Why do people mistake their beliefs for reality?
 

I have been thinking about this question and it always struck me as odd. People mistake what beliefs they hold for reality. Such as gravity as a ghost. I mean gravity as a ghost in that it only exists in the mind just like science, religion, and many other beliefs that are held as a model of reality that is just a convenient explanation of reality but isn't necessarily a reality in itself. We use ideas or philosophies dreamt up by people who are dead as our beliefs or philosophies and these are in fact ghosts of the mind as well, so why do people mistake their own personal beliefs for reality?

If you believe it then it's real.
L

Hunh?

Beliefs change. It used to be believed that the sun rotated around the earth. We now know that it's the other way around. But the sun never actually rotated around the earth, no matter how many people believed it and no matter how fervently they believed.

Some people don't understand how much of an influence their beliefs have over their perceptions. So they don't realise that what they think they perceive is not necessarily what happened. Thus what happened often seems to match their belief, reinforcing that belief.

Others do know this in part, but go in the opposite direction, thinking that what they believe truly affects reality, rather than just their perception of it. The match between their perception of reality, heavily influenced by what they expect to perceive, also reinforces their belief.

In those cases it's incredibly easy to ignore or dismiss or miss anything which disagrees with one's beliefs. Except in extreme situations such as believing you can fly.

I'm with you! Our belief system is the frame of reference through which we create our reality.

The question is never whether a belief is right or not, or whether it matches "reality" - it always matches reality, just maybe not yours or mine. The question we can always ask ourselves is whether our belief system serves the reality that we wish to create.

Whose reality are you talking about? Because there is definitely as many realities going on as there are people on the planet. :)

Our reality is as individualized as we are. There is no ONE "reality." That's why we DO shape our own reality through our belief system.

There's reality and then there's reality.

I'm sitting in a black leather chair right now. To me, it's comfortable. To you, it may not be. Both our realities of the chair are true, but the chair itself hasn't changed.

There is such a thing as objective reality. That would be demonstrated by the existence of the chair. There's also such thing as subjective reality, which means we may perceive the reality of the chair in different ways.

So bandying about overarching statements like there are "as many realities going on as there are people on the planet" is a gross oversimplification. There may be many subjective realities - the chair is hard or soft, comfortable or not - but that doesn't change the chair itself.
Probably true. But my "reality" and your "reality" has little, if any influence, on the object we're perceiving, whether it's a chair or a situation or a person. The object is, regardless of our perceptions of it.

It's as cdn2wheeler said.

When I use the term 'reality' I mean the underlying substance which exists regardless of what I believe about it.

When you use that term I see it as 'subjective interpretation of experience' with no reference to reality at all.

In other words, our definitions of the word 'reality' are different.

Really? Perhaps we should examine this interesting question of whether your chair is really "real".

Your chair is made of molecules, which are made of atoms, which are made of subatomic particles. Do subatomic particles exist, and if so, what makes them exist? Well, according to quantum physics, your subatomic particles exist neither as wave, nor as particle, until something (let's call it X) happens. What is X?

There are several theories about this. One is the "consciousness causes collapse" theory - it is observation that causes the subatomic particle to exist. Observation implies consciousness, therefore without consciousness there is no existence of the subatomic particles, and therefore ultimately there is no atom, and no molecule, and ultimately no chair.

Therefore whatever is not perceived, simply does not exist. This extends from subatomic particles all the way to buildings, planets, moons, stars etc.

Another alternative theory is referred to as the "Many Worlds" theory, developed by quantum physicist Hugh Everitt, which you can google and read about for yourself as well. This is a phenomenological theory, which means it is developed to explain actual phenomena observed by scientists (that is, they did certain experiments, and they really observed certain results, and then a theory is developed to explain the results). In a highly simplified nutshell, Hugh postulates multiple realities (such as some realities where your chair exists in your room, and other realities where there is no such chair in your room) and these realities can keep dividing into more and more different realities. Hugh Everitt's theory is actually alarmingly close to the multidimensional realities explained by Seth (the entity supposedly channeled by one Jane Roberts in the 1970s, and in many ways, a predecessor to Hicks' Abraham).

