Subjective Reality? And Steve bending reality to fit the LOA

[Toulon]

Originally Posted by Wax Frog

I never said it was a fact, only an understandable assumption based on the behavior of past posters taking a stance similar to your own.

I really hate that reaction, If my points were invalid, then he would have reason.

But read them yourself, I refuted his and awaited his next answer.

Thats how debates go, you cant just leave in the middle on some dogmatic "oh you just wont open yourself up to it" bull****

Yeah ofcourse I wont open myself up to it until you give me a solid answer, cause I am not a total idiot.

And Steve surely agrees with me on this, I mean he's an atheist, and Im sure some bible thumper has used the bs "your just not opened up to it" arguement on him...

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by Toulon

There are no contradicitions in objective reality.



I cannot agree more.



I accutally am still open to the theory.
I just need this plot hole fixed for me to embrace it.

What made me believe in objective reality in the first place?

You cant say parents, because I made them and all that they forced on me so that just regresses back to the question in a differant form

What made me/they believe in objective reality in the first place?

Coming from a perspective which you claim has no contradictions, why are you looking to embrace one which seems to you to be full of holes to begin with?

[Wax Frog]

Originally Posted by Toulon

This is "toying with an idea" I mean for one thing its....unfalisifiable.

I'm no scholar or scientist, rather more of the artistic 'right brained' sort. As I said, I'm not equipped to debate this matter, only throw out an idea or two.

Again, perhaps due to my 'artsy' character, I don't hold falsifiability to a holy degree of esteem; my worldview includes the possibility of things that aren't subject to such a test.

But not only that its not even compatible with subjective reality in the sense my conciousness would have to had manifested it.
And then that just means that I manifested objective reality.
And then that just goes back to me question....

What if you're part of a larger Consciousness that created all this and then deliberately fragmented itself? BTW, I admit I'm still not clear on the difference, but SR is not solipsism...

[Toulon]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

Coming from a perspective which you claim has no contradictions, why are you looking to embrace one which seems to you to be full of holes to begin with?

I am not looking to embrace one with holes.

I am looking to fill those holes, which is why I am asking (yet still have not got a solid response I haven't been able to refute in a few seconds) What made me believe in objective reality in the first place?

And THEN I can embrace it.

[Wax Frog]

Originally Posted by Toulon

Thats how debates go, you cant just leave in the middle on some dogmatic "oh you just wont open yourself up to it" bull****

In my experience, no productive debate can ever be had between two people with significantly, if not radically, different foundations for their beliefs. If you're more flexible than this, I'm very glad to hear it, because it's a far too rare quality.

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by Toulon

I am not looking to embrace one with holes.

I am looking to fill those holes, which is why I am asking (yet still have not got a solid response I haven't been able to refute in a few seconds) What made me believe in objective reality in the first place?

And THEN I can embrace it.

You have dodged my question. Why are you looking to embrace subjective reality to begin with if objective reality is completely without contradictions. In response to the bold question you keep asking over and over again I believe there is no satisfactory answer for you to receive while you are viewing life through the lens of objective reality. Your very interpretation of the answer is skewed by your current understanding of the workings of reality at the most basic levels. Also, just to be clear, I'm not actually advocating steve's model as my beliefs are quite different. I'm merely playing devils advocate with you.

[Wax Frog]

In a similar vein to Chris - I am ambivalent on the matter of SR vs. OR myself (and so would have been better served to keep my yap shut ), but I do embrace the fact that there are some weirdnesses in this existence (discovered through both personal experience and the testimony of sane, rational persons I trust COMPLETELY) that don't fit the 'scientistic' model and support at least the possibility of IM/LoA in its most literal form.

[Toulon]

Originally Posted by Wax Frog

I'm no scholar or scientist, rather more of the artistic 'right brained' sort. As I said, I'm not equipped to debate this matter, only throw out an idea or two.

Again, perhaps due to my 'artsy' character, I don't hold falsifiability to a holy degree of esteem; my worldview includes the possibility of things that aren't subject to such a test.



What if you're part of a larger Consciousness that created all this and then deliberately fragmented itself? BTW, I admit I'm still not clear on the difference, but SR is not solipsism...

No no! Thats good, its not bad to think abstractly, I am sorry if I gave you that impression. I just disagree with your points you know? I really don't mean to be rude if I came off that way.

