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

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by iraro

Leave it to Wolfgang take us all around the globe to bring this thread back to where it started. Many people do not believe they create their reality so they certainly don't believe in free will.

If our starving person above was raped outside a church, who would say, "admit it, you wanted it. You went to that church hoping, praying to be raped... Don't waste those tears on me honey, the reality you want is the reality you have. Otherwise, it would be different." "No, no," she would plead..."I only wanted something to eat." Liar, if you wanted something to eat you would have it.

Most people will not think she had a part in this. I think more people would be ready to believe that she is a victim then are willing to think she created her reality. Are they wrong?

Has her failure to believe in free will and believe that she creates her reality, metaphorically, turned her into a spineless, rudderless, styrofoam cup being cast about on the waves of the lake, destined to end up in the cove where all the flotsam accumulates? Is she, by default, stuck with these circumstances, and subject to the desires of others, and the prevailing winds of the time? Is her ignorance the problem? Has the law of attraction given her what she ignorantly attracted? If not, what is the explanation?

I don't know. Perhaps, how it goes with the analogy is when we take the rudder and think we know how to get away from the storms we create a storm. If however we let the boat run it's coarse, we get the best ride.

It seems to me that it will take a much more detailed, reliable road map to explain the road between what people are saying they want and the contrary events which give them the opposite before they can be persuaded that they create their reality. It is very clear to me. I do not have to be persuaded. I create my reality 100%.

Do you always get what you want in the reality that you create?

[iraro]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

Do you always get what you want in the reality that you create?

Yes, but I sometimes get what I don't want too. That's when I quote the Rolling Stones song, "You can't always get what you want..you can't always get what you want...but if you try sometimes, you get what you need."

I always get what I need.

[iraro]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

I don't know. Perhaps, how it goes with the analogy is when we take the rudder and think we know how to get away from the storms we create a storm. If however we let the boat run it's coarse, we get the best ride.

Here are some suggestions from Seth on the proper state of mind before you take over that rudder.

p.188-189:

"The most rejuvenating idea of all, and the greatest step to any true illumination, is the realization that your exterior life springs from the invisible world of your reality through your conscious thoughts and beliefs, for then you realize the power of your individuality and identity. You are immediately presented with choices. You can no longer see yourself as a victim of circumstances. Yet the conscious mind arose precisely to open up choices, to free you from a one-road experience, to let you use your creativity to form diversified, varied comprehensions.

Let us make a clear distinction here: Your conscious beliefs direct the flow of unconscious processes which bring your ideas into physical reality, so while your thoughts cause your experience, you are not consciously aware of how this takes place.

You cannot, as an instance, tell yourself vehemently, ‘I want to receive illumination,’ And expect it to happen if all of your beliefs actually go in the other direction.

You may feel unworthy or believe such a state impossible for you to achieve, in which case you are sending contradictory messages. Nor can you be concerned with the ways in which your conscious purposes will be unconsciously produced, for the inner workings are not aware phenomena.”

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by iraro

Yes, but I sometimes get what I don't want too. That's when I quote the Rolling Stones song, "You can't always get what you want..you can't always get what you want...but if you try sometimes, you get what you need."

I always get what I need.

yah mon - the Stones

she was practiced in the art of deception

in her glass was a bleeding man

wonder what they really are on about... she is death?

[momo313]

The fastest way for anyone to begin believing in the LoA is to delve into Science (particularly, Physics) - the further you go, the closer you'll get to the LoA.

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by SkylightMT

This is the position I agree with the most. I have been trying, unsuccessfully, to discuss with Iraro that some people have more free will than others, and that our environment strongly affects our ability to make decisions.

Maybe "enlightment" means increasing the degree to which you "have" free will, and increasing free will is a goal we strive for, not an inherent ability we are born with. Maybe its part and parcel of going from unconscious living to conscious living, going from blindly accepting what is to becoming a deliberate creator of your own reality.

