The Myth of Objective Reality

[BullDogUK]

thanks for that info ... i was going to ask for the Cliff notes version, and there it is.

I guess it could also be seen as a testament to how interesting a topic it is

SF I think I understand your points a little more clearly now, cheers for clearing things up. I guess then these two realities are very seperate; the internal dies with you and is intrinsic to you but the secondary, external reality is independent right? So that is to say that your perception of reality is just as real as reality itself which... yeah I can grasp that

As for the corpuscle, it has two definitive states: "On" or "Off", that is to say it is either generating a chemical potential to initiate a neuron impulse or it is not. These two states or physically different, with the "on" state requiring some kind of pressure to compress the membrane layers:



So you can see the layers of membrane, they are filled with a pressure sensitive protein. If no pressure is applied, you do not feel anything. The more pressure applied, the more membranes affected so the greater the sensation. Essentially, a stimulus external to yourself is required for any signal to be generated in the first place.

 

[1TWISTEDTRUCKER]

On second thought,,, give Me the RED pill, and plug Me back in. J/k lol.

Twisted

 

[southflorida]

I guess it could also be seen as a testament to how interesting a topic it is

lol...yeah, I guess it has been an egoistic journey, in that sense that I wanted to know who I really am. This has been the primary motivation behind my studies. What's interesting is that eventually I came to a realization that I don't know who my "self" really is, that I simply believed and assumed a whole bunch of concepts about my "self" - but none of these were who I really am.

SF I think I understand your points a little more clearly now, cheers for clearing things up. I guess then these two realities are very seperate; the internal dies with you and is intrinsic to you but the secondary, external reality is independent right? So that is to say that your perception of reality is just as real as reality itself which... yeah I can grasp that

If I was to say it outright it would sound like this: The primary reality is Consciousness, which is absolutely nothing and infinitely everything.

The secondary reality is the distinctions inside of this ONE Consciousness interacting and co-operating with each other.

So, yes, the primary reality always IS, while in the secondary reality our "self-mind" is always working on doing everything possible for this "self" to survive as whatever it believes and assumes the "self" is.

And, eventually there comes an end to this "individual self" inside of Consciousness.

What is hard to grasp, and is actually a paradox, is that the primary reality and the secondary reality BOTH are Consciousness. The only difference between them is their "nature."

The nature of Consciousness is NOTHING.

The nature of Self, and everything else inside the secondary reality is a DISTINCTION inside of Consciousness.

Distinction is a function of Consciousness, it is how it pulls of this secondary reality. If you notice everything in your awareness on a moment-to-moment basis is a distinction.

If something is distinct from what it is not, it is a distinction.

This is a different topic obviously, but still distinctions are what the secondary reality is created from. We make the distinctions in our awareness, and there is nothing in the secondary reality that is NOT a distinction.

As for the corpuscle, it has two definitive states: "On" or "Off", that is to say it is either generating a chemical potential to initiate a neuron impulse or it is not. These two states or physically different, with the "on" state requiring some kind of pressure to compress the membrane layers:

[URL=https://www.icmag.com/ic/picture.php?albumid=44503&pictureid=1103856&thumb=1]View Image[/url]

So you can see the layers of membrane, they are filled with a pressure sensitive protein. If no pressure is applied, you do not feel anything. The more pressure applied, the more membranes affected so the greater the sensation. Essentially, a stimulus external to yourself is required for any signal to be generated in the first place.

Studying these processes inside the secondary reality is interesting, and in the beginning even necessary, but if you want to directly experience the primary reality, you have to leave all these things at the door when entering inside.

Beliefs and assumptions about this secondary reality which we confuse with the primary actually are a barrier to directly becoming conscious of who we truly are, of our true nature.

 

[draco]

for me using the brain to figure out the brain is a waste of time - like a bee buzzing around in a jar...

these are all fine little constructs that ultimately distract us from who we really are.

we think this... we think that, we think we think we think. but we won't KNOW anything... until the thinking STOPS.

beside, no matter what great thing you think today, it is mostly lost in the mighty swirl of mind and sensory input tomorrow, and for all intents and purposes is GONE by the end of the week so what's the use?

thoughts do not seem to me as a tool to move us forward, as much as they are a form of entertainment.

but for all that, we sure do love the elegant structures of the mind - we masturbate to them regularly.

