Reality/Fantasy

[DrReplyInRhymes]

So, I have a diatribe I'd like to go on against those who seem to want to attempt to explain to me their version of the difference of reality and fantasy.

 

To prelude this - I am not a credible source of authority. I have no medical background except for my experiences, I have very little experience with therapists or psychologists or psychiatrists but I have a wild imagination and like to ask questions - so yeah.

 

What started this line of thought was the remark someone told me once - "He has a difficult time telling the difference between reality and fantasy."

 

It got me pretty upset at the time. I didn't think I had a problem at all with differentiating between the two. I mean, I know what's real and what isn't! Right?! Not being able to tell the difference between the two would, for most purposes, deem me mentally ill. I hardly think my mental competence can include the word illness - but rather - failing to understand the label.

 

As time went on, I began to slowly question my understanding of reality and fantasy, and the difference between the two. I began to integrate my own understanding of said notions with the notions of people I have come across my in my life and, while uneducated as I may be, believed the truth to be somewhere in the middle of everyone's stories/experiences.

 

This is where things are going to get a bit abstract and what I need from readers, if any, is the ability to have an open mind and bring forth their understanding of reality and fantasy in a way that doesn't detract from the main idea and devolve into arguing about semantics. In other words, my train of thought is hard to understand, but if you're going to argue, don't argue about how I said it, argue about what's being said!

 

You see, in my mind, something that is real is something that exists - as in, there is evidence of it's existence. In order to make the observation that something is real - there has to be an observation of the reality. Perhaps my understanding of what is reality, or what is real, is flawed - however, to support my theory - I have to explain what I mean. Bear with me as I attempt to find the words to convey the meaning I'm trying to get across here.

 

A) For example, let's take a rock. Let's assume the rock is real. It's here on Earth, it's sitting by a lake shore, it's half in the water and half out. We can all agree, there is the rock. Reality. You can touch it, you can feel it, you can pick it up and attempt to skip it across the lake. You can even share that experience of observing the rock with another person. OK, the rock exists! Hello rock!

 

B) Now let's assume the rock wasn't there - as in, we couldn't observe it with our senses, see it, feel it, etc, then the rock isn't there. To imagine a rock in the same spot as mentioned above without the evidence of the rock, or the observation of it, then the rock being there would be a fantasy - the evidence of existence is no longer there. The observation of the rock shows no evidence of the rock being there. Ergo, it's fantasy, not reality. It's 'imagined'. Still with me?

 

This is where things get a bit more ...abstract.

 

I think we can all agree that you can never truly see something through someone else's eyes/ feel exactly what they felt / experience exactly what they experienced as they experienced it. Every person's experience is truly unique - and while experiences may share similarities in observations of events and whatnot, those experiences are truly unique to that one person and only that one person. The color red from one person's perspective is still labeled 'red' from another's perspective, but can you truly KNOW that their color 'red' is the same exact 'red' that you see? Can you truly KNOW that the feeling that color incites from them is the same exact feeling the 'red' incites from yourself? Can that experience and observation of that color be the exact experience you have when observing that color?

 

To show why this is important - the observation of the real rock from example A above from one person standing next to another person observing that rock would be two completely different experiences. You can share that experience and come to a logical conclusion that yes - the rock exists because we have both made an observation that it exists. It is a reality for both parties involved, and it is a reality unique to only them. It is also a reality that is unique to each person, as the observation of the rock is a different experience for those two people as explained in the paragraph prior.

 

Now I could start to attempt to explain, in my opinion and thought process, how you wouldn't know what reality is without knowing what fantasy is, but that's just going to complicate matters. For now, I'm going to continue along this abstract thought process.

 

So here we are - imagining two people standing next to a rock that is real - based in reality - and sharing the experience of said rock compared to a an imagined event of two people sharing an experience of a non-existent rock, each having a unique perspective and experience related only to the perspective of observing that rock, and now, this imagined event is being shared by you and me - in our own observation of this experience of two people in two different events - observing a rock that is both a reality and a fantasy. Are you still with me?

