Are delusions useful or necessary.

[degraded being]

You're limiting your def. to optical illusions. I wasn't. So, how do you cover my example DB?

Actually illusion and delusion are so similar IMO that they could be synonymous in certain contexts.

I am not so interested here in lesser degree situations where a person knows they are to some degree seeing through rose tinted spectacles - or other-tinted spectacles.
Or when someone is pretending that a situation or thing that really exists is a bit different than it truly is.

I am more interested in believing something exists when there is no evidence. The fact that it has not been proven to not exist is not sufficient to assert that it absolutely does. And per the dictionary a delusion is often held to be existing when there is good evidence that it doesn't.
I am specifically interested in "entities" as delusions. It can be a matter of degree. They could be an "illusion" for some but become "delusions" maybe without the person noticing the transition.
When BTs and other "entities" are communicated with, it could make illusions become delusions, as the "entities" are given autonomy.
So, there is very probably a fuzzy boundary between illusion and delusion, but this is the sort of thing I'm thinking about. Just another passing thought too...when people do a "spinner" on OT levels, well, maybe the idea that illusions or delusions are going to get out of control is part of the cause.
I think that audio delusions are classic with some types of schizophrenia. A disembodied voice speaking to the sufferer. But ain't no expert there.

 

[degraded being]

Shredder, thanks for that post. And thanks for pointing back to the two things I mentioned in the first post:
That people seem to have delusions because they are either unable or unwilling to question things.

 

[Doom]

Nail head bingo

while I do think some of the early basic stuff is workable, I think that if it works then it works but if it dont it dont, simple.
If you have read around you would know that the best way to hide a lie is to package it with some truth, so take some workable stuff from various eastern religons repack them with some cool vocabulary and some BS add some mind control and a bit of programming and you have one hell of a believable story.
I believed, thats why Im here, and one thing that the powers that be in the CofS have become very good at information control, which just adds to the overall "delusion", so you find yourself into the church for the better part of half a million and enjoying the status of being an OT, yet your still an asshole, your kids hate you, your wife wants a divorce and your dog still hates you, and you're in total mystery as to why?; The answer is simple inside the church you are special and you have status, but outside your still an arse.

I guess I have met one too many "high status" people that I really thought were just pricks or up themselves or just plain assholes, only working for that next step up not caring who they have to stand on to get it. Is an Ot level really worth voilating your own integity for or shafting your "best mate"? If you answer the last question "yes" you have my permission to apply R2-45.
(R2-45 is an extreme form of exteriorisation useing a popular type of pistol)

How many times does someone have to violate their own integity before they see it as wrong?

Definition of stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results, Einstein
Definition of stupidity 2 oor ability to understand or profit from experience, web definition.

So when my Wife said no more I was relieved beyond measure, Finally we could enjoy our lifes together.

 

[RolandRB]

I know I'm a spiritual being cos uncle ronnie told me.

How to to know you are a Spiritual Being
Close your eyes, Now, think of a cat. Do you see a cat in your mind? Now whose looking at the cat...........

Maybe i'm the cat!

That worked for me. L. Ron Fat Turd might have a point there. Who do I write the cheque out to?

 

[Alanzo]

When I got out of Scientology I felt big hole where my delusions had been. I no longer had a religion, when before I'd had a BIG ONE.

So I've read a little bit of String Theory - not too much - and re-read the Bagvhad Gita and done some Zen Zazen and even some Transcendental Meditation, and now I have a nice little delusion back that I "understand" what immortality is and that I occasionally glimpse beyond this realm and into others.

This new delusion gives me a very good feeling inside.

It also doesn't cost me any money.

I don't try to get anyone else to believe it so I don't lose any friends over it, either.

In fact, I can not think of one negative thing that comes from my new delusion.

In contrast, my old delusions became rapidly unsustainable and I carried them on for WAY too long.

My point: Some delusions have utility.

Others don't.

