Thread: Reality As You Know It Does Not Exist

Originally Posted by Invader Tech

You read my mind.

Anyone's guess is as good as mine, but that's generally where my mind is in terms of what we are with respect to reality. You used the multiple personalities example, so I'll ask that you consider another example I like to use often, which is that of a dream. A dream operates as it's own reality. It has it's own particular set of rules and vividness that you can actively control if you are aware of them. The dream characters inside are no more than an expression of yourself, your own mind, all divided and spread out into different people/things. Given enough time, these dream characters would soon come to theorize that the dream world they exist within is just an illusion (as well you know it is), and some will go so far as to suggest that they are a part of the same mind (which is collectively your mind).

With respect to dreams, the only thing that exists in actuality is consciousness (and perhaps the brain, which intelligently processes the information). All of the 'reality' that becomes the dream comes as a result of your consciousness. The real world that both you and I experience day to day is analogous to the dreamworld in the way I just described. Nothing more than a convincing illusion that we use to interact with each other ("a collective consciousness experiencing itself"). I'm sure this probably sounds outlandish to a great deal of people, but if you'd like me to clarify my point of view on this, I'd be happy to do so.

As for the origin? Who knows? Existence by itself appears to be a sort of paradox on its own, but here we are. The existence we experience implies that there be some source or point of entry, and I wouldn't be surprised if that 'source' was the consciousness we are all theoretically a part of.

I agree with that to every extent. If the one intial consciousness (which I've referred to before as Singular Consciousness - the universe's awareness of itself, on a fundamental level, before being broken down into the consciousnesses we've experienced as "individuals") is the byproduct that emerges from the supposed system of waves that we might surmise to be the true nature of the universe, then it would make perfect sense on so many levels. I agree with you on the "dream reality" aspect, and how our 'individual' consciousnesses are probably no more than a singular consciousness believing itself to be more than one.

The question though, is whether or not the consciousness(es) inside of that singular system could ever become aware of the reality outside of that level of perception? I mean, like with lucid dreaming: We are only aware that a dream is just a dream because we experience real life, and we can compare and contrast the two. But could those dream characters (or, in the case of this scenario: us) be expected to ever realize the reality that might lie outside of our frame of reference? We simply have nothing to compare and contrast the idea to. I do like the fact that we are trying to find out, though, and we are breaking into ground that is akin to a dream character realizing the inconsistency of dream content, and beginning to realize that there may be an absolution that lies outside of the "dream world."

Though we may never understand the "true" nature of the universe, the truths we uncover while searching for it are no less astonishing/important.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

The question though, is whether or not the consciousness(es) inside of that singular system could ever become aware of the reality outside of that level of perception? I mean, like with lucid dreaming: We are only aware that a dream is just a dream because we experience real life, and we can compare and contrast the two. But could those dream characters (or, in the case of this scenario: us) be expected to ever realize the reality that might lie outside of our frame of reference?

That's a valid question. I believe the answer lies in connecting to that 'source'. If a dream character were able to get your attention and you allowed them access into your mind, they would be experiencing that 'beyond reality' understanding firsthand. If you could imagine what it would be like to make another person feel an emotion or a thought or understanding directly from your own head without words or pictures, that's the kind of thing that would be going on here. I have no idea how the psychic connection to a dream character would work (it would make a great lucid task though). The whole idea with meditating to reach that state of Nirvana would accomplish the same thing, wouldn't you agree? Do you think it's possible that even many of the different alleged prophets throughout human history might have had a brief moment of connection with this source? Their limited human perception would be responsible for the different interpretations of the information they had been exposed to, which would then lead to the creation of different deities or god-beings to explain the experience, even though they all came from the same place, so to speak. Does that make any sense at all? I can elaborate further if need be, as the idea is still "under construction".

Originally Posted by Invader Tech

That's a valid question. I believe the answer lies in connecting to that 'source'. If a dream character were able to get your attention and you allowed them access into your mind, they would be experiencing that 'beyond reality' understanding firsthand. If you could imagine what it would be like to make another person feel an emotion or a thought or understanding directly from your own head without words or pictures, that's the kind of thing that would be going on here. I have no idea how the psychic connection to a dream character would work (it would make a great lucid task though). The whole idea with meditating to reach that state of Nirvana would accomplish the same thing, wouldn't you agree? Do you think it's possible that even many of the different alleged prophets throughout human history might have had a brief moment of connection with this source? Their limited human perception would be responsible for the different interpretations of the information they had been exposed to, which would then lead to the creation of different deities or god-beings to explain the experience, even though they all came from the same place, so to speak. Does that make any sense at all? I can elaborate further if need be, as the idea is still "under construction".

