A Challenge: Science in Subjective Reality

[Jeff Lilly]

Take the subjective reality perspective, and consider the following:

1. Traditionally, physics is considered the hardest and most basic of the sciences. Then comes chemistry, biology, etc., until you get to psychology and then the social sciences. But from the subjective reality perspective, the most basic science would be psychology -- because the world arises from your thoughts and feelings, conscious and subconscious. Physics would be that branch of psychology that deals with the illusion of interaction with a physical world. What are the implications?
2. What is the status of the discipline of mathematics? Does the study of mathematics have a different meaning in subjective reality? Or is it pretty much the same field? ...What does that say about the relationship between mathematics and psychology? Between mathematics and physics?
3. What is the scientific method, in subjective reality? What does it mean if a bunch of 'dream characters' agree on an observation? Is peer review and duplication of results at all useful? On the face of it, the answer seems like 'no' -- but a closer examination of the nature of these 'dream characters' might reveal otherwise.

I have some thoughts, but I'm very curious to hear what people think. :-)

[Lionman]

Hi there,

1. Interesting perspective. I suppose you could say that physics is a form of psychology in that it's a way we perceive our environment.

2. Deep question that frankly boggles my mind.

3. Biocentrism

[escapeplan]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lilly

Take the subjective reality perspective, and consider the following:

1. Traditionally, physics is considered the hardest and most basic of the sciences. Then comes chemistry, biology, etc., until you get to psychology and then the social sciences. But from the subjective reality perspective, the most basic science would be psychology -- because the world arises from your thoughts and feelings, conscious and subconscious. Physics would be that branch of psychology that deals with the illusion of interaction with a physical world. What are the implications?
2. What is the status of the discipline of mathematics? Does the study of mathematics have a different meaning in subjective reality? Or is it pretty much the same field? ...What does that say about the relationship between mathematics and psychology? Between mathematics and physics?
3. What is the scientific method, in subjective reality? What does it mean if a bunch of 'dream characters' agree on an observation? Is peer review and duplication of results at all useful? On the face of it, the answer seems like 'no' -- but a closer examination of the nature of these 'dream characters' might reveal otherwise.

I have some thoughts, but I'm very curious to hear what people think. :-)

Honestly...

The subject of subjective reality is such nonsense in my opinion that even posing such questions simply encourages the followers. It's beyond me what gain people are getting out of it other than swimming in the tide of Steve's blog. When he has moved on and is blogging about objective reality or viewing the world through the lens of an octopus or whatever other lens he chooses- it will be interesting to see how many others are even talking about SR! Like the Pied Piper of Hamelin!

[Beyond Answers]

Psychology is the "why" and physics is the "how." Especially as you get into quantum physics, and on the other end of the spectrum astral physics.

[escapeplan]

Originally Posted by Beyond Answers

Psychology is the "why" and physics is the "how." Especially as you get into quantum physics, and on the other end of the spectrum astral physics.

Now that is a subject worth blogging about! By a scientist...

[Angela]

Originally Posted by escapeplan

It's beyond me what gain people are getting out of it

It's..... FUN!

[escapeplan]

Originally Posted by Angela

It's..... FUN!

It's Daft! Why don't we just call this a fun entertainment forum and drop any pretence that it's for PD!!!!

[James81]

Originally Posted by escapeplan

Honestly...

The subject of subjective reality is such nonsense in my opinion that even posing such questions simply encourages the followers. It's beyond me what gain people are getting out of it other than swimming in the tide of Steve's blog. When he has moved on and is blogging about objective reality or viewing the world through the lens of an octopus or whatever other lens he chooses- it will be interesting to see how many others are even talking about SR! Like the Pied Piper of Hamelin!

What is your escape plan?

[escapeplan]

Originally Posted by James81

What is your escape plan?

What is the specific question you want answered?

[Angela]

Originally Posted by escapeplan

Why don't we just call this a fun entertainment forum and drop any pretence that it's for PD!!!!

Where's the scientific proof that fun entertainment isn't personal development?

[James81]

Originally Posted by escapeplan

What is the specific question you want answered?

