Hello everyone! I know this is lengthy, but it’s totally worth the read! :)
The Reality Duality of Existing:
I propose that mankind’s most universally accepted understanding of the nature of existence is fundamentally flawed. I would like to raise the well-known philosophical question: If a tree falls in a forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? Most individuals tend to answer this question by saying that it does in fact make a sound, as a man’s presence is not in any way required at the site of the tree to confirm the event. They believe that a falling tree will always produce a sound regardless of whether anyone was close enough to hear it hit the ground. When a person makes this claim, it is indicative of their belief in the existence of what is called objective reality, or basically the universe as it exists and operates completely on its own, regardless of a point of reference or an observer. So this person believes that the falling tree does make a sound, and it does so in this objective reality.
The other type of reality is known as subjective reality. Subjective reality is the one we all know and love. It is the perceived reality of individual conscious beings—in other words, it is the reality that you are constantly experiencing inside your human mind. This is the reality you exist in, and in fact is the only conception of existence that is truly known to you. Once again, objective reality is basically the universe as it exists on its own, without the need for there to be an observer to confirm its existence. This is the reality that people are referencing when they answer the falling-tree question with the above answer. These people believe that the objective reality is the main existence of our universe, which is undying and lives on past the death of any being. These people believe that the universe does not require an observer to exist, and that our existence is wholly inconsequential to the universe’s existence.
There is basically a universal trend amid modern-day societies for people to favor the following model for understanding reality. While people tend to believe in the existence of the subjective reality, they also tend to believe, despite their own unique state of subjective existence, that another reality outside of all of our subjective realities somehow exists—they believe that there exists an objective reality. In what form or context would such a reality exist on its own? When trying to imagine the objective reality of the universe, you’re likely to visualize in your imagination all of outer space and the entire universe, with its innumerable stars, galaxies, and other cosmic formations, as one gigantic scenescape of everything. But why are you looking at the universe from that angle? Why are you looking at the universe on such a large scale? Why are you “looking” at all? Sight is an exclusively human experience. In attempting to conceive of the existence of our universe without the human perspective, you are clearly mistaken in trying to imagine objective reality in such a way. This is because you have visualized an image in your mind’s eye. This way of understanding existence, essentially as it is interpreted by and experienced through the human brain’s five physical senses, is wholly unique to the human perspective and condition. Therefore, you would be incorrect in trying to conceive of the nature of objective reality by making reference to any notion founded even partially upon aspects of the brain’s unique experience of reality through the phenomena of sight, smell, touch, taste, and hearing. Now try once again to imagine what the objective reality actually “looks” like, despite the inaccuracy of using such a term. A good question is to ask why I couldn’t have used a better term, allowing for a more coherent literary flow. The reason is that a better word does not exist. Here’s why. Language is a creation of man, designed for expressing notions that are based exclusively upon the unique way in which our human minds perceive existence through the five physical senses. How could it then be possible to describe the nature of objective reality, knowing one would be inaccurate in attempting to conceive of it in any way that makes reference to sights, sounds, smells, feelings, tastes, or any other perceptual phenomena of the mind? Abiding by these restrictions, it becomes apparent that we really aren’t capable of imagining an objective reality existence.
There are a number of problems that we reach as we try to conceive of the objective reality. What’s the point of reference? What otherworldly, non-human qualities of existence would describe the objective point of reference? What is the scope of this point of reference? Is it on the scale of the particle constituents of atoms? Or perhaps it is on the scale of the solar system, or our galaxy, or even the entire universe. Perhaps scale is irrelevant. What does it feel like to occupy objective reality’s point of reference? Our point of reference is one which exists entirely as and by our mind’s intrinsic capacity for cognition, comprehension, and memory-formation. But there wouldn’t be a conscious brain attached to reference point of objective reality. No interpretation, cognition, or comprehension of any kind would take place within the objective reference point. Recall: this is the objective reality; reality as it exists outside of our minds. There is no self here. There are no thoughts, emotions, memories, moods, feelings, ideas, or beliefs—there is no consciousness at all. Can you imagine what it would be like to exist without these sorts of experiences? You wouldn’t be conscious, but would you be able to still perceive of existence in some fundamental way? These are all good questions. Now it’s time for a few answers.
The main problem is that people tend to believe that there are two distinct realities in existence: subjective reality and objective reality, and that these are both equally “real”; they both exist uniquely on their own, and are not intimately linked to each other. The way I view it, however, is like this. Objective reality is not a self-existent reality at all. Rather, it is essentially a massive pool of potential existence. But this is only one half of the equation for bringing this universe to actually exist. The other half of the equation is you and I. But to understand what I mean by this, we must first develop a better definition of self. What are we? What is, as I call it, the “essential self”? I don’t think anyone would disagree with the argument that we are human beings, consciously existing in this world. Beyond that, to be more specific, most people would probably agree that they are actually just their brains. That is what we truly are, and clearly the buck stops there; obviously there is no definition of the essential self more fundamental than to say that we are our brains. I find it remarkable that more people don’t question this status quo, because such an understanding of self is blatantly ill-conceived, although most people don’t quite understand why. Think of it in the following way.