That actually makes a lot of sense. Whether or not this connection has ever actually been made (in terms of humans experiencing a truly transcendental perspective) is, of course, open to debate - victim to uncertainty - but I definitely hold no serious doubt to the idea. The flip side, though, is that perhaps the "transcendental" perspectives which are experienced are byproducts of the human brain attempting to create a convincing experience (akin to the battle between people believing OOBEs are actual extra-physical experiences, or simply dreams that feel like extra-physical experiences). But, again, by posing the conflicting concepts, I'm not trying to spin it either way.



And Kromoh:
Seriously. If somebody "puts words in your mouth", correct them. It's that simple. People misunderstand each other all the time (and believe it or not, it's not always the listener's fault). Don't complain about it like people are out to get you. If they are wrong, correct them and continue on. Not every single thing is worth such overreaction.

Also, I would really like you to address the fact that, after your initial misunderstanding of the video, you are now - in nearly everything you are saying - arguing from a position that is exactly what the video was about: That our perception of reality is simply that - our perception of it - and is likely not the way it actually is (which the article from New Scientist actually corroborates, if you read it, refuting your claim that the ideas expressed in the video are in no way scientific).

First I want to say I'm thrilled at the quality of debate in this topic and this sub forum in general. Especially now that people are starting to ignore Kromoh. I honestly believe life is really a dream, and the first rule of dreaming according to me is that everything requires your attention to exist. If Kromoh's stance is that reality is an illusion, he's certainly displayed an affinity for that aspect of dream control over reality.

But unlike his version that you are incapable of understanding, I say the fact that reality is a dream is both explainable and demonstratable through experiments. Just apply "everything requires your attention to exist" to Kromoh's posts and watch how this thread improves.

Kromoh, I'm not picking on you dude, just using you as an example. I've done my best not to pay too much attention to you or O's responsive posts, other than the chuckle in amusement about how his excercise in futility would have been my fate only a few months ago had I not know what I know now. Even now I can scarecly resist, but I see dream control over reality as a matter of personal responsibility, so reap what you've sown.

I don't think reality is a dream or some fancy notion, I actually believe it, or believe that I know it to be a fact. It doesn't help at all that I'm getting absolutely no cititicism or opposition in my nature of dream control thread where I repeatedly state that reality is a dream . I have no choice but to accept the fact. I'm not saying my view of reality is absolute, I recognize that each individual perspective is valid. It's just that all things being equal, this particular view is a kick ass way to get things done.

I'm surprised nobody asks why I'm not rich or haven't won the lottery if I have dream control over reality, but it's honestly hard to prioritize when you know you already have everything you will ever need. I quit my job three weeks ago with no money and rent looming, trusting soley on that. I didn't worry, things just worked out in weird ways, and as of today I am set and I didn't do any conventional job searching, or put the least bit of effort into it. I own this reality.

Life is a dream and I think it can be proved scientifically, so for the love of god, somebody come up with a compelling argument that can withsand this delusion I've aquired.

Ok, I'm really drunk right now and got distracted from my intended topic, to again throw out the idea that wave form probabilities = schemata.

Your own personal representation systems limit the possibilities you can experience. For instance, my familiarity with the river in my home town gives me the ability to swim with confidence in the craziest rapids contained withing.

When you look at the following picture, do you see a water park, or a watery grave? My brother lost his wedding ring in there...

Originally Posted by The Cusp

First I want to say I'm thrilled at the quality of debate in this topic and this sub forum in general. Especially now that people are starting to ignore Kromoh. I honestly believe life is really a dream, and the first rule of dreaming according to me is that everything requires your attention to exist. If Kromoh's stance is that reality is an illusion, he's certainly displayed an affinity for that aspect of dream control over reality.

But unlike his version that you are incapable of understanding, I say the fact that reality is a dream is both explainable and demonstratable through experiments. Just apply "everything requires your attention to exist" to Kromoh's posts and watch how this thread improves.