Well falsifiablity is tricky thing, I mean theres a lot of dynamics to it. But usually any time you get a theory that is BUILT on the fact its unfalisfiable, your in the danger zone facts wise. Especially when unfalisifiability is the chief piece of evidience, as it is for S.R..

What if you're part of a larger Consciousness that created all this and then deliberately fragmented itself? BTW, I admit I'm still not clear on the difference, but SR is not solipsism...

I like that idea, larger conciousness.

Christopher Langan has some theories on that.

And I am pretty sure Steves version is some thing pretty close to solipsism

[Toulon]

Originally Posted by Wax Frog

In my experience, no productive debate can ever be had between two people with significantly, if not radically, different foundations for their beliefs. If you're more flexible than this, I'm very glad to hear it, because it's a far too rare quality.

I am living proof, I concede defeat all the times in debate. Especially in political stances.

A debate on god convinced me to become an athiest....

But following the evidence is deep in my character. I guess it is not in supertoms.

[Wax Frog]

Originally Posted by Toulon

No no! Thats good, its not bad to think abstractly, I am sorry if I gave you that impression. I just disagree with your points you know? I really don't mean to be rude if I came off that way.

For my part, I apologize for you for robbing from this discussion by making it seem I was defending a viewpoint. I'm more into thought experiments, not trying to impose some Theory of Reality on my life

As to another matter - pseudo-skeptics and 'fundamaterialists' have always rubbed me the wrong way, and they're the one "belief group" I choose to publicly oppose, so to the extent I did so, I also apologize for pegging you as possibly being one. It was a knee-jerk reaction that got me involved in this thread (though I'm actually glad I gave in to it, as it taught me yet another valuable lesson )

[Toulon]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

You have dodged my question. Why are you looking to embrace subjective reality to begin with if objective reality is completely without contradictions. In response to the bold question you keep asking over and over again I believe there is no satisfactory answer for you to receive while you are viewing life through the lens of objective reality. Your very interpretation of the answer is skewed by your current understanding of the workings of reality at the most basic levels. Also, just to be clear, I'm not actually advocating steve's model as my beliefs are quite different. I'm merely playing devils advocate with you.

No I answered part of your question, about the holes. The other part I missed and I apologize for that.

Well, mainly....lol...because if subjective reality is true, than objective reality is false!!!!

DUH! Thats why I am looking to embrace it.

The question of whether or not obejective reality has contradictions hinges on whether or not subjective reality is true. And the result is what I plan to embrace hinges on.

Make sense?

[Wax Frog]

Originally Posted by Toulon

A debate on god convinced me to become an athiest....

For the record, at present I'm not sure what you'd call me. Best I've been able to come up with is quasi-agnostic My attitude on the subject - whatever the truth is, eventually I'll be led to it, after death if need be...

[Toulon]

Originally Posted by Wax Frog

For my part, I apologize for you for robbing from this discussion by making it seem I was defending a viewpoint. I'm more into thought experiments, not trying to impose some Theory of Reality on my life

Also, pseudo-skeptics have always rubbed me the wrong way, and they're the one "belief group" I choose to publicly oppose, so to the extent I did so, I also apologize for pegging you as possibly being one.

I love love love thought experiments lol.

And I hate hate hate most skeptics....and most atheist for that matter.

I just hate dogma period, and both of those groups are pretty dogmatic.
Personally I somewhat believe in superconcious, psychics etc...not stuff the normal skeptic believes in.

But my first and formost belief is in logic, and there is big fat logic-hole in subjective reality.

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by Toulon

No I answered part of your question, about the holes. The other part I missed and I apologize for that.

Well, mainly....lol...because if subjective reality is true, than objective reality is false!!!!

DUH! Thats why I am looking to embrace it.

The question of whether or not obejective reality has contradictions hinges on whether or not subjective reality is true. And the result is what I plan to embrace hinges on.

Make sense?

And how do you know that both subjective and objective views of reality can not both be true. How do you know that there isn't a deeper level of truth that exists before you interpret any experience as a seemingly living being. How do you know that you aren't actually constantly shifting between both subjective and objective reality? As you follow the path of seeking evidence to substantiate things you will begin to see that at very deep levels evidence can point in both directions simultaneously.

