Research Program / Belief Dynamics and Mind–Body Regulation · 中文

you create your own reality

你创造你自己的实相

interface 3/3 · testability 3/3 · 12 claims · claims · concept entry

This program treats the Seth Material as a source of hypotheses, not as doctrine to be validated. Lead dossiers are AI-compiled from the corpus with a book-and-session citation after every statement; literature reviews are AI web-search summaries whose references were all DOI-verified against Crossref; the agenda draft is an AI synthesis. None of it is Seth's original text, and none of it represents scientific consensus. This dossier is a machine translation; the Chinese text is authoritative.

"You Create Your Own Reality" — Topical Archive

1. What are Seth's specific claims about this concept? How many times, in which books, and does the wording shift over time?

The material does not address this.

2. What mechanism does he provide?

The automatic projection of the inner landscape outward is the core mechanism: you create your reality because the inner atmosphere is unconditionally projected as the physical appearance and world, a process that is automatic [early-sessions-8 §334]. Objects in the physical world are merely symbols of the inner reality in the private sphere; the physical self appears to react to external stimuli but in fact reacts to the reality it itself projects outward [early-sessions-8 §334].

The specific mechanism includes: any physical appearance or condition that needs changing must first change the atmosphere of the inner self, because this outward projection operates automatically [early-sessions-8 §334]. The intensity of inner feeling is the dominant factor—sudden and violent hate, resentment, or fear can trigger tragic physical circumstances, while intense joy can immediately change the direction of one's life; all inner feelings in between have their corresponding tonalities [early-sessions-8 §334]. If multiple negative feelings of low intensity accumulate, they will shape an overall negative emotional climate, which is translated into negative conditions in physical reality [early-sessions-8 §334].

The physical system is used only as a testing board; physical conditions are not permanent but constantly changing [early-sessions-8 §334]. Each day should be regarded as a psychological rebirth, and the permanence of physical symbols should not be reinforced by the idea of the continuation of old symptoms [early-sessions-8 §334].

3. Are there observable inferences or explicit predictions (including time, quantity, or conditions)?

Observable inferences exist, but without precise temporal or quantitative predictions.
In the projection state (i.e., one manifestation of creating reality), electromagnetic changes occur that can be perceived by physical instruments, and the associated electromagnetic field appears only when the traversing action occurs [early-sessions-6 §274].
There are also definite chemical changes during projection, likewise detectable by instruments [early-sessions-6 §274].
Projection is subject to environmental conditions: lower body temperature, room temperature of 73.8–75.9°F, a cool-toned room, and low humidity are favorable, while high humidity is unfavorable [early-sessions-6 §274].
Temporal conditions: between 3:00 and 3:30 a.m. and at 5:00 p.m. are beneficial for projection, while certain months (May, October, February, March, and sometimes August, September, April) are better, and overly warm weather is unfavorable [early-sessions-6 §274].
Regarding prediction itself: expectation is an electrical reality; you not only predict so-called future events but also create their actuality within their electrical field, thereby guaranteeing their existence to some degree in the physical field [early-sessions-3 §127].
Through daily prediction experiments, the practitioner can observe the discrepancy between predicted events and actual events, thereby understanding the nature of distortion [early-sessions-3 §127].
However, the material gives no specific timing, quantity, or inevitable predicted outcome for any event, and it emphasizes that free will always operates.

4. Where does he say contemporary science went wrong, and in which direction should it look?

Science regards the universe as a closed system and believes it is doomed to decay through entropy; but Seth insists there are no closed systems, and energy is constantly exchanged within them, even if these exchanges cannot be detected [unknown-reality-2 §744].
Darwinian evolution assumes that life arises from unconscious, chance processes; but Seth says "consciousness always creates form, not the other way around," and "so-called evolution is intimately connected with religion," assertions contrary to orthodox Darwinism [unknown-reality-2 §744].
Science regards matter as "dead" and attempts to create life unconsciously from "dead" matter (e.g., attempts at synthesizing life in the laboratory); but Seth holds that all matter is composed of conscious entities (EE units and CUs), and therefore all matter is alive [unknown-reality-2 §744].
Physicists discuss energy, while Seth discusses consciousness; this is the fundamental contrast between the two approaches to reality, and science sets up its own barriers to knowledge by ignoring consciousness [unknown-reality-2 §744].
Science could study "design" as the connection between "living" and "non-living" systems; this would be a difficult but most rewarding challenge. This direction would lead from biology and microbiology to physics, and ultimately approach Seth's electromagnetic energy units (EE units) and units of consciousness (CUs) [unknown-reality-2 §744].
The true "psychophysicists" of the future will allow "their consciousness to flow into many open doors (or inner realities)," requiring no instruments but the mind [unknown-reality-2 §744].
Pursue the long-forgotten "science"—the true art of dreaming, which trains the mind in a new consciousness that is equally at home in outer or inner existence [unknown-reality-2 §744].
Unless one perceives the inner consciousness behind any "tangible" or "intangible" manifestation, science will place itself before a barrier to knowledge [unknown-reality-2 §744].