Our brain is an incredibly intricate machine built from billions of clever little intercommunicating nodes we call neurons. These neurons communicate via chemical and electrical transmissions of information that are constantly being traded with other surrounding neurons. Each neuron is itself just a neat little molecular-scale machine, built from an array of different materials specifically organized into a functional mechanism; a little biological machine. These little “machines” are made of the same materials as the oceans, mountains, and stars; they are comprised of ordinary matter and energy. And this matter and energy all operates according to the same laws of physics, as do the components of any machine, manmade or otherwise, and as does every object and formation in the universe. So your entire brain, indeed the very thing you likely regard as being your essential self, is just a big lump of molecules assembled into interconnected mechanisms intricate machine. But, what is it about this big lump of matter that makes it unique? What is it that makes it conscious, as opposed to any other lump of matter? Look at a tree, for instance. A tree is yet another massively intricate molecular machine, similar enough in complexity to a human being, but yet most people would never accept that a tree could be conscious. It doesn’t even have thoughts! How could it be conscious, or even aware of its existence in any way? This reasoning seems acceptable enough, but it also causes you to get snagged on some technicalities. Consider the following rather gruesome thought experiment.
Imagine a mad scientist has you strapped down and restrained in his laboratory, fully awake. He then removes the top of your skull, leaving your living brain fully exposed, and stabilizes you so you stay alive and conscious. At this point you are still awake, aware, and conscious; your brain is fully intact. But then the mad scientist picks up his precision tools and begins removing individual neurons from your brain, one at a time. At first, you wouldn’t notice a thing. I mean, think about it: people are naturally subject to losing brain cells all the time—a bump to the head, a heavy night of drinking, lack of sleep, general ware and tare, or even the general reorganization of our neural networks over time. All of these can result in losing brain cells. But honestly, what is one or two brain cells lost, anyway? You wouldn’t feel or act the least bit different. You would still be fully conscious. But the mad scientist is diligent and patient, and continues plucking out all the little bits of your brain, one brain cell after another. Eventually over time he will have destroyed a rather sizeable chunk of your brain, at which point you will certainly begin to feel a bit “off”, so to speak. Your condition would perhaps be comparable to a case of brain damage, but you would still be experiencing the same subjective reality existence. Even though certain qualities of your subjective existence would be altered or affected in some way, your actual subjective reality would still exist just as it did when your mind was still fully intact. But the mad scientist just keeps on plugging away, and soon enough, half of your brain is gone. At this point, you are severely disabled, similar to an individual with a serious mental handicap. But you are still consciously aware, despite your loss of a multitude of mental faculties; you still exist. Maybe you don’t have as strong of a sense of self, or even the ability to fully understand the world around you, but you are still alive and thinking. You still “exist”, even if in such a tormented state of consciousness as this. No matter how few neurons you have left, you will still experience some thoughts and perceptions within the unceasing existence of your subjective reality. You are still aware. But the mad scientist just keeps on going, until all that remains of your brain is but a few individual neurons. Do you still consciously exist? No matter how simple, otherworldly, or nonsensical your experience of reality becomes from this loss serious of brain matter, you still exist inside your own subjective reality. What if the mad scientist takes away all the rest, until only one neuron remains? Do you still exist inside your subjective reality? Is there even still a subjective reality to exist inside, and if not what happened to it? Is your entire world of existence now centered within this one remaining brain cell? How far does the scientist have to go before he can be certain that the subjective reality you were living in has been destroyed? This question has no apparent answer because it is a flawed question.
I mentioned that the brain is just an assortment of parts comprised of matter and energy, assembled in a certain manner so as to make up a functional machine. This description is no different than that of a computer or even a tree. So, when there are no clear guidelines to explain why a brain is conscious within its own subjective reality but a tree or computer is not, it becomes clear that there are only two explanations to account for such a discrepancy, the former of which is clearly false: Either our brains don’t consciously exist within a subjective reality, or we must assume that both trees and computers possess their own subjective existence—in fact, we’d have to assume that all “machines” possess a subjective reality just like you and I. These subjective realities may not involve conscious thoughts and emotions like ours, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t possess their own unique qualities of being. We have thoughts and emotions, and a tree has… something else, which we probably could never imagine. It has its own concepts of existence, which we probably wouldn’t understand anyway, due to our specific human condition.
