I disagree, Mr Pavlina

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by curiouslyrandom

It's not hostility that you are experiencing from any of us, it's humor. Most people familiar with subjective reality are pretty happy with life and feel no need to put the hammer down on others.

I must say this a hundred times a day, but...

Reeeeelaaaaax. None of this is as real as you think it is.

p.s.-- it's not much of "discussion" for you to come to a place where people exchange ideas and tell us we're all wrong wrong wrong. You are entitled to your opinions, as are we. Don't be surprised if we don't take you too seriously. Most of us have already been where you are now and moved on.

curiouslyrandom: who gave you the talking stick for everybody on this forum? Why assume everyone is against a new forumer and lumping everyone into us versus one other.

[curiouslyrandom]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

curiouslyrandom: who gave you the talking stick for everybody on this forum? Why assume everyone is against a new forumer and lumping everyone into us versus one other.

It's the donuts. The donuts told me so.

[curiouslyrandom]

You know, I've been mulling your statement over (the donut is gone, I've moved on to plums now) and I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from, Wolfgang. Do you feel I've been speaking on your behalf?

who gave you the talking stick for everybody on this forum?

I suppose I felt the right to speak my mind because that's what generally happens on this forum. At least that's been my perception. I didn't realize there was a "talking stick" involved or that I may have wrested it from anyone. Who had it last?

Why assume everyone is against a new forumer and lumping everyone into us versus one other.

A new member posted his view of a subject, others disagreed. I concur with the disagreement. How is that lumping anything anywhere?

So... if you feel I've stepped on your toes, I apologize. However, I don't see how my posts could have offended you in anyway. Perhaps that's just my limited perception.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by curiouslyrandom

You know, I've been mulling your statement over (the donut is gone, I've moved on to plums now) and I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from, Wolfgang. Do you feel I've been speaking on your behalf?

who gave you the talking stick for everybody on this forum?

I suppose I felt the right to speak my mind because that's what generally happens on this forum. At least that's been my perception. I didn't realize there was a "talking stick" involved or that I may have wrested it from anyone. Who had it last?

Why assume everyone is against a new forumer and lumping everyone into us versus one other.

A new member posted his view of a subject, others disagreed. I concur with the disagreement. How is that lumping anything anywhere?

So... if you feel I've stepped on your toes, I apologize. However, I don't see how my posts could have offended you in anyway. Perhaps that's just my limited perception.

I liked your doughnut reply.
Please do speak your mind.
Thanks for seeking harmony.


Must be my sensitivity of reading "we" - and taking it in my way as if you are speaking for the whole forum as an entity that is opposed to the OP.

I could have translated "we" into "the replies that concur with the disagreement".

[Entelechy]

Hi Meai,

I agree that reality is ultimately objective. As a businessman, it only makes sense for me to live this way. However, as creatures of free will (I also believe we have free will), we have the ability to choose whether or not we would like to live that way. Every individual has a mind of his/her own, hence the term "individual." As Napoleon Hill writes in "Think and Grow Rich," you must use your mind to make your own decisions.

Steve Pavlina likes to do lots of experiments with his life and just so happened to write about them on a website. The one we're discussing specifically - subjective reality - is by its very nature: subjective. It isn't the first time he has tried something different, it's just that he happens to have made a big name for himself and therefore attracts lots of attention that a regular person doing the same thing [experimenting] may not get.

If there's a red apple sitting on a table, and a little girl who is color blind sees it as blue (literally), it's still blue to her. Doesn't change the fact that it's ultimately red, but still blue to her nonetheless. Just a small example relating to the topic.

[curiouslyrandom]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

I liked your doughnut reply.
Please do speak your mind.
Thanks for seeking harmony.

Must be my sensitivity of reading "we" - and taking it in my way as if you are speaking for the whole forum as an entity that is opposed to the OP.

I could have translated "we" into "the replies that concur with the disagreement".

Oh! Okay. I can see where you're coming from now.