5. What experiments or exercises did he suggest? What did Jane and Rob actually do and observe at the time?

After hearing the information about the first inner sense, both Jane and Rob began experimenting with the first inner sense based on the information obtained that evening. [dreams-projections §2]
Rob performed a simple and deliberate experiment: he first looked at various objects in the living room (such as a vase, a painting on the wall, plants), attempting to encircle these objects with the mind's eye so as to clearly imagine their rears; then he stood by the window looking outside, imagining himself walking across the Walnut Street bridge, feeling the wooden planks beneath his feet, passing the signal light at the other end of the bridge, and continuing along the street; finally, he tried to "enfold" with the inner sense of touch the feeling of the houses and trees along the road, passing them one by one as if touching them inwardly. In the following session, Seth told Rob he had done very well and suggested he practice this exercise often. [dreams-projections §2]
Rob also experienced a spontaneous vision: one afternoon while painting in his studio, a clear, detailed visual scene suddenly appeared, and he "knew" it was the bedroom where his brother Dick had died in a previous life in England. He immediately made a sketch of it. Later, in that evening's session, Seth told him he had seen only part of the room and described the rest, along with other details of Dick's life in England. [dreams-projections §2]
While washing dishes in the kitchen, when she was alone and wondering whether Seth would comment on a letter from the publisher, Jane received a clear, humorous inner message: "Are you gluttons for punishment?" She repeated the question inwardly and received further responses; she felt that the "voice" was definitely not herself, and then entered a trance state almost immediately, beginning a session. [dreams-projections §2]

6. Supplements or contradictions from other concepts in the corpus related to this concept?

Supplement 1: Environment is an extension of the self, shaped by inner beliefs
You create your own reality, which means your environment is not independent of you but is part of the self; your environment is the physical materialization of your thoughts, emotions, and beliefs, and the inner self automatically forms the outer objects you know just as it forms the body's organs [personal-reality §614].
Moreover, you not only form personal reality but also attract specific social, political, or private experiences into your sphere of activity through your beliefs; you choose your psychological territory just as you choose the city or country in which you live [unknown-reality-2 §733].
In addition, you create your own reality not only on the physical level but also in the after-death experience; you choose the general type of experience according to your beliefs, and after death you cooperate with other individuals of similar choices in preparation [seth-speaks §11].

Supplement 2: Responsibility and mechanisms of transformation
You are fully responsible for changing your experience, because energy comes from the inner self, but how it is used depends on the individual personality; if you do not like your experience, you should look inward rather than blame God or fate [early-class-3 §?].
On the personal level, people often project inner problems outward, as in the Dineen case, where she believed she was cursed or hypnotized, though others had no power she did not possess; this projection causes problems to appear permanently outside oneself and thus unresolvable [personal-reality §661].
Conversion experiences (whether religious, political, or romantic) can temporarily shift the problem, but this is only a "magical" transfer, not a true resolution; genuine inner observation or mystical experience does not externalize the problem as an enemy [personal-reality §661].

Supplement 3: Beliefs shape perception and the after-death state
The reality your physical senses perceive is the result of beliefs; if you believe evil exists, you will see evil [seth-speaks §11].
You create your own reality also includes the after-death experience: before the "moment of choice," you prepare new experiences together with individuals of similar beliefs; people in different psychological states may be like foreign countries to one another, so after-death communications may appear contradictory [seth-speaks §11].

7. Questions that have not yet been asked

In the claim of inner landscape externalization, can intense negative emotions trigger detectable objective changes in the ambient electromagnetic field under controlled laboratory conditions (e.g., measuring skin conductance and heart rate variability after emotion induction)? Reference may be made to research in electromagnetic biology on the association between emotional states and weak electromagnetic fields.
Can Seth's proposal of the "physical system as a testing board" be aligned with predictive processing models in embodied cognition? An experiment could be designed to compare perceptual judgments (e.g., detection rates of subliminal stimuli) of the same physical stimulus before and after participants shift their inner emotional atmosphere, in order to quantify the modulatory effect of emotional projection on perception.
Do the favorable environmental conditions for the projection state (room temperature 73.8–75.9°F, low humidity, 3:00 a.m.) affect the reported frequency of out-of-body experiences? A double-blind randomized experiment could be designed to manipulate temperature and humidity at a fixed time point, measuring the frequency of subjective out-of-body experiences and physiological indicators, and comparing with existing research on out-of-body experiences (e.g., sleep paralysis studies).
Can Seth's prediction exercise (predicting daily events and comparing discrepancies) be quantified using signal detection theory indices (sensitivity d′ and response bias β)? Trained participants could be recruited to complete daily prediction tasks, recording the match between predicted content and actual events, and comparing against a random-guess baseline to test whether predictive ability exceeding chance exists.
Can inner sense training (such as Rob's exercise of "enveloping objects with the inner sense of touch") alter the neural efficiency of object recognition? fMRI could be used to measure brain activation patterns before and after training in mental rotation or visual imagery tasks involving the rear information of objects, with particular attention to changes in the parietal lobe and somatosensory cortex, to verify the effects of inner sense training.

Appendix: Claim List (for Phase C)