 

[Eighths-n-Aces]

NICE!!!!!


i've been wondering WhereTF the "fapping" sound was coming from!

 

[1TWISTEDTRUCKER]

for me using the brain to figure out the brain is a waste of time - like a bee buzzing around in a jar...

these are all fine little constructs that ultimately distract us from who we really are.

we think this... we think that, we think we think we think. but we won't KNOW anything... until the thinking STOPS.

beside, no matter what great thing you think today, it is mostly lost in the mighty swirl of mind and sensory input tomorrow, and for all intents and purposes is GONE by the end of the week so what's the use?

thoughts do not seem to me as a tool to move us forward, as much as they are a form of entertainment

Twisted

but for all that, we sure do love the elegant structures of the mind - we masturbate to them regularly.

I thought bees are supposed to be slowed by SMOKE,,,, My Bees just keep on BUZZING,,,,, Somebody/ANYBODY make UMm quit


Peace; 1TT

 

[bombadil.360]

hello southflorida,

have you considered that using the term 'secondary reality' is way better than using the term 'subjective' to describe the phenomenal world assembled by the physical senses?

using the term 'subjective' seems highly improper as it poorly describes the actual nature of this 'secondary reality'. it'd help to avoid certain expressed misunderstandings.

peace

 

[southflorida]

for me using the brain to figure out the brain is a waste of time - like a bee buzzing around in a jar...

these are all fine little constructs that ultimately distract us from who we really are.

we think this... we think that, we think we think we think. but we won't KNOW anything... until the thinking STOPS.

beside, no matter what great thing you think today, it is mostly lost in the mighty swirl of mind and sensory input tomorrow, and for all intents and purposes is GONE by the end of the week so what's the use?

thoughts do not seem to me as a tool to move us forward, as much as they are a form of entertainment.

but for all that, we sure do love the elegant structures of the mind - we masturbate to them regularly.

There was very little talk about the "brain" in this thread.

The primary talk was around the "mind" which is another domain.

 

[southflorida]

hello southflorida,

have you considered that using the term 'secondary reality' is way better than using the term 'subjective' to describe the phenomenal world assembled by the physical senses?

using the term 'subjective' seems highly improper as it poorly describes the actual nature of this 'secondary reality'. it'd help to avoid certain expressed misunderstandings.

peace

yes. The secondary reality seems to be a more precise term.

Inside the primary reality we have the secondary reality, which is a sub-set of the primary reality, and inside this secondary reality we have objective reality (objects) and subjective reality (concepts).

But, the title of the thread is still in sync with what I wanted to point at:

The objective reality that we take for granted is NOT DIRECT, we are never DIRECTLY perceiving anything in our perceptions, everything that we perceive is secondary and in-direct, this means all the objective stuff that we see, hear, taste, smell, feel, etc...is NOT the object itself fundamentally or directly.

This is all occuring inside the secondary reality inside of our self-mind, inside our imagination.

We don't know what the primary reality IS, because all of our senses are indirect, and this means that we have NO WAY of perceiving this primary reality.

We can be directly conscious of the primary reality, and we ARE.

We simply confuse the secondary reality for the primary because our attention is focused on the "stuff" occuring in the secondary reality while completely IGNORING the primary reality which is the "substance" from which the secondary reality is created.

We confuse this because there is NOTHING in the primary reality, since the nature of Consciousness is NOTHING, plus in the culture where we grow up and where our self-mind is SERIOUSLY programmed by this culture, this state of consciousness is completely ignored.

It is ignored because it is probably believed that if it was made public to everyone that we ARE this Consciousness, that we ARE this primary reality ourselves, there would chaos and disorder, and people would stop paying their debts to the global bankers

 

[southflorida]

The reason that our perceptions are in-direct is because they have been designed for one thing: SELF-SURVIVAL.

This can be observed in how EVERY PERCEPTION that we have - has an EFFECT on us.

Our awareness exists in a charged field, and our self mind, is always, on a moment to moment basis interpreting everything that comes into this field of awareness.

THIS is why there are so many interpretations in our thinking that are divided into positive and negative, good and bad, etc.

Since we live in societies, our primary focus 99.9% is on SOCIAL-SURVIVAL.

