by Melissa Karnaze

Your life is your construct BUY AMARYL NO PRESCRIPTION, The world isn't as it appears.

Or rather, it's only as it appears, AMARYL dosage.

Because it's made-up. Herbal AMARYL, By your brain.

Your brain co-constructs your experience of reality.

There is no absolute reality

For ages people have argued that there is an absolute, objective reality that exists "out there" independently of human awareness, BUY AMARYL NO PRESCRIPTION. (And that certain powers deserve more authority over other human beings because they have access to that absolute truth.)

Perhaps there is an absolute truth, AMARYL samples, and that one day we humans we will be able to confirm this. Where can i buy cheapest AMARYL online, But as it is right now, we can't.

We're bound by our human consciousness, rx free AMARYL. To know for certain this absolute truth we'd need to be all-seeing and all-knowing. BUY AMARYL NO PRESCRIPTION, But we're clearly not (not even with all our technology). AMARYL online cod,

Subjectivity is where it's at

It's a debate that's long dead. And unproductive -- because arguing over what's right and what's wrong and what's the surefire way through the gates of heaven is a waste of precious time.

It's a distraction from subjectivity, buy no prescription AMARYL online. You know, AMARYL no rx, actually living your life. Actually being engaged, BUY AMARYL NO PRESCRIPTION. Actually responding to events rather than theorizing or fretting about them.

Brain science tells us so

Even so, AMARYL alternatives, people cling to a foundationalist notion of the world. AMARYL recreational, Where morality is a thing that can be measured. Where you're either right or you're wrong. BUY AMARYL NO PRESCRIPTION, That's not how things really work. Right and wrong are human constructions that we've used to cope with this crazy thing called living, buy cheap AMARYL.

Study the brain enough, Ordering AMARYL online, you'll see.

Your reality is what you perceive

Professor George Pollak teaches neurobiology at the University of Texas and serves on the Executive Committee of the Institute for Neuroscience.

At an honors philosophy lecture in spring of 2007, kjøpe AMARYL på nett, köpa AMARYL online, he explained:

"What is so captivating about sensory physiology is that the world we perceive is not absolute reality, Doses AMARYL work, although we think it is, at least I do. What we believe to be reality is only the world that our sensory receptors tell us about the various energies in the world, light, sound, chemicals in the air."

(Transcribed by Jennifer Doyle for the Texas Neuroscience Review, Volume 1)

It's only a matter of time before word gets around, BUY AMARYL NO PRESCRIPTION. Before people slowly wake up to how the brain really works, buy AMARYL online no prescription. Before our beloved foundationalist notion of our world turns on its side. Buy AMARYL from mexico, And at a global scale, we focus more on response ability instead of arguing about what's right and wrong and who knows best for whom.

Your brain pulls the strings

Pollak went on to say:

"But that is only half of what is required, AMARYL reviews. BUY AMARYL NO PRESCRIPTION, Our brains then have to construct that sensory information into 'perceptions.' In other words, how we perceive the world and everything in it is limited by the information provided by our sensory receptors and then by the particular computations that our brains perform on that information. Our reality is nothing more than that which our brains construct for us."

And this doesn't even take into account that spooky action at a distance Einstein was talking about. AMARYL from mexico, Quantum entanglement only turns our notion of the physical world even more on its side.

Your neurobiology is unique

Pollak continued his point with a scenario you literally can't know (because you don't have the sensory experience to draw from):

"Now comes the spooky part: if our receptors were different or if our brains operated differently, the world we perceive would be vastly different from the one we experience every day."

Dolphins and ants live in a different world than you do, AMARYL over the counter. Of course, Where can i find AMARYL online, it's the same basic stuff out there, but they construe that stuff in vastly different ways.

And how you construe your world makes a huge difference in how you experience life, respond to it, and how happy and healthy you are, BUY AMARYL NO PRESCRIPTION.

Your neurobiology is complex

And of course the brain doesn't live in a vacuum, AMARYL for sale. It's not a computer with a finite set of software that determines your reality for you. AMARYL natural, Your experience, and how you interpret it, plays an active role in shaping your programs, AMARYL description.

Your beliefs, Comprar en línea AMARYL, comprar AMARYL baratos, in particular, hold heavy weight. They influence how you think and feel BUY AMARYL NO PRESCRIPTION, , respond or react.

And it's a feedback loop: how you think and feel, AMARYL treatment, respond or react in turn influences your belief systems. It goes on and on.