 

From this point forward, I feel it necessary to differentiate between the two people in order to establish this concept of identifying the difference between reality / fantasy, or at least attempt to identify the difference. This ultimately why I am posting: I am asking for your help in telling me what the difference is because apparently, I don't know that difference according to the person mentioned before.

 

Let's call Person 1: (O). Person 2 is now: (I). (I) and (O) are two different people and while it's not important the order of these two people, it is imperative that we know that (I) and (O) are different.

 

Now, we have to differentiate between one person's experience and observations of a rock from the other. We're going to call this their reality. (I)'s reality in example A is that the rock exists and shares that exhilarating experience with (O)'s reality, but each person has their own reality of that rock, a unique reality only known to that specific person. Similarly, each person shares the same experience of the rock not existing in example B, again, unique to their own person.

 

Keep in mind that - even though (I) and (O) have their own separate realities of the observation and experience of this rock being real and not being real - they share a reality in both a rock being real and not being real. This shared reality - the expression of similar observations - is and can only be the product of these people's realities - again a unique reality.

 

I hope I'm making sense because this is kind of where I get called crazy. I don't mind being called crazy, I mind the inability to explain why my thought process is crazy. So, thank you for reading this far. Stay with me.

 

To recap: we've established a few different realities. Of course, we are imagining these realities, but I'll show you why this was necessary later. We've also established that these realities can create new realities if observed by a perspective other than those mentioned - persons (I) and (O). We've also established that within their realities, we - as in, you the reader, and me, have shared the experience of them sharing an experience of fantasy - the rock not being there, but imagining it, however, it remains unbeknownst to them. They share a reality in example B of a rock not existing while we, you- the reader, and me - share a reality that they are observing a rock that does not exist - we know it's fantasy, but they do not. Now, if I were to continue this, I think you can see where I'm going with it - We - you, the reader, and me - have a reality, each unique to ourselves, but also a shared reality because of the observation of this rant, or in other words, an observation of what could be labeled something as simple as 'fantasy'.

 

If we assume that what I just tried to convey has merit - and try to apply this logical view to everyone in the world currently - could it be said that the alternate realities that people wish they could be in already exist? That, the observation of every little thing in the world, from the tiny speck of sand on your shoe to the TV in your living room (if you have one) to the strand of hair you just pushed back behind your ear to the stain on your pants - each one producing a reality that, if shared with someone else's reality, produce an exponential amount of new realities while simultaneously being unique only to the person who did the observation (and, of course, the person who shared that experience, which of course, spawns a reality in itself).

 

I'm going to keep going because I'm hoping you're still with me. If I lost you, that's alright, I lose myself a lot too.

 

Now, I did hear someone's point a while back that had merit. They said something along the lines of "Well, the Earth was real before we, humans, were on it. That's reality, the fantasy would be that Earth didn't exist."

 

While that's a great point - it must be pointed out that if there was no observation of the Earth existing - did it really exist? As in, if there are no humans, or animals, or their realities, to proliferate more realities from the observation of the Earth existing - did it really exist in the reality doing this observation in the form of the argument above?

 

In other words, if [life] didn't exist - could the reality of Earth be a reality? If you answer yes, I have to ask you, how? How can something exist if you don't have the ability to observe that it exists in one way or another. In effect, the existence of the Earth depends on [life]'s existence and the observation of it's existence. To put it simply: If there was no humans left and we all died and every animal or lifeform died as well - Did the Earth really exist? If no memory, or no reality, exists to remember, or observe, the existence of the Earth, then how can it have existed in the first place? It would be as if it never happened, there would be no reality in which it existed.

 

To explain my thought process further and to try and summarize this as much as I can:

 

Each person has their own reality, and you can shape that reality as you wish. While you may have limits to that reality - those limits are only self-imposed. Sure, you have gravity to overcome if you want to fly, or you have to make money if you want a lot of it, but your reality is that you can choose to overcome that obstacle and shape your life. During your life, your experiences, your observations, your reality, you're going to share realities with other realities, other people, and that convergence of realities will create new realities only shared by the two realities that created it. It gets more complicated when you have thousands, or millions, of realities shaping a shared reality, but this is my attempt at explaining what I think in the simplest form that I can.

