Science shows how humans create reality

It's a New Age cliche: "we create our own reality."

Almost always people who claim this are talking non-sensical gibberish. If this were true, there'd be a racing green Mini-Cooper S in my driveway instead of a silver Prius (see here and here for my long-running attempts to manifest a more exciting ride).

However, there is much more than a grain of scientific truth in those words, when understood correctly. As noted in my previous post about quantum theory, in the realm of the very small how an observation is made determines what is observed.

In accord with wave-particle duality, an experimenter can find that photons of light manifest wave-like or particle-like behavior depending on how his/her apparatus is set up.

But this is a far cry from demonstrating that someone can magically bring photons into existence through awareness or consciousness alone. What we look for may be what we get, but what we get seemingly is a product of impersonal laws of nature, not individual choice.

As I was reading a speculative book about the meaning of quantum theory, "Biocentrism," I found that I could follow the trail of "we create our own reality" up to a point. However, I encountered a wall of skepticism and incredulity quite a ways before the authors did.

Because this is a big subject -- reality -- in this post I'll focus on where I could go along with Robert Lanza's and Bob Berman's biocentric arguments, saving a discussion of where I had to jump off their philosophical ship for another blogging moment.

Here's some excerpts from "Biocentrism" that elicited a right-on from me. They point to a seemingly unarguable fact: our human conception of reality is just that, human. The universe appears the way it does to us because our brains are fashioned to produce that appearance.

Most people, in and out of the sciences, imagine the external world to exist on its own, with an appearance that more or less resembles what we ourselves see. Human or animal eyes, according to this view, are mere windows that accurately let in the world.

...Absent the act of seeing, thinking, hearing -- in short, awareness in its myriad aspects -- what have we got?

We can believe and aver that there's a universe out there even if all living creatures were non-existent, but this idea is merely a thought and a thought requires a living organism. Without any organism, what if anything is really there?

Now, I had to struggle a bit to find some quotations that didn't edge overly much into the "we create reality" position which is the core of "Biocentrism" (and which I take issue with).

But I've got no problem with "we create our perception of reality." This strikes me as an eminently defensible position that hardly needs saying, since it is so obvious. Yet as Lanza and Berman point out, we humans intuitively imagine that the cosmos is a certain way -- our way.

We don't see the universe as it is. We see the universe as it appears to us through the filter of a Homo sapiens consciousness.

Bats, snakes, monkeys, salmon, dogs, and every other sort of sentient creature see things differently, as does, in a non-conscious sense, a radio telescope and other devices that enable us to perceive aspects of the cosmos beyond our natural capacity.

However, since no one has ever had a non-human experience of reality, both our individual and collective view of How Things Really Are is inextricably biased toward anthropomorphism.

We need to scratch the "Really" in both science and spirituality.

All we can say is, "this is how things are" -- knowing that whatever we believe we know, it is a statement limited to the experience of a single species on a single planet in a single star system in a single galaxy out of an unimaginably vast cosmos that likely includes forms of consciousness far different from ours.

Which, or who, would see things in their own way.

In Stephen Hawking's new book, "The Grand Design," he talks about a goldfish bowl.

A few years ago the city council of Monza, Italy, barred pet owners from keeping goldfish in curved goldfish bowls. The measure's sponsor explained the measure in part by saying that it is cruel to keep a fish in a bowl with curved sides because, gazing out, the fish would have a distorted view of reality.

But how do we know that we have the true, undistorted picture of reality? Might not we ourselves be inside some big goldfish bowl and have our vision distorted by an enormous lens? The goldfish's picture of reality is different from ours, but can we be sure it is less real?

The goldfish view is not the same as our own, but goldfish could still formulate scientific laws governing the motion of the objects they observe outside the bowl... Their laws would be more complicated than the laws in our frame, but simplicity is a matter of taste. If a goldfish formulated such a theory, we would have to admit the goldfish's view as a valid picture of reality.

