Self evident truths, that are not self evident.

[infinitethoughts]

Originally Posted by Keith

I think this is the key sticking point. We agree that perception is subjective. But can something effect someone if he doesn't perceive it? (eg. can someone shoot you using a sniper rifle without you being aware of it?). If yes, then the universe is at least partially objective.

You say we agree perception is subjective.
Then you say; But can something effect someone if he doesn't perceive it?

Like I said; Either perception is 100% subjective or it's not.
It can't be 50/50.

To add can something effect someone if he doesn't perceive it, is saying that perception is not 100% subjective.

See my point?

Originally Posted by Keith

You seem to be arguing that an objective universe perceived subjectively is a subjective universe, and that's not true.

No.
I'm saying how can you have an objective universe, if all you do is percieve subjectively?

[Keith]

Originally Posted by infinitethoughts

I'm saying how can you have an objective universe, if all you do is perceive subjectively?

What do you mean by 'have' an objective universe? AFAIK you don't 'have' a universe - the universe is and all you have is your perceptions of it.

[infinitethoughts]

Originally Posted by Keith

What do you mean by 'have' an objective universe? AFAIK you don't 'have' a universe - the universe is and all you have is your perceptions of it.

You are. And all you have is your universe.
I am. And all I have is my universe.

When two 'I's meet an agreement is made to call a rock a rock.
In that sense, one could vaguely call it 'objective'.

Think cyberspace.
You sit at your computer.
I sit at my computer.

This is how reality is, but we do not see this.

Our universes meet in 'cyberspace', which we call 'physical reality'.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by infinitethoughts

You are. And all you have is your universe.
I am. And all I have is my universe.
When two 'I's meet an agreement is made to call a rock a rock.
In that sense, one could vaguely call it 'objective'.
Think cyberspace.
You sit at your computer.
I sit at my computer.
This is how reality is, but we do not see this.
Our universes meet in 'cyberspace', which we call 'physical reality'.

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. You indicate that there is a place where individual perceptions interact - ie. there is something that exists beyond your own perceptions (even if you can only perceive it when it overlaps with your perceptions). So your position is something more like reality tunnels than claiming there is no objective universe?

[infinitethoughts]

Originally Posted by Keith

You indicate that there is a place where individual perceptions interact

No.
To be as clear as possible, their perceptions do not interact and it's not a 'place'. It's an agreement.
This is hard to convey into words.


Their universes interact.
But like I said, it's a simple agree-ing between two you-niverses.

This is why each 'I' chooses it's own realities.

This is how the saying "You create your reality" is possible.

Now of course if this is not known,
by the 'I'...... then the 'I' cannot create it's own reality.

Because, of course, from day one, it's been taught there is one, solid, unchanging universe. And then the 'I' says, "How on earth can I change "solid" reality, simply by my "puny" thoughts."

Originally Posted by Keith

So your position is something more like reality tunnels than claiming there is no objective universe?

I would disagree where they say "every individual interprets this same world differently".

And say every 'I' interprets their own worlds differently.

But then later in the paragraph they correct themselves and say "The individual world each person occupies is said to be their reality tunnel".

[Liara Covert]

Its reasonable to assume that each person can convince himself (or herself) to believe that personal behavior is justified based on how the person perceives the confines of 'reality.'

Imagine you know a person who thinks 'its my way or the highway' and is used to never being challenged. He aims to impose his view of reality.

Consider that a liar may evolve to believe his lies are the truth. Unless this person is challenged, which implies perceptions among people interact and conflict, then the liar may have no reason to doubt himself. Even if this kind of liar is challenged, he may never have learned to openly doubt himself.

[Lychee]

Originally Posted by Keith

I think this is the key sticking point. We agree that perception is subjective. But can something effect someone if he doesn't perceive it? (eg. can someone shoot you using a sniper rifle without you being aware of it?). If yes, then the universe is at least partially objective.


Yes we do, but that's not the point. The point is whether or not there's a reality beyond our perceptions that we can't directly perceive.

You seem to be arguing that an objective universe perceived subjectively is a subjective universe, and that's not true.

Yep, exactly.

[Lychee]

Originally Posted by infinitethoughts

No.
To be as clear as possible, their perceptions do not interact and it's not a 'place'. It's an agreement.
This is hard to convey into words.


Their universes interact.
But like I said, it's a simple agree-ing between two you-niverses.

This is why each 'I' chooses it's own realities.

This is how the saying "You create your reality" is possible.

Now of course if this is not known,
by the 'I'...... then the 'I' cannot create it's own reality.

Because, of course, from day one, it's been taught there is one, solid, unchanging universe. And then the 'I' says, "How on earth can I change "solid" reality, simply by my "puny" thoughts."




I would disagree where they say "every individual interprets this same world differently".

And say every 'I' interprets their own worlds differently.