 

That being said, within your own reality - you will imagine things. Goals you want to achieve, people you want to meet, things you may want to own. You'll have abstract ideas of songs that haven't been wrote before, art that has never been created, and of people you've yet to meet that'll call you crazy. These imaginations, while defined by current standards as fantasy, are a reality in that they are created. Your thought, in your reality, has brought forth something that has never been created before. No, I'm not talking about two people thinking of creating a wheel. It's similar, but those two realities have their own unique reality of that wheel. It's a concept, it's an idea, but it's unique, and it's real in that it's created within a mind within that own reality. Although they are labeled as fantasy - or, as in not real (remember when I wanted to explain about how you can't know what is fantasy without knowing what is real..., well, that's for another day.) - they are real in that they exist. The observation of that fleeting thought is now a reality within someone's reality. If shared, and if observed, it will then become the foundation of new realities. To be told that something is fantasy, that it doesn't exist, well, I laugh. How is that possible. To simplify it further, if you tell me not to imagine an elephant, and I do, I have just created an elephant in my own reality. If I share that thought with someone, we now have our own reality, just between us two, of us sharing a thought of reality - and that's based on fantasy! Without the fantasy, there'd be no reality, and without the reality, there wouldn't be fantasy!

 

I started to digress there because I have a notepad of all these types of thoughts and they all connect. I just can't do it all at once, I have to attempt to explain my thought one chapter at a time. And just imagine, this came from someone calling me crazy, or basically telling me that I'm mentally ill because I can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality.

 

My question to you is this: Can you?

[preraph]

I would only comment that when two people are standing seeing a rock half in the water, in my experience, both people see the same thing. Unless they're on psychedelics.

[Timshel]

First, tangible energy is in no need of human perception/validation in order to exist.

 

Every human and every living organism has it's own perception/reality.

 

 

 

Taking human beings for example, even though each human has their own perception of reality; an ability to productively function with tangible reality is necessary for survival. In other words, if a human being would become distracted with intangible energy in day to day existence, then said human would perish...as tangible reality/energy requires finesse. As it does with all living organisms, such as trees, bumble bees and so on.

 

 

 

I don't think that we are able to fully appreciate tangible energy from intangible energy with our current intellectual abilities, yet we have come a great way.

 

 

 

Fantasy is encapsuled within our own mind/perception so is subjective. 'Crazy' would be defined as thought/action (energy) that is counterproductive to productive life.

[todreaminblue]

hey dr....

 

do you know it doesn't matter what others perception is of you or anyone else or anything for that matter

others thoughts can always be food for thought....but in the end its up to you what you choose to take on....

 

as a child i used to go this place called crowdy head....my uncle owned a fish co op.....and by the blue waters we would watch the trawlers come and go, wonder about the hermit on the hill in a beat up shack and sometimes we would play a game in a man made rock pool with rock dog.....rock dog was this goofy black labrador who loved fetching....rocks.....so we would throw the rock into the rock pool with a thousand other same rocks.....and he would fetch...the rock....and bring it back to us and we would continue to throw the rock back into the water........this is the thing....

 

he would take his sweet time peering into the water looking for the "rock"....before plunging his head in and grabbing the rock...and sometimes he would even reject a same lookign rock to peer down for our rock {or so i believed}....before he would return to us the "rock"

 

he would look soooo happy doing it...we would praise his cleverness in returning the rock we threw.....although we never knew if it was the rock we threww...i want to believe...it was the rock........rock dog would be wagging his tail looking at us with these big brown happy eyes.....feelin so clever.....

 

now it doesnt matter if i know that he ever returned the rock we threw him that somehow out of a thousand rocks he bought back the one rock we threw....all that matters is how i remember the rocks but more so ....in my mind right now i can picture rock dog.....his big brown happy eyes......his wagging tail....and most of all i can picture him taking his sweet time locating a rock that existed to be ...among a thousand other rocks submerged under blue waters.........

