Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Reality, What gives birth to it?

  1. Dec 28, 2004 #1
    Hi All

    This is my first post here. What I will post comes from questions and answers we send and receive by the process of conscious cognitive intuitive flow.
    There are 3 of us who work together to receive and produce these articles. We make no 3d changes to them and post what we receive, word perfect.
    We have been researching this subject and process, as a team, for nearly 5 years. We open this to your discussion and opinion.



    What gives birth to it?
    Answering the question posed 4.3.03.

    If reality is a Universal mind, what is outside of the Universal mind? What gives birth to the reality?

    Q. In answering your question, you need to divorce yourself from your logical way of thinking, seeing, from your 3D way of interpreting what comes to you naturally. From your perceived processes. To do this enables you to see what is given to you directly from the universal mind. You need to step back from yourself, to open to other realms. When you do this you will see how the universal mind works.

    Lets take reality. There is no reality in the hologramatic world. There is a force, which has created your circumstances. The Universal mind is a consciousness that just IS. It is a created consciousness, it is created by the Grand Order of Design, and it knows no other life before it, as it cannot. It surpasses all knowledge. Created consciousness is the life force of every being throughout all the universes, you give birth to reality only when that contact is made via your true selves. The ' being' which created you. That 'being' (true self) is directly linked to the Greater consciousness, which in turn gives you the 'entity being', the reality. What you live in your hologramatic world is a created circumstance. It does not give you reality it gives you the feeling of such. It gives you the illusion of a reality. The most difficult illusion of all illusions as you struggle with the concept of what gives birth to reality.

    To look at this from a 3 dimensional perspective. Imagine 'you' (the physical) is the creation, and the 'being' (you) is the reality. Look at this the same universally, the 'being' (true you) is the reality, and the G.O.D.(Grand Order of Design) is the created consciousness.
    This is So!

  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 28, 2004 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    I've always taken reality as fundamental, personally. Whatever is real has always been real, although it might have changed forms.
  4. Dec 28, 2004 #3
    Hi loseyourname

    Yes, reality is how you personally perceive it. The changes in the perception of reality come with learning and growth. And yes, it is true that if you are not ready to perceive a different reality, you will not be able, as it will make no sense, a bit like waking from a dream that made perfect sense just minutes before in that reality, but compared to your waking reality, you cannot even describe it.
    A child would normally make no sense of Quantum Mechanics, but if it is studied later in life, it does.
    As we go through life, our view of reality changes, not the reality.
    It is difficult to say if there is indeed such a thing as a "fundamental reality", at all, except that which is encoded into us at birth, on which we build.


  5. Dec 29, 2004 #4
    This means that if you feel/think/perceive a yellow object to be red, it is red. If you perceive an unconscious man to be dead, he is dead. If you perceive the solar eclipse and think that a large asteroid falling towards the Earth is blocking the Sun, an asteroid is falling on Earth. If a blind man can't see the Earth, then Earth does not exist.

    The amount of absurdities this line of thought leads to is unimaginable.

    Reality is not how YOU perceive it. Reality IS. A building does not stop existing if you cannot perceive or see it.
  6. Dec 29, 2004 #5
    Reality is relative, our sensory organs create perceptions of an external object in our mind, and we can verify this perception by asking others of the same kind (Humans) But ask a bug what a yellow object looks like you might get a completely different answer…. and better yet some other species from some other planets might have a very different “insight” altogether ….
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2004
  7. Dec 29, 2004 #6
    Real for “you” might not be real for "others"........

    Step outside your self....
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2004
  8. Dec 29, 2004 #7


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    I never said anything about what is "real for me." I was talking only about what is real, period. Whether I know of or acknowledge its existence is of no consequence.
  9. Dec 29, 2004 #8
    There is a nice picture on the net somewhere. When you first download it, as it is a GIF, you think it is an animation for it moves. But then somehow you realize that it is not moving; that it moves is an illusion.

    So is it really moving or really static? Which is reality?

    I think there are two paradigms here. One paradigm is that the image is really moving and one paradigm is that the image is really stationary.