I think there's some truth to that. But I do wonder if this increased free will is also part of the illusion. Maybe the fact that some people become aware of the effects of others and the environment on their personal decision-making processes and diminish that impact was already pre-programmed. Maybe even though we're going through "spiritual enlightenment" and "freeing ourselves from the chains of determinism" all of this process was also planned in advance.

But there's that nagging word that props up time and again: Maybe. I suppose what it boils down to is that the question remains unanswered. Is it unanswerable however? I don't know, I'm not so sure.

Originally Posted by momo313

The fastest way for anyone to begin believing in the LoA is to delve into Science (particularly, Physics) - the further you go, the closer you'll get to the LoA.

Love science! Have read many articles linking the LOA and quantum physics and whatnot. Any online or offline reading you would recommend? Anything related directly to the question of free will?

Originally Posted by iraro

You were wrong? You had one belief about reality, and now you changed it for different belief about reality. So what. You can change beliefs the way you change a suit of clothes. The clothes, like the beliefs, belong to you but they are not you. You have free will, so you are free to do so.

I have no problem being wrong. It's a part of life. I don't honestly know where I stand on the question right this moment. But I thought I should mention that I can't just personally switch my beliefs on a whim. You can't do that if you're committed to finding truth.

Originally Posted by iraro

Personal beliefs are not written in “cosmic stone.” However, they have effects on your reality. If you “believe” you have no free will you will certainly create events which prove it to yourself and find ample evidence in your reality which confirms this belief. If you believe in free will you find evidence for this as well.

Thank you. This is certainly helpful. I suppose I have to come to terms with the uncertainty regarding the question.

Originally Posted by iraro

As evidence mounts in your mind you will come to think “free willers” are deluded and they will feel same way about you as the contrary evidence in their mind mounts. That is the way the system works. When people understand this, they understand the futility of arguing over beliefs—of course, the other guy has evidence to support his belief.

I love the way you put this! I know what you're talking about. It's why I try to keep an open mind. The other side of the coin is that too much of an open mind can lead to inaction. Maybe that's just my perception?

Originally Posted by iraro

As “SkylightMT” implies, whether or not you actually have free will or do not, or whether it exists, is less important than whether you believe you have one or the other, because it is the “belief” and not some “cosmic truth” which creates your reality. If Seth agreed with her, I would agree, but Seth says we have free will. Your dilemma is not over finding the error of your ways, but, it seems to me, over your doubts about the new reality your new belief is showing you and seeming impossibility of going back to a belief in free will.

This is a textbook example of “creating you own reality thru your beliefs.” So, the heart of the matter remains; what kind of reality do you want, and which belief more results in the life you what?

"I don't know if free will exists but it is an empowering thought so I shall go with it regardless."

Maybe I could operate with this thought. Certainly, if I observe how each belief system influences my life, it's better than fatalism. I wish I could operate with "free will exists" or something but my commitment to truth coupled with my relative ignorance stops me from doing that. I thought I should mention that I don't know this Seth person. I don't think it's a good idea to believe something because someone else said so however. I'd have to hear the validity of the argument first.

[SkylightMT]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

But I do wonder if this increased free will is also part of the illusion. Maybe the fact that some people become aware of the effects of others and the environment on their personal decision-making processes and diminish that impact was already pre-programmed. Maybe even though we're going through "spiritual enlightenment" and "freeing ourselves from the chains of determinism" all of this process was also planned in advance.

I don't necessarily think that not having free will automatically means determinism.

Anyway, when I think of arguments for or against determinism, the biggest barrier to believing in determinism for me is simply, "WHY?" What could possibly be the purpose in having a determined universe?

On the other hand, I can think of a good reason (to me, anyway) to believe in non-determinism (which isn't the same thing as free will). Non-determinism is the basis of the universe in order to open a closed system and allow something new to develop. Growth, in other words. Expansion. The universe becomes more than it is.

So, for the same reason as you, I choose my beliefs for little other reason (or my beliefs chose me, whichever) than it makes me feel better.

[momo313]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

Love science! Have read many articles linking the LOA and quantum physics and whatnot. Any online or offline reading you would recommend? Anything related directly to the question of free will?

