Our Study Suggests Objective Reality Doesn't Exist

Originally Posted by ketzer

Well since we are discussing confusion, why stop there?

Is the moon manifested consciousness? If so, where and what is the moon when consciousness is not manifesting it, or for that matter, when it is manifesting it. Perhaps, like the electron, it is spread out everywhere at once. Perhaps it is waiting in potentiality for you to decide when and where it will made manifest. Perhaps even where and when are waiting in potentiality for you to make them manifest. Where is the moon then?

Perhaps the moon is just a reflection that is now behind the crest of a wave in the quantum field and will only show if you place your shore in the right place to make it collapse just right.

No clue. LOL!

Maybe Peter Russell's take is pointing in a direction that might resonate? I find the 15 or so minutes from this point in his talk intriguing.

https://youtu.be/-d4ugppcRUE?list=PL...zdrQA &t=2553

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

No clue. LOL!

Maybe Peter Russell's take is pointing in a direction that might resonate? I find the 15 or so minutes from this point in his talk intriguing.

https://youtu.be/-d4ugppcRUE?list=PL...zdrQA &t=2553

Well you have some clues now. Clues abound out there, Mr. Russell is just putting some of the pieces of the puzzle together in a way that a clearer picture starts to emerge. Yet many will look at that picture and can't see what is there. I suspect many are instinctively desperate to hold onto any remaining straws of determinism and material realism that they find so comforting. All this new science and eastern wisdom sounds like just so much new age hokum from that point of view. And to be fair, much of the new age stuff does look like hokum from one point of view or another.

When one moves to idealism where consciousness is primary, suddenly that crazy modern art puzzle picture starts making sense. That said, I don't know those who dismiss it all are really any worse off. Their experience of life will be different, perhaps more visceral, but I suppose the idealist exchanges a certain experience of reality for another, and I don't know that one is any better than the other. I like thinking about these things, but I don't know whether I am better or worse for it, so I plod on in curiosity, driven by wonder and seeking awe.

Anyway, good vid, nice synopsis of the science and how it fits together with modern cosmology, physics, and both ancient and modern philosophies.

As Maxi says, Let good people watch good videos.
Here is one for you. When watching it, do so from the perspective of consciousness being primary and the creator of spacetime and matter. See what clues it gives you about the life experience from that perspective.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cj6oiFDEXc


.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

No clue. LOL!

Maybe Peter Russell's take is pointing in a direction that might resonate? I find the 15 or so minutes from this point in his talk intriguing.

https://youtu.be/-d4ugppcRUE?list=PL...zdrQA &t=2553

The video is good, but the video becomes much better if you replace objective reality with subjective reality in the video.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

The video is good, but the video becomes much better if you replace objective reality with subjective reality in the video.

https://www.peterrussell.com/pete.php

"At Cambridge University (UK), he studied mathematics and theoretical physics. Then, as he became increasingly fascinated by the mysteries of the human mind he changed to experimental psychology. Pursuing this interest, he traveled to India to study meditation and eastern philosophy, and on his return took up the first research post ever offered in Britain on the psychology of meditation."

I think I'll go with Peter Russell's interpretation of objective vs. subjective reality and how they apply to the material and spiritual worlds. Besides, it's the way the words are used when discussing non-dualism.

If you dig down deep into the core of your being you'll find there's pure subjective experience that's not distorted by mind. That's the non-dual experience. It's the internal experiment he speaks to. Exploring objective reality is the external experiment.

Originally Posted by ketzer

Well you have some clues now. Clues abound out there, Mr. Russell is just putting some of the pieces of the puzzle together in a way that a clearer picture starts to emerge. Yet many will look at that picture and can't see what is there. I suspect many are instinctively desperate to hold onto any remaining straws of determinism and material realism that they find so comforting. All this new science and eastern wisdom sounds like just so much new age hokum from that point of view. And to be fair, much of the new age stuff does look like hokum from one point of view or another.

When one moves to idealism where consciousness is primary, suddenly that crazy modern art puzzle picture starts making sense. That said, I don't know those who dismiss it all are really any worse off. Their experience of life will be different, perhaps more visceral, but I suppose the idealist exchanges a certain experience of reality for another, and I don't know that one is any better than the other. I like thinking about these things, but I don't know whether I am better or worse for it, so I plod on in curiosity, driven by wonder and seeking awe.

Anyway, good vid, nice synopsis of the science and how it fits together with modern cosmology, physics, and both ancient and modern philosophies.

As Maxi says, Let good people watch good videos.
Here is one for you. When watching it, do so from the perspective of consciousness being primary and the creator of spacetime and matter. See what clues it gives you about the life experience from that perspective.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cj6oiFDEXc


.

Great vid but I'll have to take it in a couple dozen more times and absorb it bit by bit as best I can. It left my brain hurting. LOL!

