See, I do exist!

[inavalan]

You try to mitigate what your faith tells you with what your rationalization tells you. I believe that neither of them is reliably leading you to the truth. The only way to get closer to the truth, I believe, is to directly access your inner knowledge through altered states of consciousness (induced by unbiased meditation, self-hypnosis, ...).

I can give you an answer to your last question based on the beliefs I formed in such states, but I have no intention to convince anybody that I'm right, or argue it.

I believe that each one of us builds their own realities from their beliefs and emotions. I don't really believe there is a consensus reality as I infer you're describing. That would be like saying that there is a consensus dream reality we all build together, which I don't believe to be the case.

Regarding your last question ..., we don't really have first hand information of most of what religions, or scientists, tell us, so I would leave some room for major distortions of the information we have.

I'm currently reading a book by Ian Stevenson & others about a Polish engineer and clairvoyant, Stefan Ossowiecki. What I found to be the most valuable part, so far, is the paragraph in which the clairvoyant describes what he experiences. It is exactly what I experience when I get in an altered state of consciousness, and fascinatingly, fits the model of reality that I gathered while in such states.

[Altair]

Originally Posted by inavalan

Are you "more real" than you-in-your-dream, or you-in-your-imagination? I don't think so.

Equally real, I would say. The dreams are just our consciousness elsewhere and it's a spectrum of dull dreams to amazing vivid dreams. But, that doesn't make *this* physical reality any less real. Some people suggest that we live in an illusion, but the way I see it it's just different layers to reality. Those realities that are physical and realities that change aren't any less or more real than the non-physical. It's merely different.. to say that which changes is ''illusion'' and that which doesn't change is ''real'' is a value judgement. So there's no need for ''true'' versus ''false'' worlds, just world A and world B, etc. lol..

Different worlds also impact one another..

Originally Posted by inavalan

You try to mitigate what your faith tells you with what your rationalization tells you. I believe that neither of them is reliably leading you to the truth. The only way to get closer to the truth, I believe, is to directly access your inner knowledge through altered states of consciousness (induced by unbiased meditation, self-hypnosis, ...).

I can give you an answer to your last question based on the beliefs I formed in such states, but I have no intention to convince anybody that I'm right, or argue it.

I believe that each one of us builds their own realities from their beliefs and emotions. I don't really believe there is a consensus reality as I infer you're describing. That would be like saying that there is a consensus dream reality we all build together, which I don't believe to be the case.

When I think about it, I suppose all realities are altered states of consciousness. My own consciousness is what is altered to create the realities I experience. I literally create a universe in which I experience my life, or any other experience I choose to have, from and within my own consciousness. Yes, I may choose to draw on information from outside of it, but it is still me creating the actual reality from and within my own being. Perhaps the only unaltered state of consciousness would be true emptiness. No forms, no things created to believe in, no emotions to experience, no thoughts, nothing. The mind cannot envision, nor much less communicate, such an experience, because there is no thing to envision and nothing to convey. And yet, it is only because my consciousness is capable of achieving such a state, that it can be altered to create anything I wish to experience. The uncarved block, is the one that offers the most freedom to the artist as they choose what to carve it into. Once the carving begins, each shaving restricts the possibilities a little bit more. While an education in facts expands the mind, acceptance of those facts as truths, can limit it.
It is only through the ever changing nature of my altered states of consciousness that I am able to be aware of my own existence at all. Which is nice since science just reconfirmed that I do in fact exist, if ya can believe those guys, which in this case I would kind of like to. I mean, I can’t even imagine what it would be like not to exist.
When I think of a consensus reality, I don’t think of a common reality in which we all exist, but rather personal and unique realities, universes that manifest the matrix of cause and effect in parallel with each other. Think not so much like a basketball game in which all the players are on the same court together, but more like an online video game. Each of the client applications give and take information from the central server, each player agreeing to download and render the information about the moves and effects to the virtual world that the other players are making for the sake of having someone else to play the game with. To be allowed to play, we must accept the rules of the game. All must get their turn to act and upload information, and all must download and accept the information created by the actions of the other players, all are co-creators of the game world, yet each client application is creating that world separately and in parallel to the others. If instead we want to do whatever we wish, then we must go elsewhere to play. And when we tire of a particular game, we alter our state of consciousness once more, and do just that.

[inavalan]

I like the video-game comparison. I was thinking about that too, but that would imply an aware player that's operating an unaware character (me). My inner self tells me that isn't the case.

A better comparison might be with a virtual reality system, like in the movie "Total Recall", but not exactly.

We project our awareness here from a thought-responsive non-physical plane where we are not (yet) fit to fully habitate because of our level of development. We can't handle a rapidly thought-responding environment because we can't (yet) manage our emotions, we have a (still) rudimentary intellect, and almost no functional intuition; we barely manage our instincts.

The physical is a much slower thought-responsive environment, where we can habitate quite stably. Our physical bodies are vehicles that provide us the means to practice and improve our skills in creating reality.

Actually the real reality-creation practice class is our dreaming. In that state we can fully practice in a rapidly thought-responding environment, which is individual to each one of us, where we can safely make our learning mistakes without bothering others.

Anyway ... :)

Bottom line: the most important is to know what we have to do, as human beings, here and now. Some of us try to find that answer by trying to figure out how things are, what is the big picture, and then to rationalize what to do. I believe that leads us in error, because we don't have the intellectual capability to comprehend beyond physical (yet). A more practical and better path is to ask, and find a direct answer only to what we have to do. Where from? From our inner knowledge resource. It is isn't easy, will make mistakes, but I think it's more accurate than putting our faith in what others preach, or by trusting our rationalizations.

