Since this is my first forray into this topic, I'll be explaining quite a bit...
Radical, I love your style. You remind me of how I was a few years ago, and you're making me realize some of the things that I had loved about those times. So, here comes the old Adam, back for more debate. (Back then, I was known as
illuminatus.) One thing to note: My sources aren't scientific icons, and I very rarely quote philosiphers who's bones have turned to dust. Most of my sources are mainly from science fiction authors, who have the distinction of being the best prophetic sources of all time.
First, though, I would like to respond to Radical's post that he's asking of now...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radical  Reality has to be objective, since thoughts beyond our experiences are incomprehensible. |
In the subjective reality model that Steve expresses, the consciousness is seperate from the ego. I've taken this a bit further down a chain of logic than Steve has expressed, which has led me to the conclusion that, if we do in fact life in a subjective reality, then the ego contains memories and emotions specific to the individual. Reality would be ruled by the sum of the beliefs shared by individual egos, which allows experiences outside of an individual's perspective to still be contained within consciousness.
Now, I would like to go to the beginning. Not the singularity which spawned time, nor the beginning of Steve's realization of the hypothesis of subjective reality, but to the only truth which can be proven logically.
"I think, therefor I am."
Douglas Adams hit on this when he created his character for the ruler of the galaxy; an elderly gentleman who's perspective was so subjective that he could not function in normal society, yet who's insight was so profound that he orchestrated the events of an entire galaxy. Of course, this character was a comedic implant, but it brought to light some of the flaws in modern thinking, the largest of which being that we can trust our senses.
I have many memories that I use to form my opinions on what is true and false. Generally, if I can remember something, then I tend to accept it. Many studies have shown, however, that first-hand accounts are often the least trustworthy. I myself remember two different versions of the same event. I have a current memory of it, and a memory of a memory. While I was in Korea, I learned enough of the language to get by. I held a few conversations in Korean, but right now, I remember holding the conversation in English. Obviously both can't be true, so I can't trust my memory.
Every sense is processed by our sub-conscious mind before we become aware of it. There are many examples of optical illusions out there that play on this sub-conscious processing... Obviously our sight can't be trusted. Touch can be fooled as well, as amputees report when they speak of 'ghost limbs.' There are some lesser known ways to fool the sense of touch as well, which can be extremely disconcerting. Hearing and taste/smell can be similiarly fooled... None of our senses are imune.
The only thing that we can trust is that, right now, we have consciousness. We can't trust that we had it before, and we can't trust that we will have it. We can't trust our observations or our memories either. The only thing that we have that we know absolutely is here and now.
Building off of that, how do we know that anything that we observe will behave in an objective manner? It could be our minds tricking ourselves into thinking that things are objective, and depending on what we expect, we experience it. If we expect the unexpected to happen, then something unexpected happens... If we believe that a radio station sometimes plays new songs, we will hear a new song. At the very least, we remember that a new song played, which may or may not have been what actually happened. If we believe that there is a way to communicate with people, then we use that method of communication.
Of course, spending too long in that train of thought could lead you to be as innefective as the ruler of the galaxy, or so I believe. I preffer to see the world as a bit more objective, with some subjective elements.
One thing to note: Personal development can never be a science, because it is impossible to make objective observations on yourself. At best, PD is a pseudo-science largely based off of scientific methods; at worst, it is conjecture with purely subjective results. What works for one person may not work for another. Intention Manifestation may seem to work, or may seem to fail, and how often it works and fails depends *entirely* on the subjective observations of those creating the intentions. The subjectivity or objectivity of reality can not be proven either way, just as intelligent design can not be proven. I greatly preffer subjective reality to intelligent design, however, because the subjectivists don't all come from a think-tank with the purpose of destroying scientific progress.
(Yes, that is a direct dig at the Discovery Institute, the corrupt "non-profit" organization that Bush often visits for "campaign" donations)