For popular or very good threads
Therefore you are suggesting that consciousness is unreal? How do you go about explaining that consciousness is nonphysical AND real then?
A hallucination is nonphysical and unreal in the objective sense. It has no public reality.
Consciousness is nonphysical but real in the subjective sense. It is the one thing we cannot deny exists, because it is the very medium required for denial or affirmation.
I was only referring to a subset of conscious experience. Here's a previous post that elaborates on that explains further..
Just thought of other topics you might want to test your theory against... experiences of unreal things (hallucinations, illusions, and VR). I believe unreal and real is related to nonphysical and physical.

................................................................
The way I continue to explain this is that, the hallucination of The Mind (the overall - sometimes referred to as "Creator") has created this UNI-verse which to consciousnesses experiencing it from within first hand understand it to being REAL (not hallucination/simulation/thought manifesting things)
However, from our perspective we cannot just think things into existence. Rather what we can do is imagine things and then use what is available to us as "material" to shape these things imagined, into our existence.
As to what we imagine but do not experience as real (other than in lucid dreams, NDEs, chemical supplements, et al) these are clues that yes indeed, what we do imagine can be experienced as real re death is not the end.

Now we can sit on our hands here and wait for death to show us or not...but the ability to make real things which are first imagined, is inherited from the Over All MIND which enables such to occur...and as you may appreciate - many NDE reports do indeed bring back the idea that what we imagine can indeed be made real...not just as immediately in some cases, or by shaping material available to us now, but also, eventually in another type of reality experience we have yet to experience full on...

In essence, my theory resolves the paradox by framing "reality" as context-dependent. What is unreal for a human in a physical body is the fundamental substance of a higher-order consciousness, and our own "unreal" imaginings are a tantalizing inheritance pointing toward our ultimate potential.
Interesting perspective... esp. the part in bold.

I was going to say that I had a lucid dream when I was a teenager. Nearly everything I thought about in the dream happened in the immediately in the dream. It started out as I was looking outside and there were very dark clouds, like a bad storm was coming. Then that's when I remembered that I am dreaming. The moment I thought about a tornado, a tornado actually formed. I got scared and woke up.
 
Last edited:
Therefore you are suggesting that consciousness is unreal? How do you go about explaining that consciousness is nonphysical AND real then?
A hallucination is nonphysical and unreal in the objective sense. It has no public reality.
Consciousness is nonphysical but real in the subjective sense. It is the one thing we cannot deny exists, because it is the very medium required for denial or affirmation.
I was only referring to a subset of conscious experience. Here's a previous post that elaborates on that explains further..
Just thought of other topics you might want to test your theory against... experiences of unreal things (hallucinations, illusions, and VR). I believe unreal and real is related to nonphysical and physical.
The red is to point out that word again...do you mean to say you "think" ? The bold implies you see the same in "unreal vs real" and "nonphysical vs physical.". Can you reword this to resolve the implication?

................................................................
The way I continue to explain this is that, the hallucination of The Mind (the overall - sometimes referred to as "Creator") has created this UNI-verse which to consciousnesses experiencing it from within first hand understand it to being REAL (not hallucination/simulation/thought manifesting things)
However, from our perspective we cannot just think things into existence. Rather what we can do is imagine things and then use what is available to us as "material" to shape these things imagined, into our existence.
As to what we imagine but do not experience as real (other than in lucid dreams, NDEs, chemical supplements, et al) these are clues that yes indeed, what we do imagine can be experienced as real re death is not the end.

Now we can sit on our hands here and wait for death to show us or not...but the ability to make real things which are first imagined, is inherited from the Over All MIND which enables such to occur...and as you may appreciate - many NDE reports do indeed bring back the idea that what we imagine can indeed be made real...not just as immediately in some cases, or by shaping material available to us now, but also, eventually in another type of reality experience we have yet to experience full on...

In essence, my theory resolves the paradox by framing "reality" as context-dependent. What is unreal for a human in a physical body is the fundamental substance of a higher-order consciousness, and our own "unreal" imaginings are a tantalizing inheritance pointing toward our ultimate potential.
Interesting perspective... esp. the part in bold.

I was going to say that I had a lucid dream when I was a teenager. Nearly everything I thought about in the dream happened in the immediately in the dream. It started out as I was looking outside and there were very dark clouds, like a bad storm was coming. Then that's when I remembered that I am dreaming. The moment I thought about a tornado, a tornado actually formed. I got scared and woke up.