But then later in the paragraph they correct themselves and say "The individual world each person occupies is said to be their reality tunnel".

Where do the universes interact? What is facilitating this interaction? If we create our own realities and there really is no true interaction or place as you say, then my reality wouldn't affect your reality. But that isn't the case all the time. That means things do not always have to be all or nothing.

[infinitethoughts]

Originally Posted by Lychee

Where do the universes interact?

Lychee you need to learn to read everything a person posts.


I did answer that above.

Originally Posted by infinitethoughts

Their universes interact.
But like I said, it's a simple agree-ing between two you-niverses.

[Mark Lapierre]

But what happens when what's written within the posts is unclear? Surely then asking a question is acceptable?

I think what Lychee was asking, and it's a valid, currently answered question, is where does that agreement take place? What facilitates the interaction which leads to an agreement? What form does the interaction take? What's the medium of transmission for the messages involved in communicating the agreement?

[infinitethoughts]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

But what happens when what's written within the posts is unclear? Surely then asking a question is acceptable?

I think what Lychee was asking, and it's a valid, currently answered question, is where does that agreement take place? What facilitates the interaction which leads to an agreement? What form does the interaction take? What's the medium of transmission for the messages involved in communicating the agreement?

Oh.
(Looks like I just got caught at my own chastising.)


Those are very interesting questions, Lychee and Mark, very interesting.
So far, I don't know, but will definitely look/intuit into it.

[Lychee]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

But what happens when what's written within the posts is unclear? Surely then asking a question is acceptable?

I think what Lychee was asking, and it's a valid, currently answered question, is where does that agreement take place? What facilitates the interaction which leads to an agreement? What form does the interaction take? What's the medium of transmission for the messages involved in communicating the agreement?

Thanks, Mark.

[Lychee]

Originally Posted by infinitethoughts

So far, I don't know, but will definitely look/intuit into it.

Wouldn't a "god" know these things?

[infinitethoughts]

Originally Posted by Lychee

Wouldn't a "god" know these things?

Lol.
Good one. Lychee !

But, let's rephrase that a bit?

Wouldn't an infinite Being, who purposefully before entering the set up parameters of "The Game of Physicality", having decided to forget that he is an Eternal Energy Being, in order to play the "Game"................know these things?

Well not if he is on the road to regaining his memory.


Like I said on another thread, I'm re-membering as I go, and discussing things helps me a lot !


******************

Originally Posted by Lychee

What is facilitating this interaction? If we create our own realities and there really is no true interaction or place as you say, then my reality wouldn't affect your reality. But that isn't the case all the time.

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

where does that agreement take place? What form does the interaction take? What's the medium of transmission for the messages involved in communicating the agreement?

1) Q. there really is no true interaction or place as you say, then my reality wouldn't affect your reality.

A. No. There is a "connection".
Remember I said there is an "agreement" between each I AM's universe?
Can your reality affect mine?
Of course. If I fall into agreeing with you. It's a choice we have.
(But if we're not aware we have a choice, then there is no choice.)

2) Q. where does that agreement take place?

A. The 'where' could be explained using cyber space.

Everyone is at their 'computer', (you own Holographic Universe. H.U -for short.)
Everyone 'meets' in cyber space.

Does cyberspace have a specific location?
Is cyberspace a physical location?
Yes and no.

Its created by a network of computers.
But, today the majority connect up, sight unseen to physical eyes, thru wireless.

So, to the physical eye, there is no means that it could see, how a wireless computer links up the the network.

This is a complicated idea, ......but I hope you guys get the picture of where I'm attempting to go by using the users computer (your H.U.) and the wireless connection to the internet as a example. (Very limited example.)

3) Q. What's the medium of transmission for the messages involved in communicating the agreement?
and What form does the interaction take? and What is facilitating this interaction?

A. Basically how is it done?

The clue we have is the present day limited Hologram. Each persons universe is a Hologram, but of course not the limited one we know.
Your body is a hologram, your vision...what you're seeing is a hologram.
You're in a deep, Immersive Hologram.

A side note about a hologram, if you cut a hologram in half, the entire Hologram shows up in both halves. How ever many times you cut it, the whole hologram will show up.

What is the medium for a single hologram? Light. (Laser light.)
What is the medium for mulitiple holograms, to "meet" up?

Light, I'd say.
But how?

The same way a single hologram is created, so if you want to create a common "place" for the two holograms to meet up, more light and angles is needed, and a third hologram is projected, using the two original holograms for its parameters.
But at the same time, each 'I' is still in their original hologram. Thats important to re-member.

Two H.U.'s come together to make a third, but only thru light, and only by agreement.

The "Game of Physicality" is Holograms, which in turn is simply a movie screen. of the combined individual holograms.

4) Q. Who set up our individual holograms, and the projection of 'Meeting Holograms', (M.H.) ?

