Admit it, you really don't believe that you create your own reality...

[Strem2]

Originally Posted by loapatti

1 What about being a victim in someones else's reality they created? If someone sets out to rob someone at an atm machine and I happen to be there at the wrong time and place and get robbed, then did I help create it by being a supporting player or was it just coincidence??.

According to many, there is no "other"..... We are one. Take responsibility for all that happens in your emotional realm.....

[Strem2]

Originally Posted by Irisha

How can we create our own reality?We were created because there is God, Creator. We did not create ourselves. And then we suddenly started creating our reality, because we can have these or those vibes, etc. It is God who makes you have those vibes, who makes you think that it's you who is creating... The Universe is so enormously complicated, an elementary particle is so enormously complicated as well, and we are so powerful that we are able to change them, not to be connected with them on all levels, and create our own reality! Even God is less powerful and not taken into account! Interesting...

You think you are separate from God?

[Strem2]

Originally Posted by SkylightMT

If you create your own reality, can you create a reality in which you don't create your own reality?

You have the answer. You create a reality in which you disown responsibility for creating your own reality. It's then like a machine set up to create seemingly random numbers, but the numbers aren't really random are they? They can't be if a program produced them.

Isn't this the way most people go through their lives? I like A Course in Miracles for explaining how the Ego fools us into believing that we are separate from God/Creator/Source. In fact, the belief in separation is the first lie. Time and location are the second and third lies.

[Strem2]

Originally Posted by SkylightMT

Seth also says that randomness is the basis on which all things exist (as opposed to determinism). I wish I could remember in which book he talked about this.

To me, this makes sense. If the purpose of being is to expand (i.e. closed systems are inherently pathological; pathology cannot be tolerated for any duration; stagnant systems are closed systems; therefore expansion is law) then the only way to expand into something new is to have random things happen. ...

I don't see any way around it. Even Abraham hints that "contrast happens." Its supposed to.

Are you considering Fractals? They continually expand, and appear different, but aren't.

Shakespeare said, "there is nothing new under the sun."

[Strem2]

Originally Posted by lilarose

I create all of my reality. ...If I'm focusing on attracting wealth, on being a millionarie, and that feels good, but then I start worrying about something I see on the news, then I believe I am powerless, and that others are too. Powerlessness is my vibe. I don't believe in good. That will affect my ability to attract wealth. ....

The minute you focus on "attracting" wealth, or anything else, you have lost the game. In a perverse way, we could probably learn to fly if you focused on creating gravity.... The LOA works automatically. Once you "work" at it, you are voicing your disbelief in the automaticness of it aren't you?

Focus on the feeling of wealth if that's what you want. Focus on feeling happy and content and pampered and believe in your feeling.

[Strem2]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

According to the best available science, free will probably doesn't exist. Check out the seminal research by Benjamin Libet, now backed up by modern technology which allows us to examine human beings' brains under experimental conditions, as they make decisions.

However, the illusion of free will is very strong. So effectively there is no difference. You'll still have to make decisions, even though they are already made.

Of course. If time and space are an illusion, and all reality exists right now in this moment, nothing can be changed.

[Manipulator]

You can change your perspective and by doing that, you shape it through the gradual tweaking of patterns that ripple subatomically.

[xtremelady]

Reality is a perception therefore I would say we all create our own realities based on our perceptions. So if someone states they create their own reality they do and if another says they do not - then they don't. Reality is as subjective as individual thoughts and thus a personal individual thing. does not have to be all or nothing either - 50% split etc would be acceptable.

I do question one thing - why would individual perceptions of reality be joined to physical circumstances? the two can exist in different ways entirely and we make hard work of it trying to understand why one who says I control my reality got mugged. one can influence the other but to my mind these are separate things entirely.

Example;

I can believe I am an alien from another planet, this is my reality based on my perceptions.

I can believe I am the son of god

I can believe I am just a bunch of particles

As an individual I can create any reality I like and to me this will be real, this can happen when realities are based on perceptions, because like a kaleidoscope no two people will view reality in the same way.