id	Claim	Type	Source
you-create-your-own-reality-1	The inner atmosphere is automatically and unconditionally projected as the outward physical appearance and world; therefore, any outward change must first change the inner atmosphere.	Mechanism description	early-sessions-8 §334
you-create-your-own-reality-2	The intensity of inner feeling is the dominant factor; violent hatred, resentment, or fear can trigger tragic circumstances, while intense joy can immediately change the direction of one's life.	Mechanism description	early-sessions-8 §334
you-create-your-own-reality-3	The physical system serves only as a testing board; physical conditions are not permanent but constantly changing.	Ontological assertion	early-sessions-8 §334
you-create-your-own-reality-4	During projection, electromagnetic and chemical changes occur that can be perceived by physical instruments, and the electromagnetic field appears only when the traversing action occurs.	Testable prediction	early-sessions-6 §274
you-create-your-own-reality-5	Projection is subject to environmental conditions: lower body temperature, room temperature of 73.8–75.9°F, cool-toned low humidity are favorable, high humidity is unfavorable; 3:00–3:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. are beneficial, and certain months are better.	Testable prediction	early-sessions-6 §274
you-create-your-own-reality-6	Expectation is an electrical reality; you not only predict future events but also create their actuality within their electrical field.	Ontological assertion	early-sessions-3 §127
you-create-your-own-reality-7	The universe has no closed systems; energy is constantly exchanged; science is wrong in believing the universe decays through entropy.	Ontological assertion	unknown-reality-2 §744
you-create-your-own-reality-8	Consciousness always creates form rather than the reverse; Darwinian evolution's assumption of unconscious chance processes is wrong.	Ontological assertion	unknown-reality-2 §744
you-create-your-own-reality-9	All matter is composed of conscious entities (EE units and CUs); therefore, all matter is alive.	Ontological assertion	unknown-reality-2 §744
you-create-your-own-reality-10	The true psychophysicists of the future will allow consciousness to flow into inner reality, using the mind without instruments.	Methodological recommendation	unknown-reality-2 §744
you-create-your-own-reality-11	Your environment is part of the self, physically materialized from thoughts, emotions, and beliefs; you choose your psychological territory.	Ontological assertion	personal-reality §614
you-create-your-own-reality-12	You create your own reality also includes the after-death experience; you choose the type of experience according to beliefs.	Ontological assertion	seth-speaks §11

Literature review · 21 DOI-verified references · generated 2026-09-05 · ★ fundable

Research Status Review of "You Create Your Own Reality"

Supported 0 ｜ Contested 0 ｜ Unstudied 9 ｜ Contradicted by Mainstream 3

you-create-your-own-reality-1｜contradicted

Claim: The inner atmosphere automatically and unconditionally projects itself as the outer physical form and world; therefore, any outer change must first arise from an inner change. (early-sessions-8 §334)

Evidence (Crossref-verified):

Johannes Haushofer; Jeremy Shapiro (2016). The Short-Term Impact of Unconditional Cash Transfers to the Poor: Experimental Evidence from Kenya. The Quarterly Journal of Economics. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjw025 —— Evidence of reverse causation: randomly granting external economic resources can improve living conditions and psychological state, without prior belief change as a prerequisite for intervention. Paper
Tor D. Wager; Lauren Y. Atlas (2015). The neuroscience of placebo effects: connecting context, learning and health. Nature Reviews Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3976 —— Similar mechanism: expectations and learning can influence pain and some physiological outcomes, but the effects are conditional and bounded; they do not support the unconditional generation of the external world. Paper

Adjudicating Experiment: A preregistered crossover experiment with approximately 400 participants, independently randomizing both mood induction and computer-controlled external stimulus changes; while participants are kept unaware of stimulus arrangements in advance, continuous recordings are made of subjective mood, physiological indicators, photoelectric probe-detected stimulus changes, and perception reports, over a 6-month project period. This tests whether external physical changes can precede, and occur independently of, measurable inner changes; an additional condition monitors remotely isolated instruments after mood induction to test for effects beyond known physical channels. This design can refute the operationalized version of "inner change must come first," but cannot prove that all reality is generated by consciousness.

Suggested Paper Title: Temporal and Causal Dissociations Between Affective State and External Physical Change: A Preregistered Randomized Study

Core Disruption: If the full strong claim holds, it would overturn the assumption of causal independence that "external physical events can occur preceding emotional changes independent of an observer."

Related Teams/Funding: Tor D. Wager, Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience Laboratory, Dartmouth College; Johannes Haushofer, Research on Economic Interventions and Psychological Well-Being; Jeremy Shapiro, Research on Randomized Cash Transfers

Specificity of Seth Formulation: "Automatic, unconditional, any change must first occur within" is stronger than placebo or predictive processing theories, and is more easily falsified by counterexamples; however, "inner atmosphere" lacks an independent measurement definition, and if unmeasurable subconscious processes are arbitrarily invoked, the claim loses falsifiability.

Notes: The full claim is rated in its entirety; similar psychological effects are not treated as ontological evidence; "untested" indicates that no direct test was found in this search, not proof that no one globally has studied it; all sample sizes are planned magnitudes, and formal research must calculate power based on minimal meaningful effects, measurement error, and clustering structure; "who" indicates research proximity, not endorsement of these claims.

you-create-your-own-reality-2｜untested

Claim: The intensity of inner feelings is the dominant factor; intense hatred, resentment, or fear can trigger tragic circumstances, while intense joy can immediately change the direction of one's life. (early-sessions-8 §334)

Evidence (Crossref-verified):

Erika H. Siegel; Molly K. Sands; Wim Van den Noortgate; Paul Condon; Yale Chang; Jennifer Dy; Karen S. Quigley; Lisa Feldman Barrett (2018). Emotion Fingerprints or Emotion Populations? A Meta-Analytic Investigation of Autonomic Features of Emotion Categories. Psychological Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000128 —— Similar evidence: 202 studies show that mood induction is accompanied by autonomic nervous system changes, but within-category variation across the same emotions is large; this cannot support the claim that emotional intensity dominates external events. Paper
Elena Boto et al. (2018). Moving magnetoencephalography towards real-world applications with a wearable system. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature26147 —— Measurement basis: optically pumped magnetometers can detect weak magnetic fields generated by neural currents in the body; this paper does not test whether negative emotions produce additional environmental fields or tragic events. Paper

Adjudicating Experiment: Corresponding to supplementary question 1: approximately 200 participants complete a randomized crossover experiment of positive/negative valence × high/low arousal and neutral conditions, 3 sessions per person, over 9–12 months; simultaneously measuring skin conductance, electrocardiography, heart rate variability, respiration, electromyography, body movement, as well as multi-distance magnetometer and electric field probe signals in a magnetically shielded room. Include no-person conditions, instrument dummy loads, and conditions with stimulus devices running but no one watching; use independent data to build forward models of cardiac, brain, and muscle currents. The primary endpoint is a residual field that varies with emotional intensity and is independently replicable after excluding known signal sources. Life events additionally require a prospective cohort of several thousand people over at least 12 months, with predefined events and controls for behavior, health, and social circumstances; observing correlations cannot adjudicate the direct creation of events.