You can manage your delusions so that you get maximum benefit out of them for very little cost.

Now THAT's what I call a delusion!

 

[RolandRB]

When I got out of Scientology I felt big hole where my delusions had been. I no longer had a religion, when before I'd had a BIG ONE.

So I've read a little bit of String Theory - not too much - and re-read the Bagvhad Gita and done some Zen Zazen and even some Transcendental Meditation, and now I have a nice little delusion back that I "understand" what immortality is and that I occasionally glimpse beyond this realm and into others.

This new delusion gives me a very good feeling inside.

It also doesn't cost me any money.

I don't try to get anyone else to believe it so I don't lose any friends over it, either.

In fact, I can not think of one negative thing that comes from my new delusion.

In contrast, my old delusions became rapidly unsustainable and I carried them on for WAY too long.

My point: Some delusions have utility.

Others don't.

You can manage your delusions so that you get maximum benefit out of them for very little cost.

Now THAT's what I call a delusion!

Can I sell you a Bridge?

 

[degraded being]

Well, you took me to the next step, after the point I got to years ago. And it is this:

Question: If I had NO delusions would I feel good?
So far my answer is; not necessarily.

And this ties into those other things you were talking about Alanzo, about trance and focus and the good feeling it can give. So delusions can give the endorpin release and the that will reinforce the "content" of the delusions, which could consist of emotions, ideas, physical sensations etc.
Also, this could mean that any idea could become a delusion if the endophin release is strong enough and reinforced, and reocurring often enough.

And. I think people know this through experience so they pre-empt it by expecting certain "significance" as they think about things like spiritual things.
If they dropped all delusion (if it is possible) there may be nothing left but a big fat banal SO WHAT at the end. But if they don't take the risk they won't know. What is here right now - as I try to look with no delusion is not wonderful, full of spiritual "nowness" it's just my ordinary apartment. Doing that in all situations may be a new kind of delusion. It does seem to ease some franticness or bothersome vibes. Ordinariness might be.......whatever, I'm not even on drugs.

 

[ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with fantasizing or day dreaming, in fact it's quite useful, relaxing, even fun and therapeutic ... as long as you know you are just fantasizing or day dreaming. Once you start to believing the fantasy is reality is where the problem starts, and in the case of Scientology, developing a sense of arrogance and superiority regarding belief in the reality of your fantasy, is flat out unhealthy if not dangerous.

Hubbard's Upper Levels are not a Religion or Spiritual Philosophy, they are nothing but a con man's extremely lame Science Fiction and if want to dabble in Hubbard's cheesy 1950s science fiction fantasy ... well then have at it, but don't expect people to act as if you are sane when you try to place validity to it.

 

[Gadfly]

I am more interested in believing something exists when there is no evidence. The fact that it has not been proven to not exist is not sufficient to assert that it absolutely does. And per the dictionary a delusion is often held to be existing when there is good evidence that it doesn't.

Cripes, the entire physical universe, your perception of it and your experience of it most probably is entirely of the nature of a DELUSION. There is no real "evidence" other than you have chosen to have it be so. Proof?

It is like having a dream where it is raining, and someone walks along and wants you to "prove" that it is or isn't raining. In your dream! It can't be done, of course. Where you are now, and how you experience it isn't really much different - other than that you are REALLY CONVINCED that you are here.

In the end Hubbard was right, "what is true for you is what is true for you". I don't mean that in a good way or a bad way, but it correctly shows WHO and WHAT determines what is true, what is seen, and what is experienced by any conscious being. I doubt there is one reader out there who will say, "what is true for me is NOT true for me".

Hubbard didn't measn it as a simple repetition of the same phrase. In alignment with all else he said about postulating, he meant, what is true for you (as the invisible creative source of it all - INNER - SUBJECTIVE) becomes what is true for you (in the world around you, as an experience, as perception - EXTERNAL - OBJECTIVE). Most people miss that entirely.