Now here’s where shit hits the fan. The word “machine” is just another one of those terms that carries with it a certain “bias”, or opinion, meaning that something is considered a machine only when it has been declared to be a machine; and technically you could regard anything as being a machine if you were willing to think in a more abstract manner. A car is obviously a machine; so is a computer. When you think about it, so are we. So is every single life form on earth, all being complex biological machines. You can even regard all of mankind as being one massively complex machine of which we are the parts, where our cultures, our proliferation, and our greatest achievements would all be regarded as basic behaviors of this human machine. As long as you can conceive of a function for any collection of matter and energy, it can be labeled as a machine; the label can be applied to anything and everything, in short. You could regard a foot-long, solid rod of copper as being a machine, arguing that it is a special molecular machine designed, through the interplay of agitated molecules, to transfer energy from one end to another in the form of heat. The point here is that there’s really no cogent distinction between the human brain and a solid rod of copper, or anything for that matter; all are essentially just arrangements of matter and energy operating under the laws of physics. There is no apparent explanation for why a human brain gets to experience its own personal subjective existence, while other things like copper rods, computers, and trees do not. This is to say that if your brain inhabits its own subjective reality, then so must everything in the universe. Conversely, if you possess your own subjective reality that inhabits your brain, then there must exist subjective realities to inhabit everything in the entire universe. The entire universe possesses a subjective reality, and your own unique subjective reality isn’t quite so unique after all. It would be more accurate to regard your subjective existence as a hotspot in the fabric of the universe’s own subjective reality. This then obviously leaves one to question why it is that we appear to be inhabiting our own subjective reality which seems to us to be uniquely distinct.
I mentioned previously that objective reality is like a massive pool of potential existence. Well essentially, subjective reality is the realization and actualization of that potential. Subjective reality is basically “the observer” that we refer to when we speak about points of reference. Basically it is a blank frame of reference waiting for something to “observe” or to become of aware of; it is waiting to be occupied by some existence. Objective reality is a massive pool of potential existence waiting to be observed, at which point it actually becomes real. Objective reality by itself does not really exist, because in order for something to exist there must be some sort of observer or frame of reference to confirm its existence. This is the fundamental duality required for true existence. The universe does not exist by itself, and the elusive key to actualize its existence is the universal property which gives rise to us occupying our own perceived existence, one which we deem unique to that of a tree or a computer, under the assertion that our existence is a “special” existence of conscious self-awareness comprised of thought and emotion.
Further along this topic, it becomes apparent that death isn’t really the end, but it is certainly a big change. I view subjective reality as a sort of veil draped over the objective reality of the entire universe, which essentially becomes “aware” of every bit of matter and energy in it, and keeps track of it all. I would then view our own individual conscious worlds of self-existence—our personal subjective realities—as sort of being hotspots on the fabric of subjective reality’s veil. It’s like a place of interesting activity that stands out from the background noise of less interesting activity, such as that of the ground, the air, and things of less complexity than the brain. Because our physical brains process information only within themselves, while standing out from a background of lesser complexity, they appear to possess their own subjective reality, but this isn’t accurate. Your subjective reality is simply a small part of the entire subjective reality of our universe, and you are simply deceived or mistaken in believing that you exist in your very own subjective reality. Many people have described spiritual experiences of their consciousness expanding outside of the confines of their mind, and becoming one with the air in front of them, or projecting their awareness beyond their mind to actually “become” the tree they are sitting beneath, or what have you. Perhaps this phenomenon occurs by becoming aware of some of the less complex parts of subjective reality around you, something we infrequently do because the world in our brain is much more complex and interesting than the worlds inside inanimate or nonhuman objects and forms. This therefore generally only occurs in a state of deep meditation, once the individual has quieted their mind and their thoughts, leaving only a rudimentary sense of self-awareness. Once they do this, perhaps they can then become aware of the less complex parts of subjective reality around them, and in doing so they manage to bring those parts of the subjective reality into their own perception of existence, giving them the feeling of becoming one with features of the world beyond their mind. In reality, however, the entire universe is self-aware, and we are damn lucky to be human right now, because there is no real reason why we didn’t end up as a tree, a rock, or even a star.
I mentioned that objective reality is like a pool of potential existence, and that subjective reality is the realization of that potential. There is a modern theory suggesting that the universe is actually just a complex simulation that’s being run in some different reality, similar to how we as humans have our own computer simulations. In such a case, objective reality itself could be regarded as the known state of the universe (at any arbitrary point in time) as well as the laws describing the behavior of the universe. The subjective reality could then be regarded as the actual simulation, which then plots out the actual fate of the universe over time. So comparing to a computer simulation such as Conway’s Game of Life (very cool automated cellular simulation), the initial state of the universe—the singularity before the big bang—would be the initial state of the simulation, often called the “seed” in computer science. Then there is a set of rules, like our laws of physics, that describes how the constituents of the simulated world will behave. So you can regard the not-yet-actualized objective reality as the information required to fully describe the universe: the initial state at t:0 and the set of rules defining the behavior of this reality’s constituents over time. You can then regard subjective reality as the actual running of this simulation to calculate how things will actually play out over time.
How things will play out, given a known initial state in a reality defined by known laws, is information that can only be acquired by plotting out the state of the universe manually over time. However, knowledge of the total state of the universe at any arbitrary point in time is technically encoded within the objective reality (obj. reality being defined as the known state of and laws for the universe). But again, this knowledge is so cryptically encoded in the objective reality’s initial state that the only real way to acquire it is to actually calculate, over time, the growth and evolution of the universe as a result of the laws defining it; or rather, to run the simulation.
