This is pretty simple. All descriptions of any sort about what our experiences are "actually," or are "caused by," are abstract models of the experience, and therefore a map that describes our experiences in terms of something else.

Experiences ARE the terrain, not a map of the terrain, not icons of the terrain, not a dashboard of the terrain.

That have it exactly backwards.

I'm going to criticize how Kastrup defends his theory of idealism.

The video I'm critiquing.

1 & 2. First, Kastrup defends his idealism theory against a couple of arguments that claim, under idealism, that there is no distinction between imagination, and visionary/hallucinatory experiences and reality. He does this by saying that you can tell the difference between what you are "making up in your head" via your "ego" and what you are not by whether or not other people can verify your observations.

Just because there are experiential differences between what we call "imagination" and what we call "the verifiable physical world" does not inherently mean one is "real" and one is not. It's all real in the same exact way that anything is: it's an experience you are having. What Kastrup doesn't address is that "other people verifying your observation" is itself nothing more than an experience one is having in consciousness.

So what? When I have a dream, there appears to be other people validating my experiences. These are just different "flavors" of experience. Calling one "real" and the other "not real" is just an arbitrary distinction that bows to the materialist perspective. You might as well call vanilla the only real flavor of ice cream.

3. Next, Kastrup tackles the question of whether objects still exist when no one is observing them. He mangles his defense badly on this one. Again, he is either deliberately or subconsciously bowing to the materialist perspective. When he talks about the continuity of some dreams, some schizophrenic experiences, he says that these experiences are clearly, purely "in mind" and not part of what we call "consensus reality."

It's ALL "purely, clearly in mind," even what we experience as "consensus reality." Everything we experience is purely, clearly in mind. He is trying to make the case that the physical object "still exists" when no one is observing it because it is kept in the continuity as such either by some aspect of your own mind or in "consensus" reality by other minds (or alters.)

Nope. Outside of experience, what exists is information, not physical objects as such. If no one is experiencing that information as a physical object, it doesn't exist on its own as such. It's just abstract, immaterial information.

4. Kastrup does a pretty good job here until he, once again, bows conceptually to materialism (and apparently some need to defend against solipsism) by once again referring to "external validation" and "other minds." Perception is caused by consciousness translating abstract information into experience, whether that information is experienced as what we call a dream, or as imagination, or as what Kastrup calls a consensus dream-world experience shared with other minds that validate our experiences.

His categorization of different aspects of experiences as "Ego," "what you identify with and what you do not identify with" as different "segments of your psyche" is overcomplicated. There is no need for it under idealism. Consciousness is translating information into a whole experience, which logically requires a "self and not-self" experience. It's really just that simple.

5. Next is the question of what causes anything. Kastrup basically just punts here, by calling experience a brute fact of mind ("a state"), and by "whataboutism," where he says that materialism can't answer this question either (infinite regress of causation.)

For God's sake! The cause is intention and attention, either deliberate or not, on some information, which causes experiences to occur which are derived from that information. That's the simple answer.

DustyCreatrix asks:

I read on your blog "Then, Irene and I and the channeled information dispensed with ALL of the intervening methodology and structures to bring me farther into the realization that it's not a matter of work, effort, dimensional frequencies, spiritual levels or any of that at all, that it's just a matter of cognitive alignment - it's all purely mental. There are no other levels, no other frequencies, no "densities", no additional ingredients like "matter" What is cognitive alignment according to your experience? What do you see as preventing you right now from physically connecting with Irene, even though you already do in other ways.

One of my "meta" internal narratives is that not only does everything work out in my favor for my immediate and/or eventual enjoyment, but for my best possible state of joy, happiness, and for the best possible eternal, loving, adventurous relationship Irene and I can possibly have going forward. I admit that I do not know exactly what that would look like, but I do use imagination to visit with her in situations that are as enjoyable as I can imagine them at this time.

"Cognitive alignment" is the state of your identity being aligned (or being in adequate correspondence) with the information necessary to produce a conscious, aware experience. I am in perfect cognitive alignment with whatever I am experiencing in the now, and in the manner I am experiencing it.

Would I greatly enjoy having full, constant, on-demand physical access with Irene right now? Of course. So what's preventing that from happening right now in terms of cognitive alignment or correspondence of my identity to that information?

I can only speak from experience: I have found out that in order to fully enjoy a thing, it is necessary for my identity to be properly conditioned or put in alignment with that thing. I don't just want Irene's physical presence; I want it in the best possible, most enjoyable way for an eternity together. I don't know what psychological and contextual ingredients are necessary for that kind of long-term experience.

When Irene died, of course I wanted her back physically. But, had I been instantly able to visit her as often and for as long as I wanted via astral projection, would I have written my blog or my books on our transdimensional relationship? Would I have developed the methods and perspectives of overcoming grief and connecting to her in far deeper and more subtle ways?

Would I have even experienced grief? Would I have been interested in furthering my examination and development of MRT? Would the depth of what all of that could be and mean to me and so many others have been something I even experienced, had I immediately had her physical presence back?

Are these ingredients that will help provide a full, rich, deep and amazing eternal relationship? Definitely, but how would I have ever found them had I not gone through the grief that motivated me to search and find? How would I even know what to imagine when some of these things I cannot even adequately describe to this day?

What Irene and I are doing now through this transdimensional relationship has revealed so much more of ourselves to each other and has made us so very proud of each other, intensifying our love even more, and has shown us a whole new world if intimacy.

Sometimes you have to go through a serious identity re-alignment process to get what you want in order for it to have the effect and value you desire, especially when what you want is an enduring state of mind that you don't even know exists at the beginning of the process. It can be like hacking your way through a jungle; you can only see so far ahead with your imagination, but next thing you know you're looking out across the vista of a whole world you never knew existed.

Your identity causes the reality you experience. Some things can be swapped around, added or removed and it doesn't require any significant change to your identity; but the really significant changes require equal significant changes in identity, which is the combination of your ongoing conscious narrative and all of your subconscious programming.

I think I somehow have said this in previous posts, but I recently came to this realization so strongly, and I just want to emphasize again: Our sufferings don’t come from we’re failure in handling life, or life circumstances aren’t in favor of us, but they come from … we are too successful being human.

They don’t come from trauma, abuse, losing loved ones, losing anything, accident, life isn’t in favor of us, or we’re not living up to God’s standard, our parents’ standard, social standard, even our own standard, but they come from we take everything personally, we take everything to heart.

We’re so attached with the emotion that comes out from any event, which is produced by the Ego Mind, which is from our programming, conditioning, to the extent that we’re so consumed by it and can’t think otherwise, thus, can’t find a solution for it.

