Subjective Reality Simplified (Blog)

[Savage]

Use this thread to discuss the following entry from Steve Pavlina's blog:

Subjective Reality Simplified

[munish]

If a model does not have a place for all potentially valid perspectives, it’s not a good model. An intelligent model of reality should account for all potentially valid perspectives,
good luck explaining it to other OR addicts!

Thanks.Once Again.

[Lisa McGregor]

Thanks, just what I was looking for. Will give my comments once I've read it and understood the concept.
L

[Angela]

Steve, that's the simplified explanation?!? Ai Chihuahua!!!

[tekomino]

This is the tough one. If I apply the Occam's razor to the OR/SR that "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the right one," or "we should not assert that for which we do not have some proof." it is clear, to me at least, that there is no SR.

Why? Well, what is more likely? That this current reality OR that I am experiencing is the only thing that there is, or some dream world SR that makes my current reality just a dream and it contains it?

By same token what is simpler, that there is an afterlife with heaven and hell or that there is nothing at all and that this is all there is?

I think that the last question of existence after death is actually driving lot of this stuff. Subjective Reality, Religion are just some of the ways to address our collective inability to cope with our own demise.

How would you live and what would you do if you knew for certain that this is all there is? Have you tried to imagine your own non-existence and felt the cold, dark touch of death? It is terrifying but that is what it is.

I think that most of us have problems accepting our death, including myself, and latch on anything that is reasonable and acceptable to us, so it can help us deal with it, by actually providing the possibility for afterlife.

However, with all this being said, there are interesting personal experiences that put color on what I wrote and which keeps my mind somewhat open.

First, when my father died, he visited me in the dream to say goodbye. After I woke up I had doubts about dream and have brushed it off, but later that day I received call that he indeed have died, very likely at about the time that I had the dream since he was in timezone couple of hours ahead. Now I knew that he was in bad shape and that he probably did not have much time left, but still it was strange experience.

Second instance happened during war and over period of 2 years. On number of occasions the very bad feeling that I got just before my life was threatened and that something bad is about to happened, saved my life on many occasions, too many to consider that just a pure coincidence...

[Erin Pavlina]

Tekomino, if you had strange experiences like that on a daily basis and you were able to see and know things that logically you could not know, what would that eventually do to your theory that there is no life after death and that SR cannot exist?

How many times could you explain it away as coincidence or "gee that was strange, oh well... on with my life" before you'd have to open yourself up to another possibility?

When it comes to understanding SR it certainly helps to have experienced something like a lucid dream because it gives you a model you can use to understand it, but I don't think it's required to understand it.

[munish]

Originally Posted by tekomino

This is the tough one. If I apply the Occam's razor to the OR/SR that "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the right one," or "we should not assert that for which we do not have some proof." it is clear, to me at least, that there is no SR.

Why? Well, what is more likely? That this current reality OR that I am experiencing is the only thing that there is, or some dream world SR that makes my current reality just a dream and it contains it?

By same token what is simpler, that there is an afterlife with heaven and hell or that there is nothing at all and that this is all there is?

I think that the last question of existence after death is actually driving lot of this stuff. Subjective Reality, Religion are just some of the ways to address our collective inability to cope with our own demise.

How would you live and what would you do if you knew for certain that this is all there is? Have you tried to imagine your own non-existence and felt the cold, dark touch of death? It is terrifying but that is what it is.

I think that most of us have problems accepting our death, including myself, and latch on anything that is reasonable and acceptable to us, so it can help us deal with it, by actually providing the possibility for afterlife

.

Read this.

To me this is the highest degree of personal productivity -- to adopt a context for living that even makes sense from the perspective of beyond the grave, to live here on earth as a timeless being instead of a mortal one.

http://www.stevepavlina.com/articles...fter-death.htm

[tekomino]

Originally Posted by Erin Pavlina

Tekomino, if you had strange experiences like that on a daily basis and you were able to see and know things that logically you could not know, what would that eventually do to your theory that there is no life after death and that SR cannot exist?

Well, thats exactly why included those accounts to color my posts. They are my actual experiences.

Originally Posted by Erin Pavlina

How many times could you explain it away as coincidence or "gee that was strange, oh well... on with my life" before you'd have to open yourself up to another possibility?

And I am open to possibilities. I am still looking for the truth as we all are. My current thinking or belief was influenced a lot by some ideas expressed in book "Aware Universe" by Amit Goswami. It starts with the idea that underlining fabric of the universe is actually consciousness and through that assumption explains the quantum physics phenomenons that we cannot reconcile using our current macro physics... For me was interesting read.

