What is reality?

[cannabis-sam]

I know this is something everyone thinks about but I think about it everyday, it's a mindblowing topic. People all have different perceptions of reality and that's what makes me constantly question this. How is what see and how we understand the world to work real. Most of us are what we would call 'normal' their reality seems to be at least similar if not the same as everyone elses. Some people SWIM included choose to alter their perceptions with various chemicals which change the way the brain interprets information, this leads me on to thinking if a small amount of a chemical can drastically alter what we see and hear how do we know what baseline level is actually real. How do we know anything is real? If we constantly saw what SWIwe see under the influence of psychedelics wouldn't that become reality?

How do we know that blue doens't look like green to another person, there is no way to say what things actually look like to other people in their minds, we can only assume what we see is the same. What about the people with mental illnesses schizophrenia for example, people hear voices talk to people that aren't there, but to them that is reality. Who are we to say these things don't exist.

What if we are all just images and thoughts in someone's brain, or part of someone psychedelic trip.

Everyday I think am I real? what if I wake up and reality is no longer what it seems? What if I see the world in a way no one else does?

These thoughts give me a fucking headache it's complete mindfuck. Am I normal?

Reputation Comments on this post:

I think you deserve rep for starting such an interesting and informative thread. Wd (well done, not wd lol)

[Joel90]

I get the same thing, very much so. The thought can be totally all consuming. Unfortuantly, I often think "If I can't even decide what's REAL in the world, whats the point in trying?"

When I confided these thoughts in a friend, she said that if reality is a choice, or a perception, then one may as well enjoy their own perception of the world as much as they can.

Reputation Comments on this post:

yep enjoy ur perception ,all ya can do

[Joe-(5-HTP)]

Originally Posted by cannabis-sam

If we constantly saw what SWIwe see under the influence of psychedelics wouldn't that become reality?

If you take the definition/understanding of "reality" to be synonymous in structure, appearance and meaning to what we perceive then i would answer yes to this question.

If you think, as i do, however, that "reality" is something objective (separate from subjective perception) then you would answer no. Reality as it exists independently of our perception is what science attempts to uncover.

An example: From the objective/scientific standpoint, the object is not "red" it is simply emitting/reflecting light waves that are of a certain frequency. From the subjective/non-scientific standpoint (us looking at something) the object is red.

Part of our subjective powers is the ability to think. We can think about subjective concepts such as thought and objective concepts such existence and illogically link them together to create ridiculous illogical propositions such as

Originally Posted by cannabis-sam

What if we are all just images and thoughts in someone's brain, or part of someone psychedelic trip.

Everyday I think am I real? what if I wake up and reality is no longer what it seems? What if I see the world in a way no one else does?

So we can use science to discern what objective reality is. Studying the effects of LSD on the brain, for example, can easily lead to an understanding of how the mind/consciousness and sensory perception is affected at the chemical/molecular level. In this way, we can understand how people's subjective perception can be altered, but we can make the distinction between subjective perception and objective reality.

Originally Posted by cannabis-sam

What about the people with mental illnesses schizophrenia for example, people hear voices talk to people that aren't there, but to them that is reality. Who are we to say these things don't exist.

To them that is indeed reality. But take a look around at the progress of science. None of the technology you see would be possible to invent or understand if science had not discovered how to successfully manipulate reality by understanding its logic. The implications of the success of science are thus that reality is structured in a logically discernible way Who are we, therefore, to say these things don't exist? manipulators and masters of the universe: that is what we are.

Reputation Comments on this post:

that was extremely intresting and informative .

[SunMoon]

Originally Posted by Joe-(5-HTP)

So we can use science to discern what objective reality is. Studying the effects of LSD on the brain, for example, can easily lead to an understanding of how the mind/consciousness and sensory perception is affected at the chemical/molecular level. In this way, we can understand how people's subjective perception can be altered, but we can make the distinction between subjective perception and objective reality.



To them that is indeed reality. But take a look around at the progress of science. None of the technology you see would be possible to invent or understand if science had not discovered how to successfully manipulate reality by understanding its logic. The implications of the success of science are thus that reality is structured in a logically discernible way Who are we, therefore, to say these things don't exist? manipulators and masters of the universe: that is what we are.

