On occasion you might run into the question. "How do you really know?" And then if the question persists, it can turn into a question of whether you know what is real and what isn't. Even to the point of if you can trust your own senses.

Consider that line of thought Further down the rabbit hole. How do you know if you are real? Not a simulation in a virtual reality simular to the movie "The Matrix," or background person in someone else's dream, soon to disappear when they wake up. What if you aren't real?

There are several ways to reaffirm that you actually exist, but one argument stems from the philosopher René Descartes, who said that if you can think then you exist. He coined the phrase "I think therefore I am" to describe that argument. If this works for you that by thinking you prove that you exist, then let's move on. Is there any way to prove that you are not real?

Consider this line of thought on someone who has already died. Could be a relative, or could be a famous celebrity. How do you know they are real? Or even were real? When it comes to charished celebrities often a good quote will be credited to them, regardless if they said it or not. The question comes to then if they are who you think they are.

So here is the strange thought.

If you can think, you exist. Therefore you are real. But if your mostly known for something you haven't done, or haven't said, then you are basically a lie and not real.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

One can doubt one's qualities, but one cannot honestly doubt oneself.

How can you tell that something is real? It never changes!
(change can only occur against a background, but that implies that the background is more real than that which changes over it)

Your qualities are changeable, thus not truly real.

You, on the other hand, are always you, were always you and will always remain you - thus you are as real as real can be!

«If you can think, you exist.»

First note that thinking is not a requisite for existence.

More importantly, your claim to exist depends on the realness of existence - if existence itself is an illusion, while (as above) you are not an illusion, then you cannot exist. Yes your qualities exist even if existence itself is an illusion, but these are YOUR current qualities, rather than you.

«But if your mostly known for something you haven't done, or haven't said, then you are basically a lie and not real.»

What others think of you is a transient quality, which doesn't say anything about you.

«The question comes to then if they are who you think they are.»

That's a very easy question: Who you think they are is a thought (of yours), yet they (whom you consider to be dead) are not a thought - thus the answer is 'No'.

Not_Now.Soon,

What you touch on, for a moment there in your second paragraph, is the problem of hard solipsism: How do I not know that my mind is all that exists? How do I not know that I’m just a brain in a vat?

Apart from the fact that it would be incredibly arrogant of me to believe that my mind came up with all the beautiful pieces of art around that world, and all the brilliant music that has been written over the millennia, the simple answer is that I don’t know.

But my experiences are real enough for me, and my actions have predictable-enough consequences to still want to go on living my life in the best way that I can, and to this extent, I trust my own senses. Whether I’m a brain in a vat, a simulation, or whatever, is apparently of no consequence to me.

<<If you can think, you exist. Therefore you are real. But if [you’re] mostly known for something you haven't done, or haven't said, then you are basically a lie and not real.>>

There is nothing profound or paradoxical here. All you are doing is engaging in equivocation with your use of the word ‘real’. When you first mention being ‘real’, you are referring to the state of actual existence; when you mention being ‘real’ (and a lie) in your concluding thought, you are referring to the state of being artificial (or not genuine).

http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/real

If you want to experience reality borrow money from a loan shark and don't pay it back.
Your reality and his will consequently collide and you will have positive proof that you exist, at least in his imagination.

Rene Descartes stated - "I think, therefore I am."

I suppose what he was referring to was the fact that
your thinking results from your exitence. So if
you didn't exist you wouldn't be able to think in
the first place.

Does that mean that some humans may not exist?

Wow!

To Yuyutsu,

[One can doubt one's qualities, but one cannot honestly doubt oneself.]

Oh I would say other wise. If there is a difference between your body and your soul,ma person might think the body is the shell but the soul is who they are. From the stand point that the soul out lives the body, this makes sense, because "you" are the parts of you that last. However, if a person has a head injury, and 1) doesn't remember who they were like before the injury; as well as 2) is described as as different person before the injury verses after the injury. That person might at one time question if they are the same person (the same soul) or if the pervious person died and left, and instead you remained.

I doubt this is the only instance of doubting one's self, but this is a quesstion I held some time ago when I was younger. I'd assume other doubting of yourself existing or not might also happen if a person has hallucations, or multipal personalities.

[thinking is not a requisite for existence.]