A third theory (which comes closest to achieving the idea of an "objective reality") is the Bohm interpretation (this is by David Bohm, one of the founding fathers of the atomic bomb). Bohm's interpretation, however, is forced to introduce the principle of non-locality, which means that something happening in one place can instantly (more precisely, at the speed of light, but not greater) affect something else, regardless of distance. Eg my thoughts about XYZ, which is situated on the other side of the planet earth, can instantly affect XYZ.

Whichever way you look, Cdn2wheeler, don't be so quick to assume that objective reality exists - or even if it does exist, that it is what you think it is.

Consciousness causes collapse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Many-worlds interpretation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bohm interpretation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And yet all the theories are based on observed phenomena. In fact that's one of the requirements of a theory. It must agree with what we observe. And we observe a chair to be real.

And even more importantly, quantum theory deals with events at a quantum level. At the macroscopic level that we all exist in, quantum effects disappear.

Since this isn't a thread about quantum theory I'll leave it at this... Look up quantum teleportation to see why quantum theory does not imply that thoughts can effect matter, or be transmitted instantly (nevermind transmitted at all).

Lisa is right. when you define beliefe it means how some one can believe in somehting, when you believe somehting that means you dont question its meaning, therefore meaning it is true to you.

There are a lot of things we don't know about the atomic and the subatomic world. Just because something doesn't exist as a wave or a particle, or if it manifests itself as both (light does this in the famous double-slit experiments) only means that we haven't yet figured it out.

Not surprising, really, given the astoundingly small bits and energies in play.

I find Bohm's theories interesting because of the quantum nature of them; that is, something existing in two places at once, or one thing influencing something else instantly, faster than the speed of light, which opens up a whole realm of possibilities.

But these "things" are undoubtedly real, whether we perceive them or not. It's like that old saw; if a tree falls in the forest, etc. etc.

I find the idea somewhat arrogant - not you, ALG, but the concept - that our perceptions are the be-all and the end-all of reality.

If one truly thinks that people/objects/processes that are out of sight don't exist, try missing a couple of mortgage payments.

cdn - of course you're right - from an objective point of view a chair is a chair and a round world is a round world. But if I stand in front of a robber wielding a plastic gun, he will shoot me because he believes that it's real. Therefore in his and my reality it is, and the outcome is very real.
L

Exactly - that is what I have been saying. Observation is key to reality.

This is plainly incorrect. For instance, I know of events at the subatomic level which caused the massive breakdowns of 2 much larger, more complicated, and highly observable macro systems.

The 2 much larger, more complicated systems and highly observable systems were known as Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

If you prefer less dramatic examples of quantum events producing effects observable at the macroscopic level, you can, for example, google "Sayantani Ghosh" and "macroscopic" and see for yourself. Or click here:

The weirdest link

Well, as none other than Sir Roger Penrose has said, quantum physics will always be incomplete until it properly accommodates the role of consciousness in reality.

If however you would like to know about a peer-reviewed, double-blind experiment demonstrating thought affecting matter, I would refer you to Professor Dean Radin's successful replication of Masaru Emoto's "thoughts affect the molecular structure of water" experiments (Radin's experiment being conducted under much more tightly controlled scientific expriments.

You may also wish to consider the following:

1. Thinking generates electrical impulses in your brain

2. Electrical impulses means the movement of subatomic particles (electrons) in your brain

3. Quantum entanglement clearly indicates that the movement of each such electron in your brain will instantaneously affect every other subatomic particle which each such electron has ever collided with, since such electron came into existence (never mind that the other subatomic particle is now on the other side of planet earth or the solar system).

I think you might be misunderstanding Einstein's question. He is making the point that you REALLY cannot prove that without your observation, anything exists.

Here you have confused the "consciousness causes collapse" theory with Steve Pavlina's theory.

The CCC theory does not say that it is YOUR consciousness, or MY consciousness, that creates ALL of reality. If you follow the CCC theory to its logical conclusion, it only predicts that there is a consciousness which is constantly observes everything in existence. It does not say anything about whether the consciousness is yours or mine or anybody else's.

In other words, the suggestion is that there could be some all-encompassing, fairly universal kind of intelligence everywhere. You could call it God, if that word makes sense to you, or you could call it Whatever, and yes, it is possible that your consciousness (or mine) is a small part of it.

