It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


What makes "Reality" real?

page: 6
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 02:25 AM

Originally posted by Neo_Serfhehe im not sure if you cleverly threw in 'The Philosopher' to sway me after judging from my sig that i love the 'Stoltle'. but he also believed in the gods of his day, as did the religious people you site believe in their own gods, and so i honestly cant take the word of the ancients as binding on this most potentially profound matter.

I'm not interested in the religious debate, because I feel that religion is not science. If God exists, in my opinion it would be “Reality” that is about as God as I am going to get. For me, it is about the truth. The truth for me includes both objective reality, but also a whole subjective dream reality that at some strange junction has bled into the objective world. It is potentially very profound, and if so we need some good hard evidence and answers don't we?

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
If this phenomenon is real, it should be testable and repeatable.

Perhaps it is, but if we are not aware of the causes and triggers we may only have spontaneous random events to test against so that makes the testable and repeatable element a tad bit daunting. I don't know if even Dr. Daryl Bem's recent precognitive study and findings helps, but if it's progress then hopefully more will come from it. He did have 8 years of research showing precognition beyond chance and it's up for peer review etc.

Originally posted by Neo_SerfThe ability to become conscious and control ones dreams (and the few times i have experienced it, it was AWESOME!) does not violate the known laws or properties of matter and energy. Consciousness projecting and effecting outside of the mind does. This is not to say it is impossible. It would just require unquestionable proof, repeatability, and some theory to describe it in order for a layman such as myself to accept this fundamental rewriting of out collective understanding of reality.

It is awesome. And you are right, to bridge into this idea that consciousness can affect the objective world through dreaming needs that unquestionable proof. At least, with your own limited precognitive dream exposure, you have some first-hand view of a potential, not saying it's the real-deal. Could be all convincing coincidences, what would be the next step in validation?

Well, like all things dream, there is non-lucid and lucid dreaming. If a non-lucid precognitive dream exists then surely a lucid precognitive dream exists? It's also the next rational, and logical step to consider that if one could be unconsciously in a precognitive dream, then one might be lucid in such a dream.

The difference between a non-lucid precognitive dream and lucid precognitive dream starts the next-level of inquiry which is dream control. Can you control this lucid precognitive dream in such a way that you can invoke a change?

If so, will this change come true in the objective world?

How would it appear as? Would it merely be going left instead of right? Is it more profound such as changing the surface of the dream leaving a mark, or pattern that later comes true when the dream actualizes?

If you read my abstract you will find that I did change the dream by using “dream control” to change the dream-surface with a geometric footprint and I provide some photographs and witness testimonies to at least back up the claim that it did indeed happen.

From my perspective, there is this potential to not only precognitive dream, but act on such dreams when lucid and affect change, thus affecting causality causing the changes made to come true in objective reality. I've crossed that bridge in my personal exploration and the results were absolutely unexpected and spectacular.

Originally posted by Neo_SerfSo far I havent seen that.

I certainly have.

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
Have you designed a testable hypothesis to confirm or deny your opinions? Have you honestly explored the possibility that you may be self selecting positive results and discarding or ignoring negative ones?

Im curious!

I'm still working on the Hypothesis, and because it's not easily producible it makes it very hard to test. Which leaves me with my own quandary of, “Do I keep it to myself dragging it to my grave, or at least expose the anecdotal experiences in hopes that others will benefit and pick up where I leave off?”

What is my responsibility here, I really don't know.

posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 02:25 AM

Originally posted by Neo_SerfI have no way of either validating of rejecting the claims of this person you mention, or the experiment you site. Even if you linked me to it, i dont posses the scientific or technical knowledge to even being to evaluate these claims. my only guide posts can be logic, the general consensus of experts with far greater expertise than me (and yes i know the inherent flaws in an appeal to authority, im an anarchist ffs~) and my own sensual experience which is based on free will. if my behavior was predictable with any high degree of accuracy, i would have to reject the idea of free will and all the implications that would logically follow from that. (mainly the loss of any kind of moral responsibility for my actions, or anyones)

I understand, and I have succumbed to the idea of a pre-determined Universe where all “events” past/present/future may be known, and the Universe itself may be like a quantum clock repeating itself in cycles in tedious eternity. When we get into the non-linear, non-local aspects of fourth-dimension and beyond it becomes quite amazing and frightening to look at the relationship between reality, and what exists within it. A totally entangled and eternal system of existence, constantly expanding, contracting and changing from a singularity.