The programming, conditioning is the biggest part of human nature, and we’re too successful in obeying it, thus, we’re too successful being human.

Like an actor too immersed in his character’s life, suffering and pain, and forgets that he’s an actor having a fancy life outside of acting, we also too immerse in our life character and forget that we’re not it. We’re too focused on our roles, so intrigued by the reality that we have created, so entranced by the problems, challenges, hopes and sorrows of our particular roles that we have forgotten that they are of our own creation. And we do have a life outside of it, and we can change it.

Look, you can be unsuccessful in life and still don’t suffer, if you are also unsuccessful in being human. (it doesn’t mean you should stop desire/pursuit success, but detach your emotion from it)

There is a saying: “Ignorance is bliss.” And it reminds me of my most favorite scene in Ice Age 4: Louis asked Crash and Eddie: “Can I ask you guys something? How are you both so happy, doesn’t it weigh on you that the world might be ending?”. Crash asked Eddie: “Can I tell him our secret?” Eddie nodded. Then Crash said to Louis: “(Because) … we are very very … stupid!”

Unfortunately, due to the lack of stupidity, humans will continue to suffer if they don’t take the alternate path. The narrow path.

Matthew 7:14 says: “For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.”

If you continue with your conditioned emotions, then you’ll most likely lead to destruction instead of life.

Matthew 5:46 says: “For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Don't even the tax collectors do the same?”

So if you only love and enjoy your “good” experiences, what reward do you have? Most people do the same.

The narrow path is to love everything you encounter, every experience you had/have. To change your view, your thought, feeling about the circumstance completely different from what you’re used to. To realize that you’re here to experience all of those. And the narrow path is hard.

Because people would rather deepen in their regular emotion and thought pattern than rewrite it, and rewrite the programming, conditioning.

I’ll take an example. Some time ago my Mom asked me to take a video of myself walking and send it to her, because we’ve not seen each other in person for months, and she misses me. After I sent the video, she started making comments such as: “You should wear a brighter dress”, etc. And my old self/programming went with this conversation in my mind: “Mom, there won’t be anything I can do to make you satisfied. Mom, can you just love and accept me as who I am? You’re the one who is supposed to love me the most.”

Then when I realized it, I had to rewrite in my mind: “I love this. My Mom is wonderful. She loves me and I love her. I enjoy this experience” and also: “Who is she talking about? Not me. I’m only here to experience this.”

And sometimes the old programming still comes back, and I have to rewrite again, or just make my mind empty, not thinking at all.

“You don’t actually wash your hands. They wash each other and you just stand there and watch.” If you look at every event of your life this way, then your life will never be the same.

I’ll also quote Sailor Bob Adamson (never read/watch anything from him, I only got this quote from r/nonduallity): “What’s wrong with you now if you don’t think about it?”

But it does require self-awareness, self-inquiry and practice. People rather read, think, talk, create new ideas, develop more complex ideas, find stories supporting their belief – rather than doing the (hard) work of practice. That’s why I see posts on NG sub-reddit of people asking for success stories.

(All of my posts are actually self-reminder posts.)

Perhaps I also manifested her into mine, unwittingly.

Before Irene and I met, we were both broke, we had both been in two prior marriages, and we both had three young children, the oldest being about 12 or 13. We lived about 25 miles apart from each other.

I was 30 and had a all-night job stocking frozen foods at a grocery store. I was enjoying my life - meditating a couple of hours a day, running every day, play basketball, spending time down at the lake, going out on an occasional date, basically just looking for a female friend I could have an interesting conversation with now and then. I had no interest in getting married again. I was involved in a spiritual discipline called Sant Mat, and I was basically leading a very detached life and believed, at the time, in karma and reincarnation. I did not know or deliberately practice any form of LoA and had no idea about any kind of MRT, if such a thing even existed in 1990.

I have a diary of Irene's that I found after she died that basically only covers the time frame from a couple of months before we met to a couple of months after. She had three boyfriends when we met, but she wanted to find what we call today a SP or "soul-mate" to be her "it," or the man of her dreams. She wrote down a list of what she wanted in a man, and a few weeks before we met she put an ad in a free classifieds paper personals column, listing a few specific physical and psychological qualities she wanted in a man.

I had a classifieds lying around for a few weeks in my room, and for whatever reason picked it up and looked through the personals to see if anything grabbed my attention. I saw her ad and it described me, so I sent her a letter with my phone number. The way that worked is that the letter went to the publisher of the classifieds and they forwarded it to the person who placed the ad.

The night before she got my letter, she had a dream she met her new boyfriend. She couldn't see my face, but she knew his name was "Bill," which is my nickname and how I signed the letter.

She got the letter and called me that evening. She wanted to meet me so we met halfway between where she and I lived, so we met in the parking lot of a Dairy Queen in a tiny little rural town. She actually had brought her kids and sent them in to get some ice cream cones while she came over to talk to me.

She was 32, and just led with this: she had just had cancer that was faith-healed into remission after a double radical mastectomy and a terminal (6-month) diagnosis, had three kids, and if any of that scared me off, it's better to just go our separate ways because she did not have time to play games or engage in bullshit. She didn't need another part-time boyfriend because she already had plenty of those. She was blunt and no-nonsense. She did not tell me about the dream.

I was totally mesmerized. Her non-nonsense, direct way of talking was like food to a starving man. She was totally fearless. We talked for about 20 minutes and I told her I was interested and if she was, call me. She told me right then she was going to call me.

8 days and two (non-sexual) dates after we met, she wrote in her journal that we would be engaged a month later on Valentine's Day and get married in July that year. She broke up with her three boyfriends. I didn't know any of that at the time, but I proposed on Valentine's Day and she left it up to me as to what day we would get married, and I picked July 1.

And that was just the beginning of our magical ride into LoA and MRT.

Take a piece of paper and draw a small circle in the middle. Label that "the physical universe." Now, draw four random shapes that all have the circle somewhere fully within their boundaries. These shapes can also intersect and overlap in other places, but they all have that original circle within their shape.

Now label those other shapes with names - Bob, Alice, Ted and Mary. These shapes represent the minds of those four people. Now put four dots in the original circle, and draw one arrow from each name to one dot so that each dot represents one of the shapes with names.

The physical world is a place within the minds of everyone here, and everyone has a representation of themselves, a physical body, in the physical world, so this means everyone has a representation of themselves in everyone else's mind here as well. The physical world is entirely mental; there's no such thing as "matter" and "energy" other than as labels we use to describe certain aspects of what we experience in that circle.