 

and i am smiling with ...wonderful memories....that exist to be...because my brain remembered them.........hope you liked my story.....and it made you smile too.....that is what matters...it doesnt matter whether you believe them to be true or false fantasy or reality it only matters that these thoughts and memories bring me a small slice of...happiness...happiness i could pass on....

 

having a mental illness my self that often has hallucinations....touch wood havent had them in a while....doesnt make me less of a person...nor does it make you less of a person to think and feel the way you do without a mental illness......i enjoyed what you wrote...because it bought back a very very ....fond memory.....so thankyou....for being you..deb

Edited May 14, 2019 by todreaminblue

[major_merrick]

The questions you are asking are asked in the realm called Metaphysics. You can spend the rest of your life (and more) pondering this. Being, perception, time, existence, and mind vs matter. Every philosopher from Plato to Kant, from Buddha to Heidegger has attempted to answer these questions. I have read some of the stuff, and wound up more confused than ever. Totally bends my brain. I think you're in for a lifetime of very frustrating reading...

[divegrl]

Hi!

 

You are referring to quantum mechanics. This states that the physical structure of an object changes based on the observer.

 

Please reference Schrodinger cat theory.

 

We create our reality, my friend.

 

Have a beautiful day!!

[Justanaverageguy]

Interesting post. I feel like sometimes when discussing metaphysical topics as deep and complex as this .... art can sometimes encapsulate the concept better then words. Picture tells a thousand words as they say.

 

One of my favourite artist is M.C Escher. I feel like many of his pieces express the ideas your considering in a way words could never quite manage.

Pieces that spring to mind are "Relativity" and "Metamophisis".

 

https://www.mcescher.com/gallery/back-in-holland/relativity/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_(M._C._Escher)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamorphosis_II

 

Its all about perspective and what "reality" we as an individual choose to focus on

Edited May 17, 2019 by Justanaverageguy

[divegrl]

This Escher analogy is great!

 

Thank you for sharing.

[Osho]

A immeasurable number of you exists on this earth. Logically speaking that is.

You have the version of you that is truly you. The version of you that you know. And then you have the version of you that everyone else you know see’s. Keep in mind that most people see a reflection of themselves in others so the number of versions of you that exists depends on how many people you’ve crossed paths with. Taking this logic and running with it I would suggest to never allow someone else idea of how they see you define you or cause you to define yourself with doubt.

 

Now onto to the different realities. You would enjoy Alan Watts. He speaks a lot of how much of this reality is a dream. Even scientists would agree and have that the universe cannot exist without the mind first entering into it. Proven by the double slit experiments at the collider. But to dive further into your rabbit hole one must understand the difference between particle and atoms to understand that everything really is being formed by the senses that are witnessing them. Atoms make up matter and matter makes up rocks. Atoms consist of mainly empty space it is the frequency that those atoms resonate that change the way everyone perceive them. One must also understand the difference between individual consciousness and collective consciousness. Take the weather report for example. It has long been inaccurate until people started watching the news and checking their phones. The more people that believe it will rain on Tuesday the greater the chance of rain happening. But there’s always that chance that joe blow doesn’t check the weather and hasn’t heard from anyone to convince him it will rain. Now his powers of manifestation are combating the collective. Some cases often play out where it will just barley pass him by and rain mostly everywhere else but where he is. Fulfilling both his reality and the collectives.

 

I must advise that upon researching this heavily and countless days trying to figure it all out one is left exhausted if not feeling a little off balance. But it usually leads the observer to realize the point of it all is to enjoy what is and have fun creating your own reality instead of worrying how it’s being created or if it’s real. Regardless of this being real or fake. Wouldn’t you much rather have fun while it lasted instead of wasting all your energy and time trying to figure out if it’s real. Honestly you can have a good or bad reality or you can have a good or bad dream. Either way it’s all in how you choose to perceive it/ manifest it.