In other words, in more Vedic terms, what the unmoving, unconditioned Brahma (Self, thetan) postulates as true, becomes true as an entire reality, able to be perceived, experienced and "known".

Everybody has illusions. Everybody has delusions.

Of course, none of this would matter if it weren't for the fact that too many people want and demand that others accept their pet set of illusions and delusions. For me, people can think whatever they choose, BUT stop all of this "think what I think, and do what we say, or else". The Church, as an example of such stupidity, follows that pattern. People have a strange habit of wanting others to accept their illusions and delusions. That is known as "sharing a reality" ("agree" with me, and then we see the same thing in the same way).

Also, if it is true that awareness creates reality in some way, and some of the most up-to-date theoretical physicists are saying exactly THAT, it becomes very interesting where belief fits in. Belief is strong agreement in or with something. But usually belief involves agreeing past the point where you can easily see anything else other than what you believe. Of course, how can anything any person believes REALLY be true? People with very different and contrary beliefs assert VERY different things. Yet each believes exactly in the same way. I find the psychology of belief fascinating - not so much WHAT is being believed in. But HOW people believe, and how they so much have this compulsion to get others to believe the same. That applies as much to the rigid materialist as it does to the starry-eyed New Ager.

Assuming that agreement "does" somehow relate directly to ones experience of reality, sometimes I look at mass movements as attempts to trick enough people into "agreeing" with some set of ideas, so that some "new version" or "reality" unfolds. So that the world and universe around you actually CHANGES. That involves a possible interesting interpretation of the goal of "implants" (if such things could, do or did exist). Get enough beings unconsciously "agreeing" on the same things, and the world and universe will "unfold" accordingly. Do it to all the beings sharing any common "reality", and the implanters could possibly determine everything right down to the "laws of nature".

It is something to think about. If reality is entirely what it is based on each of US, as some of the newest "science" claims, well then how does agreement, belief, unconscious postulates fit in and in some way determine what is seen, felt and experienced? Right down to the "laws of nature".

Consciousness and its exploration will be the final frontier. Because, everything "out there" originated and began "in here". Einstein is entirely correct. What is observed and how it is observed depends entirely on the STATE or CONDITION of the observer (special theory of relativity). Modern physicists are taking the idea further. What is "observed" (the entire universe where you find yourself) is actually CREATED by "the observer" (you). Yes, I know, "out there" and "in here" are arbitrary views. It is probably more likely that we started with a sense of being "out there", and gradually, over a very long period of time, agreed ourselves to "in here".

 

[ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn]

If there were other forms of higher intelligent life such as humans throughout the universe, who felt the physical universe was nothing but a delusion, they could all be classified under the single category of "Extinct" I wonder if the fly I smashed earlier this morning thought my hand was a delusion

 

[Gadfly]

If there were other forms of higher intelligent life such as humans throughout the universe, who felt the physical universe was nothing but a delusion, they could all be classified under the single category of "Extinct" I wonder if the fly I smashed earlier this morning thought my hand was a delusion

When you BELIEVE it to be true, you experience it as so. You believe in the laws of MEST, and so they appear and directly affect you.

The proof or not of all of this will only occur when serious people actually once and for all investigate this thing called consciousness - on its own level. Not with arguments and cute analogies. It has never been done by any scientific community. Granted such an investigation is not without many formidable hurdles. And the terrain is already greatly muddied with extensive fixed ideas, opinions, biases, ideological slants and deep-seated arguments.

 

[uniquemand]

This seems to be the Tinkerbell argument. It's true that if you act on your delusions, then they effect reality to the extent that your actions are guided by them.

There is an argument to be made that we do select from possible realities through our intentions and efforts, but in any reality shared with others (including those we are presently ignorant of), our intent is not King. Physical reality has it's own inertia, as well. It may be the creation of another being, or a co-creation, or whatever, or it may be a totally separate physical thing that we had nothing to do with the creation of: doesn't really matter, in terms of how we go about our day.

