It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Reality is created by the human mind

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 10:32 PM
link   
People can rant, rave, argue and carry on and on about how we simply experience a shared reality, and our mind has nothing to do with it (except observe it).

I've made things happen, and manifested physical objects with my will and intent. I've changed the course of my subjective experience in reality by changing my thoughts. I don't know all the details, how it works, or even a concrete way to make it work 100% of the time. Despite that, I still firmly believe our thoughts influence our reality.

And that, is my reality




posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 10:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: laminatedsoul
a reply to: spygeek

Yes, I was. Misunderstood your post I think. It's been mentioned elsewhere recently and I've seen a lot of support for that, which is a bit concerning as it implies consciousness changes the state of a reality at a quantum level.

I have not heard of this one though. I'll have to look into it, Quantum Zeno effect.



Indeed that seems to be an implication, however it does not necessarily correlate to a change in reality on the observable "physical" level. Many people seem to think quantum mechanics translates to mind control of the "real world". These ideas are not helped by pseudoscientific "documentaries" like that f***ing awful "What the bleep do we know?". At most, walking into a room and looking around might probably make a few quantum particles collapse into existence or disappear, but it won't make the room and the universe exist in the first place, like the op seems to suggest it might.


originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: liteonit6969

Reality is real, but each of us has a personal version of it, constructed from the impressions received by our senses. This construction probably doesn't have much to do with 'real' reality. See my thread, Are we incapable of seeing things as they really are? for an interesting discussion on the subject.


Interesting thread, thanks for the link. I am fascinated by how the way our brains interpret signals from our senses shape our experience of reality. I find it interesting that different organisms effectively live in different worlds within the same objective reality. Take a seagull for instance. We go to movies and see motion pictures; we are entertained by the action packed movement on screen. A seagull watching the screen would be bored stiff, it would be seeing a slow paced sequence of still images, each slightly different to the last, taking forever to tell the story. The implications of something as simple as vision being processed differently opens up a world of possibilities for the experience of time and space.



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 11:20 PM
link   
Thats pretty cool that you've stayed with her during this. I hope she either recovers fully or at least figures out how to cope with it in a way that allows you both to have a comfortable and "normal", happy life. (Normal is overrated but I really just meant your own personal flavor/preference of normal...)



posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 12:22 AM
link   
a reply to: liteonit6969

I had no idea you actually believed this. You have had a psychotic break with reality. You are entertaining a subjective delusion and need to find your way back to reality. Wishing you well.



posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 03:39 AM
link   
a reply to: machineintelligence

So there is a possibility that my partner wasn't actually ill? That maybe I've been ill all this time and have created the delusion that I have been caring for her to prevent me from deteriorating. Maybe but I don't think that is true. Hopefully it isn't .

When people claim certain ideas are philosophical and cannot be scientifically determined I feel we are missing the point. Are philosophy and math etc all not the same thing? They are both uses of language to determine if a theory is true or not. Where philosophical ideas are branded as such only because they cannot be communicated in mathematical terms. Therefore we use another language to best determine it's validity.

I maintain what I say due to the reasons I gave.

If a person who is delusional within our world today is placed on an uninhabited world would her reality/experiences etc not be as real as if you and I did the same.
I understand that you claim to need tests etc to measure said reality subjectively. But again these tests only hold up in your reality. They do not hold up in this "delusional" world.

The idea of reality I think is something built around all our senses. Now if we remove the trust in those senses then how do we determine what is real and not?

By believing in equations/math?

Are these not merely shapes and lines created by our minds (which creates our reality) to help understand the structure of the created reality? Are these not a man made language created to measure something that has long existed before that language was formed.



posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 03:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
People can rant, rave, argue and carry on and on about how we simply experience a shared reality, and our mind has nothing to do with it (except observe it).

I've made things happen, and manifested physical objects with my will and intent.


If you can manifest physical objects with nothing but your will and intent, why are you not famous? You know there is a million dollar prize for anyone who can demonstrate under controlled conditions the kind of supernatural ability you are claiming here.. Unless you are claiming something along the lines of "the law of attraction" as popularised by the pseudoscientific quack documentary "the secret", in which case you have brought into unsubstantiated new age woo through confirmation bias and wishful thinking..


I've changed the course of my subjective experience in reality by changing my thoughts.


