Subjective Reality? And Steve bending reality to fit the LOA

[Toulon]

So the whole reason Steve made the "true" nature of reality podcast and came up with the theory of subjective reality is cause he couldn't reconcile some issues with LOA and objective reality.

Aren't there a lot of issues with that premise itself?

I mean what if the real issue is not how to reconcile some facets of the LOA theory with objective reality, but if the LOA even exists in the way most believe? Or even exists period.

The shorter way to the truth seems not by changing reality to fit LOA, but changing LOA to fit reality. Or discarding it.

There are so many holes in the S.R. theory, so many. Principally that is it is not the best explination of realty. It just isn't if you disregard the LOA as total fact, its only reason for existance is the LOA reconiliation. And thats what awareness is about, thats what science is about....finding the BEST possible explaination of something, the fits with all the relevant variables.

Its only strength is that its unfalsifiable ( I think, but I am sure some scientist has a good rebuttal in the form of some thought experiment on the whole thing). And also it makes no sense what so ever. The same way an invisible dragon is unfalsifiable and makes no sense. Why, if everything is my creation, did I even begin to believe in objective reality in the first place? Hell why did all the things in my life happen the way they did any way.

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????????

\end theory

Its fringe thinking, it has so many holes. I am sure a physicist could point them out.

It's total nonsense.

But.

Carl Sagan once said something along the lines of "you can be the pillar of the community and be wrong and you can be the scum of the earth and be right, the truth does not belong to anyone"

I think thats fitting for Steve Pavlina, in the sense that he has some odd, erroneous theories, but at the same time he is the most knowledgable person I am aware of on Personal Development. Though I think he is wrong on this theory, I still would recommend his site and that doesn't make any of his great articles on P.D. wrong. I just have an issue with this one theory.

[Toulon]

Let me say that I am well aware our perceptions of reality are all entirely different to some degree. If thats what most of you mean by "subjective" reality, I am in full agreement. But somethings are not touched by perception, such as mathematical laws, 2 + 2 = 5 is not open to perception. The objective certainly exists.

But in Steve's version NOTHING exists, my brother who is in his room right now is figment of my dreams. That there is no objective what so ever.

That is wrong.

[Savage]

I'd say the main issue that triggered thoughts about subjective reality was the fact that I can perceive multiple bodies but only one consciousness. Why should consciousness be rooted to a seemingly random physical perspective -- this one particular human as opposed to all or none of them?

No physical law that I'm aware of can explain that.

Another perspective is to simply ask, "How do you know you're not dreaming right now?"

And the truth is that you can't know. You could very well be dreaming, and you wouldn't be able to prove otherwise. Subjective reality is simply the perspective that acknowledges this possibility. If you refuse to acknowledge this possibility, then you're taking an unwarranted leap of faith. That's hardly scientific. If you want to be scientific, then you need to build your claims on solid ground, not on faith.

Dreams have apparent laws of physics too. And there are dream scientists and physicists as well, including a dream world version of Carl Sagan if you're inclined to conjure one up.

So if you want to argue that subjective reality is nonsense, a good place to start would be to prove you're not dreaming. Eventually you'll realize that's impossible, as you can only perceive a proof through the lens of your consciousness, so you could have simply dreamed up the proof. And a dream proof can hardly be considered proof of anything.

[Savage]

Originally Posted by Toulon

That is wrong.

I'm unwilling to take the same leap of faith that you are. Such a leap seems unwarranted, as there's no solid evidence to support it.

Right now you're simply debating this within your own dream, which is a perfectly valid experience for you to create. Knock yourself out.

Deep down we both know you're dreaming right now. You're just scared as hell to face what that might mean, so you cling to objectivity for a sense of security.

You don't need that kind of security though. It's a delusion. There's a way to feel secure without it. Takes some getting used to though.

There's only one consciousness, and it's yours. Nothing else outside of it exists. Scary, eh?

[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.

I'd say the main issue that triggered thoughts about subjective reality was the fact that I can perceive multiple bodies but only one consciousness. Why should consciousness be rooted to a seemingly random physical perspective -- this one particular human as opposed to all or none of them?

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

Another perspective is to simply ask, "How do you know you're not dreaming right now?"

And the truth is that you can't know. You could very well be dreaming, and you wouldn't be able to prove otherwise. Subjective reality is simply the perspective that acknowledges this possibility. If you refuse to acknowledge this possibility, then you're taking an unwarranted leap of faith. That's hardly scientific. If you want to be scientific, then you need to build your claims on solid ground, not on faith.

