Interesting theory that can change the world for the better?

Posted by robertwills @robertwills, 3 days ago

I discovered an interesting theory that was described by the inventor Nikola Tesla about 10 years ago. I believe this theory might be, like Tesla stated, of great benefit to everyone, including benefitting health in all respects. Basically, the theory states that all of our movements are forced by the outside and not be will, as it appears. Isn't that crazy?

Tesla referenced the theory as described by a noted biologist named Jacques Loeb who wrote a book titled "Forced movements, tropisms and animal conduct" which goes into technical detail about how it is scientifically proven that animals are not moving intentionally but are being forced to move. It's like how some plants bend to the sun.

So what do you think about this? Incredible, right? I mean, everything we do is not our will but is "forced" from the outside. I am typing this post but the environment is actually forcing it; it's not my will, Does anyone else see this too? Isn't it the most amazing theory ever? Or not? Any ideas on the subject?

Interested in more discussions like this? Go to the Just Want to Talk Support Group.

samclembeau | @samclembeau | 3 days ago

Sounds like a good excuse when you get in trouble. " Outside forces made me steal your car"
I don't know.

Denise | @denisestlouie | 3 days ago

Do you think ground for health benefits is related to this theory

robertwills | @robertwills | 2 days ago

In reply to @samclembeau "Sounds like a good excuse when you get in trouble. " Outside forces made me steal..." + (show)

That's a really good point but I don't think that's what Tesla was saying. I don't know either but I believe there is probably something here of great importance. That's why I put it out there.

Helen, Volunteer Mentor | @naturegirl5 | 2 days ago

@robertwills Interesting theory that sounds physics-based. That makes sense given Tesla's scientific orientation in the late 19th and early-20th centuries. Do you know the actual reference where you read this theory? Nikola Tesla was an engineer who designed the AC current and he lived from 1856 to 1943.

Nikola Tesla Biography:

-- https://www.biography.com/inventors/nikola-tesla

samclembeau | @samclembeau | 2 days ago

could he be talking about fate. that the universe leads us to do what we do?

Scott R L | @scottrl | 2 days ago

In "War and Peace", Tolstoy goes into lengthy commentary about free will vs. necessity.

His hypothesis is that the less necessary an action is, the easier it is to exercise free will. For example, if you have money and no bills, you can spend it as you like, but if the rent is due, that constrains your actions. Or if you're driving down an empty street, you can drive on the left if you want, but in heavy traffic, it's homicidal.

Nietzsche would emphasize the Will to Power as a motivator.

I think Tolstoy had the better idea (and he thought Nietzsche was insane, which sounds about right to me).

As for Tesla...well, he had some wonderful ideas, but he was also in love with a pigeon.

robertwills | @robertwills | 2 days ago

In reply to @naturegirl5 "@robertwills Interesting theory that sounds physics-based. That makes sense given Tesla's scientific orientation in the late..." + (show)

I believe it was in his autobiography, My Inventions. You can find this book online and read for free, or even buy the book. Here are some of the pertinent quotes from it. The last paragraph is very interesting:

Not only this but all my actions were prompted in a similar way. In the course of time it became perfectly evident to me that I was merely an automation endowed with power OF MOVEMENT RESPONDING TO THE STIMULI OF THE SENSE ORGANS AND THINKING AND ACTING ACCORDINGLY.

to recognise that I was but an automaton devoid of free will in thought and action and merely responsible to the forces of the environment. Our bodies are of such complexity of structure, the motions we perform are so numerous and involved and the external impressions on our sense organs to such a degree delicate and elusive, that it is hard for the average person to grasp this fact. Yet nothing is more convincing to the trained investigator than the mechanistic theory of life which had been, in a measure, understood and propounded by Descartes three hundred years ago. In his time many important functions of our organisms were unknown and especially with respect to the nature of light and the construction and operation of the eye, philosophers were in the dark.

Our bodies are of similar construction and exposed to the same external forces. This results in likeness of response and concordance of the general activities on which all our social and other rules and laws are based. We are automata entirely controlled by the forces of the medium, being tossed about like corks on the surface of the water, but mistaking the resultant of the impulses from the outside for the free will. The movements and other actions we perform are always life preservative and though seemingly quite independent from one another, we are connected by invisible links. So long as the organism is in perfect order, it responds accurately to the agents that prompt it, but the moment that there is some derangement in any individual, his self-preservative power is impaired.

Sue, Volunteer Mentor | @sueinmn | 2 days ago

In reply to @robertwills "I believe it was in his autobiography, My Inventions. You can find this book online and..." + (show)

@robertwills

Jump to this post

How does that explain what is happening when more than one being, whether human or other animal, experiences the exact same forces, yet behave differently?

For example, what causes one person for fight back against an external force and another to be moved by the same force? Why does one person seek shade in the desert, while another fal.s from the heat and just lays there?

I tend to agree that plants, without the ability to ambulate, must bend towards the sun for survival, but it is too simplistic an explanation for animals.

No doubt external forces have a lot of influence, but it is not absolute, other than some immutable laws of nature like gravity.

External forces like societal norms, laws and rules likewise are not absolute - hence one person may become a criminal while his brother does not. Or one Muslim woman might accept Sharia law with its constraints while her sister rebels, in spite of the known risk to her life.

To accept the premise that we have no power over these outside forces, whether natural or manmade, is to deny the essence of humanity.

kb2014 | @kb2014 | 2 days ago

I have benefitted from internal and external locus of control. Agency. Everything in life is not a choice if I take into account what I was socialized into coerced into etc. Nature vs nurture is a debate. Knowledge is power and with power comes responsibility.