A. We did. From the 'other side', where we are Infinite Energy Beings, and thought happens instantaneously.

****

I think I'm done ............Who knows.

[Lychee]

Originally Posted by infinitethoughts

Lol.
Good one. Lychee !

But, let's rephrase that a bit?

Wouldn't an infinite Being, who purposefully before entering the set up parameters of "The Game of Physicality", having decided to forget that he is an Eternal Energy Being, in order to play the "Game"................know these things?

Well not if he is on the road to regaining his memory.


Like I said on another thread, I'm re-membering as I go, and discussing things helps me a lot !


******************





1) Q. there really is no true interaction or place as you say, then my reality wouldn't affect your reality.

A. No. There is a "connection".
Remember I said there is an "agreement" between each I AM's universe?
Can your reality affect mine?
Of course. If I fall into agreeing with you. It's a choice we have.
(But if we're not aware we have a choice, then there is no choice.)

2) Q. where does that agreement take place?

A. The 'where' could be explained using cyber space.

Everyone is at their 'computer', (you own Holographic Universe. H.U -for short.)
Everyone 'meets' in cyber space.

Does cyberspace have a specific location?
Is cyberspace a physical location?
Yes and no.

Its created by a network of computers.
But, today the majority connect up, sight unseen to physical eyes, thru wireless.

So, to the physical eye, there is no means that it could see, how a wireless computer links up the the network.

This is a complicated idea, ......but I hope you guys get the picture of where I'm attempting to go by using the users computer (your H.U.) and the wireless connection to the internet as a example. (Very limited example.)

3) Q. What's the medium of transmission for the messages involved in communicating the agreement?
and What form does the interaction take? and What is facilitating this interaction?

A. Basically how is it done?

The clue we have is the present day limited Hologram. Each persons universe is a Hologram, but of course not the limited one we know.
Your body is a hologram, your vision...what you're seeing is a hologram.
You're in a deep, Immersive Hologram.

A side note about a hologram, if you cut a hologram in half, the entire Hologram shows up in both halves. How ever many times you cut it, the whole hologram will show up.

What is the medium for a single hologram? Light. (Laser light.)
What is the medium for mulitiple holograms, to "meet" up?

Light, I'd say.
But how?

The same way a single hologram is created, so if you want to create a common "place" for the two holograms to meet up, more light and angles is needed, and a third hologram is projected, using the two original holograms for its parameters.
But at the same time, each 'I' is still in their original hologram. Thats important to re-member.

Two H.U.'s come together to make a third, but only thru light, and only by agreement.

The "Game of Physicality" is Holograms, which in turn is simply a movie screen. of the combined individual holograms.

4) Q. Who set up our individual holograms, and the projection of 'Meeting Holograms', (M.H.) ?

A. We did. From the 'other side', where we are Infinite Energy Beings, and thought happens instantaneously.

****

I think I'm done ............Who knows.

But what evidence do you have of people creating the game of physicality? What evidence do you have that we have forgotten? Would infinite beings really forget?

Why would there even be the duality of good and evil if we were infinite beings? Would we even support a force which runs contradictory to the Life Principle?

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by infinitethoughts

4) Q. Who set up our individual holograms, and the projection of 'Meeting Holograms', (M.H.) ?

A. We did. From the 'other side', where we are Infinite Energy Beings, and thought happens instantaneously.

Woah... So many assumptions... But I'll grant them all and just ask if that's all true, how do you know? How would it be possible for an infinite being who, after deciding to forget its true nature, could then remember? And why would an infinite being even need to experience the "Game"?

[infinitethoughts]

Originally Posted by Lychee

But what evidence do you have of people creating the game of physicality? What evidence do you have that we have forgotten? Would infinite beings really forget?

I simply know.

Originally Posted by Lychee

Why would there even be the duality of good and evil if we were infinite beings? Would we even support a force which runs contradictory to the Life Principle?

Picture a space where you have unlimited freedom.
What is the one thing you don't have and would desire?

[infinitethoughts]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

And why would an infinite being even need to experience the "Game"?

Picture a space where you have unlimited freedom.
What is the one thing you don't have and would desire?

[Lychee]

Originally Posted by infinitethoughts

I simply know.

If a defense attorney were to walk into a courtroom and assert the innocence of his client based on the fact that he "simply knows", what kind of case would he have? Would the jury even give his claim credibility? No. Evidence is lacking! You cannot expect someone to accept the assumption you are making if the other person cannot see the evidence himself.

A schizophrenic can run around making wild claims about ghosts and goblins and he could say that he "simply knows" they exist. But does it mean they really do? Tests provide verification and are buffers against what is not true.

Picture a space where you have unlimited freedom.
What is the one thing you don't have and would desire?

A deep question to ponder, but people will answer with different desires depending on what they feel they are lacking.