Originally Posted by inavalan

I like the video-game comparison. I was thinking about that too, but that would imply an aware player that's operating an unaware character (me). My inner self tells me that isn't the case.

A better comparison might be with a virtual reality system, like in the movie "Total Recall", but not exactly.

How about a virtual reality online video game? LOL

This is interesting because my inner (higher?) self seems to be telling me just the opposite. The more aware I become of my "unaware" character, the one I seem to think is me, the more it begins to appear to be like the wizard of Ozz. An illusion projected onto a plume of smoke by something deeper within, beneath the thoughts and emotions, that is pulling the levers and pushing the buttons, and watching the whole thing play out. There is really only one character, just me at times pretending I am a different me. Just another version of the game of make believe I played as a small child. Yet, when I try to look deeper within to find my inner self, I can't seem to find that either. Only by inference do I believe that there must be something there to play this game of make believe in the first place. Nothing is permanent except me, and that is eternally changing back and forth from nothing to something and back again. A state of mind perpetually altering and realtering itself, and I am both that which is altered and that doing the altering. I could say I can never directly experience my self, or I could say that everything I have ever experience is my self, or perhaps in the end it would be just as good to say nothing and just experience it all, IDK.

[inavalan]

Originally Posted by ketzer

How about a virtual reality online video game? LOL

This is interesting because my inner (higher?) self seems to be telling me just the opposite. The more aware I become of my "unaware" character, the one I seem to think is me, the more it begins to appear to be like the wizard of Ozz. An illusion projected onto a plume of smoke by something deeper within, beneath the thoughts and emotions, that is pulling the levers and pushing the buttons, and watching the whole thing play out. There is really only one character, just me at times pretending I am a different me. Just another version of the game of make believe I played as a small child. Yet, when I try to look deeper within to find my inner self, I can't seem to find that either. Only by inference do I believe that there must be something there to play this game of make believe in the first place. Nothing is permanent except me, and that is eternally changing back and forth from nothing to something and back again. A state of mind perpetually altering and realtering itself, and I am both that which is altered and that doing the altering. I could say I can never directly experience my self, or I could say that everything I have ever experience is my self, or perhaps in the end it would be just as good to say nothing and just experience it all, IDK.

Regarding experiencing my self ... While in trance, when I experience going through a death event, immediately after it, is like waking up to another me. It is the same feeling as when I come back to wakefulness from a dream (be it even lucid dream / astral projection / obe). The life that ended, and the self that passed, don't seem more important than a dream that just ended.

As source of inner knowledge, I enter a (light) trance, I ask questions, and get answers that pop up in my mind (no verbal communication). The answers are clear, concise, and definitely not something my conscious mind rationalizes.

[HITESH SHAH]

Analogy of game (virtual , real or video ) is great. As inavalan said in the bottom line this should lead to us to answers to our own directions / actions /dilemmas if any .

[FallingLeaves]

Originally Posted by inavalan

I believe that each one of us builds their own realities from their beliefs and emotions. I don't really believe there is a consensus reality as I infer you're describing. That would be like saying that there is a consensus dream reality we all build together, which I don't believe to be the case.

I'm not going to argue about 'altered states' as I agree you can get a lot from them. But if you don't believe there is a consensus reality, what is science all about then? Is it just something I created on my own and I created the concept of a bunch of other people who also believe in it just to torture myself or something? Because I don't *like* the current state of things at all and if it doesn't even exist then why am I forcing myself to think it does?

And how exactly do we two have common ground to be able to have this discussion in the first place if we have no common basis for relating? Or are you going to posit that you yourself don't exist outside of whatever reality I'm creating for myself? So I'm just talking to myself after all?

[inavalan]

Originally Posted by FallingLeaves

I'm not going to argue about 'altered states' as I agree you can get a lot from them. But if you don't believe there is a consensus reality, what is science all about then? Is it just something I created on my own and I created the concept of a bunch of other people who also believe in it just to torture myself or something? Because I don't *like* the current state of things at all and if it doesn't even exist then why am I forcing myself to think it does?

And how exactly do we two have common ground to be able to have this discussion in the first place if we have no common basis for relating? Or are you going to posit that you yourself don't exist outside of whatever reality I'm creating for myself? So I'm just talking to myself after all?

As I wrote: there's no point in arguing the logic of these ideas; we have neither the intellect, nor the data to do it.

If you came up with those ideas, from your inner source of higher knowledge, then there's no point to argue who's source is correct.

If you rely on other's ideas, science, faith, "logic" (all have the same argumentative value) then I recommend you turn away from them, toward your inner source of knowledge. Those are crutches we need to function when and where we have no other choice.

Originally Posted by inavalan

As I wrote: there's no point in arguing the logic of these ideas; we have neither the intellect, nor the data to do it.

If you came up with those ideas, from your inner source of higher knowledge, then there's no point to argue who's source is correct.

If you rely on other's ideas, science, faith, "logic" (all have the same argumentative value) then I recommend you turn away from them, toward your inner source of knowledge. Those are crutches we need to function when and where we have no other choice.

We can all have and rely on our inner sources of knowledge, but you are correct, there is not much point about arguing about our inner source on here other than to say stop arguing and discussing and go consult your inner source. I don't agree that science and faith have the same value when relying on other's ideas. Science relies on logic, testability, and repeatability and therefore is subject to examination and falsification. The whole point of science is to try to establish some rules and guidelines so that we can compare each others knowledge and discover what our created realities share in common. Faith is what I use when I don't have another explanation for something but believe there is one. It's not a question of either science or faith, it is both, but there is a question of when to rely on one and when to rely on the other. That said, accepting and believing in science, does always require some level of faith in the information being conveyed and perhaps in the conveyor as well. And my inner source is often a useful asset in judging whether that faith is misplaced or not.