Conscious Creation of Reality

[tsig]

How did the world work before there were humans?

I think a better question is: How did the world, solar system, and universe operate before there was life and/or conscious life?



r.

Looks like the same question to me, so what's the answer?

 

[Psiload]

"I have a hard time believing that the sales of hemorrhoid cream would be so brisk in a world where we created our own realities."

Me

 

[aggle-rithm]

You are right, I could figure out electricity works. This is unfalsifiable?

Indeed it is.

If there were no such thing as electricity, we would notice a huge difference in the world. Primarily, we would notice that we do not exist, because the electromagnetic force is crucial to the formation of atoms and molecules.

What if there were no such thing as "conscious creation"? What if things just happened randomly, without the influence of our thoughts?

The world would look exactly the same either way. Which is another way of saying that it's probably bull plop and there's no reason to believe in it.

The "conscious creation" hypothesis doesn't explain anything, doesn't predict anything, and describes something that apparently has no measurable effect on the world around us.

 

[Myriad]

Please explain how millions of residents of Japanese coastal villages invited a tsunami into their world, drowning nearly 20,000 of them, and how we can teach them to stop doing that.

Second, it has to do with mass belief of an impending fear-based event.

Did every single person killed, injured, left lonely, made homeless, or put out of a job by the tsunami secretly want that? Or did the majority secret wish overrule the ones whose secret wish was to continue living their lives as they were?

Please address this. Was the mass belief that caused the tsunami unanimous among the tens of thousands killed and the millions affected?

If it was, how did that come about? How can millions of people, who all happen to live or work at the same elevation zone in the same region, all come to expect a fear event on the same day? Didn't they have individual consciousnesses and free will?

If it was not, then if everyone creates the reality they believe in or wish for, how did the realities of the ones who didn't believe in an impending fear-based event get clobbered by the beliefs of the ones who did? Does your wishing system not work if a greater number of people expect the contrary? Is it majority rule, or are some people super-wishers whose powerful wishes can bully everyone else's reality into submission?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[LarianLeQuella]

What the bleep?!

 

[beeksc1]

You just said that universe does not exist without a conscious observer. But wait, therefore God. OK problem solved.
Oral Roberts and Robert Schuller would be proud of you.
Don´t you have power to manifest a world of health, wealth, and happiness to anyone else than yourself only?
True. This proves that our mind has the power to give commands to our own body parts. Ring any bells?

I stated that reality does not happen without conscious observation; the matter still exists, it is just non-localized when it is not being perceived.

You are cracking me up with the comparison to Roberts and Schuller. I had never heard of them, so I wiki-ed their names. What a character.

Ring any bells? I am not following there.

This is categorically untrue.

When I was two years old, I must have really wanted to develop an allergic reaction to pollen and animal dander.

Matter is only localized upon conscious observation. The sub-atomic arrangement of the quarks is non-localized, when the energy form is out of reach of a being with consciousness; conscious observation facilitates the localization of subatomic particles to construct an experience we call real.

It goes very well for me actually, because I don't find myself deluded by my imagination. If there's no way to know whether you're right, how can you say your experience is improved? It seems like all you're left with is confirmation bias. Something good happens is evidence to you, but if evidence can only accumulate and negatives never count against the theory, you can wind up believing all kinds of things that aren't true, and that you would notice weren't true if you bothered to check rigorously.

Confirmation bias, I see what you are saying. If something has not manifested though, it is most likely because the individual does not whole-heartedly get behind whatever idea he/she is going for.

You should go, and not just the tourist parts. Maybe take a trip to West Africa and meet all the children with malaria. Then swing by the Democratic Republic of the Congo and meet the malnourished rape victims. When you're done with that please explain why they create this reality for themselves.

As I am a peaceful person and practice non-violation, I cannot be responsible for other people’s life. Are you familiar with the responsibility assumption?

Looks like the same question to me, so what's the answer?

Right. I do not know. I am just becoming familiar with the worldview that the individual is responsible for what they are experiencing.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I stated that reality does not happen without conscious observation; the matter still exists, it is just non-localized when it is not being perceived.

You stated incorrectly, probably based on a faulty understanding of quantum physics.

ETA: Even if it were true that quantum events only occur when observed, the effects would be smoothed out as things scale up to the macro level.

