Tippaporn

". . . one of the most solid theories in science." Stick with the hard sciences. Once subjective reality enters into the equation, which evolution completely disregards, you're in no man's land.

Love your signature, CharlieH. 5555555555

"It seems clear to me that I answered the question. I think your confusion is a result of your being trapped into the 'either/or' situation. That is, something's either right or wrong, good or bad, hot or cold, and so on." Well, to be truthful you didn't answer the question. Which was, "if you're not the one creating your experience then who does? What agency determines aspects of your reality for you?" Your reply as to the agency, which you answered in the context of "no one gets to choose to be born" was "someone." You've got to admit that's funny. Because that "someone" could theoretically be God. And I know you don't believe in God. So what other force has that ability, that power? One more point. I had asked that you incorporate freedom into the idea that our experience is created by us. For you cannot seriously expect a correct answer to that question while omitting freedom. The two are inextricably linked. You cannot separate on from the other. You didn't mention freedom at all. Is it because this is what science so often does? When information doesn't fit it just gets discarded? It's not a question of right or wrong, good or bad, etc. It's a question of having a practical working thesis. Being a science guy you should at least be able to provide a rough outline of a working hypothesis at a minimum. The key word here is "working." Because if you can't show how it works then I think even you would agree that a non-working hypothesis would be utterly worthless. "You can create your own reality to some extent, and that extent is very variable, depending upon your inheritance characteristics and the many experiences in your mother's womb and in early childhood which you can't remember. Such experiences are buried in the subconscious, which means you have no control over them, unless you specifically engage in certain processes that might help you to understand or be aware of at least some of those subconscious influences." Good on you that you've at least admitted that we create our own reality to some extent. As to the rest of that paragraph you are now entering the soft sciences, which are more than wanting. I can say this much. Science knows next to nothing about what the subconscious is. They do spin theories using what little they do understand. I would advise to accept science's conclusions on what the subconscious is with a grain of salt. A truckload would do fine. You do have a subconscious. Why not explore your own? While the question is a serious one I doubt you'd have an inkling on how to go about such a personal exploration. Is it best then, or perhaps because it's your only other option, to carte blanche accept the opinions and dictats of "authoritative" science simply because they have anointed themselves authorities of credibility in all subject matter? And especially since you don't have first hand knowledge yourself? "Psychology and Psychiatry deal with such issues, but also Buddhism and Yoga-type practices." It's coincidental that you would mention Buddhism. Here's a quote that is saying the same thing I've been saying: you create your own reality using your thoughts. Think of what you want and that is what you will create (joy). Think of what you don't want and that is what you'll create (suffering). The choice is always ours . . . second by second, minute by minute, hour by hour . . . thoughts create. Period. "What we are today comes from our thoughts of yesterday, and our present thoughts build our life of tomorrow: our life is the creation of our mind. If a man speaks or acts with an impure mind, suffering will follow him as the wheel of the cart follows the beast that draws the cart. If a man speaks or acts with a pure mind, joy follows him as his own shadow." - Gautama Buddha "I'm sorry.This sounds like complete nonsense to me. The entity to be, chooses it's parents, and the parents choose the characteristics of the 'soon to be born entity'?? Crikey!! I didn't realize you were into so much mumbo jumbo." ???? For one, if you were to dig deeper into many of science's theories, objectively rather than fawningly, you'd quickly discover that much of science theories are exactly that . . . mumbo jumbo. Why? Because many of their theories either outright lack a working basis or their working basis is woefully incomplete. Granted, it's difficult to be objective when you've already bought the farm. Here's a quote for you from Seth from the book, The Unknown Reality Vol. 1: "Consciousness is composed of energy, with everything that implies. The psyche, then, can be thought of as a conglomeration of highly charged "particles" of energy, following rules and properties, many simply unknown to you. On other levels, laws of dynamics apply to the energy sources of the self. Think of a given "self" as a nucleus of an energy gestalt of consciousness. That nucleus, according to its intensity, will attract to it certain masses of the entire energy patterns available to a given identity." The key phrase here is "many simply unknown to you." You must admit that many scientific theories are created with only that information which is currently known. Even then not all of the currently know information is incorporated into many of their theories. What does not fit, or is inconvenient, is left out. Aside from information that is currently known is the unknown. Which is much, much vaster than what is known. If science were to be purely objective and honest then they would say about a given theory, such as evolution, "This is what our available "facts" currently point to but, hey, we could be completely wrong. If a single piece of unknown information were to become known it might alter or even completely invalidate what we've currently concluded." Rather, in their hubris they claim to "know" even as they are fully aware of the truth of the preceding sentence. FYI, that paragraph by Seth describes, to a small extent, who we are. I don't expect anyone to fully, or even partially understand it but kudos to you if you do. This is extremely complex subject matter. Before anyone reads it with little understanding and then comments that it's nothing but word salad then understand that to comment derogatorily from a mere paragraph would be disingenuous. There's 20 years of work by Jane Roberts which provides more than ample information which would make perfect sense of that paragraph. No one should be writing a book review on a book they haven't read. And one more quote from Seth, from the same volume, as he comments specifically on what I claimed, that the to-be-born child chooses his parents and vice versa. "Each of you, again, chose your parents and environment. You spoke in your notes (two days ago) of precognition in connection with art - an excellent point. Precognition in those terms also applies at your birth, when ahead of time you are quite aware on unconscious levels of those conditions that you will meet. You have chosen them and projected them ahead of you, out into the medium of time." No worries about insulting me. We're good.