I agree wholeheartdly with your post. My question is, can we ever uncover 'real' reality? That is, can we ever separate ourselves from the means we use to acknowledge reality? Not only the scientific instruments, but even our senses?

Interesting topic OP!

[Joe-(5-HTP)]

@=> Routmaster and Nemba. Yes I have learnt a bit more about this topic and I see that I was wrong to assume a direct connection between the image on the retina and the conscious experience of the observer.

Originally Posted by SunMoon

I agree wholeheartdly with your post. My question is, can we ever uncover 'real' reality? That is, can we ever separate ourselves from the means we use to acknowledge reality? Not only the scientific instruments, but even our senses?

What do you imagine this 'uncovering' of 'real' reality might entail? Perception is a subjective concept, and so is knowledge. Science is a human concept and to that extent it is also subjective. As you can see I have revised my views somewhat since that post. I no longer believe in the objectivity of science as traditionally defined because I have realised that knowledge exists as thoughts in the brain and to that extent it is and must be subjective (observer relative).

The objectivity of science is retained, I suspect, by the idea that scientific knowledge 'refers' to non-observer dependent reality. This referral, however, is subjective, which lands us back at square one.

This dilemma is solved, in my view, by considering the idea that human brains work in reaction to their environment, and that this process is indubitably objective in the full sense of the word. The existence of subjective concepts as thoughts in the mind is ontologically objective or non-observer relative. The lynch pin for whether a concept such as science 'refers' to objective reality or not, therefore, is whether it is successful in manipulating reality.

Here, people opposed to the notion of science uncovering objective truth/reality might interject that judging whether or not reality has been manipulated is an observer-relative judgement. In response, I would say that within rigidly defined definitions of truth (scientific truth being equal to the result of the scientific method, for example) we can be justified in our equating of science as objective truth, if only from our subjective perspective... The afore mentioned people might say that 'that is not the only type of truth !' to which I would respond 'in what context, or in what system of logic can that statement be verified?'

It seems a bewildering issue.. my mind is far from made up.

[Routemaster Flash]

Originally Posted by Joe-(5-HTP)

What do you imagine this 'uncovering' of 'real' reality might entail? Perception is a subjective concept, and so is knowledge. Science is a human concept and to that extent it is also subjective. As you can see I have revised my views somewhat since that post. I no longer believe in the objectivity of science as traditionally defined because I have realised that knowledge exists as thoughts in the brain and to that extent it is and must be subjective (observer relative).

I think there are some kinds of knowledge that are not subjective. Mathematical truth, for one - though of course that's very different from scientific fact, which is empirically derived or at least verified. (In my scheme of thought, mathematics - and mathematics alone! - deals with 'truths', while, science deals with 'facts'.) But even scientific facts can be objective.

Consider, for instance, the speed of light in a vacuum. It is a fact that this has the value of 299,792,458 m/s (to 8 sig figs, I guess - just got this from Wikipedia). If two scientists, or teams of scientists, set out to measure this constant, they will both arrive at this value if they have done their experiments properly and thoroughly. Their precise values may differ, but will agree to within some experimental margin of uncertainty. If they disagree, then either one or both groups has done their experiment incorrectly. Moreover, one of these groups of scientists may hail from the plant Shplbwunhgy in the Andromeda galaxy, but as long as they and a group of terrestrial scientists can agree on the definitions of the words "light", "speed", "vacuum", "metre" and "second" then their values will agree. It is not someone's 'opinion' that the speed of light has this value - it is an objective fact.

Originally Posted by Joe-(5-HTP)

Here, people opposed to the notion of science uncovering objective truth/reality might interject that judging whether or not reality has been manipulated is an observer-relative judgement.

Well I think that would be a very weak argument indeed. Is it not an objective truth that humans manipulated the state of nuclear matter in a couple of small samples of heavy metals above the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945? I think it would be extremely trite to claim otherwise.

Originally Posted by Joe-(5-HTP)

In response, I would say that within rigidly defined definitions of truth (scientific truth being equal to the result of the scientific method, for example) we can be justified in our equating of science as objective truth, if only from our subjective perspective... The afore mentioned people might say that 'that is not the only type of truth !' to which I would respond 'in what context, or in what system of logic can that statement be verified?'