If my child develops cancer and dies, dependent on my reality I can believe its because of alien forces, the will of god or genetics. either way I am still creating my own reality - just not the physical factors involved.

[Strem2]

Manipulator,

I went to your website and it's quite beautiful. I was prepared to click on Google ads, but you don't have any....

[Manipulator]

Originally Posted by Strem2

Manipulator,

I went to your website and it's quite beautiful. I was prepared to click on Google ads, but you don't have any....

Heh, appreciate the kind gesture.

[iraro]

Originally Posted by Irisha

Oh, here it is, the name Benjamin Libet!! This is what I couldn't recollect when I needed it in the discussion about free will!
Thank you, Acting Like Godot, sssooo much!

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

According to the best available science, free will probably doesn't exist. Check out the seminal research by Benjamin Libet, now backed up by modern technology which allows us to examine human beings' brains under experimental conditions, as they make decisions.

However, the illusion of free will is very strong. So effectively there is no difference. You'll still have to make decisions, even though they are already made.

I believe that Seth says that the kind of things Libet measured (brain waves) are on the "tail-end" of the body's communication system and that the body's physical response, as in the case of stepping off a curb and being surprised by oncoming traffic, for example, is preceded by an immediate message throughout the body using "inner sound, light and electromagnetic vibrations" and, this, triggers the physical response. Libet does not consider that there is this initial response. Thus the error in his conclusion,

[SkylightMT]

Originally Posted by iraro

However, we have a conscious mind with which to examine any belief, message or idea thrown at us. Then we may accept, reject or modify same. If we fail to use our conscious mind, then we truly risk being used as somebody elses' "tool" and forfeit our free will and power to chose.

So free will is based on the ability to examine any belief, message, or idea? Then free will is dependent on two things: Being conscious, and having an intellect.

Since among us there are varying degrees of consciousness and (hugely) varying degrees of intellect, then there are varying degrees of free will. Some have more free will than others. When you are drunk, for example, you have much less free will.

[SkylightMT]

Originally Posted by Strem2

Are you considering Fractals? They continually expand, and appear different, but aren't.

Shakespeare said, "there is nothing new under the sun."

So are you thinking everything is determined?

Because I can't think of any way of things being that is not either random, or determined. Those are the only two choices (or some combination of those choices). If you do believe there is no such thing as randomness, then you have Einstein on your side, incidentally.

Between randomness and determinism, though, I prefer randomness. Determinism is just too restrictive. And pointless. Although I don't really like randomness either, to me it feels a lot better than following some script something else has laid out for me even if I don't know I'm following a script.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by iraro

I believe that Seth says that the kind of things Libet measured (brain waves) are on the "tail-end" of the body's communication system and that the body's physical response, as in the case of stepping off a curb and being surprised by oncoming traffic, for example, is preceded by an immediate message throughout the body using "inner sound, light and electromagnetic vibrations" and, this, triggers the physical response. Libet does not consider that there is this initial response. Thus the error in his conclusion,

This preceding message system you are speculating about is not in conscious awareness. That is the point or conclusion that some make reading the Libet study.

The study showed what the timming is of nerons building up charge and the subjects awareness of the movement. The charge build up happened first w/out awareness, then the awareness of the choise to move and the then physical movment.

[Strem2]

I believe in parallel dimensions, and that, as quantum physics tells us, there are infinite variations. Having said that, which might lead you to believe that I believe in free will, I am going to add that I don't believe in time or space.

I believe that the universe is a hologram. We exist as spiritual beings, eternally present as connected to the One, and have only entered into time-space as physical beings for an experience. This is only an illusion.

Since there is no time, and all existence is now, there can't be free will as this implies that we each move through time from one decision to another.

Whew. That's a big thought, and I don't usually go there, but since you asked....

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Strem2

I believe in parallel dimensions, and that, as quantum physics tells us, there are infinite variations. Having said that, which might lead you to believe that I believe in free will, I am going to add that I don't believe in time or space.

I believe that the universe is a hologram. We exist as spiritual beings, eternally present as connected to the One, and have only entered into time-space as physical beings for an experience. This is only an illusion.