You call yourself "escapeplan," and I want to know what your escape plan is.

[escapeplan]

Originally Posted by Angela

Where's the scientific proof that fun entertainment isn't personal development?

Well, of course fun is important. But you don't need different lens to work that out!

[Angela]

Originally Posted by escapeplan

Well, of course fun is important. But you don't need different lens to work that out!

Happy post 300! I'd be delighted to continue this conversation, but let's have it somewhere where it doesn't derail the ultra-sexy Jeff Lilly's thread, why don't we?

[escapeplan]

Originally Posted by James81

You call yourself "escapeplan," and I want to know what your escape plan is.

Oh I see- initially it was inspired by an escape of employment. Now that's done it can apply to other things I want to "escape". No lectures please on an "escape" mindset or whatever- it's just a phrase!

Generally my approach is more in line with Steve's saner articles like overwhelming force and direct solutions to problems!

[James81]

Originally Posted by escapeplan

Oh I see- initially it was inspired by an escape of employment. Now that's done

I'd love to see you make a post about how you escaped employment (being serious). Maybe not here, because this thread has nothing to do with that. But somewhere.

[escapeplan]

Originally Posted by James81

I'd love to see you make a post about how you escaped employment (being serious). Maybe not here, because this thread has nothing to do with that. But somewhere.

check pm's soon

[Lionman]

Escapeplan, you posted your SR is BS post after I posted my post which had a link to Biocentrism, which made me think; did you read that link on Biocentrism...

It's a wiki page here

If so, which parts of it do you see as nonesense?

It's directly related to SR. It's how the observer creates the universe basically. Seems many physicists agree but don't talk about it... quote:

"Richard Conn Henry, Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Johns Hopkins University, pointed out that Lanza's theory is consistent with quantum mechanics: “What Lanza says in this book is not new. Then why does Robert have to say it at all? It is because we, the physicists, do NOT say it––or if we do say it, we only whisper it, and in private––furiously blushing as we mouth the words. True, yes; politically correct, hell no!” "

[Lionman]

Oh yeah, and you might want to read this which I posted in another thread. It's from the same guy who coined Biocentrism and directly related to SR. Be the pigeon who can learn to see itself in a mirror (understand reference after reading)

[escapeplan]

Originally Posted by Lionman

Oh yeah, and you might want to read this which I posted in another thread. It's from the same guy who coined Biocentrism and directly related to SR. Be the pigeon who can learn to see itself in a mirror (understand reference after reading)

Thanks Lionman for both links- I've looked at them both and have to admit I was not familiar with Biocentrism. Despite the fact it doesn't deal with the issue of consciousness itself, in many ways there is a logic to it which is at the same time hard to explain. I would not dismiss any of it out of hand and to be honest I'd love it if the world turned out to actually be this way.

But I do have a concern. Even if the truth does lie within SR (and thus ties in with LOA, IM and so forth) I doubt the breakthrough that mankind needs in order to make full practical use of it will be found here on these forums. Now of cause you could argue that from an SR perspective that need not be true- please excuse me here but I am staying objective. Any breakthrough in the practical application of this subject is most likely to come from the very scientists who have coined such phrases as Biocentrism.

So why does that matter? Well, I go back to my point about whether this website is really a PD site or an entertainment site. Now I'm not saying both can't be included, I'm simply asking what it's real primary purpose is? Again I look objectively but I feel most things we achieve in life require effort and consistency. Be that running a business or making dinner- a sustained effort using known principles generally produces the fastest results. For 99% of those looking to make money fast, the quickest way in all honesty is still probably to get a job. How does changing the lens all the time really help? The only way it can help from a PD point of view is if the results being obtained with that lens really are better/ faster/ etc. Years of watching the IM forums tell me that many more people are failing to grasp it than achieving it. Does that mean IM is BS- not at all. It simply means that from a PD perspective it may be better to focus on the areas that do get good results rather than trying to distort the world view all the time- even if that distorted view eventually turns out to be correct.