Before I mentioned the universe-simulation theory, all of this may have seemed a bit difficult to conceptualize, because I left it in somewhat abstract terms so as to allow for more freedom in developing further upon the theory. The computer simulation theory is just one of many possible explanations for building upon the main theory, but it’s one which offers a more specific description of the concepts of objective and subjective reality as I have described them, so hopefully the simulation example helps the reader to come to better understand the concepts presented prior.
Congratulations! Having read this far, you are now a philosopher. So please, discuss with me this theory. Object to it, agree with it, give me some input of any kind!
I tried to finish it but I was having such a hard time understanding it! Dang it, I am not a philosopher. I badly wanted to because I can tell that it very important information to understand when trying to understand reality. Kudos to you. And anyone who could have an equal discussion with you on these topics. Im curious if anyone will be able to..I’ll make sure to up arrow so it stays on longer.
Still, I can’t help wonder what reality is outside of human perception.
Here is a human example; I, as a male, have no clue nor will I ever have a clue what it’s like to be a grandma. Or a dog.
I can imagine what I THINK it would be like, but I can never know for sure. Very thought provoking post.
I appreciate above all the time you dedicated to write this. I’ve always had trouble sharing my ideas. Childhood issues probably. Anyways, I found your idea of subjective reality to be adjacent to my own idea of it. I never really delved as deep as you did into this subject so it was good to hear some of your thoughts especially the ones on meditation.
I believe that as we move through Planck Frames, we are weaving our way through a fifth-dimensional space-time in which all possible variations of our reality are housed. There’s a bus driver I see enough to recognize, but I can’t see him right now. It’s entirely possible that he is laying dead in an alley somewhere, it’s entirely possible that he isn’t, but I am unaware of his whereabouts, therefore, both realities are equally real to me, he is both dead and alive until I observe him and know for sure of the state of his existence. I wonder if, much like the way we can move a point from one side of a two dimensional to the other by bending it through the third dimension, we could somehow figure out a way to visit variations of our own reality by somehow bending it through the sixth.
Yeah it’s certainly along those lines, but I don’t agree with a few aspects of biocentrism. Mainly, I don’t believe biology is intimately associated with the nature of reality; rather, I’d say it is somewhat inconsequential and insignificant, while at the same time being extremely interesting and fruitful in terms of the advanced quality of being that can be derived from the subjective existence of biological entities. Whether or not such a quality of complexity is itself inconsequential is up for speculation, but that’s getting into ideas like universal consciousness, the soul, God, and stuff like that.
See, I’m of the idea that biology and the universe itself is dependent on the existence of consciousness. I believe consciousness is the default setting of reality, and therefore the universe exists automatically. But I completely understand your skepticism.
I entirely agree with you. I think Biocentrism is on the right track, without a doubt. I just think some of the specifics of the main theory could be refined. I absolutely agree with you that the universe exists because of consciousness (despite the conversation with ray butler above about how ‘consciousness’ is a dangerous word due to the ambiguity of its definition). I’m saying in my above theory that consciousness (which is sort of called ‘subjective existence’) IS the actual force that actualizes objective reality (regarded as a potential existence) so as to actually make it exist. So, I guess you could argue that consciousness is the default setting of reality, therefore giving rise to the universe. Well put.
I would definitely recommend using the term “subjective existence” instead of “consciousness” though, because the term “consciousness” has too much association with human neuropsychology.
I’m really starting to like the idea of the simulation I mentioned towards the end of my post, though. Basically you could view “consciousness” as a supercomputer or advanced sentient entity from another reality that runs massive simulations within itself of other realities it dreams up, and currently it is running the simulation of our universe. Kind of a cool thought, I think.
Dude, omg. I’m speechless. No! It’s not that I’m speechless, its just that my current vocabulary isn’t sufficient enough to describe the fullness, the depth I got from reading this post. Mentally I feel very well fed, which is something I rarely experience in any one body of text. At the beginning you said this was going to be worth reading, and that promise was kept in full. The words thank you don’t even begin to describe my gratitude, but they need to be expressed – thank you.
To better explain my excitement, not to long ago I just woke up from a nap and had a dream which made me start pondering on the nature of the dream itself and this waking reality. Nothing too deep. I just kept thinking about this one thought. When we have dreams, they’re usually always different. From what I understand they’re different because they’re partially created from the different memories and experiences of our subconscious. Waking life on the other hand stays pretty much consistent with each experience of it. If this waking reality could be thought of as a dream, and I speculate that it is, then parts of our subconscious are actively creating this waking reality too. To me this means that we are each creating our own unique subjective reality. But, since there are physical laws, that we have very little control over, and that stay the same for everyone, what does that mean? It has me speculating that maybe there’s some outside dreamer who’s having this dream which allows “objective like” experiences between all of us, or that we are the same consciousness, having some kind of the same dream?
