Are you sure about this Noodle? I’m not sure how your logic works here - my belief is that when I perceive reality, through my own subjective lens, I am left with what I know as reality - not the objective reality, but my own subjective reality. To say that an objective reality does not exist because we cannot or do not percieve it doesn’t seem entirely correct.
If you come from the belief that there is no objective reality whatsoever, you’re essentially saying that you have very little faith that there is a universe, or anybody in it.
That being the case, why bother trying to convince us little appiritions of your imagination
You have some interesting thoughts in there though.
I don’t want this to turn into anything religious, so i’ll just stick with your analogy and say there is a God.
"… you should be able to zoom out and observe ‘God’ governing such a universe. "
Who says God is outside of the universe, looking in while governing it? He can easily be inside the universe, right?
Okay, but to say that reality exists and you are merely placing a lens over the top of it, justifies that you exist outside of the universe and are able to place something (your lens) between you and a point of entry to the universe.
You’re thinking as if you’re putting glasses on to read a book - there’s room between you and the book to put the glasses on. But the book is titled ‘the existence of you and everything’. Suddenly you realise that you’re not reading the book,you -are- the book.
How can you place something between you and existence? If you are existence…
No, I have a lot of faith that there is a universe, and that other people exist in it. Would you not believe in your own creations? Then why create them? Essentially because you create them the only thing you can have faith in is yourself, anyhow. It’s not a jaded aspiration. It’s realisation - niether positive nor negative. But just because it’s not a ‘happy warm-feeling’ doesn’t mean that it’s not right.
Because, since nothing has a point because i can change it all, why not just do whatever feels appropriate?
to quote a song:
“What’s that?”
“It’s a videotape of the entire duration of the universe, with all the stupid bits cut out!”
“…How long does it go for?”
“…About 27 seconds.”
Life would be short and way pointless if we existed merely to do things we thought were ‘necessary’. That’s why we create obstacles to make things more fun. It’s the video game that never ends, because you keep creating more levels to play, and make the boss harder every time
You don’t place a filter between you and existence, but between reality and your model of reality.
Inside my head, constructed by my brain, is a small model of reality which is constantly updated by the signals coming from my senses. However, this model is far from being perfect and contains wrong information and will make incorrect predictions. This is because our senses are not perfect and can give only limited and “filtered” information about reality. There is no need for my senses to be “outside of reality” either, in fact, it would make no sense at all, because sensing requires interaction with reality; and something that isn’t real can’t interact with real things.
If your perception of reality is just that, then the model of reality must be the ‘absolute truth’. Thus your lens is nothing more than rose colored glasses that allow one to selectively ignore aspects of the truth for whatever reason it may be… Which is the point of this whole topic, trying to get people to take the rose colored glasses off, point the finger squarely at themselves and become the answer rather than search for one.
To say that reality exists but that it hides more than what you percieve of it, is an easy way to claim ignorance for the worlds actions Such models are created daily, through many neurosis based actions:
Fate: I create a reality but i let a timeline/‘destiny’ to control it
Religion: I create a reality and let a symbol control me
Chaos: I create a reality and put everything down to organic randomness or i accept the reality that i created is too complex for my own understanding
etc etc.
note please don’t think this is a personal attack or an attack at all to anyone or religion. this is not an agressive argument, all statements are merely my truth, and to throw the spanner in the works, i’ve got a soft spot for religion.
Your perceptions are your creations. What you sense is all and only what exists. My point here is, is that if you start pointing any fingers of ‘creation blame’ in any direction except yourself, you allow yourself to step outside the universe to observe it, which is impossible (the zoom-out theory on earlier pages)
Who’s choice was that? I too created an ‘imperfect world’. It stops me from being bored. 27 seconds quote…
I create sickness to drive my studies of healing… I create a universe around me because i enjoy interacting… rather than saying your imperfections exist for other purposes, how about just setting your own purpose to it. that way regardless of who was really in control before, you are now.
So if you filter something out, how do you know it exists?
that sounds like: “i know something exists even though every existence-sensing function of me says that it’s not there”.
Radar goes blip, there’s another ship out there. Radar doesnt go blip, there’s no ship out there. If you can prove to me, by watching a radar screen, that shows no blips, that there’s a ship out there… Well. i’ll eat my own shorts and demand this thread be locked
If sensing requires interaction with reality, then your senses can’t exist outside of reality. thus there’s no way you can prove something outside your reality exists.
thus, duality cannot exist! thus, perception cannot be different from reality, thus perception=reality, and since you control your perception, you control reality.
Who says sensing requires interaction with reality? I suppose to support this statement, you would need to clarify your definition of ‘reality’ and what you mean by ‘sensing’ (though at first glance it seems obvious, it’s actually quite ambiguous and deceptive).