Serious people are investigating consciousness on its own level. You're right about there being serious hurdles philosophically, technologically, and scientifically with doing this, thus the very slow progress as compared to physical technology.

Your basic assumption that the you can exist independently of "MEST" has never been shown to be true, and I don't share it. Obviously, this can lead to fundamental disagreements. I hope that won't make our discourse antagonistic, it won't from my end. I don't expect to change your "stable data", and I don't expect my own to change without new evidence that I can see for myself, or without my presenting you with evidence that you would accept for yourself.

 

[AngeloV]

Understand it before you use it

Consciousness and its exploration will be the final frontier. Because, everything "out there" originated and began "in here". Einstein is entirely correct. What is observed and how it is observed depends entirely on the STATE or CONDITION of the observer (special theory of relativity). Modern physicists are taking the idea further. What is "observed" (the entire universe where you find yourself) is actually CREATED by "the observer" (you).

Gadfly, you just shot your credibility in the foot. What you describe above is sort of like the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, but not really. It is definitely NOT the special theory of relativity. Look it up. And that principle only applies at the sub-atomic level. My car is in the driveway no matter who looks at or for how long and I did not nor could I create it but looking at my driveway 'wishing' for a car.

And modern physicists are not saying that what is observed is created by the observer. That is pure BS.

Don't use science if you don't understand it.

"Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away". --Phillip K. Dick

 

[uniquemand]

It can be confusing. What you perceive of reality is entirely created by you (your "mockup", fed by perceptions and distorted by delusions and errors), but the reality itself is not. We don't see reality. We see our mockup. Our mockup is a MAPPING of reality, but it is not highly accurate. Thus, reality may be very different from what we perceive. To the extent that it IS different, we make errors.

I think it's been shown fairly conclusively that consciousness has a small but measurable effect on quantum level events. On our human scale, it's effects are only indirect.

 

[justaguy]

While delusions can be useful, they are not necessary. I do my best to live my life without them, and having suffered from quite a few in the past, I'd rather deal with reality than keep what delusions I have left.

 

[ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn]

When you BELIEVE it to be true, you experience it as so. You believe in the laws of MEST, and so they appear and directly affect you.

The proof or not of all of this will only occur when serious people actually once and for all investigate this thing called consciousness - on its own level. Not with arguments and cute analogies. It has never been done by any scientific community. Granted such an investigation is not without many formidable hurdles. And the terrain is already greatly muddied with extensive fixed ideas, opinions, biases, ideological slants and deep-seated arguments.

It's actually even simpler than that, you, I, and everyone else in the universe has a mutual agreement with reality, it is called sanity, and if anyone wants to play with imaginary beings running around in their head that is also a mutual agreement with reality it's called insanity.

 

[Gadfly]

Your basic assumption that the you can exist independently of "MEST" has never been shown to be true, and I don't share it. Obviously, this can lead to fundamental disagreements. I hope that won't make our discourse antagonistic, it won't from my end. I don't expect to change your "stable data", and I don't expect my own to change without new evidence that I can see for myself, or without my presenting you with evidence that you would accept for yourself.

I don't "do" antagonism.

For me, I toss my ideas up on a screen, you look at them, and you see something or you don't. Agree, disagree, I don't care.

I wouldn't call it my "stable data". From everything I have read, from everything I have experienced in auditing, and from many hours of meditation and other "mental techniques", what I try to describe seems "true". It is entirely my current opinion, based on what I have seen.

I am not trying to change your mind about anything. I am just having fun here, for awhile, trying to explain what is not easy to explain.

In a very real sense, a person cannot ever know about the nature of consciousness and how it relates to all that is, UNLESS you go there and experiment. Long and hard. The only folks to have ever done this to any degree have been Hindus and Buddhists. I am not saying that they have a workable path, or that the subjects aren't confusing and often contradictory, BUT these folks HAVE looked at this area, carefully and extensively at times, and in ways most westerners have not even the slightest clue about. Somebody should write out some drills or put together a course. To get one to look at, experiement with, and improve these areas of attention, concentration, awareness, and imagination.