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Great vid but I'll have to take it in a couple dozen more times and absorb it bit by bit as best I can. It left my brain hurting. LOL!

No need to absorb it all. The clues are all in plain English, although some need context.

If you get bored and need a rest, for something completely different.... though still relevant to the discussion in its own way, check out Maxi's vids, I think you might like that guy... just a hunch?

Originally Posted by ketzer

No need to absorb it all. The clues are all in plain English, although some need context.

If you get bored and need a rest, for something completely different.... though still relevant to the discussion in its own way, check out Maxi's vids, I think you might like that guy... just a hunch?

Oh yeah, it all ties in with what Peter Russell said regarding our observation of reality moderated by the interval. It's the framework within which our minds construct the phenomenal experience of the noumenon. In other words Maya. LOL!

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

https://www.peterrussell.com/pete.php

"At Cambridge University (UK), he studied mathematics and theoretical physics. Then, as he became increasingly fascinated by the mysteries of the human mind he changed to experimental psychology. Pursuing this interest, he traveled to India to study meditation and eastern philosophy, and on his return took up the first research post ever offered in Britain on the psychology of meditation."

I think I'll go with Peter Russell's interpretation of objective vs. subjective reality and how they apply to the material and spiritual worlds. Besides, it's the way the words are used when discussing non-dualism.

If you dig down deep into the core of your being you'll find there's pure subjective experience that's not distorted by mind. That's the non-dual experience. It's the internal experiment he speaks to. Exploring objective reality is the external experiment.

All that means, is he is an unwilling victim of his own personal illusion of Mithya, Maya, personal subjective definition, and word play of objective and subjective, like you are, in the name of non-duality/oneness.

Definition of illusion
1a(1): a misleading image presented to the vision : OPTICAL ILLUSION
(2): something that deceives or misleads intellectually
b(1): perception of something objectively existing in such a way as to cause misinterpretation of its actual nature
(2): HALLUCINATION sense 1
(3): a pattern capable of reversible perspective
2a(1): the state or fact of being intellectually deceived or misled : MISAPPREHENSION
(2): an instance of such deception
bobsolete : the action of deceiving
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/illusion

Definition of objective (Entry 1 of 2)

1a: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations objective art an objective history of the war an objective judgment bof a test : limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum Each question on the objective test requires the selection of the correct answer from among several choices.

2a: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind objective reality … our reveries … are significantly and repeatedly shaped by our transactions with the objective world. — Marvin Reznikoff

The Definition of subjective is the opposite of objective: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subjective
4a(1): peculiar to a particular individual : PERSONAL subjective judgments

(2): modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective

[freddyfresh]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

You keep stating that but it's not the technical view represented by non-duality. There are many objects and only one subject. Stripping away objective reality does not reveal another objective reality but the One Subject. That Subject cannot be named or described. It just is and with no limit in form, space and time. Formless. Boundless. Timeless. Indescribable. Vast. Not an object. Objects are limited by form, space and time. That's non-duality vs. duality.

Furthermore it's impossible for the physical body-mind to be free from emotions, feelings and beliefs. Enlightenment is realizing the true Self is not that but the source (cause) of all those objects (effects), and a reorientation from identification with the small self (body-mind) to the true Self (awareness). Then emotions, feelings, beliefs, whatever experience hold no sorrow for the true Self.

Objectivity is duality. Objective reality is duality. Stripping away one objective reality for another objective reality is replacing one duality with another duality.

EDIT: For a better understanding this is the first of three videos (Realizing Non-Duality parts 1, 2 & 3) by Swami Sarvapriyananda. He's an Advaita Vedantist and they are strict non-dualists. They are in a playlist and will roll over to the next. It'll take 3.5 hours to get through all three.

https://youtu.be/o-RFz56gb9E?list=PL...yrF2rGcUqIb4OF

Swami Sarvapriyananda is now at Vedanta Society of New York and there a lots of his videos here.

https://www.youtube.com/user/vedantany1894/videos

Good accompaniments for his talks are "The Ten Principal Upanishads" and the "Bhagavad Gita". He references them a lot, if not in these talks then in many others.

Lastly this is from the Vedanta Society of California and lays out the four paths to realization & enlightenment.

https://vedanta.org/yoga-spiritual-practice/

I do agree very strongly that enjoying the "moment present" is basically the secret of everything. Once you can attain this state (and I'm not a meditator but a seeker of knowledge) you begin to see wonder and beauty in EVERYTHING. Either this is happening to me and I'm turning all emotional, or else I'm just getting old and losing testosterone LOL.. amazing videos thanks for posting... The journey continues...

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Oh yeah, it all ties in with what Peter Russell said regarding our observation of reality moderated by the interval. It's the framework within which our minds construct the phenomenal experience of the noumenon. In other words Maya. LOL!

My a!