I agree, but by being able to think, that proves that you exist. I think that is what René Descartes was getting at.

[What others think of you is a transient quality, which doesn't say anything about you.]

But in the terms of what is real and what isn't, misconceptions are a big deal. If we take a step back away from knowing you exist, to instead knowing that a person loves you, or hates you. That is in the area that can be equally hard to prove, but often people can say "I just know." Misconceptions and astute judgements might say more then you'd expect. Some people strive to live up to the expectations they are given,many others strive to be free of qualities they are seen with. That's not counting how we view others and they view us affects the interpersonal relationship of the people. People can build a person up in their head, then find out how wrong they were.

To AJ Phillips.

Knowing if you exist is an exagegerated form of the question of knowing what's real and what isn't. What's true and what isn't. It is usually in that context that this would ever be approached. So I do think both knowing what's real (what exists) verses what is real (discerning the truth from falsehoods) are part of the same conversation.

As for solipsism. There are other elements down the question then just if your mind is the only one. There is also if your world is an illusion. A figment in a dream, (perhaps not even your own dream). If you are able to think, then yeah I'd say that's real enough because your conscience to think and act on your own, (even if you are in a dream).

Move it up a level though. We can interact with eachother, and so I can assume with a resonable assurance, that you are just as real as I am. But there are other things that are not like that. Things that are unseen that affect us. Some possibly unconscience elements of the world. Others seem less unconscience. Too many things occure from both my experiences and those that I know to think we are alone in the world. It no longer comes down to --if-- spiritual/supernatural elements exist, but instead --which-- of those elements exist, and which ones are figments we make up.

To Is Mise.

I think there are other ways to confirm that you are real, but having dept collectors chase you deffinately would confirm this as well.

To Foxy.
Funny thought. But no, not thinking does not disprove a person's existence, but it can not be used as evidance of existing.

Here's one more thought to consider. It seems like there are enough people with stories of ghosts and haunting so, from things they say are their grad parents to scary stuff you might share around a camp fire. If after we die, what happ has to our conscienceness isn't an refitting to a new body in reincarnation, or travel to a spiritual realm got an afterlife. But instead that you or I become something like a ghost. A dead consciencousness still lingering around.

As morbid as that thought is, how would a person come to terms with themselves. Would they question if they actually exist? If they are actually real? If they can think that might be enough, but if they can't interact with a world arond them, can they say they are real? How would you come to terms with it if (hypothetically) you die and become a Casper like ghost?

One imagines that Casper would be a quite a disappointment to Poil (Pearl). All of that cavorting in the raw but no resolution for Poil. That NY accent isn't enough.

I don't know if this is relevant.

Some years ago I suffered an 'Aortic Dissection'. During the emergency opp that followed I was 'out' don't remember if I was in an induced coma or not. To the point; whilst I was 'out' I was 'living' just like any of us any day, as you say as in Matrix.

I was obviously dreaming or even nightmares, but, I was alive all my senses were all functioning. It was not like a dream but I can only describe it as 'real', I was 'alive' in my own mind.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

«If there is a difference between your body and your soul,ma person might think the body is the shell but the soul is who they are.»

The fact that you spontaneously speak of YOUR body and YOUR soul, indicates that they are on a par: they both are YOURS, not YOU.

The so-called "soul" normally outlives the body, but it too will one day dissipate.

You are neither of those.

«because "you" are the parts of you that last.»

Can you see the logical contradiction in the above recursive sentence?

If:
You are the parts of you that last
Then:
You are the parts of the parts of you that last[, that last]
Then:
You are the parts of the parts of the parts of you that last
...etc...

However, while some last longer than others, no "parts" last forever, not even your soul.

---

One who lost their memory due to injury has no memory of their earlier life, but still they are the same one as before and their life is the same life regardless.

Yes, they could question their mind, their memories, their person and even their soul, but these are just their qualities, not themselves, the very owners of that mind, memory, person and soul.

---

Certainly, people can be wrong about how others see them. So what? I think that others love me, but in fact they hate me. I, the one whom I think is loved, is still exactly the same I whom they actually hate.

---

«How would you come to terms with it if (hypothetically) you die and become a Casper like ghost?»

It would be rather late and quite unpleasant: better act now while you have a body. If you live your life ethically and search for God, then you will not end up like Casper. Those who do will not suffer forever, but it might seem like "forever" to them, until a saint comes and saves them from that state.