One will not ever have ANY experience at all to base anything upon, unless one does some serious experimenting with ones "attention", "awareness", "imagination", "concentration", etc. Not by THINKING ABOUT these things, or arguing about these things with tired concepts, but by going there and fildding with these things on their own turf.

I have the opinion that trying to have a conversation with a person about these things, with a person who has never gone and carefully looked, is impossible. See, I have looked at the "other side" (not that it is actually the "other" anything). I have a degree in engineering (double major psychology), and I have studied many scientific subjects extensively, such as math (advanced Calculus, advanced differential equations), psychology, psychiatry, politics, physics, economics, biology, genetics, sociology, philosophy, and so forth. I have also read probably more than most on many fringe subjects such as UFOs, aliens, abductions, pyramids, ESP, extensive conspiracy theories, alternative medicine, alternative health, alternative science and alternative archeology. I HAVE carefully looked at, examined and can "understand" a large part of what falls under the "materialistic" bias in modern western reality.

Then I have also, with my engineering and questioning attitude, have studied a tremendous amount in realm of the occult, magick, religion, theosophy, Rosicrucianism, Masonic literature, and on and on. Again, I have checked out these subjects more than most people I ever meet. Scientology is in there somewhere.

Putting it all together leaves me with a slant towards the spirit side. I am aware that I have always had a personal bias in that direction, even before studying all of these things. I am aware that I have an inherent affinity for that "side". But, after extensive experimenting "inside", and I am no where far along this journey, it seems to me that there is something to the view: "spirit first, all else derives from that".

But, I undertand that is how I see it, and that everyone else sees things differently, based on ones unique education, inherent biases, and experiences. I don't have a monopoly on truth, and the older I get, and the more I study and look, the less I feel I truly know and understand.

I have opinions in the matter. Nothing more and nothing less. I have spent time tearing apart my personal beliefs, motivations and "thought processes", so I am fairly aware of what goes on in my mental realm. Again, I suspect more than most. Maybe I am wrong on that. I find it enjoyable to organize my thoughts and write some of this out at times. I have little interest in "argumnets" or "debates". For me, this is primarily a vehicle of expression.

But in the end, wouldn't it be nice if people could calmly discuss these things, without the need to demand acceptance and agreement? THAT is what I have a problem with. The sick human desire and demand for agreement and conformity to some set of ideas, opinions or beliefs.

 

[Vinaire]

Dictionary defines DELUSION as “a false belief or opinion” as in “delusions of grandeur,” or as “a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact.” To delude is “to mislead the mind or judgment of,” or “to deceive.”

So, delusion is the outcome of being mislead and deceived. But the question that arises is, “What is lack of delusion?” “What is the standard against which delusion can be recognized?” From the viewpoint of BRAHMA anything and everything can be regarded as an additive and delusory.

So, I would say that up to a certain point delusion is useful and necessary, and beyond that point it starts to become annoying to others first, and then, maybe, to self.

And that point is different for each person.

Does this answer your question, DB?

.

 

[Gadfly]

It can be confusing. What you perceive of reality is entirely created by you (your "mockup", fed by perceptions and distorted by delusions and errors), but the reality itself is not. We don't see reality. We see our mockup. Our mockup is a MAPPING of reality, but it is not highly accurate. Thus, reality may be very different from what we perceive. To the extent that it IS different, we make errors.

I think it's been shown fairly conclusively that consciousness has a small but measurable effect on quantum level events. On our human scale, it's effects are only indirect.

Very good distinction. I will try to explain how I currently understand this.

The whole shebang, the universe, external reality exists FOR YOU, because you agree that it does. You are most likely NOT going to start changing the laws of gravity, or any other natural laws, because quad-zillions of other entities also agree it to be exactly what it is! Though there are many strange stories of levitation (violates the law of gravity) throughout history, often involving people in wild ecstasies of religious faith. I wasn't there, so I don't know, but some of these reports seem possible to me.