Kromoh, I'm not picking on you dude, just using you as an example. I've done my best not to pay too much attention to you or O's responsive posts, other than the chuckle in amusement about how his excercise in futility would have been my fate only a few months ago had I not know what I know now. Even now I can scarecly resist, but I see dream control over reality as a matter of personal responsibility, so reap what you've sown.

I don't think reality is a dream or some fancy notion, I actually believe it, or believe that I know it to be a fact. It doesn't help at all that I'm getting absolutely no cititicism or opposition in my nature of dream control thread where I repeatedly state that reality is a dream . I have no choice but to accept the fact. I'm not saying my view of reality is absolute, I recognize that each individual perspective is valid. It's just that all things being equal, this particular view is a kick ass way to get things done.

I'm surprised nobody asks why I'm not rich or haven't won the lottery if I have dream control over reality, but it's honestly hard to prioritize when you know you already have everything you will ever need. I quit my job three weeks ago with no money and rent looming, trusting soley on that. I didn't worry, things just worked out in weird ways, and as of today I am set and I didn't do any conventional job searching, or put the least bit of effort into it. I own this reality.

Life is a dream and I think it can be proved scientifically, so for the love of god, somebody come up with a compelling argument that can withsand this delusion I've aquired.

Ok, I'm really drunk right now and got distracted from my intended topic, to again throw out the idea that wave form probabilities = schemata.

Your own personal representation systems limit the possibilities you can experience. For instance, my familiarity with the river in my home town gives me the ability to swim with confidence in the craziest rapids contained withing.

When you look at the following picture, do you see a water park, or a watery grave? My brother lost his wedding ring in there...

Bah. I was actually refuting to the "everything requires your attention to exist" mentioned in the video, you know. If you didn't get that from my posts, sorry for that. Truth is, when "you" are paying attention (and by "you" I mean the bunch of atoms you are made of), things do exist, but if things also exist when you aren't paying attention is an unsolvable mystery.

And you say you have dream control over reality - that is just something nobody would ever know for sure - it's impossible to. Maybe it is all an illusion, maybe we're all dreaming, or maybe you actually need to have no will to be able to control things, but without will, you don't control things because you don't want to at all. Very contradictory at first glance, but utterly logical if you take a closer look.. Seriously, you just think you control it, because when you don't have will, you don't feel the need for anything, so you think you're fully satisfied - what some oriental monks would define as completeness, or enlightenment.

I just hate to see O and some other people thinking you can actually refute to what I'm defending in this thread. Only shows they don't understand it at all.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Bah. I was actually refuting to the "everything requires your attention to exist" mentioned in the video, you know. If you didn't get that from my posts, sorry for that. Truth is, when "you" are paying attention (and by "you" I mean the bunch of atoms you are made of), things do exist, but if things also exist when you aren't paying attention is an unsolvable mystery.

...Only shows they don't understand it at all.

Actually, the above quote shows just how irrelevant your entire argument has been to the video, and the thread itself. Nobody here is refuting the fact that what really lies beneath is (at this point) uknown and/or unknowable. Saying such a thing actually goes without saying, because it is so fundamentally understood. For as many times as we find a new "level" of reality, we will be basing that observation on our specific frame of reference. As the video says, itself (paraphrase); "dig even deeper, and you're bound to find that level of reality dissolves into another."

What we are (or, at least, "I am") refuting is your blanket statement that the ideas addressed in the video are "bullshit" and "believer stuff" (whatever that means), and that they are "in no way scientific" (or however it was you exactly said it. Don't want to 'put words in your mouth.') when the ideas are actually very well founded, well-developed scientific theorems which are being expressed in the video by people who may or may not be scientists (which is actually irrelevant as well). Many of the observations expressed have actually been observed in quantum physics. These observations don't even pretend to explain what actually is happening (the "base" reality, I guess you could say) that makes these observations occur. They simply state what has been observed - ides such as "wave-particle duality" - which have structured the views expressed in the video.

Your problem is that you are basically dismissing all of this, with the blanket statement that "it's all shit, because nobody knows exactly what's going on." What we do know is that the theories expressed do have evidence to support them. And not just "fringe" evidence, but evidence that makes the theories very stable (though neither infallible nor irrefutable) in the scientific community. Your position is basically one that is not unlike someone saying the theoretical science of locating and measuring black holes is useless, or belief in them is "believer stuff" because of the simple fact that we can't actually see them to verify if our measurements are correct. The fact that we can't actually witness first hand is irrelevant, when the proposed argument is simply one that explains the actual effects we have observed, first hand, that lend credence to the idea.