There are no doubt talented people who will disagree with me. Acting Like Godot has clearly mastered IM better than most, Steve is getting results with SR, Angela can see the benefits of fun and positive thinking, and no doubt someone, somewhere is benefiting from a belief in santa claus. Are these people wrong- no! They may have an answer, but what is clear is that despite thousands of words from ALG in the IM forum- somewhere the message isn't getting across- even that most important message of letting go and just trying it, doesn't seem to be getting results. So all I am saying is that until such time as the communication through these lens can be improved to create a tipping point- isn't it better to give advice on principles we know that will work for the majority?

Going back to the OP, I doubt any qualified scientist could answer those questions, let alone us here!

[Lionman]

Thought provoking post, Escapeplan.

I agree there's wisdom in the tried and true methods and there definitely is ageless wisdom out there. Many people using IM fail to take any action and therefore don't put enough energy into manifesting what they want. There's got to be a giving/receiving dynamic here, paying currency to achieve a vision so to speak.

From personal experience, I basically see IM as a great way to open new possibilities which you may not have otherwise considered. It also makes the ride a lot smoother. But you still have to drive.

Say you want to make lots of money and you don't know IM... you suddenly have a billion different paths in front of you which lead you to that goal and some of them are dead ends. You could use logic to try and determine the best path, but it's so hit or miss. Watch any episode of Dragon's Den to see how many epic fails there are out there.

If you use IM, sending out the intent that you want loads of money, you would most likely get feedback in the form of synchros to start a particular business or get a particular job. This allows you to quickly choose the best path infront of you to get to the end goal.

It's so important to be able to be open to receiving these intuitions. I think that's where many people go wrong. They say... I want to make £1M in 2 years. And they visualize having it etc. And they just keep on doing that expecting it to fall on their lap sometime, when all around them there's probably signs showing them how to achieve it, but they're not open to seeing that.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by escapeplan

Again I look objectively but I feel most things we achieve in life require effort and consistency.

Whether your actions display effort, consistency or any other attribute essentially depends on your thoughts.

For all your actions arise from your thoughts.

[Lionman]

In terms of the SR perspective and it's validity... I don't think we've scratched the surface of it here!

I really believe in SR because I've had some hardcore experiences with it. If you haven't, then I can see how just a bunch of people chatting about it won't really inspire you to take that viewpoint per say.

I've been seeing tonnes of homeless people recently. On TV, on the news, on the street... everywhere. Big synchro trying to tell me something.

Yesterday I was really thinking about how I want my perception to be in SR. And the concept of physical illusion, everything is one, I am the everything and all this stuff, and it got my mind spinning. And then I thought to myself... wait a minute, I have a lot more fun just hanging out with my friends and things like that... not obsessing over theories unless it's useful to my sensory life.

If you're into chakras you might know that the second chakra is called the Svadhisthana and translates to the "abode of the self". Abode means home. So it made perfect sense to me that my sensory life is my home and living in my head just makes me feel homeless.

The principle of that part of consciousness is polarity. And that's all about the illusion of separateness and coming together, then separating and coming together again... and all the fun that entails.

Major digression here, but whatever. Someone may find that useful out there.

[escapeplan]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Whether your actions display effort, consistency or any other attribute essentially depends on your thoughts.

For all your actions arise from your thoughts.

I don't doubt your experiences- on a deep level I could actually believe in IM on a very real basis. I can see the frustrations of those who follow IM and see it's benefits, only to be questioned by those having difficulties applying it fully. It's like a tug of war, with resistance from non believers and the best efforts of the followers often falling on deaf ears.

Rather than saying that it's about the "uneducated" casting aside doubt (which I agree it may well be), one could also argue- without implying a duty or obligation on anyone, that it is the responsibility of the followers, should they wish to engage in lens changing of whatever description- to communicate the message in a way that adds clarity to the majority, rather than confusion.

Again, objectively and casting aside conspiracy theories- does it help that there is so much conflicting viewpoints out there on health? Chocolate is good/ bad for you? Just do what you feel is right? Do what makes you feel good? Exercise/ don't exercise? Often what people believe is not what is true but the idea that sounds the most scientific/ logical/ "believable".

