I disagree, Mr Pavlina

[Meai]

Hi, I just read one post from him and he's already wrong. Not very fundamentally, but the kind of wrong that allows the kind of shaky logic that you need to support crazy theories. Since I like to discuss, I post in the forums.

Here we go, referring to this post: Understanding Human Relationships

Even if your relationships exist in some objective reality independent of your thoughts, you never have access to the objective viewpoint. You’re always viewing your relationships through the lens of your own consciousness. The closest you can get to being objective is to imagine being objective, but that is in no way the same thing as true objectivity. That’s because the act of observation requires a conscious observer, which is subjective by its very nature.

Obviously we never have a 100% objective representation of our world. But we can try, often very successfully. It does not matter in real life, whether I can describe my relationship objectively with 95% accuracy or 100%. You are in fact downplaying the whole spirit and idea of science (=criticial thinking) itself.

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.

You do know that some people are hopeless right? You can't change every relationship to perfect, just because you want to. The other person still exists, and even if you only guess 50% of his/her character truthfully, it will sometimes be sufficient to know that no future together is possible.

Supposedly my desire for Erin to be neater and more organized means that I really want to improve in this area myself. Is that true? Yes, I have to admit that it is. When I criticize Erin for not being neat enough, I’m voicing my own desire to become even more organized.

Only if you mean that in the way that Erins room is in your house, and you feel the need to keep your whole house organized.

When I actually tried the subjective solution by going to work on myself, Erin suddenly began taking a keen interest in becoming more organized herself.

Look this is getting slightly out of hand:
First of all: Why in the world do you conclude that this approach will work in any way for others just because Erin happened to see your changed behaviour and conclude that she wanted to do the same. In fact, this is highly unlikely. Most people won't notice and won't care. They will feel that you are mocking them by cleaning even more.
I hope you didn't do this "experiment" when you guys were freshly in love. In that period, I guess, any partner would do anything.

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.

edit: Maybe I should give an example of how your approach doesn't make sense:

Regarding my fictional girlfriend: There are some behavioural changes, she is nervous when I take up her phone and she acts stiff or overly enthusiastic during you know what. With your approach, I would need to change myself to make her feel more secure and loved.
Would this help in any way? Maybe yes. But let's say she cheated on me and acts like that because of her guilt.
With logical thinking and reasoning I would quickly come to a possible explanation: She might be cheating. So I have several options to treat this.
If I just change myself, I never have that and will live with a girl oblivious to her cheating nature.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Meai

Hi, I just read one post from him

It is extremely unlikely that you can read any one post about subjective reality and grasp the concept.

This is irrespective of whether you would actually agree with the concept or not.

[Mounds]

Originally Posted by Meai

Hi, I just read one post from him and he's already wrong.

If you go outside on a clear night and look really closely, you might just see Steve Pavlina's care shooting through the air.

For me, I've read tons about subjective reality over the past year. I've even read a few books on it. For me, it's like multiplying by zero. Try as I might, I'm just not interested. I'm sure you'll reach that point as well, albeit with a few hiccups along the way.

-Tim

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Mounds

Try as I might, I'm just not interested.

1. Why did you try to be interested?

2. What has your interest, or lack of interest, in a theory/idea got to do with whether the idea is right or wrong?

[James81]

Originally Posted by Meai

Hi, I just read one post from him and he's already wrong.

Man, you came out swinging.

What is it about that post that bugged you so much as to actually inspire you to sign up on the forums and come challenge those points?

[Mounds]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

1. Why did you try to be interested?

2. What has your interest, or lack of interest, in a theory/idea got to do with whether the idea is right or wrong?

1. I got pretty into this stuff for a time. I thought it was a neat idea and wanted to see what all the rage was about.

2. Beats me! I just said I'm not interested in it and apparently neither is Meai.

[Parthon]

How wrong the statements are depends on the reader's views, beliefs and opinions. Read from one view it is wrong, read from another it is true.

Now how do you separate your own view out so you can be objective? You can't. Not because it's impossible, but because we are human. Everything we experience is coloured by our own filters on how the universe is like.