Note, though, that Hawking speaks of goldfish coming up with "scientific laws" -- not spiritual, religious, or mystical nonsense. Later in the chapter he lists criteria for a good model of reality:

1. Is elegant
2. Contains few arbitrary or adjustable elements
3. Agrees with and explains all existing observations
4. Makes detailed predictions about future observations that can disprove or falsify the model if they are not borne out.

If goldfish could come up with a theory of How Things Really Are that met these criteria, that'd be an acceptable viewpoint. For goldfish. From inside a goldfish bowl.

Likewise, we have a human perspective of the universe. We've created an understanding of reality through the human brain/mind/consciousness. This is different, though, from creating reality itself -- which is a tenet of Biocentrism that I can't accept.

(Reasons to be given in a forthcoming post.)

 

Comments

[Roger]

criteria for a good model of reality:

1. Is elegant- (of scientific, technical, or mathematical theories, solutions, etc.) gracefully concise and simple; admirably succinct.

--this may bring a little clarity

[Willie R.]

Straight from Wikipedia: Richard Feynman (a Nobel Prize-winning physicist) said "I think I can safely state that no one understands quantum mechanics".
Despite this observation, it works. For all the practical purposes to which it is applied, it cannot NOT work. It allows us to manipulate matter at the sub-atomic level, thereby allowing us to create substances, objects, and finally situations which can confer a survival advantage. Alas, quantum theory cannot account for the existence of matter to begin with, or the fact that it eventually disintegrates into it's ultimate constituent(s). We know for certain that there exists a veritable zoo of sub-nuclear particles: muons, gluons, quarks, k-mesons, leptons, etcetera. But what are they made of? Even smaller discrete entities? Maybe. But if so, what are those smaller entities composed of?

My own hunch, as a "metaphysician", is that the ultimate constituent of Reality is nothing. Absolutely nothing. It's the only explanation that can account for "everything".

[tucson]

Willie R's hunch fits Roger's criteria rather nicely.

Reality is Nothing.

"elegant, gracefully concise and simple; admirably succinct"

Now to muddy it up with extra words...

Nothing, having neither existence or non-existence, is the absence of both as objects of thought. As such, 'Nothing' verbally represents or symbolizes the origin of thought itself.

Nothing, being inconceivable, must be the source of conceptualization which is the source of appearance.

Nothing is God.

[Roger]

"My own hunch, as a "metaphysician", is that the ultimate constituent of Reality is nothing. Absolutely nothing. It's the only explanation that can account for "everything"."

--The "metaphysician" title is just another in a long list of titles. More of a distraction in conversation, imo.

--I would rewrite to: ultimate constituent of Reality is a mystery. Absolute mystery. There may or may not be explanations that may be available that are currently unknown. I don't know of any.

[Willie R.]

Perhaps I erred in conferring the nonsensical moniker of "metaphysician" upon myself. I will change that to "metaphysicist", since I am as qualified as anyone else when it comes to "metaphysics".

To consider Reality as primarily a mystery would seem to imply that, yes, there IS something afoot - it just hasn't been recognized yet.

What can trump nothing? Any "is-ness" or "beingness" seems to overpower nothing - but there is nothing about nothing that can be overpowered.

When existence is over with, there is simply - nothing.

[Mike Williams]

The question of 'NOTHING' is the most
fascinating in life.

When the big bang 'just happenned', it
did not explode through space which was
already there.

It created space as it moved outward.

Space is moving the big bang.

Our universe bounds space, like the goldfish
bowl bounds water.

Out side our universe, no space exists.

And, we assume there is absolute nothing
outside our universe, not even space.

But, can we imagine this 'nothing' outside our
universe not be bounded ? It's impossible
to our minds. Because to us there must be limits,
even to the great nothingness outside our universe,
of which contains our universe.

Science has proven the possibility of various things
via mathematics.

Such as String Theory.