Fear, terrible and horrible fear first gripped me when precognitive dreams began to expose me to the reality of this potential. It was further amplified by the first lucid-precognitive dream that I had. It did not come invited, welcomed and wanted; rather just appeared as a matter of fact. Self-evident and in my face. I could either accept it, or ignore it... although I think the second was never an option. You'll have no idea how deep I ran with it. It was an epic. Still freaks me out but what can I do. It's the elephant in my closet.

Originally posted by Neo_SerfSo ill admit i have an emotional stake in this game, not that that means anything. if my actions were indeed predictable, that would imply that i do not posses the capacity to change my future and thus the cornerstone of my entire philosophical world view, which i hold to be logically sound, and empirically verified, would be shattered to dust.

I don't doubt it. But the good news at least is that I did change precognitive dreams before they came true so the free-will act of intent and action resides regardless of the non-linear flow of events. There at least is hope of free-will in the pre-determined nature of precognitive dreaming.

Originally posted by Neo_SerfThat im uncomfortable with that notion does not, of course, invalidate what youre saying. Im just saying that it flies contrary to every rational first principle ive been able to salvage from the wreck of the mind that is considered 'normal' human thinking. So perhaps youll get more of a fight out of me than if you were instead proposing the existence of some new particle, or some other theory of matter and energy that had no bearing on the way we should behave as humans.

If the future is predictable, it cannot change.

I would rather say, “The Future is Probable”, and has many probable outcomes. The other avenue of my exploration shows that not only are dreams linked in to this precognitive relationship, but demonstrate tangible branches of probability. It does suggest that the future is probable and we are constantly trying to keep up with the current wave of probability.

It's not that it cannot change, rather it is always changing. We are the ones affecting the change, even it it's as simple as deciding to turn right instead of left. What this does is simply changes the probability node to a new trajectory. How the Universe calculates probabilities is a bit of a mystery but the precognitive dreams that I have had suggest that entire nodes can collapse in favour of new future pathways. It's hard to explain because it's like a fractal of events woven into a master canvas of probable, and actual reality.

This is also why precognitive dreams are not a good test for future events as they can also describe probable futures. Hence why some seem so coincidental and others more literal to the future event. People, myself included even have precognitive dreams of other dreams. It sounds weird, all of this does but the fact is you can have a dream within a dream about a dream that you will layer dream about and realize it is a fuller version of the dream you once dreamed about.

I love it. Crazy precognition appears even in other dreams.

Originally posted by Neo_SerfDoes reality exist without an 'observer', in your view?

In my view, reality is interconnected with the observer. They are both parts of a larger system of what reality is. It's like saying does the third dimension exist without the zero-dimensional point?

posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 02:26 AM
My best offering is that if we came from a singularity as suggested by the Big Bang, then everything that exists in the Universe is at some level entangled. That would be quantum fact really. We observe entanglement in Quantum Mechanics and know that every electron, photon etc was crunched into a singularity thus ultimately entangled with everything that the singularity spawned.

It is also evident in geometry as the single-point within the zero-dimension is what props up every other dimension as each dimensional manifold props up the next. The single-point exists in all dimensions, you take it out of the equation and every manifold it props up collapses. Singularities such as the big-bang must also expand into spacial dimensional manifolds, and again we see the electron appearing to be the same electron enough to say it could be the same electron entangled.

This spawned the “One Electron Universe Hypothesis” by John Wheeler. I consider the electron to be like the point in geometry and it could very well be the physical particle of geometry and entanglement that geometrical dimensional manifolds predict.

In lay terms, we are all interconnected, entangled and a part of reality both as reality and the observer. One cannot exist without the other as they are all part of the same system. That said, when an observer dies, the reality it currently observers is no longer relevant, and it's possible that given enough time and enough big-crunches, big-expansions that conditions could again arise where the observer could again repeat. I really don't know except to say I can see the observer and reality as an interconnected system. It's really beyond my current knowledge base to give a definitive answer.

There is a relationship, and we probably are really just struggling to understand what that really means. It may mean nothing at all. That is part of the fun in trying to figure it all out with a limited human brain.

Originally posted by Neo_SerfIf it could be shown that the universe is indeed a 'hologram' of some kind, and not by some elegant but fundamentally mad mathematical equation, but instead incontrovertible physical evidence...what would this imply? how would your behavior change?