Have a look through Acting Like Godot's post history. He has, on many occasions, discussed and linked to Science papers about, in one way or another, the nature of reality.

[iraro]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

Love science! Have read many articles linking the LOA and quantum physics and whatnot. Any online or offline reading you would recommend? Anything related directly to the question of free will?

Certainly, I think Seth's "The Nature of Personal Reality" is quite thorough and specific about how you create you reality; The title tends to give it away. Seth has a persistent theme, that has become popular--"you create your own reality." And, yes, he believes in "free will." I do not know how Seth, myself or anyone could believe that one "creates his own reality," but does not have free will.

You can find the book, "The Nature of Personal Reality" at Amazon.com if you care to read the reviews.

There is a scanned pdf copy of "The Nature of Personal Reality" available at scribd.com. You can read it there. I guess if you join you can download a copy. In general, there are not many Seth books in electronic format.

[iraro]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

I have no problem being wrong. It's a part of life. I don't honestly know where I stand on the question right this moment. But I thought I should mention that I can't just personally switch my beliefs on a whim. You can't do that if you're committed to finding truth.

My experience is that I can change a belief in about 6-seconds after I find a fact which renders a belief void. If new fact merely cast doubt on a belief or makes it ambiguous, then I would likely "quarantine it," for lack of a better term, until I got more information.

I was not questioning your "right" to be "wrong" or whether you would have guilt over it. I was questioning your conclusion of being "wrong" since it was based upon what I thought was scant evidence; I don't think you were wrong. I would advise one "quarantine" the belief--if one has doubts, until such time as they get conclusive information.

[hamix]

LOA works.

I really wanted to get Superman I and II on DVD, but I found and saw both online lately. IMO, doubting LOA is like doubting the existence of rain.

[Reefs]

Originally Posted by hamix

LOA works.

I really wanted to get Superman I and II on DVD, but I found and saw both online lately. IMO, doubting LOA is like doubting the existence of rain.

It's not doubting its existence but its relevance. From the personal point of view it exists and is relevant, because you see yourself as the captain of your ship on your journey through life. From the impersonal point of view it exists as an appearance, as a concept, but it's irrelevant because there is no captain and no journey, there is only life in the now.

[joelr]

Originally Posted by SkylightMT

On the other hand, I can think of a good reason (to me, anyway) to believe in non-determinism (which isn't the same thing as free will). Non-determinism is the basis of the universe in order to open a closed system and allow something new to develop. Growth, in other words. Expansion. The universe becomes more than it is.

I don't know if you consider it a good reason or not but coming from a modern scientific view, the universe at it's smallest level is known to be completely non-deterministic since the discovery of quantum mechanics in the 1920's.

All particles and energy has probabilities attached to it that it will be here or there, decay now or later etc.. , but you can never say for sure what it will exactly do. The Heizenburg uncertainty principle shows you can never be exact with predictions at this scale. So ultimately there is only probabilities, nothing can be determined.
Indeterminism came into popularity after the deterministic era of Newton. At that time it was the height of the mechanistic era and the whole universe was compared to a giant machine. It was said if you had all the right calculations you could input it into a machine and accurately predict the future.

But now we know that there are random variables that cannot be predicted at the subatomic scale which can end up effecting the macroscopic scale. So in that sense the future cannot be determined with 100% accuracy.
There is randomness ingrained into matter/energy.

Except for Bells inequality where subatomic things don't appear random OR logical, both are thrown out the window.

[iraro]

This month’s Free Will Club Special.

Join the Free Will Club and by the end of the month you’ll be using Free Will to reach into the Past and change Past Events and Present Events.

Don’t put off joining the Free Will Club any longer! Join today and start changing reality!