Suggested Paper Title: Affective Arousal and Environmental Electromagnetic Measurements Beyond Known Physiological Sources: A Preregistered Crossover Study

Core Disruption: If an independently replicable emotion-related field that cannot be explained by known current sources is found, this would revise the hypothesis that "electromagnetic changes around the human body can be explained by known physiological currents and external interference."

Related Teams/Funding: Lisa Feldman Barrett, Research on Affect and Interoception; Karen S. Quigley, Research on Emotional Psychophysiology; Matthew J. Brookes, Sir Peter Mansfield Imaging Centre, University of Nottingham

Specificity of Seth Formulation: Proposes intensity dominance and valence direction, but provides no intensity thresholds, event probabilities, time lags, or effect sizes; a weak interpretation is compatible with ordinary emotional influences on decision-making, while only the strong interpretation has discriminative power.

Notes: Changes in skin conductance, heart rate variability, or extracorporeal magnetic signals do not equal emotions directly manufacturing external disasters; existing evidence cannot support attributing misfortunes to a person's hatred, fear, or beliefs.

you-create-your-own-reality-3｜untested

Claim: The physical system serves only as a test board; physical conditions are not permanent but are constantly changing. (early-sessions-8 §334)

Evidence (Crossref-verified):

Lisa Feldman Barrett; W. Kyle Simmons (2015). Interoceptive predictions in the brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3950 —— Theoretical link: embodied predictive interoceptive coding models describe mutual constraints between predictions and sensory input; they do not claim that the physical world exists merely as a test board for consciousness. Paper
Erika H. Siegel; Jolie B. Wormwood; Karen S. Quigley; Lisa Feldman Barrett (2018). Seeing What You Feel: Affect Drives Visual Perception of Structurally Neutral Faces. Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617741718 —— Related experiment: affective context alters perceptual matching of neutral faces, but does not demonstrate that the physical stimuli themselves change. Paper

Adjudicating Experiment: Corresponding to supplementary question 2: approximately 300 participants complete near-threshold visual detection and face-matching tasks before and after mood induction, using a within-subject randomized crossover design over 6 months; stimuli are calibrated with photoelectric probes with fixed physical parameters, including no-signal trials, forced-choice responses, and confidence ratings, to separately estimate sensitivity d′, response criterion c, and metacognitive efficiency. Preregistered comparisons are made between predictive processing models and models that only change decision criteria, with predictions tested on held-out data. This can only adjudicate whether mood modulates perceptual processing; it cannot adjudicate the purpose of the universe's existence.

Suggested Paper Title: Affective State Modulates Perceptual Sensitivity and Decision Criteria Under Constant Sensory Input

Core Disruption: Merely confirming that mood modulates perception would not overturn current predictive processing theory, while "the physical world exists only for testing" has no corresponding experimentally adjudicable mainstream hypothesis.

Related Teams/Funding: Lisa Feldman Barrett, Research on Embodied Prediction and Affect; W. Kyle Simmons, Research on Interoceptive Prediction; Olaf Blanke, Laboratory of Cognitive Neuroscience, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne

Specificity of Seth Formulation: "Conditions constantly changing" is compatible with ordinary physics but too broad; "only as a test board" adds a teleological interpretation without adding clearly distinguishable observational predictions.

Notes: Increased detection rates may arise solely from a greater willingness to report "I saw it," so hit rates alone cannot represent perceptual sensitivity, let alone changes in external reality.

you-create-your-own-reality-4｜untested

Claim: During projection, electromagnetic and chemical changes occur that can be detected by physical instruments, and the electromagnetic field appears only during the act of crossing. (early-sessions-6 §274)

Evidence (Crossref-verified):

Masaki Kobayashi; Daisuke Kikuchi; Hitoshi Okamura (2009). Imaging of Ultraweak Spontaneous Photon Emission from Human Body Displaying Diurnal Rhythm. PLOS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0006256 —— Similar biophysical phenomenon: ultraweak photon emission from the human body exhibits diurnal variation, possibly related to energy metabolism; this paper does not study projection or crossing. Paper
Teresa Campillo-Ferrer; Adriana Alcaraz-Sánchez; Ema Demšar; Hsin-Ping Wu; Martin Dresler; Jennifer Windt; Olaf Blanke (2024). Out-of-body experiences in relation to lucid dreaming and sleep paralysis: A theoretical review and conceptual model. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2024.105770 —— Related state research: proposes a model linking sleep-related out-of-body experiences to REM transitions, emphasizing the need for more synchronized physiological measurements; does not demonstrate the crossing of external entities. Paper

Adjudicating Experiment: Recruit approximately 60 individuals who repeatedly report out-of-body experiences and 60 matched controls, each with 6 experimental nights over 12–18 months. Predefine "crossing" tasks, target locations, and time-marking methods; simultaneously record electromagnetic fields, ultraweak photon emission, temperature, humidity, and prespecified gases or volatile compounds near the body and at isolated target areas; also record polysomnography, physiological currents, and body movement. Include sham targets, empty rooms, blinded analysis, and instrument injection calibration. The main comparison is between reported crossing windows, experience-duration windows, and matched baselines, requiring that signals appear at the target area and cannot be explained by bodily sources, respiration, or equipment; additionally, hidden randomized targets test spatial information acquisition.