Anyway, the universe and all the "laws" exist as they do, apparently, because of severe agreement by and among a tremendous number of beings. In a way, as agreement gets tighter and shared by more and more beings, so does the perceived reality get more "solid", less apt to have "rules broken", etc. That is co-creation. Creating by, through and with agreement with MANY MANY others.

To get an idea, close your eyes and mockup a picture of something (NOT a "cat", please). It is flimsy, weak and NOT solid. If there were a way to get and recruit others to see and agree with the picture "in that space", well then it might get a bit more solid and tend to stay a bit longer. The others would co-create it with you. You might then be on your way to creating a shared "playing field".

So, there is a "reality" that is there, due to agreement by and through MANY other aware beings. Now, YOU can jump in if you want, and agree with it all, and it then appears for you. But also, this "reality" is not actually what is seen and experienced through the limited five senses. A simple point there is that all matter is almost entirely "empty space". It "appears" solid, due to the very excited or fast "motion" of atomic particles. But, for the most part what we experience as solid is nothing of the sort.

Also, we only perceive a small segment of the electromagnetic energy spectrum. In a very real sense our physical senses FILTER out a tremendous amount of "what is actually there". And then there are the many ways in which any thinking mind confuses the "map" with the terrain in terms of common errors explained under the subject of General Semantics. So, there are more than a few ways to "incorrectly" see or view what is basically a common "shared" reality (shared set of mutually held agreements).

Theoretically, IF the awareness comes first and initiates all else, then a person can make it all go away for his or herself. You can't make it go away for anyone else, since each person holds it in place by agreeing it is there for them. But, if you allow all agreements to fade away, as can happen in very deep meditation, it can "all go away" FOR YOU. Obviously this is only REALLY TRUE, if you can be left, fully aware, existing, as a unit of awareness, entirely divorced from all that is. I suspect that this should be possible. I could be wrong, of course.

The reason that you can't just come in and start changing raw reality is because it will ONLY appear to you to the degree that you AGREE with the others who agree the same. If you choose not to agree on too many points, you just won't be able to "be here". I am NOT talking about "conscious" agreements, but those subconscious and unconscious agreements that your conscious awareness couldn't ever even pretend to be able to "change" - the nature of space, time, matter and energy.

As a simple example of that, most people are intensely defined by their body and body position. Lay in bed. Get comfortable. Imagine yourself and see and feel yourself as laying in the exact reverse direction (180 degree shift). Most people have a hard time with this. It is HARD to disagree with MEST. Scientology was supposed to be a system to learn to do so - to disagree with MEST. Instead, it tends to lock one even further in MEST. Note: If you do this simple exercise a few times, and get good at it, sometimes you will "pop out". Experiment at your own risk. BUT, the point is that we each have a tremendous amount and intensity of agreements about all sorts of things that we are entirely UNAWARE OF.

Or sit in a chair looking out a window. Imagine that you are outside the window looking in at your body on the chair. You will probably notice that something resists doing this. There can be great difficulty. I suspect that you are in some way bumping up against some agreement in the area. But, don't just picture it, also FEEL that you are out there. Really get the idea that you are in some entirely different body position, and utilize all sensory channels in this imaginative exercise.

 

[degraded being]

Cripes, the entire physical universe, your perception of it and your experience of it most probably is entirely of the nature of a DELUSION. There is no real "evidence" other than you have chosen to have it be so. Proof?

It is like having a dream where it is raining, and someone walks along and wants you to "prove" that it is or isn't raining. In your dream! It can't be done, of course. Where you are now, and how you experience it isn't really much different - other than that you are REALLY CONVINCED that you are here.