I have had paradigm shifting experiences in the past. I still function normally in todays social expectations. I work, pay bills, eat food. Really, nothing on the outside has changes. If I discovered life was a virtual reality simulation, I would still play the same game. But my perspective would be changed slightly.

In the precognitive branch of my experiences, gives me another paradigm to consider and that is the possibility that this “Reality” is actually a type of dream. If that is true then how will that affect us? It is certainly something that would become self-evident, and I say that lightly knowing that you haven't yet had lucid precognitive dreams. I'm sure your opinion on this matter would evolve greatly if you do.

Originally posted by Neo_SerfMany years ago I read a book called 'whos afraid of schrodingers box' which turned me onto all of the seeming paradoxes of quantum physics. i only 1/4 understood it of course, and i still take a laymans interest in reading up on the latest quantum findings.

I really love Science. I always view our technological achievements as monumental and grand. Quantum Mechanics is a difficult science because it contradicts the macro Universe. When we get into wave-function collapse for example, the fact that a physical particle can exist both as wave-function and a particle is quite mind-boggling. What determines when a particle should be wave or solid? Particle wave duality simply exists as a matter of fact.

The fact that particles exist in a state of superposition also provides evidence of probable reality. The fact that a hydrogen atom can have an electron that exists in many states of superposition at once, then collapse into one actual measured state further supports what I am saying that reality is probable, not entirely predetermined.

What is also interesting about wave-function collapse is that the observer-model comes into effect, where we exist in a reality that is fundamentally wave-function and probability that needs observation to make real, and actual what that current mess of probability is. The observer effect and the measurement problem also suggests the relationship between the observer and the reality it observes.

After all, without the observer reality can only exists as quantum soup in the form of wave-function? That is at least what particle/wave duality suggests. Reality needs an observer to collapse from wave-function into particles... or at least needs to be measured to be made real.

That is quantum weirdness 101.

posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 02:27 AM

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
im just not sure i see the link between 'quantum weirdness' and this dreamscape you describe.

the dots im connecting currently are the ones i can see, touch and understand. perhaps my scope is limited.

You only see the end-result of wave-function collapse. There is a lot more probability there that you and I do not see. How the dream relationship may link is in the idea of wave-function collapse. Perhaps the dreams program the wave-function and we are collapsing thoughts into particles when we observe the precognitive dream as it actualizes from probability and comes true?

Originally posted by Neo_SerfI honestly know none of these names, and perhaps i should if i want to be able to discuss this topic competently. But i dont. Im still hung up on your claim of future predictability. Surely, if it is at all possible, bright minds like these could design some sort of triple blind, gold standard peer review study to prove or disprove the phenomenon youre describing. The incentive to do so would be incalculable - the first person to bring forth a theory of extra - cranial mind influence would go down in the annals of human achievement with no peer.

I am honestly very open to future research, I think this is huge really. Having changed dreams, to observe those changes come true could be an epoc event like Newton discovering Gravity when an apple fell and hit him on the head. It could be something beyond amazing, and yet here I am on a Conspiracy forum discussing it and not in a laboratory or with a body of science exploring it. Life is funny that way.

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
theyd win a million bux from the amazing randy heheh~

Assuming Randy isn't part of an Establishment that is blocking this from mainstream science. I am on a conspiracy site after all for a reason.

Originally posted by Neo_SerfThese wouldnt be equal to me and would go in order from cause to effect:
1:the reality > 2: the observer > 3: the dream

In the causality paradox, “What came first, the chicken or the Egg” we know that the egg had to precede the chicken, and that more obviously, the amoeba that evolved into the Chicken came before both the chicken and the egg.

In precognitive dream paradoxes, “What came first, the dream or reality?” is answered when we see the dream first which days, weeks, months later comes true. It's clear, the dream came first. Not a refutable argument, a matter of fact (assuming this is true... which it is ).

Originally posted by Neo_Serfso the hallucination, and the dream, exist *only* within the mind?

Even this text you are reading exists within the mind. Lots of things exist within the mind as that is our window of perception, and our gateway to reality experiences both dreamed of and lived.

Originally posted by Neo_SerfSo the experience youre describing is 100% subjective and exists only in the mind of the experiencee?

There are and always will be experiences that are fundamentally and forever subjective to an individual. That said, we do have the radical notion of shared dreaming and precognitive dreaming that offer another factor in this normally considered subjective realm which touch into objectivity.

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
This would seem to conflate the distinction between the words 'fantasy' and 'reality'. Fantasy is described as that which exists solely in the mind, while reality is defined as that which exists independently of our minds. If the two are not the same thing, the proper term might be something like 'cognitive fantasy'.