But, science has also proven the mathematical
possibility that a star the size of our sun
could collaspe into a black hole, move though
a worm hole into another universe, or part of space
outside our universe and create another universe the
same size`as ours is now. Just one star.

It boggles the mind.

I am an atheist, I must admit. But, one idea
keeps bothering me. Here's the logic.

Our universe has billions more years to exist.
There must have been countless other universes
before ours.

Some type of beings must have advanced to the
point of their evolution, in one of these universes,
that were capable of creating other universes.

Could one of these beings have created ours ?

This could make sense .... if we are all in Hell.

[Brian Hines]

Mike, I've seen some reputable scientists say, in line with your concluding observations, that given the likelihood of advanced civilizations having evolved in our universe (or other universes), it is quite likely that our reality is a technologically created simulation rather than the "real" thing -- assuming such exists, a really real universe.

[Steven]

The problem with this "question" is that it's not really a question.

"Without any organism, what if anything is really there?"

In other words, "How does a subject describe an object, when you remove the subject?"

It's not quite a non-sequitur, but I'm sure there's some rhetorical principle about invalidity that this "question" is demonstrating.

It's the same kind of nonsense people use to imply the existence of a "soul" when they say "Where were you before you became a body?" (Ironically, they ask questions like this thinking they're about non-duality, when those questions are all about the duality of a body separate from mind).

[Mike Williams]

"it is quite likely that our reality is a technologically created simulation rather than the "real" thing -- assuming such exists, a really real universe."
quote Brian

That is the conclusion I have come too.
The problem with this is it poses other
problems.

Why aren't these superior beings helping
humans ? Why can't we conatct them ?

Why didn't these superior beings create
a beautiful world, where no animals have
to eat rach other ? Charles Darwin called
our earth a giant slaughter house.

My conclusion is we are ants. They don't
care about us.

Isn't it funny people worship God when
they believe he created this killing
field of an earth ? And, attribute
love to this God ?

We should be cursing God for his screw up.

People worship God to save a soul that
does not exist.

Nietzsche said everyone would live for
the Now if they did not believe in God or afterlife.

Sounds Taoist.

[Roger]

"To consider Reality as primarily a mystery would seem to imply that, yes, there IS something afoot - it just hasn't been recognized yet."

---Yes, I could agree with that. There could be an incredibly small chance of such. Maybe, and may be not.

"What can trump nothing? Any "is-ness" or "beingness" seems to overpower nothing - but there is nothing about nothing that can be overpowered."

---Wihin dualistic conversation, there will always be something that can trump nothing. Go pick another word, and trump it in. Anyone, with a "metaphysics" talent can do that.

---And yes, at a stopping point in dualistic conversation, one could use non-conceptuality, non-cognitive, no-self, and no-thing. Throw in no-nothing too. However, these are all dualistic terms too.

To Mike,

As an atheist. Do you have a simple belief in atheism? Thanks for any clarification regarding belief and atheism. Best wishes ..Roger

[Roger]

Sorry,

The belief and atheism question was directed to the Willie R. person too. Mainly Willie. Thanks again for a reply. Roger

[Mike Williams]

Hi Roger,
I classify myself a diehard atheist
desperately in search of God.

My so called spiritual journey lasted
35 years and I have been initiated by
more Gurus than I can count. I have studied
every religious cult you can shake a stick at.
It was my passion to find the meaning of life at all costs.

When I say no self, I do not mean
nothingness, or any mystical term.

For people to discuss the no self state
means they are approaching the end game
of their journey.

Through endless yogas I traveled,
countless books and masters.

All I can say is that the no self (WHO)
realization is the end.

There is a book by Bernedette Roberts
called, 'The Realiztion of No Self'.

At the time I read it a few decades ago,
it made no sense. I haven't read it since then.

But, it turned out to be the final answer.

[Stephen S Fine]

Dear Mike,
I owe you one.Your work on RSSB was invaluable to me when I was getting over the "RSSB virus".Below I wish to share with you the little known teachings of Edward Douglas Fawcett.The teachings are called Imaginism.
If you have read and studied this in your long march to "No-self" then any opinion on why you rejected them would be of great interest.If he represents something new and original for you,then do give him a try.
The following url at openlibrary has some free downloads of his writings.The one worth downloading is the one given.It is rather poorly reproduced but nevertheless can be read.
Beneath that is a small copy of what to expect.

http://openlibrary.org/authors/OL1960985A/Edward_Douglas_Fawcett

For the power
at work is no vaguely defined " vital impulse " but imaginal
activity bodied forth in a realistic time-process which accepts
the old and the novel alike.

It is one of the merits of Imaginism that it not only
acquiesces in, but confirms positively, the common-sense belief
in a real creative process in time. A world-system reduced
to the show of an immobile Absolute one of the bad bequests
inherited from Greek, Indian, and German thought becomes
at once inexplcable. Imaginism rids us of this great historical
error for good.

Reinstating a real time-process, Imaginism allows us,
further, to deal effectively with the problem of the soul. If
time-process is merely an unreal show, the story of the individual
hardly lends itself to metaphysical interpretation at all.
With thanks for the past help
Stephen S Fine

[Roger]

Hi Mike,

Thanks for your message. Do you have a 'belief' that is associated with your diehard atheism? You are not at fault in any way. Just need to know if you have a 'belief' attached to your atheism. Thanks for a reply. Best wishes..Roger

[Mike Williams]

Hi Stephen S. Fine and Roger,

Glad my website helped you Steve.

http://radhasoamis.freeyellow.com/index.html

When my website came on 9 years ago it was quite a shock
to Radhasoamis. Immediately Gurinder was asked tons
of questions about it and read it himself.

But, the response from Beas was not what I expected at all.
To my shock Beas people loved it. And, Rajinder (Kirpal)
people want to kill me, literally.

Beas has admitted things I never thought possible. And,
Gurinder is not denying it is true.

I put a link to Agra books on the site and they sold
out every Maheswari book. Now all of a sudden, Agra
is saying the new Guru has arrived there, but will not
give his name.

People are suddenly aware Agra was the parent stock of
Beas, which Beas never denied. Sawan would sit at the feet
of Agra's last Guru, Babuji Maharaj and ask him questions
like everyone else.

So, now, if the Guru has returned to Agra after 60 years,
this is a major revelation.

But, the new Guru is saying Maheswari was a hidden
Guru all the time. The famous historian at Agra.

Sawan initiated under the Council for Chachaji and gang.
When Soami Bagh got caught up in the law suit with Dayal
Bagh, Sawan made his unathorised break. Sawan was a self
declaed Guru.

Jaimal had been thrown out of the satsangs of Salig Ram and
Misra and chastised by Chachaji for posing as a Guru and
was being excommunicated just 3 days before he died.

Beas never had any real Guru from the begining.

But, because my book attacked Kirpal so successfully,
Beas likes it.

And, Beas people have a supreme curiosity about their history.
Their curiosity has no bounds. And, any true information
they can gather they are grateful for.

So, now Gurinder is saying he wishes he could burn all the Beas books.

But, at any rate, we have seen Beas adapt to a new history.
The old history they taught in their books is dead forever.

And, I think they have made a sigh of relief. Now it's
out in the open and I think they are glad its out of the way.

But, I popularised Faquir Chand also, by David Lane.
This was also linked. So, Gurinder is now saying the inner
planes don't exist as real places.

Gurinder realized the old rhetoric wouldn't work in the
modern world and is adapting a new position.

All this is good. It was a bloodless revolution.
And, I had communicated via reps to Gurinder this
was my intention when they asked me.

With a new Beas history and new theology in the process,
at least future generations will have full disclosure.

My book was written for true seekers, not the fanatically
religious.

I will read the website recommended as time permits, thanks.

Hi Roger,
I am an atheist by logic only. I don't believe a God
could create a world where everything eats everything alse.
A giant slaughterhouse as Darwin called it.

But, the ideas Brian and I were just discussing make
me hope I am wrong. Some beings must have advanced in
an infinity of time that could create universes.

Not God, but advanced scientists. This sounds absolutely crazy.
But, Nietzshe came to a similar conclusion. He said in an infinity
of time everything must repeat by logic.

Eternal recurrance is what he believed and he believed we
have all been here and lived our lives before.

I don't believe this, but do believe it is possible an advanced
civilization could have created our universe.

That it could be artificially created. Like we live in an IBM
computer.

The odds on this may be slim, but not entirely impossible.

The idea we are a lab creation blows my mind, but it is
fun to think about.

[Mike Williams]

Hi Steve,
I took a look at Edward Fawcett. He stated,
"I
propose to make use of the word Consciring. To say that
Divine Imagining conscires is thus to say that It is at once
conscious, as aware of the contents of a universe, and also
the " energising power," which conserves and creates all that
therein is."

Science has now proven consciousness is temporal. That consciousness was an effect
of evolution, not the cause. Nietzsche predicted this by the way.

So, consciousness could not be aware at
the beginning of the universe. It comes in
much later on via evolution.

Consciousness turn out to be very fast
micro flashes in the brain, which create the
illusion of continuity.

Gurus and holy people try to tell us to
hold on to our real Self, pure consciousness.

But, since its temporal, it will do us no good.

[Stephen S Fine]

Dear Mike,
Thank you for the details about your book and its effect on RSSB and Gurinder.
I have only very recently discovered Douglas Fawcett and his teachings of Imaginism.I am attracted to it for a very simple reason, that what is real for me is that with in myself which does not think. I imagine actively and with intelligence.I feel the word consciousness is a concept which describes a state of mind which may be nothing but an image of my world which I actively bring up.As such it can be temporal.Deep sleep is an example.I conscire a fresh image when I awake.
I am still exploring Fawcett's ideas and am very,very far from understanding them and actually testing them out in the day to day life.
By the way are you able to give me more details on the work you mentioned about consciousness?
I am not sure if Brian's blog is the right place to discuss Imaginism but if you do become more interested in it perhaps we can communicate privately?
The best regards
Stephen S

[Mike Williams]

Hi Steve,
Consciousness is very much like the individual frames that make a movie appear continuous. Or, a still propeller on
an aeroplane moving so fast it appears
to be one round ball.

Firing neurons in our brains create the illusion of continuity. Such as the 'seer'
of sight, or the 'thinker' of thoughts.

A great deal of information is contained on
the below site.

http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/

quotes Dr. Susan Blackmore below

When I say that consciousness is an illusion I do not mean that consciousness does not exist. I mean that consciousness is not what it appears to be. If it seems to be a continuous stream of rich and detailed experiences, happening one after the other to a conscious person, this is the illusion.

I suggest that there is no stream of vivid pictures that appear in consciousness. There is no movie-in-the-brain. There is no stream of vision. And if we think there is we are victims of the grand illusion.

Slightly more radical is Rensink's (2000) view. He suggests that observers never form a complete representation of the world around them - not even during fixations. Rather, perception involves 'virtual representation'; representations of objects are formed one at a time as needed, and they do not accumulate. The impression of more is given because a new object can always be made 'just in time'. In this way an illusion of richness and continuity is created.

I would put it slightly differently. I want to replace our familiar idea of a stream of consciousness with that of illusory backwards streams. At any time in the brain a whole lot of different things are going on. None of these is either ‘in’ or ‘out’ of consciousness, so we don't need to explain the ‘difference’ between conscious and unconscious processing. Every so often something happens to create what seems to have been a stream. For example, we ask “Am I conscious now?”. At this point a retrospective story is concocted about what was in the stream of consciousness a moment before, together with a self who was apparently experiencing it. Of course there was neither a conscious self nor a stream, but it now seems as though there was. This process goes on all the time with new stories being concocted whenever required. At any time that we bother to look, or ask ourselves about it, it seems as though there is a stream of consciousness going on. When we don't bother to ask, or to look, it doesn't, but then we don't notice so it doesn't matter. This way the grand illusion is concocted.

[Stephen S Fine]

Dear Mike,
Thanks so much for that introduction to Susan Blackmore.She is quite a character.I enjoy very much reading theories on consciousness.It is a bit like reading stories about god or gurus.All very interesting but does it help to throw the trash out or play with the grandchildren.I am very much of a pragmatist.My philosophy has to pay its way.
Being an I has it uses and sometimes not being one is also fine with me.
Any how even if Imaginisim is total nonsense it certaintly has made me think on matters more than I have in years.All good fun
Thanks really very much for the nice chat.I have thoughly enjoyed it.
All the best
Stephen S

[willow the wisp journey]

problem with pseudo seekers is they still think this seeking is something 'they' are doing, like this Mike Williams fellow here, trying one guru after the next yet never finding conclusiveness.

As long as they still believe its their minded ego that is doing the seeking and making their half concluded judgments according to their own intellectual shortcomings they will never know who they are or find 'themselves'.

[Nietzsche]

A little suport for this theory (about the fishbowl) I found in the scientific american from march 2010. It says that from the six million bits that are transmitted through the optic nerve only 10.000 make it to the visual processing area. 'To little to generate a meaningfull perception'. Probably the brain generates the world, also during unfocused time, and needs only a little outside information as icing on the cake. It is certainly not a photographic reproduction in our head.
In many ways I think that the subconscious created a little part of itself as a conscious mind illusion that works on a little part of the data. Sleeping is our natural state and now and then we need the illusion of an individual waking agent controlling the body because it turned out to add something to our survival chances.
Nice game we have going on with ourselves believing that we are the first conscious beings on earth :)

[Brian Hines]

Willow, as long as pseudo-readers of this blog continue to believe that they understand what someone is saying, when they really don't, they'll continue to make half-concluded judgments according to their own intellectual shortcomings.

You need to re-read, and re-understand, what Mike (and others) are saying. Their entirely reasonable hypothesis is that there isn't any "self" to find, nor is there any supernatural realm in which a non-existent self is to be found.

So your criticism's are off base, because you're not even in the right playing field.

[Roger]

Hi Mike,

You said,

"I am an atheist by logic only."

--This is ok. So, you have not created a belief that is attached to your atheism. That said, what does the 'diehard' word develop the athesim, that you have?

[Roger]

Mike,

Also,

What is the differnce between a 'diehard' atheist and an atheist? Thanks Roger

[Nietzsche]

There is however also no proof that there is a natural region. What we call the mind is also a mental creation. The 'ding an sich' can not be known but through the 'a priori'.

[Mike Williams]

"What is the differnce between a 'diehard' atheist and an atheist?" asked by Roger

Well, I consider my self a diehard atheist desperately in search of God. I have dismissed the God idea for the same reason Darwin did. The earth is a big slaughterhouse. If God already knows everything, why would he create such
a terrible world with wars and killing ?

It is clear this universe was made by
an unconscious force. Unless one thinks
Kal or Satan control it by deeds they did
for God. But, did God need any help from them ?

Kal is the reason given by Radhasoami.
The reason the physical planes are in such turmoil.

Even Einstein messed up with the belief in God and an an ordered universe. Quantum physics was a revelation to him.

Take God out of our logic and everything
makes sense.

But, that leaves us in a terrible dilemna.

To realize that we don't even have a permenant self makes matters worse.
Our consciousness is not even permanent.

All logic points to the fact we simply die
and that's that.

But, we are made from the energy of the universe, which can neither be created nor destroyed.

So, we feel immortal. The mythical self
tries to make itself eternal via yoga
and religion.

But, no self exists that can be made eternal.

So, I like the idea of thinking of
myself as an atheist.

From this bedrock standpoint I can
analize any theory that comes
along.

From that standpoint I can 'desperately
search for God'.

Hi Nietzshe,
You are right, there is no mind, just a brain and neurons and hormones, etc.
Even so called enlightenment is a physical
process.

Hi Stephen,
Susan Blackmore is jnani. She is also the most scientifically advanced researcher on consciousness. She often speaks to a scholar
from Tucson, AZ, whom is also highest ranked.

The jnani does not want you to become
enlightened, they want you to stop
hurting yourself and others. They
are compasionate.

Hi Willow, you state
"(Mike Williams) will never know who they are or find 'themselves'."

That is true, I haven't been able to find
my 'self' (WHO).

You are right, my long search ended in
failure. And, the things I have done
and Gurus and masters whom initiated and taught me, you will never be able to duplicate.

But, in the end, I did find the answer.

Rather 'suddenly'.

[Roger]

Mike,

So, your 'diehard' atheism is the same as your atheism? The 'diehard' word is not that specially needed. I'm guessing.

[Stephen S Fine]

Hi Mike
"The jnani does not want you to become
enlightened, they want you to stop
hurting yourself and others. They
are compasionate."
Great words!
Thanks
Stephen S

[Mike Williams]

Hi Stephen and Roger,

Steve, you are at a point where you will not be hurt by searching. You can no longer be harmed by what you encounter.

I believe that is why Brian set up this web site. And, the jnani wants people not to be hurt.

Their mission is to make the world harmless
to itself.

So, to answer George's question, where are these jnani's ?

My answer to George is.... how long have you
been talking to Brian and not known it ?

Think about Brian's post on "Am I a WHO ?'.

He says if no self exists, the search is a joke.

Could Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta, Ramesh Balsekar, or Bernedette Roberts have said it better ?

The jnani is right in front of you, that's why you can't see them.

That's why it is said,"If you see the Buddha
walking down the road kill him !"

Of course Brian will swear up and down he is not jnani and probably delete this post.

But, look at the compassion Brian displays.

He tries to help everyone without exception.

You have been talking to this jnani for a long time and never suspected.

The reason you never suspected was, he will
not tell you what you want to hear.

Everything he says must of necessity defy
all logic. Because all of our logic has failed.

But, when Brian looks in the eyes of a little child, he knows why he is doing what he is doing .. and giving his life to help others.

Brian knows the road you travel comes full
circle and you people will all end up back
with your self.

You people search for the real Guru, not realizing you have been talking to him a long time.

You never even suspected.

[Roger]

Mike,

You stated,

"...I consider my self a diehard atheist desperately in search of God."

---Why are you desperately in search of God? Would this be a non-conceptual, non-cognitive God? Why the need for deperation?

---If searching is a 'joke' then why the searching?

Thanks for your continued responses, Roger

[Mike Williams]

Hi Roger,

We have discussed that if no 'self'
can be found, there can be no search
possible.

This is the great answer.........
to the great question.

But, as Brian pointed out, there
is a problem with infinite space,
which occurs only outside the
boundaries of our universe.

Logic says not even space can be
without a boundary. That something
must contain even space.

How can something come from nothing ?
How can something occur in the middle
of nothing ? And, even if something
turns out to be nothing itself, what
are the boundaries of the whole ball of
wax ?

And, given an infinity of time, some
beings must have figured out how to
create a universe. Even if they were
the byproduct of some evolution and are
not God.

These are major philosophical
problems.

We are ants on this planet. Our intellect
only goes so far.

So, even though I have discounted God,
I can not discount 'something else'.

[Roger]

Hi Mike,

You stated,

"We have discussed that if no 'self'
can be found, there can be no search
possible."

---Yes, we have discussed this.

and,

"So, even though I have discounted God,
I can not discount 'something else'."

