we are the simulation

[mysterygal]

I asked Steve if he thought we were in a simulation...he said it would be more accurate to say that we are the simulation. What do you think he mean't by that?

[Akashic_Librarian]

A universe cannot exist without mind entering into it.

[Shamou]

Originally Posted by mysterygal

I asked Steve if he thought we were in a simulation...he said it would be more accurate to say that we are the simulation. What do you think he mean't by that?

Not to discredit Akashic_Librarian's reply... but, personally I would ask Steve himself what he meant by that...

A very small distinction can make a very big difference...

.

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by mysterygal

I asked Steve if he thought we were in a simulation...he said it would be more accurate to say that we are the simulation. What do you think he mean't by that?

If you think that "YOU" are in a simulation, it implies that there is "YOU" and then there is "A SIMULATION", and "YOU" are IN that simulation. Steve was trying to point out that YOU and the SIMULATION are the same thing, not two things.

In other words, there's nothing out there doing this TO YOU, it's YOU doing it to yourself.

[jamasiel]

Baudrillard is dead

[escapee]

A universe cannot exist without mind entering into it.

When a gigantic asteroid blow off the earth into million pieces and thus killing all conscious mind in the earth . There is a great chance that the other trillion planets will continue spin as per law and the universe will continue to expand.

[jamasiel]

Yes, but then who cares?

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by jamasiel

Yes, but then who cares?

The aliens who weren't wiped out

[Shamou]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

The aliens who weren't wiped out

You are one positive Dude...

.

[SecretSeven]

the aliens.....haha

[Shindra]

Originally Posted by mysterygal

I asked Steve if he thought we were in a simulation...he said it would be more accurate to say that we are the simulation. What do you think he mean't by that?

In subjective reality as presented by Steve, as I understand it:
You are consciousness
And you create everything with your consciousness, with your beliefs, with your thoughts, and you increase something by focusing consciousness of it - if you see it more, you see more of it. Believing is seeing, intention-manifestation and all that.

Bringing up the dream analogy again - what is a dream you dream made of? It's made of your consciousness. Everything that happens in that dream is continously created by your consciousness. And it exists only within your consciousness - within you.
That's subjective reality - your true identity is not ego, but consciousness, and consciousness is the container, not the contained. Steve has written several posts elaborating this.

Consciousness is the creator and perciever - it is that which runs the simulation, as well as that which experiences the simulation.
You are consciousness.
You are one with everything - with the simulation - as the simulation is your consciousness, is you.

[Akashic_Librarian]

We arn't the only conscious beings in the Universe


AND if subjective reality is th etrue way of the world, then yes, if we died, the world would end

[Theo77]

This model must take into account the existence of other minds. Otherwise its simply solipsism.

[Theo77]

Wikipedia: Solipsism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Steve's "subjective reality" and solipsism seem remarkably alike.

I just want to say once again, that Steve is an explorer, sharing his explorations with others, figuring things out as he goes a long.

I find a lot of his stuff inspiring and stimulating, but, I mean, I have no gurus.

Solipsism is problematic. Lots of people keep tying SR together with polarity and worrying that polarizing dark my prevent them from experiencing Subjective reality, because Steve identifies as a lightworker and has this idea of subjective reality.

I think its kind of backwards. Solipsism is actually pretty dark.

If thinking that you are the only mind in the Universe is not self centered, then what is?

Personally, I am going with the model, that the universe exists apart from me but that my mind interacts with it and can effect it. The more I can use my mind to effect the universe the more powerful I will become.

[Theo77]

I believe other minds exist. But I only experience my perception of other minds. I can tweak my perceptions of things and get them to work for me.

I can discard self defeating models and create empowering ones.

[mysterygal]

I agree totally. Thinking that you are the only mind in the Universe is delusional if not schizophrenic. But as Steve said, he shares many different view points and allows his readers to come up with their own conclusions. I don't know what belief I suscribe to, but it constantly changes. As I've said in other posts, I find the idea that consciousness is the container very appealing. It would mean that life after death does exist. If matter came first, well then we'd all pretty much be doomed to perish with our bodies at death. There are so many different view points, it becomes exhausting at times. It seems as though a believers of all faiths are simply playing the lottery, hoping that they have chosen the right faith. I just hope that one day I can find a belief and stick with it!

I'm confused about one thing.... if consciousness existed first, howcome there is evidence that the earth existed wayy before humans ever entered the picture?

[Shindra]

Originally Posted by Theo77

Steve's "subjective reality" and solipsism seem remarkably alike.

Steve said that SR isn't solipsism - he explains it here:
http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/200...-reality-qa-3/

Originally Posted by http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2006/05/subjective-reality-qa-3/

Is subjective reality the same thing as solipsism (aka egoism)?

No. In fact, from a certain perspective it’s almost the opposite of solipsism.