Seth, NPR, p.280-282

“A sudden or intense belief in health can indeed ‘reverse’ a disease, but in a very practical way it is a reversal in terms of time. New memories are inserted in place of the old ones, as far as cells are concerned under such conditions. This kind of therapy happens quite frequently on a spontaneous basis when people rid themselves of diseases they do not even know they possess…

The biological structure as it existed in the past is therefore affected. Experience is built into the organism that it did not have before, in your terms. It is a sort of reprogramming. It is impossible, of course, for you to examine cellular structure now as it exists in the present and simultaneously as it existed in the past. Scientifically, you can only probe those effects that appear within your present. When you alter your beliefs today you also reprogram your past. As far as you are concerned the present is your point of action, focus, and power, and from that point of volition you form both your future and past. Realizing this, you will understand that you are not at the mercy of a past over which you have no control.

…In daily practical experience, try to concentrate for a while upon seeming subordinate abilities, ones that you think of as latent. If you do so consistently, using your imagination and will, then those abilities will become prominent in your present. The current beliefs will reprogram and alter past experience. It is not simply that past, forgotten, unconsciously perceived events will be put together in a new way and organized under a new heading, but that in the past (now not perceivable), the entire bodily response to seemingly past events will change.

Your desire or belief will literally be reaching back into time, teaching the nerves new tricks. Definite reorganizations in that past will occur in your present, allowing you to behave in entirely new fashions.”

[SkylightMT]

Originally Posted by joelr

I don't know if you consider it a good reason or not but coming from a modern scientific view, the universe at it's smallest level is known to be completely non-deterministic since the discovery of quantum mechanics in the 1920's.

All particles and energy has probabilities attached to it that it will be here or there, decay now or later etc.. , but you can never say for sure what it will exactly do. The Heizenburg uncertainty principle shows you can never be exact with predictions at this scale. So ultimately there is only probabilities, nothing can be determined.
Indeterminism came into popularity after the deterministic era of Newton. At that time it was the height of the mechanistic era and the whole universe was compared to a giant machine. It was said if you had all the right calculations you could input it into a machine and accurately predict the future.

But now we know that there are random variables that cannot be predicted at the subatomic scale which can end up effecting the macroscopic scale. So in that sense the future cannot be determined with 100% accuracy.
There is randomness ingrained into matter/energy.

Except for Bells inequality where subatomic things don't appear random OR logical, both are thrown out the window.

I'm pretty sure I'm in love.

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by momo313

Have a look through Acting Like Godot's post history. He has, on many occasions, discussed and linked to Science papers about, in one way or another, the nature of reality.

I know. I'm a fan! Good idea, thank you!

Originally Posted by SkylightMT

I don't necessarily think that not having free will automatically means determinism.

Would you mind elaborating? I've traditionally viewed the question as binary, but maybe I've missed other options?

Originally Posted by SkylightMT

Anyway, when I think of arguments for or against determinism, the biggest barrier to believing in determinism for me is simply, "WHY?" What could possibly be the purpose in having a determined universe?

Have you considered that maybe there isn't one? Other than simply being, that is.

Originally Posted by SkylightMT

On the other hand, I can think of a good reason (to me, anyway) to believe in non-determinism (which isn't the same thing as free will). Non-determinism is the basis of the universe in order to open a closed system and allow something new to develop. Growth, in other words. Expansion. The universe becomes more than it is.

This seems to contradict one of the basic rules of science which is that "nothing is gained nothing is lost. Energy and matter simply change forms". What's your view on that?

Originally Posted by SkylightMT

So, for the same reason as you, I choose my beliefs for little other reason (or my beliefs chose me, whichever) than it makes me feel better.

It has to have a chance of being true however. Otherwise I won't feel any better

I watched The Matrix recently with a friend. I noticed this one character expressed an inner conflict I've been struggling with. The guy who betrays Neo, forgetting his name right now. Anyway...The question is...How dedicated are you to the truth? If it was horrible and depressing would you accept it anyway? I think the goal is to see reality for what it is and use a positive, compassionate perspective within that framework..

Originally Posted by iraro

My experience is that I can change a belief in about 6-seconds after I find a fact which renders a belief void. If new fact merely cast doubt on a belief or makes it ambiguous, then I would likely "quarantine it," for lack of a better term, until I got more information.