This is what makes imagination, hallucination and other subjective phenomena such as dreaming so interesting is that all of it exists solely in the mind. The same holds true that our perception of reality also only exists within the mind. What we observe in this canvas of the mind lends to both objective reality and fantasy realms such as those vivid dreams we have.

At least, we have the ability to observe the atomized world when awake, and a non-atomized world composed of organized thought in the form of dreams. Both have to be observed and rendered in the mind on the same mental-canvas.

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
to say that which has opposing properties to reality is the same as reality is to say that no distinction exists between that which is imagined and that which is measured.

posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 02:27 AM
Well, when we are looking at reality beyond just the atomized world, there is the issue of dream reality that appears real at least while we are in them dreaming until the time we wake up. Why do dream worlds need to appear as a reality when we have them? Why are we convinced they are reality until we wake up? Seems strange that we don't all lucid dream, and dream what ever we want when we want. If anything, most of us simply do not behave that way.

It's nice to separate fantasy from reality because we do have empirically measured facts, natural law. It's unsettling to consider that something so fantasy based such as dreaming could remotely have any relationship to this objective world.

Yet, this wildcard is cast when we look at precognitive dreaming that suggests a relationship, and one of relativity between the dream and the future event does indeed exist. If that is so, then how does that change this physical system? What is this relationship? How is it defined? Are we capable of even understanding such a seemingly paradoxical and impossible breach of the current paradigm and status quo?

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
to me, this is a fundamentally mystical approach and is inherently self contradictory. unless you redefine 'cognitive reality' as 'cognitive fantasy'.

Reality already exists in a multitude of probability based on wave-function collapse, superposition, many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, M-theory, Brane-Theory and so forth. Who is to say that in all of this probability that fantasy isn't part of the mix? That in some way, all of this isn't dreamed up by some self-aware singularity that expanded into itself in an endless cosmic folding and unfolding. This could very well be a well-defined fantasy world.

It certainly has the markings of a game-world. We do have avatars. We have defined characters, races and attributes. It's very nature is player-orientated fulfilment. At best, this could be a cosmic video game, and we would never know the difference. Everything that exists on Earth can be imagined and fantasized about. We just lucked out that such imaginings are done in atoms.

Again, I am musing here... don't read into the game idea to literally. Reality and fantasy exist all the time. It's not a bad thing either. Dreams are great for all the non-physical entertainment that this world is incapable due to it's rigid laws is unable to provide.

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
youre toootally speaking my nerd language now which is awesome. but dreams, i think, like games, are pure fantasy of the mind.

Right, dreams are fantasy driven events that are mind generated phenomena. I can't argue with that fact.

Originally posted by Neo_Serfhehe the last time i had a lucid dream, many years ago now, one of the first things i did was to ask someone from my dream 'do you realize that i dreamed you up?' to which he responded 'do you realize i dreamed *you* up?'

upon further reflection, it seems i was right.

To bad you are limiting yourself to just a few lucid dreams. It sounds like this is right up your alley. I enjoy lucid dreaming and because of it, all these great events occurred which taught me about precognitive dreams, shared dreaming and a relationship between dreams and reality that prior too, I did not know existed.

Perhaps then it's good that we meet because unlike most people, I have no agenda to preach a belief-system to you, or tell you what to believe in. Rather, I encourage open exploration of dreams through consciousness and leave the rest to what you find therein. Then share in the joy of exploration and personal discovery.

Even if you do not have precognitive dreams, shared dreams or lucid precognitive dreams... the fact is you do have this amazing dreamworld that you also exist in, and it's one that you are creating. Something with the right attitude, you can have a lot of fun with.

May as well, what else can you do when the body is asleep but dream?

posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 08:14 PM

Originally posted by R3KR
I think its "real" because of persistence of time.

I like that idea. The idea that what is real is persistence of time. Yet, when I think about what is real relative to myself, I realize that the persistence of time exists only because I exist to perceive it. When I cease to exist, does time at that point matter? Does any of this matter?

It does, but the fact remains it is a persistence of myself that makes this moment real to me. When I cease to exist, what is real suddenly comes into great question. Is it real anymore? Am I real anymore?

Death. Another part of Reality. Something we all face, take it or leave it.