While I do think that "I am" is not my physical body or mind and that "my" consciousness is inhabiting currently this body to express itself, that still does not create bridge for me towards the SR. I am still not feeling that as the true answer. This is really an lengthy topic for me deserving of an lengthy essay.

Originally Posted by Erin Pavlina

When it comes to understanding SR it certainly helps to have experienced something like a lucid dream because it gives you a model you can use to understand it, but I don't think it's required to understand it.

I had lucid dreams and I am familiar with them, but I do not really see connection between them and SR. In my mind they do not validate SR.

[songwriter]

"they accept the (socially conditioned) notion that the dream world is reality itself"
The problem is to define the word "reality"...

I have a very simple experience that I feel anyone can identity.

Many of you will know the colour test... it doesn't matter if you think it means something or not... it makes you choose colours by order of preference

ColorQuiz.com - The free five minute personality test!

okey... I know that depending on my mood, or how my life is... I don't see the colours the same way, and this happens to everyone.
For me sometimes the orange square is "uglier" and sometimes not. It's really different when I see it. Same with other colours. The computer screen is the same, the light of the room is the same but you perceive it different. What is different is yourself and that makes them different for you.

If you don't believe it, take the test (I have no connection with that site... and don't care about the explanations)...
then a week after... or even after some certain change in your life... do it again and you'll choose different colours.
And if you remind this you'll realize the colours are different for you in the second time. And you don't need a test for that... when there's a change in you, you see it all different, even just how colours are.
There's a "objective way" of how colours are...??? My perceived blue is not your perceived blue.

[Dan.Linehan]

Is there any difference between the ideas of subjectively reality and non-dualism? They seem like the same thing.

I had a thought about non-dualism when I read this.

Let's say that everybody in the universe is part of one consciousness, and that consciousness is that of the dreamer having this dream of reality. So, George Bush is part of that consciousness, Ron Paul is part of it, Erin Pavlina is part of it, etc. Each person you see is an avatar representing a piece of that greater consciousness.

Why are we all split up? What could the purpose of that be?

It would seem to mean that that the dreamer is not self aware. His/her consciousness is split into 6.5 billion avatars who don't know what the others are thinking. Possibly more if there are forms of life we don't know about.

Not self aware yet anyway.

[Mr.Mustache]

Originally Posted by tekomino

This is the tough one. If I apply the Occam's razor to the OR/SR that "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the right one," or "we should not assert that for which we do not have some proof." it is clear, to me at least, that there is no SR.

"Simplest" is a very subjective term. OR doesn't seem account for consciousness. See the hard problem of consciousness or qualia. Subjective reality neatly solves the mind body problem. OR hasn't accounted for all reported cases of OBEs or NDEs (arguably it hasn't accounted for any). OR doesn't account for psi phenomena which has gotten positive results in scientific experiments, which have been replicated by multiple sources. OR arguably doesn't seem to account for all cases of spontaneous memories of past lives in children.

These some great examples of things that contemporary science for the most part chooses to ignore because it does not fit into the OR model. Subjective reality neatly accounts for all such phenomena.

[Dolazy]

I think this is Steve's best explanation about his views on subjective reality yet. However, I still prefer to believe in OR. The reason is that there seems to be much more certainty in an OR world than in SR.

For example I know that pressing the light switch will always cause the light to turn on. If it doesn't then I am assured that the light bulb needs to be replaced or that there might be an electricity failure in the building.

However, in a subjective reality the working of the lamp would depend on my thoughts and beliefs about it. This does not seem to be the case. And I appreciate that. If electrical and mechanical devices would rely on my beliefs about them to work then my life would be a big and unpredictable mess.

[tekomino]

Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache

OR doesn't seem account for consciousness.

We still do not know how consciousness actually happens to us. One of the proposals from scientific community that I read, is that once the brain reaches certain complexity (number of neurons, connections, etc.) consciousness just happens.

That does fit into the OR model and is still in my opinion simplest solution.

I am not claiming to know one way or another. I like to participate in exchange of opinions and hopefully learn something...

[munish]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

Why are we all split up? What could the purpose of that be?

His/her consciousness is split into 6.5 billion avatars who don't know what the others are thinking.
Not self aware yet anyway.

Purpose is to express different aspects of itself.

Consciousness is not split into,it is just a perspective.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by tekomino

This is the tough one. If I apply the Occam's razor to the OR/SR that "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the right one," or "we should not assert that for which we do not have some proof." it is clear, to me at least, that there is no SR.

Sounds simple. For you, there is no SR. For other people, there is. Go Ockham.

[Jaben]

I would agree that Steve's latest definition of SR is pretty consistent with what I understand about Advaita or non-duality.