To ALTRAV.

I would say that counts very much. Near death experiences are usually the ones that are either believed the quickest, or the most questioned for "proof" that they ever occurred (depending on the audience. Dreams as well as a common phenonom that I think breaches the fabric of "what is real." Expecially when considering several different aspects and different types of dreams. Some people even seem to have dreams of events to come later in their life, which add another weird element to them. More common though there are people in your dreams that you've never met and never see again in our dreams. Yet they seem so individualistic in who they are, the question of "being real or just someone in someone els's dream" is a thought too.

If you'd ever like to talk about what you dreamt while in the coma, I'd like to hear it.

To Yuyutsu.

One thing you and I will continue to disagree on is on what God is. And Who God is. This I think is the foundation of most of our perspectives. And even though some of our perspectives overlap the foundation is based on a different kind of rock.

God is eternal. This I agree with. Us all being God, that I do not agree with. God can be part of us and us part of Him, as Jesus taught His disciples concerning having God inside them and with the Holy Spirit being in them. God is still not us. He is greater in every way, and also independent from us. (Sometimes in spite of what we want or do). But He has not removed Himself from us. He hasn't left us to die and be swallowed up in our own natures that sometimes are very evil and destructive.

Either way. Our differences of belief in God might not be known which is right. At least until we've passed on or until God's Kingdom comes to earth. And by then who can tell the other? But I will say this. Your egnamic discriptions of God, defy any way for me to confirm them, or for you to prove them. But my understanding can be confirmed if you pray and He answers your prayer.

In other words God can confirm Himself to you if you ask Him to and He descides to do so.

(Continued)

(Continued)

The loss of memory or change in personality due to head injury still counts as a resonable question to me if the person questions if they are still the same person or if they are someone new who replaced the other. (I'm glad to say I don't still question this thing like I use to wonder about. But until a person comes to the conclusions that they are the same person, what can they say?)

I disagree with you that who you are is a things that is unchanging based on how others see you, how you see them, or even how we see ourselves. We change, we all do. Some change very much because of another person. Take for example a new parent, who changes everything about themselves and how they are, to accommodate for the new life they hold and are responsible for. Take also the person who is hurt badly by a betrayal. They may have been a very different person before that time, and after, even after they heal, never lose the scar.

To Not_Now.Soon.
You clearly hold a strong belief in God's existence.
Does that belief not answer your question "on being real"?
If God exists then so must you.....

Not-Now.Soon, I appreciate your offer on discussing my situation whilst 'on the slab', but I would not know where to begin.

I can only imagine if you have any questions I can try to answer them, but be warned this happened some years ago and one of my resultant side effects was some mental or memory issues.

I did just remember that I had two separate bedside interviews, not long after I 'came back'.

I think one was doing some kind of research and 'grilled' me quite enthusiastically for some time. Another came in the form of a small group. Again following in the same vane.

Can't remember the exact reason for the interviews. But it was definitely to pick my brain, for what it was worth, while everything was still fresh, I suppose.

Interesting times, but anyway, I am happy to oblige if you wish to delve further. You never know, things may start coming back.

I'm not sure how this would fit with this forum terms of reference.

Anyway, let me know.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

Let aside the question of "What God is" and "Who God is",
I believe that once you resolve the seemingly-lesser questions of "What am I" and "Who am I", the seemingly-larger question of God will be resolved as well beyond doubt.

This connects directly to your concern: "if the person questions if they are still the same person or if they are someone new who replaced the other."

Yes, persons are quite capable of this and quite capable of changing (hopefully for the better). Indeed you provided a few examples of that with which I agree. Your person is a quality of yours and you can indeed change that quality - but You, the one who is associated with this or the other quality, this or the other personality, are always and eternally you: nothing can "turn" you into another.

When one thinks of themselves as a person, then your healthy conclusion follows: "God is still not us. He is greater in every way, and also independent from us". But Are you a person? I leave it for you to ponder.

To Ashbo.

Thanks for the thought, but I'd consider the question of God existing to be a different matter then us knowing if we are real. (Either individually, or to confirm that others are real too). But I do think on the whole, people question God existing, so I see the God as part of the question of what is real. Some conversations about knowing God and being sure of our experiences have influenced this question of knowing if we are real or not.