[Toulon]

Originally Posted by Wax Frog

For the record, at present I'm not sure what you'd call me. Best I've been able to come up with is quasi-agnostic My attitude on the subject - whatever the truth is, eventually I'll be led to it, after death if need be...

How funny, to be specific I am an agnostic atheist! we have something in common lol

[Wax Frog]

Originally Posted by Toulon

I love love love thought experiments lol.

That's one gold star...

And I hate hate hate most skeptics....and most atheist for that matter.

Because most atheists are also fundamaterialists? Two gold stars. Not sure where he is these days, but Cylon is one of the good ones

I just hate dogma period, and both of those groups are pretty dogmatic.
Personally I somewhat believe in superconcious, psychics etc...not stuff the normal skeptic believes in.

Of late I've become more and more appreciative of what prisons belief systems can become. There's always got to be an element of self-doubt to keep the ol' egoic self from straying too far down any road. Three gold stars!

But my first and formost belief is in logic, and there is big fat logic-hole in subjective reality.

Maybe someone's found a good patch for it by now

[Wax Frog]

Originally Posted by Toulon

How funny, to be specific I am an agnostic atheist! we have something in common lol

LOL! I guess it's like saying you're sure you hate anchovies, while I'm still making my mind up about herring

[Toulon]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

And how do you know that both subjective and objective views of reality can not both be true. How do you know that there isn't a deeper level of truth that exists before you interpret any experience as a seemingly living being. How do you know that you aren't actually constantly shifting between both subjective and objective reality? As you follow the path of seeking evidence to substantiate things you will begin to see that at very deep levels evidence can point in both directions simultaneously.

My man, you tell me. Can the version of SR that Steve explains in his podcast REALLY on any level be compatible with OR?

Absolutely not, especially in the reverse, OR cannot in anyway be compatible on any fundamental level with Steve's SR.

Besides the ridiculous extremes you are going to, even if there were shifting realities, whether or not they are true and regardless of what I believe in.

Its irrelevant!

I am talking about Steve's reality in its format delivered. Not some hokus pokus abstract theory your coming up with.

Steve's theory.

Go listen to his podcast and tell me where he mentions shifting realities.


now back on topic, have you figured out....

What made me believe in objective reality in the first place?

Because I still have not gotten an answer.

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by Toulon

My man, you tell me. Can the version of SR that Steve explains in his podcast REALLY on any level be compatible with OR?

Absolutely not, especially in the reverse, OR cannot in anyway be compatible on any fundamental level with Steve's SR.

Besides the ridiculous extremes you are going to, even if there were shifting realities, whether or not they are true and regardless of what I believe in.

Its irrelevant!

I am talking about Steve's reality in its format delivered. Not some hokus pokus abstract theory your coming up with.

Steve's theory.

Go listen to his podcast and tell me where he mentions shifting realities.


now back on topic, have you figured out....

What made me believe in objective reality in the first place?

Because I still have not gotten an answer.

They are actually quite relevant. Even science is pointing in directions that we have never considered before. You are merely choosing to discount it as irrelevant because you can't wrap your logic based mind around it. Further proof that we filter what does not fit to our beliefs. The very fact that you, I or anyone else can't comprehend the entire picture leaves us with an infinite number of ways to interpret reality. Steve's being one of them. Your desperate search for full proof view of reality is in my opinion your logic run mind in its last death throws desperately searching for something to cling onto.

[Toulon]

Maybe someone's found a good patch for it by now

I doubt it, I don't think my question/thought experiment can be solved.

I think I have thoroughly debunked SR.

This will bring up the issues with LOA agian though, how they can be reconciled I am unsure. Especially the "if two people intended identically effectively the exact same job position what happens?"

Reverts to the material world and probability and the manifistation cancels out?

[Toulon]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

They are actually quite relevant. Even science is pointing in directions that we have never considered before. You are merely choosing to discount it as irrelevant because you can't wrap your logic based mind around it. Further proof that we filter what does not fit to our beliefs. The very fact that you, I or anyone else can't comprehend the entire picture leaves us with an infinite number of ways to interpret reality. Steve's being one of them. Your desperate search for full proof view of reality is in my opinion your logic run mind in its last death throws desperately searching for something to cling onto.

lol.....facepalm
I did not mean they are irrelevant period, you made some valid ponts.