I thought about that and related it to other theories I’d come across, then went on to doing other stuff. Now I’m on HE and I’ve come across your post… fucking jackpot. This was very well put and stated. In reference to other things I’ve read before, it ringed with a lot of truth for me, especially when you describe the subjective reality of trees. It reminded me of the work of Cleve Backster, but very philosophically and logically put. Your establishment of the limits of our perception in regards to conceiving objective reality was very well put too. And my favorite part:
“Your subjective reality is simply a small part of the entire subjective reality of our universe, and you are simply deceived or mistaken in believing that you exist in your very own subjective reality. Many people have described spiritual experiences of their consciousness expanding outside of the confines of their mind, and becoming one with the air in front of them, or projecting their awareness beyond their mind to actually “become” the tree they are sitting beneath, or what have you. Perhaps this phenomenon occurs by becoming aware of some of the less complex parts of subjective reality around you, something we infrequently do because the world in our brain is much more complex and interesting than the worlds inside inanimate or nonhuman objects and forms. This therefore generally only occurs in a state of deep meditation, once the individual has quieted their mind and their thoughts, leaving only a rudimentary sense of self-awareness. Once they do this, perhaps they can then become aware of the less complex parts of subjective reality around them, and in doing so they manage to bring those parts of the subjective reality into their own perception of existence, giving them the feeling of becoming one with features of the world beyond their mind.”
If I had to guess what enlightenment was, put in the form of “words”, I probably say it’s something similar to that. I could literally go on picking out everything I vibed with, but I won’t. Reply would be too damn long. But yea, this is so going in my archives. Thanks again for the read.
Wow, thank you so much! You made my day :)
— “It has me speculating that maybe there’s some outside dreamer who’s having this dream which allows “objective like” experiences between all of us, or that we are the same consciousness, having some kind of the same dream?”
In a sense that is what I’m describing. The dream itself is subjective reality, and the inspiration is objective reality. We are all sharing the same dreamspace, unaware.
Oh man, you would really vibe with my “Divide and Conquer” God/Enlightenment Theory; I can tell. Finished that one weeks ago, but I haven’t had the confidence to make it public yet because it is much longer and needs to be refined; it’s probably my coolest one yet haha.
If it’s anything like this post then I probably will :)
Sounds like it might describe some kind of separation of “the all” in order to experience the highest form of itself, but that is just a guess. Thinking a little of something I read from Conversations with God that’s sounds similar. Whenever you feel like it’s ready to be published, I’d love to read it.
Whew, I did manage to get through your post. I wouldn’t mind seeing a brief get to the point version. I have a tendency to try and over explain the ideas or concepts that I am thinking about which usually ends up confusing the ignorant ones and boring the intelligent ones. Any way, I have some questions to ask in order to clarify some of the points you were trying to make. Some will only require a simple yes or no, true or false. Others are in a “complete this sentence format”.
1. What terms do people commonly use when they speak about the objective reality in your idea?
2. In your view, this objective world they are referring to exists:
– Only in imagination and has no tangible expression anywhere in reality?
– Is very real but beyond our capacity to comprehend?
3. What are the necessary or inherent attributes for someone or something to qualify it as a legitimate?
“Point of reference”
4. In your view, the human conscious is…
5. Is it a by-product of the brain?
6. Does it continue after death?
7. Does it retain its personality?
8. Does it retain memory?
9. Is it possible in your view…. Yes or no to the following with comment ok.
There is a nonphysical reality that we cannot perceive?
We do continue to exist after death with memories of our lives and identities intact?
There is no such thing as a spirit world?
Death means oblivion?
Everything in existence ahs some degree of consciousness from atoms to animals and plants?
The reality we experience daily, is unique to us because we create it ourselves?
That will do for now. Your answers will help to clarify some things and maybe lead to further discussion.
That might be nice for a change.
Thanks for reading. Let me try to answer your questions
1) infinite, unbound, self-existent, universal, eternal
2) Is very real but beyond any possibility of comprehending
3) A point of reference is an existent reality, essentially. An existent reality must have context, or rather a frame of reference. Perhaps it is unwise to mention “point of reference” and “objective reality” in the same sentence, unless to mention their incompatibility.
4) Human consciousness is the intimate association of a physical human brain with a frame of reference to occupy it.
6) Human consciousness wouldn’t continue past the death of the physical brain, but subjective “awareness” or existence would. Obviously this existence would involve no thoughts or perceptions.
other reality- very likely
after death- possibly (i have a multitude of fascinating ideas about this)
spirit world- There may be, and many well-formed theories vibe to the existence of a spirit world
oblivion- in many cases, but that doesn’t mean such a state is permanent
all things conscious- yes, but “consciousness” may be a dangerous word choice; maybe “subjective existence”, which is a more general term that can either involve human consciousness or not
unique- Of course it’s unique! There are no two people that are the same and that have had the same experiences and met the same people.