In the end Hubbard was right, "what is true for you is what is true for you". I don't mean that in a good way or a bad way, but it correctly shows WHO and WHAT determines what is true, what is seen, and what is experienced by any conscious being. I doubt there is one reader out there who will say, "what is true for me is NOT true for me".

Hubbard didn't measn it as a simple repetition of the same phrase. In alignment with all else he said about postulating, he meant, what is true for you (as the invisible creative source of it all - INNER - SUBJECTIVE) becomes what is true for you (in the world around you, as an experience, as perception - EXTERNAL - OBJECTIVE). Most people miss that entirely.

In other words, in more Vedic terms, what the unmoving, unconditioned Brahma (Self, thetan) postulates as true, becomes true as an entire reality, able to be perceived, experienced and "known".

Everybody has illusions. Everybody has delusions.

Of course, none of this would matter if it weren't for the fact that too many people want and demand that others accept their pet set of illusions and delusions. For me, people can think whatever they choose, BUT stop all of this "think what I think, and do what we say, or else". The Church, as an example of such stupidity, follows that pattern. People have a strange habit of wanting others to accept their illusions and delusions. That is known as "sharing a reality" ("agree" with me, and then we see the same thing in the same way).

Also, if it is true that awareness creates reality in some way, and some of the most up-to-date theoretical physicists are saying exactly THAT, it becomes very interesting where belief fits in. Belief is strong agreement in or with something. But usually belief involves agreeing past the point where you can easily see anything else other than what you believe. Of course, how can anything any person believes REALLY be true? People with very different and contrary beliefs assert VERY different things. Yet each believes exactly in the same way. I find the psychology of belief fascinating - not so much WHAT is being believed in. But HOW people believe, and how they so much have this compulsion to get others to believe the same. That applies as much to the rigid materialist as it does to the starry-eyed New Ager.

Assuming that agreement "does" somehow relate directly to ones experience of reality, sometimes I look at mass movements as attempts to trick enough people into "agreeing" with some set of ideas, so that some "new version" or "reality" unfolds. So that the world and universe around you actually CHANGES. That involves a possible interesting interpretation of the goal of "implants" (if such things could, do or did exist). Get enough beings unconsciously "agreeing" on the same things, and the world and universe will "unfold" accordingly. Do it to all the beings sharing any common "reality", and the implanters could possibly determine everything right down to the "laws of nature".

It is something to think about. If reality is entirely what it is based on each of US, as some of the newest "science" claims, well then how does agreement, belief, unconscious postulates fit in and in some way determine what is seen, felt and experienced? Right down to the "laws of nature".

Consciousness and its exploration will be the final frontier. Because, everything "out there" originated and began "in here". Einstein is entirely correct. What is observed and how it is observed depends entirely on the STATE or CONDITION of the observer (special theory of relativity). Modern physicists are taking the idea further. What is "observed" (the entire universe where you find yourself) is actually CREATED by "the observer" (you). Yes, I know, "out there" and "in here" are arbitrary views. It is probably more likely that we started with a sense of being "out there", and gradually, over a very long period of time, agreed ourselves to "in here".

Yes, but there are still boundaries. For example I have seen film of "healers" in the phillipines who put their hands into peoples abdomens and removed tumours etc. There was even blood! Two friends of mine went and saw it in person. A lot of people there and from other countries see miracles. The "healers" do not use knives. scapels, or do any stitching. Straight in, get the tumour (with blood swishing around) and out. So, if you have some serious medical problem and you subject yourself to the "miracle", it would be best to know that the spectacle is not just a delusion. It's pretty slick. It looks real. If it's not you could die from lack of proper medical treatment. I think the example mentioned is delusion, carefully staged. A doctor taking out a tumour in a hospital - or diagnosing something other than a tumour may be delusional in a deep philosophical sense. But he is more likely to be trying not to see things that are not there. He probably wants to see what is, as much as possible. He proably asks, "Could I be mistaken?".

If you are a psychiatrist trying to help patients you have to know what is delusion and what isn't.