Of course, if you have the "scientific and objective" filter in place then there's a lot of truths about the universe that will just slide right by. Worse than that, there's lots of truths out there which will be dismissed as completely insane purely because you have a "scientific and objective" filter.

Subjective reality is one of those. It doesn't make any sense from an objective viewpoint.

[jayh]

Originally Posted by Parthon

How wrong the statements are depends on the reader's views, beliefs and opinions. Read from one view it is wrong, read from another it is true.

Exactly - It's all very subjective...

[Savage]

Originally Posted by Meai

Regarding my fictional girlfriend...

My nonfictional g/f is sitting across the table from me as we enjoy some delicious vegan muffins together in Vancouver. Soon we'll rent bikes and ride around Stanley Park. Then we'll drive to Kelowna where we'll be staying near a beautiful mountain lake.

I find that carrot-maple muffins go pretty well with critical feedback.

[Weena]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

My nonfictional g/f is sitting across the table from me as we enjoy some delicious vegan muffins together in Vancouver. Soon we'll rent bikes and ride around Stanley Park. Then we'll drive to Kelowna where we'll be staying near a beautiful mountain lake.

I find that carrot-maple muffins go pretty well with critical feedback.

I love this reply Best reply to a feedback I've read from you so far. Hope you still chomping on that muffin since this is kind of a feedback .

[Parthon]

I was also going to say "Which filter is stopping your fictional girlfriend from becoming non-fiction?" but thought it was a bit too mean. :P

[Meai]

My nonfictional g/f is sitting across the table from me as we enjoy some delicious vegan muffins together in Vancouver. Soon we'll rent bikes and ride around Stanley Park. Then we'll drive to Kelowna where we'll be staying near a beautiful mountain lake.
I find that carrot-maple muffins go pretty well with critical feedback.

Your lack of interest in discussing this shows the behaviour of a man who believes, but doesn't know and is scared to know. I was raised religiously, and know one when I see one.

And yes, there is a difference between irony and sarcasm. Not a small one.

For me, I've read tons about subjective reality over the past year. I've even read a few books on it. For me, it's like multiplying by zero. Try as I might, I'm just not interested. I'm sure you'll reach that point as well, albeit with a few hiccups along the way.

I don't know what that means. Do you embrace the idea or not?

Right, maybe I should point out the obvious: I am not a native english speaker, and there might be a certain tone in my initial post that I have missed. I didn't mean that I actually imagine a fictional girlfriend sitting next to me, and I think you knew that anyway. It was an example But you would rather rush into a single, slightly ill-worded sentence and pick it apart, then try to reflect upon your own conceptions.

Every answer but one was:
1, besides the point
2, didn't even try to address the point.
3. didn't show any sign of having understood what the point is.

It is extremely unlikely that you can read any one post about subjective reality and grasp the concept.

This is irrespective of whether you would actually agree with the concept or not.

Please explain it to me then. If it doesn't need belief, you should be able to explain it. Any idea can be summarized into a few sentences. I personally think that I do understand it and in my opinion it is meaningless for most of daily life as I indicated in my criticism.

Now how do you separate your own view out so you can be objective? You can't. Not because it's impossible, but because we are human. Everything we experience is coloured by our own filters on how the universe is like.

Of course, if you have the "scientific and objective" filter in place then there's a lot of truths about the universe that will just slide right by. Worse than that, there's lots of truths out there which will be dismissed as completely insane purely because you have a "scientific and objective" filter.

Yes, we have subjective filters. That does not mean that these filters don't overlap. And I'm saying that they do significantly, and in a way that renders the theory of subjective reality pretty much meaningless.
You cannot simplify one person's view to "scientific and objective". Nobody is 100% purely scientific and even if it was, then the scientific filter might still very likely be sufficient to discover enough truths so that harmonious living is possible.

I was also going to say "Which filter is stopping your fictional girlfriend from becoming non-fiction?" but thought it was a bit too mean. :P

Please refrain from spamming.

EDIT: I didn't consider that Mr Pavlina might have made this whole thing just because of business reasons. If so, it can of course never be proven and would be pointless to do so. I'm just saying that your lack of interest in self-reflection is an indication towards it and created this thought.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Meai

Your lack of interest in discussing this

All I can say is that this is an extremely odd comment, considering:

(1) the sheer number of posts that Steve has written, over the years, on the topic of SR; and

(2) the sheer number of posts that Steve has made in the forums, over the years, on the topic of SR.