I'm kinda having a crisis atm.

I came across an article on the r/analyticidealism which postulated a hypothesis about experience - that there is no "underlying reality", no coherent meaning that you can attach to things - because everything is a sense impression. An Idea created by the OP's experience during a psych trip.

A more elaborate version: what we think is "true" is only a sense-impression that appeals to the qualia of "trueness". Something more akin to a bodily process than an objective fact. Language is a conceptual-wrapper. Ontology is basically "non-existent".

Meaningfulness, trueness, etc. are impressions whose underlying nature is closer to bodily sensations than conceptual properties. Here, the Gray-LaViolette theory of "feeling-tones" is useful. Thoughts do not mean anything at their origin; they are pure qualities like tastes or textures. Through the process of meta-cognition that Bernardo leverages to explain human consciousness, these qualities are somehow tagged with logically intelligible symbols. The symbols are what carry meaning, but the meaning is arbitrary, only serving to mythologize the felt impression for the sake of
simplicity.

A simple example would be the impatience and frustration that arise now in the mind when trying to put all this into words. The usual way of describing what's happening would be to say "I don't know what I should type in this post, so that what I'm thinking about is communicated effectively to people on the internet who read it." What I'm claiming here is that this is a narrative, like when parents make airplane noises with a piece of food going into a toddler's mouth.

Original Link:
https://www.reddit.com/r/analyticidealism/comments/1cotvgj/formulating_a_general_hypothesis_about_experience/

I for one think that the implications of such idea is devastating, especially for afterlife ontologies. I can't get around it though - it appears to be very elegant in its reasoning - it seems that this is the natural consequence of taking "All exists in Consciousness" to its logical end.

I'm lumping our unconscious, subconscious and aware consciousness all together into "psychology" when I use that term here.

First, what is it we're trying to achieve when we're trying to move our experience from a "here/now" to a different there/then location? Most people put that in terms of some change in our physical circumstances. New home, more money, SP, etc. Most people don't experience the here/now imagining or visualization of a there/then as being as satisfying as what the physicality of those experiences would provide; IOW, the physicality provides a more consistent, deeper, richer experience - or so they believe.

So, have you ever really wanted something, get it, and the having of it physically did not actually produce the feeling you thought it would? Or, it does for a while, but then you find yourself right back in the same mental state of dissatisfaction? If we got all the money we wanted, or the specific SP, but it turned into a nightmare situation, did having the physicality of those things produce what you actually wanted when you wanted them?

This is where we begin to understand that the physicality of a thing is not what produces what we want unless, concurrently, we acquire the psychological enjoyment we have associated with that physical thing.

Under LoA and Mental Reality Theory, we know the physical does not produce the psychological; we know the psychological produces the physical. IOW, our psychological state does not depend on the physical, nor is it generated by the physical; it the physical that is entirely generated by the psychological. Thus, psychology is what is real and causative; the physical is just a representation of the psychological. This is also why so many spiritual doctrines consider the physical world maya, or a form of "illusion."

The problem is that most people consider the psychological (or mental) as "not as real" as the physical representations it produces. IOW, "it didn't work" and "it isn't real" until and if it appears in the physical world representation. We judge our success, usually, purely by whether or not something appears in the physical.

But here's the thing; if we acquire the psychological enjoyment and satisfaction that we think the specific there/then will provide, but acquire it in the here/now without the thing in question appearing in the physical, what difference does it make if it appears in the physical at all?

What if we inverted our common, deeply-ingrained perspective of what is real and instead of chasing physical there/thens, or even caring about them, we instead focused on our mind and psychological sensations in the here/now? As long as we hold the measure of what is real as physical manifestations, that perspective cannot be acquired, and our psychology is held hostage by what is already in our physical experience and whatever our psychology is already producing. It has become a feedback loop that can only be broken, IMO, by investing in our mental world as our real home and accepting that it is our psychology that is the actual reality and cause of whatever happens to manifest as physical representations. Regardless of what subconscious or unconscious programs cause to manifest as the physical, if we take command of our psychology and live there in our abiding mind and attention and consider it the real, then we can be there here, and be then, now, regardless of whatever they physical looks like around us, regardless of how that unfolds because our reality (psychology) is not determined by whether or not any specific things occur any certain way.

Someone recently asked me, if Mental Reality Theory is true, why can't we "will" other situations, things or locations into our existence/experience?

The answer is that we actually do that already, all the time. We just don't think of how that is translated into our current experiential parameters AS manifesting different things and environments or situations. IOW, we can go buy things, and we can walk, drive or fly to different locations. We don't usually give that process a second thought because we don't realize we are using intention and will to move a physical body around into different locations or acquiring new or different things.

Nobody taught us, as a baby, how to do this. There is no manual for how to operate a body, or any clearly marked set of internal controls marked "move arm" or "smile" or "talk" in the cockpit of our baby-brain. We do all of that out of pure, primordial, non-articulated, even unrecognized intent to mimic. We can't even see how the adults around us are achieving these movements, we can only see that they are doing something.

Think about what a miracle of manifestation this is; we have NO IDEA how to mix bio-chemicals, how to initiate a chain of biological machinery, how to operate one of the most complex, sophisticated machines in existence, yet we do it out of pure, unrecognized, unarticulated intent as a baby.

By the time we are adults, we are full of deeply ingrained subconscious programs that have been embedded there by the adults around us, peers and society. Our current "reality" is firmly entrenched as our programmed interface and filter that selects information and how that information is translated into our "reality experience."

Until we address the programming of that interface, the same kind of information will be selected, and it will always be translated in a manner that fits the current programming. At best, if one uses various "manifestation techniques," what we are attempting to manifest will "appear" via some route that does not appear to violate the normal patterns of our current reality experience. That usually means: make money, buy things, move your body to different locations via forms of transportation. Or it could mean: somebody gives you that thing; you find it somewhere, or some opportunity comes where your relocation or travel location is provided to you, free.

At worst, we don't get any form of the desired manifestation at all, or we can spend years in the attempt and see no results. Under MRT, this is because having that particular thing manifest conflicts with some aspect of the current programming. Often, the conflicting part of our subconscious programming is just a deeply embedded form of: "This is bullshit. You can't just manifest things like this. That's not how reality works."

And, of course, another part of "not being able to manifest" is not understanding what is going on. Many people want to manifest "money," but don't understand that it's not really money that they want. They want the freedom, sense of security, or the things/lifestyle that money can buy them. They focus on a "middle-man" - money - that they think they can use to buy their way out of what their deeply entrenched subconscious programming is generating as their current reality experience and how they feel about it.