Then you're much more patient than me - I'd be more inclined to say "Oh just fuck off, will you?".

[enquirewithin]

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. --Philip K. Dick

[Phungushead]

Reality is perception.

Reality: There is a shotgun propped up in a corner.

Perceiver #1: Sweet... I can't wait until it's hunting season again.

Perceiver #2: I fucking can't stand guns... my brother was killed in a hunting accident when we were kids.

The shotgun still exists ("physical" reality) independent of both perceivers. Each assign meaning ("filtered" reality) through personal past experience. Therefore, we create reality...

Another way to look at it would be "shotgun theory"... you can believe the gun will not kill you. This is your perception, your truth, and it is real to you... but in actuality, reality is quite different and your brains will blow...

SWIM's going to stop rambling now...

Reputation Comments on this post:

Humorous approach to an important point!

[bananaskin]

Originally Posted by Phungushead

... you can believe the gun will not kill you.

The gun will not kill you... the person pulling the trigger might though

[helikophis]

Originally Posted by bananaskin

The gun will not kill you... the person pulling the trigger might though

I think it's more likely to be the bullet. Or the hole it leaves behind.

[ComfortablyNumb]

Originally Posted by cannabis-sam

How do we know that blue doens't look like green to another person, there is no way to say what things actually look like to other people in their minds, we can only assume what we see is the same.

When i first read this, i was like, yeah maybe, but then i understood it and it blew my mind. Holy fuck...!

[Joe-(5-HTP)]

^^^

I have to take issue with this also... I can't help myself.

The eye "cells" (in a healthy person who doesn't have an eye infection or anything) react to different wavelengths of light enabling us to see color. This process is a function which is necessitated by the physical structure of the cell. Because all eye cells in all people are the same, they all have the same structure and therefore the processes enabled by these structures will also be exactly the same.

So, when two people look at a colored object, the wavelength of the light entering their eyes is exactly the same. Also, as we have seen, their eye cells are also identical.

It follows that the people have exactly the same experience.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Nicely stated; brings discussion to reality

[coelho]

Originally Posted by Joe-(5-HTP)

The eye "cells" (in a healthy person who doesn't have an eye infection or anything) react to different wavelengths of light enabling us to see color. This process is a function which is necessitated by the physical structure of the cell. Because all eye cells in all people are the same, they all have the same structure and therefore the processes enabled by these structures will also be exactly the same.

So, when two people look at a colored object, the wavelength of the light entering their eyes is exactly the same. Also, as we have seen, their eye cells are also identical.

It follows that the people have exactly the same experience.

I dont think so... the most one can say is that the same regions of the brain are stimuled by the same color. But this says absolutely nothing about the subjective experience of the color, about how one actually sees the color, how one interpret the signals in that specific areas of the brain.
One thing is the existence of electric signals in the brain, which can be measured. Another thing, very different, is how the mind interpret this electric signals, and it surely cant be measured (yet).

To the OP: i think reality is like a collective hallucination. If one person sees something, and another person sees the same thing, they say that this thing is real. But they could both be hallucinating the same thing. How could they prove it isnt so?
Anyway, the fact is we will never know for sure if the "outside world" is "real" or not, if actually there is an objective reality or not, because we are bounded to be humans, and so to percieve the world as humans do, which makes all our notions of reality to be subjective. We only can percieve the world from "inside a human" perspective. We cant leave our humanity and percieve the world aside the human part of the perception to know how much of what we percieve of the world is "real" and how much is created by our mind, so the question about the "reality" of the world is unanswered.
The Matrix movie is an excellent example of how we call "reality" can be "unreal"... and even the science cant help to answer this question... even if the movie doesnt show, surely there was lots of scientists into the matrix (as it simulated the human society as it was at the end of the 20th century), and surely they were searching for the secrets of the universe, the smallest subatomic particles, the mindblowing paradoxes of quantum physics, etc, etc, without knowing (or even dreaming) that all their beautiful, logical and rational science and view of the world was only and just only bits in a computer program...