Another interesting view is offered by Scott Adams (who says he manifested himself into becoming an internationally syndicated cartoonist despite having very little artistic talent - notice the flat-looking, two-dimensional pictures in Dilbert).

Scott suggests that there may be such a thing as "objective reality", but that "objective reality" is far more complex than what our five senses suggest it to be. There is a very limited range in which our senses can receive input, and it is this limited input that our brain processes into what we perceive as "objective reality".

This makes sense to me. I imagine, for example, that if I could:

echolocate like a bat or dolphin;
sense the earth's magnetic patterns like a homing pigeon;
detect UV wavelengths like a bee;
detect the heat of live bodies like a snake (that is how snakes can strike mice in perfect darkness),
navigate thousands of miles like a salmon,
have a sense of smell as sharp as a dog's
perceive like a termite

then what I perceive to be "objective reality" would be much different from what you perceive to be "objective reality".

Scott's argument goes something like this. Conventionally, we believe that our thoughts alone do not directly affect objective reality. But this may simply be because our thoughts affect reality in ways that our five senses cannot typically perceive (for convenience, let's leave the psychics out of this).

For example, suppose you sit next to a woman on a bus. The woman is thinking of XYZ. With your ordinary senses, you, however, cannot perceive what the woman is thinking (or if she is thinking at all). However your failure to perceive her thoughts does not mean she is not thinking.

And since it is outside your normal range of sensory input to perceive what she is thinking, then assuming that those thoughts can have a direct effect on objective reality, it is quite probable that the process of how those thoughts affect objective reality would also fall outside your normal field of sensory perception.

The fact that you cannot, through your normal senses, perceive those processes does not mean that those processes are not happening.

(Of course the fact that you cannot, through your normal senses, perceive those processes also does not mean that those processes are happening - but here, as Scott commonsensically says, all you have to do is to experiment with LOA and you'll see the effects for yourself when they translate into effects perceptible within your normal range of sensory perception - eg the new job, the extra money, the good health or whatever else you are manifesting for).

That may be what you're saying, but it's not what the theories (except CCC) state. That's what I'm saying. Observation is the key to understanding reality, but it's not certain that observation determines reality.

Nuclear fission is not a quantum effect. It's explainable through purely classical laws. What I was referring to was quantum entanglement, etc...

...which I was wrong about. Hmm. Obviously I don't want to let go of my current understanding :p ...but I will if people continue to demonstrate how it's wrong.

Yeah I've seen that before. I still can't find any citations of that piece of research, nor do I have access to the full text (though I just emailed Dean). Considering that the controls were in California and the treated samples were in Tokyo, it's a safe bet the conditions in which they were kept were not identical. Of course they could have been identical, though at the least that would involve identical cooling systems (or sealed containers), identical temperatures (and temperature changes, if any), and identical sources of water.

Also, an easy way to determine if the differences were a result of the 2000 people "treating" the samples, would have been to do two sets of shots of the crystals. The first set without any treatment. If there was a difference between the Tokyo and California crystals then, well, obviously something else is going on.

Hopefully the paper clears up those questions.

Clearly indicates? No, that's an interpretation of quantum theory and the results of some experiments. I'm not aware of any clear indication that it actually happens.

From the article, referring to everything being entangled:

I actually used to have the full text, in PDF form. Let me see if I can still find it in my hard disk.

Also your understanding of the experiment is wrong. The control samples were not in Tokyo. The controls were also in the US, but in a different location.

What was in Tokyo was the people thinking the thoughts. Thus among other things, the experiment shows that the thoughts produced in Tokyo can affect matter located in another part of the world. This sounds weird, but of course as you know, the Bohm interpretation already tells you about the principle of non-locality.


Oh, Radin was much more ambitious than you. He was not merely content to show that the thoughts affected the shape of the crystals. His experiment showed that positive thoughts affected the shape of the crystals in an aesthetically pleasing way.

This was done by getting a group of people to judge the photos of the crystals and rank them in terms of their aesthetic quality. Of course the judges were not permitted to note whether each photo belonged to which sample group of water.

Of course you might then point out that it could be the photographer being subject to confirmation bias, and unconsciously taking more beautiful photos of the water samples that he knew had been subject to positive thoughts. However, this was also subject to a blind control. The photographer was not allowed to know which group of water samples, each sample had come from.