Edited May 20, 2019 by Osho
Spelling

[DrReplyInRhymes]

I would only comment that when two people are standing seeing a rock half in the water, in my experience, both people see the same thing. Unless they're on psychedelics.

 

I like your humor, but to take it seriously for a moment, using the merit of my argument, if there are no living organisms alive to observe you two seeing a rock - as in share a memory of it, talk about it, experience it, or even joke about it, then how can it have ever occurred? If the reality was never realized, is it real?

 

First, tangible energy is in no need of human perception/validation in order to exist.

 

Every human and every living organism has it's own perception/reality.

 

 

 

Taking human beings for example, even though each human has their own perception of reality; an ability to productively function with tangible reality is necessary for survival. In other words, if a human being would become distracted with intangible energy in day to day existence, then said human would perish...as tangible reality/energy requires finesse. As it does with all living organisms, such as trees, bumble bees and so on.

 

 

 

I don't think that we are able to fully appreciate tangible energy from intangible energy with our current intellectual abilities, yet we have come a great way.

 

 

 

Fantasy is encapsuled within our own mind/perception so is subjective. 'Crazy' would be defined as thought/action (energy) that is counterproductive to productive life.

 

I feel like you tried to translate, and ultimately changed, what I was trying to say. Stay more abstract - energy is irrelevant here.

 

hey dr....

 

do you know it doesn't matter what others perception is of you or anyone else or anything for that matter

others thoughts can always be food for thought....but in the end its up to you what you choose to take on....

 

as a child i used to go this place called crowdy head....my uncle owned a fish co op.....and by the blue waters we would watch the trawlers come and go, wonder about the hermit on the hill in a beat up shack and sometimes we would play a game in a man made rock pool with rock dog.....rock dog was this goofy black labrador who loved fetching....rocks.....so we would throw the rock into the rock pool with a thousand other same rocks.....and he would fetch...the rock....and bring it back to us and we would continue to throw the rock back into the water........this is the thing....

 

he would take his sweet time peering into the water looking for the "rock"....before plunging his head in and grabbing the rock...and sometimes he would even reject a same lookign rock to peer down for our rock {or so i believed}....before he would return to us the "rock"

 

he would look soooo happy doing it...we would praise his cleverness in returning the rock we threw.....although we never knew if it was the rock we threww...i want to believe...it was the rock........rock dog would be wagging his tail looking at us with these big brown happy eyes.....feelin so clever.....

 

now it doesnt matter if i know that he ever returned the rock we threw him that somehow out of a thousand rocks he bought back the one rock we threw....all that matters is how i remember the rocks but more so ....in my mind right now i can picture rock dog.....his big brown happy eyes......his wagging tail....and most of all i can picture him taking his sweet time locating a rock that existed to be ...among a thousand other rocks submerged under blue waters.........

 

and i am smiling with ...wonderful memories....that exist to be...because my brain remembered them.........hope you liked my story.....and it made you smile too.....that is what matters...it doesnt matter whether you believe them to be true or false fantasy or reality it only matters that these thoughts and memories bring me a small slice of...happiness...happiness i could pass on....

 

having a mental illness my self that often has hallucinations....touch wood havent had them in a while....doesnt make me less of a person...nor does it make you less of a person to think and feel the way you do without a mental illness......i enjoyed what you wrote...because it bought back a very very ....fond memory.....so thankyou....for being you..deb

 

I'd like to tell you about a memory I have of a dog that loved to fetch rocks from an awesome couple I met once, but to be completely honest, that memory is incredibly faint and fuzzy. I don't remember much except for a dog that loved to have a rock in his mouth, usually a larger one, and how it wouldn't let go of the rock even if it had difficulty breathing. I'm glad you had a good flashback though.

 

The questions you are asking are asked in the realm called Metaphysics. You can spend the rest of your life (and more) pondering this. Being, perception, time, existence, and mind vs matter. Every philosopher from Plato to Kant, from Buddha to Heidegger has attempted to answer these questions. I have read some of the stuff, and wound up more confused than ever. Totally bends my brain. I think you're in for a lifetime of very frustrating reading...