Noodle, did you study philosophy/critical thinking? This sounds awfully like a ‘slippery slope’ arguement to me. Though I agree with your conclusion, I’m not sure that I agree with how you arrived at that conclusion.
That is surely one formidable problem. How do we prove that something is there, without being able to sense that it is there? I’d prefer to keep my mind open to the possibility that there may be an objective reality, but that I still have as much control over my subjective reality that you suggest.
“I create sickness to drive my studies of healing…”
This sounds OK… But what happens when you “create” a sickness that you can’t heal? If everyone created their own sickness for no other reason than to go through the healing process, why do people die from serious illnesses?
getting back to the original post - so all you have to do is lay in bed and say “i am lucid” to myself and then drift off to sleep while syaing it and it will get me a lucid dream?
What can you sense that isn’t a part of your reality? That’s the point of reality. It’s relative, since everyone has thier own. (within your own of course.)
Nope. Because i make reasonable justifications for myself, rather than letting someone or something else choose it for me.
This just proves it further. We all arrive at the same answer, regardless of the path chosen. Your perception of the method is different to my perception of the method, but even though we look at it through different eyes, it’s all still the same thing. Some people just choose to percieve it as ‘uncontrollable’ ‘controllable’ or ‘total crap’.
That’s what makes this such a solid way of living, because even when people come up to me and purposely disagree with me, because I accept everything wholistically, i also accept the fact that i create people who won’t believe a single word I say. So those who disagree with me simply reinforce my beliefs.
If someone disagreeing with you gives you as much strength as someone who agrees with you, anything that occurs regardless of conclusion, simply makes you more powerful. That’s a win-win situation for me.
I have done this, because one of the things i have created is the problem of no solution. I create many things that i cannot solve, simply to excersize determination, and to also allow myself to calibrate when ‘giving up’ is suitable, as i create so many things in this world that i need to prioritize what I do. Saving everyone isn’t my goal, and i set people to not be saved for that reason.
Because other people also create the same situation that i mention above.
not as simple as that. if you want to be lucid, you just have to be lucid. it’s the state of mind. giving yourself a choice means you have a possible outcome of failure. giving yourself wholeheartedly no choice, means you can’t possibly fail, because failure doesn’t exist. thus you can modify your perception, so that failure isn’t something in your reality.
That’s how I tried it a while ago. It got me a lucid moment, but I didn’t have the chance yet to test this more thoroughly. However, the explaination why this works can also be because it gets you into a better state of mind. It fits the thing you want much better than “I will become lucid”.
If you think “I will become lucid” in your dream as well, you automatically assume you are not lucid. “I AM lucid” is more likely to be followed by a RC imo.
Ok, working my way up from our perception didn’t convince you, so I’ll start right from the top. This isn’t going to be an easy read. Please read it carefully before taking it apart, I put quite a lot work in this.
Definition: Reality (from a dictionary):
Definition: Real world (as opposed to fictional):
A subset of reality that is not influenced by and doesn’t influence any other part of reality.
Conclusions: Such a subset must exist, because if all parts of reality influence each other, there is still one real world that is equal to all of reality.
Also, all of reality is divided into real worlds, since anything existing outside any real world couldn’t influence or be influenced by the existing real worlds, and could thus be grouped into at least on real world itself.
By this definition, we can never leave the real world we are in or get any information about anything “outside” our real world.
Assumption: There are several beings (e.g. humans) who are able to communicate with each other.
Conclusion: All these beings must exist in the same real world, since communication/interaction would be impossible otherwise.
Definition: Subjective reality (in the noodle sense, as far as I can tell): A subset of the real world we live in which is controlled/created by exactly one being. This being is unable to perceive anything but the contents of this subset. (Quote Noodle: “Your perceptions are your creations. What you sense is all and only what exists.”).
Conclusion: Subjective realities cannot overlap, since nothing can be created exclusively by one being AND exclusively by another being.
Definition: A creator is a being as assumed above which creates its own subjective reality.
Assumption: Humans (at least some humans) are creators.
Definition: Communication means exchanging information.
Conclusion: A creator can only percieve the information in his own subjective reality, i.e. only information that was created by him, never information created by another creator. This makes communication between creators impossible, which contradicts the first assumption above. If my reasoning was correct, this means that at least one of the two assumptions made is wrong.
This means: Either “There are several beings (including humans) who are able to communicate with each other.” is wrong, or “Humans (at least some humans) are creators.” is wrong. Or of course they are both incorrect.
Choose what suits you best, or point out weak points in my reasoning (I’m far from perfect after all). Thanks for following through. Sorry for making this so mathematical, but it was the clearest and cleanest way I could come up with.