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?

So if you want to argue that subjective reality is nonsense, a good place to start would be to prove you're not dreaming. Eventually you'll realize that's impossible, as you can only perceive a proof through the lens of your consciousness, so you could have simply dreamed up the proof. And a dream proof can hardly be considered proof of anything.

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.

Deep down we both know you're dreaming right now. You're just scared as hell to face what that might mean, so you cling to objectivity for a sense of security.

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.

[supertom]

Originally Posted by Toulon

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.

if its invisible how do you know its a dragon?


You seem to going through objective withdrawals, we should really start opening up objective rehabs

[Toulon]

First post and I get in a convo with Steve himself!!!
Awsome...

@supertom

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.

Btw your rebuttal was deeply irrelevant and missed the point entirely.

[taylor]

If you were fiercely skeptical/honest you would have to admit that any claim to something existing outside of your consciousness is entirely faith based. Therefore the intellectually honest position to me is to admit that it's at least possible that reality is entirely your subjective consciousness. You don't seem interested in doing that though. What's preventing you from doing so? If you were to drop the belief in objective reality, what would that mean to you?

[Toulon]

If you were fiercely skeptical/honest you would have to admit that any claim to something existing outside of your consciousness is entirely faith based. Therefore the intellectually honest position to me is to admit that it's at least possible that reality is entirely your subjective consciousness. You don't seem interested in doing that though. What's preventing you from doing so? If you were to drop the belief in objective reality, what would that mean to you?

Can you answer my question?

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

And also, what would it mean if I dropped my belief in objective reality? It would mean I have an inaccurate view of reality. Unless this discussion leads me to a different conclusion.

And let me say it flatly. I am open to subjective reality, but as it stands it has holes as a theory. And until they are fixed it is wrong to believe in the theory.

[supertom]

Originally Posted by Toulon

First post and I get in a convo with Steve himself!!!
Awsome...

@supertom

Btw your rebuttal was deeply irrelevant and missed the point entirely.

its not a rebuttal

You cant BELIEVE in subjective reality and i dont think steve wants you gotta believe in it to be real. What he is saying is opening yourself up to the possibility of it. When you experience it than it becomes reality. You gotta open yourself up to the experience of it first.

I would say social conditioning reasoning, emotions made you believe it in the first place

[Toulon]

Dont dodge the question.

What made me believe in objective reality to begin with?

Could the answer possibly be....objective reality?

I cannot be open to it until this is answered.

[Wax Frog]

Originally Posted by Toulon

Dont dodge the question.

What made me believe in objective reality to begin with?

Could the answer possibly be....objective reality?

I cannot be open to it until this is answered.

A 'program' that exists 'beyond' what we call the objective universe? One that provides a template for a mostly stable and consistent experience, but also a good bit of rule-exception 'wiggle room'?

[taylor]

The concept of subjective reality is not the same thing as believing that your beliefs entirely create reality in whatever way you wish.

Belief's refer to the perceptual level or the level of conceptually explaining phenomena, whereas subjectivity is referring to the consciousness level, the screen on which all phenomena occur.

I don't jive completely with Steve's version of subjective reality because of his blending of LOA with it. However, as I understood it by your original post, your main problem was with subjective reality and not with LOA.

[supertom]

Originally Posted by Toulon

Dont dodge the question.

What made me believe in objective reality to begin with?

Could the answer possibly be....objective reality?

I cannot be open to it until this is answered.

our own creature-hood, that way humans view the world. we can navigate the world quite well but we cant truly know what its really like because we hindered by our senses and logic.

[Toulon]

A 'program' that pre-existed what we call the objective universe? One that generates a mostly stable and consistent experience, but also provides a bit of 'wiggle room'?

Explain some more, cause as it stands that is really insufficient.

The concept of subjective reality is not the same thing as believing that your beliefs entirely create reality in whatever way you wish.

Thats not what Steve said in another thread, I can get the quote if you like, but in his theory if I were to truly believe I can walk through a wall I can.

Also in my dreams I can levitate, if this was a dream like he proposes....again maybe you are refering to a different theory, but I am not talking about your theory, I am talking about Steves.

I don't jive completely with Steve's version of subjective reality because of his blending of LOA with it. However, as I understood it by your original post, your main problem was with subjective reality and not with LOA.

I believe in subjective perception, I believe in LOA, but I don't believe in Steves Subjective reality.

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by Toulon

Can you answer my question?