If each of us can be certian that individually we exist. Then we can say that we are real. But that's usually as far as it goes for knowing what is real and what isn't. Everything thing else seems debatable. Goes into the aspect of "how do you knowing you didn't imagine it" kind of thinking which is usually argued by those skeptible of your experiences or your faith.

Take that same question and remove it from a conversation around God. How do you know you exist? By being able to think this counts as a confirmation. How do you know that anything else in your life is real, or if in essence you're living a lie.

To ALTRAV.

Some conversations go on a tangent and sway off topic a bit, but unless the conversation is specifically started for the subject of experiences while in a coma, near death experiences, or a topic on dreams in general, I'm not sure that there is an oppurtunity to talk about your experience without it being "off topic." With that in mind I'd say if you want to talk about it, it's a welcome side conversation in my opinion. The conversation has my intrest from other discussions where I saw you tell that you've brushed up against death on more then one occasion and come back. I know nothing about the experience to base questions off of to ask you though, except to ask, what put you in a coma, and what the dreams/nightmares consisted of. It's also of intreast because I was in a coma once also.

To Yuyustu.

"What am I?"
"Who am I?"
And "Am I a person?" Are the three questions you've posed. I'd say these are fine questions to ask when considering the topic as a whole. I doubt I will reach the same conclusions you have about God though, even after answering these questions. But for now, let's explore the topic based on these three questions. Your answers would be good too.

•What Am I?
-In general, I am human, born in a time a technological advance that computers and the Internet are used. In this both you and I share the same scope of who we are. Further explainations of being human and living our lives hopefully will have other overlaps between you and I. Simular sorrows, simular wants, needs, perhaps even simular joys experienced. However when it comes down to the details, that is where the real answers come together. If you'd like, you can answer the same questions either as ge serial answers or personal details that relate specifically to you.

-More specifically. I am an American man. 34 years of age born in the U.S. I have an average amount of schooling that has influenced who and what I am, from public schools to a few years in a community college. I am trained in only a few things and am lucky to have found a job that does not require special training or a special degree to delegate a new what as being a graduate of arts, medicine, or business. I am a man who is the youngest of three brothers. Married. Christian, but raise in the enviornment of two faiths.

(Continued)

(Continued)

I am 6 feet tall and blind on my left side. I am not alone, and I say this to recoginize all the help and support I've gotten throughout my life. I am a Taurus, (apparently that element of a what is an intreasting identifier for many people, saying they do this or that because of their sign, or say that another person's actions make sense because of their sign. Regardless if these are true or not, Taurus is another "what" to describe myself). I am me (instead of being confused with someone else, or with yourself).

-That answers more or less much of the what I am, by going into details that are identified by the past, present, or by biology. A much longer list of what I am not could also be raised, but I'd say the last statement that I am not someone else goes into that aspect. Who I am might go into more the element of who I choose to be. That is a harder question to go into in a general answer, but the most specific answer I've give here is that I am "Not_Now.Soon." Anything else about the who could be argued outside of our names. And that leads into the second part of the idea of being real.. Are you who you think you are or are you living a lie? For now I'll leave the who to just a name.

-As for being a person. What other options are there? I am human. All humans are people (plural) or persons (badly worded plural).

To Not_Now.Soon.

On reflection you are quite right to remove a belief in God as a proof of existence. A belief in God is a matter of faith, and many do not believe in anything for which there is no empirical evidence.
And we all can hold false beliefs - from the trivial to the profound.

What do you think then of this response:

Until such time as there is evidence to the contrary, what we perceive through our senses and become consciously aware of (acknowledging that much of what we perceive through our senses is filtered or "interpreted" by the sub-conscious)is reality.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

Thank you very much for your response. Attempting to answer these questions is courageous and should be acknowledged.

As you see, when one begins to ponder who and what they are, the first layer that comes up is often our social identity, including things that we were told about ourselves by others. This is good, but it is only the beginning of the road.

The road ahead leads you deeper and often is scary and emotional to cross. I was saying that this road begins with the human and ends with the divine, but you need not believe me, in fact you better not believe me or anyone else for that matter, but instead ponder for yourself.

You asked: "Are you who you think you are or are you living a lie?"