The coldest I've ever experienced was -33 C. With wind that, according to the reported wind chill factor, made it feel as cold as -63 C. Not that it was blowing that hard everywhere and all of the time. Just the rock bottom coldest reported. That was in Chicago. I went out just for the experience. Multiple layers of clothes and face covering. I wore my ski goggles and an excellent pair of ski gloves, LOL. And yes, it'll kill you quickly if not dressed properly. And even if you're dressed frostbite can set in quickly on your extremities. I consider Antifa to be the Brown shirts of the Nazis. The rioting in the US was absolutely insane during the summer of 2020. Absolute viciousness acted out with gleeful abandon. "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire

I'd love to go to Antarctica just for the experience. I can't imagine the cold. Stark whiteness and desolate. Did you like it there? How cold did it get whilst you were there? The hate in the world these days is on the rise, in my opinion. An understanding of who we are and the true nature of reality would automatically eliminate most of it. Which means that most of it is due to a lack of understanding. We might muse that what we discuss here is purely philosophical in nature. Not at all. The practical applications are limitless.

That's not real. Only a movie. And it's only based on one man's interpretation of what such an imagined scenario would produce. The writer was most obviously engaging in dark thoughts as he wrote it. Had he had thoughts of an opposite nature the story would have been much different. Frank Capra made those types of movies. Which were just as much a true and real reflection of the true nature of who we are. The real life of each individual works the same. Dark thoughts produce dark experiences and vice versa. It's that simple.

Hasn't anyone been misunderstood in life leading to ill feelings and then sought to simply clear it up? Why would I ir anyone care? For the sake of maintaining harmony. Is a desire for harmony amongst people not worth the effort? Especially in what is becoming more and more a hate filled world. You didn't offend me, TBL. No drama and an apology isn't needed.

A pissing contest is two parties trying to outdo each other. This wasn't that. This was nothing more than me trying to clear the air about a misunderstanding and mauGR1 coming out of left field going nuclear. I'm not into abuse so just as in any relationship which becomes abusive it's time for one or the other to pack their bags and go. No feelings hurt for me so no hot temper on my part over any of it. Just a simple, "No thanks."

You've obviously got some personal issues, mauGR1. You'll understand why I won't be replying to you any longer.

In who? Me or yourself?

Frankly, mauGR1, I have no idea what the hell you're on about. Time to tame that monster in you and return it to the cellar. It's pretty ugly.

Sorry about the long post, TBL. Try breaking it up and reading it piecemeal.