And again, I'm stating clearly that your argument that the video is "shit" or "believer stuff" - as if none of the ideas expressed hold any scientific weight, simply because no one can actually know the objective truth - is illogical, and does nothing but expose your bias (as does presumably ignoring text like the article Naiya posted). It shows that you would much rather ignore the fact that the theories concluded might very well be true and, like all theories, should be contradicted with the type of substance that you've refused to give since the beginning of this thread. "We just don't know for sure" - while true, in a blanket, irrelevant sort of way - is simply a way to stay on the fence about the subject (and should be acknowledged as such) - not a way to validly conclude that the concepts are wrong.

I don't really know how much clearer I can be than that.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Bah. I was actually refuting to the "everything requires your attention to exist" mentioned in the video, you know. If you didn't get that from my posts, sorry for that.

Are you talking to me? I've been preaching "everything requires your attention to exist" for almost a year now! I'm quite familiar with the concept, and also know it's possible to focus on things that don't exist. Like the fact that you seem to think I'm diametrically opposed to what you're saying, when I clearly haven't said anything of the sort.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

but if things also exist when you aren't paying attention is an unsolvable mystery.

That's not really true. I was designing a php based mmorpg awhile back where all processes were handled by the client's computer. In essence each player assembles and updates the world as they go along. Figuring out who needs to see what when, and all the possible interactions can give you a better understanding of the complexities of that scenario.

But generally speaking, if a tree falls in the woods, it doesn't matter until someone comes along. Then you execute a random probability function to see if any trees have fallen. At least when programmng a stable game world.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

And you say you have dream control over reality - that is just something nobody would ever know for sure - it's impossible to.

No, I'm saying I can take anyone out into a place with lots of people and demonstrate my control. No doubt the first few times people will come up with rational explanations for what I demonstrate, but if someone sees me do it enough times in different ways, they'll run out of excuses eventually.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Maybe it is all an illusion, maybe we're all dreaming, or maybe you actually need to have no will to be able to control things, but without will, you don't control things because you don't want to at all. Very contradictory at first glance, but utterly logical if you take a closer look.. Seriously, you just think you control it, because when you don't have will, you don't feel the need for anything, so you think you're fully satisfied - what some oriental monks would define as completeness, or enlightenment.

That's what I was saying before, I feel no need to go out and win the lottery, because I know I already have everything I ever need. I could quote myself, but I just feel silly doing that. I understand that zen, but mine is far from perfect . It tainted by my faults that I don't want to give up.

I'll admit I have a temper, but more than that, I like getting mad, makes me feel powerful. Just like I like ripping on punks like you. It's completely self indulgent, but just so much fun!!! When I said I feared losing self importance, it was because it means giving up those things I love, that give me such pleasure. And that's a really shitty, terrible, horrifying thing to have to do. It means giving up a lot, and it really is a frightening thing to face. And why should I be the only one who has to do it? No, no, to scary, I'm not ready for that yet.

So bite me, you teenie bopper know it all! Read and understand before you reply next time!

Originally Posted by Kromoh

I just hate to see O and some other people thinking you can actually refute to what I'm defending in this thread. Only shows they don't understand it at all.

Why do you think you're the only person capable of understanding anything?

Originally Posted by The Cusp

Are you talking to me? I've been preaching "everything requires your attention to exist" for almost a year now! I'm quite familiar with the concept, and also know it's possible to focus on things that don't exist. Like the fact that you seem to think I'm diametrically opposed to what you're saying, when I clearly haven't said anything of the sort.

LOL. The "focus on things that don't exist". You don't really grasp the idea of 'focus" scientists and philosophers mean. It's not human focus. Humans can very easily believe lies, that's true. But to think our mind is some sort of parallel, intangible entity that can "focus" on reality.. well that is just stupid.

That's not really true. I was designing a php based mmorpg awhile back where all processes were handled by the client's computer. In essence each player assembles and updates the world as they go along. Figuring out who needs to see what when, and all the possible interactions can give you a better understanding of the complexities of that scenario.

But generally speaking, if a tree falls in the woods, it doesn't matter until someone comes along. Then you execute a random probability function to see if any trees have fallen. At least when programmng a stable game world.