But that’s Logics, no-one trusts Logics these days
I think it’s a bit of both, we not always create (we already have a word for wheel and we agree on what wheels are right?) and not always communicate properly.
Now that the topic has shifted, this is going to be slightly off-topic, but nevertheless:
I tried saying “I am Lucid” before going to sleep two nights ago after first reading this post and it worked wonderfully, giving me two lucid dreams (I should note that I’ve never had two lucid dreams in one night before). These two were very short (less than 1 dream minute) but my lucid dreams usually are anyway so this wasn’t a problem at all (and I was very happy to get such great results from such a simple method). Now I tried this again last night and didn’t get any lucid dreams, but now I just realized that the whole “I am lucid” thing did not really sink in as it should have. I said the words and all, but I don’t think I grasped what they really meant. I think I grasp it now (I am lucid!) and will try this again tonight.
Thanks for your advice n00dle, I enjoyed reading your posts.
“i also accept the fact that i create people who won’t believe a single word I say. So those who disagree with me simply reinforce my beliefs.”
So you are never wrong? Whatever you say, people will agree or disagree, or try to prove or disprove, but what they offer to you has no affect? Your mind is already set on everything, and those who disagree are wrong?
Also, saying “i create people” sounds kind of…odd
I asked why people die from sickness, and you said:
“Because other people also create the same situation that i mention above.”
If they have gone through the same situation as you, why are they dead and not you? Does this mean you will never die from sickness? or anything at all?
"Saving everyone isn’t my goal, and i set people to not be saved for that reason. "
But if you WANTED to, could you heal someone? Do you determine who lives nad who dies?
Also, back to the “i create people” thing. What happens when you die? Does everyone else die (not from your perspective, from everyone else’s perspective) too? Does everything cease to exist?
Almost. It’s not specifically for lucid dreaming, it’s a state of mind. But, lucid dreams allow us to control our dreams. So if you see that life is a dream, and you can make your life a -lucid dream-, then you have full control over it. (Thus allowing permanent, transparent autosuggestion that you shall always be lucid.)
But yes, on the right track.
Course I’m never wrong. In the creation of reality and such. I’m ‘wrong’ on many day to day things, because I choose to be. This isn’t a stubborn egotistical statement. If you see earlier statements I say that i accept that i create people who disagree with me. What people have to offer is VERY important to me, especially those who i choose to disagree with me. They ‘ground’ me from possible harm, and keep my thoughts focused into a realm of ability that i have chosen for myself.
I am wrong often, so that I can learn to be right. But i am always right, in the fact that -i- can be right, or wrong.
My mind is certainly not set on everything. Else i wouldn’t be alive to explore those things that aren’t set. And yes, ‘creating’ people sounds just as odd as the action actually is
Odd is more honourable than ‘normal’ to me, because i am constantly encouraging my reality and the people around it to change and try new things. Lucid dreams are odd, because they ‘dont do normal reality stuff’. That’s why i LD.
No, because reality is relative to me. Nobody else will choose for me, that i will become sick. If i get sick, i chose to get sick, and if i didn’t ‘conciously’ choose to get sick, then it is an attribute of denial or simply the fact that i programmed the random event of sickness into my reality.
I have healed many people, in many ways, among physical, emotional, mental, social and spiritual realms of health interest.
Yes, i determine who lives and who dies. However, I don’t point my finger and say “You’re dead now”. But if i watch the news, and see that a person died in a car crash, i chose to create the event of me standing in my living room, watching the tv which i created, watching a series of visual and auditory events that ultimately lead me to have an emotional response.
Death is a symbolic moment in which a person’s concious ability and terminal lifesigns fail for a length of tolerated time.
Because the concious ability is destroyed with ‘death’, there’s no way I can be aware of my own death. Therefore i cannot die. I am merely concious and alive until further notice, at which point i will be unable to have any grip on conciousness, thus i will not be able to comprehend death itself.
In summary, to you, when/if i ‘die’ within your lifespan, you will see a dead body. But from my perspective, i am alive until a certain point in which my conciousness, reality and the entire universe is destroyed. So yes, everything ceases to exist.
A) there are no unintentional flaws, flaws which exist in my life are my doing, however my theory on life is flawless becase it is wholesome and encompasses flaws as well. (earlier statement, everything has loopholes, even loopholes)
B) your statement eludes to the fact that you find this funny, which is fantastic, since i created you to take my highly ‘serious’ theory on life, and poke a joke at it, to remind me of the importance of having fun in my own life.
So please, keep poking fun, because you’re simply giving me more strength [truly sinscere thankyou!]