Reputation Comments on this post:

Interesting post with valid points brought up

[Randomiiza]

Reality is defined by YOU.

Life is but the experience provided by the continuation of existence.

There is no real truth, only what you will believe.

The only constant of our universe is change, structured in randomization and relativity. The questions everyone asks: what is the meaning of life? Why am I here? The answer is a circle. It is you. Evolution has produced us through random change, that is what the facts tell us. Now it is up to our beliefs to shape our future existence and truly give us our own meaning.

Music is a great example. Such random sounds somehow have natural meanings to us ? There is knowledge and belief, what we all know, and how we percieve this. Our own emotions and biases place themselves on our input. A death metal concert may be passionate to some but, others have no interest. Though at the same time they may recognize the quality of the sound due to its relation of what they percieve as good music. That's why most reggae listeners will not appreciate metal due vast differences in similiarity and vice versa. Though similiar genres have mainly the same listeners.

Having an open-minded opinion is impossible..lol literally oxymoron
But, you can always pretend to be watching from beyond, dropping all shackles to the corpreal, and really listening to the heartbeat of our world.

Swim's relationship to mind-altering substances has not shown him this, but have taught him to read what he has always seen around him.

Carpe Diem

[Routemaster Flash]

Originally Posted by Joe-(5-HTP)

^^^

I have to take issue with this also... I can't help myself.

The eye "cells" (in a healthy person who doesn't have an eye infection or anything) react to different wavelengths of light enabling us to see color. This process is a function which is necessitated by the physical structure of the cell. Because all eye cells in all people are the same, they all have the same structure and therefore the processes enabled by these structures will also be exactly the same.

So, when two people look at a colored object, the wavelength of the light entering their eyes is exactly the same. Also, as we have seen, their eye cells are also identical.

It follows that the people have exactly the same experience.

But eyes don't 'see' - they collect visual information and then pass it on to the visual cortex, which processes it and makes sense of it.

Consider two examples: firstly, a colourblind person. Obviously their perception of colour is different from yours, since they are unable to distinguish colours which, to you, are different (assuming you are not colourblind, of course). This is because the cells in their visual cortex do not work in exactly the same way as the cells in yours - or maybe it's to do with cells in the retina, I don't know. Point is, some cells somewhere must be different. Secondly, consider someone tripping their tits off on acid - the cells in their eyes are no different from when they're sober (apart from pupil dilation, maybe) but the cells in their brain, including their visual cortex, are working in a very different way from how they work normally. So colours (and other aspects of vision) are perceived differently.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Good points to bring to the discussion

[Taken]

Timothy Leary sample:
Think for yourself
Question authority
Throughout human history, as our species has faced the frightening, terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are, or where we are going in this ocean of chaos, it has been the authorities, the political, the religious, the educational authorities who attempted to comfort us by giving us order, rules, regulations, informing, forming in our minds their view of reality. To think for yourself you must question authority and learn how to put yourself in a state of vulnerable, open-mindedness; chaotic, confused, vulnerability to inform yourself.
Think for yourself.
Question authority.

I love this thread. I used to spend lots of time thinking about this when I was a kid. I could think about it much more deeply and imagine amazing things. I just wish i could think like that again. Some times I would day dream and find the answer to a question in my head (So relieved) but forgetting the question after waking.
I don't think we should be questioning our eye's as much as our selfs. Very interesting to know some people could see 9 different colors.
What is time? What is space?
When I think about it I think deeper and deeper and till its like how do i know there is time but that doesn't make since does it? and than I'm like whhaaat?

--Bill Hicks

"Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration. That we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Here's Tom with the weather."

Just thought id share those 2 little things found from 2 different versions of this song... Listen to Third Eye bye Tool.

[ComfortablyNumb]

You dont know for a fact that everyone has the same eye cells. You just assume they do because scientist have done research and everyone they have examined has the same, doesnt mean that everyone that they havent examined has definatly got the same eye cells, its actually, just a theory. Although its very likely true, I would still like to beleive that its possible some % of people see things differently, and are still considered 'healthy'.

