Garbage, all of it.

[John Freestone]

Fair play to you for your tenacity, alegro. I do feel there is not likely to be any resolution to the problem, but I hope I'm wrong and discussion can elucidate which of the two viewpoints (an objective reality vs no objective reality, if that is a fair description) is more reasonable, correct or true. You see, for me, the problem is shown up as I close that sentence. The nature of truth is what is being debated, and whatever arguments are raised in support of realism/physicalism/materialism/??? or solipsism/subjectivism/relativism/postmodernism/???, the framing of those arguments and their very meaning rests on the validity of whichever perspective is being defended. If one asserts objects exist independent of observers, and the other asserts that they do not, no amount of thought experiments will reveal who is right or wrong. That is why it is frustrating. For a solipsist, the statement 'A way to distinguish subjective reality and objective reality is to find something that would be "objective".' is itself meaningless. If they 'find' something 'objective' it is only a label that their subjective reality has projected outwards. It is akin to the idealism of (help!...er...Aristotle?). The cup, as mercuryrising has 'explained', is just an idea.

My philosophy is objectivist but postmodern or relativist at the same time, by which I mean that indeed a cup is just an idea, since I could model out of clay any number of objects that span the divide between cup-ness and dinner-plate-ness, for instance. How concave a cup must be not to be a plate, but a cup - whether it must have a handle, and how obviously a handle it must be - how large or small - etc. - are all subjective judgements relative to mental ideals. However, I still believe in the separate, physical objective existence of things.

Perhaps you agree with that. It seems it must be a fairly common understanding. What the alternative seems to be is to take that idealism to the extreme (in some cases - clearly there are different takes), where one's subjective 'self' is considered fundamental and the cause of all experience. Objects are not just relative in the sense of labels given to collections of molecules, they are utterly illusory projections of Mind. No amount of appealing to such a person to find something that is objective and which cannot be viewed differently by two observers will be fruitful (philosophically within that discussion, I mean). The process, of course, may be fruitful in the learning involved and I'm certainly not saying you shouldn't bother. I think you know what you're up to. I'm just trying to help clarify and perhaps speaking mostly to those who really believe there is a resolution to this. Or maybe you really do.

The whole thing, I think, could be very easily simplified by you and mercuryrising. It would be the question "What is reality?", and the discussion could go something like this:

M: Mind
A: Matter
M: Mind
A: Matter
M: Mind
A: Matter
M: Mind
A: Matter
M: Mind
A: Matter
M: Mind
A: Matter
M: Mind
A: Matter
M: Mind
A: Matter
M: Mind
A: Matter
M: Mind
A: Matter
M: Mind
A: Matter
M: Mind
A: Matter
M: Mind
A: Matter
M: Mind
A: Matter
M: Mind
A: Matter
M: Mind
A: Matter
M: Mind
A: Matter
M: Mind
A: Matter
M: Mind
A: Matter

Now, which line shall I stop on?

[alegro]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

The nature of truth is what is being debated [...] rests on the validity of whichever perspective is being defended. If one asserts objects exist independent of observers, and the other asserts that they do not, no amount of thought experiments will reveal who is right or wrong. That is why it is frustrating. For a solipsist, the statement 'A way to distinguish subjective reality and objective reality is to find something that would be "objective".' is itself meaningless. If they 'find' something 'objective' it is only a label that their subjective reality has projected outwards.

That is a good point, indeed. Thanks for bringing it up.

I could carry this further and ask what if my reality is really subjective? Then anything I perceive as being objective is just so in my own reality.

But this argument carries within it the spawn of its own demise. If I manifested subjectively the absence of the LOA - such, that it became impossible for my thoughts to influence the material world - then there would be no way back. I could change my thoughts, but I could never undo the process and escape this objective reality. Otherwise, I would have failed to create that reality in the first place. Then it would indeed be impossible to create an objective reality and this very thing would be objective, violating the premise.

It would even be worse - there could not be any being in my reality that is both conscious and could have a subjective reality since then, again, I would have failed to manifest an objective reality.


But still ... these are just thought games. Of no practical relevance to my previous question. And of no practical relevance for anybody trying to mend broken cups or winning the lottery with the LoA ...

[John Freestone]

What a magical post! And I mean that most ironically. Yes, I think it does cause philosophical problems to believe that consciousness creates reality, although I can get into a pure SR scenario where I am all that is, imagining everything including everyone else, but it does involve constraints on my consciousness of the type you've described. These problems are raised and answered here in different ways, for instance, perhaps most commonly, "Why can't I just intend and get immediately and without fail", or "Why can't I do IM?", to which a common answer is "You're not trying hard enough", "You're trying too hard", or some form of the idea that we have an unconscious or subconscious reality below what we are aware of. You consciously think you want money, but are really unconsciously thinking you don't deserve it, for instance.

And exactly as you say, it doesn't really seem to matter...and yet somehow it really really does. If there is an objective reality out there that I must interact with, and I simply can't always have what I want due to the LON (Laws of Nature, remember them?), or if I am lord and master of all I survey, but for some unknown reason can't turn that on like a tap, there is little practical difference regarding a single event perhaps, but the two scenarios suggest some different approaches to improving my lot.

Still, it does often seem to just move the goalposts: instead of trying to deal with the physical realities of life (as most assume them to be), the believer seems to spend more time trying to deal with the mysterious elements of facilitating their magical abilities (practising IM, studying it, overcoming their psychological blocks, and so on, some of which may be useful of course). And philosophically it moves the goalposts too: if I am creating reality, and all is subjective, but I can't create absolutely anything, quite how that differs from an objective reality is beyond me. Your philosophy above is very sophisticated. Someone could counter your argument by saying that Subjectivity is All There Is and that is the unchangeable fact of Reality. You can have every wish except an Objective Reality.

Personally, it's all so far-fetched to me that I'd prefer to believe I can cut my own throat on Occam's razor if I'm not careful. It's fairy dust all the way down. If religion is the opium of the masses, LoA is the oxygen of the oxymoronic. Unmanifest this and a poke in the eye is insufficient remedy for some.

[Nicketas]

I'd like to reiterate that action-reaction works just as well if not better than LoA, in my experience.

Positive thoughts and emotion ARE VERY IMPORTANT, HOWEVER.

[livinlarge]

I think eyeryone is affected by the past, I have always
struggled with allow good things to happen to me because
of what others have said about me in the past. I really
just try to let all feelings go and live for the moment now
but it's still hard to love one's self

[Wax Frog]

Originally Posted by livinlarge

I think eyeryone is affected by the past, I have always
struggled with allow good things to happen to me because
of what others have said about me in the past. I really
just try to let all feelings go and live for the moment now
but it's still hard to love one's self

Noticing the Queensland location, I must note again that there is indeed such a thing as "foul dinkum" Welcome to the board from a fellow bearer of emo-baggage.