Suggested Paper Title: Time-Locked Electromagnetic, Chemical, and Ultraweak Photon Measurements During Reported Out-of-Body Experiences

Core Disruption: If replicable transient signals at the target area that cannot be explained by known transmission channels are found, this would revise the working hypothesis that "out-of-body experiences are not accompanied by distal physical processes independent of the body."

Related Teams/Funding: Olaf Blanke, Laboratory of Cognitive Neuroscience, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne; Marina Weiler, Division of Perceptual Studies, University of Virginia; Matthew J. Brookes, Biomagnetic Measurement Research, University of Nottingham

Specificity of Seth Formulation: "Appears only during crossing" provides a valuable temporal window prediction, but field strength, frequency spectrum, chemical species, propagation paths, and objective crossing criteria are missing; these must be specified before rigorous falsification is possible.

Notes: Ultraweak photon emission is a measurable conventional biophysical phenomenon; general brain magnetic, cardiac magnetic, and metabolic signals persist continuously, so the predicted additional signals must be separately defined from these baselines.

you-create-your-own-reality-5｜untested

Claim: Projection is constrained by environmental conditions: lower body temperature, room temperature 73.8–75.9°F, cool color tones, and low humidity are favorable; high humidity is unfavorable; 3:00–3:30 AM and 5:00 PM are beneficial; and specific months are more favorable. (early-sessions-6 §274)

Evidence (Crossref-verified):

Teresa Campillo-Ferrer; Adriana Alcaraz-Sánchez; Ema Demšar; Hsin-Ping Wu; Martin Dresler; Jennifer Windt; Olaf Blanke (2024). Out-of-body experiences in relation to lucid dreaming and sleep paralysis: A theoretical review and conceptual model. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2024.105770 —— Similar evidence framework: sleep-stage transitions may influence out-of-body experiences; does not verify the narrow temperature range of 23.2–24.4°C, low humidity, specified clock times, or month combinations. Paper
Baland Jalal; Vilayanur S. Ramachandran (2017). Sleep Paralysis, "The Ghostly Bedroom Intruder" and Out-of-Body Experiences: The Role of Mirror Neurons. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00092 —— Theoretical paper: discusses neural explanations of sleep paralysis and bodily experiences; cannot serve as experimental evidence for the above environmental optima. Paper

Adjudicating Experiment: Corresponding to supplementary question 3: approximately 240 high-frequency experiencers and controls complete a balanced incomplete crossover experiment, 8–12 sessions each over 18 months; comparing 21°C, 23.8°C, 27°C, and 35% and 65% relative humidity, with bedding, noise, and illumination controlled. Phase 1 fixes sleep times to estimate temperature and humidity effects; Phase 2 compares 03:00–03:30, 17:00, and preregistered control periods, using sleep stage, time since sleep onset, and melatonin phase to distinguish clock time from biological clock. Core body temperature is recorded without inducing hypothermia; the primary endpoint is the blinded-rated incidence of experiences, with secondary endpoints of polysomnographic indices and accuracy on hidden targets. Color is addressed in separate experiments matching brightness and spectral effects; months require first specifying predicted months, then validating with at least two years of cross-seasonal data.

Suggested Paper Title: Ambient Temperature, Humidity, and Circadian Phase as Predictors of Reported Out-of-Body Experiences: A Preregistered Crossover Study

Core Disruption: If the narrow temperature range and specified clock times retain independent effects after controlling for sleep stage, comfort, and expectation, this would revise the null hypothesis that "these environmental factors do not exert additional specific effects on out-of-body experiences."

Related Teams/Funding: Martin Dresler, Research on Sleep and Lucid Dreaming; Teresa Campillo-Ferrer, Research on Sleep-Related Out-of-Body Experiences; Olaf Blanke, Laboratory of Cognitive Neuroscience, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne; Baland Jalal, Research on Sleep Paralysis

Specificity of Seth Formulation: This is the most parameter-specific of the 12 claims: 73.8–75.9°F is approximately 23.2–24.4°C; however, low humidity, lower body temperature, cool color tones, and specific months still lack quantitative definitions and must be fixed before data collection.

Notes: Temperature and color are typically perceivable by participants, so complete double-blinding cannot be guaranteed; hypotheses can be masked, conditions can be automatically controlled, and raters and analysts can be blinded—but increased report rates only indicate that experiences are more common.

you-create-your-own-reality-6｜untested

Claim: Expectation is an electrical reality; you not only predict future events but create their actuality within its electrical field. (early-sessions-3 §127)

Evidence (Crossref-verified):