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by infinitethoughts

Picture a space where you have unlimited freedom.
What is the one thing you don't have and would desire?

As an infinite being? Since I would have infinite knowledge, then there would be nothing I'd want. I would know everything, including what it's like to know nothing, and to have everything or nothing.

[infinitethoughts]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

As an infinite being? Since I would have infinite knowledge, then there would be nothing I'd want. I would know everything, including what it's like to know nothing, and to have everything or nothing.

How as an infinite being would you be able to experience limitation?

[Mark Lapierre]

Why would the experience be necessary? An infinite being, with infinite knowledge, would know what the experience is like.

The only way that such a being would need to experience limitation, is if it were limited in knowledge. I.e., the term "infinite" is inappropriate.

[infinitethoughts]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Why would the experience be necessary? An infinite being, with infinite knowledge, would know what the experience is like.

The only way that such a being would need to experience limitation, is if it were limited in knowledge. I.e., the term "infinite" is inappropriate.

Lets start from square one.
Picture a space where you have unlimited freedom.
What is the one thing you don't have and would desire?

[Mark Lapierre]

Ok, I'll play along. Me personally? It depends on what's in the space. Unlimited freedom is useless if I'm a human with nothing around me. I enjoy meditation but I wouldn't enjoy it so much when I start to get really thirsty.

So, assuming this space is empty, I'd want stuff in it, including other people. If I had to describe that as one thing, I'd say entertainment.

[Lychee]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Ok, I'll play along. Me personally? It depends on what's in the space. Unlimited freedom is useless if I'm a human with nothing around me. I enjoy meditation but I wouldn't enjoy it so much when I start to get really thirsty.

So, assuming this space is empty, I'd want stuff in it, including other people. If I had to describe that as one thing, I'd say entertainment.

And if entertainment is the answer you are looking for, infinite, then why do you think that death, destruction, and injustice are present in the world? I don't see any entertainment in that. How can you say that the deaths and executions of people over time can be...just for nothing? Is that really the value of the human soul? Would people dying deaths of drug abuse really something someone would consciously choose beforehand knowing it was solely for fun? Would an "infinite being" really lack the wisdom to know when something they (supposedly) created is harmful?

The fact is that your belief has no testable evidence. You can say that it is something which cannot be explained, but does it make any sense to believe something with logic or reason? How can any belief be accepted and furthermore defended if the defense is based solely on your own interpretation of what you believe to be true? Faith supports reason.

You said earlier that life is a game which was created on the other side of existence (wherever and whatever that is), but so many questions are left unanswered. What is the force which is supporting us? Ourselves? If so, how can we "forget" how infinite-ness and still not forget to support ourselves?

[infinitethoughts]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

So, assuming this space is empty, I'd want stuff in it, including other people. If I had to describe that as one thing, I'd say entertainment.

Finally. You're a hard nut to crack.

[infinitethoughts]

Originally Posted by Lychee

And if entertainment is the answer you are looking for, infinite, then why do you think that death, destruction, and injustice are present in the world? I don't see any entertainment in that.

Change your perspective. Look at this from the POV of an unlimited being......that can never die.

Originally Posted by Lychee

You said earlier that life is a game which was created on the other side of existence (wherever and whatever that is), but so many questions are left unanswered. What is the force which is supporting us? Ourselves? If so, how can we "forget" how infinite-ness and still not forget to support ourselves?

With a little help from your friends on the other side of eternity.

[Mark Lapierre]

xkcd has a series of comics which kinda illustrate what we're talking about. Here's the first

Now infinitethoughts, I think we have different ideas on the meanings of the words "unlimited" and "infinite". While I might want entertainment, an unlimited/infinite being can only be considered so if it doesn't want anything. Otherwise it's limited and finite because it lacks something.

[John Prophet]

While I might want entertainment, an unlimited/infinite being can only be considered so if it doesn't want anything. Otherwise it's limited and finite because it lacks something.[/QUOTE]

But couldn’t you just as easily argue that our limitations keep us from wanting many things as well? Wouldn’t an unlimited being also have unlimited desires? Just a thought.

[Mark Lapierre]

I don't see how such a being could exist. Desire is the emotion felt when one wants something one doesn't have. If a being is unlimited in terms of ability and knowledge, then all its desires would either be already satisfied, or easily satisfiable. A being with unlimited ability to satisfy its desires should not have any desires.

Perhaps if this being were unlimited in ability, but not unlimited in knowledge or experience, maybe then it could have unsatisfied desires.

Of course that's assuming this being is even capable of experiencing emotion.

In our case I do agree that our limitations, i.e., lack of knowledge, keep us from wanting things. We can't want something if we don't know about it. It's also one of the things which drives us. If we ascribe human emotions to this unlimited being, why not human limitations as well?