Now, suddenly, according to a new forummer who admits having only read one of Steve's posts, we learn that actually, Steve has no interest in discussing SR.

[Meai]

I did read a lot about it in the meantime, and it's still just as ridiculous as before.

Change your beliefs, and then watch the physical universe itself change to become congruent with them.

Just because I believe my body can fly, doesn't make it happen. If anything was possible, why haven't you made money appear out of thin air Mr. Pavlina? I'm not talking about creating a business. I'm talking about magic.

It's also very arrogant to think that everything in existance is in your mind. How do you appreciate other people? I can see now, how you can look down on other people and opinions so easily.

And he didn't make subjective reality as a requirement for the post I was referring to in my initial post anyway. So I don't understand why we are talking about this:

Even if your relationships exist in some objective reality independent of your thoughts,

which means that his post was supposed to also work for people with no understanding of SR.


EDIT: Because someone took away my ability to post without moderators approval, I'll edit this post for a quick answer:
I was talking about magic. If there really was such a thing, this challenge wouldn't have been undefeated: James Randi Educational Foundation
1 million for the first guy or gal who can do something supernatural. Have fun.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Meai

If anything was possible, why haven't you made money appear out of thin air Mr. Pavlina?

At this point, I am so tempted to describe my numerous successful "manifest money out of thin air" experiences.

But then I would be hijacking this thread.

And besides, why should I repeat all those stories for the new guy on the block? He can use the search engine if he likes.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Meai

Just because I believe my body can fly, doesn't make it happen.

See Post 47 in this thread:

Manifesting super powers

By the way, do you believe you can fly?

[Shariku Onikage]

I'd like to think (through my own subjective reality of course) that the reason Steve isn't taking you seriously in his response is because you're bringing up hypothetical girlfriends, as opposed to real ones. It's not a 'la la lah i can't hear you' response, it's a 'you've yet to bring up a sufficient argument to garner any real interest' response.

Sure his girlfriend response may only have been one simple anecdotal example and not some peer reviewed meta-anayltical longintudinal study on the effects of subjective reality in the domestic home, but it was certainly better than some random hypothetical taken to the adulterous extreme.

And this isn't exactly an attempt to prove all of science wrong, which is what you appear to be assuming (anyone who brings up James Randi as if no one's heard of him is usually a heavily skeptical atheist (and i should know, because i do it all the time)). It's a thought experiment/empowering device that puts your life in the centre of the universe. It doesn't matter if you're the centre of the universe or not and any attempts to rant on the impossibility of this are meaningless. It's simply a way of looking through life from your particular perspective and seeing how you influence the world around you, even in the smallest of ways.

Also, going back to philosophy 101, how do you know the universe isn't in your mind? All we have to do to shake the tree of our understanding is just to look up a whole multitude of problems with knowledge. Descartes Malin genie, Putnam's brain in a vat, Bostrom's computer simulation, Plato's Shadows on a wall, the inability to be able to tell what it would be like to be a bat from a bat's point of view, Nozick's experience machine... the list goes on. Even with Occam's razor you can't make it any more objective and definite than 'we probably are living in an objective reality'.

I personally don't accept that magic exists and have no belief in psychic powers but if Steve showed up tomorrow flying a little above me, asked me if i wanted to join him for muffins and replied 'Yes' when i asked him which flavours he had, i would no longer be fit to call myself a scientist if i continued denying such possibilities.

Just relax a little. You're coming off as someone who's giving off knee-jerk reactions.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Meai

James Randi Educational Foundation

No self-respecting psychic would go to James Randi.

He's not a scientist. He's a high school dropout for goodness sakes. If you really wanted to prove that the paranormal exists, James Randi would be the last person you'd go to.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Mounds

2. Beats me! I just said I'm not interested in it and apparently neither is Meai.

Strange.

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

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Meai

It's also very arrogant to think that everything in existance is in your mind. How do you appreciate other people?