 

[Leumas]

I stated that reality does not happen without conscious observation; the matter still exists, it is just non-localized when it is not being perceived.

Here is an experiment that you can perform that will prove to you that you are wrong.


Go to your stove.... turn it on.... on second thought..... no...forget it .... you might actually be imbecilic enough to really do it.

Matter is only localized upon conscious observation. The sub-atomic arrangement of the quarks is non-localized, when the energy form is out of reach of a being with consciousness; conscious observation facilitates the localization of subatomic particles to construct an experience we call real.

Again.......

I am just becoming familiar with the worldview that the individual is responsible for what they are experiencing.

Delusions of a spoiled sheltered child.


Are they responsible for their condition???????

 

[gnome]

Confirmation bias, I see what you are saying. If something has not manifested though, it is most likely because the individual does not whole-heartedly get behind whatever idea he/she is going for.

Quite an assumption. Why are you willing to be so confident in that assumption instead of considering if it could be that the person does not exert that influence after all, or how to tell the difference?

There are plenty of obvious instances where someone was whole-heartedly behind an idea and it simply fails to occur. Too close to the "she died because you didn't pray hard enough" idea for me--which is not only "bull ploppy" but offensively cruel. Some cruel things are reality, but I'm not about to presume them without evidence.

 

[godless dave]

Matter is only localized upon conscious observation. The sub-atomic arrangement of the quarks is non-localized, when the energy form is out of reach of a being with consciousness; conscious observation facilitates the localization of subatomic particles to construct an experience we call real.

I don't suppose you have any evidence for this assertion?

 

[slingblade]

I am just becoming familiar with the worldview that the individual is responsible for what they are experiencing.

No. You are weaseling words, for the most part.

"Responsible," for one. Let's look at how it's defined:

re·spon·si·ble/riˈspänsəbəl/
Adjective:
1) Having an obligation to do something as part of a job or role.
2) Being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed or credited for it.
Your use of "responsible" most closely corresponds to highlighted (2), correct?

I supplied you with a link to a news story about an eight-year-old boy who, on his birthday, was out walking when a 13-year-old boy doused him in gasoline and set him ablaze.

And now you want to believe that the eight-year-old was responsible for being set on fire.

Here's a story about an infant, eight days old, who was raped by her own father.

http://www.todaysthv.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=71901&catid=2

And you want to believe the infant is responsible for her own rape.

What do these two examples show you?

Explain to us how an infant of eight days can be responsible for being raped by her own father.

It's not a rhetorical question. Explain it.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I assume the Universe has some sort of tie-breaker if two people want mutually exclusive things.

 

[PixyMisa]

That is your belief and it is kind of belief that limits your successes in life.

Nope. It is empirical fact.

The one I expressed gives the individual the worldview that constructs a reality full of abundance.

Doesn't happen.

It seems that yogi, meditation, and visualization are practices that improve one’s ability to consciously live out a life that is full of happiness, health, and wealth.

Nope.

 

[Craig4]

As I am a peaceful person and practice non-violation, I cannot be responsible for other people’s life. Are you familiar with the responsibility assumption?

So why do all the people in those areas visualize that reality?

 

[Pup]

More likely our minds merely create a model or perception of reality, which may or may not be consistent with objective reality.

I think that's the tiny kernel of truth, which the OP has taken and exagerated all out of proportion.

 

[Craig4]

"I have a hard time believing that the sales of hemorrhoid cream would be so brisk in a world where we created our own realities."

Me

Dude, can I use that?

 

[aggle-rithm]

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/13900470_3PREOPERATION0.jpg/229px-13900470_3PREOPERATION0.jpg[/qimg]

Does the baby want a cleft palate, or the mother?

I understand the baby wanting it. Babies are stupid.

 

[Myriad]

I assume the Universe has some sort of tie-breaker if two people want mutually exclusive things.

I'm working on that question. So far, it's been claimed that if an individual wish does not come true, then it's because the person's wish wasn't whole-hearted enough...

If something has not manifested though, it is most likely because the individual does not whole-heartedly get behind whatever idea he/she is going for.

...and yet, even a subtle trace of fear or doubt or negative expectation is enough to cause something terrible to happen, like a tsunami.