People do look to science. Yes, there are the open minded, but going back to the OP I feel it is scientists that will enlighten us- not because they are better- but because people are trained/ brainwashed to trust them more than say new age thinkers.

So we have on a PD website what amounts to a muddying of the waters and confusion. The end result of this confusion is often "Do what feels right"- but while this sounds an enlightened thing to say, there is still no proof this will be the right option (by the right option, I mean the one most likely to lead to success and happiness) in the long run.

So until the communication on some of these ideas gets to a level where a critical mass feels it is sensible to suspend their beliefs and try something new, no clear answers are being put forward. Instead vagueness and non clarity lead the way. I've also noticed a tendancy for people to jump on the bandwagon. Steve tries SR- all of a sudden it's a great model for viewing reality. But is all this chopping and changing of ideas really helping people long term? What happened to TLP? I am not suggesting that the likes of ALG give up their good work- indeed it is important if they are right that someone finds a way to deliver the message in a crystal clear way to swing the verdict. As a lawyer, I'm sure ALG will understand the point. If the message is not delivered clearly and the minds cannot be opened in the first place, then doubt is all that can remain. Doubt leads to a lack of clarity, and a lack of productivity- not good for anyone- especially not good on a PD site. The dividing line between the exploration of the yet largely unknown and the sure fire down to earth ways of getting results have become very blurred in all areas across this forum.

[cylon]

Sometimes it really feels good to let go of the need for an outside authority figure.

Instead of needing others to set standards for you, you learn to set them for yourself. It's very liberating.

But it comes at the expense of needing to "save" others.

[Jeff Lilly]

Wow, step away from a thread for a day or two and it totally morphs into something else...! :-)

I appreciate all your comments, and I'm particularly interested to learn more about biocentrism. What I find most intriguing -- as a linguist, a scientist, and someone who's been working and struggling with 'subjective reality' most of my life, since it's a central part of the Zen Buddhism I was brought up on -- is the ways in which our minds are organized.

What I'm working on -- with my questions about psychology, mathematics, and the scientific method -- is this:

IF subjective reality is 'true' in some deep sense, then reality is utterly created by our consciousness; BUT are there any structural limitations on that consciousness? Many people assume that if your mind creates your reality, then anything at all is possible, but it seems to me that's false.

Could you, for example, create a reality in which 1 + 1 = 3? Or Euclidean geometery does not work in an infinite flat plane? Or from linguistics: you might create a reality in which everyone spoke English, but could you create a reality in which everyone always spoke in C++? Or in which sentences had nouns, but no verbs? Or from psychology: could you create a reality in which your memory worked like a computer's direct access memory, instead of the human brain's distributed model?

What I'm saying is that the ways to be human appear to be infinite, but bounded. There are some things the human mind just doesn't do. Some of these things might be just inherent human limitation (like the inability to imagine infinity, or to speak always in C++); others (like mathematic truths) seem to be hard-wired into the universe itself.

THESE boundaries are the real rules of subjective reality. Or are they? What are they? And why are they there?

[sonde]

Hullo Jeff, some thoughts...

What you appear to be doing in this thread is questioning the limits (boundaries) of the human mind. Such boundaries being found as anomalies in the fabric/realm of the human being, ie, the different thought constructs of the human mind, which clash/conflict/confuse, or simply do not 'add up'.

Subjective reality is not limited; any notion of what subjective reality is or is not being an idea, a construct, of the human mind. There are no rules of subjective reality.

If one sees rules/boundaries within ones reality, one is in a thought bubble (such as the universe).

With best wishes,

[catalyst]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lilly

Take the subjective reality perspective, and consider the following:

1. Traditionally, physics is considered the hardest and most basic of the sciences. Then comes chemistry, biology, etc., until you get to psychology and then the social sciences. But from the subjective reality perspective, the most basic science would be psychology -- because the world arises from your thoughts and feelings, conscious and subconscious. Physics would be that branch of psychology that deals with the illusion of interaction with a physical world. What are the implications?
2. What is the status of the discipline of mathematics? Does the study of mathematics have a different meaning in subjective reality? Or is it pretty much the same field? ...What does that say about the relationship between mathematics and psychology? Between mathematics and physics?
3. What is the scientific method, in subjective reality? What does it mean if a bunch of 'dream characters' agree on an observation? Is peer review and duplication of results at all useful? On the face of it, the answer seems like 'no' -- but a closer examination of the nature of these 'dream characters' might reveal otherwise.