Thank you for answering my questions. It has helped me to understand your theory better. Please note that, in this sort of discussion, there is a tendency on the readers’ part to make assumptions as to the intent and attitude of the writer. Sometimes it is obvious, but most times our assumptions will be a misinterpretation. My intention is not to criticize your theory. I will sometimes debate certain issues but never to the point of being argumentative. (Except when lives are at risk) My intent is to offer an alternative perspective that you can explore to find elements of your theory, which you understand better than anyone else. I often write lengthy replies and probably say more than is necessary. I think that this is because I am much better at speech communications and only recently started writing after joining this forum. After taking another look at your post though, I know you can relate.J
Some parts of your theory IMO are valid to an extent but it is largely based on a bias that favors an unproven and debatable assumption that I will address in a moment. There are many theories out there that attempt to explain things about life and the nature of reality. Any new theory, such as your own, has to be considered side by side with the rest. For a theory to become a legitimate contender, It will need to contain at least some aspect of the truth if is to be accepted. Whatever the actual truth is that explains the nature of reality; it is what it is. It does not require our belief in it or knowledge of it for it to impact our lives.
I would like to revisit my questions, answer them as I would, and in doing so, I will point out some of my objections to your theory. After the questions, I’ll suggest the theory that I find makes more sense to me than any other in that it would be applicable any where in the Known universe and in realities that we would refer to as non-physical or the world of spirit.
In my first question, I asked for descriptive terms that people use that you would term the objective reality. I agree with “infinite, unbound, universal and eternal”. I am not certain what you mean by self-existent? Other common terms that are often used are non-physical reality, spiritual world, and what Christians call heaven and hell. I then wanted to know if you considered this other reality as something real. I agree with you that this other reality is very real, but also that it is “beyond any possibility of comprehending” I actually have used the same phrase about not having the ability to comprehend it on numerous occasions. Where we may or may not agree is that IMO, we can have knowledge of this other unseen reality and translate that knowledge through the brain to our imagination where we can get sort of a “cartoon” version of what it might be like. It is impossible to fully comprehend though because our brain is designed to function in a three dimensional world so it is unable translate concepts of a non-physical nature to our conscious.
The next group of questions deals with the subject of consciousness. This is where your theory “potentially” fails in that it is based on a biased and IMO incorrect view of the conscious mind. The “theory” that conscious is derived solely as a result of the brains functioning as many in the scientific fields believe has not been proven and the evidence given is still being debated. I accept that this is partly true in the sense that the brain communicates with the conscious mind. Where I differ is in our understanding of consciousness itself. I am inclined to more with the metaphysical understanding about consciousness. Once again, this is something we can know but not fully comprehend. I am still in the process of researching this topic for more detailed explanations, but for our purposes, the basic idea will suffice.
The simplest way to describe conscious is that it is layered (think onion analogy) some say there are as many as the nine layers described by Buddhism. The idea is that each layer is a level of awareness. How many layers is not as important right now as knowing that we are aware of other realities at our innermost layers of conscious which the brain cannot access directly. The idea that the brain creates conscious is misleading. What happens is that a preexisting consciousness creates an interface with the brains sympathetic neural pathways? This process can begin before we are born. It is through those pathways that we are able to have a perception of the world around us. This interface is the outermost layer of consciousness.
The core of our conscious is what some refer to as the soul. The idea is that, in effect, we are a soul that is layered with degrees of awareness. The souls outermost layer is it’s “eyes and ears” on the physical world as the brain perceives it through our physical senses. The innermost layer, however exist in and is aware of the non-physical reality that you refer to as the objective reality. So we could say that in actuality the point of reference is the same for whatever reality we happen to be focused upon, be it the outer material world we experience day to day or the inner spiritual or similar realities that our brain does not have access to but that some people consciously experience. This is a possible explanation for dreams, out of body or astral projection events and the thousands of testimonies from people who have had a near death experiences. This all brings me to the Theory that I find to greater potential to explain the nature of reality when compared to other theories, in many ways because its concepts can be seen in religious texts, Modern psychology, certainly in metaphysical works and spiritual practices and to some degree are showing up in the research of Quantum Physics.
I refer to it as a theory and that is how I saw it when I was exposed to it in the mid. 80’s when the concepts were channeled through a medium by the name of Jane Roberts. I had been exploring anything and everything that purported to be the truth about our existence from religions, philosophy on into metaphysical studies as well as my own theories. No one answered those age old questions anywhere near as well in terms of clarity, depth, and an intellectual straightforward approach that wasn’t trying to create a new religion, wasn’t intent on getting a following. Through Jane Roberts, this self described energy essence personality calling himself Seth, wrote a number of books collectively known as the Seth Material. If you have heard the phrase “You create your own reality”, this is where it originated. Where Seth provided the theoretical concepts, others would translate the theory into its practical applications. What follows is my brief interpretation of what I personally believe to be a valid explanation for the nature of reality. It is by no means an in depth review, but it covers the basics. The best part is that any individual can confirm it by observing the events of their own life.