It is not a lie since you are doing your best to tell the truth, but it is not the final truth either. How could you possibly be who you think you are when all you can think is thoughts? Your thoughts could be ABOUT yourself, but they are still thoughts. Would you say: "I am this thought" or "I am that thought"? Are you a thought? I think not...

---

Dear Ashbo,

«Until such time as there is evidence to the contrary, what we perceive through our senses and become consciously aware of is reality.»

What we perceive and become consciously aware of through our senses, mind, memory, etc., is perceptions. Perceptions are useful for everyday living, but is reality made of perceptions?

If you seek to do well in life, then obviously you should pay attention to your senses, but if you seek the truth or reality itself, then you should not delude yourself that your perceptions are it.

Not-Now.Soon, I feel I will try to recall as much as possible about my 'living in my mind'. As I mentioned it all began as a result of an Aortic Dissection of the ascending aorta.

I was told many times by many people that I was lucky to be alive. I don't know about that but it appears the odds were in my favour.

Anyway I was very near RPH and attended to immediately, which would have helped. About the coma you ask. It must have been induced because I had open heart surgery, which meant open chest.

My story is a little different because apparently I would not stop bleeding somewhere in the chest cavity, so they packed my chest with gauze to absorb the blood and put me in ICU, on a 24hr watch and a nurse in the room with me the whole 24hrs, for several days.

I remained in this state for days. Overall I think I was left in the coma for shy of three weeks, I imagine to allow the surgery to mend.

It is relevant to mention that I was not expected to live as the 'burst' Aorta took out the Aortic valve as well. A lot of micro surgery and hours of op later, I was put in ICU with the gauze in my chest.

My experience began from the moment I was cut open. One thing I concluded later was that most of the things I 'did' whilst under, always involved people who were visiting me at the time.

One example was, I was involved in some clandestine activity which saw me and my brother in law and his wife crawling under an Australian embassy to escape capture.

At the time I thought nothing of it but later realised that there must have been something on the news on the TV and I incorporated it into my mental life.

My brother in law was high up in the immigration department, hence the escaping some overthrown regime and hiding under the floor of the consulate.

This was not dreaming. I was alive.

To Ashbo.

Though I think the question of God being real and the split question of ourselves are different issues. That doesn't mean one has evidance and the other doesn't. God is real. Look for Him.

As for your response.

[Until such time as there is evidence to the contrary, what we perceive through our senses and become consciously aware of (acknowledging that much of what we perceive through our senses is filtered or "interpreted" by the sub-conscious)is reality.]

What we know and what we understand is incomplete. It's only in part. Our understanding doesn't change our reality. As we grow older much of the world stays the same, but we understand aspects of it better as we age. Two things we need to discern reality is 1) a solid foundation to interpt our sences and understanding, and 2) we rely on other people to fill in the gaps, show us when we are wrong, or even test our foundations to see if what we think we know is true. That said reality is bigger then our understanding.

To Yuyustu.

You make it sound like knowing who we are is a deep philosophical achievement. And much deeper then our practical assessments. However I disagree. Often who we think we are is something that is not rooted in reality. People say they are hard workers, when they have no work. They are forgiving, when they have nothing to forgive. Smart, when they are not tested. And responsible long before they know what it means to be responsible. Most kids go through this in their teens and often adults farther in their life misjudge their self assessment.

Who and how we are is largely about discovery and then reaction. Then after that it is about effort and choosing who to be. This isn't so new a topic for me Yuyutsu. But as great or horrible that we are capable of being that isn't what it takes to be God. If we are not practical about our assessments then we risk turning it into philosophical bs. It happens, at all ages. If you're willing to be tested you might find a simular answer too Yuyutsu. Take time to measure your thoughts, to see what is reliable verses what is hoped.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

I am glad that you disagree with me: this way you can have your own genuine experience of yourself rather than simply repeat my words.

Next on the journey, it is common to come up, as you just started, with our strengths and weaknesses. This is a good step forward, but we cannot stop there and be satisfied with these answers because strengths and weaknesses are transient, they can come and go, while we should rather aim to experience who and what the "owner" of those strengths and weaknesses is.

One point to be careful about during this process of pondering, is to keep focusing on yourself rather than on others (what if, who and what you are is different to who and what they are?).

