Nah, Phil, you are wrong.
     Actual means what is true.

     Real means what we think is true.
     Context's do not change the nature of actuality, only the nature of

     The world is either a virtual reality posing as actuality, or it is

     Something is actual.

     But people think the car in their dreams is actual until they
wake up or go lucid in the dream.

     The DREAM is actual, the conscious color form and the perceiver
of such is ALWAYS actual, but the implied referent isn't.

     People use their conscious experiences as symbols to refer to
alleged external 'objective' objects in the physical universe.

     You close your eyes, and the conscious image of the car goes away,
that's the symbol you see, but the car is still there, right?

     Well no.  All the guy has ever seen is his symbols for the car, his
conscious experiences, and The Proof teaches us that it is impossible to
learn with certainty about referents by looking at symbols for the

     So we can look at conscious pictures of cars all day long and never
prove the car is there, because it could just be a dream, and in fact

     The dream is actual, the alleged referent car is merely real.

     One can be certain of some things that will never prove to be
wrong, no matter how much we evolve.  When one has a standard of perfect
certainty, all the other false certainties (that were never really
certain) fall away as cruft.

     One should not be ashamed to find those perfect certainties and
strut them around with all one has.

     Perfect certainty is a direct window into the nature of God,
because God is perfect too.  Only God could have or be a perfect
certainty, so where you find a perfect certainty you have found God
gazing upon itself.

     Phil you need to toss some of your relativism out the door.  It
doesn't become you.  We get your point about those that think they know
it all, like the meatball PhD's, who have nothing more to learn about
how the world works.
     But those that claim they are certain they can't be certain of
anything, or that perfect certainties are certainly unimportant are
playing mind broke games of wind between the ears.

     Electrons, neutrinos etc don't.  They are virtual realities
displayed on the LCD screen of the AllMighty, luminescing in the dark of
the void for its own amusement.
     The minute a conscious dream unit looks at its own conscious
symbols of physical reality, and comes to believe the implied referent
is actual, they have gone unlucid.
Phil Scott ( wrote:

>Homer.  Here is a drill you could try.      Wait until a dark moonless
>night..   stand by your front door with a grocery sack in one
>the bag over yer head....step outside and start walking.

>Shortly objective reality will dawn on you or whether you are the effect or
>the cause of any collision....or if anyone else is watching or not watching
>and regardless of any language you speak.

>What you choose to lable those objects you intersect with of course is your
>choice, you can defer to the notions of others and think  "you know, I think
>I just stepped in some dog shit"   or you could come up with an entirely
>original notion...none the less, unless you want to stink up your house you
>will in fact have to scrape it off of your shoe before you go back
>inside....which abode will still be where you left it.

>The issue you might be willing to agree on is that all this including
>oneself is only actual from ones own viewpoint...from other viewpoints it
>may be invisible or not recognised for a wide range of reasons...say for
>instance from the viewpoint of a neutrino..the non reactive subatomic
>particle that it is, would whiz by neither being affected or disaffected by
>ones own polarized and charged context.   So there are these actualities
>that remain true, even beyond thier own contextual framework..... it is a
>single context that includes the trees ...and the neutrino's....the wave
>particle context itself....

>defaulting from that, context...the wave/ particle context.... one sees
>actuality... a solid glimpse of which I think you demonstrate from time to
>time and posted on in your 'between the wings of the dichotomy' essay.

>Mixing contexts as a way to argue the validity of reality formed inside any
>given context, is imho not valid.    All reality is relative to its context.
>The narrower the context, say for instance North Carolina Democrats...the
>more relative the 'truth'.

>Trees are quite real in the context of squirrels and lovers sitting in front
>of a fire on a cold night...discounting the reality and context of that is
>discounting who and what one is at the time...

>one can step outside of any of these contexts however, and while not using
>the reality born of any other context or matrix, percieve the actuality of
>another one.   It is this habit you discussed briefly of using the reality
>of one context to qualify the reality of another that limits ones range of
>considerations and perception.

>One way of getting past those limitations is to see the extreme error in
>hanging onto anything you think is true, valid or useful...then obliterating
>them... and realizing that no matter how much you think you know today, even
>at the world class scientist level, that in 50 million years of evolution
>..or even in 50 more years of evolutionin some instances, it will seem
>primative and limited beyond all imagination.     Understanding that and
>eliminating this rigid contextual thinking, and trying to parse reality from
>these constraints logically.... frees one to percieve actuality...  broad
>band and beyond.