 

Though I had heard of philosophers and their view of life - I did not know it was quantified into a science, or further defined by a more specific label. Thank you for this. Perhaps I should read some of their works.

 

Hi!

 

You are referring to quantum mechanics. This states that the physical structure of an object changes based on the observer.

 

Please reference Schrodinger cat theory.

 

We create our reality, my friend.

 

Have a beautiful day!!

 

I do not think I am, though your suggestion is appreciated. While this suggestion is amazing on it's own - you are taking my word of "observation" very literally. What I mean by observation is the existence of the reality itself - and how without observation from life - there is no reality. I am not trying to explain my own perception of reality, my own individual reality, but rather I'm trying to explain how my idea of what alternate realities really is - which requires a reference to what my idea of reality is.

 

Upon further thinking, it may be closer than I thought. I don't know enough about quantum mechanics to say if this is what I experienced or not, or at least the explanation of my experience.

 

Interesting post. I feel like sometimes when discussing metaphysical topics as deep and complex as this .... art can sometimes encapsulate the concept better then words. Picture tells a thousand words as they say.

 

One of my favourite artist is M.C Escher. I feel like many of his pieces express the ideas your considering in a way words could never quite manage.

Pieces that spring to mind are "Relativity" and "Metamophisis".

 

https://www.mcescher.com/gallery/back-in-holland/relativity/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_(M._C._Escher)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamorphosis_II

 

Its all about perspective and what "reality" we as an individual choose to focus on

 

What I'm trying to get it, I feel, is much more broader than this. Using your examples - the art itself is only included in the realities that have observed it, heard of it, thought of it, or were otherwise affected by it's existence. Without the observation of it's existence, it can't exist. It can't be reality. It doesn't matter whether you choose to focus on a reality or not, if you are observed somehow, then you exist in a reality, and so does every though you have, every action you do, and every notion you share, including this one.

 

And now that you have shared this - with others who have read as well - there is both a unique reality known only to you, to us, with us and with others, and other realities we can't even fathom because it becomes exponential in it's effect. Some of those realities we share - as in, we have both observed ourselves thinking, conversing, sharing, etc. This is, for lack of better terms, a 'shared reality' - one of many we have shared already, and one of many we will share in the future because of this one.

 

A immeasurable number of you exists on this earth. Logically speaking that is.

You have the version of you that is truly you. The version of you that you know. And then you have the version of you that everyone else you know see’s. Keep in mind that most people see a reflection of themselves in others so the number of versions of you that exists depends on how many people you’ve crossed paths with. Taking this logic and running with it I would suggest to never allow someone else idea of how they see you define you or cause you to define yourself with doubt.

 

This is called reputation, is it not? What others perceive you, and your purpose, as they perceive it? While you can get an idea of what other's feel your reputation is, you'll never truly know.

 

I don't think I am referring to the same thing. In this one very particular reality - to reference it, the reality in which contains many different realities because of the many different perspectives involved from the observation of this one post - you have a choice in your reputation, but you do not have a choice in the reality in which you exist. The reputation aspect, or how others perceive you, has no bearing on whether you are real, or not. The observation of the reality that you exist in gives your existence it's reality, without the observation, your reputation doesn't exist to be perceived in a reality.

 

Now onto to the different realities. You would enjoy Alan Watts.

 

I have listened to him extensively, often falling asleep to his talks in that I listened so much, I'd become tired at all the thoughts he provoked, not that he was boring. What I have found is that while I understand what he has to say, he says things in a very roundabout way.

 

I have to also admit that each journey through one of his lectures gives a new perspective on a small issue - and that many of his talks will require an extraordinary amount of re-listenings (I don't know the word, or if a word, exists for this) in order to fully understand what he can only understand - and he tries to explain in the only way he knows how - through his perception. I feel I am trying to do the same - limited by my lack of being able to communicate in this way(writing it) - which is further limiting than expressing this idea through speaking - which because of it's complexity - can be understood in a way that was not intended - leading to unwanted results. Like this explanation that seems like a rant, but is necessary to understand that it is not a rant. Those who stop listening/reading half way though this would take it out of context and deem I'm crazy - even if it makes complete sense. Alan Watts found that out - you can hear them asking questions that were already answered in his opening idea - and you can hear it in his voice and his answer - he tries to explain but he's thinking "they don't understand what I'm really saying" - and he laughs about it. He actually laughs at them, but they don't get that, and the laughter isn't malicious or meant to harm, it's a break from the deep meaning he's trying to convey. A "reset" in understanding.

