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]

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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

[Mounds]

Originally Posted by Toulon

There is an invisible dragon in my garage, its name is Fred and it is fond of Led Zepplin.

Bullocks! Everyone knows dragons are extinct.

[Mounds]

I used to take a similar stance of simply not accepting anything outside of the norm. These days, I take on an attitude of, "Why not?". Looking at reality as a dream does throw a lot of good stuff your way. Certain restraints on your psyche just kind of fall away.

When I had my own one-man debate club, I couldn't understand why people reacted the way they did. Why didn't my will bend theirs? Why did some of them get angry? The fact is, I was rolling into something they value and demanding all sorts of things. Answers, evidence, all for something that I wasn't really interested in anyway. The fact that I was getting a response at all shows how polite these people are. I was the equivalent of an annoying fly, hardly a blip on the radar. This is the centre of the action for you but for others, it's just a bump in the road. When you move on to the next topic of debate, they'll keep doing what they're doing.

In essence, who cares? The people on the board are kind enough to take time out of their schedule to appease you and give you information. Whether or not you can get satisfactory evidence is irrelevant. People are living this life, believing in things you don't agree with and most of them are very fulfilled. I find no fulfillment in disagreeing with everything I see. Do you?

[SatvikBeri]

Originally Posted by Mounds

Bullocks! Everyone knows dragons are extinct.

And even if they weren't, they only listen to classical music.

Or Katy Perry.

[catalyst]

People adopt beliefs to rationalize or justify their own actions and behaviour.

This discussion is mental masturbation - pointless but you might get some cheap thrills.

You can classify reality as subjective or objective, but try to deny that you exist as you read this post. Can you objectively say that reality is subjective? If this is all just a dream, then what difference does anything make - why bother trying to reason anything, you have no absolutes to base your rationale.

[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.

[taylor]

Originally Posted by catalyst

These are creations built on science, reason, logic, and objectivity. Of which, the existence of any would prove your notion of SR invalid.

SR includes all forms of objectivity, including observation, experiment, science.

[FeelGoodNow]

Two words: Morphic resonance. Look up the work of Rupert Sheldrake - just brilliant. It easily explains everything you mentioned in your thread.

You can have the LOA work to perfection and still be affected by certain things, due to morphic resonance. It all plays in perfect harmony.

The short version of morphic resonance (example): Every time you or someone thinks a thought, you are leaving an energy imprint. This is all measured quantum physically btw - not just lose theory.

When someone goes into agreement with that thought, it makes the field of morphic resonance stronger. Some morphic resonance clouds are virtually indestructable - like gravity. A few individuals with the right amount of training can break the field and defy gravity, but for the most of us, it's impossible, because for thousands of years, there has been great agreement that it does exist.

And who knows, maybe even before there even was a physical universe, perhaps these morphic fields were already set up, to give earth/planets basic constructs for which to work. That's just my theory though.

In either case, it's fascinating stuff when you get into it.

[Wax Frog]

FGN! YOU JUST GAVE ME A MOTHER OF A SYNCHRONICITY! I just got through skimming a review of Sheldrake's work, which I was led to "randomly" after reading a blog entry at an unrelated site! LOVE IT!!! What makes it even funnier is that I was reading it while killing time waiting for this thread to get updated!

[FeelGoodNow]

Originally Posted by Wax Frog

FGN! YOU JUST GAVE ME A MOTHER OF A SYNCHRONICITY! I just got through skimming a review of Sheldrake's work, which I was led to "randomly" after reading a blog entry at an unrelated site! LOVE IT!!!

Haha, that's awesome! I guess you were sucked in by the cloud of morphic resonance I was hanging out under, lol.

[Wax Frog]

Originally Posted by FeelGoodNow

Haha, that's awesome! I guess you were sucked in by the cloud of morphic resonance I was hanging out under, lol.

Maybe! Heheheheh. If nothing else, it makes for a nice upbeat finish to a trying thread experience

My search was triggered by this comment, in reply to one concerning alternatives to NeoDarwinism -

"Rupert Sheldrake's theory of evolution, for example, makes a lot more sense, and is compatible with both science and mysticism."

[Wax Frog]

One last synchronistic goodie, from none other than the very Carl Sagan whom a certain self-described atheist holds in high esteem :

"An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions atheism is very stupid."

[Luciddd]

Originally Posted by Toulon

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

Well OP I will answer you the way you want. First I want to tell you I do not believe in subjective reality. But I dont believe also in solid reality. I believe there is an objective FLUID reality, not solid.

What made me to believe that in the first place? Me or either another entity literally bent reality by moving some events. I have experienced things that cant be proven by solid hard rock reality theory.

Of course you can always say "Coincidence lawl" but the thing is for 1 event the chances of happening by sheer coincidences are smaller than the chances of winning the lottery 100 million prize.

And for the other not even coincidence can explain it. So why do I believe? You can say I am lucky because I looked for proof and found it.

[mrthejazz]

Originally Posted by Luciddd

Well OP I will answer you the way you want. First I want to tell you I do not believe in subjective reality. But I dont believe also in solid reality. I believe there is an objective FLUID reality, not solid.

What made me to believe that in the first place? Me or either another entity literally bent reality by moving some events. I have experienced things that cant be proven by solid hard rock reality theory.

Of course you can always say "Coincidence lawl" but the thing is for 1 event the chances of happening by sheer coincidences are smaller than the chances of winning the lottery 100 million prize.

And for the other not even coincidence can explain it. So why do I believe? You can say I am lucky because I looked for proof and found it.

How was reality bent for you? I'm curious.

[Wax Frog]

Originally Posted by mrthejazz

How was reality bent for you? I'm curious.

Ditto, emphatically; my interest is always piqued by posts like the one by luciddd