LOL... I've been listening to a lot of Abraham videos lately. Must be sprinkling in more "we" into conversation than I was aware of!

[Mounds]

Originally Posted by Meai

Look guys, forget it. I have posted on a lot of religious / alternative forums, but I have never seen this kind of hostility.

Let me paint a picture of how this went down. You called out the host and got a reaction. Then you did the equivalent of balling your fists and spinning in a circle, hitting everyone in the vicinity, even people who see it your way (ie. me). Then you say we are the hostile ones....

*ahem*

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

-Tim

[Mounds]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Strange.

I would have thought that in Internet forums, people generally post about the topics that interest them.

Your absolutely correct! The original post interested me and I posted in response to it. Huzzah!

[Shariku Onikage]

I think he's gone now but i'm fired up now all the same. The chocolate brownie i had helped.

Meai:

The ultimate problem that has come from your side of the debate appears to have been a refusal to understand the point of view of subjective reality. Sure you read up on it at first and decided it was wrong and wished to debate further but since then you've responded more with scorn to every counter argument that's been established.

And this is despite the fact that no-one is really disagreeing with your point of view on the subject. That's the problem here. The members of the board accept you have a point on objective reality and understand it well (i'm sure most of us have gone through it ourselves at some point). But you don't appear to accept subjective reality as a point at all, regardless of whether it's true or not. This is a problem since, by its very nature, subjective reality doesn't need to be true at all to be effective.

And whether you intend to or not, you are the one who's coming off as saying 'la la lah, i'm not listening' as a result of this, which is what you appear to think Steve is doing. You come across as mocking when people state obvious facts for the purpose of clarifying what they're talking about. You come across as responding to people's counter comments with 'that's not true. you're just wrong' without explaining why you think that beyond the other debaters 'just being wrong.' In all it just seems like you're not willing to directly accept that people follow the line of subjective thinking.

This might not have been a problem elsewhere. If this was a scientific debate forum of some kind and there was a 'only one answer can be true' assumption going on between all members of the debate, your method of debate would have been more valid.

However, this remains a self help/personal development site and not a religious/alternate site as you seem to think. Its intentions differ from all the psychic/magic/religious sites that are there to prove that their way of thinking is 100% correct. Because Steve's articles fall into the category of personal development, the debates here become a case of 'there is no right or wrong answer' and that's the biggest reason this site is coming off as hostile from your position.The site isn't out to prove anything. It's here to help people. If subjective reality doesn't help you, then simply move on. There are other articles and other sites out there to help people and whatever it is you're looking for you might find it there.

Granted, the religious sites out there may also say they are there to help, but their other main intention is to prove their way of thinking 100% correct and anything else heresy (with maybe a bit of leeway in regards to extremism). This is not the case here. I'll state it obviously again (and use italics!). The aim is to help people develop, regardless of their beliefs.

Even the way Steve has been responding is to help you (and possibly because he likes acting a bit of a jerk) by trying to make the situation less serious and get you to relax. Hell, the only reason i'm still debating here(and i do hope my points off coming off clearly, because even if i think my side of the debate is coming off clearly if you see it as glarble then i'm failing somewhere) is because i want to help you understand the ways of thinking that go on here.

You have a point in your opinion, but so do the members of the forum... and that Steve guy. So please, just come to accept this and that the subjective reality people don't care if they're wrong or not.


Oh, and to be really petty (because i like arguing pedantics)

You initially said:

Originally Posted by Meai

It's also very arrogant to think that everything in existance is in your mind.

to which i replied:

Originally Posted by Shariku Onikage

Also, going back to philosophy 101, how do you know the universe isn't in your mind?

to which you replied:

Originally Posted by Meai

I don't know that, and I never said I do.

and then later:

Originally Posted by meai

erm no? The quotes you gave have nothinig in common.

To which i now reply:

THEY SO TOTALLY DO!!!

/end rant that no one no longer cares about.