Tor D. Wager; Lauren Y. Atlas (2015). The neuroscience of placebo effects: connecting context, learning and health. Nature Reviews Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3976 —— Similar mechanism: expectations operate through brain and physiological systems; this cannot establish that expectations manufacture future events within some electrical field. Paper
Zoltan Kekecs et al. (2023). Raising the value of research studies in psychological science by increasing the credibility of research reports: the transparent Psi project. Royal Society Open Science. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.191375 —— Counter-evidence to adjacent predictive claims: a multi-laboratory study obtained a 49.89% hit rate, failing to replicate the originally claimed ~53% prediction of future random events. Paper
Jan Walleczek; Nikolaus von Stillfried; Stefan Schmidt; Marc Wittmann; Karolina A. Kirmse; Jorge Moll; Zoltan Kekecs (2025). Metascientific replication project with the advanced meta-experimental protocol of the transparent psi project procedures for testing the precognitive effect claimed by Bem. PLOS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0335330 —— Three studies with 26,483 participants failed to establish a stable predictive advantage; one below-chance deviation was not replicated in subsequent studies, and no test of an electrical field creation mechanism was conducted. Paper

Adjudicating Experiment: Corresponding to supplementary question 4: approximately 600 participants are randomized to expectation training or an isochronous active control, training 8 weeks with 20 standardized binary predictions daily, followed up for 4 weeks, over a 12-month project period. Predictions must be written with non-alterable timestamps before targets are generated by an independent random source; hits, misses, false alarms, and correct rejections are recorded, estimating d′, β, and c, analyzed with participants as the clustering unit. Natural event diaries additionally require a predefined event dictionary, prediction deadlines, blinded matching, and a permutation baseline preserving temporal correlations, with calibration evaluated by probability scores. To test "creation" rather than mere prediction, the direction of expectation for the same target must be additionally and randomly manipulated, comparing whether target incidence changes with the manipulation; synchronized field measurements can only serve as a mechanistic substudy.

Suggested Paper Title: Expectancy Training and Future Random Outcomes: A Preregistered Multicenter Signal Detection Study

Core Disruption: If randomly assigned expectations, after isolating known channels, stably alter subsequent random outcomes, this would overturn the causal independence hypothesis that "the target generation distribution is independent of participant expectations."

Related Teams/Funding: Zoltan Kekecs, Eötvös Loránd University, Transparent Research and Replication Studies; Jan Walleczek, Phenoscience Laboratories; Stefan Schmidt, University of Freiburg and Institute for Frontier Areas of Psychology and Mental Health; Tor D. Wager, Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience Laboratory, Dartmouth College

Specificity of Seth Formulation: "Electrical field" has no units, intensity, location, or coupling laws, making it more difficult to operationalize than neural expectation models; above-chance prediction alone also cannot distinguish precognition, influencing targets, information leakage, and statistical bias.

Notes: Rating the full mechanism as "untested" does not mean adjacent fields lack research: anomalous prediction already has extensive controversial studies and high-quality negative replications; free-text diaries without defined false alarms and event baselines cannot effectively compute d′.

you-create-your-own-reality-7｜contradicted

Claim: The universe has no closed systems; energy exchanges continuously, and science's view that the universe decays due to entropy increase is wrong. (unknown-reality-2 §744)

Evidence (Crossref-verified):

Shuoming An; Jing-Ning Zhang; Mark Um; Dingshun Lv; Yao Lu; Junhua Zhang; Zhang-Qi Yin; H. T. Quan; Kihwan Kim (2015). Experimental test of the quantum Jarzynski equality with a trapped-ion system. Nature Physics. https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys3197 —— Counter-evidence: trapped-ion experiments support fluctuation relations connecting nonequilibrium work and free energy, consistent with the second law of statistical thermodynamics; this is not a direct test of the universe's ultimate fate. Paper

Adjudicating Experiment: First propose an additional energy exchange term with its dimensions, coupled objects, and measurable magnitude; then, using optical-tweezer colloids or trapped ions, conduct approximately 100,000–1,000,000 controlled trajectory measurements, recording the complete energy and entropy budget of the system, heat bath, drive, and feedback memory over 12–24 months, with replication by a second laboratory. The adjudication criterion is a sustained negative total mean entropy production or a systematic deviation from applicable fluctuation relations, with all known inputs and initial conditions accounted for. The cosmological scale requires a separate fitting cosmological model, compared with cosmic microwave background, baryon acoustic oscillation, and supernova data; local experiments cannot directly adjudicate heat death.

Suggested Paper Title: Testing Entropy Production and Unaccounted Energy Exchange in Controlled Nonequilibrium Systems

Core Disruption: If reproducible negative mean total entropy production is found after fully accounting for system and environment, this would revise the second law of statistical thermodynamics that "the mean entropy of an isolated total system does not decrease."

Related Teams/Funding: Christopher Jarzynski, Nonequilibrium Statistical Mechanics Research Group, University of Maryland; H. T. Quan, Research on Quantum Thermodynamics; Kihwan Kim, Research on Trapped-Ion Quantum Experiments

Specificity of Seth Formulation: No additional exchange source or quantitative law is provided; open local systems are already permitted by thermodynamics and do not constitute a prediction distinct from mainstream theory.

Notes: "Contradicted" targets the inference that continuous exchange negates entropy increase: closed systems can exchange energy, while isolated systems exchange neither energy nor matter; cosmic heat death is a long-term inference dependent on cosmological conditions, not an already-observed outcome.

you-create-your-own-reality-8｜contradicted

Claim: Consciousness always creates form rather than the reverse; Darwinian evolution's assumption of unconscious contingent processes is wrong. (unknown-reality-2 §744)

Evidence (Crossref-verified):