Solipsism comes from the Latin words for self and alone. It’s a belief system in which you see your personal ego as the center of the universe, and nothing is real but your ego. The whole universe is taking place in your mind, but none of it is actually real. Solipsism is a belief system that can easily encourage (from an objective perspective) social withdrawal and immoral behavior. You would only have cause to care about yourself and no one else, since no one is real anyway.

This is a very different concept that the subjective reality belief system I’ve been writing about. In subjective reality, the universe isn’t centered on your personal ego. That’s a sticking point that a lot of people seem to have trouble with. So if you assume that your own mind is the center of the universe and everything is a projection of it, then you’re really talking about solipsism and not subjective reality. Subjective reality is a somewhat arbitrary term I’ve chosen — a better choice might be God-consciousness, which I started using in the last post.

In subjective reality, the manner in which you identify yourself changes completely. YOU stop thinking of yourself as an individual human being entirely. Rather, you become consciousness itself, the container in which the simulation of reality is run. You can return to the level of egoic consciousness centered on the body you think of as your own (and I’ll use that perspective in the rest of this Q&A because it’s probably easier to understand), but that isn’t your default level of thinking. By default you would think of your body and mine as equally YOU, just as your body’s heart and lungs are equally you.

Furthermore, solipsism doesn’t suggest that you have the power to change your reality by conscious thought. In subjective reality everything is a product of your beliefs, convictions, and knowledge, all of which are thoughts.

So in subjective reality, everything is indeed real. You’re real. I’m real. The physical universe is real. Everything you experience is a manifestation of thought.

Originally Posted by Theo77

If thinking that you are the only mind in the Universe is not self centered, then what is?

it's not about being self centered or not. Steve has said this too.

Originally Posted by http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2006/05/subjective-reality-qa/

Wouldn’t I become totally self-centered with a subjective belief system?

You are naturally self-centered. The problem is when you choose the wrong “self” to center around. If you choose your body as the self and center around that, then you manifest all sort of problems as you compete with other bodies. It’s you vs. them. You vs. not you. And your interactions with others will be invariably fear-based, just like you’d see in a competitive or violent video game. You may try to suppress the fear and feeling of being in competition with others, but you will never be free of it. Fear and competition are natural byproducts of ego identification.

But when you select pure consciousness as the SELF you center around, you have made a wonderful choice because there is nothing outside of consciousness. Now you are centering around the real you which encompasses all that exists. So there is no you vs. them. In this case your interactions will become more loving and joyful. You are centering yourself around the real you. Another name for this is God-consciousness.

So a subjective belief system will make you SELF-centered but not self-centered, which is a very enjoyable state to reach.

Originally Posted by http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2006/05/more-subjective-reality-qa/

So are you saying you believe the whole world centers around you?

No, not in the sense this question is likely being asked. The part of this mindset that people seem to have difficulty understanding is the de-localization of consciousness. With an objective reality model, you think of yourself (”you”) as an individual human being. With subjective reality you identify with all of conscious creation. So you don’t perceive the world as being centered around you in the sense of “you” being your body or your mind. Consciousness is equally present everywhere, and that’s what you identify with. So your sense of Self expands to be an all-emcompassing field instead of a particular point that can be localized within time and space. [...]

Originally Posted by mysterygal

I'm confused about one thing.... if consciousness existed first, howcome there is evidence that the earth existed wayy before humans ever entered the picture?

In SR, consciousness does not come from your body. It does not come from your ego, from a human. It created/creates humans. It also created history. It also creates past and present - past and present exist within your mind. Read the blogposts for elaboration on that.

[SecretSeven]

But why would consciousness create this vast universe with no life in it?

[Shindra]

Originally Posted by SecretSeven

But why would consciousness create this vast universe with no life in it?

Whatever do you mean? It's full of life.

[SecretSeven]

Yes, but millions of years ago when it wasn't full of life.

[Shindra]

Originally Posted by SecretSeven

Yes, but millions of years ago when it wasn't full of life.

The illusion of time. The reflection of the non-physical in the physical, here being the concept of growth. I don't see the problem. Belief is in evolution, so, created by belief, there was an evolution of matter/chemistry into organisms. I guess.
So that there can be consistency between life and laws of physics. Of course, scientific knowledge of the beginning of the universe is uncertain. Belief-creates-reality isn't a scientific thing, as pointed out by Steve with reference to the fact that science assumes an independent observer is possible. In SR, observer and observed are/is one.

consciousness exists outside of time, so in a way it "has" every possible experience right now - and just feeds specific partial experiences to the mind that exists in time in order to experience. (because if everything is experienced at once, there is no seperation and relativity and nothing can be experienced in the absence of it's opposite. Hot and cold can't be experienced at once in oneness, or they wouldn't be hot and cold, there would be no sense of temperature if there were no variables. So it is with all experience.)

