Does this undermine SR??????

[mysterygal]

"People don't poof out of existence when you stop thinking about them. People aren't merely in existence for your enjoyment. People think. People feel. People are real."- Do these statements undermine subjective reality? Or can subjective reality still be valid if the believer recognizes that these statements are true?

[Sam988]

The Big SR Sticking Point


Welcome to the Debate.

[Max Power]

Originally Posted by mysterygal

"People don't poof out of existence when you stop thinking about them. People aren't merely in existence for your enjoyment. People think. People feel. People are real."

Are they real?? How can you prove it?? You can't and therefore it is an erroneous (I love that word) assumption. Within the belief system of SR, awareness/consciousness is primary, human bodies/minds/trees/buildings/animals/places/even the planet have to be in awareness to exist. How do you know for sure that there even is a planet? Because you've seen a picture of it form space does that make it real? Why?

Another thing about people being important, if they are so important, why does it not bother most people that so many people (150,000+) die everyday.

People get very angry when you say they cease to exist when they aren't in your presence. "What the hell do you mean I don't exist when you leave" but from an SR POV if you follow the belief, consciousness your consciousness/awareness is all there is, everything outside of that is possibly and probably not real. I don't fully understand it and I can see why it's frustrating and almost insanity on a stick but it has some merit

I think the trick is to consider it from a consciousness POV your consciousness POV and not your mind/body. I don't think you can undermine SR, just try it or reject it. It's a possible way to view reality, doesn't mean it is the way

Max

The Big SR Sticking Point

[Shindra]

Originally Posted by mysterygal

"People don't poof out of existence when you stop thinking about them.

perhaps one could say that people exist as long as you are able to remember them, or are even vaguely aware of them (one can 'be aware' that there exist 6 billion people in the world, even though one can't see them all at once, and that will manifest as truth that can be seen in statistics, tv news and so on. They don't stop existing as long as that is held as truth.)

Originally Posted by mysterygal

People aren't merely in existence for your enjoyment.

remember that in SR, consciousness is not an ego. People don't merely exist for one conscious person's enjoyment - consciousness is not a person/ego.
I also find the word 'enjoyment' a strange choice, unless one would equally say that one's own thoughts and emotions exist for their enjoyment.

Originally Posted by mysterygal

People think. People feel. People are real.

I think it's like this...
People that exist within consciousness are as real as your thoughts and emotions that exist within your consciousness, and as real as anything you experience.
You can percieve, be aware of, someone within your consciousness to be thinking and feeling.
You can have a dream of a very deep character that expresses emotion you empathise with.
They have minds, they are feeling entities, but they only exist within your consciousness. It is all your mind, in that sense. They feel emotions, still that all only exist within consciousness. Those are consciousness' feelings. Consciousness is the only one that is conscious of it all. That doesn't necessarily make less of people, it makes more of consciousness.

Originally Posted by mysterygal

- Do these statements undermine subjective reality? Or can subjective reality still be valid if the believer recognizes that these statements are true?

depends on how you look at it. I don't think the spirit behind those statements, the theme, the sense of them, is incongruent with SR.
SR doesn't make people shallow and empty, what is within consciousness is not shallow. The one conscious is aware of people as thinking and feeling entities, only they don't exist outside of consciousness, because consciousness is the container and not contained within consciousness, and there are not individual awarenesses *inside* those people/egos. People are still as deep and profound.

Notice that you are aware of your body; it is not aware of you. Notice that you are aware of your thoughts and emotions - not the other way around. Your ego is not your true identity - you are that which is aware of all this. Your ego is not self-aware, awareness is aware of the ego.
That doesn't mean you're aware of *less*.

[Lychee]

"People don't poof out of existence when you stop thinking about them. People aren't merely in existence for your enjoyment. People think. People feel. People are real."

I agree with that. I think God is the First Observer, and since His observation encompasses everything, it's not possible for people to cease to exist since He is still observing.

There are universes, galaxies, and God-knows-what-else present in the outer universes that we have no idea of or haven't observed yet. But that doesn't mean they don't exist. If they didn't exist until we observed them, their birth would be at the moment of the first observation, not the time which scientists have calculated for the neighboring galaxies for example.