We don't actually notice that we are in a CONSTANT state of social-survival on a moment-to-moment basis, and all of our perceptions and interpretations are focused in relation to ONE GOAL: Surviving as the SELF we believe and assume that we ARE.

What we don't notice that this social-survival is always in relation to the people that exist in the society where we exist.

Our strongest proof of this social-survival can be easily observed in our closest relationships with people that we consider to be important to us. Family, friends, co-workers, etc.

If you actually contemplate on how much of your energy is spent in order to survive as a social-entity that you believe and assume that you are, you will be shocked. It will be A LOT, in fact it might be all of it.

Even being a part of this forum means A LOT to most folks.

For some, maybe this forum might be the MOST important part of their life

So, social-survival is SERIOUS business, and our in-direct senses have been designed in order to help us accomplish this self-survival.

There is only one problem: in the end we are destined to fail, we cannot continue this self-survival indefinitely, and this is why our awareness has been designed the way it has been designed.

If we completely grasped the TRUTH that we will NOT survive, we might stop running after what we want and away from what we don't want and this whole virtual reality trainer would lose its purpose, and would have to be re-designed.

 

[1TWISTEDTRUCKER]

You want the Truth??? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!!!

1TT

 

[southflorida]

You want the Truth??? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!!!

1TT

A Few Good Man "You Can't Handle the Truth"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j2F4VcBmeo

...awesome movie...watched it many times

 

[HempKat]

If by reality you mean what is ACTUALLY there, then yes.

And when folks interpret whatever is actually there through their senses they get a subjective perception.

But, if we use a building as an example, what IS actually there is not known, there maybe atoms, or nothing, or some kind of substance that the scientist have not been able to find (but are spending LOTS and LOTS of government money to find out)

When two people look at that building one might see a dark grey building, while another sees a dark green building.

Both of these buildings are subjective, these two folks are seeing them in their imagination, they are NOT seeing what is fundamentally there, AS-IS.

They are seeing what that "reality that is not-known" means to their self-mind that is doing the interpreting.

The main point is that the building itself...is NOT objective, as in the two people are not directly experiencing what is actually there, but instead interpreting something that is not-known, and through their sense turning this thing that is not known into something that is known to their perceptions and self-mind.

No the two people are experiencing what is there and the fact the both experience something very similar but with surface characteristic differences says that they are experiencing something real and set. By set I mean it appears in essence to all as the same kind of thing, that it's not too radically different from one person to the next.

You're correct in that we don't know things directly because they have to be processed by our senses into our brains and thereby our consciousness. That since our brains and senses our as unique and individual as fingerprints it is likely no two people experience something that is exactly the same. Setting aside that unless experienced simultaneously from the same spot at the same time no two perceptions will be exactly the same because perception is bound to time as well as reality. There is no timestamp like there might be on a video but our consciousness exists in time and so all things are perceived at a certain place at a certain time.

So given that it's obvious that we all perceive things slightly differently is there any sense in trying to make that mean more? As if somehow you can come to terms with this different way of looking at things as you describe it, you can alter or at least better control your personal reality? I say no. The reason being is multi faceted, for one thing our sense organs are subject to being imperfect and to having defects. Then there are environmental factors and things like aging that can dull our senses. A common thing many experience in their life is that foods the once enjoyed as a kid they dislike as an adult as well as foods they used to hate as a kid they like as an adult. Another big thing though is a portion of our perception is learned especially in how we perceive one another, we are taught in many ways we are different from one another and some of those teachings we have such strong feelings about they can totally alter ones perception. For example say a person is a typical hard core Conservative Republican and also white. If I show him a picture of an average, well groomed, white male he would probably perceive that person in a positive light. If however I presented that picture as being of a hard core Liberal Democrat he would likely perceive him in a very negative light. Now if I showed him a picture of a well groomed average black male. It would likely be the same but in either case the perception would likely be more negative then of the white person because most hard core white republicans even if they consider themselves not to be racist consider themselves to be superior to other races and that the superiority is God given.

Which is all just to say that there are many factors into how and why we each perceive a different reality but we do all perceive more or less the same reality. You might see a blue building and I might see a green building but it's still a building and we'll both walk to the same point to open the door or to look in or out of a window. Because the building itself is reality, I can't train my mind to see it differently and then turn the nature of it different for others in the process. Nor can I give it abilities it didn't have by changing how I perceive it. In other words I can't decide the building is a pool of water and make others see it that way or be able to dive in that pool of water and get wet.

