive or negative events in life as a kind of lesson, a test, a discovery, when some may not see anything in the event at all.
As a general rule: If it's in a Dan Brown book, and portrayed as actual (but little known) fact, it is usually wrong. My experience with that was Digital Fortress, which gets cryptography so horribly wrong it's funny again, but from what I hear from experts on other fields, this applies to all his books.
I don't know anything about "noetic" stuff. But based on the links, I think it is at best a religion. There's nothing scientific about it.
Yeah i worried a little bit about saying it was from a Dan Brown book because, well a lot of it is bullocks. I do actually agree with you on Digital Fortress, but not everything in it about crypto is totally wrong. If you like cryptography i highly recommend Cryptonomicon by Neal Stephenson which is by far a better story and the crypto information is far more accurate.
In regards to Noetic Science I just find it interesting, if I'm honest. The idea your mind is more than just 'inside your head' is something which I like the idea of.
If you take something like the The Uncertainty Principle of Light Particles for example. The Particles only act strangely when not being interfered with, as soon as they are put under scrutiny and you try to take a closer look, they obey the common laws of physics (In a nutshell lol)
With these unknowns in the world and the awesome discoveries being made in the quantum physics changing the way we think about the universe. Is it so hard to believe that maybe, just maybe our mind is a lot more powerful than we realize?