I actually agree with you here, more or less. Remember http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrödinger's_cat ? Well exactly. Some say the cat doesn't exist if you can't experience it, but I say, you don't have to experience it at the same time he's in the box. Take a crime scene for example: investigators don't need to watch the crime or rely on cameras to know what happened, once the incident has already happened, and left proof. I actually do believe many things exist without our knowledge. But, to which extent do things exist? Exactly how much is there that exists and we don't know. Where is the line between unknowingly existing and not existing? That's the main point.

No, I'm saying I can take anyone out into a place with lots of people and demonstrate my control. No doubt the first few times people will come up with rational explanations for what I demonstrate, but if someone sees me do it enough times in different ways, they'll run out of excuses eventually.

Bah, Imma ignore that. I don't mean to offend you, but my scepticism won't let me believe you. We could go on arguing for ages over this, so unless we can meet and you can show me undeniable proof, let's not debate this any longer.

That's what I was saying before, I feel no need to go out and win the lottery, because I know I already have everything I ever need. I could quote myself, but I just feel silly doing that. I understand that zen, but mine is far from perfect . It tainted by my faults that I don't want to give up.

I'll admit I have a temper, but more than that, I like getting mad, makes me feel powerful. Just like I like ripping on punks like you. It's completely self indulgent, but just so much fun!!! When I said I feared losing self importance, it was because it means giving up those things I love, that give me such pleasure. And that's a really shitty, terrible, horrifying thing to have to do. It means giving up a lot, and it really is a frightening thing to face. And why should I be the only one who has to do it? No, no, to scary, I'm not ready for that yet.

So bite me, you teenie bopper know it all! Read and understand before you reply next time!

Well, I completely don't mind being picked on, unlike most of you think. But expect me to repay in the same currency.

Also, love, pleasure, etc are all human concepts. They have no logical value, if you can get what I mean. Love isn't and never will be the physical rule by what a rock falls down a mountain.

Why do you think you're the only person capable of understanding anything?

XD Strawman there. I never meant anything. People can understand many things, sometimes even false things. I just don't think the average person can understand this particular piece specifically. Many people, you included, understand it partially, but infect this knowledge with imagination, dreams and beliefs. Many others don't understand it at all. And a restricted few understand it fully, its meaning, reasons and consequences. This knowledge is as scientific as anything can be, you know.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

That actually makes a lot of sense. Whether or not this connection has ever actually been made (in terms of humans experiencing a truly transcendental perspective) is, of course, open to debate - victim to uncertainty - but I definitely hold no serious doubt to the idea. The flip side, though, is that perhaps the "transcendental" perspectives which are experienced are byproducts of the human brain attempting to create a convincing experience (akin to the battle between people believing OOBEs are actual extra-physical experiences, or simply dreams that feel like extra-physical experiences). But, again, by posing the conflicting concepts, I'm not trying to spin it either way.

Hahaha, absolutely. I'm sure that once we gain a much deeper and intuitive understanding of the brain and what it's capable of, we may seriously be able to tell if these experiences are legitimate or not. Just bear in mind that consciousness by itself isn't even dependent on the brain, as was demonstrated roughly one hundred years ago by the famous Bengali scientist Jagadish Chandra Bose, and more recently by Cleve Backster with respect to their studies of consciousness in plants. I believe there's more information on Backster today, so a quick google search should bring up plenty of results. If we as humans can have conscious experience of something without the aid of the brain, then that, my friend, says a great deal about everything we're talking about. That certainly doesn't mean that these "mystical experiences" can't be fabrications of the brain though, as I'm sure our hallucinogenic abilities are quite potent. And even if trancendental experience was proven to a fault, we might have a hard time differentiating them from the "realistic dreams" as it were.

Considering the nature of consciousness as demonstrated through plant studies thus far, my current standpoint on the subject is that we are fully capable of trancendental experience (that it is in fact real). Or maybe saying "I believe it's real" would be more appropriate. Ugh, that brings to mind the famous Morpheus quote that they even played in the video, "What is real?". I think it's time for another Matrix marathon.....

Originally Posted by The Cusp

Ok, I'm really drunk right now and got distracted from my intended topic, to again throw out the idea that wave form probabilities = schemata.

I'd just like to point out that you do a remarkable job of expressing yourself clearly as a drunk person. I never would have guessed.

In your picture I see an early morning in the Amazon.