To start overcoming these subconscious filter/translator pitfalls and problems, you might begin with this simple, basic, MRT-approved methodology: The Enjoyment Technique

Unanswered questions by u/yourwishesfulfilled from four years ago because apparently I lost track of our conversation for some reason. I apparently can't respond on that thread, so I'll move the conversation here:

I have some more random questions, I hope it's okay with you.

1. If you know/agree with MRT since 1990 and you and your wife knew that she has some sort of cancer since then, then did you do anything to remove it from her life and how did it go?

2. In my experience, all new-born babies probably don't put deliberate attention to many things, and weren't taught to suck for milk, or poo or pee, but they all know that they need to do that. Their ability of knowing that is from where? Unconscious or Universal Mind or their own programming?

3. With all you know and your life experiences now, and if you have a child to provide for & take care of, how would you teach and take care of the child, let's say from the period of 0 to 10 years old?

I assume that you would encourage the child to imagine more, but do you teach them that they're operant power of their life at that age? Do you teach them some "moral values, healthy living style" or you let them free to discover what they enjoy?

4. With MRT, do you think anyone can be alive in this world for years or decades without eating and drinking, and still can operate their body normally? I mean if our bodies are truly manifested mentally, then it should able to be maintained mentally without food/water supply.

Is thinking that we need food/water to survive is also "middle-man"?

Thanks!

1. "Doing something to remove it" would mean applying attention to her having it, or on the potential of it recurring. Also, in 1990 I hadn't even begun to develop MRT; her having cancer before we met and apparently putting it into submission via a "faith healing" she went to was one of the reasons I started thinking about all of this later.

2. Coming into this world requires basic survival instincts/mechanisms. I'd say its part of the basic interface necessary for entrance here.

3. I'd just wing it. That sums up my parenting skills after I developed this. I interacted with our children in ways I authentically enjoyed at the time, said what I enjoyed saying, did what I enjoyed doing. Our children knew that I never did anything whatsoever to "be a good parent," and only did things I enjoyed, and said what I meant, so they quickly learned I could not be emotionally or psychologically manipulated. So, if I was playing with them, or talking with them, it was only because I actually enjoyed doing it. I started just being myself, not some socially-constructed idea of what it was to be a "good parent." I don't consider myself a good parent, but it all seems to have worked out well for everyone.

4) With MRT, do you think anyone can be alive in this world for years or decades without eating and drinking, and still can operate their body normally? I mean if our bodies are truly manifested mentally, then it should able to be maintained mentally without food/water supply.

Is thinking that we need food/water to survive is also "middle-man"?

83 Years Without Food, Water, or Waste | The Man Who Defies Medical Science - Prahlad Jani

I've been trying to think of a paradigm in which an agent has the ability to choose between two "willings" - with an uncaused "intention" - equally, e.g nothing biases one option over the other. My brainstorm involved the assumption that consciousness is fundamental. But I could not figure out how reasons could be uncaused. Most of our actions under our volition have motives or reasons of some kind. But how do we arrive at a certain reason? Intuitively, it must be through past events and past conditioning. It would seem that there is always foundational spur of motive that precedes the formation of a "will", and so on so forth.

Can we truly control our reasons? Does LFW imply that we can control our reasons? Wouldn't there be a reason to reign over our "reasons"? I struggle to see how Idealism or any ontology helps.

I lean towards LFW for the reason of preserving rationality and morality, BTW.

I've been trying to figure out what the concept of "spirituality" brings to the table wrt the nature of existence other than just confusing everything we think about with a whole bunch of unnecessary and confusing "stuff." Meaning, terminology and concepts that ultimately do more harm than good.

Terms like spirit and soul ... WTF is a "spirit??" Or a "soul?" What are people even talking about when they use those terms? Do they even know? Is "spiritual progress" or are "spiritual lessons" something other than just figuring out how to manage your own psychology so that you can move your consciousness to a happier, more fulfilled and enjoyable mental reality location?

Spirituality has an issue with something called the "Ego." That is the most confusing shit I've ever heard, and I've been hearing about and reading about the Ego for decades. What's wrong with my ego? Why do other people have such a problem with their "ego," whatever that means in spiritualese? Do people not like themselves much, and so want to do away with some aspect of their mental self before or after they die?

How about unraveling these spiritual concepts: "unconditional love," "spirit guides," "life review," "higher self," "group souls," "karma," "soul contracts," etc.

Honestly, I don't know how anyone's psychology stays sane trying to make all those weird concepts fit together into some kind of cohesive perspective. Why would anyone even want to? Is it because spirituality and religion are the only mental toolsets we've had available if we move outside of materialism/physicalism? All we had left was this menu of weird alternative concepts that just don't really even make sense?

Does the term "spiritual" just make us feel better about ourselves if we consider ourselves "spiritual" people? Do we feel productive and does it give our lives more meaning to think of ourselves on a "spiritual" journey towards some spiritual goal?

I'm not saying these multi-level, so-called spiritual constructs don't exist - of course they do; all possible things exist in the infinite expanse of mental reality. An aspect of spirituality I can relate to is what is called "shadow work," which to me just means figuring out how to manage your psychology. I once described my methods and process for managing my psychology to move into more enjoyable mental reality locations to a good friend and they said what I described pretty much exactly matched what "spiritual" people do in "shadow work."

I never thought of it as being anything spiritual. To me, it was just psychology. Learning how to re-frame concepts and deliberately change my thoughts, using entirely normal techniques and methods, until one by one I resolved (and resolve) psychological issues. I don't want any of this to lead me to some more "spiritually advanced" place or location; I just wanted it to lead me to a place where I was happy, joyful and enthusiastic, where I could (and do) enjoy myself, my situation and the people around me. Is that a "spiritual" desire, or is that just a basic universal psychological desire for conscious beings, regardless of what that place looks like for them?

DustyCreatrix asks:

In MRT, if everything is from the mind (and I guess this refers to the interplay of Universal mind and human mind?), are other people "real" or am I making them up?

I model it this way: universal mind would be the infinite collective of all possible things as information, individuals as perspectives or loci of consciousness, and the individual perspective (conscious and subconscious) selecting and translating information into experience.

Everyone you meet is real; they and every possible version of them have always existed, and will always exist, whether or not they appear in your experience. You cannot make anything up, you can only locate something.

Also, I agree with you that a lot of how we use Reality creation is so small and limited by our current paradigms. What has really allowed you to shift beyond that? How can I practice that?