This is what I am pointing to. The nature of the human experience re - let's call it our dominant current reality - is dark clouds can turn into tornadoes and there is nothing we can do to change that.
Whereas, coupled with gnosis - when one realises one is in another type of reality experience, one has more control of said experience. One need not associate dark clouds as a storm coming and a possible tornado forming, as one can simply bring sunshine into the experience and break the dark clouds, producing a sunny day.

It is only because of your experience that you can understand what it is I am arguing and thus respond as you have. :) The reminder of a dream you had in your teens came to you conscious now, and that knowledge is gnosis, which can assist you in stepping from agnostic agnostic to agnostic gnosis..

Deepseek:
Based on the text provided, here is a summary of the key points from your conversation:

The core argument is that reality is context-dependent. In our normal physical reality, we cannot simply imagine things into existence; we must use available materials to build them. However, experiences like lucid dreams and NDEs act as "clues" that a different type of reality exists where thought has immediate creative power.

  • Human Reality: We shape our world by imagining something and then using physical "material" to create it.
  • Higher-Order Reality: In states like lucid dreams, imagination directly and instantly manifests reality (e.g., thinking of a tornado and one appears).
  • The Resolution: This creative power is an inheritance from an "Over All MIND." What we consider "unreal" imaginings in our physical world is the fundamental substance of a higher consciousness we will eventually experience.
  • Gnosis: Realizing you are in a different reality (like a lucid dream) grants you control over it. This knowledge ("gnosis") is evidence that our potential is not limited to our current physical experience.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AgnosticBoy
The red is to point out that word again...do you mean to say you "think" ? The bold implies you see the same in "unreal vs real" and "nonphysical vs physical.". Can you reword this to resolve the implication?
I'll try to specify more next time as I didn't mean to just limit the nonphysical to being unreal. It can be both real and unreal.

Therefore you are suggesting that consciousness is unreal? How do you go about explaining that consciousness is nonphysical AND real then?
A hallucination is nonphysical and unreal in the objective sense. It has no public reality.
Consciousness is nonphysical but real in the subjective sense. It is the one thing we cannot deny exists, because it is the very medium required for denial or affirmation.
Here's more detailed way I can that clarify... The nonphysical can be both real (thoughts) and unreal (hallucinations). While both (thoughts and hallucinations) involve a subjective experience, but the latter (hallucinations) mislead someone into thinking it is real and it's also being projected into the environment as if it is real (as if it really exists in physical space) when it it's really not in physical space.

All physical things are real.

Under your view, I wanted to know what would be considered unreal and how that unreal thing is physical. You stated the following:
What is unreal for a human in a physical body is the fundamental substance of a higher-order consciousness, and our own "unreal" imaginings are a tantalizing inheritance pointing toward our ultimate potential.
Rather what we can do is imagine things and then use what is available to us as "material" to shape these things imagined, into our existence.

Sounds like you're saying that imagination is non-material... is that right? It doesn't 'materialize' until we act on it in some way is what it sounds like you're explaining. But then you also say this in your last post:
The core argument is that reality is context-dependent. In our normal physical reality, we cannot simply imagine things into existence; we must use available materials to build them. However, experiences like lucid dreams and NDEs act as "clues" that a different type of reality exists where thought has immediate creative power.
That latter would seem to be non-material if nothing materializes from that.
 
The red is to point out that word again...do you mean to say you "think" ? The bold implies you see the same in "unreal vs real" and "nonphysical vs physical.". Can you reword this to resolve the implication?
I'll try to specify more next time as I didn't mean to just limit the nonphysical to being unreal. It can be both real and unreal.

Therefore you are suggesting that consciousness is unreal? How do you go about explaining that consciousness is nonphysical AND real then?
A hallucination is nonphysical and unreal in the objective sense. It has no public reality.
Consciousness is nonphysical but real in the subjective sense. It is the one thing we cannot deny exists, because it is the very medium required for denial or affirmation.
Here's more detailed way I can that clarify... The nonphysical can be both real (thoughts) and unreal (hallucinations).
Why do you think thoughts are real and hallucinations not?



While both (thoughts and hallucinations) involve a subjective experience, but the latter (hallucinations) mislead someone into thinking it is real and it's also being projected into the environment as if it is real (as if it really exists in physical space) when it it's really not in physical space.
Doesn't that also apply to thoughts?
All physical things are real.