I was not questioning your "right" to be "wrong" or whether you would have guilt over it. I was questioning your conclusion of being "wrong" since it was based upon what I thought was scant evidence; I don't think you were wrong. I would advise one "quarantine" the belief--if one has doubts, until such time as they get conclusive information.

Thank you for the advice.

In hindsight...you're right. It is scant evidence! That was my first reaction as well to be honest. Poorly filmed. But then I delved deeper and looked at the argument itself. I suppose my shock came from understanding that the conscious brain isn't the part that's making decisions, only a part of the mechanism...Most likely the last part at the neural level. But then I realized that it came from me anyway. And now I understand that our conscious processes do have an effect on our subconscious and on our environment. So whatever the percentage our conscious thoughts affect the universe may be, it's still a good idea to train the mind!

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by joelr

I don't know if you consider it a good reason or not but coming from a modern scientific view, the universe at it's smallest level is known to be completely non-deterministic since the discovery of quantum mechanics in the 1920's.

All particles and energy has probabilities attached to it that it will be here or there, decay now or later etc.. , but you can never say for sure what it will exactly do. The Heizenburg uncertainty principle shows you can never be exact with predictions at this scale. So ultimately there is only probabilities, nothing can be determined.
Indeterminism came into popularity after the deterministic era of Newton. At that time it was the height of the mechanistic era and the whole universe was compared to a giant machine. It was said if you had all the right calculations you could input it into a machine and accurately predict the future.

But now we know that there are random variables that cannot be predicted at the subatomic scale which can end up effecting the macroscopic scale. So in that sense the future cannot be determined with 100% accuracy.
There is randomness ingrained into matter/energy.

Except for Bells inequality where subatomic things don't appear random OR logical, both are thrown out the window.

Great stuff. Good reminder of a powerful catalyst in believing in free will for me...This video.

It's over an hour long but I highly recommend it!

Skylight...Your posts have helped me in times of need. Can't quite put my finger on it, but something you said made me consider the question "Where can I find the answer to this particular question? Science or philosophy?"

I think with science there will always be doubt. There's always new findings and what's accurate today may not be tomorrow. This is ingrained within the scientific method and it honors it. But it means it has its own limits as well. I think it can inform our philosophy but ultimately, our conclusions are made through philosophical musings. Accepting the mystery...Just the thought of it feels like a release!

[iraro]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

Great stuff. Good reminder of a powerful catalyst in believing in free will for me...This video.

It's over an hour long but I highly recommend it!I watched your video!

.

I watched your video. Hawking is always stimulating. Larry Krauss, is an astro- physicist. Larry is exceptionally intelligence and articulate. He mentions, I think in another interview, how he has been chided for not doing something practical. He draws a parallel between what he does and “art,” i.e., it serves a purpose albeit not a practical one.

I enjoy art. I remember the profound effect upon me as I viewed the original oil paintings of the old masters. The skills required to produce their masterpieces with a brush and pigment instead of a digital camera seemed unfathomable to me.

"Physics” and “Metaphysics” are moving closer together. I want them to continue their efforts and let know me when they come up with something practical, say free energy. Although some would say, free energy is mere physics and it has already been done—just withheld.

There is a place for art and there is a place for astro-physical questions. Such questions are fascinating to contemplate, just like whether or not aliens introduced DNA changes to create human beings; whether they “did” or “did not” will not change what I do tomorrow.

So, what I am working on is a “12-step guide to creating reality (working title).” There are six original works which come to mind which I think can be simplified, and summarized (and reconciled where appearing to conflict) in to a practical 12-step action guide. Such a guide could, perhaps, change what somebody does tomorrow.

[iraro]

Originally Posted by SkylightMT

I'm pretty sure I'm in love.

I knew you would "fall" for that post the minute I read it.

My latest thoughts are about about the techniques of "creating reality." Free will can be shoved into the corner for the moment.