[mysterygal]

Couldn't you say all that for you too Shindra? Are you as much that one consciousness as me? Are you the one consciousness in which everything exists?

[Shindra]

Originally Posted by mysterygal

Couldn't you say all that for you too Shindra? Are you as much that one consciousness as me? Are you the one consciousness in which everything exists?

Awareness does not arise from the ego. Awareness/Consciousness is not an ego.
http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/200...-or-awareness/

If you dreamed you were a pink elephant, it would be wrong to say that pink elephant was the dreamer.

Consciousness does not exist *inside* anything. It is the container not contained.

No, Shindra is not conscious. Mysterygal is not conscious. Consciousness is conscious *of* them. Not the other way around. I'd say try looking at your hand and believing it is, seeing it as, independently conscious of you, aware of you, but I tried that mindbend once for fun and got out of it again in a blink as I was errily reminded of that disorder where people think one of their limbs is owned by someone else/does not belong to them.
True identity is consciousness, containing and filling everything, there is only one and nothing is conscious but consciousness.


And note that I have only come close to seeing SR some times and think I have understood it intellectually, I have not truly adopted that belief and experienced it from the inside - I'm working on that. So look to Steve's posts first.

[The David]

Originally Posted by mysterygal

"People don't poof out of existence when you stop thinking about them. People aren't merely in existence for your enjoyment. People think. People feel. People are real."

How do you know?

The truth is, nothing can undermine SR. It is not a falsifiable belief system. That doesn't mean it's true, or that someone should believe it, but it simply cannot be proven wrong.

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Lychee

I agree with that. I think God is the First Observer, and since His observation encompasses everything, it's not possible for people to cease to exist since He is still observing.

If existence requires an observer, what observed God before He created anything that could observe him?

If God, being the First Observer, can be exempt from requiring an observer to facilitate His existence, why can't everything else in the universe also be exempt?

[Lychee]

If existence requires an observer, what observed God before He created anything that could observe him?

My questioning ends there. That question could be asked ad infinitum. But regardless, there must be a First Cause. I call that force God.

If God, being the First Observer, can be exempt from requiring an observer to facilitate His existence, why can't everything else in the universe also be exempt?

If that were true - that a person could exist independent of any force - then that would make him similar to God since that property is attributed to God only. Having two independent forces doesn't make much sense. I'm sure you've heard that two captains cannot sail the same boat. These two forces would contradict each other. Science has agreed that there must have been a first cause, a zero point, a singularity, for the universe to have been created. If two, or three, or a million forces were present, would there even be any harmony? No, because different forces would take you in different directions. Yet the universe is running on planned and perfected law with no deviation.

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Lychee

My questioning ends there. That question could be asked ad infinitum. But regardless, there must be a First Cause. I call that force God.

Ok, I'll continue to ask the question of other people then. "because there must be" doesn't satisfy me

Originally Posted by Lychee

Science has agreed that there must have been a first cause, a zero point, a singularity, for the universe to have been created.

Not true. Science says that the universe started as a singularity, but the nature of that singularity is unknown, and so it the state of the universe before the start. Our universe may have spawned from another universe, so the first cause of our universe may have been an event in another universe. Which still leaves the question of where that universe came from, and again we have turtles all the way down. But for me that's no reason to stop looking for what is really there, rather than just assuming it's a turtle.

Originally Posted by Lychee

If two, or three, or a million forces were present, would there even be any harmony? No, because different forces would take you in different directions. Yet the universe is running on planned and perfected law with no deviation.

And yet humans, with all their different forces and directions, still operate within the universal laws, despite our lack of harmony. On a universal scale, why could there not be multiple forces like God, all pulling the universe(s) in different directions, yet unnoticed by us due to the scale on which they operate.

The universe is running perfectly only as far as we can tell. Who are we to say that a) we know how the universe should run, and b) what universal turmoil could look like? We only know what we observe, reason, and understand. There could be a lot going on beyond what we see.

But all of this ignores my point, that there need not be a god-like First Cause. It's illogical to trace causes back as far as we can observe, and then when we're at our limit of understanding, use God to fill in the blanks and hold Him untouchable by the same reasoning.

