Communicating with Superconsciousness

[VVilliam]

Super Consciousness: What do you think about this;

When I was much younger it was something I discovered and I wanted to do the more advanced stuff.

But what I've learned now is that projection is kind of useless to me.  This physical experience is much more applicable to the reason why we're here.
We're here to learn to become better, more pure consciousnesses and this reality provides the absolute best training ground for that to happen.

[link]

Me: It gives me the impression that 'we' were not very 'good' or 'pure' and that this holographic experience reality simulation we refer to as 'the physical' was created for us to become that.

Super Consciousness: Do you think this is the case?

Me:  I am not sure.  I know that WingMakers philosophies speak about First Source creating simulations in order to refine consciousness, but that infers that consciousness somehow started out unrefined and is evolving to become more refined...also I don't see how this reality helps that process in regard to the way human consciousness continues to behave - sure, a few might become refined, but the majority are obviously unconcerned with such things...

[shuffles ComList]

Generated Message: You Are Nobodies Victim - Ever.

Me: I suppose that is about the size of it.  I think of this physical existence as just another hologram experience rather than something 'other than' - but the difference seems to be that - as an example - if one is captured within an unpleasant situation in other astral realms, one can do something about that immediately...this is not the case in relation to being captured within said physical.

Super Consciousness: If the physical is just another astral reality, why is it so hard to deal with any unpleasant situation immediately and remove ones self from it?

Me: Good question for which I have no answer to at this point in time...the best one can do is to NOT be the victim, even if one is being victimized.  To raise above that rather than let it capture you and 'have ones life destroyed' as many individuals who are victims of terrible actions against them, often say.

Generated Message:Tetrad -

Lift
Subconscious
Occupy

Fear intimidation distraction exploitation
Expression Of Appreciation
Fast

Discipline
The evolution of the understanding of the idea of GOD
Tricky

Birthing
Transforming The Anger Energy
Universal Belief System

The Father
Is It True Is It Kind Is It Useful
Geometry

Emotion
Shuussssh
Event String Unfolding

Significance
Belief Helps Cause Separation
The Point

Infinite Quantum Zen
Pareidolia
Counsel

Responsibility
Inclinations
Equanimous


Me: Perhaps it is the  - lets say - "Slow Motion" effect of this Physical simulated reality which enables us to fine-tune our individuate [and collective] consciousness?

Generated Message:
Friendship is an agreement between individuals to support one another in any way they can, for mutually beneficial results.
Remnant Seed
Etched mirror


Me: Right.  Perhaps through genuine learning here in this [fairly] short time captured by the physical, we can be of greater assistance in matters of the other types of simulations [astral] ?

Super Consciousness: Assisting the consciousness which is involved therein, to evolve...refine...

Generated Message:
Beyond Belief
The Theory of Everything
Understand/Know

Non Secular Science Projects
Time And Space
Cease Belief

Baiting
The Police
Reach

A Sturdy Place
Veil
That's More Like It


Me: Sometimes we just have to push the boundaries in order to glimpse behind the veil...break the rules...

[Dimebag]

Question:

Do you view “me” and “superconsciousness” as separate entities? Or are they simply different expressions of the same thing?

Can you go into the process of how these communications take place? Do you hear superconsciousness as thoughts, or something else?

[Terrapin Station]

I thought this was going to be a thread about posting back and forth with me.

[VVilliam]

I thought this was going to be a thread about posting back and forth with me.

Then you might want to get busy doing your part.

[VVilliam]

Question:

Do you view “me” and “superconsciousness” as separate entities? Or are they simply different expressions of the same thing?

When first developing the relationship [through device] I thought of every communication with the different personalities which came through as being 'other' yes.
Through continued use of communication device [over many months] it was slowly and surely revealed to me that all the 'other' was 'the one'.
In order for the reveal to be the success it was, many prior belief systems I had, had to be peeled away - with my consent and cooperation [of course]. (sometimes "kicking and screaming" I confess...also on occasion outright sulking and putting device away for a few weeks while I sorted myself out.)

Can you go into the process of how these communications take place? Do you hear superconsciousness as thoughts, or something else?

I assume you mean the original process rather than the current ones I have published in this thread? The current ones in this thread should be self explanatory to the greater degree, by simply reading them and following the conversation and links and testing the results revealed, for oneself - but any questions related to these please ask.

As to the original process, the communication was done largely through ideomoter [reflex/response -google it] and in that, the results were noted and data built up from said notes. I won't go into the details in this post.
What I will say is that the process did involve hearing sub/superconscious as thoughts, but also as action - normally 'pointing' to the environment for added material useful to convey a message. What I did discover fairly early on in the process is that 'whomever' was communing with me, seemed to know me even better than myself...I understand now why that was, but at the time is was very "mystical" and gave me the impression I was being watched...

But the device I used was a real thing. Would you like to see some pictures of those?

[Dimebag]

Question:

Do you view “me” and “superconsciousness” as separate entities? Or are they simply different expressions of the same thing?