I've been hanging replies off quotes for years, and often partly, but not fully relevant to the quote, but that's the first time I've ever been attacked for doing so. The Thais have that wonderful response to those getting too excited- Jai yen, jai yen, meaning cool down, life is too short, enjoy more, stress less. I try to look at a situation from the point of view that if I knew I was going to die tomorrow, would it be important? Well, I tried to end this early on but since you persist I'll try to lay this to rest now. So here is the flow of events as they were experienced by me. Your initial reply to my post about ideas and how people accept the ideas that they do revolved around your ideas of faith. You claimed I was erroneously putting faith in the same category as engineering. Now since I was not discussing faith whatsoever I was confused by what you were claiming. I thought that perhaps you saw something I didn't and so was missing something. So I told you I was unsure as to how you read faith into the content of my post. Without asking you directly to explain I left you an opening to add the missing clarity on my part. You replied next with, "Given the topic is about God, I can't see how mentioning faith is irrelevant to the discussion." Given the phrasing I sensed you were a bit put off as if my reply to you was somehow an admonishment. Which it wasn't. So again I was confused by your response. So I come back atcha with, "It's certainly relevant to the topic. But it wasn't relevant to my post." I confirmed that your initial reply was certainly within the bounds of this thread. No problem there. Now if you recall I was confused as to how you were linking faith to my post subject matter and gave you an opportunity to make that link. Since you didn't then common sense told me that there was no link. Well, if there was no link I then just stated as a matter of fact that your reply was not relevant. No emotion on my end. Just stating a pure fact. Next you blindside me with, "It's just a forum, not the word of God, Jai yen, jai yen. This is an opinion forum, and my opinion ( as long as not off topic ) is valid whatever I quote to hang it off." Again, the fact that you were off put was plain to decipher from the tone of your language. But now you were accusing me of being all bent out of shape. So as I know that on my end I didn't write my last post while my hands were shaking due to uncontrollable rage I'm thinking to myself, where's he getting that from. Now the only emotion I did feel as I wrote my next reply was sadness that this exchange was so unnecessarily taking a very wrong turn. I was shaking my head at the keyboard when I wrote, "Go ahead. Fight to the death that you're right. I don't care. You weren't on topic to my post. Period. End of story. Geezus, why can't folks just admit when they're wrong." I admit frustration made me write that last sentence. So now mauGR1 jumps in. "He is right and you are right, too." Now it's always been important to me to access reality properly. Else I'm fooling myself. Now common sense tells me that two people with opposing viewpoints can't both be right. So I replied to mauGR1 with your initial reply and just changed it up a bit to fit his post. I thought that by replying to him as you did to me mauGR1 would understand my confusion to your initial reply. "Huh?" Next I find the above quoted post from the two of you discussing this whole sordid mess. Now you're accusing me of "attacking" you. A very drawn out "huh?" issued from my lips. That was in reply to mauGR1's ad hominem comment that I look at everyone here as plebs who must bow down to me. Now a very long drawn out "huh?" In other words, people here are soooo much lesser than me. Which, knowing myself, is an attitude I can't possibly be accused of. A long, long time ago I read don Juan giving Carlos Castaneda the definition of true humbleness. "No one is more import than you and you are no more important than anyone else." I pat myself on the back for accepting that definition and practicing it fairly faithfully since I've read it. And thanks to Seth I've learned that people are not their ideas. A truth I've expressed in a much earlier post on this thread. Ideas are what people use to create their reality. But people are not their ideas. Most people erroneously conflate the two. Hence you hear often, "You're an <expletive>!" Now I have no qualms whatsoever viciously and mercilessly attacking ideas which people hold. Depending on how despicable the idea is, of course. Don't ever justify war to me, for instance. Or the medical abuse of other living creatures. As far as my "supreme wisdom," well what can I say other than I'm sorry that's how you interpret my confidence of the knowledge I express, @mauGR1. Sunmaster once advised that the best way to teach was by being a living example. While I can't convey a living example of myself other than in person I can do so through expressing myself in word. Should I be less than myself here so as not to irritate the lack of confidence others may feel about themselves? That would be unfairly asking too much from me. While this episode of misunderstanding due to erroneous interpretations is silly it is, on the other hand, important, too. Nothing we do is unimportant. Hopefully this sheds enough light, along with a bit of insight into me, so that we can bury any ill will and be friends again. While in my heart I know I've done nothing wrong, though I was turned into the bad guy and slandered to boot, I'll even apologise. I'll go it even a couple of steps further . . . I love you TBL. I love you mauGR1. P.S. Just so you know I was smiling the whole time I was typing this post. That's how deadly serious I am about all of this.

mauGR1, if you just went "huh? to my reply then you'll understand where I'm coming from.

In my opinion you are putting faith and right and wrong in the same category and that just doesn't work for me. My faith is no doubt different to that of every other poster ever been on this thread, but it's still faith. When it comes to faith, there is IMO no one size fits all version. You have your version and if it works for you, that's good, for you, but don't expect me or all others to agree with you on everything. Mine works for me, and that is enough for me, but whether anyone else agrees with me or not is completely irrelevant to me. I really don't care whether anyone agrees with me or not, as that's not important. What is important is being open to other's viewpoints and giving them the respect they deserve ( unless they are trolls ). I'm open to such, and have learned much about faith on these many pages, but I only use what works for myself.

Go ahead. Fight to the death that you're right. I don't care. You weren't on topic to my post. Period. End of story. Geezus, why can't folks just admit when they're wrong.

It's certainly relevant to the topic. But it wasn't relevant to my post.