I meant they are irrelelvent to this THREAD which is specifically about Steves reality, not some shifiting reality or whatever you come up with

If you want me to try and debunk your abstract thoughts make a new thread.

But this one is about something more specific
agree?

BUT

The fact your attacking me and using the same method supertom used, the good ol'christian "YOUR JUST NOT OPEN TO IT" bs

is telling me somything

Again, of course until you refute the point I have brought up and you have consistantly ignored, I will not be open to it.

the burden of evidence is on you, and other SR believers.
evidence here lies in the answer to.................

What made me believe in objective reality in the first place?

[Wax Frog]

Originally Posted by Toulon

This will bring up the issues with LOA agian though, how they can be reconciled I am unsure. Especially the "if two people intended identically effectively the exact same job position what happens?"

Reverts to the material world and probability and the manifistation cancels out?

I've only been able to come up with a partial answer to satisfy my question about that - maybe LoA does only* exist in a limited form, where the stronger intention trumps the weaker one.

*Or for the most part. One of my previously-referenced experiences had to do with an object apparently reassembling itself (the only 'rational' alternative requiring an act of bizarre, weakly benevolent predawn/dawn trespassing). If I can experience a 'glitch' like this, could I not also - by means as yet mysterious to me - just as easily make a pile of gold appear in my bed?

[Toulon]

Originally Posted by Wax Frog

I've only been able to come up with a partial answer to satisfy my question about that - maybe LoA does only* exist in a limited form, where the stronger intention trumps the weaker one.

*Or for the most part. One of my previously-referenced experiences had to do with an object apparently reassembling itself (the only 'rational' alternative requiring an act of bizarre, weakly benevolent trespassing). If I can experience a 'glitch' like this, could I not also - by means as yet mysterious to me - just as easily make a pile of gold appear in my bed?

Thats what I was thinking, the stronger intention prevails, which would make sense fine and dandy.

But what if, hypothetically they both intended the exact same amount? What prevails then?

Does the universe explode? hahah

[Wax Frog]

Originally Posted by Toulon

Thats what I was thinking, the stronger intention prevails, which would make sense fine and dandy.

But what if, hypothetically they both intended the exact same amount? What prevails then?

Does the universe explode? hahah

The potential employer downsizes and closes the position! See how easy that was? Or maybe it's one of those many-universe splits, where Doofus A and Doofus B each get the job somewhere...

[Savage]

Originally Posted by Toulon

Why right now am I bound by all the laws of phyics?

Because I believe them? And if I unbelieved them they would disappear?

What made me believe them in the first place????????

Answer me that.



Have you studied our course in evolution? Evolutionary biology offers the answer to that really simply.



No sir, YOUR position is unscientific, just because something is unfalsifiable does not mean it is true. There is an invisible dragon in my garage, its name is Fred and it is fond of Led Zepplin.

Prove to me it does not exist.

You cannot directly, but there is myriad of things OUTSIDE directly disproving it that disprove it. Like how utterly unreasonable that is on many levels. You are the only person taking an unwarranted leap of faith by going to not the BEST explaination of reality, which is objective reality which is totally consistant with the laws of phsyics, but going to another, applicable explaination of reality that is not applicable to even reason. The only reason its applicable is because it is totally unfalsifiable.

I am certain you are familiar with Richard Dawkins.

I am him right now, and you are Bill O'Rielly.


You are an athiest are you not? The same premise that pushed you to athiesim should push you to objective reality...

I mean if whatever is unfalsifiable is true than certainly God and the Catholic religion is true no?



This is not sufficent, it is totally true that I cannot prove that I am not dreaming, but just like the dragon in my garage, there is a myriad of factors pointing to the fact that I am not (like the question I first asked ^). Just like their is a myriad of factors against the assumption that their are Fairies at the bottom of the ocean, though I certainly cannot prove there are no Fairies.





Why?

I would much prefer to be a god, please. If Subjective reality were true I would be giddy.

What is scary about it? I really don't see your point.

Objective reality is whats scary. Death, pain, loss.

My dreams are wonderful

And btw I'd like to thank you for your great site, the articles have been very helpful and I am a frequent visitor.

I'm neither an atheist nor a theist. I see no point in wrapping either perspective into my identity. They're simply lenses, and a lens cannot equal truth.