 

[southflorida]

No the two people are experiencing what is there and the fact the both experience something very similar but with surface characteristic differences says that they are experiencing something real and set. By set I mean it appears in essence to all as the same kind of thing, that it's not too radically different from one person to the next.

You're correct in that we don't know things directly because they have to be processed by our senses into our brains and thereby our consciousness. That since our brains and senses our as unique and individual as fingerprints it is likely no two people experience something that is exactly the same. Setting aside that unless experienced simultaneously from the same spot at the same time no two perceptions will be exactly the same because perception is bound to time as well as reality. There is no timestamp like there might be on a video but our consciousness exists in time and so all things are perceived at a certain place at a certain time.

So given that it's obvious that we all perceive things slightly differently is there any sense in trying to make that mean more? As if somehow you can come to terms with this different way of looking at things as you describe it, you can alter or at least better control your personal reality? I say no. The reason being is multi faceted, for one thing our sense organs are subject to being imperfect and to having defects. Then there are environmental factors and things like aging that can dull our senses. A common thing many experience in their life is that foods the once enjoyed as a kid they dislike as an adult as well as foods they used to hate as a kid they like as an adult. Another big thing though is a portion of our perception is learned especially in how we perceive one another, we are taught in many ways we are different from one another and some of those teachings we have such strong feelings about they can totally alter ones perception. For example say a person is a typical hard core Conservative Republican and also white. If I show him a picture of an average, well groomed, white male he would probably perceive that person in a positive light. If however I presented that picture as being of a hard core Liberal Democrat he would likely perceive him in a very negative light. Now if I showed him a picture of a well groomed average black male. It would likely be the same but in either case the perception would likely be more negative then of the white person because most hard core white republicans even if they consider themselves not to be racist consider themselves to be superior to other races and that the superiority is God given.

Which is all just to say that there are many factors into how and why we each perceive a different reality but we do all perceive more or less the same reality. You might see a blue building and I might see a green building but it's still a building and we'll both walk to the same point to open the door or to look in or out of a window. Because the building itself is reality, I can't train my mind to see it differently and then turn the nature of it different for others in the process. Nor can I give it abilities it didn't have by changing how I perceive it. In other words I can't decide the building is a pool of water and make others see it that way or be able to dive in that pool of water and get wet.

That response took a while HK

Since my response to your post, and thanks to other ic members that posted here, I have made a distinction between primary reality and secondary reality.

Primary reality is what is there before we perceive IT and interpret with our perception organs, and the secondary reality being the reality after we perceive and interpret IT.

So, in the second reality we have objects, like buildings that look similar to humans that can see, and we have subjective interpretations of these objects that are based on the things you wrote above (sense organs are subject to being imperfect and to having defects, plus different viewpoints based on programmed cultural beliefs and assumptions).

What I'm writing about in this thread is NOT about perceiving things slightly differently and trying to make that mean more, it's about the fact that there is a PRIMARY reality that we CAN'T perceive with our senses and interpret with our mind.

It is NOT separate from the secondary reality, it simply has a different NATURE.

Plus, the secondary reality is a sub-set of the primary reality, meaning that the secondary reality exists inside the primary reality, and NOT the other way around.

In other words, Consciousness is the FIRST thing, while self, mind, awareness, interpretation, meaning, emotional charge are all - SECONDARY events and processes.

The motivation behind the desire to directly become conscious of this primary reality has nothing to do with meaning, because it is MEANINGLESS, the motivation behind the desire to become directly conscious of this primary reality is simply wanting to experience what IS true, what is original, what is authentic.

You know, without all the cultural BS, that includes all the programmed beliefs and assumptions based on nothing BUT concept and hearsay.

Wanting to have a direct, personal consciousness of the TRUTH is something that can ONLY be understood if you also want it.

You either want it or you don't.

It has nothing to do with being more successful at survival, it is NOT about experiencing victory or relief, or getting what you want while avoiding what you don't want.

It is simply wanting to know the truth for-itself and as-itself.

And this is a 100% meaningless pursuit, because this primary reality is meaningless, meaning that it is without meaning, since it is what is first, what is original and authentic.

Secondary events are focused on SELF-SURVIVAL.

Primary reality is about BEING.