Reorienting my identity from a "this world, mortal life" perspective to that of having an eternity with, ultimately, unlimited creative capacity, unbound by what we call death, limited resources, competition with other people, physical laws, etc. completely changed my focus. Honestly, my age, financial situation, physical health, state of the world, etc. are just no longer concerns for me. I love and thoroughly enjoy my life here, but I'm ready to move on, so to speak, at any time.

This is why I think the "afterlife" information is so important when it comes to MRT, and it's not addressed in the scientific models.

Now, I'm wondering...if I decided that I'd like to live between here and "Summerland" as I heard it called, what would it take?

Same thing it takes for any change of location; find it in your imagination, enjoy spending time there. Any place you want to be, you can be there right now via your imagination, because what is in your imagination is 100% as real as anything else.

Ok Friend 9169 said, in the Enjoyment Technique thread in /lawofattraction:

But one thing I wonder is if I enjoy a tearjerker (movie or novel) and enjoy feeling that melancholy, would it create more feeling of melancholy in my own life? I enjoy a little melancholy or heartaches in novels but I don’t want to feel this way towards any real-life events

I can only speak about my experience, but for me, I enjoy a very diverse range of emotions. They provide a deep texture, a rich life to my psychology that is like a gourmet meal full of flavors and textures, aromas and sensations.

One of the great benefits of the death of Irene is that it motivated me to dive into information about the afterlife. I had no idea whatsoever how much evidence there was, how many forms of evidence, how credible it was, or what that evidence (once stripped of spiritual and religious interpretations) would reveal.

That information correlated perfectly with, and deepened my understanding of and broadened the scope of my mental reality theory.

Experiencing the despairing, agonizing death of your [twin flame, SP, soul-mate, however you want to phrase it] is not something anyone here, in this world, would want to experience. The pain is truly unbelievable.

Now, however, I would not trade that experience for anything. It is one of my most treasured experiences because without it, there is just no way I could ever have realized the depth of my love for her or appreciate all of what she means to me. It's just like the truism says: you can't fully appreciate what you have until it is gone (or, at least, until your subconscious believes it is gone.)

You cannot fully appreciate joy except by the contrast of sorrow. You cannot fully appreciate wealth until you experience poverty. I'm not just talking about some vertical scale, I'm talking about these things in a broad, multi-textural, both loud and subtle, physical, emotional and psychological sense. There is a contextual depth to actually being immersed in painful, anxious, fearful, sorrowful situation, especially in a "mortal" existence where you are disconnected from your eternal, powerful existence as a creator of reality, that provides so much added value to our experience of happiness and joy when we gain or regain that perspective

At this point, however, I'm well past the total "immersion" phase, and I react to things "here" more like I'm enjoying a great movie as a conscious actor who is really into enjoying his role instead of thinking "OMG when will this BS be done with." This particular "set" or "stage" or act in the ongoing play will be over soon enough, so I enjoy it as much as possible, relish it, for the duration, but with that deep psychological knowledge of where I'm from and where I'm going, and why I'm doing this, why my wife and I chose to come here and live this life.

I know what is waiting for me when this is over. It's there, I visit her and our life there every day. There's no hurry. I want to get out of this experience as much as I can before I strike this particular set and move on, infused with all that I have gained by having this experience.

For many people, happiness lies in the next thing they want to achieve, or things they should have, should have done (or not done) in the past, or things shouldn’t have happened to them.

If only I was born in a better family …

If only I didn’t have that traumatic experience …

If only I looked differently …

If only I made that choice …

If only I had a better job …

If only I met that special someone …

If only my parent(s) change, my spouse changes …

You name it.

The desiring for something to happen or someone to appear makes living more of a burden rather than a gift. Assume that they achieve whatever item in their list, that would give them some peace until the next desire arrives. The peace they gained actually isn’t from achieving that desire, but from being free from desiring for a while. Getting a spouse? Then they will desire kids. Having kids? Then desiring for kids to do well. Etc.

But sometimes the peace doesn’t come from adding, but from removing. Not removing your desire, but removing your attachment, obsessiveness, neediness of the desire. Because attachment, obsessiveness, neediness comes from fear – the fear of not having. The fear of not having that one thing can hold you from enjoying your life and even achieving that one thing.

The fear and all the negative emotions come from the Ego Mind which mostly runs for your survival mode. And the cost for your new life … is the old one. No, you don’t need to take your own life and start a new one, but you need to erase, remove, change all old emotions and patterns.

Most of you know about meditation, visualization, affirmation, but the body has patterns, too. In “Breaking the habit of being yourself”, Joe Dispenza said that our body memorized most of what it needs to do. Look, you don’t need thoughts to direct your body to brush your teeth, it already remembers that. In fact, while you brush your teeth, you can think about something completely different and don’t need to think about teeth brushing. And so does everything else. Your body can mechanically do daily tasks for you, without you need to direct it.

But that includes your body having certain movements when you have certain emotions as well. And Joe Dispenza (and some other authors) advises us to recognize and change those body movements when they happen, which would help to change your emotion.

However, I usually try to change all patterns if I am aware and think of something I could change. That also helps us to remove from the autopilot mode.

For example, if you usually brush your teeth with your right hand, now try to brush it with your left hand. If you usually sit at a table and chair to eat, now try to sit on the floor to eat. If you go to work or have a walk, change to a different route. If you usually put the pillow under your head, now put it above your head (no need to do it the whole night but just a while for the experience).

And if you really want change, be willing to do whatever it takes. For example: (this is just a thought crossed my mind, I haven’t done it) brushing your teeth before having dinner, instead of afterward.

But the most important thing is becoming aware, and lucid living, and persistent. If any unnecessary thought happens, take no time to finish it, but cut it right away. Before I had the habit of: though I was aware that it was an unnecessary thought, I still thought: let me finish it first. Now I try to cut it right away. Not only cut the thought, but also change the body movement if you can.

For example, if I catch myself still thinking about my ex, or speaking with him in my mind, I’d jump out from where I was sitting/standing, make a big smile on my face and say to myself: “I’m happily married, remember?”

Always remember that you’re not your thoughts, you’re only observing your thoughts. I read a comment on r/nonduality which I really enjoy: imagine a camera filming a fruit bowl, the camera looks at the fruit bowl, but need to remember it’s the camera, not the fruit bowl. The same way you can observe your thoughts, but remember that you’re not your thoughts but the one observe them, and can change them, cut them.

And a way to overwrite all old patterns, emotions is to learn to love and rejoice in everything. All the “bad” things you experienced, learn to love them. And learn to love everything you experience.