In short, your brain is a predicting machine. It uses anything it can to keep on predicting what will happen in the future, so that you can survive.

It will even use dysfunctional beliefs and cognitive distortions -- if they kept you alive in the past, BUY AMARYL NO PRESCRIPTION. (Keeping you healthy and happy is actually a separate and complicated thing, having to do with complexity of the human brain.)

You co-create your reality

This means that you have a lot of say in how you co-construct your world.

Not in a law-of-attraction way where your thoughts materialize as Mercedes and other shiny objects.

In a down-to-earth way, that's actually common sense if you just pay attention to how your thoughts, emotions, and your relationship to your emotions shapes how you think and feel and relate to your emotions -- which ultimately guides your response ability in life. (And yes, it also goes on and on.)

So remember, you're living in a made-up world. BUY AMARYL NO PRESCRIPTION, And you're helping to make it.

That's pretty powerful stuff.

About the Author: Melissa Karnaze received her B.S. in cognitive science from the University of California, San Diego. Get more from Melissa on Twitter and Facebook.

P.S. Have you checked out the Mindful Construct email newsletter. It features a 10-part e-class on how your life is your construct, and a special 23-page report on the culture behind science. Sign up and find out how deep the rabbit hole goes.


{ 14 comments… read them below or add one }

Evan August 27, 2010 at 5:38 pm

I think co-created is different to (entirely) made up. Pain may be co-created by the ground and me hitting it but I don’t think I made up the ground.

Haider August 28, 2010 at 4:25 am

Hi Melissa,

It’s important to distinguish between the nature of reality, and our experience of it.

Reality is objective, but our experience is subjective.

Anyone who tries to assert that reality is subjective will give away the underlying assumption that it is objective. Steve Pavlina does it a lot. He talks about the subjective nature of reality, but then goes on to write about “calibration” (which is our way of adjusting to objective reality).

The “same basic stuff out there” is objective reality. How we experience it is subjective.

Just because our experience is subjective doesn’t take away from how objective reality is, and it doesn’t entirely dismiss our knowledge about reality.

What is important is respecting our subjective experience, and to take our individual needs, feelings, and thoughts into consideration when it comes to defining how we should lead our lives, and to be aware of the little mind tricks we play on ourselves that can undermine how we understand the world and, therefore, how we respond to it.

I’m happy to see you discuss the philosophical foundations of our thinking, which tends to get overlooked in personal growth writings, even though they shape and define how we understand everything else! :D

Melissa Karnaze August 28, 2010 at 10:20 am

Evan, the point is that the ground only exists to you because you have a brain to perceive it.

Haider, as Tim Brownson commented on your guest post at his site:

“If you can’t escape your filters, who on earth can you say with complete certainty they aren’t distorting your reality. IMHO, it’s a complete contradiction in terms.”

The concept of filters isn’t “abstract.” It’s studied in the field of (comparative) neuroscience.

That’s why I quoted a neuroscientist. ;)

Evan August 28, 2010 at 3:00 pm

Hi Melissa, but as you say “the ground” (outside me) does exist to me. My point was that I didn’t make it up – I co-created. Another way to say this is that I co-created it, it isn’t (only) me-created.

The problem with Tim’s position is that he talks about ‘your reality’. He is quite confident of the existence of the filters. (These are extremely valuable co-creations in my view – facilitating the foucs we need to live and the etiquette that can ease our social life. Not abstract but very concrete – and extremely useful I think.)

Haider August 29, 2010 at 2:00 am

Melissa, you’re meant to quote my post, not Tim’s comment! :P

All concepts are abstractions of concrete occurrences. A “filter” describes a function, not an object you can perceive and point to (it’s not a percept). When we say: “We have filters in our brains,” what are we actually referring to? How do these filters work? And to what extent do they distort reality?

It’s not a logical argument to say: “We have filters, therefore, it’s impossible to know reality.”

And it’s even more illogical to say: “We have filters, therefore, reality doesn’t exist!”

The conclusion doesn’t follow from the observation.

In fact, acknowledging that filters exist means that there is a reality that we are aware of, but we might not be perceiving or understanding accurately (depending on how our filters work).

The idea of subjective reality is a philosophical issue, not a scientific one, and it’s shaping how Professor Pollak is interpreting his scientific findings.

For example, the “world we perceive” won’t be vastly different if we have different receptors. He can’t conclude that based on scientific research. Instead, he can say that “our perception of the world” will be vastly different. There’s a vast difference between the two. :)

The fact that Professor Pollak can study brains, and then conclude that all brains function in the same way means that there’s an objective reality he’s studying.

