text: Three layers of Reality., page 2
  posted on May, 25 2010 @ 01:02 PM
  To further confuse matters one must remember that your cognitive understanding perception of the world is dependent on your sensors. For example your brain can only decode what the eye gives the brain, even if the eye could see infrared, there is nothing to say our brain could decode that. So we all know that things exist out of our five senses, science as proved that, yet we cannot perceive them, but they are still part of our reality and thus can shape it. So i think our perception of reality, the self, and any cognitive permutations are not enough to explain reality, only our very subjective view of reality. Because of this limiting factor, we are often forced to leave behind conventional science and cognitive mechanisms, and explore the self, the I as you put it to better understand the truth of our reality. By the way Freud and Jung are no longer taught at Psychology undergrad in detail, because they touch on these ideas
  This is what I don't understand about the new age spiritual stuff. Are the kids starving in Africa and dieing of aids and malaria creating their reality? We've got people here spouting off "you create your reality, all is perfect, all is one" and you've got KIDS DIEING, starving, losing their mothers and fathers. Surely they didn't reincarnate and choose that? Who would want to live an existence on a god forsaken continent to be born, starve, maybe catch a disease if your lucky, watch both your mom and dad die, and then die yourself. Really? They chose this?
  It's easy to say life is just a dream, or it's not real, or it's real but we are eternal when you have a bed to sleep on, a house, a car, a fridge full of food, and the luxury to have internet to discuss such a thing. What do you tell those kids starving to death? Create a banana with their mind? Seriously, WAKE UP, you new agers think you are awake and enlightened because you think you've discovered how life works? The REAL enlightened people and the ones that can wake up to the fact life isn't all peaches. NEVER will we move forward as a species living in some fantasy land.
  posted on May, 28 2010 @ 06:18 PM
  If you put into perspective a non-physical existence where by you originally have no comprehension of any "physical reality" let alone a human experience, what would your first impression be?
  If what the general leading metaphysical impression is, and this is stemming from research at The Monroe Institute, and even some casual accounts like this video about a young boy remembering a past life and having it validated.
  Just to dip in that pot for a taste... then technically all things Human are actually quite alien to our adventurous non-physical counter-part self.
  There is a great interview with the late Robert A. Monroe where he touches on these possibilities. I highly recommend watching the entire interview to broaden your overview of the human experience.
  It's easy to say life is a physical reality, when there is really no subjective way to prove that what is physical is absolute, rather we can only measure limited amounts of "reality" information and make conclusions based on the most obvious systems and how they behave and act.
  Belief plays a fundamental role in everything you experience. You are shaped and molded by belief and that belief can even be a scientific theory that feels real, but is just an appeaser of your intellect.
  If you take "Dreams" and just piss on them, like most do... certainly they can be discarded as pointless and meaningless. The same applies to your life. It only has a measurement because you are here to observe and experience it.
  Dreams are the same, they have a potential to be measured and experienced by you. How this relates to any of us is irrelevant because like your life, you subjectively render an experience based data that you obtain through sensory input and then validate and explore through your beliefs, and theories.
  Are dreams a type of reality? I would argue yes. Although unique to each of us (like life is) they are a part of us (like life is) yet a part of us that we create and can control.
  Makes for interesting sleeps once you get the control part remembered again.
  Since dreams exist in nearly every living system that appears to have some measure of consciousness, I'd say a "belief" in them isn't new age rather scientific fact.
  It's when what you dream, and it comes true some day later... apply what ever monkey grease you want on that.
  [edit on 28-5-2010 by YouAreDreaming]
  Yes, I have read all of Monroe's books. I have educated myself on the possibility of a non-physical existence. Let's say there is a non-physical existence, why then do you "forget"? If EVERYONE absolutely KNEW this was just an experience and survived physical death, the world would be a whole lot better. I am also in the process of keeping a dream journal.
  I guess I find myself torn between believing this is all there is and believing this is just an experience. I mean, why wouldn't you believe this is all there is? Can you really blame me and the people that do? Look around you, the world is full of suffering whether it's the kids in Africa, or the single mom working overtime at two jobs, or suffering because of your desires like Buddha said.
  So why the need to "forget" then? That's what I'm hung up on.
  posted on May, 28 2010 @ 08:22 PM
  Your model assumes that the cognitive self can perceive all of reality with the senses or the mind, that's a big leap of faith.
  We also know that the nature of reality can change as we develop tools to perceive it on new levels and that even with those tools at times reality cannot be perceived completely, like position and momentum in quantum mechanics.
  I see where you are going with your model but as at least one other poster has suggested your model all comes back to self. A very "human" model of reality it is.
  posted on May, 28 2010 @ 08:29 PM
  I would hazard an educated guess that your assuming that his model assumes that the self can perceive all of reality.
  From how I've read it, he simply states that there is physical reality, followed by cognitive reality which perceives what it does of physical reality and this leads to the self aspect of reality that experiences these perceptions of reality.
  To an extent yes but in calling reality "physical" you are placing limits on it based upon the limits of self.
  posted on May, 28 2010 @ 08:58 PM
  No, the limit is placed on the cognitive reality to perceive, which thus is translated over to the self by default as the one experiencing the cognitive reality. As the OP rightfully stated, cognitive reality is dependent upon physical reality in order to exist, and self reality is dependent upon cognitive reality to exist.
  Really, our perception of reality is less than what exists in reality. Our range of perception can't translate all of reality to the self. We can't see reality in the infrared or UV spectrum, we can't decode radio waves or feel magnetic fields. The reality of the self is less than the reality of the cognitive which is a fraction of physical reality.