Obviously, because you know that they are all part of yourself.

Why do you think that the spiritual chaps like Jesus always brim with love for everyone else?

[Meai]

Also, going back to philosophy 101, how do you know the universe isn't in your mind? All we have to do to shake the tree of our understanding is just to look up a whole multitude of problems with knowledge. Descartes Malin genie, Putnam's brain in a vat, Bostrom's computer simulation, Plato's Shadows on a wall, the inability to be able to tell what it would be like to be a bat from a bat's point of view, Nozick's experience machine... the list goes on.

I don't know that, and I never said I do. I just don't generally try to live under rules and notions that have little to no proof. For the same reason I don't believe in God or Ghosts, and I do not believe in the easter bunny or Batman.

Even with Occam's razor you can't make it any more objective and definite than 'we probably are living in an objective reality'.

Yeah, that's what Occam's razor is. "Most probable" => highly likely to be right => you should believe in the stuff that is right, right?

The only reason you are believing in SR is, because you wan't to.

He's not a scientist. He's a high school dropout for goodness sakes.

And high schools are worthy of what exactly? In my experience they suck A LOT. The education you get there, is practically nil.
Many people drop out and become successful. Bill Gates is a drop out. Do you always want to hold something like dropping out of a high school against a man his entire life?
Apparently you are scared to be disproven aswell. Otherwise you would take the free 1mill. and leave like nothing happened.

Why do you think that the spiritual chaps like Jesus always brim with love for everyone else?

I know it's a weird concept. But they actually care about others and not just themselves.

[anusha]

You seem to have something against Everything!
If you don't want to acknowledge what Steve or Anyone has to say, then just take what's good for you in it.
Yeah you have your beliefs and opinions so do a thrillion others. You can't disagree with what everyone has to say in order to make them Accept your theories. just Let it be.

[anusha]

Originally Posted by Meai

Hi, I just read one post from him and he's already wrong.c

He's not trying to be right, If you don't agree with him, that's your opinion. This might have worked for lots of them. You can't prove it wrong for all of them.

[James81]

Originally Posted by Meai

EDIT: Because someone took away my ability to post without moderators approval,

If you're truly wanting to learn and discuss more about subjective reality with the fine people of this forum, then I would take this as a warning to sort of chill for a bit, because you're on a road that I've seen other new people get banned for. That is, coming to the forums and IMMEDIATELY hardcore debating with everybody that disagrees with you without taking the time to read around the forums a bit and get to know a few of the people here.

I don't say that to criticize. Actually, I say that because I'd like to see you stick around and get to know you a bit better before someone whips out the banhammer.

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by Meai

EDIT: Because someone took away my ability to post without moderators approval,

Here's an example of subjective reality. In your reality, someone took away your ability to post without moderator approval -- probably because you are openly disagreeing with Steve.

In objective reality, nobody took away your ability to post without moderator approval.

You made a very short post with a link. The system is automatically set to hold up individual posts like that from brand new members because we get hit with enormous amounts of spam. The mods can go through and approve the appropriate ones and delete the others.

I went ahead and deleted yours since you added the link in your "Edit."

[anusha]

Originally Posted by James81

If you're truly wanting to learn and discuss more about subjective reality with the fine people of this forum, then I would take this as a warning to sort of chill for a bit, because you're on a road that I've seen other new people get banned for. That is, coming to the forums and IMMEDIATELY hardcore debating with everybody that disagrees with you without taking the time to read around the forums a bit and get to know a few of the people here.

I don't say that to criticize. Actually, I say that because I'd like to see you stick around and get to know you a bit better before someone whips out the banhammer.

I'd like that too meai..

[Shariku Onikage]

Originally Posted by Shariku Onikage

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

Erm... not to be pedantic but earlier you said...

Originally Posted by Meai

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

If we assume 'universe' and 'everything' to equal roughly the same thing then you're just denying your own points.


Your argument here appears to be that subjective reality is utter nonsense and perfer to err on the side of the highly probable objective reality. The problem with your argument is that although objective reality is seen as highly probable based on strict observation and persistent testing of the rules of mathematics and physics (areas which, for the record, Steve is highly educated in), it still does not remain 100% definite undeniable fact. With that little room of doubt comes subjective perception, which essentially threatens to blow it all away.