Originally posted by R3KR
If a car drives by you, and you look away for second, you know it will be where it should be when you look back. This persistence of "things" that are constantly there are what makes it real. Granted its a collection of impossibly small things traveling in a pack, or a packet of energy or waves (depending how you look at it) it will always persist. Things that we dont believe are real are, coincidentally not visible to us. Once we see something with a device or our own eyes and it persists we believe it to be real.

It's real, because you are real to perceive it. In what makes reality real, it is you observing reality.

Originally posted by R3KR
Basically, something is real when a group of humans decide it to be real. We cant think about something we cant think about, or know something we cant know, so... we only say things are real when we can quantify something's persistence.

I don't think Humans decide what is real, and what is not. Honestly, humans have an idea about reality but it seems to change person to person. That most likely is because that each human experiences reality subjectively. Hence why some really gravitate to objective reality outside of what they experience as the definitive.

Originally posted by R3KR
Interesting how things change when you look at them. Ive always wondered if you discover something new, is it really a discovery, or did you just create it by thinking about it. Order from chaos using your consciousness as a tool. I've had some personal experiences... little ones where things would kind of..well... work out because I wanted them to. I dont believe in coincidences either.

Care to elaborate?

Originally posted by R3KR
A moment should be taken to define the word "persist". What I mean by that is something that can be measured or predicted with some accuracy. Sometimes even random persistence like waves or wind.

All of it persisting because you are real to perceive it as so. Interesting how reality is real to those who exist to perceive it.

posted on Nov, 11 2011 @ 12:53 AM

The fact is, either all these people claiming to have precognitive dreams are lying, or they are in fact having them.

Doesnt a third possibility exist - that the super mega ultra computer that is the subconscious has collected, processed, synthesized massive amounts of otherwise unconscious data and turned it into a predictive narrative of a possible unforseen (by the waking mind) future event? Given that the subconscious is like 7000x more powerful than the conscious mind, might it be possible that these predictive dreams are the sum total of our minds best guess on something that may be likely to occur?

If I watch the clouds and smell the air to predict rain, I may develop a higher than random chance of predicting the weather a few hours into the future. If I have a full spectrum satellite array and a team of meteorologists, i may be able to extend my 'precognitive' abilities further into the future. In this clumsy metaphor, the lone farmer represents the lone farmer while the subconscious is the weather network.

Perhaps these precog hits are just great guesses generated by the all seeing subconscious?

posted on Nov, 11 2011 @ 01:33 AM

Because dreams also are anecdotal; then they are automatically invalidated scientifically thus not subject to scientific inquiry.

This would be to say that psychology has no scientific basis at all. While psychology is of course not a hard science like physics, I think it would be hard to say that psychology is automatically invalidated scientifically. But ya, for sure, a lot of challenges in objectively measuring peoples thoughts.

Dr. Art Funkhouser I think had done some breaking work by exposing age, frequency research into precognitive dreams and his paper “The frequency of déjà vu (déjà rêve) and the effects of age, dream recall frequency and personality factors”

I will openly cop out of reading the link youve provided before I respond to you! While it may annoy you that Ive asked for proof, and when you provide me with some, I refuse to read it, and I think that would be a fair criticism. But geez man, havent you provided me with enough reading material in your posts already!
Besides, as ive previously stated, I dont have the expertise required to make a call on the doctors work.

Perhaps when I have more time, but for now, Id rather go with your thoughts on the matter and a logical inspection of them.

There are dream-databases that have over 6,000 reported precognitive dreams and studies such as Dr. Daryl Bem's precognitive research that is in peer review.

With billions of people dreaming billions of dreams every night, and throughout history, it would seem to me that 6000 recorded hits is a staggeringly low number.

So either precog dreams are incredibly rare, or just plain chance. Besides, I thought you said no testability was possible in this field?

However, having the precognitive dream experiences simply sealed the deal with enough personal evidence to validate this as a matter of fact, and not fiction as many would want to believe.

Is your own personal experience the standard of that which is true and that which is false?

If this is universally true, there are a lot of schizophrenics who are owed a huuuge apology. Im not saying you are one of them, but if ones own experiences, which are self selected and self validated, are held to be universally true, does this principle not also apply to the insane?

Can it stand up to the Randi Challenge? I've discussed this in length on their forum and the attitude is that it's not testable because it's spontaneous and not something that one could setup an experiment for.

Just off the top of my head - 1000 dreamers record their dreams in detail for 10 years. Those dreams are then analyzed for their predictive value. If they score above random, youre on to something.

After all, how can I even know if a dream is precognitive until after it comes true?