Richard E. Lenski et al. (2015). Sustained fitness gains and variability in fitness trajectories in the long-term evolution experiment with Escherichia coli. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.2292 —— Counter-evidence: long-term experiments observe measurable fitness evolution explainable by genetic variation and selection models, without requiring an antecedent consciousness variable. Paper
Michael Levin (2021). Bioelectric signaling: Reprogrammable circuits underlying embryogenesis, regeneration, and cancer. Cell. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2021.02.034 —— Similar mechanism: bioelectric signals regulate morphogenesis, extending developmental mechanism research, but do not demonstrate that phenomenal consciousness precedes form or negates evolution. Paper
Veronica S. Weiner et al. (2023). Propofol disrupts alpha dynamics in functionally distinct thalamocortical networks during loss of consciousness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2207831120 —— Reverse causal constraint: anesthetic intervention accompanies loss of consciousness and altered thalamocortical dynamics, limiting the absolute claim that "physical processes cannot reversely affect consciousness." Paper

Adjudicating Experiment: First provide an operational definition of "consciousness" independent of growth success and goal-directed behavior; otherwise, whether consciousness is a necessary condition cannot be adjudicated. A two-tier study can be implemented: approximately 96 independent microbial lineages evolve over 1000–3000 generations over 1–2 years, testing preregistered variation–selection models with genomics and competition experiments; approximately 300 regenerating individuals or tissue samples in batch culture receive bioelectric interventions over 6–12 months, with morphometric changes quantified blindly. Only if a consciousness model is proposed in advance with differential predictions that standard genetic–physiological models lack can a comparison proceed; merely discovering new bioelectric mechanisms does not prove consciousness precedence.

Suggested Paper Title: Genetic and Bioelectric Contributions to Adaptive and Morphogenetic Change: Preregistered Tests of Competing Models

Core Disruption: If independently measured phenomenal consciousness is shown to be a necessary cause of adaptive genetic change, this would overturn the sufficiency hypothesis that "genetic variation, transmission, and differential reproduction can produce adaptation without phenomenal consciousness."

Related Teams/Funding: Richard E. Lenski, Long-Term Evolution Experiment with E. coli; Michael Levin, Levin Lab, Tufts University; Emery N. Brown, Research on Anesthesia and Neural Science of Consciousness

Specificity of Seth Formulation: "Consciousness always comes first" is a strong assertion but lacks an independent identification criterion; if all organization, self-regulation, and selection are relabeled as consciousness, it becomes indistinguishable from existing biology.

Notes: Modern evolutionary theory does not equate evolution with pure chance: variation has randomness and mechanistic biases, while natural selection is non-random differential reproduction; Levin Lab research on bioelectricity and multi-scale cognition does not constitute endorsement of consciousness creating matter. Lab research

you-create-your-own-reality-9｜untested

Claim: All matter is composed of conscious entities (EE units and CU units); therefore all matter is alive. (unknown-reality-2 §744)

Evidence: None (or verification failed and was removed)

Adjudicating Experiment: Experiments adjudicating EE/CU cannot currently be designed directly, because unit definitions, detection methods, and consciousness criteria are lacking. First spend 6–12 months developing a computable model specifying at least one quantitative observational difference that EE/CU necessarily adds relative to standard physical models; only after this step is complete can 12–24-month, approximately 100,000–1,000,000-event independent replicated physical measurements be designed according to the difference. If instead comparing material information integration or perturbation responses, use at least 3 categories of biological and non-biological systems with approximately 30 independent samples each, but these indicators are not themselves sufficient evidence of phenomenal consciousness.

Suggested Paper Title: Operational Criteria and Perturbational Tests for Substrate-General Models of Consciousness

Core Disruption: If independent evidence shows that simple non-living matter has experience, this would revise the hypothesis that "phenomenal consciousness requires specific complex functional organization"; but merely proposing new material units does not prove consciousness.

Related Teams/Funding: Philip Goff, Philosophical Research on Panpsychism and the Mind–Matter Relation; Michael Levin, Research on Multi-Scale Cognition and Biological Organization, Tufts University

Specificity of Seth Formulation: The names EE/CU add ontological postulates but provide no mass, interaction, compositional rules, or consciousness measurements, so they offer no clearly distinguishable predictions beyond generic panpsychism.

Notes: No directly tested papers on EE/CU with verifiable DOIs were found; panpsychism, information processing, and biological life are distinct concepts and cannot substitute for one another. Related philosophical research

you-create-your-own-reality-10｜untested

Claim: Future true psychophysicists will allow consciousness to flow into inner reality, using the mind rather than instruments. (unknown-reality-2 §744)

Evidence (Crossref-verified):

Joel Pearson; Thomas Naselaris; Emily A. Holmes; Stephen M. Kosslyn (2015). Mental Imagery: Functional Mechanisms and Clinical Applications. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.08.003 —— Similar mechanism: mental imagery has researchable cognitive and neural bases, but does not prove that introspection can access information about uncontacted objects or replace external verification. Paper

Adjudicating Experiment: Corresponding to supplementary question 5: approximately 180 participants are randomized into "imagined tactile object-wrapping," conventional visual imagery, or isochronous attention training, 60 per group, training 8 weeks with 4-week follow-up; project period 12 months. Before and after training, complete object-back inference, mental rotation, and visual imagery fMRI tasks, with preregistered parietal, somatosensory cortex, and visual cortex indices. Two types of targets are used: objects whose backs can be inferred from visible cues, and objects whose back features are randomly generated and never presented; measure accuracy, reaction time, confidence, and cross-task transfer. Improvement on familiar information processing supports cognitive training; only replicable recognition of truly hidden random features tests new information acquisition; BOLD decreases alone cannot be declared neural efficiency increases.

Suggested Paper Title: Tactile Imagery Training and Object Representation: A Preregistered Behavioral and fMRI Trial

Core Disruption: If, after training, participants can reliably identify random object features never perceived and not inferable, this would overturn the hypothesis that "information for object recognition comes from sensory input, memory, or inference from available cues."