That double standard, of course, makes the whole concept unfalsifiable. Something good you wished for doesn't happen: your wish wasn't whole-hearted enough. You had a trace of doubt, maybe, or subconscious contrary desires, which was enough to prevent the universe from making it happen. Something bad that was neither desired nor expected by anyone happens: someone must have feared it or perversely desired it, maybe only subconsciously, which was enough to bring it about.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[beeksc1]

The "conscious creation" hypothesis doesn't explain anything, doesn't predict anything, and describes something that apparently has no measurable effect on the world around us.

You are free to form whatever beliefs you want to. From my view, it does explain the nature of our experience. It does predict success. How do you measure an experience?

Please address this. Was the mass belief that caused the tsunami unanimous among the tens of thousands killed and the millions affected?

If it was, how did that come about? How can millions of people, who all happen to live or work at the same elevation zone in the same region, all come to expect a fear event on the same day? Didn't they have individual consciousnesses and free will?

If it was not, then if everyone creates the reality they believe in or wish for, how did the realities of the ones who didn't believe in an impending fear-based event get clobbered by the beliefs of the ones who did? Does your wishing system not work if a greater number of people expect the contrary? Is it majority rule, or are some people super-wishers whose powerful wishes can bully everyone else's reality into submission?

Respectfully,
Myriad

Myriad, I do not understand the first question. Assuming you meant, ‘Was [it] the mass belief…” I would imagine so. I have never experienced a tsunami; I can only be responsible for what I experience and the experience that I share with others.

Good question. I do not have all the answers. I have just recently become aware that the individual constructs his/her own model of reality by the habitual nature of thought.

Even if it were true that quantum events only occur when observed, the effects would be smoothed out as things scale up to the macro level.

It is true that matter does not materialize in a localized manner until there is conscious observation.

Delusions of a spoiled sheltered child

It makes you angry to read that we are responsible for everything we experience in our lives?

Quite an assumption. Why are you willing to be so confident in that assumption instead of considering if it could be that the person does not exert that influence after all, or how to tell the difference?

There are plenty of obvious instances where someone was whole-heartedly behind an idea and it simply fails to occur. Too close to the "she died because you didn't pray hard enough" idea for me--which is not only "bull ploppy" but offensively cruel. Some cruel things are reality, but I'm not about to presume them without evidence.

I am confident in it because it makes sense that realities experienced in universe are organized by means of similarity. I am also confident because I am learning to accept full responsibility for every experience in my life. I am confident in conscious creation because each individual chooses his beliefs; and I am choosing to pick beliefs that empower me.

For beginners, on average, there are approximately 4 billion environmental stimuli signals in a given environment at a given moment; and one’s brain only has the ability to process 4 million of those signals at a certain time. Thus, it is up to the observer to select which signals are most conducive to health, wealth, and happiness. We pick the sensations we want to experience.

I don't suppose you have any evidence for this assertion?

I think the double slit experiment sheds light on this.

No. You are weaseling words, for the most part.
"Responsible," for one. Let's look at how it's defined:
re·spon·si·ble/riˈspänsəbəl/
Adjective:
1) Having an obligation to do something as part of a job or role.
2) Being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed or credited for it.Your use of "responsible" most closely corresponds to highlighted (2), correct?
I supplied you with a link to a news story about an eight-year-old boy who, on his birthday, was out walking when a 13-year-old boy doused him in gasoline and set him ablaze.
And now you want to believe that the eight-year-old was responsible for being set on fire.
Here's a story about an infant, eight days old, who was raped by her own father.
http://www.todaysthv.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=71901&catid=2
And you want to believe the infant is responsible for her own rape.
What do these two examples show you?
Explain to us how an infant of eight days can be responsible for being raped by her own father.
It's not a rhetorical question. Explain it.

I am not weaseling words.

Okay, the story. I can only be responsible for the realities I experience and the realities I influence upon others. I had nothing to do with that fire.

I assume the Universe has some sort of tie-breaker if two people want mutually exclusive things.

Exclusivity is a belief; I believe in abundance.

Pixy, you are free to believe whatever you want to believe; it is your belief after all!

So why do all the people in those areas visualize that reality?

I do not know. I think about this nearly every day when I am at work, servicing and trying to educate a child who is non-verbal. And then sometimes, I think the child is thinking, “The joke is on you.” I do my very best for the special needs children I assist.

 

[godless dave]

I think the double slit experiment sheds light on this.

The double-slit experiment has nothing to do with consciousness. You have been deceived about quantum mechanics.