The super short single sentence version is this: ALL THAT IS = ENERGY + VIBRATION. Moreover energy is conscious. Quite simply, Vibration is everything and everything is vibration. Think about it. What do we already know? We know that every thing we perceive in creation is really just energy that we perceive as the earth, made up of elements that combine to form all the minerals, liquids and gases. These elements, in combination with each other can be combined in a seemingly infinite variety of ways to become the plants, animals and humans that inhabit the plant. Then the humans, with the help of their intelligence and creativity, play with combing the elements to make candy, and footballs, and I pads etc. It’s still just energy molded and remolded to perfectly match the template that originated as a thought in someone’s mind. ENERGY VIBRATES. That vibration in maintained throughout the process of changing from one form to the next:
Energy>Atoms>Molecules>Cells>Organs>Systems>Creatures of all sorts including for instance Trees >(chopped, sawed, ground up)>(furniture, paper, houses, boats, hockey sticks, firewood)>(combines with flame)>Thermal Energy (heat)>Released gases (still energy, still vibrating). As energy is changes form, its vibration changes FREQUENCY. So everything we can perceive with our senses gets formatted by our somewhat limited) brain into a format that the conscious mind can now read. It is similar to the way your computers processor reformats documents from a page of illegible symbols to readable text. The frequency of a rocks vibration will be different than that of a bug, a flower, or a human. The frequency of a grain of sand will be different than a grain of salt (frequencies may be close relatively but each will have their own unique vibration.
In the same way, each person will have a unique vibration, their own “signature vibration” that takes into account all the various attributes of our diverse features, But…Here come the more difficult and perplexing level of understanding vibration. That is the vibrational aspects of what is non-physical. We have to accept the fact that our brains are wired to operate in the three dimensional world as define by the laws of physics. It allows us to learn and even know things about that which is nonphysical or spirit if you prefer. Our imaginations can show us a picture, a kind of mental photograph or graphical explanations for the non-physical but it can’t show us the perspective or point of view that is available to the photographer when he steps away from the camera. What we are capable of knowing we are not equipped to fully comprehend. Your mind and brain will work on processing the information into terms that suit your particular way of grasping and explaining things. It’s fairly easy to understand and accept vibration as it applies to the physical world and how everything vibrate at a frequency, unique to each individual though similar to others in the same group. The basic form being that of energy.
This is important to understand because the energy that can combine in adherence to physical laws is the same energy that can combine to create the forms that exist in nonphysical realities. Just as everything physical is energy, everything non-physical is energy as well. The nonphysical just vibrates at higher frequencies beyond what our brains are able to perceive. The non-physical reality is every bit as “real” as this reality. It is much more real in many ways, much more vivid. Everything looks and feels just as solid as it does here. (From the testimonies of people who had a near death experience) It is all a matter of vibration and frequency. The planet and its inhabitants, namely you and I are going through a period whereby the vibration is increasing. This occurs on a regular basis according to certain cycles. It is not something that happens over night. Apparently, we have something to do with it as a civilization. That is what is meant when people talk about raising their consciousness.
Every thing is energy that vibrates. Our thoughts are energy as is all consciousness. The energy that is thought takes on a form in some dimension of the non-physical. These “thought forms” serve as a template until conditions, governed by universal law bring about a vibrational match to the template. When this happens the thought form becomes manifest and is perceived as “real”. Imagine looking through a cameras viewfinder and seeing a picture of something way out of focus, it almost looks like two different objects. However, when you turn the focus adjustment, the two objects come together as one. This is the best way that I can explain it the actuality of this process is one of those incomprehensible brain limited concepts I spoke of earlier. It is in this manner that we create our own individual reality and how we as a civilization together create the mass reality.
Every individual has a unique perception of the “world “ passing by him or her as they move through each day. Since they are the one who created it. No two people will perceive the world they experience in the same way. What any group of people sees together is the blending of their individual worlds into what they are experiencing together. The truth, the nature of reality, the universal laws that govern it just is what it is, If we are all unaware of the facts of reality and unknowingly we are the ones responsible for creating our personal and combined world the so be it. Religion, science, history, philosophy all working against each other to complicate and confuse themselves and their adherents into searching for the truth and that it had to be something so complex so incomprehensible that it would require volumes of scriptures, textbooks filled with massive mathematical formulas. Only the most educated minds, holy men, and physicists could ever explain it. That is true to some extent the processes can only be explained by mathematics and physical laws. And I would assume (I’m guessing) that the same applies in nonphysical reality which I suspect works accordingly but there most likely additional “Universal Laws” and Higher math’s. The bottom line is that the big truth start with and understanding of energy and vibration.
Congratulations! Having read this far, you are now a student of Metaphysics. So please maintain a sense of humor and an open mind!