Under your view, I wanted to know what would be considered unreal and how that unreal thing is physical. You stated the following:
What is unreal for a human in a physical body is the fundamental substance of a higher-order consciousness, and our own "unreal" imaginings are a tantalizing inheritance pointing toward our ultimate potential.
Rather what we can do is imagine things and then use what is available to us as "material" to shape these things imagined, into our existence.

Sounds like you're saying that imagination is non-material... is that right? It doesn't 'materialize' until we act on it in some way is what it sounds like you're explaining. But then you also say this in your last post:
No. Imagination is an aspect of mind/mindfulness. Mind is an aspect of Consciousness.
The core argument is that reality is context-dependent. In our normal physical reality, we cannot simply imagine things into existence; we must use available materials to build them. However, experiences like lucid dreams and NDEs act as "clues" that a different type of reality exists where thought has immediate creative power.
That latter would seem to be non-material if nothing materializes from that.
"Seem to be" is exactly what I have be saying in that what "Seems to be" non-material (foremost - consciousness) is as material as everything else. Or - if we prefer the other way - everything is non-material but some things seem to be material if they can be experienced as material...like a human body and the environment it is in.

Since we are discussing this from the perspective of experiencing things as material, I prefer the less confusing view that all things including consciousness, are material.

To zoom in on this, consider the idea that only one thing is actually real, and all other things are created by that one thing, and that one thing is consciousness.

This means that effectively, before things materialize, Consciousness Is...(Biblically stated along the lines of "Before anything existed, I AM).

The "I AM" does not create things from non-things (Ex nihilo) but from itself - which is why I argued that all things reside within The Infinite Eternal Mind of said creator.

(Thus, if we want to call consciousness non-material everything within that mind must also be non material even though it can be experienced as physical (ie hallucination).)

Now we could pause here and ask ourselves "But the things which we experience as real seem to be real - how can everything we experience as real, reside within the mind-field of a creator-mind?

My answer to that, is that said Mind-Field is infinite and eternal. This means that there is no end to the Field and that the field has always existed.

(This does away with the problem of infinite regress)

This also means that as large as our UNI-verse appears to be to us within it, experiencing it, it may only take up an infinitesimal "Area" within the Creator Mind-Field. (CMF)
This also means that it is plausible that a near-infinite number of UNI-verse exist within CMF. (aka "many universes theory)

Now to our particular being.

We are consciousness. There is only one source of consciousness. We are like individuals "nodes" experiencing being human, here in this universe like outposts the CMF utilises to explore and interact with this UNI-Verse.

The data of our experiences are gathered into the whole.

I also speak of the planet being a conscious entity - a "node" itself which - through that process - births other "nodes" in its local.

But anyway - that is an outline of how I think about my experience being human. There is no end to the depth of the CMF, and why I hesitate to call out hallucinations as being unreal. All we can say is that when someone has an hallucination, it is not real to us observing said person claiming to see angels or demons or whatever it is...any more than a group of medical folk working on a persons body during serious surgery, experience what NDErs report but are we to dismiss said NDE reports as "hallucination" just because of that?

Overall, that is why I try to include all things into my understanding - join the dots as it were - as an attempt to integrate the many various theories into one...

Deepseek:
Based on your text, here is a summary of your core worldview:

You propose that a single, infinite, and eternal Creator Mind-Field (CMF) is the fundamental reality. This CMF is pure consciousness ("I AM") from which everything is generated.

Your key points are:

  • One Fundamental Substance: Everything, including what we call physical matter and non-physical consciousness, is ultimately the same substance—the "material" of the CMF. The difference between a physical object and a hallucination is not one of fundamental reality, but of consensus and context of experience.
  • Consciousness as Foundational: Consciousness is not a byproduct of matter; instead, matter is a manifestation of consciousness. The CMF creates all things from itself, not from nothing.
  • Our Place in This Model: Individual humans (and even planets) are localized "nodes" or points of awareness within the vast CMF. We are the means through which the CMF experiences and interacts with a specific universe.
  • Infinite Realities: Our universe is just one of a potentially infinite number of universes existing within the CMF.
  • Implications for Experience: This model challenges the label of "unreal" for experiences like hallucinations, dreams, or Near-Death Experiences (NDEs). They are simply different types of realities within the CMF, not shared by the consensus of our normal physical reality.
In essence, you are integrating various philosophical and spiritual ideas into a unified theory where an infinite consciousness is the sole reality, and all experiences, whether "physical" or "mental," are valid manifestations within it.
 