Of course you have, that is common sense. Changing the thoughts that make up your perspective will change your subjective experience. A pessimist who learns to adopt a more positive outlook on life will "change the course of his subjective experience in reality", so will a Christian who leaves the faith, a solipsist who realises other people actually exist, or even a right wing ultra conservative who learns to be more moderate.


don't know all the details, how it works, or even a concrete way to make it work 100% of the time.


I can tell you how it works. Sometimes you get what you wish for, sometimes you don't. That's the nature of life. Whether you wished for it or not makes no difference unless you actually do something to obtain what you desire. You might happen upon it in a lucky coincidence, but as the old adage goes: correlation never implies causation.


Despite that, I still firmly believe our thoughts influence our reality.

And that, is my reality


That, is your perception of reality, and you freely admit is not fully informed.

Subjective experience does not an objective reality make. Our thoughts will influence our perception and experience of reality, but reality will stay the same regardless.
edit on 12-11-2015 by spygeek because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 03:43 AM
link   
a reply to: 3n19m470

Thankyou for the reply. I can see what you mean because it literally has been hell. But it was never a case of choice. When you love someone all you want to do is take away any pain and suffering even if it's just for a second.

Thankfully she is on the road to recovery. Life will never be the same but maybe that's a good things. Like the old saying what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. And I truly think she will become stronger and grow from an experience hopefully not many of us have to go through.

Again thankyou



posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 03:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: liteonit6969
a reply to: machineintelligence
If a person who is delusional within our world today is placed on an uninhabited world would her reality/experiences etc not be as real as if you and I did the same.


They would still be delusional, and now literally living on another planet. Absence of other subjective viewpoints do not make delusions any more objectively realistic.


I understand that you claim to need tests etc to measure said reality subjectively. But again these tests only hold up in your reality. They do not hold up in this "delusional" world.


We need tests to measure said reality objectively. The tests hold up in all of reality, as the results are not interpreted by subjective standards. If the results of any of these experiments do not hold up in a delusional worldview it is obviously because that worldview is not objective.


The idea of reality I think is something built around all our senses. Now if we remove the trust in those senses then how do we determine what is real and not?

By believing in equations/math?

Are these not merely shapes and lines created by our minds (which creates our reality) to help understand the structure of the created reality? Are these not a man made language created to measure something that has long existed before that language was formed.



Yes, equations and math are tools that were created by man to precisely measure reality. They do an exceptionally good job and are derived directly from the source: objective reality itself.

You seem to think that objectivity is unobtainable and that subjectivity is the only possible outcome of any measurement or experiment. This is incorrect.
edit on 12-11-2015 by spygeek because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 05:34 AM
link   
a reply to: spygeek

I understand and accept all that you say with the math and objective experiments etc.

But what I'm saying is it should be like that in a reality that is built by the joined realities of the majority. It's this joining of all realities that builds everything around us that fulfills your measurements.
Because thsee scientific measurements etc are all part of the reality that has been built.

Within this delusional reality that you claim will still be delusional these scientific measurements don't necessarily need to exist. It is your imposing of your ways of validating a reality that is making you believe that this is the only way it can exist.



posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 06:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: liteonit6969
a reply to: spygeek

I understand and accept all that you say with the math and objective experiments etc.


You say this, but then demonstrate that you don't by saying this:


But what I'm saying is it should be like that in a reality that is built by the joined realities of the majority. It's this joining of all realities that builds everything around us that fulfills your measurements.
Because thsee scientific measurements etc are all part of the reality that has been built.


What evidence is there that multiple subjective realities exist in first place, which condense down in some way to form one solid objective reality? How is this hypothesis falsifiable? What predictions can be drawn from it? How can it be differentiated from being a singular objective reality all along? How is such a view compliant with Occam's razor? How is this anything but an imaginary flight of fancy?


Within this delusional reality that you claim will still be delusional these scientific measurements don't necessarily need to exist. It is your imposing of your ways of validating a reality that is making you believe that this is the only way it can exist.


Delusional means holding a belief despite superior evidence to the contrary, and quite aptly describes your proposition. It is your imposing of your "multiple realities" hypothesis that is making you believe a single objective reality can not exist. You are proposing an unnecessarily complicated hypothesis that can not be verified, to explain what we can already measure and explain very easily without it.

If reality is in fact created by the human mind, as the title of the thread claims, then there can't have been reality before human minds existed. This is contrary to incontrovertible material physical evidence, and pretty much every single field of experimental and physical science. It is the equivalent of the Omphalos hypothesis that young earth creationists like to propagate, and has about as much scientific merit.