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

Your parents or initial caregivers made you believe in both subjective and later objective reality. When we are first born we have a very subjective view of reality. We think we are gods because we intend for our needs to be met and alas they are. As we grow older we get indoctrinated with other people's beliefs about having to do x,y,z to make things work. That there is a larger order to life which we play a rather insignificant role in. We slowly have our magical view of the world sucked straight out of us. We reach a tipping point where we finally succumb to thinking that an objective view of reality is the only way to properly function in society. To view the world through subjective reality is no more full proof than objective reality. There are flaws in either view. The benefit of having seen life through multiple lenses affords many benefits though.

You reach a point where you see that life is not about proving facts but shifting perspectives. This is because many things can be both false and true at the same time. Your desperate attempt to disprove something to prove something else you can't prove is a wasted effort. Whether you believe the world is shifting around you or you are shifting to meet your needs it does not matter. The results will ultimately speak for themselves.

[Toulon]

Originally Posted by supertom

our own creature-hood, that way humans view the world. we can navigate the world quite well but we cant truly know what its really like because we hindered by our senses and logic.

Totally and utterly insufficient. Totally.

First of all who is we? Who are Humans? If I have never experianced objective reality, where the hell did I get these concepts from?

And my question was about physical laws. Like gravity. Where in the universe did I get this concept from, Why did I believe it to begin with if. it. does. not. exist.

Why did my conciousness bring it into exisitance? Why did I begin to believe it?

I mean why wasn't the decision ever arbitrary? I don't ever remember choosing.

[Wax Frog]

Originally Posted by Toulon

Explain some more, cause as it stands that is really insufficient.

I'm not weighing in with the aim of convincing anyone of anything, as debating isn't part of my skill set, and I'm more fond of lightly playing with ideas. Keeping this in mind, one idea I've toyed with (and seen discussed more seriously here and elsewhere) is that we could be inside something akin to a VR simulation. This VR could be programmed in such a way that consistent physical laws would be convincingly and consistently emulated, yet at the same time provide for interruptions of those laws under special conditions, thus allowing for things like LoA or psychic phenomena. The net effect would still be pretty much the same as that of being born into, and growing up in, an objective reality.

[supertom]

Originally Posted by Toulon

Totally and utterly insufficient. Totally.

First of all who is we? Who are Humans? If I have never experianced objective reality, where the hell did I get these concepts from?

And my question was about physical laws. Like gravity. Where in the universe did I get this concept from, Why did I believe it to begin with if. it. does. not. exist.

Why did my conciousness bring it into exisitance? Why did I begin to believe it?

I mean why wasn't the decision ever arbitrary? I don't ever remember choosing.

All answers are going to insufficient for you because you dont even want to open yourself up to it.

[Toulon]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

Your parents or initial caregivers made you believe in both subjective and later objective reality. When we are first born we have a very subjective view of reality. We think we are gods because we intend for our needs to be met and alas they are. As we grow older we get indoctrinated with other people's beliefs about having to do x,y,z to make things work. That there is a larger order to life which we play a rather insignificant role in. We slowly have our magical view of the world sucked straight out of us. We reach a tipping point where we finally succumb to thinking that an objective view of reality is the only way to properly function in society. To view the world through subjective reality is no more full proof than objective reality. There are flaws in either view. The benefit of having seen life through multiple lenses affords many benefits though.

You reach a point where you see that life is not about proving facts but shifting perspectives. This is because many things can be both false and true at the same time. Your desperate attempt to disprove something to prove something else you can't prove is a wasted effort. Whether you believe the world is shifting around you or you are shifting to meet your needs it does not matter. The results will ultimately speak for themselves.

I did not even read past the first sentence.

Your parents or initial caregivers made you believe in both subjective and later objective reality

You forgot, they are only figments of my conciousness manifesting.

So where did THEY get the concepts from to force them on me?

Because in reality, in Steves theory, your just saying I made myself believe in gravity since I made my parents.

So what your saying is I made my self believe in objective reality.

And that will just lead you back to my question

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

[Toulon]

@supertom

I posed some valid points refuting your points.

And now your basicly ignoring me? Is that a concession of defeat?

[Toulon]

Originally Posted by Wax Frog

I'm not weighing in with the aim of convincing anyone of anything, as debating isn't part of my skill set, and I'm more fond of lightly playing with ideas. Keeping this in mind, one idea I've toyed with (and seen discussed more seriously here and elsewhere) is that we could be inside something akin to a VR simulation. This VR could be programmed in such a way that consistent physical laws would be convincingly and consistently emulated, yet at the same time provide for interruptions of those laws under special conditions, thus allowing for things like LoA or psychic phenomena. The net effect would still be pretty much the same as that of being born into, and growing up in, an objective reality.

