>>Ok, I think now I'm a bit confused. I've been referring to laws of science and physics etc, and now you refer to stimuli which seem to be something outside of our doing. Are they not the same thing? What are these stimuli to which we react if in fact they are not the laws that you feel are created by our own minds in the first place? Is this some sort of infinite circular reference?
>
>
>Not quite.
>
>These stimuli refer to events in a different set of causality that we seem to experience.

>
>In the absolute set of causality, our minds exist, and react to stimuli.
>
>The result is that the mind creates a new set of causality, which is our conscious experience, our relative reality.

What causes these stimuli in the other causality to change? If the stimuli don't change, then why isn't the new set of causality, our relative reality, which we create, perfectly consistent? And I do think it's demonstrable that our created reality is not consistent (ie - Newton's laws of reaction again).

If in fact, the stimuli don't change, but only our reactions to those stimuli; which causes us to re-create our relative reality, then what's the difference between calling them 'stimuli from another causality', or calling them 'laws of physics'?