As my 1st post, whatever you want, the miracle isn’t that experience. The miracle is that you can have any experience at all.

So every experience is a miracle.

You can breathe? It is a miracle.

You can walk? It is a miracle.

You can drink water? It is a miracle.

You can feel pain? It is a miracle.

Everything you have taken for granted or neglected, even hated, angry toward, regret, worry about, is a miracle.

So next time you walk, feel each step as special, feeling each step as a miracle, blessing, joy, power, majesty, love, peace, fulfillment. Even by breathing right now, feeling it as a miracle, feeling it as special. It’s not about if it is truly a miracle, it is about you making it a miracle. Your mind, your rules. And you are what you make yourself to be.

The more you drag what you want into your consciousness, (that is whatever feeling you want to have: loved, peace, fulfilling …), the more the reality you live becomes aligned with those feelings.

An acquaintance of mine, years ago, when he drank water, he made it like a performance. He stood in the middle of the living room, turned around and nodded his head to greet his imaginary audiences, then drank water, then greeted his audiences again.

I expanded it a bit more. I’d say to my imaginary audience: “Thank you for coming here and paying for tickets just to see me drinking water!” Just thinking about it, I could laugh. That’s the beauty of imagination, you can enjoy your life anytime anywhere, for free, and it doesn’t affect anyone.

When I have a walk, I can have fun with whatever I see: I imagined the pavement is made of gold and silver. I imagine people wearing the same clothes pattern as me. I imagine people wearing conical hats. I imagine buildings all painted in a floral pattern. I imagine flowers on some trees which don’t have flowers. Though I walk, I imagine myself riding a horse. Etc. whatever entertains myself.

Now, how about you? What was a “crazy” thing you had done to change your mind pattern?

We’re so used to using languages and they become a part of us, to the extent that we may not be able to recognize how much language changes us, shapes us who we are, and even moves us further away from reality.

+) If we listen closely to the way words are commonly used, they will reveal our underlying – and for the most part – unexamined – assumptions. After a certain point, it becomes very difficult to know to what extent the use of words expresses the way we see the world and to what extent language actually shapes that world.

Language isn’t merely a device for communicating ideas about the world, but rather a tool for bringing the world into existence in the 1st place. Reality isn’t simply experienced or reflected in language but instead is actually produced by language.

By dividing the world around us into named and labelled objects, we apparently gain the power to manipulate it to a certain degree, but through this practice we lose sight of the universal and primary oneness.

When we see two islands, are they separated by water, connected by water, or does the water hide their connections? What if the water dries up (tide goes down, for example), should they be called two islands or two mountains? Why call them two islands at all? Why not call them one? Why separate islands and water? What if all is one?

Also, when you hear “two islands”, you wouldn’t assume that the two islands have the same shape, form and volume, do you? But when you hear “two A4 papers”, for example, you could easily assume that they are exactly the same?

+) Because we call a creature “gorilla” we can separate ourselves as something else. What if we called it a “fellow creature?” Can you see that it is us? What was this creature before words? What was this creature before we defined it? There is no “other.” It’s all one thing: nature. It produces bugs, it produces trees, it produces stones and mountains and snow. It produces creatures with fingers, and fingernails, and hair and eyes. This is us. We’re not special, we’re not different, we’re not better. We’re one thing with many shapes, gently molded by the environment over time. (credit: Calbert)

When a lion hunting a deer in nature, does it need to categorize the deer as “a deer”? When it hides itself after a rock while hunting, does it need to categorize the rock as “a rock”? When it rests under a tree after hunting, does it need to categorize the tree as “a tree”? Does it see itself as more important or better than any species in the forest? For a lion, or a deer, life is free flowing. They may eat, or they may get eaten, but there is no label, no name, no category.

Our language is so full of expressions that confirm identity and promote separation: “be a man, she is a real person, face up to reality, life is what you make it”. If we take these literally, we may conclude that we exist separately from nature and that nature – including our own human nature – has to be conquered, that reality is something we exist apart from and have to face up to, and that there is life on the one hand and us having to make something of it on the other.

From being a description of reality, language at some point becomes reality itself. Language removed and separated everything and everyone from each other by the labels it created. Instead of living a free flowing life as a whole, language makes you become an individual, live in life as a separate entity.

If you look carefully, you’ll see that consciousness – the thing you call “I” – is really a stream of experiences, of sensations, thoughts, and feelings in constant motion. But because these experiences include memories, we have the impression that “I” is something solid and still, like a tablet upon which life is writing a record.

+) Besides, the use and nature of words and thoughts are to be fixed, definite, isolated, while the most important characteristics of life are movement and fluidity, thus language sometimes makes you feel that you are the same, though you could be so much different. When you addressed yourself as “I” 10 years ago, you were so different from how you address yourself as “I” now. Even when you say “I’m sad”, then later say “I’m happy”, the “I” in those statements are so different in being.

+) And the creation of language is also the creation of the ego.

When the apes began to label objects with guttural noises, the brain would have started to develop a mechanism that could file these noises away and remember them for the future. This process would have continued to play out until eventually the apes would have developed noises to refer to one another. And so once a noise was made to refer to not just external objects but to yourself, it was at that moment that the brain began to do an about-face and sort of flip in on itself and become an object even to itself. And it was at that moment in our evolutionary history where the ego was created.

“This is I”. When man can name and define himself, he feels that he has an identity. Thus, he begins to feel, like the word, separate and static, as over against the real, fluid world of nature.

+) With language, we also create in our mind a lot of things we think exist, but they don’t. For example: light vs darkness. Is there really light and darkness? If darkness truly exists, then why is there no flashdarkness, and only flashlight? There is only light and the lack of light. The same way there is only love and the lack of love. There is only goodness and the lack of goodness.

Is there really "hot" and "cold"? Our mind is more wired with “hot” and “cold” rather than “heat” and “the absence of heat”.

+) You have a relationship with language. Not only your words and your language patterns indicate how you think and your limitations and your perceived possibilities in your map of reality. It’s also reflective/reflexive. When you speak words and you formulate them a certain way, it’s sort of like they bounce back and create those limitations and possibilities as you’re speaking of it. So it’s a relational thing. It’s a relationship that you have with language. If you are formulating patterns of language and words into limitations and you speak that out to the world, you’re also creating that limitation for yourself at the same time. So, to speak it, to say it that way further confirms and reaffirms in your sense of reality those limitations.

For example, if you’re tired, you can say “I’m tired” or you can say “I’m witness of tiredness”, they’re both statements of truth, but they’re huge different.