Hey! I can imagine the effort you put into this, trying to integrate these concepts and still make sense. I have to say good work, you gave me a lot to argue :)
First of all i essentialy i agree on the concept you described but for the sake of argument i would like to point out one thing:
There is a basic flow in this, which is (the way i see it) is very common in western philosopy. When you argue that the objective reality is non exitstent in the way we usualy percive it, you still talking about your subjective experience of the word stated as the objective reality which is false. I mean simply that you can not argue how people percive something incorrecly without assuming your correct view. There is still an observer in this who see the outside world as “xy” where “xy” is the reality. But the whole point would be it does not exist only in your subjective experiece.
I would say that there must be an objective reality – not machine like – but there is something out there what everything precives in its own way. For example if i watching the ocean weaves with a friend we both going to see something which we call waves, maybe he sees something entirely different than me but there is still something out there what gives us the basis of perception. I dont know if this was understandable or not my english is not my mother language and its a bit difficult for me to express ideas like this.
Thanks for reading! Yeah, it took me quite a while to sculpt this writing piece. Yes, I agree it is incorrect to talk about how one would “perceive” objective reality, but unfortunately we humans don’t really have the vocabulary I need to more accurately convey these subtle notions. I agree with much of what you said, though.
So you believe in an independent objective reality, huh? So do most people, and this entire writing piece was aimed towards making those people try to think otherwise, but I guess that’s fine. I may be wrong, either way.
No, i can’t say i believe in it, i just thought it would be a good argument :) I am aware of the simulation concept and it can be true but thats one of those which can not be proved or disproved weather if true or not. I think its fun to assume that there is something outside of my awareness what draws me to understand it. But no i would not say that is an objective reality because still everybody just perceive what gets trough their filters. So i guess there is a big part whats gona remain unknown for ordinary perception and rational thought.
I have a really short attention span, so what I did bring myself to read was pretty cool, but I don’t think people should use the word conscious and consciousness the way you do. Consciousness is a pseudointellectual word that has no real meaning, simply because we do not know what it is; we don’t know if it is unique to a brain and in degrees according to the brains level of development becoming more rudimentary in lesser animals down to non-existence somewhere along the scale of life, or if it is more fundamental.
In simple terms, being conscious just means being awake, but what you define awake as meaning is also subject to debate, as a person sleeps they are unconscious and when they wake they are conscious, in which case any animal that sleeps could be considered conscious. Then you can call being awake as generally being active, in which case matter and energy way down the quantum scale could be considered conscious.
The way you use the term is more to do with awareness, specifically conceptual awareness, where as all life perceives, even single cell organisms respond to stimuli, and perception is awareness, as rudimentary as it may be in a single celled organism. But moving up the scale, self awareness arrives at emotion, fear and desire result in self preservation and perpetuation of the species, but say a cockroach breeds and seems to fear by running under the fridge, this is instinctive response that has evolved for their survival, they do not actually experience fear or desire, because they do not have a hippocampus, adrenal gland or endorphins in that rudimentary brain of theirs.
Then there is conceptual awareness, I call it sentience, but a lot of people relate sentience to emotion rather than intellect. This is where real understanding of how things work comes in, and we can analyse, invent and apply, rather than just respond. People erroneously call this consciousness, and it may be, we just don’t know for certain yet.
I tend to see consciousness in the “active” definition, that it goes all the way down the quantum scale, just things like perception are unique to life, and concept and analytical memory is unique to the human brain, so memory as we know it is unrelated to consciousness, consciousness is universal and immutable but linear memory is a factor of the brain.
“Objectivity” faces a similar dilemma to consciousness, it is a pseudointellectual word, because it either exists but we are incapable of it or it doesn’t exist at all, in both cases the word has no meaning, no tangible definition. I prefer that objectivity is something attainable, and for that to occur we need to redefine it; objectivity is relative to a persons knowledge and application of that knowledge, what you call subjective is really objectivity unique to each person. What ruins objectivity is when people ignore what makes sense to them, given their current understanding and abilities, as justice and injustice reveal themselves, action becomes this variable between informed and ignorant, immediate or delayed, reaction or analysis, a balance of judgement.
I’m just using the dictionary that our ancestors left for us, and they did a half-rate job. My word choice is always geared toward attempting to instill my notions in the minds of others most accurately, given the rudimentary vernacular that mankind has so-far developed.
Consciousness, I agree, is a dangerous word. Just like God, everyone clearly has their own definition.
But philosophy is the cutting edge of conceptualization, and as such we often lack the literary tools to do it justice to the masses.
Very true in all points; when you approach an audience, you approach it in the broadest spectrum possible, because reaching a few specifically rather than a lot generally is an elitist method, the best minds are not those who communicate ideas too confusing for most anyone but the ones who can communicate too confusing ideas to most anyone. So don’t take my post as an attack on your work, it was all just done in the spirit of halting liberal word trends, as a lover of words I often get butt-hurt over it ;) and tend to feel obliged to point out alternative words with specific relevance.