While pondering, you should not go for deep philosophical achievements. Yes, they could occur, or they may not, but so what? There are already books upon books filled with deep philosophical truths that were written by people who searched for God, by people who pondered who and what they are and even by those who did eventually found themselves and God. If it were so easy, if all you needed was to read books, if Truth and God could be found by reading other people's accounts, then wouldn't we all by now be already enlightened, sitting next to God in His glorious kingdom? But alas, nobody else can do this pondering for you in your place.

ALTRAV, that sounds like you really are lucky to be alive. Glad you are. If your right about the reason for the people in your dreams, then that's a great way for your acknowledging their visiting you. Gives me a fresh view for visiting people who are in comas. Never know if they are aware of it and encouraged by it in other ways.

You said that it wasn't dreaming but that you were alive. What do you mean?

Yuyutsu, consider what I've said. Think about your thoughts, and your conclusions. When I think of a person living a lie. I think of an atheist accusing me of not living in reality because of my faith. On the downside this reduces my trust in what could very well be from God. But on the upside, what remains in spite of doubts and critism from friends is that much stronger. Because I know it's solid and true. I ask you to do the same. Test your conclusions for what is reliable. It's good to base your hopes on God, But not everything claimed to be from Him is from Him.

Not-Now.Soon, If you can imagine dreaming. What I was experiencing was, for all intents and purposes, real. All the usual senses were working as if I was awake. Smell, i would feel the environment such as wind or rain.

Dreaming has a rather vague feel to it and there is no continuity to the 'story' if you will. If you can take a section of your life today, with all the sounds, smells, wind etc; imagine you did all this but were not physically doing it but you felt just as if you were.

Because you are 'feeding' on your immediate environment around you physically, you incorporate things you sense around you in your 'mental life'.

I recall, more than once I was in a forest or similar, and The locals were using my chest as a means of fire for such things as cooking their food.

I remember looking down and there was a burning sensation and a bright glow coming from this large cavity where my chest was.

I reasoned later that I was responding to the result of my chest being cut and spread out so as to access my heart and other necessary organs.

But again, I was living this, not dreaming it, so it felt. On a more lighter note, don't believe too much of what you read or are told.
Even though you are drugged and unconscious, you still have some small levels of feel associated with what is going on outside your consciousness or your body.

P.S. I feel I must add that I was given Morphine for the opp, only to find out at my second opp that I was allergic to it. HAH, go figure. Maybe this contributed to my 'other life'?

To Yuyutsu.

You make a good point.
Perceptions are not reality per se but representations of reality.
And they can mislead us.
But without perceptions what are we left with?

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

You seem to have changed the subject.

This is expected when the going gets tough.

You write about me and my thoughts, about atheists, God and faith, criticism and conclusions. But what has gone missing, is YOU.

We cannot settle the question of God using intellectual arguments.
I tell you that there is nothing but God, hence you too are God - experience who you truly are and you have found God as well. However, the road is arduous and scary. I say that it is worthwhile despite all hardships, but then why would you believe me?

---

Dear Ashbo,

Perceptions always mislead us and distort reality because they are indirect, interposing some vehicle (senses/mind/words/memory) between us, the subject, and the objects of our perception.

Apart from distortions due to the physical limitations of our senses and mind, the biggest distortion is that perceptions produce an illusion as if we, the subject, are separated from the objects of perception, thus producing the game of diversity.

Without perception, once we become tired of playing diversity, we are left with the direct experience of reality itself. No longer a thought about reality, nor a sensation of reality, but reality itself.

Dear Yuyutsu.

My intent was not to change the subject. But I used an example in my life to convay a point of challenging our own conclusions. You and I both believe in God, but we do not believe in God the same way. No, it could even be reasoned we don't believe in the same God. So I say it again for clarification. Seek out your own conclusions and test them on what is reliable.

That is part of this discussion as a whole. Knowing what is real and what isn't. You've said that God can't be argued by intellectual arguments. That I fully agree with you. There are too many that settle their view by reason alone, but do not test that reason in the real world. So reason untested is not an authority on reality. Reason tested and shown true shows the merrit of that logic and those reasoning perspectives.

(Continued)

(Continued)

So here is my challenge for your intelectual point.

[I tell you that there is nothing but God, hence you too are God - experience who you truly are and you have found God as well.]