I figured you were playing with ideas lol cause that really made no sense.

And btw I am totally open to this all being a Virtual reality, I cannot refute that. That theory can be objective reality. Its consistant with objective reality in certain terms.

[Wax Frog]

Originally Posted by Toulon

@supertom

I posed some valid points refuting your points.

And now your basicly ignoring me? Is that a concession of defeat?

More likely an acceptance of your own unshakable conviction, all matters of validity aside. A 'live and let live' approach.

[taylor]

I thought your main issue was with the fact that nothing outside of your consciousness exists. My mistake.

I won't defend the rest of this stuff that you are Neo in the matrix and can walk through walls. I'm glad you're doing the dirty work of finding the limits of that theory. The problem with trying to do this is that in a normal debate you can always point to objective reality in an effort to gather evidence to support one belief vs. another. With this perspective however the evidence doesn't exist only because you don't believe. And if you switch beliefs and it doesn't appear, it's because you don't REALLY believe because there are hidden more encompassing belief systems you haven't shifted. Good luck though.

[Wax Frog]

Originally Posted by Toulon

I figured you were playing with ideas lol cause that really made no sense.

Would you be so kind as to point out the nonsensical elements, meaning those things that could not under any circumstances be true? I may not have expressed myself adequately...

Also, while a VR reality of the sort I described might be ultimately objective, my experience within it would be subjective, which is the point I clumsily tried to make. Whatever the Ultimate Truth of reality is, I cannot, as of now, know it. I can only know what I experience, and my experience tells me that the 'scientistic' view is one of many that could fit, but one that, given certain of my personal experiences, is inadequate.

[Toulon]

Originally Posted by Wax Frog

More likely an acceptance of your own unshakable conviction, all matters of validity aside. A 'live and let live' approach.

Thats not fair,

I asked

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

he responded

I replied giving him reasons why his response was not sufficient, I think if you read my post you will see some validity in this statement

and then he gives me the "oh you'll never blah blah blah"

that is a cheap marginalization tactic, which usually means my opponent has conceded.

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by Toulon

I did not even read past the first sentence.



You forgot, they are only figments of my conciousness manifesting.

So where did THEY get the concepts from to force them on me?

Because in reality, in Steves theory, your just saying I made myself believe in gravity since I made my parents.

So what your saying is I made my self believe in objective reality.

And that will just lead you back to my question

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

I'm afraid you're completely missing the point. It has nothing to do with proving paradoxes that can go on infinitely. Correct me if I'm wrong here Steve but I don't think Steve is inferring that his version of subjective reality is infallible. It is merely a highly effective way of coming to terms with a number of internal contradictions that hinder the use of LOA. Sure, you end up with other contradictions but you are going to have contradictions with any viewpoint. The bottom line is that your beliefs definitely have a large influence on your reality no matter what belief system you are currently viewing from. Adopting Steve's subjective reality model, even temporarily can be said to be quite complementary to attracting/creating/shifting to meeting your needs.

If you truly found it to be so ridiculous as to discount its usefulness immediately we would not even be having this conversation right now. Any usefulness you find from it will not be in proving theory.

[Toulon]

Originally Posted by Wax Frog

Would you be so kind as to point out the nonsensical elements, meaning those things that could not under any circumstances be true? I may not have expressed myself adequately...

Also, while a VR reality of the sort I described might be ultimately objective, my experience within it would be subjective, which is the point I clumsily tried to make.

Sure,

A 'program' that exists 'beyond' what we call the objective universe? One that provides a template for a mostly stable and consistent experience, but also a good bit of rule-exception 'wiggle room'?

A 'program' that exists 'beyond' what we call the objective universe?

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

Where did objective reality come from? What made me believe it to begin with.

[Wax Frog]

Originally Posted by Toulon

Thats not fair

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.

[Toulon]

Sure, you end up with other contradictions but you are going to have contradictions with any viewpoint.

There are no contradicitions in objective reality.

The bottom line is that your beliefs definitely have a large influence on your reality no matter what belief system you are currently viewing from. Adopting Steve's subjective reality model, even temporarily can be said to be quite complementary to attracting/creating/shifting to meeting your needs.

I cannot agree more.

If you truly found it to be so ridiculous as to discount its usefulness immediately we would not even be having this conversation right now.

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?