Reputation Comments on this post:

this is also possible, it is the comletely open minded approach

[Joe-(5-HTP)]

Originally Posted by ComfortablyNumb

You dont know for a fact that everyone has the same eye cells. You just assume they do because scientist have done research and everyone they have examined has the same, doesnt mean that everyone that they havent examined has definatly got the same eye cells, its actually, just a theory.

Because we are all basically at the same evolutionary stage and share most of our genetics then we can be sure that a study of a minority of individuals can be generalised without assumption, as long as a range of individuals are studied. It is extremely unlikely that anyone would develop a mutation which would significantly improve their eyesight. It is much more likely that a mutation would make it worse. In any case, they are minorities and the difference to their eyesight would most likely be negligible.

But people do have varied degrees of seeing capabilities: the whole 20-20 or 20-40 and so on vision tables show that. But the only criterial differences are distance, blur/focus and ability to see in dark and so on: nothing romanticised such as someone seeing blue where someone else sees green.

Originally Posted by ComfortablyNumb

Although its very likely true, I would still like to beleive that its possible some % of people see things differently, and are still considered 'healthy'.

If it's something you would just like to believe then don't debate it he he.

[Nemba]

Originally Posted by Joe-(5-HTP)

Because we are all basically at the same evolutionary stage and share most of our genetics then we can be sure that a study of a minority of individuals can be generalised without assumption, as long as a range of individuals are studied. It is extremely unlikely that anyone would develop a mutation which would significantly improve their eyesight. It is much more likely that a mutation would make it worse. In any case, they are minorities and the difference to their eyesight would most likely be negligible.

But people do have varied degrees of seeing capabilities: the whole 20-20 or 20-40 and so on vision tables show that. But the only criterial differences are distance, blur/focus and ability to see in dark and so on: nothing romanticised such as someone seeing blue where someone else sees green.


If it's something you would just like to believe then don't debate it he he.

While roughly the same information passes through everyone's optical nerve, that's where the definite same-ness stops. Vision is the sense by far most messed-with, filtered, disected, focused, colorized, just generally changed by the brain, and filtering processed tend to at least partially be determined by environmental factors. So while the information we recieve might be the same significant processing differences mean people can see completely different things, as shown by magic-eye pictures, optical illusions and such.

Also, speaking of real eye differences, some small portion of people have 4 types of 'cones' (the eye cells which work out colour and fine detail) making them see 9 discrete colours where most of us see 7.

Now on to reality, even if we accept the existance of our universe as science tells us (which I do), it all really boils down to nothing. A bunch of interconnected waves which mean that reality is not the illusion, but consciousness and the idea of decision making are the illusions, and life is just a ride on a bunch of electrons we get to follow around for a while and see where they go. Also this makes time kind of irrelevant or at least that all different parts of "time" are about the same as different parts of "space" and follow the same rules, and are reducible to nothing overall when you add everything up. If we look at most major religious viewpoints (just dig past the myths; any thing which explains a fundamental idea works for this) they tend to say the same. Christianity, buddhism, etc. all tend to make a big deal of how 'we have choices but we don't' (i.e. when it comes to ourselves, we do, when it comes to everyone else, we don't, but how does this work when ourselves and everyone else and everything are one big thing? Don't think too hard. Just because you were always destined to make that choice doesn't make it not a choice. You just couldn't have chosen anything else.) Which again makes reality meaningless as everything is the same. Not that meaningless is bad.

[ComfortablyNumb]

Yeah i know, i was just being stupid, but i really wish this was a possibility. Would be so amazing.

Reputation Comments on this post:

it is a possibility; color-blind people vs. regular sighted people. also, google 'tetrachromat'... :)

[bcubed]

Well, clearly our bodies "alter" reality, that is, emphasize and de-emphasize inputs rather than give them equal weight. To a certain extent, this is due to darwinistic drives of survival and reproduction. For example, if a series of random images were flashed, 10 to a second, and ONE was a image of a nude female, my mind would process: blah, blah, NAKED WOMAN, blah... Now, you can say I'm a perv, or you can say I'm a slave to the Darwinistic drive towards reproduction. Similarly, the image of two glowing eyes, arranged so that they provide stereo-vision (the hallmark of a preatory, rather than prey, animal), is generally seen as fearsome. I'd be inclined (though it'd take a complicated experiment to prove) that this is innate to humans, not a learned response.