[a muse]

"Intuitively you may know something is off in your approach to relationships, but you’ll remain stuck until you realize that every relationship you have with another person is really a relationship that exists entirely within yourself."

LOL I think this comment made by Mr Pavlina and quoted by yourself is brilliant. It's also very true

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Entelechy

I agree that reality is ultimately objective.

You have no evidence for your view.

There is absolutely nothing that you know, understand, sense or perceive about the universe ...

.... which is not merely your own knowledge, understanding, sensing or perception.

And your own knowledge, understanding, sensing and perception are all processes of your own mind.

In other words, subjective.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Meai

Drawing the conclusion that "all" (I know he doesn't say it, but it's implied) external stuff can always be solved by internal changes is just ridiculous at this point.

You're right. After all, there is no external and no internal.

If you understand your physics, you will know that you and the rest of the universe are basically just composed of empty space, with a few subatomic particles popping in and out of existence at the speed of light.

From this viewpoint, it's just ridiculous that you should exist.

In fact, that's why Buddhism asserts that the self is an illusion.

The biggest challenge to Steve's SR theory is actually Buddhist. Steve asserts that there is just one person creating it all; Buddhism asserts that that one person doesn't even exist.

Right now, quantum physics agrees with both Steve and Buddhism.

How is that possible? Well, remember Schrodinger's cat, from quantum physics.

We think that the cat must either be alive or dead (i.e by analogy, there is either one thinker, or none), but we know what Schrodinger's experiment ultimately illustrates - until the critical moment, the cat is neither alive nor dead, but merely exists as a set of probabilities.

What the hell does that mean?

It means that Steve's reality may be subjective, but it isn't necessarily the only reality around. There could well be other realities, either existing, or existing as probabilities and waiting to manifest.

This takes us to the Many Worlds theory, by quantum physicist Hugh Everitt. Incidentally, before Hugh, there was the psychic Jane Roberts who channelled the entity known as Seth, which explained the existence of multiple realities in pretty much the same terms as Hugh Everitt subsequently did.

By now, I've lost most of you. And some of you will think that my post above is muffin-style tongue-in-cheek.

But it isn't. If you don't believe me, you can pick out all the keywords above, and google, and read up more for yourself.

[catalyst]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

You have no evidence for your view.

There is absolutely nothing that you know, understand, sense or perceive about the universe ...

.... which is not merely your own knowledge, understanding, sensing or perception.

And your own knowledge, understanding, sensing and perception are all processes of your own mind.

In other words, subjective.

You have no evidence of your view either. Your evidence is the claim of lack of any absolute truth, yet your belief in subjective reality an absolute.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by catalyst

You have no evidence of your view either.

But I do.

All the things I know, understand, perceive and sense about my reality are my knowledge, understanding, perception and sensing;

and all of this knowledge, understanding, perception and sensing of mine are processes of my own consciousness;

in other words, subjective.

Therefore all the things that I know, understand, perceive and sense about my reality ....

.... is evidence for subjective reality.

(I wonder why I have to keep explaining these things. Aren't they obvious?)

[Mounds]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

You have no evidence for your view.

Hey now, Mr. Skeptic. We don't allow evidence on these boards

[VinceG]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Therefore all the things that I know, understand, perceive and sense about my reality ....

.... is evidence for subjective reality.

You're coming dangerously close to solipsism here. You can't use everything you experience as ultimate evidence for describing reality a certain way. If you're a true solipsist, then don't even bother replying, because it's a waste of time to argue with a solipsist. There's nothing to learn, nothing to teach. You might as well argue at a wall.

And the same sort of word game can be used as "evidence" for objective reality. Assuming you're not a solipsist, and that you are actually arguing with another mind and not a conjuration of your own mind, then that truth is the start of objectivity.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by VinceG

You're coming dangerously close to solipsism here.

So why would that be dangerous?

You can't use everything you experience as ultimate evidence for describing reality a certain way.