Unfortunately this does bring us to the teapot in an asteroid belt argument in that no belief system is completely falsifiable, but this isn't what it is. It's more of an onotological thought experiment that's been brought up to the methodology level and the people here are testing it. A lot of them are coming to the conclusion it's highly effective, hence why they're throwing out such anecdotal examples. Some may not be, but unfortunately they don't usually post (or they just ask confused questions). The problem is that by its very nature it's all completely untestable in an objective controlled laboratory environment, but it's in the same way we can't prove you to be a brain in a jar with electrodes hooked up to you.

Sorry kiddo but if you ain't gonna be appeased by this you're just going to have to growl at us some more. Try not to be too appalled by all this and give some leeway on your side. It's not like we're all acting that Steve is our personal saviour and we put all our faith in him. It's closer to Buddhism than it is to Catholicism, since it's merly a way of looking at the world in an attempt to bring happiness to ourselves and those around us.

[Meai]

then you're just denying your own points.

erm no? The quotes you gave have nothinig in common. Unfortunately your post seems quite garbled.

Your argument here appears to be that subjective reality is utter nonsense and perfer to err on the side of the highly probable objective reality.

Yes.

With that little room of doubt comes subjective perception, which essentially threatens to blow it all away.

It can, but I don't see how that is ever a problem. Maybe you might to elaborate on this. If subjective material changes certain scientific results, we will eventually find the truth through continued evaluation. A theory is never proven, just tested. (Popper)
That's why science is so awesome.

Unfortunately this does bring us [...]

I don't follow. Why would it bring us to that next conclusion you write?

A lot of them are coming to the conclusion it's highly effective

A statement like this is meaningless, because you have to be effective at something. You are basically saying "This is effective", which as a statement alone contains no sense. Please be more precise.

but it's in the same way we can't prove you to be a brain in a jar with electrodes hooked up to you.

Well sorry again. As I said before I didn't quite understand what you want to say here. You bring the teapot example, so I have to assume that you understand it...

since it's merly a way of looking at the world in an attempt to bring happiness to ourselves and those around us.

That's even worse than true fellowship. Picking just the stuff out you like and then decide that that's the truth and nothing else. It's like an all-you-can-eat buffet, with all the worst kinds of bliss you can get through ignorance.

In summarry I see no real point in your argument. Yes, there is much we don't understand yet and our science might be flawed in many areas. But how is making stuff up (= SR) going to help?

He's not trying to be right, If you don't agree with him, that's your opinion. This might have worked for lots of them. You can't prove it wrong for all of them.

That's like saying "I don't agree that 1+1 = 2. In my opinion it isn't."
Nonsense.

a bit better before someone whips out the banhammer.

Oh I fully expect it. People don't like the truth, they just like talking about how cool it would be to have it or that they already have it.

[st33med]

Originally Posted by Meai

Oh I fully expect it. People don't like the truth, they just like talking about how cool it would be to have it or that they already have it.

So there is only One Truth™?

My truth right now is that this reality is an illusion, that it exists for everyone in this universe to have fun with life. Your Truth™ is different from mine.

Truth™ used with respect to the owner of James81

[lookcloser]

I still don't understand why people post about things they absolutely DON'T believe in! And have heated debates regarding with a closed mind.
I don't believe in lets say ...'XY', hence I really don't bother to sign up at the XY-ism forums and post about how there is no proof whatsoever 'XY' has powers etc. The only reason I WOULD post is if I thought "Wo, this sounds kinda cool, but wait...I don't know. What about 'PQ', can they coexist, is 'PQ' real now? Oh man, if 'PQ' ain't real that would get my world upside down, since that's the only thing I was certain about all my life. I'd rather stay away from this whole ridiculous 'XY' fad. Let me go tell those 'XY'ist suckers how they don't make any real sense.
Well, if you ignore the oversimplification in the example, you will know what I mean.

If you really aren't interested in SR, why start a thread just to say you disagree? I don't mean to say that, you did a stupid thing, I just want to know your real motive in posting the thread.