Related Teams/Funding: Joel Pearson, Future Minds Lab, University of New South Wales; Thomas Naselaris, Research on Visual Imagery and Neural Representation; Olaf Blanke, Laboratory of Cognitive Neuroscience, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne

Specificity of Seth Formulation: "Research with the mind" is not itself a new prediction; introspection and imagery are already part of scientific method; only specific practices claiming to obtain information about unknown objects would be distinguishable.

Notes: No direct verification of the described "inner tactile object-wrapping" practice was found; subjective experience can serve as research data, but its external accuracy still requires independent standards of verification. Related laboratory

you-create-your-own-reality-11｜untested

Claim: Your environment is part of the self, physically materialized from thoughts, emotions, and beliefs; you choose your psychological territory. (personal-reality §614)

Evidence (Crossref-verified):

Erika H. Siegel; Jolie B. Wormwood; Karen S. Quigley; Lisa Feldman Barrett (2018). Seeing What You Feel: Affect Drives Visual Perception of Structurally Neutral Faces. Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617741718 —— Weak interpretation has support: affect can enter perceptual representations of the environment; the experiment keeps stimuli constant and does not verify that the environment is physically materialized from beliefs. Paper
Johannes Haushofer; Jeremy Shapiro (2016). The Short-Term Impact of Unconditional Cash Transfers to the Poor: Experimental Evidence from Kenya. The Quarterly Journal of Economics. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjw025 —— Causal direction constraint: external resource interventions can change economic and psychological outcomes, supporting the study of bidirectional relations between environment and psyche. Paper

Adjudicating Experiment: Approximately 800 participants take part in a 2×2 randomized trial of cognitive reappraisal training × actual environmental improvement, intervention 8 weeks, follow-up 12 months, project period 18 months; separately measuring subjective environment evaluations, activity trajectories and social behavior, economic resources, and independent sensor indicators. Preregister behavioral and perceptual mediation paths, comparing whether belief change alone produces objective environmental changes beyond these paths; add isolated physical targets inaccessible to and unmanipulable by participants, to prevent mistaking active environmental selection for direct physical materialization. Mediation residuals can only suggest model incompleteness; a second-stage mechanistic experiment is still required.

Suggested Paper Title: Beliefs, Behavior, and Environmental Change: A Preregistered Factorial Trial of Cognitive and Material Interventions

Core Disruption: If beliefs alter the objective environment after excluding action, communication, and known physical channels, this would revise the hypothesis that "mental causal effects on the environment require physical or behavioral mediation."

Related Teams/Funding: Lisa Feldman Barrett, Research on Affect and Perception; Tor D. Wager, Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience Laboratory, Dartmouth College; Johannes Haushofer, Research on Environmental Resources and Psychological Well-Being

Specificity of Seth Formulation: "Choosing psychological territory" can correspond to attention, behavioral choice, and social environment shaping, lacking uniqueness; "thoughts materialized physically" is stronger, but specifies no objects, timing, or scope of effects.

Notes: This item is rated "untested" under the ontological interpretation of direct physical materialization; if interpreted as all external conditions necessarily arising first from personal beliefs, it should be rated "contradicted" alongside item 1.

you-create-your-own-reality-12｜untested

Claim: You create your own reality also includes post-death experiences, selecting the type of experience according to beliefs. (seth-speaks §11)

Evidence (Crossref-verified):

Sam Parnia et al. (2023). AWAreness during REsuscitation - II: A multi-center study of consciousness and awareness in cardiac arrest. Resuscitation. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2023.109903 —— Related clinical evidence: among 567 in-hospital cardiac arrests, 28 survivors completed interviews and none identified visual targets; the study concerns resuscitation and recall, and cannot prove experiences after irreversible death or belief-based selection. Paper

Adjudicating Experiment: The original proposition concerns experiences after irreversible death, for which no generally accepted direct readout method currently exists; an approximate test is a multicenter prospective cohort: prerecruit approximately 10,000–30,000 high-risk patients, recording beliefs and cultural backgrounds over 3–5 years, seeking to obtain thousands of naturally occurring resuscitation events and several hundred interviewable cases. During events, simultaneously record EEG, cerebral oximetry, and time-stamped random hidden targets; after recovery, blinded interviewers unaware of prior beliefs rate experiences according to preregistered coding, with follow-up at 1, 3, and 12 months. The primary analysis tests whether prior beliefs predict experience content and memory changes; even if a correlation holds, it would only support a relation between beliefs and post-resuscitation reports, and cannot alone adjudicate post-death experience.

Suggested Paper Title: Prospectively Measured Beliefs and Recalled Experiences Following Cardiac Arrest: A Multicenter Cohort Study

Core Disruption: Only independently verifiable experiential evidence obtained after termination of irreversible brain function would overturn the working hypothesis that "individual experience continuously depends on brain function capable of supporting consciousness."

Related Teams/Funding: Sam Parnia, Parnia Lab, NYU Langone Medical Center; Marina Weiler, Division of Perceptual Studies, University of Virginia

Specificity of Seth Formulation: "Selection according to beliefs" provides a direction linking experience content to prior beliefs, but does not specify which beliefs correspond to which experiences, nor does it distinguish between post-death occurrence, occurrence during resuscitation, and post-hoc memory reconstruction.

Notes: Cardiac arrest, brain activity during resuscitation, and irreversible death must be strictly distinguished; existing clinical studies cannot treat survivors' near-death experience reports as direct evidence of consciousness existing after permanent death. Related research program