The idea of a “subjective reality” is a filter that’s influencing his interpretation of the data.

Melissa Karnaze August 29, 2010 at 10:08 am

Haider, I meant to quote Tim’s comment, and reference your following comment. ;)

“We have filters in our brains,” what are we actually referring to? How do these filters work? And to what extent do they distort reality?

As I said before, all you have to do is pick up a book or a paper on comparative neuroscience.

It’s not a logical argument to say: “We have filters, therefore, it’s impossible to know reality.”

I address this in my e-class and online report. There is a very logical way to approach your life without having to figure out the “absolute,” “ultimate” truth of reality.

And it’s even more illogical to say: “We have filters, therefore, reality doesn’t exist!”

I never said this. Reality does exist to you. Because of your brain.

If you’re going to argue with Pollak’s statements and the valid perspective of neuroscience, there’s little where else you and I can take this conversation.

You and Evan are more than welcome to disagree with me. :)

Haider August 29, 2010 at 2:55 pm


My problem with subjective reality is the idea that there is no objective reality independent of the observer. Reality doesn’t exist because of my brain, but I’m able to observe it because of my brain.

I’m not disputing the fact that we have filters, or that our brains shape our subjective experience. I can’t possibly argue with that.

But what makes the perspective of neuroscience valid (or invalid)? It’s the degree to which it accurately describes how reality (i.e. the stuff out there) works. I can’t say: “But neuroscience is only valid for you, Melissa, not for me.”

It’s either valid, or it isn’t, irrespective of who makes the call.

There’s a philosophical issue here about the nature of reality, and a scientific one about how the brain works. I’m not arguing about the latter. It’s the former one that I’d disagree with Professor Pollak about.

Melissa Karnaze August 29, 2010 at 3:43 pm

In this article (as well as other articles and the e-class) I argue that the philosophy and the neuroscience are the same issue. In your comments you argue that they are not. So, we disagree. :)

Evan August 29, 2010 at 4:13 pm

Hi Melissa, I don’t think I am agreeing (completely) with Haider.

mike kirkeberg August 30, 2010 at 9:23 am


Excellent post. I truly enjoyed it. How about this. Reality is a metaphor for our mind. And our mind is a metaphor for our brain, albeit a twisted metaphor.

Melissa Karnaze August 30, 2010 at 5:37 pm

mike, that’s definitely one take on it, and sensible if you believe that the mind is what the brain does. :)

Cory Chu-Keenan August 31, 2010 at 1:15 pm

I think what’s being discussed is two different ways of looking at freedom, which is what philosophy has really become in its modern form.

Some think that ultimate freedom is believing in an ultimate reality that is hard, concrete, solid. Once we have formed this realism, then we are freed from further searching. We know what is true and what is false.

Others think that that ultimate freedom is knowing that there can be no hard reality, because everything is perception. We can never know what reality really is and this is freeing because it allows us to believe whatever we want to believe. We can co-create the world. All is possible.

There are probably more ways of looking at it, but I just wanted to point out that the idea of freedom is what we are all essentially searching for and we all have different ways of achieving this. I don’t think either way can be proven or disproven, but I think this is actually the problem with philosophy in general–it becomes a game of semantics that can’t really be tested scientifically (I think Wittgenstein was the major philosopher to point this out, and he’s credited by many as the end of philosophy).

We’ll know when we die, won’t we. If I arrive at the Pearly Gates, I’ll know I’m in trouble.

Evan August 31, 2010 at 2:09 pm

Hi Cory, I think there are actually three positions. The external and hard, the subjective (the world is only our perceptions/ can be whatever we want – solipsism) and the third is co-creation – we make our world out of real stuff with all the limits and possibilities that this implies.

Melissa Karnaze August 31, 2010 at 4:32 pm

Cory, freedom is a practical angle to look at. The knowing-what-is-true-and-what-is-false perspective is what dominates in the world today. Which is why we have widespread religion. And countries like the U.S. who “know what’s best” for other countries. It gets us into a lot of trouble, clamps down on freedom, and may have nothing at all to do with what’s actually true and false.

Leave a Comment

By clicking "Submit" you understand that your submission may be edited or rejected at my discretion, and/or used in upcoming articles or publications. Unconstructive criticism, personal attacks, and requests for personal advice likely will not be published. Please refer to my Disclaimer if you have any questions.

{ 1 trackback }