What really interests me are aesthetic preferences. Shapes (parabolas, ellipses) that adhere to mathematical formulae are aesthetically pleasing, wheras random squiggileys usually aren't. And music is a REAL mind f*$k! Why does a major chord sound "right," a 7th chord sound "mournful," and a random collection of notes sound like garbage? What evolutionary advantage is there to appreciation of particular collections of sounds, and why do they affect all of us in a similar manner?

[thirteenthfloor]

Originally Posted by Joe-(5-HTP)

Because we are all basically at the same evolutionary stage and share most of our genetics then we can be sure that a study of a minority of individuals can be generalised without assumption, as long as a range of individuals are studied. It is extremely unlikely that anyone would develop a mutation which would significantly improve their eyesight. It is much more likely that a mutation would make it worse. In any case, they are minorities and the difference to their eyesight would most likely be negligible.

But people do have varied degrees of seeing capabilities: the whole 20-20 or 20-40 and so on vision tables show that. But the only criterial differences are distance, blur/focus and ability to see in dark and so on: nothing romanticised such as someone seeing blue where someone else sees green.


If it's something you would just like to believe then don't debate it he he.

I think you are right about all human eyes being the same, i think the more imortant question is how our brain interprets what our eyes see. The structure of our brains is basically the same, we know if you shock one are something happens, another another thing; but we are still extemely in the uncharted stage as to how the brain processes these signals. What swiy ties to these processes can significantly change how they perceive it(name brands in advertising can actually cause the brain to taste differently) and every one is wired differenly (the major areas are the same but different neurons are connected differently and fire in different lines and at different times).

Also there are many people that have synthesia, where thier brain connects certain things differently. It mainly happens in number and musical notes seen as colors (#2 may always, even when black or another color be seen as green, a certain note such as a C# may be seen as blue or red). I think the ratio is about 1 in 2000 (having a higher chance in schizophrenics and people who use hallucinogens) and that is a lot of poeple wordwide.

Not the greatest test (spacing got messed up when i posted it), but people with synthesia can usually see the smaller triangle within 20 seconds.

2
222
22222
2222222
2222 22222
22 222222222
22222252222222
222222525222222
22222252255222222
2222225555552222222
222 22222222222222222

How synthesias see numbers and musical chords.
2
222
22222
2222222
2222 2222
22 22225222
2222225252 22
222222522522222
22222252225222222
2222225555552222222
222 22222222222222222

Originally Posted by bcubed

What really interests me are aesthetic preferences. Shapes (parabolas, ellipses) that adhere to mathematical formulae are aesthetically pleasing, wheras random squiggileys usually aren't. And music is a REAL mind f*$k! Why does a major chord sound "right," a 7th chord sound "mournful," and a random collection of notes sound like garbage? What evolutionary advantage is there to appreciation of particular collections of sounds, and why do they affect all of us in a similar manner?

The aesthetic thing interests me too, but I don't know too much about it. One idea could be that mathematics and numbers are the language of the world, that there is no chaos and the world is made of patters. (if you are interested in this you should really what the movie PI:faith in chaos.

As for the music thing i think that it draws from both the individuals perception of what type of music has used these chords in the past and the fact that every object vibrates at a certain frequency. A glass will shatter if a wave is played at a certain frequency. I think it our perception has to do with what our eardrums frequency vibrates at. If the sound wave vibrates at the same frequency as our ears it is easy to interpret(?) or something like that and is seen by the brain as pleasent, if the sound wave doesn't then there is dissonace which may been seen as unpleasent.


Another thing that is interesting is how much of reality we percieve. According to Bohms theory the universe is always enfolding and unfolding. So when we perceive something it is unfolded and therefore in a different state, which could possibly like when a file is .zip (compressed) or not (unzipped). It may be that what we see is just the zipped version of reality, which may be very less than what is actually there. I think it is possible that hallucinogens may give us the ability to perceive the world in its unzipped state, which could be why it can be so overwhelming sometimes. This goes along with the cat(?) theory that a particle is only a particle when observed, at all other times it is a wave. So according to that the world and the universe (true reality) is made entirely of waves, endelessly flowing energy colliding and reacting with each other.