The nonphysical can be both real (thoughts) and unreal (hallucinations). While both (thoughts and hallucinations) involve a subjective experience, but the latter (hallucinations) mislead someone into thinking it is real and it's also being projected into the environment as if it is real (as if it really exists in physical space) when it it's really not in physical space
Doesn't that also apply to thoughts?
There are similarities but also key differences. For instance, both are non-physical. For hallucinations, the unreal part is that the perception is false. The person is perceiving it coming from the environment when the object (whatever they're perceiving) is not really in the environment.

But anyway - that is an outline of how I think about my experience being human. There is no end to the depth of the CMF, and why I hesitate to call out hallucinations as being unreal. All we can say is that when someone has an hallucination, it is not real to us observing said person claiming to see angels or demons or whatever it is...any more than a group of medical folk working on a persons body during serious surgery, experience what NDErs report but are we to dismiss said NDE reports as "hallucination" just because of that?
This can be framed as a question...
What's the difference between a hallucination and a NDE?

In my view, it depends on where the NDE takes place. If the person is claiming to see and hear things happening in the operating room that did not really happen, then I would call that a false perception (i.e. a hallucination). If such and such happens in the operating room (a physical space that others could corroborate), then there should be objective evidence for that. If the NDE is of a different environment, like some other world or dimension, then that can be different from a hallucination if such places (other worlds, spiritual worlds, other dimensions) really exist. Probably couldn't tell in that case if it was a hallucination.

I would also be very careful labeling hallucinations as an alternate reality experience or giving it any validity as that can be dangerous in terms of mental health.

Your key points are:

  • One Fundamental Substance: Everything, including what we call physical matter and non-physical consciousness, is ultimately the same substance—the "material" of the CMF. The difference between a physical object and a hallucination is not one of fundamental reality, but of consensus and context of experience.
  • Consciousness as Foundational: Consciousness is not a byproduct of matter; instead, matter is a manifestation of consciousness. The CMF creates all things from itself, not from nothing.
  • Our Place in This Model: Individual humans (and even planets) are localized "nodes" or points of awareness within the vast CMF. We are the means through which the CMF experiences and interacts with a specific universe.
  • Infinite Realities: Our universe is just one of a potentially infinite number of universes existing within the CMF.
  • Implications for Experience: This model challenges the label of "unreal" for experiences like hallucinations, dreams, or Near-Death Experiences (NDEs). They are simply different types of realities within the CMF, not shared by the consensus of our normal physical reality.
(y)Thanks for explaining. Right now, I don't see any logical issues with it. It's a good and cool theory, which hopefully you could gather more evidence and then I think you'd get the attention of even more people.
 
Last edited:
The nonphysical can be both real (thoughts) and unreal (hallucinations). While both (thoughts and hallucinations) involve a subjective experience, but the latter (hallucinations) mislead someone into thinking it is real and it's also being projected into the environment as if it is real (as if it really exists in physical space) when it it's really not in physical space
Doesn't that also apply to thoughts?
There are similarities but also key differences. For instance, both are non-physical. For hallucinations, the unreal part is that the perception is false. The person is perceiving it coming from the environment when the object (whatever they're perceiving) is not really in the environment.

But anyway - that is an outline of how I think about my experience being human. There is no end to the depth of the CMF, and why I hesitate to call out hallucinations as being unreal. All we can say is that when someone has an hallucination, it is not real to us observing said person claiming to see angels or demons or whatever it is...any more than a group of medical folk working on a persons body during serious surgery, experience what NDErs report but are we to dismiss said NDE reports as "hallucination" just because of that?
This can be framed as a question...
What's the difference between a hallucination and a NDE?

In my view, it depends on where the NDE takes place. If the person is claiming to see and hear things happening in the operating room that did not really happen, then I would call that a false perception (i.e. a hallucination). If such and such happens in a physical environment like an operating room (a physical space that others could corroborate), then there should be objective evidence for that. If the NDE is of a different environment, like some other world or dimension, then that can be different from a hallucination if such places (other worlds, spiritual worlds, other dimensions) really exist.
So, the agnostic-agnostic position is to remain on the solitary pillar and presume bridges cannot be built until physical evidence is presented to you which allows for that to happen?
I would also be very careful labeling hallucinations as an alternate reality experience or giving it any validity as that can be dangerous in terms of mental health.
Given the vast amount of NDE reports which show positive life changing attributes re mental health, even to the point where doubters who demand physical evidence before committing to any bridging, cannot destabilise the experiencers new way of seeing things and the bridging of the void of doubt which occurs as a consequence...the noticeable highlight therein is that the one who has experienced has no need for other to validate their experience before committing to the bridging...theism hasn't lasted as long as it has through waiting on atheists (or agnostic agnostics) to "validate".
Your key points are:

  • One Fundamental Substance: Everything, including what we call physical matter and non-physical consciousness, is ultimately the same substance—the "material" of the CMF. The difference between a physical object and a hallucination is not one of fundamental reality, but of consensus and context of experience.
  • Consciousness as Foundational: Consciousness is not a byproduct of matter; instead, matter is a manifestation of consciousness. The CMF creates all things from itself, not from nothing.
  • Our Place in This Model: Individual humans (and even planets) are localized "nodes" or points of awareness within the vast CMF. We are the means through which the CMF experiences and interacts with a specific universe.
  • Infinite Realities: Our universe is just one of a potentially infinite number of universes existing within the CMF.
  • Implications for Experience: This model challenges the label of "unreal" for experiences like hallucinations, dreams, or Near-Death Experiences (NDEs). They are simply different types of realities within the CMF, not shared by the consensus of our normal physical reality.
(y)Thanks for explaining. Right now, I don't see any logical issues with it. It's a good and cool theory, which hopefully you could gather more evidence and then I think you'd get the attention of even more people.
I am not motivated by any need to have external validation from those who doubt. Committing to agnostic gnosis re bridging is accepting the wholeness of my personal subjective life experience without waiting on validating gatekeeping nods of approval.
 
So, the agnostic-agnostic position is to remain on the solitary pillar and presume bridges cannot be built until physical evidence is presented to you which allows for that to happen?
At the least, I would say there needs to be good evidence. It can be scientific or non-scientific. Absent any evidence, the agnostic should suspend judgement on any bridge or view, and this contrasts with dismissing such evidence and views like Clownboat did (and as many other atheists would do) on the DebatingChristianity forum.

Given the vast amount of NDE reports which show positive life changing attributes re mental health, even to the point where doubters who demand physical evidence before committing to any bridging, cannot destabilise the experiencers new way of seeing things and the bridging of the void of doubt which occurs as a consequence...the noticeable highlight therein is that the one who has experienced has no need for other to validate their experience before committing to the bridging...theism hasn't lasted as long as it has through waiting on atheists (or agnostic agnostics) to "validate".
I am not motivated by any need to have external validation from those who doubt. Committing to agnostic gnosis re bridging is accepting the wholeness of my personal subjective life experience without waiting on validating gatekeeping nods of approval.
This touches on my previous response up above. I look at having someone else to validate/corroborate your experience as a luxury.

In the scenario that I gave about harm to mental health, I was referring to someone not questioning their NDE or hallucination or always seeing it as real and valid. The danger in that is some experiences lead people to act, and we don't want people acting (through feeling or actions) on something that can cause harm.
 
Last edited:
So, the agnostic-agnostic position is to remain on the solitary pillar and presume bridges cannot be built until physical evidence is presented to you which allows for that to happen?
At the least, I would say there needs to be good evidence. It can be scientific or non-scientific. Absent any evidence, the agnostic should suspend judgement on any bridge or view, and this contrasts with dismissing such evidence and views like Clownboat did (and as many other atheists would do) on the DebatingChristianity forum.
CB comes across as more than a little unhinged...and your statement implies that at least with outright athiesm, no bridge need be built.
Yet what about theism?
For example, I think you think there is enough evidence to support the resurrection? What bridging is involved with that and where does that place you in regard to the Christian view?
Given the vast amount of NDE reports which show positive life changing attributes re mental health, even to the point where doubters who demand physical evidence before committing to any bridging, cannot destabilise the experiencers new way of seeing things and the bridging of the void of doubt which occurs as a consequence...the noticeable highlight therein is that the one who has experienced has no need for other to validate their experience before committing to the bridging...theism hasn't lasted as long as it has through waiting on atheists (or agnostic agnostics) to "validate".
I am not motivated by any need to have external validation from those who doubt. Committing to agnostic gnosis re bridging is accepting the wholeness of my personal subjective life experience without waiting on validating gatekeeping nods of approval.
This touches on my previous response up above. I look at having someone else to validate/corroborate your experience as a luxury.

In the scenario that I gave about harm to mental health, I was referring to someone not questioning their NDE or hallucination or always seeing it as real and valid. The danger in that is some experiences lead people to act, and we don't want people acting (through feeling or actions) on something that can cause harm.
What questioning would you recommend. Let me know and I will offer some answers re that, re my own alternate experiences.