I am on a practical level all the things I described myself as earlier. Many of those things aren't who "I truely am" when you consider who I was 10 or 20 years ago. In years to come there can be more to add to that list that weren't there before and aren't who I truely am now. On a practical level we change, we all do. There is no truely you aspect in this that is connected to God. But there are unique aspects to us that usually are unchanging. Some good, some not as good. But they are not us being God either.

One other element I left out of that list were my failures. Both my sins, my weaknesses, and over all the things that did not pan out well. I see these elements in life as a witness against self focused philosophies. Including your own view that we are all God. The truth is we need God. Not that we are Him.

There is your challenge. It won't go away by ignoring it. But I'm sorry to push it on you like this. It is not an easy path to be challenged.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

So long and to the extent that you consider yourself as a man, then of course you need God!

Man is sinful, man needs help, man needs undeserved divine grace, every bit of it.

How can man be God when man is sinful and God isn't?

However, YOU are not a man, that's only an illusion. Your human mind and body sin, granted, they cannot help it, but you are not that body or that mind - they are only temporarily yours, then they disappear the way they came. Even your character eventually disappears: your virtues and your vices, all will be washed away in time - but you remain, you always were, you always will be.

The only "selfishness" to be shunned, is when serving one's false and limited perception of self, such as one's body/mind, to the exclusion of other bodies/minds. There is nothing wrong however with "selfishness" when the self you serve is your real self which includes all "others" as well - God.

To Yuyutzu.
Your latest reply to me suggests we are, to some degree at least, in agreement. I tend towards the idea of what might be called Indirect Realism. Our perception of reality is filtered.
Do you accept the idea that, in certain circumstances, our intellect can be aware of the inherent distortion in the perception of a particular reality presented to us and can, in a sense, compensate?
May I ask you to expand on the term you used: "the game of diversity"?
I am not sure of what you are driving at there.
And do you hold that reality can in some way be contemplated without sensory perception?

To Ashbo.

Be careful when contemplating reality without a means to perceive it in the environmental context. For example, a lot of bad advise is thrown out there by people who only know half the story (if even that). Same is true with anything else. Our perception might not always be correct. But they are more in line then our preconceived thoughts are. So our senses and perceptions should be the means to test our theory of reality.

Dear Ashbo,

Our intellect can mitigate some distortions in perception.
However, it cannot overcome the duality inherent in perception itself.

The game of diversity, or "Lila" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lila_(Hinduism%29) refers to how God, though one, absolute and undifferentiated, seems to play being multiple, creating the illusion of time, space and all the rest as seemingly seen from multiple points of view.

Reality cannot be contemplated, but it can be experienced directly without sensory or any other perception. Perception is required for 'A' to obtain information about some separate 'B'. For that, 'A' must take their attention outside. However, 'A' need not look outside to "perceive" itself. In order to experience yourself directly, you need to stop looking outside for other things. Once you experience yourself directly, it's just the most obvious, more obvious than anything you ever experienced through perception. English has no word for direct/immediate experiences - the Sanskrit word is 'Anubhava': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anubhava#Advaita_Vedanta

To Yuyutsu.

I find myself, at least for the time being, in agreement with you on the problem of perception.
Mind you, this problem is of a philosophic nature, in so far as our ordinary day to day perceptions seem to serve us perfectly well.
I struggle with your metaphysics however. It does not seem satisfactory to me to rely on a religious experience to make sense of things presented to us by our perceptual experiences.

Dear Ashbo,

Our ordinary day to day perceptions serve our human needs quite well, though I wouldn't give it full marks as "perfectly" well. After all, human perception evolved (and perhaps still evolves) for that purpose alone.

Perceptions cannot, however, satisfy our spiritual need, perhaps because evolution is geared for the survival of the species and there is no survival advantage in knowing one's true self or in finding God.

Making sense is a mental activity. We experience mental activities indirectly through our minds and indirect experiences are necessarily relative, imperfect and distorted to some extent. So you are perfectly right in your claim: direct experience (which I presume is what you refer to by "religious experience") does not involve the mind, so it cannot make sense, that's not what it is for.

To Yuyutsu.
Thank you for your reply.
I now have a good sense of your reasoning on the matter.
Time for me to go off and do some study on "perception", so thanks again.
Ash