 

Now THAT'S a rant, and now you have a reference to what is, and is not, a rant.

 

Some of his lectures I truly am fond of - including, but not limited to, the ones about where he explains the notion of we quantify our existence, but we don't truly know who we are. As in - what, or when, or how, or why - we ARE. Why we exist. What I found from his lectures, as thought-provoking as they are, is that the answers to the universe that we seek are not answers at all, but in fact, the ability to question the answer - which often comes in the form of a question. The reason, I have found, for the questions - that are answers - is because that is how we can perceive it. The question is not a question really at all - it is the perception of the idea of the recognition of what we do not know - and the only way we know how to recognize that perception - is to question it.

 

He speaks a lot of how much of this reality is a dream. Even scientists would agree and have that the universe cannot exist without the mind first entering into it. Proven by the double slit experiments at the collider.

 

I think what they proved was that what they expected was not the outcome, and the way they thought the universe worked with their current laws was incorrect. Wasn't that the experiment where the electron didn't behave as anticipated? I'm sure there are many experiments they run, perhaps we are not talking of the same thing. I do not think they related that expectation above to our perception of living in a dream, or dream-like state, but rather that our reality could be a dream in that we exist only as the observation of another life's thought, in that life's reality. In essence, in order to understand that, the word "dream" is used, but not literally. It's is not a fantastical dream. It's a dream in that it resides in your thought, your mind, and while can be labeled as fantasy - it is also a reality - it is realized. Its not anymore real than another idea, but it is real in that it exists, it's observed, and it is realized by life.

 

I think Mr. Watts touched on this in one of the lectures, and while his understanding may vary from mine, the expression of said idea is, I feel, the same.

 

The content of Mr. Watt's theories is not to be taken literally, this is qualified by his dissemination of reality itself, and referencing our perception of reality as a question - in other words, what is reality? - in order to understand that to question reality is getting an answer - that allows us to perceive and try to understand what we do not know - because what we do not know is answered, by us, in the form of questioning it.

 

I'm having a hard time explaining what I got out of Mr. Watts' lectures, but perhaps this is a start. Sufficed to say - I took his lectures very personally.

 

But to dive further into your rabbit hole one must understand the difference between particle and atoms to understand that everything really is being formed by the senses that are witnessing them. Atoms make up matter and matter makes up rocks. Atoms consist of mainly empty space it is the frequency that those atoms resonate that change the way everyone perceive them. One must also understand the difference between individual consciousness and collective consciousness. Take the weather report for example. It has long been inaccurate until people started watching the news and checking their phones. The more people that believe it will rain on Tuesday the greater the chance of rain happening. But there’s always that chance that joe blow doesn’t check the weather and hasn’t heard from anyone to convince him it will rain. Now his powers of manifestation are combating the collective. Some cases often play out where it will just barley pass him by and rain mostly everywhere else but where he is. Fulfilling both his reality and the collectives.

 

I must advise that upon researching this heavily and countless days trying to figure it all out one is left exhausted if not feeling a little off balance. But it usually leads the observer to realize the point of it all is to enjoy what is and have fun creating your own reality instead of worrying how it’s being created or if it’s real. Regardless of this being real or fake. Wouldn’t you much rather have fun while it lasted instead of wasting all your energy and time trying to figure out if it’s real. Honestly you can have a good or bad reality or you can have a good or bad dream. Either way it’s all in how you choose to perceive it/ manifest it.