Of course that ignores the fact that faith and reason don't necessarily go hand in hand.

{edit: It's probably better that we continue this discussion over here}

[Max Power]

SR can only ever be outlined and introduced, while words can describe it, you must experience it to grasp it, words do not do it justice, just like the shift of focus from ego to consciousness, it can't be described faithfully, you must experience it.

"I can show you the path, only you can walk it"
Morpheus to Neo

[Brutha]

Are they real?? How can you prove it?? You can't and therefore it is an erroneous (I love that word) assumption.

Could you please prove that assumption? If you can't it is wrong.

[Max Power]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Could you please prove that assumption? If you can't it is wrong.

It doesn't mean it's wrong, it just means it may not be entirely correct. We're talking about belief systems here, not something you can hold in your hand and say "yes this exists" no one can prove anything about any belief system.

Accept it, reject it, that's all we can do.

Max

[Lychee]

Ok, I'll continue to ask the question of other people then. "because there must be" doesn't satisfy me

Then how can anything satisfy?

What is a protein? A protein is made up of amino acids.
What are amino acids? A molecule.
What is a molecule? A substance made up of two or more atoms.
What is an atom? The fundamental and smallest structure matter characterizing an element.
What are subatomic partlces? A particle smaller than an atom that are made up of quarks.
What are quarks? Fundamental particles which make up subatomic particles.
What are quarks made of? A.
What is "A" made of? B.
What is "B" made of? C.
...What is "Z" made of? Let's say energy for argument's sake.
What is energy made of? A'.
What is "A'" made of? B'.

It goes on and on and on.

Not true. Science says that the universe started as a singularity, but the nature of that singularity is unknown, and so it the state of the universe before the start. Our universe may have spawned from another universe, so the first cause of our universe may have been an event in another universe. Which still leaves the question of where that universe came from, and again we have turtles all the way down. But for me that's no reason to stop looking for what is really there, rather than just assuming it's a turtle.

It started as a singularity, regardless of where it came from. If you say it came from another universe, where did the other universe come from? Another universe? Well, where did that come from? And what was the origin of that? and so on.

You can go on forever looking for answers. But you cannot deny there must have been a first cause.

And yet humans, with all their different forces and directions, still operate within the universal laws, despite our lack of harmony. On a universal scale, why could there not be multiple forces like God, all pulling the universe(s) in different directions, yet unnoticed by us due to the scale on which they operate.

We operate because we are lesser than the universal laws. We cannot change it. If multiple forces of omnipotent power came together, how would it be possible for law to exist? One god could demolish the other's law, or it could destroy the other god itself. There could be a battle. Or it could be about love and jealousy. Or it could be something else altogether. Where is the balance in that? It would be a scenario one would find in mythology.

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Lychee

Then how can anything satisfy?
...

What is "A" made of? B.
What is "B" made of? C.
...What is "Z" made of? Let's say energy for argument's sake.
What is energy made of? A'.
What is "A'" made of? B'.

It goes on and on and on.

Ahhh but for me the satisfaction comes from discovering each of those little pieces. If the nature of the universe is such that it keeps going on forever, then I have an unlimited source of satisfaction.

Originally Posted by Lychee

It started as a singularity, regardless of where it came from. If you say it came from another universe, where did the other universe come from? Another universe? Well, where did that come from? And what was the origin of that? and so on.

You can go on forever looking for answers. But you cannot deny there must have been a first cause.

Yes I can. Until there is proof (logical or empirical) of a first cause I can deny it. If we continue to search, finding more and more causes, then there is no basis for the certainty that there is a first cause. To assert that there must be a first cause is to assert that we understand the nature of the universe; that we could not be wrong. I think we're still very far from being worthy of that claim.

Originally Posted by Lychee

We operate because we are lesser than the universal laws. We cannot change it. If multiple forces of omnipotent power came together, how would it be possible for law to exist? One god could demolish the other's law, or it could destroy the other god itself. There could be a battle. Or it could be about love and jealousy. Or it could be something else altogether. Where is the balance in that? It would be a scenario one would find in mythology.

It could be... And that's my point, we simply don't know. The universe is harmonious as far as we can tell, but we don't know if it really is, and if it is, we don't know why.