    To me, the two paradigms seem equally "valid" unless one person can come and convince me that one paradigm is correct.

    (It makes me wonder if time is an illusion altogether for perhaps we are all stationary but we just appear to move around. So are we really moving or really stationary?)
  10. Dec 29, 2004 #9
    Hi sId_galt

    Do you know what you don't see?
    You have used some examples that are really not sustainable.
    Many Doctors have observed patients to be "dead" only to have them wake up later, in the morgue, fully alive.
    Nowhere did I say that perceptions can not be proved to be wrong. But, your perceptions give you your view of life at that moment and sometimes longer.
    Lots of people are color "blind". That is their perceptional view and if no one told them any different, they would just see the way they saw. NO big deal in this, as they get used to using other pointers to give them what they need. e.g. The position of lights in traffic signals.

    A building may be evident to most people, but ALL people will see it differently. Some will see details that others won't, some will barely notice it among the background of other buildings and some will not even notice it.
    It doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but for the person who doesn't see it, it really doesn't exist, at that moment, for someone else, it does.


  11. Dec 29, 2004 #10
    Hi phoenixthoth

    I agree with you PT.
    Both paradigms are "correct", are both reality, within reality.
    Yes, we can chose to set one in stone, if we wish, but why would one do this, when the mind is capable of accepting two or more realities at once.
    In the greater "reality", the combination of ALL realities, nothing is "right" or "wrong", it is just cause and effect of a evolutionary or devolutionary nature, as far as the individual is concerned. The only one who can make any "judgment/assessment" of this, is the individual so concerned.


  12. Dec 29, 2004 #11
    But the patients are clinically dead for that period of time.

    Actually even color blind people can determine the color of an object by observing the wavelength of light being reflected from the object.

    OK. Let's say that a brick is precariously resting on the edge of the roof of a building and is about to fall and that a passerby is standing in such a way that when the brick falls, it will hit him directly on the head. The passerby hasn't noticed the brick.
    According to your reasoning, as the passerby hasn't really seen the brick, it really doesn't exist for him at that moment. Even when the brick is just about to hit his head, it doesn't exist for that person. Only when the brick hits, does the brick come into existence for that person.
    This means that in that person's frame of reference, the brick is magically coming into existence out of nothing at that moment and hitting him.
    Is this possible?

    Please correct me if I have reasoned wrongly.
  13. Dec 29, 2004 #12
    I think malai5 has already given his answer to this. In the following quote, think of "it" as the brick.
    If a tree is in the forest with no one to observe or prove it exists, does it exist?

    Isn't it a scientific theory (QM?) that that which is not observed does not exist until it is observed? Or am I horribly misrepresenting the true idea?

    We're just talking about two different paradigms.

    Can you prove that the brick existed before anyone observes it? How, without observation? Well, you might try logic. The conservation of matter theory leads me to believe that something cannot come from nothing; therefore, the brick must have existed before it hit the unfortunate person's head. Whatever argument you use rests on unprovable assumptions that even a reasonable person might not make. And since nothing in science has been proven, you certainly can't use science to try to prove anything; doing so would just be building a house of cards.

    You might as well just assume, or not, that the brick does not appear "out of nowhere."

    Neither assumption is provable and thus two paradigms coexist. One where the answer to the tree question is "yes" and one where the answer to the tree question is "no."

    You could also have a third paradigm that says something like, "maybe."
  14. Dec 30, 2004 #13
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2004
  15. Dec 30, 2004 #14

    Les Sleeth

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    So, you believe you are channeling?

    Sounds like you are applying for Ten Years' Job.

    :yuck: You are not talking philosophy, you are speaking in absolutes. All this has been said many times from Seth and the Aquarian Gospel to the Book of Urantia. What we need is a model linked to the facts of reality and someone who can make a convincing argument, not another disembodied voice who claims to "just know."
  16. Dec 30, 2004 #15
    No. The "process of conscious cognitive intuitive flow" is not channeling unless you consider it channeling when the "other end" is you.

    Nice ad hominem. Suitable for a text book on fallacy. :yuck:
    Perhaps this does belong in "general discussion" if anywhere on this board.