I am working on a “12-step guide to creating reality (working title).” There are six original works (listed below) which come to my mind which I think can be simplified, and summarized (and reconciled where appearing to conflict) into a practical 12-step action guide.

One of the six books deals with “immediate manifestation,” or at least I used it that way.

But first a little background. There's a book--more like a pamphlet--called the "Name It and Claim It Game," by Helen Hadsell? I bought it at the Silva Mind Control convention in Laredo TX in 1985 or 86. Yes, I'm an alumnus.

Unlike others, Helen, and her technique could manifest reality "now." For example, she relates in her book that while being in the audience with a friend on a TV "give away" show she would apply her techniques and win whatever she chose. She would ask her friend what she wanted to win. Then she would say, "I'll show you how to win. And, since they pick randomly from the audience, act surprised when they pick you." Of course, they won.

Helen won all kinds of things, a house, and trips to Europe, vehicles, appliances of all sorts, groceries, and bicycles for her children, etc. And, her children won also.

I tried the technique and it worked for me. For one of numerous examples, I bought 4 tickets for a raffle to win $10,000. This was in 1985 or 86. When they had only 4 tickets left to call, I started concentrating on seeing them pull my ticket--using Helen's technique. I won 4th prize--$200. I won 3rd prize, another $200. I stopped because I was down to 2 tickets and perhaps because of the commotion at my table caused by winning two tickets in a row. I also had a momentary fear--$200 was one thing, $10,000 was quite another. This would mean I could create my own reality in "real time." Scary. Think of the implications! Could I handle it? I didn't have to handle it because I did not win the $10,000 and my sense of powerlessness in such circumstances remained intact.

I won a bunch of "stuff" at various times so I came to believe, before quantum physics said so, that my brain could affect things outside myself.

For those who care to know which six original works I’m trying to reconcile, streamline and summarize into a practical 12-step action plan, here they are (suggestions are welcomed): “The Name it and Claim it Game,” Rosicrucian studies, Seth material, Abraham material, “Think and Grow Rich,” and “The Lost Mode of Prayer.”

[SkylightMT]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

Would you mind elaborating? I've traditionally viewed the question as binary, but maybe I've missed other options?

Well, there is randomness/chaos.

But I've become intrigued by something JoelR said about Bell's Inequality which would suggest maybe there is another option between, or aside from, determinism vs. randomness. I'm trying to read about it but its too complex for me and I need a simpler version than Wiki, I think.

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

Have you considered that maybe there isn't one? Other than simply being, that is.

Yeah, but there's something in me that demands purpose. Of course, that need for purpose could simply be an evolutionary outcome designed to increase the survival of the genes - maybe people who believe there is meaning and purpose produce more offspring. Or healthier offspring. Or live longer. Or something.

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

This seems to contradict one of the basic rules of science which is that "nothing is gained nothing is lost. Energy and matter simply change forms". What's your view on that?

I think my view right now is that there is another plane, or form, of reality in addition to the physical one. In the physical universe, the law of conservation of energy applies. But that other reality is not subject to the laws of the physical universe, and that other reality can add unlimited energy to the physical universe. Possibly.

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

It has to have a chance of being true however. Otherwise I won't feel any better

Yes, just like having a sexual fantasy

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

I watched The Matrix recently with a friend. I noticed this one character expressed an inner conflict I've been struggling with. The guy who betrays Neo, forgetting his name right now. Anyway...The question is...How dedicated are you to the truth? If it was horrible and depressing would you accept it anyway? I think the goal is to see reality for what it is and use a positive, compassionate perspective within that framework..Thank you for the advice.

I used to say that I am committed to the truth, no matter how painful or joyful. My feelings on the matter should be irrelevant. But I think I was deluding myself. I definitely gravitate towards that which makes me feel better. I don't think I am capable of taking my emotional response out of my evaluation of an idea.

Originally Posted by iraro

I knew you would "fall" for that post the minute I read it.

haha!

[joelr]

Originally Posted by skylightmt

i'm pretty sure i'm in love.

lol

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by SkylightMT

Yes, just like having a sexual fantasy