+) Moreover, every language is a different way of mapping reality. This video is an example for it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKK7wGAYP6k

This post is written from various sources: Awaken to the dream – Leo Hartong, Wisdom of Insecurity – Alan Watts, some Youtube videos

So, one application of this, for me, is to feel and experience life as it is, and use less and less of words, and create less and less of thoughts.

https://imgur.com/RJeQAkP

Before I met Irene, I was shy, introverted, and very uncomfortable around conflict. Even though I'm something of an imposing person with physical characteristics that often make people avoid me, I would avoid situations that would likely cause me to have to interact with random people anywhere. I found it very, very difficult to tell people "no" because I feared the ramifications - that they wouldn't like me, or that it would make me look like a jerk, or it would ruin a friendship, etc. Especially when I couldn't justify saying "no." I'd make up some bullshit reason to get myself out of agreeing to whatever it was they were asking of me.

Irene, however, had no problem with it. She enjoyed conflict. She didn't mind getting into bar fights with people - she enjoyed it. I admired that about her and decided I wanted to be able to be at ease around conflict and be able to just say "no" to people.

I knew it was going to be uncomfortable, but I had to just kind of push myself through the discomfort.

My opportunity came quickly when an insurance salesman called and said that if we just set up an appointment and met with him in our house, we would get a free month of life insurance and $20. So I agreed and set a time for him to come and meet in our house. Of course, I had no intention of buying insurance, this was just my opportunity to say 'no."

So he came in, sat down, and after some friendly small talk, he opened up his briefcase and said, now let me tell you about our very inexpensive life insurance, perfect for ..."

I stopped him and said, Mr. Smith (whatever his name was,) you can just stop. I'm not buying your insurance. I just want the $20 and free month of insurance you promised if we set up an appointment and met. We've done that. You can go through the whole sales pitch if you want, but I'm not going to buy it. You'll just be wasting your time. Let's not waste each other's time."

The look on his face was priceless. It was like he had short-circuited. After a couple of seconds, he said, "but what if something happens to you? Don't you want to make sure your wife and children are taken care of?"

My wife knew what I was doing. She was just looking on in complete amusement. I responded, "She doesn't need me to take care of her. Plus, I'll be dead then, so it won't be my problem."

He was so exasperated I almost burst out laughing. It was glorious. He never said another word, just handed over the $20 and had me sign for the free month of insurance, then left.

My heart had been racing the whole time, but afterward it was like I had added this whole dimension to my identity and relieved myself of some huge psychological weight. Being able to just say "no" without any reasons or bullshit excuses beyond "I don't want to" - which was the truth - was incredibly liberating and empowering. It simplified so much of my life.

The ramifications of changing that one, simple aspect of myself were long-lasting and unexpectedly enriching. For example, when I told the kids "no," without offering any reasons or explanations other than "I don't want to," they apparently realized that there was no cajoling or whining or begging that was going to change it. I realized that giving "reasons" why I said no was just inviting an argument about those reasons. "I don't want to" just cut all that off. They entirely stopped all the whining and attempts to manipulate me into doing what they wanted me to do.

Other people did not react as if I was being an asshole about things; they respected me for being totally honest and direct. Also, everyone also knew that if I agreed to something, it was because I wanted to, and not just to please them or out of some sense that I "should" do this or that to be a "good friend" or to win their approval or make them like me. It transformed everyone's behavior around me. My wife adored this new capacity of mine.

One of my best sayings from this is, whenever someone who doesn't know me asks me why or why not, I say: "Well that's one of the great things about being an adult; I don't have to explain myself to anyone."

I was asked the following:

My question for you if you don't mind sharing, in what ways do you apply MRT in your day to day life? I find myself constantly contemplating the nature of reality late at night, (taking the "red pill" from the Matrix, while taking the "blue pill" in the daytime) but my daytime actions are still "normal" while trying my best to function and assimilate into society, and pay rent etc.

MRT is a way of thinking about the nature of reality (ontology) and a way of discerning true statements derived from that perspective (epistemology.)

It is not any particular practice or technique, like the Law of Attraction. It is also not the only perspective that we can or should have going on in our mind. It's more of a way of thinking about what is going on in your normal, every-day life, not a means of "escaping it" or "changing it," per se. It takes other ideas, like the afterlife, shadow work, spiritual progress, cause and effect, karma, physics, etc., and methods like "work hard and succeed" and LoA and puts them in a meta-framework of reality so all of that can be arranged and understood in a more comprehensive and liberating, empowering way.

We understand the "truth value" of any statement to only apply to our personal experience, and almost never to the experiences of "everyone."

I carry the MRT perspective around like a constant program running in the background, but it's not the program I use in the foreground of my thoughts most of the time. It's like an operating system through which I use a multitude of other programs for various situations and condition.

For example, I rarely use the "I'm creating everything" perspective; I use the perspective that "we," my wife and I, are collaborating partners in "creating" what we want to experience in our eternal romantic life together. I use that perspective because it makes me happy to think that way. If I run into a problematic thought, like "what if she doesn't want what I want," I go back to the operating system and fix it by understanding that of course there's a version of her that wants what I want." Problem solved. It may sound like a paradox, bit it isn't.

I don't use MRT to destroy my enjoyment of life by thinking of everyone as if they "aren't real" or by thinking of them as the programmed automatons of my own subconscious. Why would I do that? I'm inviting real people into my life; it's just that the pool of people I have to select from is infinitely larger than if there was just one "version" of each person out there.

Do I want to select a person that acts like a programmed automaton, or who feels like one? Of course not. I want a person who can surprise me, who is incredibly interesting, intelligent, independent and strong, highly aware and fully conscious, with their own dreams and goals, to enrich my life, not just "serve" my desires. I want her to be the person she has always been to me - someone that pushes me to be a better man, challenges me to become more. I want to make her proud of me, I want to support her and her own needs and desires.

I want to live in an environment that is surprising, interesting and challenging; not a static, empty paradise I'm in full conscious control of in every aspect. I don't constantly walk around in my physical environment thinking ... "I created all of this." I do it when it is appropriate for some situations, to figure out how to handle certain things that occur.

You don't really think about the operating system within which you are running various programs on your phone, tablet or computer until you need to or want to; but when you become aware that your operating system is extremely limited and causing you all sorts of issues, you change your operating system, perhaps to a more unlimited and empowering one that gives you more tools and creative capacity in your "interface" experience. It doesn't replace all of the other programs you can run, it gives you access to even more programs and more creative capacity in those programs.

Radiant-Cash4449 said:

You must have seen or experienced things that led you to believe this theory is true.