[SecretSeven]

lol, Thanx....that makes sense....I guess the truth is that we will never be able to know the truth. We just have to try out different beliefs and go with the ones that have the best result.

[Theo77]

Its solipsism. I read the link you posted. If you know what solipsism is and you read Steve's explanation, you see that its solipsism.

If you don't know what solipsism is and you read the part where Steve says its not solispsism, then you would say "Oh, he says it isn't."

But really it still is. He didn't do anything to refute the charge of solipsism but actually totally cemented it as such.

There are different variations on a theme of solipsism.

If you think other minds don't exist except your own and that other minds are projections, you are a solipsist, plain and simple.

I think SR is jst a way to play mind games with your self.

I don't think anyone can live like that consistently. The only thing we can change is the mental map we create of the Universe based on our perceptions. We can have a faulty map, that holds us back in life, and we can create a better more empowering one. In that sense we create our own reality.

But when we turn the t.v. off and go to bed, the show goes on for everyone else watching it.

Toddlers are often solipsists. A toddler may join older kids or adults in a game of hide and seek and hide by placing their hands over their eyes. They figure if they can see anyone else no one can see them.

[Theo77]

The only distinction he makes between his "subjective reality" or "God concsiousness" and solipsism is a by use of a fallacy.

The fallacy is that he has a different application for his solipsism, than an application that he would consider negative, so therefore he says its not solipsism.


That's basically, like saying "I am not a thief because I plan to donate the money I stole to charity. A real theif would keep the money or use it for selfish ends."

But really the definition of a thief is a person who steals, motive or plans after the fact, whats in your heart, etc. is irrelevant.

[Mark Lapierre]

From the wikipedia article:

Denial of the materialist viewpoint, in itself, is not enough to be a Solipsist. Possibly the most controversial, and most distinguishing, feature of the solipsistic world view is the denial of the existence of other minds.

Also:

Metaphysical solipsism is the variety of idealism which maintains that the individual self of the solipsistic philosopher is the whole of reality and that the external world and other persons are representations of that self having no perceptual independent existence (Wood, 295).

The issue is that the negative connotations of solipsism exist only from an objective reality viewpoint. I think Steve is fine to say that SR is not solipsism because thinking of solipsism invokes images of ego and individual mind being the centre, which Steve is not talking about. Using the term solipsism, while technically correct, would be misleading, and therefore ultimately wrong.

Theo, your first post said that the model must take into account the existence of other minds. It does, egoic minds, the same as inhabit Steve's and everyone else's body.

You also said, "We can have a faulty map, that holds us back in life, and we can create a better more empowering one." This is exactly what Steve has done. Could you argue that he isn't more empowered than when he previously held different beliefs? Though my question would be, is his current empowered state the result of his beliefs, or of something else? That is, did his previous beliefs lead him to his current state, and would his situation be all that different if he still held those beliefs? Regardless, his current beliefs are obviously not having a detrimental effect on his existence.

That said, there is danger in adopting a belief in SR without understanding how to apply it in an empowering manner. I don't believe it, so attempting to adopt such a belief would surely lead me to trouble.

[Theo77]

Personally, playing mind games with myself isn't my ultimate goal.

I think its interesting to experiment. But for me the idea of objective reality being one lifestyle choice, among many,is pretty humorous.

I think I am better off trying to learn what is actually going on in the universe and strategizing based on the best intel available at the time. Because I think playing too many mind games with yourself will eventually backfire.

You'll get stuck, the game won't be as fun anymore and then in order to get free you will need to objectively assess the situation.

The thing is there will always be subjective aspects to ones reality. That's the nature of the beast.

All we have are our perceptions. That doesn't mean that that's all that is there. Its just that we have to go on inferences and logic for a lot of things.

If your reality is 100% maleable chances are you are simply deluding yourself and eventually you will get a cold hard dose of reality and will be forced to recalibrate your map.

That's my opinion.

[zoowise]

Originally Posted by mysterygal

I asked Steve if he thought we were in a simulation...he said it would be more accurate to say that we are the simulation. What do you think he mean't by that?

I'm guessing that Steve has an intention to help others and those others are many and massive, therefore it's nice for steve to feel important.

If Steve could not make any money from this site would he continue??

Hmmm, that's a tough one.

I want to help others, but what's the point if I can't help myself??

Steve is god, steve is a guide, steve is the new tony robbins, steve is a portal, steve is you, steve is my dog, steve is a guru, steve is the next big guru, steve is the guru on oprah, steve is just.......

Post edited to remove a personal attack and improve the post quality.
~ Bruce Achterberg

I don't know what he is.

I wouldn't put too much faith in what he spouts.

According to his SR theory, he is you. Go figure

cheese

zooy

[SecretSeven]

hmm interesting theory

[Stu]

Originally Posted by jamasiel

Baudrillard is dead

Very sad indeed. CTheory.net