 

As for the rest of it, it seems to be you're defining partical physics, quantum mechanics, or some science that tends to explain things with the best understanding of their current knowledge - translated to a language that is - they believe- universal. (Math) at least that is my understanding of that science is - at a general level. I have never done research, gone to school, or talked to intelligent professors in this field, so my experience and understanding of this field is incredibly elementary.

 

The weather report thing just doesn't make much sense to me. As in - finding meaning in something completely irrelevant to the current subject, but not irrelevant to everything.

Neat little phenomenon if it does occur in the way you perceive it though, though, I wouldn't know about that.

 

As for those who think thinking about this kind of stuff is a waste of time - if you believe in God, aren't you doing the same thing? You're asking the same question - you just have a different form of answer - one that isn't in the form of a question.

 

The best part is - what if you're all right - as in - you're not wrong, and that each of these observations is either an answer, the answer, or a key to finding the answer. What if science - religion - and our perception of reality/fantasy - or your ability to disregard another's perception, is quite literally a part of the answer to the question everyone seems to ask, at one point, in one form or another:

 

Why are we here?

 

To think answering a question that defines your existence is futile - in a roundabout way - invalidates your existence. Just saying.

Edited May 21, 2019 by DrReplyInRhymes

[DrReplyInRhymes]

I must also add that I'd much rather be thinking about "What dinner should we eat" with a woman, or "I wonder if she'd like this", or pretty much anything else that involves having a good time with another human being - but my life currently consists of literally no interaction with other people - no dating life or prospects (I reached out to an ex to tell her how I felt about her - she doesn't feel the same) - and literally no options in terms of career other than where I already am at. No friends, no plans, no way of paying for anything other than 'what I need', and to be abstract - no life. I'd argue that living is dying - from the moment you are born - you are dying - and I'm dying in the most boring way possible - alone and not experiencing anything that life has to offer other than the brutality of being not included.

 

Pondering questions such as these keeps me sane. Your replies and perspectives are more welcome than you think.

[Ronni_W]

To recap: we've established a few different realities.

No, 'we' haven't established different realities...only different perspectives or perceptions of the one same reality, which is:

there is a physical rock that is perceptible by all people on Earth who have normal-functioning physical senses. What differs is only what different people will make of it,

and what meaning they'll ultimately give to its existence and/or its purpose or placement on Earth.

 

A) For example, let's take a rock. Let's assume the rock is real. It's here on Earth, it's sitting by a lake shore, it's half in the water and half out. We can all agree, there is the rock. Reality. You can touch it, you can feel it, you can pick it up and attempt to skip it across the lake. You can even share that experience of observing the rock with another person. OK, the rock exists! Hello rock!

 

B) Now let's assume the rock wasn't there - as in, we couldn't observe it with our senses, see it, feel it, etc, then the rock isn't there.

Now, here is where I'd have to disagree...because...: we cannot observe or touch or directly experience atoms or neutrinos, but most of us certainly would agree that they do exist and

do form part of our individual and mutual 'reality', despite our physical senses trying to tell us otherwise. (Also germs and oxygen molecules, for that matter.)

 

So, to my mind, just because the next person cannot perceive or conceive of something does not mean that it does not exist or is not reality.

 

To prelude this - I am not a credible source of authority. I have no medical background except for my experiences,

Perhaps. But you are THE authority, and the SOLE authority of your own experiences, so, the ONLY credible source of that.

And, if YOU can experience it, then it DOES exist in this universe, at some level.

 

To me, 'fantasy' is illusion or untruth, e.g., I'm married to Brad Pitt or I'm the reincarnation of Jesus Christ -- the former is easy to disprove and the latter depends on personal philosophy

to accept or reject. But, my reality is that it is possible to have communication with Jesus Christ through intuitive or metaphysical means...which some people can disagree with or argue against,

but they have no means to disprove it. (For example, how 'A Course in Miracles' was given to its recorded author.)

[Harriet R]

I believe there is a higher consciousness in the Universe, otherwise, we have to explain all fates signs as coincidences. Astrology can help to choose the right day or the right plays. And I want to find out the secret of luck in our choices. Sometimes it`s better to find out the answer in gambling astrology.