End result - as you might guess by now - is that water samples subjected to positive thoughts produced crystals which were much more aesthetically pleasing (according to a bunch of unbiased judges who didn't know where each photo had come from). Yes the survey results were statistically analysed and the hypothesis held true at the 99.9% confidence interval (IIRC).

For those who forgot their statistics in high school, this means that there is only a 0.01 per cent chance that the survey conclusion was a fluke.

Yup, my point is more limited than that, and is merely a response to Cdn2wheeler. My point merely is that whichever interpretation in quantum physics you subscribe to - Everitt, CCC, Bohm, quantum entanglement etc etc - objective reality turns out not to be particularly "objective" at all (at least not in the way that Cdn2wheeler thinks it is).

IF you subscribe to the quantum entanglement theory, it DOES mean that every electron moving in my brain as I think thoughts is simultaneously influencing EVERY subatomic particle which each of those electrons has EVER collided with, REGARDLESS of when this collision took place and WHERE in the universe each of those subatomic particles currently is.

I think my above statement is quite precise btw. It sounds pretty awesome, but that's quantum physics for you.

Sounds similar to what Kant said. Someone else probably said it before him too :p

While it's quite true that processes we can't observe may be occurring, it doesn't help to understand those processes to simply call it common sense that the effect is linked to the apparent cause. Though arguably that is "common" sense, in terms of being common, but not in terms of being accurate. It's the good old correlation vs. causation misunderstanding.

Also, if effects translate from something imperceptible into something we can percieve, isn't it reasonable to expect that we can observe them as they become perceptible? I.e., if something changes from immaterial to material, we should be able to observe that transition, or at least the latter half.

Ahh yes. None the less the same questions apply. Were the conditions identical?

Of course. I was only referring to part of the experimental setup which would confirm that the differences between the treated samples and the controls were in fact due to the treatment, and not to differences in the environmental conditions etc. I.e., if samples were taken from both the treatment room and the control room, and were judged (by the same process as for the treatment trial) for aesthetic appeal, and a statistically significant effect was also found, it would clearly demonstrate that the effect that was found was not due to the positive thoughts directed at the water during the treatment trial.

All of that on top of the rest of the experiment.

Even better than that. 0.001% according to Dean's blog. Interesting stuff, and I hope someone gets the funding to attempt to replicate it (and study how the effect occurs).

Right. Different interpretations of the phrase "clearly indicates." I took it to mean "has demonstrated conclusively" rather than "predicts" :p

Maybe it's just me but I think mostly everyone misunderstood what was meant by my post.:confused: What I meant was why people used their beliefs as a reality, such as a way to live an ideal life. If you viewed life as having no meaning, then why keep continuing your life. Are you continuing your life merely out of habit? Just keeping up with the daily drudgery of day to day living, and people also use their beliefs to demean others if you do not believe the same way as they do or in the same manner (and earlier in history, you could be sentenced to death, take Galileo Galilei who confirmed the Copernican theory of the solar system, although he did change his beliefs when he was almost labeled a heretic). That was what I meant by my post, although the water crystal study doesn't get my vote, his experiments are highly susceptible to selection bias and confirmation bias and he says he is not a scientist. Although, who knows if it can be reproduced because I haven't seen an actual study of anyone who has tried it.

You are referring to Masaru Emoto. Your criticisms are valid.

However the experiment has been replicated under much more tightly controlled scientific conditions, double-blind conditions with peer review by other scientists. Selection bias and confirmation bias have been ELIMINATED (the photographer is NOT allowed to know whether he is taking photos of water crystals that have been subject to thought, or water crystals that have NOT been subject to thought. The judges of the photos' aesthethic quality are also not allowed to know).

This is what I was referring to in my posts above - the replication of Masaru Emoto's experiments by DEAN RADIN, not Masaru Emoto.

If I perceive the chair as comfortable, I sit in it. If I perceive it as uncomfortable, I put it in the trash and it is destroyed at the junkyard. So how is it that my perception of the chair does not affect its reality?

Hi Mark, I found the PDF ... If you're interested, PM me your email address and I will forward it to you,