Since there is no time, and all existence is now, there can't be free will as this implies that we each move through time from one decision to another.

Whew. That's a big thought, and I don't usually go there, but since you asked....

I like that big thought!

Parallel dimensions is a far out concept. Like every thing you ever decided to do also has the other decision made that branched off into another parallel universe.

At some level it seems like it's not about free will or determinism. Somehow the question of "do we have free will" is just one of those questions that is based on assumptions that may not be true or something like this.

The Buddha never gave an answer to this question, btw. He knew to leave it unanswered because answering it would lead to less clarity.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by iraro

I believe that Seth says that the kind of things Libet measured (brain waves) are on the "tail-end" of the body's communication system and that the body's physical response, as in the case of stepping off a curb and being surprised by oncoming traffic, for example, is preceded by an immediate message throughout the body using "inner sound, light and electromagnetic vibrations" and, this, triggers the physical response. Libet does not consider that there is this initial response. Thus the error in his conclusion,

If you regard free will as inner sound, light etc, then Libet's experiment is not relevant.

If you regard free will as conscious decision-making using logic and reasoning, then Libet's experiment is very relevant.

[SethWilliams]

Yes i do beleive we create our own reality

I feel like i should this nature of personal reality book.

Ive never read any seth material before.

[DANDUNGAN]

Originally Posted by SethWilliams

>. . .

I feel like i should this nature of personal reality book.

. . .

I don't understand this sentence. "Should" what? According to whom? Is there a personal reality book?

[SkylightMT]

Originally Posted by SethWilliams

Yes i do beleive we create our own reality

I feel like i should this nature of personal reality book.

Ive never read any seth material before.

I love it. Both Seth Speaks and The Nature of Personal Reality by Jane Roberts are among my favorites.

Seth should read Seth...

[SkylightMT]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

At some level it seems like it's not about free will or determinism. Somehow the question of "do we have free will" is just one of those questions that is based on assumptions that may not be true or something like this.

I think you are really onto something here.

[SkylightMT]

Originally Posted by Strem2

I believe in parallel dimensions, and that, as quantum physics tells us, there are infinite variations. Having said that, which might lead you to believe that I believe in free will, I am going to add that I don't believe in time or space.

I believe that the universe is a hologram. We exist as spiritual beings, eternally present as connected to the One, and have only entered into time-space as physical beings for an experience. This is only an illusion.

Since there is no time, and all existence is now, there can't be free will as this implies that we each move through time from one decision to another.

Whew. That's a big thought, and I don't usually go there, but since you asked....

I think both you and Wolfgang are onto something here. "Is there free will?" isn't a meaningful question.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by SethWilliams

Yes i do beleive we create our own reality

I feel like i should this nature of personal reality book.

Ive never read any seth material before.

Oh my Gawd! Seth has not read Seth!!

You must read .....

Recommended:

"The Seth Material"
"The Nature of Personal Reality"
"Seth Says"

[Reefs]

Originally Posted by Strem2

Of course. If time and space are an illusion, and all reality exists right now in this moment, nothing can be changed.

Not really. If you are conceptualizing, you are living in the past. If you are not, you are living real-time. And when living real-time the question of free will will never come up! There won''t be even room for the idea of 'here and now' or 'this moment'.

[Reefs]

Originally Posted by SkylightMT

I think both you and Wolfgang are onto something here. "Is there free will?" isn't a meaningful question.

Then your existence is meaningless?

[iraro]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

If you regard free will as inner sound, light etc, then Libet's experiment is not relevant.

If you regard free will as conscious decision-making using logic and reasoning, then Libet's experiment is very relevant.

I'll take a closer look at Libet and see if I can clarify my thinking. Whatever the explanation, I am not optimistic that I will agree free will does not exist. I feel absolutely certain I have free will. I know many people who feel the same way, that is, that people have free will. In fact, years ago, when I worked in advertising these people were spending hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising to affect the will of the consumer. Very few people in the U.S. over the age of 12-years have not drunk a Coke or a Pepsi, or do not know what a cola soda is. Yet, the advertising continues--not to inform people but to persuade them and gain "market share." There are numerous "special interests" from churches to governments to whatever, who see people as little more than sheep to be fleeced. They devise every trick they can to subvert the will of the people. They love to use fear. If people did not have free will or choice, this would not be necessary and would serve no purpose.