Sorry for the long rambaling, I've just had a lot of caffeine and this subject is very interesting to me.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Nifty test! Interesting points brought up

[insomnizombie]

another way to look at besides the scientific way is think of how people describe each different color. its usually similar for me anyways

[convalescent]

You are indeed normal, cannabis-sam.
I guess it is in our nature not to trust the obvious and question the reality.. (well, most of us, the open-minded).

I personally believe we're just the receivers of higher energy (which is introduced in our surroundings through various ways - like, the images, the feelings, the thoughts..). We're like television sets, that go on and off during the timescale of their existance.. since I usually get very vivid dreams - and often I am lucidly dreaming, I tend sometimes to believe - abruptly - that those dreams are the default reality, the "last point" in the line of "worlds".. but then usually you wake up and cannot believe how real that was.

As a psychedelics user.. well, SWIM always has doubts whether or not he exists, whether or not everybody else have the consciousness SWIM has.. this is typical.
The only answer? - keep trying and keep searching. Noone succeeded yet. Maybe you will.

[HorseBucket]

Yep reality is profoundly mysterious and awe inspiring. Every so called "bad experience" turns out to be a blessing in disguise because it endows you with a new perspective which you can use to intensify good experiences or approach obstacles/situations from previously unthought or angles and many other things. As a fearless psychonaut swims been to both heaven and hell and so far his experience leads him to the conclusion that ITS ALL GOOD. This is contrary to what some people think. Some people seem to be under the impression that some intense drug experiences have left them permanently damaged. Swim thinks its all in their head because swims always been an optimist and he speculates that its his optimism that makes every drug experience hes had effect him permanently for the better.

Swim doesn't just use drugs to explore different modes of reality though hes a natural lucid dreamer and sweet jesus he's seen some crazy shit in his lucid dreams. His favorite activity in dreams is driving cars so once he realizes hes dreaming he looks for the nearest vehicle, hops in and slams his foot on the accelerator and what swim sees defies his logic. He tears it around imaginary cities not giving himself any time to consciously predict what might be around the corner but swims mind has no trouble coming up with completely new and unique buildings and scenery in the split second it takes him to pull a handbrake turn around the corner. Swim also can fly so he sees some spectacular sights in his journeys through the air too. Sometimes he sees a crazy looking building and decides to land and go in and explore and he sees some crazy shit inside buildings too.

As for salvia swims been places but never any place that can even slightly resemble this 3D world we're in right now. One thing swim finds utterly ridiculous is how some people have the idea that sober reality is "reality" and anything thats outside the bounderies of sober reality is "not reality". In swims lucid dreams he often stops in the middle of one of his destructive rampages and thinks "wait a minute what if this isn't just a construct of my imagination what if this is actually a real dreamworld and I'm tearing the place apart" then he suddenly regrets smashing all those windows and tables and ornaments etc. He usually comes back to his senses though and realizes that even if its real its highly dynamic and doesn't matter if I break stuff cuz nothings permanent. Anyone else here like a good lucid dream rampage?

BTW Swims also thought about the color thing. Maybe what swim sees as red someone else sees as blue only his word for his blue is red. Maybe we all see things completely differently only we use the same language to communicate with each other so when we describe our reality someone else hears it and it sounds like we're describing their reality so they assume that your reality is the same thing as theirs.

Heres something swim remembers thinking all the time when he was about 6. What would it be like to just not exist? Swim would close his eyes and concentrate on the blackness for some reason thinking that maybe not existing is just seeing black. The concept had swim baffled. Is it possible to just cease to exist? We're not this body thing we're the consciousness that occupies it but what would it be like for us as consciousness(es?) to just stop existing? Swim realizes the obvious fact of the matter that it wouldn't be like anything because we wouldn't be around to experience it we'd be gone. Swim never really looked at it like that when he was a little kid. He seemed to think that ceasing to exist would be like when you close your eyes and see nothing but black. Many people probably don't see black though they probably have good visualization so all sorts of visions appear when they close their eyes but swim only sees black for some reason.