    Don't speak for me. You should say, "what I need is a model..."

    Granted, I don't believe everything (and barely anything) I read. And, granted, I don't accept every claim I can't dismiss logically. Granted those things, are you willing and able to dismiss logically (or otherwise) anything and everything malai5 wrote?
  17. Dec 30, 2004 #16

    Les Sleeth

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I wouldn't dismiss anything he said logically, I suspect much of it myself. What I am critical of is his method for coming up with those ideas. Anybody can sit down and say profound things, and lots and lots of people have. The problem is when someone doesn't care to justify their statements by linking it to specific experiences others can try out and then see for themselves what is claimed.

    I will never forget a few years back watching several specials on the woman who claimed to be a channeling vehicle for Ramtha. What a bunch of nonsense she talked, even though it might have all been true. It isn't true concepts that make something wise or profound, it is the depth of the realization and understanding of the speaker. She talked exactly like malai5 and Ten Years and others I've heard who show up at some forum occasionally.

    Speaking in absolutes gives it away. They say stuff like Truth is, God is, Universal mind is . . . So what are we supposed to do, accept them as "wise," sit at their feet, and just soak up all that profundity? It's not sound philosophically. It is pop spiritualism which everybody and their uncle seems to think these days they are qualified to do.
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2004
  18. Dec 30, 2004 #17
    Ok. Just checking. I am also critical of the method. Justification, yes. It clearly lacks this. You say you suspect much of it yourself and I think what we're all yearning for is proof. Or at least a plausibility argument. Something. Something that bothered me greatly back in the day was the following question: why do I need proof (and do I need proof and what is proof)? But that is the subject of a thread in your own journal, not a public forum. To me, absolute statements are either interesting or uninteresting and either useful or useless and either they resonate with my self or they don't. I'm left to wonder how one would go about proving the claims made by malai5.

    If I think you talk exactly like Searle, does that mean anything about what you say? EDIT: Do mean exactly literally? If so then we have repeatability. If not then what's your point, that since A sounds like B and I think B is a crackpot then A is a crackpot?

    The answer to your question is no, of course not. I think, however, that one's attitude ought to be positive skepticism. But that's just my HO.

    I would call it unpopular spiritualism by the way it is being received here. I agree that it's not philosophy. Philosophy should define terms, agree on what constitutes proof, make a statement, and then prove it. On the other hand, in the old days as you know, Philosophy was not as narrow as it is now and it encompassed all knowledge. In that sense, it is Philosophy. Not modern day Philosophy. Like I said, maybe it belongs in "general discussion" if anywhere on this board.

    By virtue of the claim, it cannot be backed logically.
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2004
  19. Dec 30, 2004 #18

    Les Sleeth

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    No, I probably shouldn't have said "exactly" (and me talking like Searle? :rofl:). I was referring to the practice of speaking in absolutes. It is a dead giveaway everytime in my opinion indicating the lack of adequate personal experience behind the claims. When someone speaks from experience with the intention of helping others understand, they tend to link their audience to some kind of experience people can relate to. But when it's a head trip or someone trying to act wise, they state things like they're "the Truth" . . .

    Well, I wouldn't require that to take his statements seriously. I wasn't trying to say the only thing worth listening to is that which is stated in the form of a proof. I'd be content to feel he was speaking from genuine personal experience. I am specifically criticizing the practice of speaking in absolutes.
  20. Dec 30, 2004 #19
  21. Dec 30, 2004 #20

    Les Sleeth

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    You'll be divesting yourself of "3d" trappings soon enough, as will we all. Did it ever occur to you that maybe this 3d existence has a purpose which can only be realized by participating fully in it?

    I know you think what you are saying is something, but I see it as merely a "line" you are following by imagining you are 3d-less and then interpreting how things might appear from that perspective. If I hadn't seen it so many times before I wouldn't recognize it so quickly.

    The bottom line is, even if your experience is genuine, what are people supposed to do with the information you are offering? Okay, 3d consciousness is an illusion. What should I do with that? Sell my possesions? Join a cult? Kill myself now and join God? What?
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook