Posts by Sandra Wilson68

Kobe Bryant

Throughout your whole post, you’re clearly mixing up your terms; you're constantly flipping between two perspectives—one where reality depends on consciousness and another where consciousness depends on reality. It’s obvious you've just lumped consciousness and reality into one single bucket.

Let me lay out my take and why yours doesn't hold water:
Consciousness can't be anything other than active and driven. Simple proof? Try to prove it isn't. Notice what you're doing right now; you're thinking about the process and using your consciousness (meaning, you're aware).

I think it's vital to distinguish consciousness from reality.
Not everything (reality) relies on consciousness; consciousness exists to perceive reality (and that's its entire job).

If you actually want to follow me, stop using your own definitions and start using mine. The issue is you're treating "consciousness" and "awareness" as the same thing. I already told you: for me, those aren't synonyms. I view consciousness as the fundamental substance everything is made of. That's how I can say consciousness and reality are one and the same. Since reality is built from consciousness, they are essentially identical.

What *isn't* the same is consciousness and awareness. And since consciousness is reality, then reality and the awareness of reality aren't the same either. Reality—and therefore consciousness—exists independently of human awareness. Human consciousness, and by extension reality, can exist even if a person isn't consciously aware of themselves or their surroundings. This happens when the consciousness isn't utilizing its physical or mental faculties—like when someone is resting or sleeping.

Get this: the psychological process is what enables awareness. Consciousness is the entity capable of generating that psychological process and being aware of whatever that process achieves. Take perception, for example. Perception itself isn't consciousness, nor is it awareness; it's just a psychological process. Consciousness is the thing that has the capacity to be aware of what is perceived. And consciousness is also the thing capable of perceiving. If the psychological process of perception stops, the awareness of what was perceived stops too. But the Consciousness that has the power to perceive and be aware remains. It never stops. It's still there. That's why it is absolute reality, while its perception and the resulting awareness are just relative reality because they can start and end.

From what I can see, you've been playing around with the word "consciousness" as if it only means "awareness." Moving forward, try to grasp that awareness is just a psychological process—a mental action that can't exist without consciousness acting as the driver, which also possesses the ability to be aware of the results. Look at the relationship between a thinker and a thought; they aren't the same thing. The thinker is reality, while the thought is just the mental action the thinker uses to reach a state of awareness. The thinker is consciousness because he is the one capable of being aware of his thoughts, making him reality. His thought, however, is neither reality nor is it capable of being aware of itself, because the thought is merely the thinker's mental action. It’s just like running; running is a runner's physical action. The runner is reality, but running isn't reality—running is just the state of motion of the reality, the runner, who actually exists.

In actual practice, we observe that certain entities (things that exist in reality) possess consciousness.
We reached this conclusion by looking directly at what’s actually out there. Specifically, we noticed that certain entities—people and some animals—have the ability to perceive things. We call that capacity "consciousness," and the entity that makes it possible is "the conscious." Some things, like a rock or water, don't have consciousness. I coined the term just to draw a line between things that possess it and things that don't; if everything had it, the word wouldn't even exist because there'd be nothing to distinguish it from anything else.

Look, you're trying to explain consciousness to me by saying only humans and certain animals have it. I get what you're saying, but you're just regurgitating the standard textbook definition that mainstream science, philosophy, and religion all agree on. Here's the problem: that global consensus isn't right. I'm trying to offer a different explanation—one that's actually intuitive and verifiable.

In my view, for there to be awareness (not just "consciousness" as a concept, but actual awareness), the entity wanting to be aware must possess the physical and mental capacities to exert effort, move, perceive, feel, remember, think, and understand. Awareness only exists once these capabilities are translated into physical and mental actions. If those actions aren't happening, there is no awareness.

Now, check out this paradox. If we claim only humans and certain animals have consciousness—given that awareness requires the ability to act, move, perceive, feel, etc.—then we hit a wall. How could humans or animals ever come to exist if consciousness didn't exist before them? You can't have the ability to exert effort, move, or think unless there was already something capable of doing those things to facilitate the evolution into a human or an animal. In other words, it's absurd to say only humans and animals are conscious while ignoring the fact that they couldn't have emerged without a prior state of consciousness. Basically, there had to be a substance beforehand that possessed the capacity to act, move, and perceive, allowing itself to transform into a human or an animal. Therefore, the consciousness we see in humans today isn't "human" consciousness; it's the consciousness of the underlying matter that makes up a human. Or rather, it *is* human consciousness, because the true conscious "I" isn't the human body, but the matter that builds it. Our conscious "I" is always aware of itself and its capacities, regardless of whether it's in a human shape or not. It's like how you aren't the same person you were as a baby versus now as an adult. Your form and your level of awareness changed drastically, but your conscious "I" remained the same. This adult version of you that knows a lot is the exact same "I" you had as a helpless infant. No matter how much the form changes—even if you crushed a person into dust—their "I" would still be alive and conscious, because consciousness doesn't depend on the shape, but on the matter forming that shape. Without consciousness—without those physical and mental capacities—matter wouldn't just fail to take a shape; it wouldn't even exist.

Get this straight: humans and animals don't cause or create consciousness. That's impossible. Consciousness is what creates everything else, including animals, humans, and the rest of the universe.

Later.

fadedbison17

(continued)

Look, people can mess up. You might fall into the trap of thinking you can actually bend reality to your will—and I’m not talking about making a plan here, I mean some weird idea that you can shift existence just by thinking it. Sure, you can misuse your consciousness like that, but that error stays stuck inside your own head. It doesn't work like that; your thoughts aren't going to physically warp the world around you.

People change reality through their actions—physical stuff driven by what's going on in their heads. But it’s not just humans doing that. It’s the whole damn universe. Everything that exists, through its own physical presence and mental energy, hits everything else. It’s one massive chain reaction where everything forces everything else to keep moving, shifting, and evolving.

Look, everyone’s got their own specific way of processing reality. You have these set cognitive abilities—this fixed mental framework—and that is the only lens through which you can actually perceive the world. That's just how it works.

Human cognition isn't just some abstract mental thing; it’s physical and psychological combined. You can't have one without the other, and honestly, that combo is all you need for anything you want to understand about the world. There aren't any "extra" hidden abilities floating around out there. Everything that exists—from us to a literal rock—operates strictly within these physical and mental bounds. Even a stone uses its inherent properties to stay exactly what it is: a stone. Humans use our set of tools to do the same, just to maintain being human. We're talking movement, effort, perception, feeling, memory, thought, and reasoning. That’s the whole deck. There is nothing else.

Reality is one thing, but everyone perceives it through their own lens. Think about it: you and a blind person are stuck in the same room. They’re going to experience that space and everything happening inside it completely differently than you do, but you're both still standing in the exact same reality.

So what? Big deal. You and a rock can be in the same room, both "conscious" in our own ways, but that doesn't change anything. Our different perspectives aren't some proof that reality is relative or shifting depending on who's looking. That’s just perception. It doesn't touch the FIRST and MAIN TRUTH: the fact that reality actually exists. For anything to even be part of this reality, it has to exist on its own terms—through its own physical properties and its own actions. Period.

Everyone creates their own reality—yeah, sure. But only if you’re saying that every single person actually possesses consciousness and can only truly perceive things through that lens.

Nobody "owns" consciousness—not even us. You can't own something that just *is*. Consciousness isn't a possession; it’s the fundamental reality that does the possessing. It owns our physical and mental faculties, and that's it. Everything else is just tools. With those tools, it can reshape itself into anything imaginable—an atom, a stone, a star, a plant, an animal, or a human being.

Your second sentence—'...that it affects one's interpretation of their surroundings'—doesn't click for me. You can't just pick and choose which cognitive abilities you have. Sure, you can shift your focus from sight to sound, but you can't just invent a new sense out of thin air, any more than you can invent a new aspect of reality itself.

Spot on. Cognitive abilities—which are basically our survival tools—aren't optional. They're locked in by our physical and mental capacities for effort, movement, perception, feeling, memory, thought, and understanding. These traits are universal, indestructible, and foundational; they’re all we need to exist, and everything that exists relies on them. We have no clue how these abilities even came to be—nobody does. All we can grasp is the mechanism (the law), or the way these abilities *must* function for reality to actually happen. We know they can't be created or destroyed; you either have them or you don't, just like the person using them. Beyond these abilities and the being that possesses them, there isn't some other "alternative" way to exist. Things exist through these physical and mental faculties, period.

If I wasn't clear enough or if you think I'm tripping, just call me out on it and I'll try to break it down even further. I can get much more granular with this. My explanation of how reality exists is really just an analogy—I'm projecting the way a human uses self-preservation instincts onto the entire nature of existence. It starts with the fact that both humans and nature are made of the same fundamental stuff. Then, there's the fact that a person can't just use those mental or physical skills to create themselves; rather, the raw matter we're built from uses those skills to transform into a human shape. Basically, the "conscious self" isn't the person itself, but the matter that makes up the person. Because of that, the rules governing human existence and the rules governing nature are identical. The only difference between the material forms in nature is the information (the knowledge/experience) that tells that matter how to take a specific shape. This is necessary so different things can perform different functions within nature acting as one unified living system. It's exactly like how different parts of the human body are only different because of the information directing their shape and function within the whole system, even though the underlying matter is exactly the same everywhere.

Later.

fadedbison17,

You’re getting warm, but you haven't quite wrapped your head around what I'm saying yet. Let me try breaking this down one more time so we can actually get on the same page.

Look, you’ve gotta realize that for me, "consciousness" and "awareness" aren't even playing the same game. They aren't synonyms. To me, consciousness is what actually EXISTS. It’s the substance—the core essence—regardless of what it's made of or how it works. Awareness, on the other hand, is just a state of being conscious. It’s a mode of operation. You have awareness, and then you have the opposite: unconsciousness. Awareness is what happens when consciousness is actively working the gears—using its physical and mental tools to strain, move, perceive, feel, remember, think, and process. Unconsciousness is just what happens when it stops. It’s that state where consciousness goes totally still, basically just sleeping and recharging.

Quincy:

If you’re arguing that consciousness needs reality to actually *be* conscious—or if we're using your terminology, that the self needs reality to be aware of anything—then we need to talk.

You’re spot on. Here’s the thing: if consciousness is the fundamental fabric that everything is built from, then it can only ever be aware of itself—because, honestly, there’s nothing else. When it's just chilling and idling—meaning it isn't actually using any physical or mental faculties—it stays immaterial and basically invisible. So, for it to actually become perceptible and achieve self-awareness, it *has* to exert itself. It has to kick into gear and transform into an energetic, material phenomenon so it can finally observe, feel, remember, think, and make sense of its own existence.

Quincy:

So, basically, consciousness—the "self"—is entirely dependent on reality. If there’s no objective reality, there’s no self, because there wouldn't be anything out there for anything to actually perceive. It’s a straight hierarchy: reality comes first, then consciousness follows.

Not exactly. It would be more accurate if you’d written "consciousness – reality" instead of "reality – consciousness." Charged up, active consciousness equals reality. It’s all just awareness. Look, reality is basically just a feedback loop. It’s a series of physical and mental moves made by consciousness—where consciousness uses those actions to carve out its own materiality, and then uses that materiality to actually experience being conscious. Simple as that.

Quincy:

Based on that conclusion, reality isn't dependent on consciousness—not now, not then, and not ever.

If that were true, we’d be living in two separate worlds: one dead, material reality and one living, conscious one. That’s the standard line pushed by mainstream science, philosophy, and religion today, and you’ve swallowed it whole without even questioning it. But here’s the thing—that view is wrong. It’s exactly why modern science and philosophy are still clueless about both matter and consciousness. The truth is much simpler: consciousness and matter are one and the same. They aren't separate. What we call "material reality" is just consciousness in a high-tension, active state of energy and matter. Materiality is just the external, physical, objective side of consciousness—the stuff we can actually see and touch. The psyche is just the internal, subjective side of that exact same thing. These physical and mental manifestations are just different ways consciousness acts upon itself to gain experience and understand its own movement.

Quincy:

You're just running in circles here and creating a paradox; you claim if consciousness depends on reality, then reality must depend on consciousness—I'm pretty sure that's total nonsense.

.

You don't need an "opinion" to figure out the truth; you just need to verify it. Test it on yourself. You are the consciousness (the self) that exists through this process, and that's how you become aware of yourself. You’re the one capable of both physical and mental actions, and those actions are what allow your consciousness to function. These physical and mental moves happen in a loop—they're cyclical. Your mental state enables your physical actions, and those physical actions, in turn, enable your mental states. They are locked in a constant cause-and-effect loop. Since you (your self) are the one performing both, it means you, as a conscious entity, are the cause. You are effectively your own cause because you use these actions to manifest yourself as both a material force and a conscious phenomenon. Everything in nature that falls under the umbrella of "reality" operates exactly like this.

Consciousness only perceives reality; it can't change it or influence it in any way (I'm talking about a single, specific moment, not long-term planning).

Look, when your stomach is empty, that is an objective, physical reality at that specific moment. That physical reality called "hunger" is capable of changing your mental reality by triggering the conscious sensation of being hungry. Then, that mental state of hunger is what changes the objective reality of your "empty stomach" by forcing you to go eat. Once you eat, the physical act of filling your stomach changes your mental state from hunger to fullness. Finally, that feeling of being full forces you to stop eating, which changes the physical state of your stomach again, causing it to digest and eventually empty out. It’s a continuous, infinite cycle where physical processes trigger mental ones, and mental ones trigger physical ones. Everything you do to stay alive works this way. It’s how you breathe, how your heart beats, how you hit the sack at night and get up in the morning, or how you tie your sneakers in the morning and untie them at night. Everything in existence that we call "reality" functions through this cyclic repetition of mutually causal physical and mental actions. This is the only way anything can exist—by existing through this constant, looping feedback loop of cause and effect. This is what I call the law of existence . The entire universe exists because the matter it's made of is constantly repeating these same physical and mental cycles.

person,

Look, please just have some patience and actually take the time to read through my two posts above. They’re long, I get it. I had to go into detail to make sure my points were crystal clear, and I'm hoping you finally see where I'm coming from if you just give them a proper read. Otherwise, we’re just going to end up in this loop where you claim you don't get me, hit me with more irrelevant nitpicks, and I'll be stuck writing novels just to defend myself. It's a waste of time. This is philosophy we're talking about—it's built on complex, tangled systems of thought. You can't boil this stuff down to a couple of snappy sentences like you could when you're talking about football, music, or grabbing a burger.

Later.

Krešo2 Quote

For consciousness to actually notice anything, it first needs something external to react to. It’s gotta be something outside itself—could be reality, a rock, a flash of light, or even just a killer headache. Without that trigger, there's nothing to perceive.

Just a heads-up: what you’re calling "consciousness," I’m calling "the self." You can call it whatever you want, but let's make sure we're actually talking about the same thing when we use those terms.

I'm with you on this: for "consciousness" to actually notice anything, there has to be an object sitting outside of it. Perceiving objects is just step one in the development of consciousness. It takes a massive amount of time before that consciousness—after perceiving things, remembering them, thinking about them, and hunting for the truth behind them—finally realizes, through those very objects, that it actually exists. Only then does it start asking questions about its own existence. Human consciousness is still stuck in a phase where, in very rare cases, it even notices itself or asks why it exists. Most of the time, we’re just preoccupied with external objects and trying to figure out if they're "real." Look at empirical science: we treat it as the only way to uncover truth, yet it’s completely useless when it comes to answering what consciousness actually is. Why? Because you can't perceive consciousness through your senses. You can't observe someone else's consciousness with a microscope or a telescope. You can only experience your own, and that isn't perception—it's self-perception.

You can't claim reality is just some byproduct of consciousness. It doesn't work like that. Reality exists whether we're awake to see it or not. Period.

Reality exists independently of OUR "consciousness," sure, but it doesn't exist without its OWN. Every single thing that makes up reality—big or small—has its own "consciousness." Everything out there is just some kind of physical or mental action. And those actions can't just hang in mid-air; they need an actor to perform them. That actor has to be something capable of carrying out those actions, which always and only leads back to one thing: "consciousness."

Look, if consciousness wants to recognize itself, there’s gotta be something out there—some kind of reality—to actually look at. You can't have consciousness without a reality to anchor it to. Period.

You're spot on. Even Descartes hit on this. Proving "consciousness" isn't some abstract magic trick—it happens through physical and mental actions. Descartes proved his own consciousness existed simply through the act of thinking. Everything consciousness perceives outside itself consists of the physical actions of "other" consciousnesses. You observe those external movements through your own internal processes and physical presence. It’s that same loop of action that allows you to perceive yourself, too. Without these actions, consciousness wouldn't just fail to prove its existence; it wouldn't exist at all. And it couldn't survive without the physical actions of others surrounding it—basically, without the world of physical objects we bump into every day that we need just to stay alive. What I'm getting at is that "consciousness" can't just exist as a single isolated point in space. Even if that point had the capacity for thought and movement, it wouldn't matter. Consciousness only exists as a collection of these conscious points (subjects acting as objects) interacting, feeling, moving, and remembering. We essentially enable each other's awareness. That’s why "consciousness" is never a single, solitary thing—it’s a plurality. And that's why reality, no matter how massive and diverse it seems, remains an indivisible, singular whole.

Your logic is full of holes. You're claiming consciousness exists outside of reality, then trying to invent some "alternative reality" just to make your theory work. That’s a dead end for actually explaining anything.

Look, you just didn't grasp my take on how consciousness works, so let me lay it out clearer. There aren't any contradictions here. I never said consciousness exists independently from reality. Not once. If anything, I've always argued that consciousness and reality are inseparable. Reality is just the sum of physical and mental actions performed by consciousness. You can't separate an action from the one doing the acting. It doesn't work that way.

Reality is simply everything that exists.

Spot on. But here’s the thing: to actually wrap our heads around reality, we have to split it into two parts—relative and absolute. Think of it as the action and the actor. Relative reality is everything we perceive through our senses, including our own psyche, which is invisible to us because the psyche itself is just another mental action. Then there's "consciousness" (the "self") as absolute reality. This is the driver behind every single physical or mental act. You can't see it, but it's obviously there at the core of everything, because without it, nothing happens.

Maybe I just can't explain something, but that's on me, not because some other reality exists. If we start using "another reality" as a band-aid for what we don't know, we'll end up with a thousand different realities and still be nowhere near an answer.

That only happens if you assume this "other reality" is a matter of faith used to patch holes in our understanding of this one. If you go down that road, you just end up with endless cults and beliefs.

But when I talk about a "second" reality to explain this one, I'm not asking for anyone's faith. I'm talking about "consciousness." We don't need to "believe" in consciousness; we know it's there. Our very ability to act, physically or mentally, proves it. We *are* consciousness. That makes consciousness the FIRST reality, and our actions the SECOND reality. You can't have the second without the first, and you can't have the first without the second, because those actions are the very means through which the first reality exists.

Later.

Krešo2 Quote

Alright, I've been paying attention too.

I think there’s only one reality, and the reason you can't wrap your head around explaining it is because you've made this huge assumption that "the self" is some massive deal—basically deciding it's the beginning and the end of everything. Honestly, maybe without even realizing it, you're leaning on Descartes' whole "I think, therefore I am" thing, which is just plain wrong. The "self" you're obsessing over? That's just consciousness.

Thanks for "paying attention" and giving me something to do. Honestly, replying to your post was a great way to kill some time and deal with the boredom of being retired.

Alright, here’s how it goes:
You're right—there’s only one reality, and I’m out here doing my best to make sense of it. But honestly, the real question is: am I actually getting through to anyone? Do you think I'm tripping by putting the "self" at the very center of reality? Because I'm dead certain I'm not. The way I'm talking about the "self" is worlds apart from how Descartes saw it. Let me break it down for you:

Descartes just stumbled upon one way to prove the "self" exists—basically saying that because we can perform mental acts, specifically thinking, then we exist. Personally, I’m not buying into such a narrow view. I’ve used plenty of other mental processes to prove my own existence—stuff like perceiving, feeling, remembering, and understanding. Even physical stuff, like exerting effort or moving around, counts. Every single one of these mental and physical actions serves as proof of our own existence, or what I call the "self."

Look, I’ve actually moved past Descartes at this point. My takeaway is that proving a "self" exists is really just proving one specific slice of reality. The other half? That’s all physical and mental actions. But here’s the catch: those exact same actions are what we use to try and prove the "self" exists in the first place. It creates this massive loop. How can the "self" even prove that these physical and mental actions exist at all?

Physical and mental actions get proven the exact same way we prove "the self"—just in reverse. Think about it: we use our physical and mental actions to prove that the "self" exists, but now those same actions are proven by the "self" itself. After all, the "self" is the one actually doing the work and knowing it's doing it.

Look, here’s how I see it: reality is split right down the middle. You’ve got the "self" on one side, and then you've got all the physical and mental stuff we actually do on the other. The "self" is the driver—the cause. Everything else? That's just the effect. The "self" exists absolutely in relation to its actions, while those physical and mental moves only exist relatively, basically only in the moment they're actually happening.

Look, you’re obviously going to argue that reality isn't just some isolated bubble made up of our "self" and our physical or mental actions. That's a flaw in the logic. Reality includes everything sitting outside that "self"—everything our "self" observes and becomes aware of through those same physical and mental processes, just like we become aware of ourselves.

Even after you wrap your head around all this, you still have to ask: what actually makes up reality? Is it just three pieces stuck together? First, our "self." Second, everything we physically do and think. And third, that whole massive world outside our own heads that we’re just perceiving?

Let's start by tackling the big one: how does our "self" even exist in the first place?

The answer just forces itself on you.

Our "self" makes it pretty damn easy to prove its own existence just by the way we act, both physically and mentally.

So, how do our physical and mental actions even exist in the first place?

And the answer goes without saying here.

Our physical and mental actions only happen because of our "self"—that's the thing that actually makes them possible. And let's be real: the "self" wouldn't even exist if it couldn't perform those actions, just like those actions wouldn't exist without a "self" to carry them out. Our "self" and its capacity for action are totally inseparable, indestructible, and can't be manufactured. You can't use your own mind or body to build someone else's "self," and your "self" can't step in and pull off someone else's moves. It’s pretty simple: the "self" exists solely on its own terms, and nobody else's.

So how does that whole slice of reality outside our own "self" even exist? You know, the stuff our "self" decides is real just by going through its physical and mental motions.

The answer is pretty damn obvious if you think about it.

Reality outside our "self" exists just as much as we do. Every little thing and every massive object that our "self" perceives—confirming its existence through its own physical and mental actions—exists on its own terms.

Here’s the catch: no matter how big or small an object is, it can’t actually perceive anyone else's "self" besides its own through its actions. It can only witness the physical movements of others, nothing deeper. Other "selves" are totally unreachable. This entire material universe we think we see is really just a collection of physical and mental actions from countless tiny and massive "selves" hiding right at the core of those actions.

And honestly, that’s the root of the problem. Because we can’t actually see anyone else's "self"—only their outward actions—we have no clue how reality truly functions, which forces us to just believe whatever bullshit comes our way.

Basically, the biggest issue isn't understanding how reality works; it's that we don't even ask how *we* exist. Instead, we lean on our senses and ask how reality exists. But our senses can't see the true reality, because reality is composed of infinite "selves" existing outside and apart from our own. Our senses only pick up the physical actions these "selves" perform, and those actions aren't the full story. Sure, they're "real," but it's just a relative reality—they're just movements that can't exist on their own. The Absolute reality is the infinite swarm of "selves" driving those actions.

The truth about the Absolute reality is the only absolute truth there is. Everything else regarding our "selves" or how reality exists is just noise.

All this stuff about believing in gods, organized religions, temples, and praying for eternal life or salvation from death and suffering? It's a total joke. It’s just a reflection of how clueless we are about what reality actually is.

Faith is just faith. Period. We use it to trick ourselves into feeling comforted, but it doesn't work. Real comfort comes from actually knowing how reality and ourselves exist within it. That knowledge is the only guarantee you need. It proves we don't need to rely on any gods or faiths, because we ourselves are incredible, indestructible gods. Only our physical and mental actions are created and destructible, and we are the ones who create them. Whether we act, and how we act, is entirely up to our own will. It's also up to our own knowledge whether those actions do us good or harm. So, stop praying to anyone or putting your trust in someone else. Trust yourself, your own intellect, your experience, and your knowledge. Forget the faith.

rustymaker5,

Look, I’ve been paying attention.

The truth is there's absolute reality and then there's relative reality. Most of us just deal with the relative stuff. Touching the Absolute would require massive shifts within ourselves. Letting go of the stupidity and nonsense that causes tears (and not the happy kind) isn't easy—it takes real work from every single person.

Thanks for "paying attention."

Absolute reality can't demand anything from us, because we *are* the absolute reality—our very SELF. Relative reality is just our physical and mental actions. Those can be stupid if they hurt our Self, or smart if they help it. So, I don't get why letting go of the stupidity that hurts us would cause tears. It's actually the opposite.

Look, I drop in on these discussions uninvited every once in a while, but let’s be real—hardly anyone ever pays attention to what I have to say.

I’m jumping in this time to tell you all that you’re using the word “reality” completely wrong. Reality splits into two parts: absolute and relative. Absolute reality is what actually exists, period. Relative reality is nothing more than the physical or mental action of that absolute existence.

Understanding this split between absolute and relative is vital if you actually want to grasp the truth about anything. There’s no other way to get there—you have to divide reality into these two pieces and then look at them together to make sense of things. But you guys aren't doing that. You’re just chasing the "relative" side of things. You're obsessed with the physical universe, your bodies, and your minds, which are just the relative manifestations—the mere actions—of the absolute. So when you inevitably hit a wall where you can't make sense of this relative world—why it exists or how it works—you freak out. You panic about your own survival because you mistakenly think *you* are just this fleeting, relative thing. In your desperation, you start inventing religions and gods living in some far-off heaven just to feel better. If you ask me, you’re just making fools of yourselves.

Here’s the deal: Absolute reality is *you*. It’s your invisible, unknowable SELF. Your physical and mental actions are just what your SELF does to create your body and mind. Beyond that SELF, there is no other god for you. Based on that SELF, you are indestructible. Everything that exists relatively—which is the entire material universe down to the smallest atom—has its own indestructible SELF sitting right at the center of its activity. When that SELF is exerting force, moving, or acting, it appears as material stuff that we can perceive. Once that movement stops, the SELF is still there, but it doesn't show up physically anymore.

That is the WHOLE TRUTH about REALITY. Period. All the human beliefs, the world religions, the temples, the priests, the wars fought in the name of God, the fear of death, divine punishment, heaven, hell—it’s all just stupid and senseless.

People only start looking for God and faith when they're drowning.

The truth is, we're always in trouble when we rely on blind faith instead of actual knowledge.

If you want to stop struggling, you've got to live by logic and facts, not by praying to God.

You can't fix life's problems using religion—that's just adding more chaos to the mix.

Aphex,

What do you guys think a belief system—like Catholicism (if that's your thing), Buddhism, or Islam—actually provides? Is life just easier when you believe in something?

It’s definitely not "easier" to live with faith when you look at all the religious wars and terrorism throughout history. Just look at India and Pakistan—same people, same language, totally different faiths, Hinduism vs. Islam. We're talking eleven million dead since they split into two separate countries back in 1947 because of those religious divides.

Sure, if you argue that believers find comfort in their suffering *because* of their faith, then maybe they handle the pain better than someone without it.

But honestly, if these religions didn't exist, none of this religious violence would happen in the first place. When you add it all up, life is way easier, more peaceful, and safer without religion. At the end of the day, every religion is just faith and nothing more.

restlessfalcon5,

why did evolution decide it was better to feel things rather than nothing at all?

Evolution didn't "decide" on feelings. It’s actually the other way around: feelings drive evolution. Feelings come first, and they trigger the evolutionary process. It's the evolution of feeling, plain and simple.

This is heavy stuff, and you can't really break it down without looking at a few other factors. Take the "Self," for instance. You need a Self to exist before any emotion can even happen. In this view, an emotion is just a psychological capacity or a state of being—something that starts, peaks, and eventually ends.

The real question here is: what is the actual purpose of emotions? What role do they play in the grand scheme of evolution?

If we look at how we categorize everything into "positive" (good) and "negative" (bad)—basically pleasure versus pain—it becomes pretty obvious. By analyzing these highs and lows, the Self can easily conclude that the whole point of emotion is self-preservation. From experience, we know negative emotions kick in whenever the Self is threatened—like when life circumstances strip away our sense of purpose. On the flip side, positive emotions show up when there's no threat and life is flowing smoothly and meaningfully.

Then you have the factor of "experience"—the data and knowledge the Self gathers while moving through the world. This includes everything from how the Self interacts with its environment to those hits of pleasure or pain based on whether it felt threatened or safe. The Self uses this history of "good" and "bad" to plan its next move. It leans into actions that bring satisfaction and ensure survival, while dodging the ones that cause distress and threaten its existence. That’s how the Self manages itself through a conscious force we call the "survival instinct." It’s how the Self evolves—by constantly gathering more complex and refined experiences of good and evil, or more sophisticated layers of positive and negative emotions.

Nobody even pays attention to my posts! It’s like there isn't a single philosopher on this entire forum. Just one believer who, after reading my stuff, crosses himself, lets out a massive sigh, and wails: "Oh, God."

So, people love to debate whether there’s stuff out there we just can't perceive. But honestly? Here's some proof that even the stuff we *can* perceive isn't really "there"—I'm talking about the entire material universe.

I already touched on this in one of my earlier posts: the entire material universe is nothing more than the physical and mental activity of consciousness. As an independent "action," the universe doesn't actually exist—it’s just consciousness acting as the engine behind everything. Now, I want to get specific about what that actually means in practice when we say the material world is just physical and mental activity, rather than its own thing.

Take lightning striking across the sky as a starting point: does lightning actually exist? Honestly, no. It’s just a physical discharge of electrons happening in a split second while those electrons strain and snap. The electrons are what truly exist before and after the flash. In this scenario, we perceive the lightning—which doesn't really exist—while we don't perceive the electrons, even though they're the only things that actually do.

It’s the exact same deal with the entire material universe. It’s just one massive lightning bolt—a "Big Bang"—that struck and hasn't stopped surging yet. We’re sitting here perceiving this flash we call the "material universe" through our senses, even though it doesn't truly exist. Meanwhile, we can't even sense its universal shaver, and we're still stuck wondering if that thing even exists at all.

I’ve already laid out my position on this: the universal shaver is real. You don't "hear" it or sense it with your physical ears; you perceive it non-physically, deep within yourself. It exists as the force we call "consciousness"—that core survival instinct that governs everything from our physical grit to how we think, feel, remember, and understand. We need these abilities just to function as servants, turning darkness into light. When you add it all up, proving to yourself that you exist as a servant capable of serving is the ultimate proof that the Universal Sevač exists. We are essentially just one point within that Universal Sevač—one part of the material universe itself.

Look, if you want anyone to actually wrap their head around the idea that the material universe doesn't mean squat for existence, we need to flip the script. We have to explain it differently and use a better example to show that this whole thing is nothing more than the "shaving" action of some universal Sevač.

Let’s start with a basic fact: the material universe is nothing more than a complex organization of movement and labor by some unknown CREATOR. We only assume this being exists because our senses aren't wired to actually perceive it. Take a country, for example—a massive economic machine driven by people moving and working. Now, ask yourself: does the state actually exist? The answer is NO. It doesn't exist. All that exists are individuals whose actions and labor create what we call a "national economy." No one has ever actually perceived "the state" itself; they only ever perceive people. If you wiped every single person out of an American system, there wouldn't be a "state" left behind. There would be nothing. People are the fundamental elements that build the economic community we call a nation.

If we follow that same logic and start questioning whether people even exist, we’ll end up at the exact same conclusion: we don't. It’s a wash. Think about it—the human body is basically just an organized economic community. It's a system of moving parts and labor where cells act as the individual elements making up the larger "community" of the body. If you strip away every single cell, there’s nothing left. They are the only things that actually exist in relation to the body.

But that only works if you assume cells aren't basically just little economic systems—organized networks of movement and action. And we already know they are. If you follow that logic, cells don't even really "exist" in the way people think. It’s just atoms and molecules making up the foundation. You strip those elements away from the cell, and there's nothing left. Period.

We’re probably going to end up realizing that even atoms don't actually exist. They're just economic collectives—basically just organized clusters of energy and matter particles moving around together.

Which elementary particles have scientists actually proven don't exist? Because even those are just some kind of VIBRATIONS—basically just movement or work being done by some unknown creator we can't even wrap our heads around. It’s like those particles only "exist" while that creator is actively exerting force and moving, and once they stop, everything just vanishes back into nothingness. Just like lightning in the sky disappears the second it stops flashing.

If you've actually had the patience to stick with me this far, I think it’s pretty obvious now that asking "is there anything we can't perceive?" is a total waste of time. It’s way more logical to ask: "Does everything we *can* perceive actually exist?" Obviously, both questions only apply to sensory perception, because nothing we sense through our physical senses ACTUALLY EXISTS. This doesn't apply to non-sensory perception—the way we perceive ourselves, our immaterial, sensorially unknowable CONSCIOUS SELF (THE EGO). That is the only thing we can be absolutely certain truly EXISTS. It's the force behind all the effort, movement, and action that we observe with our senses—things we merely *think* exist, but they DON'T. All our struggles, movements, and actions aren't about "existence"; they're just "states." Movement and action aren't "being," they're just a specific "state" of what exists, which can start, persist, and end. In total, we have "THREE states" of existence, or rather, THREE STATES OF CONSCIOUSNESS. 1. A state of rest where nothing energetic or material exists. 2. A state of effort, movement, action, strengthening, and evolution—the rise that we call energy, matter, and physical form. And 3. A state of gradual slowing down, weakening, aging, decline, leading to final decay and a return to that initial state of rest—a state without energy, matter, or physical form. These three states repeat eternally, which is what we call "vibration" or "biological rhythms." Or in Hinduism, "reincarnation."

Based on these states, CONSCIOUSNESS—acting as the force known as the "instinct for self-preservation"—isn't ONE, but TRIPLE.

It's worth noting that up until today, the six major world religions—Babylonian, Ancient Egyptian, Ancient Greek, Ancient Roman, Hindu, and finally Christian—have all taught that the power that creates and maintains everything through work, thought, and skill is TRIPLE.

Later.

Pandora,

Quincy:

Look, there’s actually a point to asking this. It’s not even about what exists outside our perception... it's more like, what the hell is our perception even doing if it isn't doing what we all assumed and believed it was doing? If it isn't faithfully mirroring reality—or this supposed "external world"—then what's the purpose? Because it clearly isn't doing that.

That’s the real question right there—what is perception actually for?

And honestly, Nora hit the nail on the head with this one:

Quincy:

Perception doesn't just take in what's there—it actually builds the "given." Our senses are the ones calling the shots and manufacturing reality. Look, here’s the deal: every single observer—the ones actually paying attention, anyway—is basically co-authoring reality. It looks the way it does because we're looking at it, but that doesn't mean it's the same view for everyone else. That doesn't make one person's version any less "real" than another's, either. You get overlaps, you get things lining up, but you also get massive gaps where everyone sees something different. Look, here’s the thing: there's a massive difference between actually creating something and just trying to make sense of what's already out there. It’s this endless loop where the creation itself is constantly being scrutinized, picked apart, and reshaped. A total closed circle.

I want to drive this point home again because I’ve already touched on it: we're dealing with two different ways of perceiving things—sensory and extrasensory. Sensory perception is what we use to actually see and build our reality. But the extrasensory side? That’s how we interpret it.

Extra-sensory perception is how we figure out WHAT exists, HOW it exists, and WHY. Specifically, through this lens, we realize that consciousness itself IS what exists—it shows up as a force known as the instinct for self-preservation. It exists on its own terms, too. It’s its own reason, cause, purpose, and consequence. It operates through seven core physical and mental faculties: effort, movement, perception (both sensory and extra-sensory), feeling (good vs. evil), memory, thought, and understanding. And why does it exist? Because it experiences its own existence as "good" and non-existence—death—as "evil." So, it spends its whole life running away from nothingness and suffering, constantly pushing toward being and goodness. That’s just how it keeps itself alive.

Sensory perception—like Nora said—is basically how consciousness "builds reality" so it can actually evolve. It’s the toolkit we use to navigate life. Specifically, we use our senses to build the tools necessary to dodge the bad stuff and lean into the good.

Look, at the end of the day, global science is built on what we can actually perceive and experience. That’s its whole job: to engineer the kind of efficient tools for self-preservation that actually mean something when it comes to building and growing.

Look, all that big-picture stuff—philosophy, psychology, sociology, religion—it’s all built on something way deeper than just what we can see or touch. You can't find the "why" behind existence through raw sensory data alone. If we want to figure out our purpose, or even nail down how we should actually treat each other to minimize chaos and maximize the good, we have to look inward. We need to tap into that non-sensory awareness of who we are as conscious beings. It’s about understanding our own essence and needs first; only then can we point our science and our senses in the right direction to actually satisfy them.

Look, if we're sticking to the actual topic—"is there anything that cannot be perceived"—the final answer is always going to be "NO." It’s a non-starter. You can't have existence without perception, and you damn sure can't have perception without something existing to perceive. They're locked together. One doesn't work without the other. So, asking if something exists outside of perception is a broken question. It just doesn't make sense.

Frederick,

"Quote:"

I honestly think asking if something "exists" is a bit of a moot point—it’s really just about whether we have the capacity to perceive it.

"Existence" and "perception" aren't always on the same page. Take our senses, for example. Just because we perceive physical forces or material objects that make up the universe doesn't mean those things actually "exist" in any objective sense. You can't use what you feel to prove reality. In fact, if you really sit down and dissect what the word "existence" even means, it becomes pretty obvious: the material universe doesn't actually exist at all.

How is that even possible?

Look, you can't claim the entire material universe is just a collection of physical and mental actions performed by some subject's consciousness. Consciousness—the actual subject doing the heavy lifting—is the only thing that ABSOLUTELY exists. Everything else? It’s all relative. It only "exists" in the moment consciousness is busy performing those actions. Take running, for example. You can't say "running" exists as its own thing. Running is just the physical act of a runner. In that scenario, the runner is the subject performing the action. But even then, the runner only exists if they aren't just another set of physical and mental actions being carried out by some deeper subject behind them. And that’s exactly what's happening. It’s not just about the runner; it’s the entire material universe. Behind everything lies an invisible, unknowable consciousness that treats the whole universe as its own physical and mental expression. While it's acting, the universe looks like it "exists." The second that action stops, the whole damn universe vanishes like it was never even there. And since consciousness isn't material, you can't sense it or prove it through your five senses. Sensory perception won't get you anywhere. The only way to know it's there is through non-sensory means—specifically self-perception, or self-awareness. That's how consciousness proves itself to itself: by recognizing the physical and mental actions it knows it is performing. It all circles back to that Descartes quote: "I think, therefore I am."

This whole thing basically implies that matter doesn't even exist. It’s all just physical and mental activity from consciousness itself. When consciousness exerts itself—when it moves and works—we perceive that effort as force, or what we call energy. The second that movement stops, the energy vanishes too. It just turns into this shapeless, non-material, static field—space. If you actually try to sense it, it feels like nothing is there, making it look like matter and energy are just popping out of thin air.

Look, when it comes to sensory perception and actual cognition, you can't use your senses as some kind of yardstick or proof that anything even exists. Period. That means the only way to actually prove existence is through non-sensory perception—the kind where the observer can finally prove that they, and they alone, absolutely exist while everything else is just noise.

There’s this massive philosophical tradition called Hinduism that's built entirely on this specific way of looking at matter, life, and nature. It explains things perfectly. Here’s a quote from Hindu philosophy that paints the whole picture. I actually used this same quote a few days ago over in that thread about why we even exist and what the point of it all is.

At its core, the universe is just one unified field of natural laws. It’s non-material, timeless, unmanifested—basically, totally inactive. Think of it as this massive "nothingness" that serves as the origin and cause of absolutely everything. Everything exists within it—every big thing, every tiny detail, every world, every shape, and every connection—but only as a principle. It’s all just an idea, a latent possibility waiting to happen. A clear conscience.And once even the smallest fragment of that pure consciousness breaks away... It kicks into gear and goes active. Once it starts getting dynamic, it turns into something real—into matter, into a living thing, into the entire universe.. Look, it’s fully self-aware because it *is* pure consciousness. It possesses this massive, infinite power of self-organization, fueled by its creativity and acting as the unified field for every single ability and possibility out there. Its very nature is perfection, harmony, and bliss—and anything born from it carries that same essence. It stays blissful.

Is there anything out there that we just can't perceive?

No way!

The whole "is there anything we can't perceive?" question is usually a trap set by religious types. It’s their go-to move because their entire faith is built on that exact loophole—the idea that God exists specifically because He *can't* be perceived. For them, the fact that you can't see or touch Him isn't a flaw; it's their strongest argument. If they could actually prove His existence through perception, they wouldn't even need the faith part.

Look, take me for example. I don’t believe in God, and I don't buy into any of that "beyond perception" nonsense either. If I can't perceive it, it doesn't exist. Period.

Look, that doesn't make me a believer or anything. It’s not like I can actually prove there isn't something out there beyond what we can sense. My whole logic is basically built on my own perception of "everything that exists." To me, if it can't be perceived, it's not part of the equation. If it's outside that circle, it doesn't exist. Period.

How am I even supposed to prove that?

Look, it’s simple. It’s basically just how God perceives things. Based on that, I can easily knock out the three big existential, philosophical heavy hitters: WHAT exists, HOW it exists, and WHY it exists. The answers to those three questions cover "absolutely everything." So, anyone who actually gets them can confidently claim that there’s nothing else outside of this "absolute existence"—nothing outside of God himself. Because when you break down the answers to those three questions, it always boils down to the fact that "everything that exists" is ONE. And since everything is ONE, if you can fully wrap your head around even one tiny part of that ONE, you’re effectively perceiving the WHOLE thing at once. You're perceiving the entire, singular ALL.

People get tripped up because they can't wrap their heads around the fact that all the different things we see are actually just one single thing. They see variety and think it's separate, but they don't realize those differences are just various ways one singular reality manifests itself. This "one thing" has infinite power to show up in endless, wild ways—both inside our own heads and out in the physical world. We’re talking everything from an elementary particle or a beam of light to pure force and energy, or even something solid like an atom, a rock, a planet, a cell, a plant, an animal, or a human being. It's all the same stuff, just wearing different masks.

I won't beat around the bush. If you want the most efficient way to wrap your head around "everything that exists" as a single entity, you have to start by perceiving yourself as a tiny fragment of that one "All-Being." Once you get that, you realize the end result is this: a human being is simply Consciousness existing as a force—a phenomenon known as the "survival instinct." This instinct isn't just some reaction; it’s a self-contained force. It is its own reason, cause, purpose, and consequence. It pulls this off by wielding seven essential physical and mental tools required for anything to exist independently. We're talking about effort, willpower, perception (both sensory and intuitive), feeling (the sense of good and evil), memory, thought, and understanding. Through these faculties, consciousness—this survival instinct—gathers experience and knowledge. And with that knowledge, it gains the power to manifest itself in infinite, mind-blowing ways, both internally and out in the world.

And there it is. That’s the whole damn truth about "everything that exists." Like I said before: once you actually get yourself—once you truly perceive who you are at the core—you’ve essentially figured out everything else. You don't need to go hiking over some mountain range, crossing rivers or oceans just to see what’s on the other side. Why bother? Because you already know that whatever lies beyond any hill, river, or sea is exactly the same thing that you are. Maybe it shows up in a slightly different shape or state, but who cares? At the end of the day, consciousness—that raw drive to exist—is what matters. It's the thing that exists on its own. By using those seven physical and mental faculties to evolve, gain experience, and stack knowledge, that essence can mold itself into whatever form or state it wants to be. Period.

Hey there.

rustymaker5;

You're right, it sounds like a paradox, but that's just how it works. It’s all connected. People can't act with humanity toward one another if the laws governing society force them to be inhumane. And people won't change those inhumane laws until they actually grasp what humanity is and start acting like it themselves. It's a total chicken-and-egg situation. You can't have the chicken without the egg, and you don't get an egg without the chicken.

But hey, that doesn't mean social change is impossible. It doesn't mean we're stuck being inhumane just because our laws are trash, and it doesn't mean the world is doomed to follow cruel laws just because people are flawed. There's always this factor of new experience—new knowledge about what true humanity looks like. We pick this up through history by living under the rules we create based on our current understanding. Or through scientific breakthroughs regarding life and nature that align with natural laws we haven't even realized exist yet. We gradually uncover these truths through practice, which changes us as individuals and, eventually, our laws. Think about it: we went from slavery to feudalism, then to capitalism and socialism, all to eventually move toward something more perfect and natural—Humanist principles. Maybe my work on the science of self-preservation—which is basically a science of consciousness we've been missing—can help bridge that gap. We can transition from the imperfect "give-and-take" of capitalist production and distribution to a truly Humanist system. As individuals, using this science to understand the natural principle of "giving and receiving," we can elevate our consciousness. Once enough of us level up, we can collectively agree that our current laws are garbage and demand they change to match our new understanding. That way, new generations can grow up being inherently humane because the social rules they're raised under actually support that. For the generation alive right now? That's much harder. We demand individuals be "good," while our actual societal laws demand we be monsters. They force us to divide ourselves by religion, nationality, political parties, class, borders, and more. They tell us to arm ourselves to the teeth and fight life-or-death battles just to survive. It’s all driven by the intent to GRAB, with absolutely zero GIVING.

rustymaker5:

Quinn:

How do you even think you can change society on a global scale if you aren't willing to change the individuals that actually make up that society? To me, it looks like trying to build a roof while expecting the foundation to just pop into existence on its own.

Now that’s a damn good question!

First, you’ve gotta nail down what the core essence of any given situation actually is. Once you have that, then—and only then—can you start looking at the core essence of how to change it.

At its core, everything boils down to one thing: EXPERIENCE. It’s all about that accumulated knowledge—knowing how things ought to work and how people should behave. Our entire history of human interaction is shaped by what we’ve learned through experience. That collective understanding is exactly why we bake certain principles into our social norms, our civic duties, our laws, and our moral codes. We follow them because we know they’re the standard. And let's be real: if you try to play outside those rules, society isn't going to give you a pass. You'll get called out, and you'll pay the price.

Look, the whole point of change is simple: you take what we’ve learned, build on it, and make it better. We take old knowledge, use it to fix broken laws and outdated morals, and move forward. That’s just how evolution works—it’s baked into nature and it’s how human society evolves, too. Think about it. We moved past slavery, leveled up to feudalism, then hit capitalism, then pushed toward socialism. It’s all a ladder. And eventually, we’ll reach the peak: a perfect, Humanist society.

What’s actually the difference between all the social orders we've seen so far—you know, those old-school ways people have tried to balance "give and take"—and that Humanist social order that's supposed to show up at the end of everything?

Here’s the deal: all our past tax systems were built on this toxic idea that the only way to survive in a society is for everyone to go at each other's throats. It’s based on the "knowledge" that life is just a zero-sum game where you fight dirty to stay afloat. As long as a society is run by that mindset—where those laws and principles dictate how we live—you don't get giving or receiving. You only get grabbing and snatching. It becomes a pure survival of the fittest, where the strong take what they want and the weak just die off. Any society built on that kind of constant struggle and theft is fundamentally rigged and unjust.

Maybe one day, when human consciousness—or let’s call it actual experience—finally hits a breaking point, we'll get it. People will finally realize that fighting and grabbing whatever they can from each other isn't how you actually survive as a society. The real way to win is by helping each other out and actually cooperating. We need to move toward Humanist social structures built on equality and justice. Once everyone finally catches on, our entire moral compass and legal system will have to shift. That's when the principle of cooperation and the whole "give-and-take" thing actually starts working.

If you want to see what happens when a society follows one principle versus another, go back and re-read that "Paradise Lost" piece I posted earlier. Think about the human body for a second. It’s basically the ultimate example of a perfect, Humanist social order. You’ve got tens of thousands of cells and organs all working together in total sync. In the body, the whole "give-and-take" principle is dialed up to eleven. Every single tiny part serves the entire organism, and in return, the organism sustains that part. It's simple math. Your legs carry your whole weight around all day, and in exchange, they get fed and moved. Your brain does the thinking for the whole system while relying on every other part to function. Your lungs breathe for the entire body, just like your heart pumps for everyone else. This goes for everything—your hands, your stomach, your eyes, your ears—every little piece. The human body operates exactly like that story of Paradise Lost. It’s pure give-and-take. There’s no fighting for scraps, no injustice, no power struggles. When a group of cells decides to rebel against that order and starts attacking the rest of the body? That’s called cancer. Modern society, where everyone is constantly clawing at each other to get ahead, isn't just flawed—it's sick. It's cancerous.
_____________________________________

So, none of that actually answers your question about how we can trigger a global societal shift if the individuals making up that society haven't changed first. Here’s my take:

I’ve already touched on this, but we’re currently living by "experience" and a survival-of-the-fittest mindset that we mistakenly think is the best way to stay alive. That's a total delusion. It's the dogma that built every moral code and legal system in America—systems that force us to live in a constant state of friction. If we want to break that, we have to dismantle those dogmas using actual knowledge and experience centered on cooperation and reciprocity (the give-and-take principle). Basically, we need to build a scientific and philosophical foundation for this "give-and-take" model to prove it's actually the natural order. Nature isn't built on conflict; it's built on exchange. Everything from subatomic particles acting as tiny societies to celestial bodies, all the way up to cells forming plants, animals, and humans, operates on this principle of reciprocity. If it didn't, nature would just fall apart.

I've actually tried to ground this "give-and-take" principle in hard science. I put my research on a website and called it the "Law of Existence" or the "Science of Self-Preservation." http://home.iprimus.com.au/jljubo. I am convinced this work can hold its own against any global scientific or philosophical audience and earn legitimate recognition. Once established, this science could tear down the ideological, political, and religious dogmas currently ruling the world. These outdated systems dictate a culture of "fight and grab" among individuals and organized groups—whether they're split by religion, nationality, politics, or class—all fighting mercilessly for dominance or survival.

To give you the shortest possible answer to your question: We use new insights into what matter, life, and nature actually are—and the laws they follow—to overthrow the current religious, political, and state-mandated moral systems. We replace them with ones that are more perfect, more natural, and better. As Keith Lee2 puts it, we need to "change the fish from the head so it stops smelling." Once the head changes, fixing the body—the individual people—will be easy. They'll adapt naturally to a moral system that is far more intuitive and beneficial. Those new systems will be rooted in knowledge and high consciousness, unlike the current ones, which are driven by ignorance, delusions, and low-level consciousness.

Later.

rustymaker5:

Quinn:

We always start by staring at massive global crises instead of looking in the mirror, so everything looks way bleaker than it actually is.

When you look at the whole "give and take" dynamic, you can't just look at the individual; you have to look at society as a whole. Humans are social animals. Most of the time, we can't act exactly how we want because we're stuck following social norms, laws, moral codes, and traditions. This matters because if the way people interact in society regarding this "giving and receiving" isn't up to par, you can't just nag the individual to change their attitude toward society. You have to fix the entire system—change the laws, the norms, and the customs. It’s way more efficient to change the rules of the game so society shifts naturally, rather than demanding an individual fight against the grain of every law and social standard out there.

We've seen plenty of examples where trying to appeal to individuals to "be better" in hopes that society will eventually follow suit is a total waste of time. Take Christianity, for instance. They've been pushing the "love thy neighbor as thyself" mantra for two thousand years, and it hasn't done squat for individuals or for society. Why? Because for those two millennia, the legal systems and moral structures remained fundamentally opposed to Christ's command to love. We live in a world carved up by religion, nationality, ideology, borders, political parties, and class warfare—groups fighting to the death for territory and wealth. This struggle is forced upon us from the TOP DOWN by religious, state, political, and class power centers. These elites dictate the rules and punish anyone who doesn't play along. Essentially, Christ's command to "love your neighbor" is just a MASK used by the very people sowing division, hatred, and war to make themselves look righteous and honest while they prevent actual human connection.

So, my take is this: stop begging individuals to change. It's useless. Instead, aim your fire at the global political, national, religious, and class power centers. Demand they change their laws and moral systems—or better yet, let them die off. They are nothing but dangerous, useless baggage that has threatened the human race throughout all of history. We need to work on a global positive shift in how society functions. Once the system itself changes, the individuals within it will fall into line naturally without anyone having to lecture or force them.

Nancy Fowler61:

”I think I get what you two are getting at. It’s like the ‘I’ is sleeping, but that ‘I’ is just a piece of something much larger pulling the strings (kind of like that image in the original post).”

Look, nobody "controls" consciousness. There are just laws of necessity—logic, if you will—that allow consciousness to exist on its own. It self-sustains by constantly cycling through its three natural states. These states are in a perpetual loop, which is basically what people mean when they talk about "vibrations" or "biorhythms." Take the way a person lives: sleeping and resting at night, then waking up and moving around during the day. That’s a repeating rhythm, a natural cycle that keeps us going through those three states. Nobody else does that for you; you do it for yourself. It's the same with your heartbeat. Your lungs breathe that way. Your stomach empties and fills that way. If you look at physical forms and phenomena in nature, you'll see the same thing—everything exists and sustains itself through this constant pattern of repetition. Why it *has* to be this way and not any other way? That’s a longer conversation. I’ve got it all laid out on my website, so if you're actually interested, go read it.