>Broad band reality however is not uniformly useful in screening contextual
>reality...we do in fact eat beans, fart and watch tee vee in that context to
>a large degree at least...denying that set of contextual realities is
>counter it denies the larger whole in which it rests... one
>must see the entire picture...and to do that entails not denying any part.

>Phil Scott

>Phil Scott

> wrote in message
>>     The primary delusion is that something exists independent
>> of what we perceive.  He sees a car and thinks it is a *CAR*,
>> rather than a colorform picture of a car in his conscious unit.
>>     Say someone gets out of his body with full perception.  Chances
>> are he will be seeing more than the usual physical universe around him.
>> This universe seems to a a composite universe, with perhaps multiple
>> universes intersecting and interacting, and higher and lower levels
>> of each universes interplaying like a layer cake.
>>     Without body's eyes we see the lowest layer of one of the
>> universes, the one we call the physical universe.  Go exterior
>> and perhaps you start seeing higher levels of the physical universe,
>> and perhaps intersection areas of other universe.
>>     So say this guy goes exterior and he sees a shadowy figure off
>> in the distance through the wall etc and his first reaction is
>> "I see a Ghost!"  Ok that's fine.  But now he says "It *IS* a Ghost!",
>> or "It ISN'T a Ghost!" or "I'm not going to believe you are a Ghost
>> until someone else proves to me you are a Ghost!"
>>     This is going to dry up his perceptions.  Why?  Because it is
>> evaluation.  He is evaluating for the experience and like evaluating
>> for a pc, it is death to the experience.  He is trying to overlay a
>> frame work of *TRUTH* on this experience, its an add on, and
>> an alter-is.
>>      The truth is "I perceive a ghost", anything more is evaluation.
>>      There are people who don't want to perceive anything that isn't
>> real.  Perhaps they consider it impolite to the God of Reality.
>>      This presumes that things exist independent of their own
>> perceptions, because if they don't, they aren't real!
>>      This also puts the person into the problem of determining what is
>> real or not.  It's easy to determine what you perceive, if you
>> perceive it, you perceive it.  But how do you determine if something
>> is 'real'?
>>      Unfortunately most people determine if something is real by
>> whether other people perceive it also or not.  But how did THEY
>> determine it was real?  It's sort of a catch 22 endless regression,
>> and what they don't realize is that ultimately reality had to start
>> with someone who said "It's real because I perceive it." That allows
>> everyone else to say "Well its ok for me to perceive it because its
>> real, and I know its real because Goober says so!"
>>      This is the framework upon which the science of proving reality
>> stands.
>>      Notice that science itself has little to do with proving the
>> reality of things, thats an alter-is twist that certain meatballs put
>> on it.  The scientific method of observation, theory, prediction,
>> verification and peer revue, really has nothing to do with
>> establishing the 'reality' of anything, only the dependability of it.
>> Its a further alter-is of things that if things are dependable, they
>> must be REAL.
>>      Now the proof has an underlying principle that is usually left
>> out of the discussions.  By far the most important line in the proof
>> is number 2.
>>      2.) Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Looking at
>> Effects.
>>      It's simple enough to model, put a video camera out there
>> attached to a Tv screen, and look at the world through the TV screen
>> as your only mode of access.  If the video camera is pointed at a red
>> car say, light waves come in and bounce off the car and head for the
>> camera lens.
>>      The change in the direction of the light waves records the
>> existence of an external cause out there called the red car.  The car
>> is cause and it EFFECTS the light waves by causing them to bounce.
>> The light waves go to the video camera and now THEY cause the retina
>> of the camera to emit electrical signals, which travel to the TV set
>> which cause the scanning electron gun to change its intensity, which
>> causes the phosphors on the screen to light up, which causes light
>> waves to be emitted from the TV screen towwards your eyes, which
>> causes YOUR retina to emit eletronic signals to head for your brain,
>> which causes activity in the visual cortex, which causes conscious
>> picturs to appear and you see them.
>>      YOU end up looking at effects, namely the pictures in your
>> consciousness, in order to learn about cause, namely the car many
>> levels of cause and effect back.  Notice that at no time is the video
>> camera in contact with the car out there, it is only ever in contact
>> with light waves that were caused to change course by the car.  The
>> video camera doesn't even really know if the car is out there because
>> the light waves could have been bent by God to make it look like there
>> was a car out there.  The video camera only knows about the effects in
>> itself and those effects do not prove cause.
>>      OK, so this is Learning across a Distance by Looking at Effects,
>> and does not produce certainty of cause.
>>      Now what's left out is a deeper analysis of why learning across a