1. Which part of my argument do you consider untrue?

2. What would YOU instead use to describe reality? NOTHING that you have EVER known, understood, sensed or perceived?

And the same sort of word game can be used as "evidence" for objective reality.

How? It cannot. See my response to Entelechy earlier.

[VinceG]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

So why would that be dangerous?

It's not. But just when I was getting to like you, now I'm going to have to start tuning you out. Solipsism makes discussion impossible. You're never going to break through that haze of words to find a real person with real ideas that come from real experience. Yes, I hear the sound of you not giving a rip. It's the same sound I hear from tons of people. The noise is so deafening I have to adjust my radar.

It doesn't matter how intriguing, how interesting, how worthwhile the things that come out of you are. I've got plenty of intrigue, interest and worth myself. I communicate with others to get a feel for them, their whole person, their experiences and their vices and their desires. Not the cathedral of ideas they've built up to impress themselves with.

I know what you're going to respond with, that this is a limiting belief and that I should just get over it. Whatever. If that's a limit, it's one I'd much rather have than solipsism.

1. Which part of my argument do you consider untrue?

Truth or untruth don't particularly concern me anymore. Your life is defined by what you believe. I choose to believe there's something outside my beliefs, something you and I can grab hold of to create a truth that's greater than both of us, you choose not to believe this way.

2. What would YOU instead use to describe reality? NOTHING that you have EVER known, understood, sensed or perceived?

Patterns of mind. The pattern of solipsism I described earlier is an example. Minds tend to react in certain ways to certain stimuli. We can observe those patterns to glean the essential truth of mind. We can argue about those patterns to build a truth. But we can't argue about it if one of those persons doesn't believe it exists.

How? It cannot. See my response to Entelechy earlier.

I just explained to you how. I'd tell you to read it again, but since you only believe in yourself, you've already disabused yourself of the notion that I might know about a piece of the world that you don't.

[Hemlock]

Godot, first off let me state, totally love you, so this is all said with respect and curiosity.

I have been the happy friend/acquaintance of several buddhist/meditation teachers and serious students. The happy common theme is that they were all open minded and thought provoking. The unfortunate theme was that all of them at some point or another took to referencing scientific finds in support of their beliefs. I can only assume this was done for my benefit, because I know the methods of science weren't seen as particularly good to them.

Anyways, all of their scientific proof and references to "What the bleep do we know anyways?" ends up being very disheartening to those of us who study science, especially physics folk like me. A lot of it tends to be misunderstanding of theories, extension of the theories beyond what they were intended for, and reference to experiments that have been shown to be falsified.

It's just kind of disrespectful when a group of people disagree with the methods of science and then use the findings of science to back up their beliefs in a very ungrounded way. It seems like most spiritual people are learning about quantum theory from magazines about subjective reality, spirituality and philosophy but noone is actually bothering to learn what the hot terms like "quantum physics" is actually about, at least not from anything which is scientific in nature.

Science really isn't a horribly difficult subject, take a quick course at a university if you have the time and ask the instructor loads of questions (make sure you get a nice professor). I understand if that's not your priority, but if you do you can get a more firm understanding of a theory which really does have some amazing (and weird) implications which do at least leave an opening for alot of your beliefs and you won't drive off every science person you speak to by seeming misinformed.

Most of why I am writing this is to hear your response and reasoning, most people are too busy to study Physics, but there are some really cool videos on the subject from a fun but scientific perspective I could link you to. Anyways, love you lots Godot, keep enjoying life!

[cylon]

This should be good.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by cylon

This should be good.

I dunno ... Isn't it repetitive? Seems like we're been here at least 25 times before.

[cylon]

Aw man, I thought it would be fun. But yeah it's well worn territory.

I'm off to the kid's section of the library to check out some "You and the Wonderful World of Science" cartoon books.

A is for atom.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by VinceG

It's not. But just when I was getting to like you, now I'm going to have to start tuning you out.

No worries, feel free.

Solipsism makes discussion impossible.