For me, "free will" is the ability to do whatever I "feel" like doing--as long as it is legal and meets with my moral code. It is substantially emotional. I don't know how "reasoning" is worked into the mix but it is easy for me to rationalize that I am making a "reasoned decision" when my emotions are engaged. As for logic, as I said before, "I have not purchased a car yet based on logic."

[SkylightMT]

I just can't resist. I just can't.

Originally Posted by iraro

I feel absolutely certain I have free will.

Me, too!!!

I feel like having sex, too. I'm pretty sure that's the result of evolution, since people who do not have sex tend to not reproduce.

I'm guessing the need to feel like we have free will could possibly have some benefit to the continuation of that "selfish gene"...

Originally Posted by iraro

If people did not have free will or choice, this would not be necessary and would serve no purpose.

If people DID have free will or choice, it would not be necessary or even possible for soda pop companies to compete with advertising for a person's money.

People would trust their inviolate feelings.

Wait, feelings are not inviolate??? Oh dear. That kind of blows a giant hole in the free will theory, then.

Originally Posted by iraro

For me, "free will" is the ability to do whatever I "feel" like doing--as long as it is legal and meets with my moral code.

I won't even talk about bad guys and their feelings and their own moral codes.

Nor will I talk about the many, many people who on a daily basis absolutely cannot do what they feel like, due to poverty, or being children, or being aged, or being physically or intellectually handicapped.

However, if you define "free will" in this manner, then I agree, free will exists for many of us (the top experiencers of free will by your definition would have to be educated, Christian, white males). I don't think this is a standard definition of free will, though. (The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will - your feelings are not unconstrained; there are many many contributing factors that result in what each of us calls a particular feeling).

I hope I don't come across as too snarky. I don't feel snarky. I'm enjoying the way your mind thinks, and hope you will keep sharing your thoughts.

[James81]

Originally Posted by SkylightMT

I just can't resist. I just can't.



Me, too!!!

I feel like having sex, too. I'm pretty sure that's the result of evolution, since people who do not have sex tend to not reproduce.

I'm guessing the need to feel like we have free will could possibly have some benefit to the continuation of that "selfish gene"...



If people DID have free will or choice, it would not be necessary or even possible for soda pop companies to compete with advertising for a person's money.

People would trust their inviolate feelings.

Wait, feelings are not inviolate??? Oh dear. That kind of blows a giant hole in the free will theory, then.




I won't even talk about bad guys and their feelings and their own moral codes.

Nor will I talk about the many, many people who on a daily basis absolutely cannot do what they feel like, due to poverty, or being children, or being aged, or being physically or intellectually handicapped.

However, if you define "free will" in this manner, then I agree, free will exists for many of us (the top experiencers of free will by your definition would have to be educated, Christian, white males). I don't think this is a standard definition of free will, though. (The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will - your feelings are not unconstrained; there are many many contributing factors that result in what each of us calls a particular feeling).

I hope I don't come across as too snarky. I don't feel snarky. I'm enjoying the way your mind thinks, and hope you will keep sharing your thoughts.

Free will is about perception, not circumstance.

[SkylightMT]

Originally Posted by James81

Free will is about perception, not circumstance.

Right.

Acting Like Godot said it first: "However, the illusion of free will is very strong. So effectively there is no difference."

Doesn't matter whether there is free will or not. As long you perceive there is.

[James81]

Originally Posted by SkylightMT

Right.

Acting Like Godot said it first: "However, the illusion of free will is very strong. So effectively there is no difference."

Doesn't matter whether there is free will or not. As long you perceive there is.

No, I don't mean it in the way he meant it.

I mean it in the sense that you might not always get to choose your circumstances, but you can ALWAYS choose your perception/reaction to your circumstances.

I think that this is where most people get fouled up on free will. Free will was never about choosing your external reality. Free will is about how you create your internal world and respond to external reality.