 

[bombadil.360]

The objective reality that we take for granted is NOT DIRECT, we are never DIRECTLY perceiving anything in our perceptions, everything that we perceive is secondary and in-direct, this means all the objective stuff that we see, hear, taste, smell, feel, etc...is NOT the object itself fundamentally or directly.

This is all occuring inside the secondary reality inside of our self-mind, inside our imagination.

We don't know what the primary reality IS, because all of our senses are indirect, and this means that we have NO WAY of perceiving this primary reality.

We can be directly conscious of the primary reality, and we ARE.

We simply confuse the secondary reality for the primary because our attention is focused on the "stuff" occuring in the secondary reality while completely IGNORING the primary reality which is the "substance" from which the secondary reality is created.

We confuse this because there is NOTHING in the primary reality, since the nature of Consciousness is NOTHING, plus in the culture where we grow up and where our self-mind is SERIOUSLY programmed by this culture, this state of consciousness is completely ignored.

It is ignored because it is probably believed that if it was made public to everyone that we ARE this Consciousness, that we ARE this primary reality ourselves, there would chaos and disorder, and people would stop paying their debts to the global bankers

I do not agree that Consciousness is just nothing. what is nothing anyway? can you imagine nothing?

Consciousness is something in and of itself; it is the mediator between the chaos of potentiality into the phenomenal world.

just because Consciousness itself does not share the same "in-direct" nature as the world of the senses, does not mean it is nothing, it just means that it enjoys a different nature, but non-conditioned for example.

also, there is no such thing as 'the object in itself' apart from the object as it appears to us in the 'secondary reality', such as we see it actually is, since this is the only way in which objects come to appear out of the chaos of potentiality.

there's no "real" concrete object somewhere in Mt. Olympus as opposed the very objects being revealed or assembled through our bodily organism as we speak. they are as "real" as they can get.

the value of the 'secondary world' is not less or more, it is just what it is, in other words.

your point about our focus into the secondary world to the point where we loose sight that we are 'located' in a non-local non-conditional Consciousness is very good.

There are methods of remembering this primal awareness, discussed in tons of places, from Judaism, Buddhism and Plato, to name a few; where the idea is to turn this 'witness' lost in the phenomenal world back unto itself.

peace!

 

[southflorida]

I do not agree that Consciousness is just nothing. what is nothing anyway? can you imagine nothing?

Consciousness for-itself and as-itself can't be imagined. One can only be directly conscious of whatever it IS. This NOTHING is not like the nothing we use in our language in the secondary reality, but more like nothing before a something ever existed, before the FIRST DISTINCTION was ever made.

Consciousness is something in and of itself; it is the mediator between the chaos of potentiality into the phenomenal world.

just because Consciousness itself does not share the same "in-direct" nature as the world of the senses, does not mean it is nothing, it just means that it enjoys a different nature, but non-conditioned for example.

Yes, it has a different nature than the DISTINCTIONS that create everything in the secondary reality.

These distinctions are Consciousness also, since it is ONE, but they simply have a different nature than Consciousness.

If we observe how we perceive everything in the secondary reality, it becomes quite obvious that it is WE, that are creating the distinctions in our awareness.

So, anything that is objective or subjective in the secondary reality is a DISTINCTION, this is its nature, while the primary distinction, Consciousness has the nature that would be "best" described as NOTHING, because in order to have a "SOMETHING" - a distinction made in our awareness, there first has to be a nothing where this distinction is made.

Like a "blank" canvas, before you paint a picture (distinction) on this canvas.

also, there is no such thing as 'the object in itself' apart from the object as it appears to us in the 'secondary reality', such as we see it actually is, since this is the only way in which objects come to appear out of the chaos of potentiality.

there's no "real" concrete object somewhere in Mt. Olympus as opposed the very objects being revealed or assembled through our bodily organism as we speak. they are as "real" as they can get.

I wrote an object as-itself and for-itself not in-itself, and YES they are as real as they get inside the secondary reality.

the value of the 'secondary world' is not less or more, it is just what it is, in other words.

yes, since Consciousness is Absolute, this secondary world is it, - it simply shares a different nature because it seems to have been created as a way for individuated consciousness (human beings and other sentient entities) to evolve.

your point about our focus into the secondary world to the point where we loose sight that we are 'located' in a non-local non-conditional Consciousness is very good.