"For a start, no-one gets to choose whether or not they will be born, so the reality of their own existence is created by someone else." I know this question is becoming repetitive but no matter how many times I ask this question, no matter the poster, everyone so far as avoided answering it. Who creates your experience if not you? Can you name the agency? Can you validate that agency's existence?. There's a main belief folks have that there's some outside force which controls us in various ways. So now you're being ambiguous. Or cryptic. Who is this "someone else." Name it. Identify it. Where does it exist? What's it's source? What powers does it have? You don't believe in a God and yet you're referring to a God-like entity. Religion accepts this "someone else" as being God. Here's another question which, forgive me if I'm wrong, I also believe you'll avoid. What of freedom? How does freedom work when there exists another power which controls us? Creating one's own reality requires full and absolute freedom. If you don't have absolute freedom then you can't create your own reality. Can you understand how the two are inextricably entwined? As to your statement, which is a belief, knowing what I know it's false. We do choose to enter this earthly existence. In fact, the entity to be chooses it's parents and the parents choose this soon to be born entity. Science excels at the hard sciences. In my opinion when it comes to the soft sciences they are rather primitive. Take this article on dreaming, for example, which to my knowledge is pure, worthless rubbish. What Your Dreams Actually Mean, According to Science Not in all of eternity will science ever understand what dreams are by probing the brain. With dreams, as with so much other human experience, you're dealing with pure subjective reality. Physical instruments are useless. They'll tell you nothing. If anyone is serious about understanding what dreams are you would have to explore the subject from the inside, not the outside. Dreams are part of subjective reality and can only be explored using our subjective self. That should be beyond obvious. Anyway, I don't mean to go off on a tangent by commenting on the opening statement of your post. It's the first part of my post which I'd like you give answers, as best you can, to the questions I posed. Those questions about who creates our realty and freedom are more important than you realise. Those two questions, answered properly, crack the nut in many ways.

As I've been explaining over several posts now. Some questions need to be answered before other questions can be asked. If it's true that we create our own reality using thoughts then the rules of the game have changed epically and forever. You can take most every science book on psychology and trash them. The medical field would need to be totally revamped as well. Every branch of science would find itself experiencing an upheaval.

You're right. My question left room for too much ambiguity. So I'll rephrase with unambiguous clarity. Since most of the science folk here have made the claim that it is within science's ability, using the scientific method only, or the methodology of science as that is your preferential terminology, to positively establish the truth of every aspect of the nature of reality, in other words discover and prove it's functioning, then my question to Hummin is whether or not he believes that to be true. Let me know if that rephrasing makes sense to you. I'll give an example of what I was driving at with that question. If I were to make the claim, which I have, that we create our own reality using ideas - the physical universe as idea construction - then science would brush that claim off as mere unfounded belief with no proof as to the truth of that claim. Am I correct so far? I'll have to refer here to one of my earlier posts.

I'm happy to have gotten through to you, Hummin. It is why, in an earlier post, I accused you of cherry picking what you will answer out of a given post. So many other posters do the same. Pointed questions which are difficult to answer are for the most part ignored precisely because they are difficult questions. It's no great mystery why most posters then respond only to the portion of a post which they feel comfortable enough to give a reply. You are not unique in that sense. Many of my posts receive no replies at all. It's usually when I provide novel ideas, information which others hear for the first time and don't know what to do with. Just to clear up some semantics. What I mean by having a singular focus is to focus on a single intention to the exclusion of all else. When flying that is your intention . . . to fly. Everything related to that endeavour becomes part of your singular focus. Now the question I asked is not an impossible question. In fact the answer to it is in front of your face and in front of everyone's faces. It's actually easy to answer. You have only to examine it. To look under the hood. To investigate. To play with it. To observe. And it will come quickly and effortlessly.

My post never used the word faith. Because I was not talking about faith at all. Not sure how you read faith into that post. What I was talking about was ideas and how people accept the ideas that they do.

The goal of life is happiness. Everything anyone does is only because they believe that in the doing it will bring happiness. I pet my cats a lot.

Whatever level of understanding I have was acquired. You flew in the air, free as a bird. Did you not acquire the skill and the understanding required to perform that magnificent accomplishment? Is acquiring an understanding of life any different? Before you took your first flight you set your intention and nothing stopped you from it. Before I knew what I know now I did likewise. I set my intention and let nothing stop me. That part of the process is identical to any endeavour anyone undertakes. All issues are the same because they all work the same. The principles that give success in one area of life are the same principles that work in every other area of life. You have only one responsibility in life. To be all that you can be. To utilise every talent, skill, gift, capacity, and ability which life endowed you with to it's utmost. If you want the meaning of life there it is.

Simple enough. But don't you want to know it's practical applications? You know, those details which are to be used in creating and living the fulfilling life you've always intended? If there's no interest in doing so and one is perfectly satisfied with their life in every facet of it then that's fair enough.