What you really mean:

(1) You are unable to rebut or refute my reasoning
(2) Nevertheless you are unable to accept it
(3) Therefore you find further discussion impossible.

All I can say is -

Your inability to prove me wrong does not mean that I am wrong.
Your inability to prove me wrong merely tends to show that I am right.

I also realise that I just made two startlingly obvious statements.

On the other hand, they might not be obvious to you.

Simply reread your next sentence:

You're never going to break through that haze of words to find a real person with real ideas that come from real experience.

Steve, a real person,

wrote about Erin, another real person,

to illustrate his ideas and views about human relationships (a real topic, and something that we all deal with every day),

and used real experiences (drawn from his domestic life with Erin)

to explain his points.

And here you blithely suggest that SR is divorced from reality.

No, it's not. Subjective reality IS reality.

It doesn't matter how intriguing, how interesting, how worthwhile the things that come out of you are. I've got plenty of intrigue, interest and worth myself. I communicate with others to get a feel for them, their whole person, their experiences and their vices and their desires. Not the cathedral of ideas they've built up to impress themselves with.

I know what you're going to respond with, that this is a limiting belief and that I should just get over it.

Nope. I am going to respond with this -

if you don't want to communicate with me, then don't. Really. Just don't.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Hemlock

Most of why I am writing this is to hear your response and reasoning, most people are too busy to study Physics, but there are some really cool videos on the subject from a fun but scientific perspective I could link you to.

I'm not really into videos, more into scientific papers.

Here's one of my favourites:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/me...97911_0158.pdf

(although it is a little dated - Alain Aspect's experiments in the early 1980s wrre only concluded after the publication of this paper).

Still the quote is memorable:

"The doctrine that the world is made up of objects

whose existence is independent

of human consciousness

turns out to be in conflict

with quantum mechanics and

with facts established by experiment"

So said Professor Bernard d'Espagnat, whose professional qualifications in the area of physics are ..... well, I think that they are extremely respectable, but you look them up for yourself, ok?

[Hemlock]

okay, hadn't realized it was well worn territory. I'll look at the link and try to find your other replies on the matter. Though it still seems like you're misunderstanding the Schrodinger cat thought experiment.

Ha, and cylon I didn't mean to say that children's books were the answer, I know you guys are smart, I more meant something like watching Brian Greene's The Elegant universe. Though how much one wants to look at string theory is questionable. But yeah, I'll look around.

[JeffistheAnswer]

It's debatable really. I think it's funny how much people care when others hold different beliefs then theirs. I find it funnier when people hold on to arguments for so long on the internet.

[Lakshyayidhi Lakshmihi]

Originally Posted by Hemlock

okay, hadn't realized it was well worn territory. I'll look at the link and try to find your other replies on the matter. Though it still seems like you're misunderstanding the Schrodinger cat thought experiment.

Ha, and cylon I didn't mean to say that children's books were the answer, I know you guys are smart, I more meant something like watching Brian Greene's The Elegant universe. Though how much one wants to look at string theory is questionable. But yeah, I'll look around.

"Most people" is assumptive. I've seen The Elegant Universe and I regularly watch a stanford u. quantum physics lecture class online. I'm tempted to quote Paul Davies from his introduction to Feynman's Six Easy Pieces:

There is a popular misconception that science is an impersonal, dispassionate, and thoroughly objective enterprise. Whereas most other human activities are dominated by fashion, fads, and personalities, science is supposed to be constrained by agreed rules of procedure and rigorous tests. It is the results that count, not the people who produce them.

This is, of course, manifest nonsense. Science is a people driven activity, like all human endeavor, and just as subject to fashion and whim. In this case fashion is set not so much by choice of subject matter, but by the way scientists think about the world.

[VinceG]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

if you don't want to communicate with me, then don't. Really. Just don't

Done.

[Hemlock]

Hey Laksh, agree with everything you said and hope I was incorrect in my, "most people" assumption.

[cylon]

I watched the Elegant Universe a few years ago. I remember enjoying it.