Why would consciousness be split up if it is all one at the deepest level? A perfectly sound possible answer is the nature of consciousness requires separate experiencers in order to have experiences that are meaningful. How meaningful would tasting sorbet or the experience of seeing the sun set be if we were at the same time witnessing the experience of seeing trillions of sunsets and sunrises from all the various solar systems and tasting what ever every being in existence is tasting? Simultaneously witnessing all experiences from all perspectives is nonsensical. Communication seems to be our current choice mechanism for sharing experiences between experiencers.

The other non OR answer is to say it's not split up but rather the others don't exist (solipsism). If that's true then either you are not reading this or there was never any experience of writing this. Not falsifiable, but if you were to truly believe in solipsism, compassion becomes void of meaning and the need for congruency is not very logical. Wild fantasies breaking all laws of nature would become reasonable intentions.

When a tree is on it's last year I like to think it bears its largest crop of fruit because its conscious of the fact that it has one last chance to spread it's seed.

David Deutsche in fabric of reality says that anything that is irrefutable (not falsifiable) is not very meaningful. On the other hand if a theory can be proved wrong but withstands tests it contains more truth than a theory that cannot be proved or disproved.

SR states consciousness is the primary building block from which the objective world arises and OR states the opposite, consciousness is a function of some static primary energy that obeys laws that can be defined and represented in the form of knowledge and understood by the consciousness that it composes. Try to cut that with Occam's razor

When computer's are able to simulate consciousness as well as the human consciousness one instance will wonder if it can witness it's true identity as the aware presence in which and by which all exists by shutting off it's power supply. Are we really any different?

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by Jaben

Why would consciousness be split up if it is all one at the deepest level? A perfectly sound possible answer is the nature of consciousness requires separate experiencers in order to have experiences that are meaningful.

If all things were one it would be uniform. There would be no seperate experiences as there could be no distinctions.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Dolazy

For example I know that pressing the light switch will always cause the light to turn on. If it doesn't then I am assured that the light bulb needs to be replaced or that there might be an electricity failure in the building.

However, in a subjective reality the working of the lamp would depend on my thoughts and beliefs about it. This does not seem to be the case. And I appreciate that. If electrical and mechanical devices would rely on my beliefs about them to work then my life would be a big and unpredictable mess.

Take that reasoning and trace it back step by step. Okay, never mind, let's just do it at fast forward pace.

In the end all your electricity and mechanical devices etc are subatomic particles blinking in and out of existence. And you know that there's a big school of thought in quantum physics which say that observation is what makes them blink into existence, don't you.

Observation implies consciousness ..... No consciousness --> no observation .... No observation --> no wave or particle ... No wave or particle ---> no universe.

Awww, shucks.

[javamannen2]

I am the One. You shall acknowledge this.

[Brutha]

This is the tough one. If I apply the Occam's razor to the OR/SR that "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the right one," or "we should not assert that for which we do not have some proof." it is clear, to me at least, that there is no SR.

Occam's razor sais that the theory with less entities is more likely to be true.
In a Subjective reality their is only one enitity (consciousness). Whatever consciousness is we can say "Cogito ergo sum" and our theory should explain consciousness.
Objective reality adds another entity into the equation: The objective world.
You have no evidence for that objective world and a sujective realtiy concept needs one entity less than the objective reality one so Occam's razor favors subjective reality.

[theknightwhosaysni-NI]

I found this article very well explained and clarifiying. It helped me understand the previous articles on the subject, especially the "Accuracy" one. Thank you

[Dive Bomb]

Originally Posted by Dolazy

However, in a subjective reality the working of the lamp would depend on my thoughts and beliefs about it. This does not seem to be the case. And I appreciate that. If electrical and mechanical devices would rely on my beliefs about them to work then my life would be a big and unpredictable mess.

Some things might be the "laws of the simulation". Steve mentioned it in this blog post that our bodies are subjected to OR's rules. I think that makes sense as to why we can't do anything supernatural just simply by thinking about it in an instant. So the working of your lamp will not depend on your thoughts because it is subjected to the laws. I don't know who or what control these laws, the general answer is nature. What exactly is nature? I guess it's all part of consciousness.

Good post Steve. I can see clearly why you chose the SR model of reality as oppopsed to solipism or OR (woo two or's)

[tekomino]

Originally Posted by Brutha

In a Subjective reality their is only one enitity (consciousness). Whatever consciousness is we can say "Cogito ergo sum" and our theory should explain consciousness.

I do not follow how this is simpler. It is actually much more complex since it implies that there is one consciousness we are all part of but we just don't know/feel that? It says that this reality we interact with is like a dream state but most people don't know it? It says that this reality is just contained/creation of consciousness? How is that simpler?