Record all dreams and compare to events as they unfold over a long enough timeline.

Hardly fitting within the confines of the scientific method. That doesn't mean however that what I am dreaming of in the future tense isn't happening. I've had my share enough to swathe through all the “arguments” against this being possible.

Its not possible according to the known laws of physics. This does not mean it is impossible, I suppose, but our current understanding disallows consciousness without matter.

... it could be an issue of entanglement and part of fourth-dimensional information processing.

Could bes are not fact, thought. An interesting hypothesis!

Hence why I am convinced of the MRI dream-recording as being the next technological breakthrough that will satisfy this phenomena in the same way that skeptics were proven wrong once science had the technology to record lucid dreaming feedback empirically.

Sounds like a fascinating future experiment!

Yet, I don't need to wait for science to tell me what I already know. I've had precognitive dreams, and they are absolutely fascinating, mind-boggling and worthy of a science unto themselves. They might shift our paradigm yet once again if we have a breakthrough in capturing these elusive dreams.

Again, are you certain that that which you sense directly is sufficient evidence to make the statement that this phenomenon youve experienced is objective fact? What is your standard of truth/falsehood?

That's great, be skeptical. If you do not have any first-hand experience, how could you even begin to have a framework to accept the reality of it other then that it seems like a wild story? I certainly wouldn't believe anyone if I hadn't experienced it first-hand. I mean, why should I? It goes again the current scientific paradigm.

If you read back a bit in my posts youll see that I have indeed experienced this. Im just not willing to say that my experience = fact.

posted on Nov, 11 2011 @ 01:54 AM

In lay terms, the changes I made in the dream happened in reality when the dream came true. An outstanding event which certainly bridged the subjective/objective barrier between dreams and reality.

Is it not possible that you have reversed cause and effect here? Could the knowledge provided by the dream not have caused you to change your behavior, thus changing reality?

The International Association for the Study of Dreams runs dream telepathy experiments and have gathered a body of evidence over the years. Again, I have first-hand experience with it so it's self-evident that this potential along with precognitive dreams still await science to catch up and capture them via the scientific method.

Then I will await experimentation for the proof/disproof.

The MRI dream recording technology that is slowly evolving makes these two events less exclusive from observation should this ever evolve into dream recording technology. However, it may be 20, 40, 100 more years before science finally has the evidence; so I'm left sounding like a woo when I simply state it as I've experienced it to be.

You could totally be right. But couldnt you also be totally wrong?

“Either you will have it or will not.”

What standard do you use to separate those who will from those who wont?

This makes setting up a control and testing a spontaneous event nearly impossible does it not?

If communicating this 'truth' to others is impossible, by your own admission, why are you trying to prove this to me or others? Are we to accept your experiences, and your telling of them, at face value?

I'm happy enough just to have the personal experience to have this objective view on these two interesting aspects of dreaming.

Sorry to nitpick, but personal experience is the opposite of objective view. If it were objective, you would be able to communicate it to me using facts and logic. So far this is not the case.

posted on Nov, 11 2011 @ 06:04 AM
I need to test what is real before i ask can start to ask what makes 'reality' real. What is real and who says so? We need a who before we can ask the question, surely?
The who asks; what is real?
A question asks a question.
The answer is.
Can the question ever be real (reality)?
edit on 11-11-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 02:08 PM
What I know to be true:

True reality is that which is constant 'in' every 'level' of existence or ALWAYS consistent, always being.

So far, to me, reality is:

Love (unconditional)

Perception (to perceive)

Oneness (there is actually only ONE)


Completeness/Whole-ness (all that ever has happened and will happen is happening now.)

Movement (everything is in a state of movement, always)

posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 03:51 PM
reply to post by ZacharyW

u confuse reality with truth and everyone

reality is always objective absolute one freedom

truth is absolute freedom so never one nor objective

one or ones is subjective freedom as being of wills or needs, so positive or negative free states means

posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 04:04 PM
as to what makes reality real,

it is the absence of subjective powerful freedom abusing reality known for their superior pretenses to exist
or abusing free ones rights existence for subjective free life creations

what makes reality real is also, reality freedom one truth that confirms it instead of meaning else as now
reality free one truth keep meaning unfortunately nothing at all so dont give a damn to what objectively exist or is real

it seems as nothing in truth is preferably through destructions of all and never through the constancy of nothing at all

i cant believe how far we have true issues

new topics

top topics

<< 3  4  5   >>

log in