>> distance implies learning by looking at effects.
>>      Here is what the proof has to say on it.
>>      The primary assertion is if A and B are two different objects,
>> then then only way B can learn about A is if A is cause and has an
>> effect on B.  B must change state because of A in order for B to learn
>> about A.
>>      This implies that if A has no effect on B, then B can never learn
>> about A no matter what it does or how much cause B has on A.
>>      This also implies that the ONLY thing B can learn about A, is how
>> A's cause affected B, in other words the only qualities that two
>> objects can learn about each other are causal relations.
>>      The Proof further says if A and B are separated by a real
>> distance, then A and B are two different objects.
>>      So we have
>>      2a.) If A and B are two different objects, then the only way B
>> can learn about A is by looking at effects in itself caused by A.
>>      2b.) If A and B are separated by a distance, then A and B are two
>> different objects.
>>      Therefore
>>      If B is learning about A across a distance, then B must be
>> learning by looking at effects.
>>      S0 you see how 2.) is derived?
>>      Ok now notice that the proof says if A and B are two different
>> objects, they must learn about each other by looking at effects and
>> therefore can't have certainty of each other at all.
>>      Notice this is true even if A and B are NOT separated by a
>> distance.  Even if A and B are on the same point, but are nonetheless
>> two different objects, they must learn by looking at effects in
>> themselves, and therefore may never enjoy certainty of each other's
>> existence or cause.
>>      Thus the only way for A and B to learn with certainty about each
>> other, they must be the same object!
>>      Since the conscious self is able to learn with certainty about
>> the existence and cause in its conscious picture color forms, one
>> therefore has to conclude that the self IS the same object as its
>> perceived color forms.
>>      In other words you ARE what you perceive.
>>      Now a meatball will start saying "Homer is saying I am a tree!"
>>      No, trees do not exist, only your perception of the tree exists
>> as a colorform picture in your conscious unit.  Yes you are the
>> colorform when you perceive the tree, that is why you can perceive the
>> existence and cause of that colorform, because you are learning by
>> looking AT CAUSE, and not learning by looking at effects.
>>      Even if we believe that trees exist, its still not true that you
>> are the tree, you are however the colorform you see of the tree, even
>> though holographically the colorform looks like it is 'out there'
>> where you fancy the tree to be.
>>      The virtual reality theory however claims that trees do not exist
>> at all, nor does space of any kind, only colorform pictures of such in
>> the eye of each conscious unit.
>>      Each person has his own colorform of the tree, we aren't all
>> seeing the same physical conscious picture.  The pictures may look
>> alike, but are individual pictures for each being.  Each being sees
>> only his own colorforms at all times.
>>      Since space itself is an illusion, all observers are on the same
>> point/place, and the idea that someone else is 'over there' in your
>> picture is just plain wrong.  Everyone is 'here' where you are.
>>      So if you take a look at Quantum Mechanics, its primary departure
>> from Newtonian mechanics is that 'what reality is' depends on the
>> process of observation itself.  They say that reality doesn't really
>> exist until it is observed, and that the process of observation kind
>> of precipitates pre reality into real reality according to the process
>> of observation itself.  This means that different events of
>> observation might precipitate slightly different final realities.
>>      Now personally I believe the quantum boys are still lost in
>> delusion about illusion, but if you take a look at what they are
>> saying in the context of the proof and the idea that the entire
>> external universe is a hologram of coloforms, then you can see where
>> it might be leading.
>>      The proof says that the perceiver and the perceived are one and
>> the same thing because certainty flows between them.
>>      The virtual reality theory says that all there is are perceivers
>> and perceiveds and that therefore things are only as real as they are
>> perceived, no more and no less.
>>      Thus of course the process of observation 'precipitates' reality,
>> as observation IS reality.
>>      Hopefully some day the Quantum Boys will wake up, and hopefully
>> we have made a few meatballs roll over in the graves they call their
>> life.
>>      Homer
>> - ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Homer Wilson Smith     The Paths of Lovers    Art Matrix - Lightlink
>> (607) 277-0959 KC2ITF        Cross            Internet Access, Ithaca NY
>>    In the Line of Duty
>> ======================= ========================
>> Sun Nov 16 11:57:30 EST 2003
>> Send mail to saying help
>> Version: 2.6.2
>> iQBVAwUBP7esez4RxM7qO/z1AQFCSQIAq6kDk51ljuNARsX40uxuSeKD1OGUrJHC
>> =OdAK
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Homer Wilson Smith     The Paths of Lovers    Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF        Cross            Internet Access, Ithaca NY    In the Line of Duty