There are methods of remembering this primal awareness, discussed in tons of places, from Judaism, Buddhism and Plato, to name a few; where the idea is to turn this 'witness' lost in the phenomenal world back unto itself.

yes, folks for thousands of years have mentioned it.

What's most interesting for me is to directly be conscious as this primary reality, while still existing as this individual entity in the second reality.

In many ways it is this way anyway, for all of us.

I mean, if we are Consciousness, we are all enlightened, right?

 

[southflorida]

We can be conscious of something

#1 - "for-me"

#2 - "for-itself" and

#3 - "as-itself"

FOR-ME:

For-me is the viewpoint from which we perceive everything on a moment to moment basis, with our mind asking what does "this" mean for me? This can be something objective or subjective (conceptual) inside the secondary reality. This occurs mostly automatically, and is part of the whole "self-survival" program that runs our mind.

This is a viewpoint of the conceptual-self, that is busy surviving as a physical and social entity.

Everything viewed through the for-me lens is a concept, because it is created by the self-mind running the self-survival program.

The proof of this self-survival orientation are the constant effects that we experience as we live our lives moment to moment.

Most people don't notice that they are effected by everything similar to how fish probably don't notice they are living in water. It simply seems that it's always been that way, and that's it.

FOR-ITSELF:

For-itself is perceiving something without the for-me viewpoint, but simply observing that the thing exists for-itself. So for example, instead of a "tree" having a name tree and a "use" like a place to hide from the sun in the summer, it simply becomes an object that is not-known and simply there existing for-itself.

Viewing things for-themselves eliminates the effects that our self-mind serves up to our awareness on a moment to moment basis when it perceives everything through the for-me viewpoint, in relation to our "selves."

AS-ITSELF:

As-itself is what the things really IS. This is outside of our perceptions, and is a direct consciousness of what is really there.

As-itself is NOT a secondary process like for-me and for-itself, it is the primary and direct consciousness of what something IS.

 

[Stoner4Life]

soflo, you are a self-made man.......

 

[southflorida]

soflo, you are a self-made man.......

coming from you S4L...i'll take that as a compliment

 

[BullDogUK]

We can be conscious of something

#1 - "for-me"

#2 - "for-itself" and

#3 - "as-itself"

FOR-ME:

For-me is the viewpoint from which we perceive everything on a moment to moment basis, with our mind asking what does "this" mean for me? This can be something objective or subjective (conceptual) inside the secondary reality. This occurs mostly automatically, and is part of the whole "self-survival" program that runs our mind.

This is a viewpoint of the conceptual-self, that is busy surviving as a physical and social entity.

Everything viewed through the for-me lens is a concept, because it is created by the self-mind running the self-survival program.

The proof of this self-survival orientation are the constant effects that we experience as we live our lives moment to moment.

Most people don't notice that they are effected by everything similar to how fish probably don't notice they are living in water. It simply seems that it's always been that way, and that's it.

FOR-ITSELF:

For-itself is perceiving something without the for-me viewpoint, but simply observing that the thing exists for-itself. So for example, instead of a "tree" having a name tree and a "use" like a place to hide from the sun in the summer, it simply becomes an object that is not-known and simply there existing for-itself.

Viewing things for-themselves eliminates the effects that our self-mind serves up to our awareness on a moment to moment basis when it perceives everything through the for-me viewpoint, in relation to our "selves."

AS-ITSELF:

As-itself is what the things really IS. This is outside of our perceptions, and is a direct consciousness of what is really there.

As-itself is NOT a secondary process like for-me and for-itself, it is the primary and direct consciousness of what something IS.

SF I really liked this my friend

So the "As-Itself", that could be the collection of cells, molecules or atoms that individually comprise what we interpret as a 'tree'?

The unpainted vs painted canvas of the primary reality was pretty cool also.

It reminds me of something Christopher Hitchens once said concerning Purgatory - it doesn't matter what the Pope or Vatican says on the topic, whether it remains dogma or is let go, there are millions of people across the world who have lost unbaptized babies who have truly believed for however long that their child exists in this place. Objectively it seems like nonsense yet to these people it was as real and tangible as an atom is to us. Frankly there a thousands of examples of these, not delusions, but self-created worlds that exist within an individual's mind.