You are indeed bound by what you perceive to be the laws of physics in your dreamworld. You could unbelieve them, but you're unwilling to do so. You fear the consequences such as insanity and death.

Regarding the origin of your beliefs, there is no origin or "in the first place." There's only your dreamworld right now. Currently you're manifesting a reality congruent with your beliefs, including the fanciful dreamworld past you're projecting. Your notion that your beliefs must have had a beginning is merely an artifact of your objective mindset -- it has no bearing in subjective reality. When you create a dream, you create the dream's past too, but in an objective sense, it never really happened in the past. You just created all of it in the present.

You don't believe in dragons and fairies, so you don't manifest them as real. You aren't ready to create a reality in which those things are possible.

Evolutionary biology is merely another dreamworld concoction and exists only within your consciousness. You can fabricate as many dreamworld scientists and theories as you'd like, but dreamworld proof is inherently meaningless and circular.

You say you want to be a god, but the truth is that you aren't ready to experience that kind of reality. It would destroy your security and grounding. Simply put, you wouldn't be able to handle the full range of consequences of what it meant if you suddenly realized you were a god in this reality. It would destroy your sense of objectivity and your sense of self. You aren't even using your existing abilities to their fullest extent yet. Your vibe is uncongruent with that of a god, so it cannot manifest in your reality.

If you want to become a god, you'll need to shed your externalized fear first. A god has nothing to fear but him/herself.

[Wax Frog]

Steve's back!!! [gets his popcorn ready, Terrell Owens style]

[Savage]

Originally Posted by Wax Frog

Steve's back!!! [gets his popcorn ready, Terrell Owens style]

Biphasic sleep keeps me up later. It's a fun reality to manifest.

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by Toulon

lol.....facepalm
I did not mean they are irrelevant period, you made some valid ponts.

I meant they are irrelelvent to this THREAD which is specifically about Steves reality, not some shifiting reality or whatever you come up with

If you want me to try and debunk your abstract thoughts make a new thread.

But this one is about something more specific
agree?

BUT

The fact your attacking me and using the same method supertom used, the good ol'christian "YOUR JUST NOT OPEN TO IT" bs

is telling me somything

Again, of course until you refute the point I have brought up and you have consistantly ignored, I will not be open to it.

the burden of evidence is on you, and other SR believers.
evidence here lies in the answer to.................

What made me believe in objective reality in the first place?

It is only partially a matter of your openness. It is your entire perspective which you believe is infallible and only subject to change based on cold hard facts. It is like looking through a red lens and insisting that everything must be red everywhere at all times. Not only that but that the only way you would be willing to accept that other things may be blue is to see blue while looking through a red lens. You insist that nobody else could be wearing a blue lens and experience things in a different manner from you. As long as you completely discount the fact that a certain amount of faith is required in all regards of life you will be locked into a rigid way of viewing and experiencing the world.

Can anyone really tell you what made you believe something? The question is subjective to begin with. Furthermore, why exactly are the unprovable questions about objective reality any less of a problem to you than this particular one you are focused on? Because you have lived through this lens for your entire life? That doesn't make it any less true or evidence supported than subjective reality.

[Wax Frog]

Originally Posted by Savage

Biphasic sleep keeps me up later. It's a fun reality to manifest.

Biphasic, Polyphasic, whatever; I'm just thankful I manifested you to help bend my mind

[Toulon]

Well all, I am going to bed.

So for all future responses...

Heres the life or death question for subjective reality.

Why right now am I bound by the all the laws of phyics?

Because I believe them? And if I unbelieved them they would disappear?

What made me believe them in the first place?

The question is posed exclusively at Steve's format, no one elses.

You can't say my parents taught me them, because I manifested my parents and everything they taught me, so that regresses back to the question.

You can't say "some program" because I manifested everything including the program.

In fact, given that we are talking about reality and everything is in reality, so if subjective reality is true everything is a subjective manifiestation of your conciousness...You can't say anything. You cannot explain why we have these beliefs about reality. These objective beliefs.

The belief we cannot simply fly,
The belief when we we lift a rock and let go, it drops to the ground
The belief 2+2=4

Since your subjective reality encompasses everything, there is no answer that fits. Its flawed. It cannot answer where we got these beliefs to begin with.

We got them from reality, objective reality.