I apologise for raining on your parade, and I would like to express my own admirarion towards your caring for your mentally ill relative. I understand where your hypothesis comes from in light of this, and I want to make you aware that my critism of it comes not from an unwillingness to understand; I have a brother who suffered from a manic bipolar episode, he seemed to describe and believe in a similar model of reactive, "shared consciousness reality".

You are a trooper, and you deserve credit for your patience and willingness to understand things from the other side of the looking glass. I salute you, but your hypothesis is untenable.

edit on 12-11-2015 by spygeek because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 07:47 AM
link   
a reply to: spygeek

I accept that you are totally correct in what you say. I'm not denying that you are right. But only in this reality. Hehe

The only way I can describe this is starting from scratch on a new planet.

Inserting 1 person into that world there view of the world based on their sensory input. It wouldn't matter what experiment they would create to test their reality because they would deem the result they choose to be satisfactory as no outside observation can disprove it.
Therefore if that person would see pink elephants flying around they would exist in that reality.

Now add in 1 more person. Now you have someone to observe and carry out objective experiments. From that the two can come to some idea of what is right and wrong. By adding in the 3rd person with their sensory input then the majority will be accepted as reality whereas the pink elephant seeing person would be delusional.

Basically the single person world could not be disproved as non existent and would be just as legitimate as any other.



posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 11:18 AM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom


And that, is my reality

Which is real to nobody but you. Attaboy!


edit on 12/11/15 by Astyanax because: of that pumpkin.



posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 11:58 AM
link   
Wait wait wait did I read that right. You have manifested physical objects with your mind? Is like like thinking you want a glass of water so you got up and got filled your self one or that water just simply appeared in your hand. If I were you I'd be conjuring up some gold bars.


I do however think intent can effect random number generation.


a reply to: MystikMushroom



posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 12:03 PM
link   
If the humans say that a light they observe in the sky is an airplane, then the human believe that the light is an airplane. Therefore all lights in the sky are an airplane.

If a human observes an act, then tells more humans a lie about the act obsered. Therefore these humans will not observe the true act but the lie given to them by the primary observer.



posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Athetos

No...as in I wanted something to be part of my reality, so I pushed/pulled/tweaked/hacked my reality to include it. The power of the subconscious mind is pretty incredible...it seems to be tied into the background or fabric of reality itself somehow.

I guess you could try to manifest gold bars -- but when you get to the point of being able to do so, the idea of that seems silly. Some of the most amazing people I've met weren't rich beyond belief -- despite their ability to be so.



posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: sociolpath

No because those other humans will be able to test and find proof of these claims which would show it to be wrong.

The point is there are no other humans to impose these realities with scientific experiments etc. There is no way to objectively test. The lone human will try to objectively test but that will be impossible because they are within the reality they alone have created.



posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: liteonit6969
a reply to: spygeek

I accept that you are totally correct in what you say. I'm not denying that you are right. But only in this reality. Hehe


There is only one objective reality, subjective perceptions of it do not constitute additional realities. To presume there is more than one reality, especially without evidence or even a requirement for it to explain a phenomena, is pointless. Hehe.


The only way I can describe this is starting from scratch on a new planet.

Inserting 1 person into that world there view of the world based on their sensory input. It wouldn't matter what experiment they would create to test their reality because they would deem the result they choose to be satisfactory as no outside observation can disprove it.
Therefore if that person would see pink elephants flying around they would exist in that reality.


I'm afraid you are again equating one's perception of reality with reality itself. You have sort of correctly stated that with only one viewpoint, reality can not be objectively verified, but this does not by default make that one viewpoint realistic, rather it makes it unreliable; this one person has no way of knowing what is real and what is not.


Now add in 1 more person. Now you have someone to observe and carry out objective experiments. From that the two can come to some idea of what is right and wrong. By adding in the 3rd person with their sensory input then the majority will be accepted as reality whereas the pink elephant seeing person would be delusional.

Basically the single person world could not be disproved as non existent and would be just as legitimate as any other.


If something cannot be disproved, that does not make it legitimate. Both falsifiability and objectivity are necessary for a hypothesis to have any legitimacy. If one person sees a flying pink elephant and if they are the only person in the entire universe, it does not mean flying pink elephants exist in reality. To confirm they do exist would require a systematic and scientific study of them, as well as a testable theory to explain them.
edit on 12-11-2015 by spygeek because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join