Originally Posted by Brutha

Objective reality adds another entity into the equation: The objective world.

What you are saying does not make sense. Objective reality, world is the only thing there is. There is no introduction of any other entity. That's all there is.

Originally Posted by Brutha

You have no evidence for that objective world and a sujective realtiy concept needs one entity less than the objective reality one so Occam's razor favors subjective reality.

There is actually no scientific evidence that I know of, of any other reality beyond the one that we are interacting in and are part of. You cannot plop into different reality and come back to tell about it. You cannot measure that or repeat that.

If this is subjective reality nobody just woke up and disappeared from it as we disappear from our dreams. We do die and disappear but that is well understood process of cellular degradation.

While thinking in terms of subjective reality is definitely empowering, it can help you with the things you need to accomplish and achieve, there is no evidence that it actually exists.

I think that might be crucial thing Steve is implying. He calls that just another lens to look our world through. Just as looking through green lens does not actually make world green, looking through SR lens does not make our reality Subjective in SR terms used here.

One consciousness theory does not require Subjective Reality so they really should not be bunched up together.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by tekomino

I do not follow how this is simpler. It is actually much more complex since it implies that there is one consciousness we are all part of but we just don't know/feel that? It says that this reality we interact with is like a dream state but most people don't know it? It says that this reality is just contained/creation of consciousness? How is that simpler?

...

What you are saying does not make sense. Objective reality, world is the only thing there is. There is no introduction of any other entity. That's all there is.

Okay, so you're not actually applying Ockham's Razor; you were just invoking it while not using it because you don't believe that SR is valid.

Please read the article before you comment on it.

[tekomino]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Okay, so you're not actually applying Ockham's Razor; you were just invoking it while not using it because you don't believe that SR is valid.

Um, what you wrote does not make much sense. Please explain.

[The Wise Turtle]

I'm not sure if what I'm going to say makes any sense, but it's a thought that occured to me, and might be worth exploring...

In talking about creating models that include Subjective Reality and Objective Reality, I'm wondering what each of THOSE models are representing. For example, what does the idea of "Subjective Reality" represent?

No, it doesn't really make sense to me. But I'm sure there is something important hidden in there somewhere.

Peace, Love, and Bicycles,
-Turil

[The Wise Turtle]

Another thought...

What if Objective Reality and Subjective Reality are really the same thing from different perspectives?

I, personally, see Objective Reality as being capable of including Subjective Reality inside it, as well as the other way around.

Our consciousness is both an objective internal element of our body/brain, and it is connected to the infinite (or nearly infinite), and thus is also a subjective, external element, as well.

Peace, Love, and Bicycles,
Turil

[The David]

Originally Posted by tekomino

Have you tried to imagine your own non-existence and felt the cold, dark touch of death?

I've tried to imagine my own non-existence. It feels a lot like the year 1987. Not exactly an amazing year, but it isn't really how I imagine death to be.

[Anagogy]

Without consciousness, there is no objective or subjective... You've never experienced an objective event in your entire life. It precludes your own inherrent existence as a being possessing a "self". You can't jump outside yourself and experience objectivity. That's not to say you can't experience a world that behaves in an objective like manner, it just means you can't experience "true" objectivity. So truthfully, you can never say objective reality can be proven to exist, only that it can be simulated. However, you can KNOW you experience reality from a subjective perspective. You do have a self, afterall, which is what that perspective hinges upon.

[Max Power]

The dreamer is the one who uses a single observation point (human body) to observe conscious creation. While a human being will claim individuality, so can consciousness. There's only one consciousness an it isn't broken down into 7 bilion parts all coexisting around the planet at the same time.

Consciousness moves things in and out of itself for expereince, but it never needs to have everything in there all at once. This is why you'll never observe everything all at once inside. A certain amount of people, events and reality will always be in there, but only as much as you require.

"Your body-mind is your avatar in the dream world, the character that gives you a first-person perspective as you interact with the contents of your own consciousness"

It's like if you were the builder of a cool video game and you used tools (pc, software) to build it, then you decide you want to be inside the game and take a role of one of the characters. But the only way to do that is self limit and that means limit some of your powers and the knowledge you've assumed a persona in the game.

How can this empower us??

If you can accept it's a game of your creation and you've just jumped into it, then nothing can ever hurt you because you created the whole thing. I consider fear comes from the fact we don't want to accept this is how it is or at least how it could be. If you created the whole thing and jumped into it to experience it first hand, then why would you create anything to hurt you.

You may create things to challenge your creative powers, but they would only ever be of your design to test and try out your creative skills inside the game.

Max