--Nothing wrong with discounting God, however, please bring clarity into why the need to 'not' discount 'something else'.
--Is 'something else' unique over 'no' self?

Mike, nothing wrong with bringing clarity into blogging conversation, a dualistic activity.

Best wishes to you, Roger

[Mike Williams]

"--Is 'something else' (other than God) unique over 'no' self ?"
quote Roger

Hi Roger,

When the self is seen as a myth and disolves, there is no greater Self that suddenly appears. There is no mystical
experience. Just shock.

The mythical self just shuts down
instantly. It can no longer produce
action no matter how fast the mind
moves.

No effort is required because who would
waste their time waxing a self that
doesn't exist ?

If there is no self, there can be no
others. I don't equate that with oneness.

All duality is still there. You are still
a seperate body.

What happens is all the excesses drop
off. The desire for fame, excess money,
greed.... drop off.

The person still has fun. But,
they are now playing with life.

They are harmless to others. But,
they can be radical. They may protest
for nuclear disarnament, to stop
global warming, to end wars.

Hence, they do not appear holy.
They may even debunk religion.

Mother Teresa was an stanch atheist.

Yet, she had great compassion.

The 'something else' I know I will
never find. That is why I desperately
search for it.

[Roger]

Hi Mike,

Within duality, the 'something else' can be found. After all, it is 'something' else. Likewise, within duality, the act of desperately searching, can be found. Nothing wrong with dualistic activity. So, you are OK, with your desperate searching.

That said, within duality, one can search for 'something' else through religion, spirituality or science, i'm guessing. Maybe, there are additional avenues of search. I may conclude, you are not desperately searching through religion and spirituality, but maybe science. You are hoping for a scientific 'something' else? This is Ok.

and,

you stated,

"When the self is seen as a myth and disolves, there is no greater Self that suddenly appears. There is no mystical
experience. Just shock."

---Yes, there is no mystical experience. In addition, there is no 'greater' Self too. It takes a conceptualized 'self' to do this 'seeing' of myth and the 'engaging' act of dissolving.

[Mike Williams]

Hi Roger,
It takes a conceptualized 'self' to do this 'seeing' of myth and the 'engaging' act of dissolving. "
quote Roger

Let me refine this statement just a touch.
I agree with everything else said.

A conceptualized self is not actually
what sees the mythical 'self' (WHO).

Seeing itself, sees the mythical self.

Thus the impersonalization, of what
was previously erroneous personalized thought.

The mythical self personalizes impersonal thought.

Also, my religious search is over. Because
if there is no self, WHO can search ?

I will wait for Persinger's Helmet to
come on the market. It seems science is
now becoming the Guru.

[Roger]

Hi Mike,

What would be the mythical 'self'(WHO)?

Would this myth 'self' not be the perceiver of a nonconceptuality of Sensory Cognition? Or what is personalized a faction of a second later?

[Roger]

"Mother Teresa was an stanch atheist."

---Mother Teresa may have had 'no' belief in a particular concept of God(s). That said, I like it when Mother Teresa is just Mother Tereas.

[Roger]

Hi Mike,

"The mythical self (WHO) is thought that
believes it has a persona. The self does not
perceive, the self is erroneous thought. The brain perceives."

---Yes, the brain perceives. The brain can or could create thought, through thinking. This thinking or conceptualization can create the 'mystical self(WHO)' that believes it is a persona. The brain(the personalized self) doesn't think it is engaging in erroneous thought. It thinks it's thoughts are totally KOOL. In nonconceptuality, all of this (WHO)self and other unnecessary writings are simply illusional. No harm is such writings, just more of the standard 'gift' of gabbings.
Best wishes Roger

[Tired Of The BS]

In the beginning...
In the end...
In between, there is only you.
Everything else, regardless how manifest, is just your imagination.

Nothing existed before you and nothing exist after you. PROVE ME WRONG!

You are creation.
That is the way it is intended.
Deal with it.