I have some thoughts, but I'm very curious to hear what people think. :-)

1) There is a gravity on this planet, whether or not one chooses to believe it or not.

2) Mathematics states 1 + 1 = 2. There is an absolute right and wrong. In SR, nothing is wrong - everything is morally equivalent. Everything is a compromise.

3) I think this is like asking, where is the scientific method in religion?

[Lionman]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lilly

Wow, step away from a thread for a day or two and it totally morphs into something else...! :-)

I appreciate all your comments, and I'm particularly interested to learn more about biocentrism. What I find most intriguing -- as a linguist, a scientist, and someone who's been working and struggling with 'subjective reality' most of my life, since it's a central part of the Zen Buddhism I was brought up on -- is the ways in which our minds are organized.

What I'm working on -- with my questions about psychology, mathematics, and the scientific method -- is this:

IF subjective reality is 'true' in some deep sense, then reality is utterly created by our consciousness; BUT are there any structural limitations on that consciousness? Many people assume that if your mind creates your reality, then anything at all is possible, but it seems to me that's false.

Could you, for example, create a reality in which 1 + 1 = 3? Or Euclidean geometery does not work in an infinite flat plane? Or from linguistics: you might create a reality in which everyone spoke English, but could you create a reality in which everyone always spoke in C++? Or in which sentences had nouns, but no verbs? Or from psychology: could you create a reality in which your memory worked like a computer's direct access memory, instead of the human brain's distributed model?

What I'm saying is that the ways to be human appear to be infinite, but bounded. There are some things the human mind just doesn't do. Some of these things might be just inherent human limitation (like the inability to imagine infinity, or to speak always in C++); others (like mathematic truths) seem to be hard-wired into the universe itself.

THESE boundaries are the real rules of subjective reality. Or are they? What are they? And why are they there?

Great questions! I think these are the questions that are going to get us somewhere in terms of understanding subjective reality.

Something you will hear a lot here is that everything's just your beliefs and you create whatever you believe. This implies that there are no boundaries.

However at the same time there's the idea that we all share one consciousness and its this singular consciousness (dreamer) that creates reality. By this logic, there are certain boundaries because you are only a fragment of a bigger design which is the one consciousness we all share, where mathematics and such things are possibly reflections of higher principles in the one consciousness' mind. So surely no one person would be able to whimsically change everyone's reality, because they are just a fragment and not representing the entirety of consciousness.

*If you completely identify with the shared singular consciousness totally and not your individual self, then you would be able to change the highest order beliefs; letting you change anything without limits. But at that level I would imagine there would be no desire to do anything but just be silent and observe the myriad of forms infront of you, instead of say changing the laws of physics.
Which begs the question, as true as it may be: how useful is it to say we are all one and everything is our beliefs?

On the flip side, I also think it's possible that, while still retaining the sense of individual self and desire to change something; one person could believe something strong enough that they enter a parallel universe where things have always been that way due to infinite possibilities. This means they would not be contradicting anyone else's beliefs so there won't be a paradox with singular consciousness. In which case maybe the boundaries could be broken in that particular universe. This one possibly has solipsist undertones, but still allows for other people to exist individually in their own universes and while sharing the same consciousness.

My brain hurts now.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by catalyst

1) There is a gravity on this planet, whether or not one chooses to believe it or not.

The above statement shows that you do not actually know what gravity is.

2) Mathematics states 1 + 1 = 2.

Except when the equation is vectorial.

[darksage3]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

The above statement shows that you do not actually know what gravity is.



Except when the equation is vectorial.

Are you polytheism Brother? Just wondering that is all, you dont have to answer if you do not wish to.