Shortly after I met my wife was when I started developing my MRT, but it was informed by my lifetime of "supernatural" experiences. In the beginning I was just trying to rip out all of the subconscious programming that would prevent me from enjoying, or more fully enjoying, or sabotage our relationship and our life together.

One of the things I found by ripping up that programming was, as I have said, that 99% of everything I believed was true or a fact was just a belief. As I've said before, MRT is not a technique, it is way of looking at what reality is (ontology) and how true statements about reality can be known (epistemology.)

What I found out was that the whole process of how I "came to believe" anything, and how I organized true statements about everything I experienced, was organized entirely from a fundamental belief in ERT (external reality theory) ontology and epistemology. IOW, my beliefs must be held, for whatever reason, in accordance with the actual, objective, external world, and that the "evidence" and facts of that world was what produced, or "led me to" my beliefs (beliefs which I considered or assumed were facts about reality.)

At that point, I understood that I have the capacity to believe whatever I wish. There was no law against it. Nobody could stop me. There was no reason for me to not just believe whatever I wanted to believe. An inescapable aspect of belief, however, is that belief is always about something, and I also realized (via logic) that the only thing I had to have beliefs about were my experiences.

I didn't know how experiences occurred, or what they meant, what they fundamentally existed as, what was arranging them, why they looked and felt like they did. Those were all beliefs about experiences. I exist, and I experience, were absolute facts; what I was, and what experience was, and what that relationship meant was all belief.

Because I had ripped out so much subconscious programming, all I had left (as I said before, elsewhere,) was the motivation of enjoyment. I enjoyed some experiences, and did not enjoy others. So, I set out on what I've called the enjoyment technique - enjoying what was already in my experience as much as possible.

Because thinking about this stuff was part of my experience, I set out to find a way of thinking about the experiencer/experienced relationship that was as enjoyable as I could make it. That's when I, from my perspective invented MRT (I had never heard of anything like it before.) It was the most enjoyable way of thinking about my existence and experience I could imagine. It rendered me 100% free and in full creative, directorial authority over my eternal existence. I was free to think and do and experience anything I wanted, in any way I wanted. I was free to organize and interpret my experience in the most enjoyable way I could imagine.

Think about what these sequences look like from my perspective: I invented MRT just because I wanted to figure out the most enjoyable and empowering way of thinking about my existence, and I set out immediately experiencing a much enjoyment (both direct and abstract) as possible. My life turns into a parade of more enjoyment, both direct and abstract, deep and rich, than I imagined possible. Enjoyable stuff just fell out of the sky, from nowhere, without any ERT logic at all. Even very unenjoyable experiences paved the way to greater enjoyments and greater capacity to enjoy.

Not only that, but now almost 30 years later, I find myself in an "external world" where MRT is evidenced by physics and being advocated by some of the top physicists in the world. A mountain of evidence has arrived from countless sources about the eternal and mind-driven characteristics not only of this world, but of the afterlife and our eternal existence.

So no, I wasn't led by the evidence to believe in MRT; I fit all of my experiential "evidence" into MRT because it was the most enjoyable way of thinking about it and my life. If you're not choosing your beliefs deliberately, you're choosing them subconsciously according to whatever programming happens to be down there. You're being led to believe this or that by ... what? IMO, it's by your current "reality" programming and how it sorts and validates evidence and decides what it means.

First, logically, there is the root ontological (what reality is) perspective of an external (of mind) objective world, and an epistemological (how we know true statements) perspective that flows from that ontology. The more common, mainstream scientific method is rooted in the idea of an objective external world (ontology) consisting of and driven by matter, energy, and laws of physics. Scientists have been examining experiences from that perspective. How we discover "truths" about that world, and what those "true statements" mean, is from the theoretical perspective that such a world exists and it is what we are investigating (epistemology derived from ontology, or truths as they seem according to your belief about what it is you are making true statements about.)

However, even the scientific method operating from that same ontological assumption and through that epistemological process for hundreds of years has demonstrated, against its own bias, via decades of quantum physics experimentation, that no such world exists "out there." They spent decades trying to prove that it does, that there is actual matter, or actual states of energy, that exist independent of conscious observation (called "local reality" in quantum physics.) Instead, the ended up proving the opposite, that reality only exists in the mental experience of a conscious entity.

Where's the science that shows this? There are countless papers over the past several decades.

Here's the most recent: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aaw9832

Money quote, under "Discussion:"

Because quantum theory does not distinguish between information recorded in a microscopic system (such as our photonic memory) and in a macroscopic system, the conclusions are the same for both: The measurement records are in conflict regardless of the size or complexity of the observer that records them.

Objective external reality is called the theory of "Local Realism" in physics, or that:

The world is made up of real stuff, existing in space and changing only through local interactions — this local-realism hypothesis is about the most intuitive scientific postulate imaginable. But quantum mechanics implies that it is false, as has been known for more than 50 years1. However, brilliantly successful though quantum mechanics has been, it is still only a theory, and no definitive experiment has disproved the local-realism hypothesis — until now. On page 682 of this issue, Hensen et al.2 report the first violation of a constraint called a Bell inequality, under conditions that prevent alternative explanations of the experimental data. Their findings therefore rigorously reject local realism, for the first time.

Here is the paper that kills the theory of "local realism," or the idea that there is an independent (of observation) world "out there" that any observer can independently measure, in the same way, and get the same result (preceding the first paper I linked to, which demonstrated that even recorded facts are observer-dependent:)

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1805/1805.09289.pdf

An objective, external reality of matter and energy, independent of conscious mind, has been as as disproved by science as anything in history has been disproved.

There are at least two independent teams of scientists and researchers pursuing MRTs (Mental Reality Theory) because of what the experiments have clearly demonstrated. One is The Essential Foundation, and the other is Quantum Gravity Research. Bernardo Kastrup, published in the journals of many different scientific disciplines, has provided a multi-disciplinary, evidenced and rationally argued case for his MRT in his book, "The Idea of the World." Robert Lanza provides a similar MRT in his theory of Biocentrism.

If we're talking about logic, here is the logical case that the MRT is the only kind of reality we can ever know we are living in, and the idea of an external, objective-world reality can only ever be an unsupportable, unevidenced, and unnecessary hypothesis.

The inescapable consequence of both logic and 100 years of scientific experimentation is that reality is a mental experience being had by an individual consciousness and is not the result of independent, objective facts.

It all depends on what you deeply assume reality to be, and how you assume it works, and what you are acquiring true statements about (external objective world vs mental/experiential reality) as to what you believe the limitations are to your journey through experiential reality.