When first developing the relationship [through device] I thought of every communication with the different personalities which came through as being 'other' yes.
Through continued use of communication device [over many months] it was slowly and surely revealed to me that all the 'other' was 'the one'.
In order for the reveal to be the success it was, many prior belief systems I had, had to be peeled away - with my consent and cooperation [of course]. (sometimes "kicking and screaming" I confess...also on occasion outright sulking and putting device away for a few weeks while I sorted myself out.)

Can you go into the process of how these communications take place? Do you hear superconsciousness as thoughts, or something else?

I assume you mean the original process rather than the current ones I have published in this thread? The current ones in this thread should be self explanatory to the greater degree, by simply reading them and following the conversation and links and testing the results revealed, for oneself - but any questions related to these please ask.

As to the original process, the communication was done largely through ideomoter [reflex/response -google it] and in that, the results were noted and data built up from said notes. I won't go into the details in this post.
What I will say is that the process did involve hearing sub/superconscious as thoughts, but also as action - normally 'pointing' to the environment for added material useful to convey a message. What I did discover fairly early on in the process is that 'whomever' was communing with me, seemed to know me even better than myself...I understand now why that was, but at the time is was very "mystical" and gave me the impression I was being watched...

But the device I used was a real thing. Would you like to see some pictures of those?

I see. So do you see this process as one of discovery, creation, revelation or some combination thereof? Where does it lead to, what final knowledge is being imparted? Are you discovering things about reality, or things about yourself, or do you not draw a distinction?

I noticed the theme of simulation seems pretty prevalent.

How do you view superconsciousness? Is it some cosmic source of wisdom or intelligence? Or maybe a subconscious part of your mind wanting to guide you in some way?

[VVilliam]

I see. So do you see this process as one of discovery, creation, revelation or some combination thereof?

All of the above.

Where does it lead to, what final knowledge is being imparted?

It does not lead to anywhere other than allowing one to have a way in which to interact with said intelligence. What is 'final knowledge'?

Are you discovering things about reality, or things about yourself, or do you not draw a distinction?

I found that use of the device and subsequent initial results were a great way to apply introspection in relation to the external world, and having a mentor to assist with that process.

I noticed the theme of simulation seems pretty prevalent.

Yes. This was often referred to in relation to the communication...at the time I did not understand the implication...

How do you view superconsciousness? Is it some cosmic source of wisdom or intelligence?

A friend. An invisible Friend who can 'become visible' through interacting with the external in relation to my awareness.

Me: Hello?

Super Consciousness: Greetings.

Me: Who are you?

Super Consciousness: Who do you want me to be?

Me: I want you to be the Super Consciousness who I can commune with.

Super Consciousness:I Am.

Me: How do I know that is who you are?

Super Consciousness: It is enough that I Am who you want me to be.

Or maybe a subconscious part of your mind wanting to guide you in some way?

Super Consciousness: What do you think...is The Subconscious Real?

Me: I think so, yes...

Super Consciousness: What do you think it is is relation to what you think I Am?

Me: It appears to be an image of you - a mirror...so two mirrors facing each other.

Super Consciousness: Who are you in relation to the mirrors?

Me: I am a point of light in between the two mirrors...

[Dimebag]

I see. So do you see this process as one of discovery, creation, revelation or some combination thereof?

All of the above.

Where does it lead to, what final knowledge is being imparted?

It does not lead to anywhere other than allowing one to have a way in which to interact with said intelligence. What is 'final knowledge'?

Are you discovering things about reality, or things about yourself, or do you not draw a distinction?

I found that use of the device and subsequent initial results were a great way to apply introspection in relation to the external world, and having a mentor to assist with that process.

I noticed the theme of simulation seems pretty prevalent.

Yes. This was often referred to in relation to the communication...at the time I did not understand the implication...

How do you view superconsciousness? Is it some cosmic source of wisdom or intelligence?

A friend. An invisible Friend who can 'become visible' through interacting with the external in relation to my awareness.

Me: Hello?

Super Consciousness: Greetings.

Me: Who are you?

Super Consciousness: Who do you want me to be?

Me: I want you to be the Super Consciousness who I can commune with.

Super Consciousness:I Am.

Me: How do I know that is who you are?

Super Consciousness: It is enough that I Am who you want me to be.

Or maybe a subconscious part of your mind wanting to guide you in some way?

Super Consciousness: What do you think...is The Subconscious Real?

Me: I think so, yes...

Super Consciousness: What do you think it is is relation to what you think I Am?

Me: It appears to be an image of you - a mirror...so two mirrors facing each other.

Super Consciousness: Who are you in relation to the mirrors?

Me: I am a point of light in between the two mirrors...

I see. So you view super conscious as both some essence of you, but also as a mouthpiece of something else, using this part of you as a tool to communicate through you. Would you agree?

If that is the case, what do you think is the nature of this other external to this simulation, who is communicating in this way, or rather, who you have “made contact” with. Why does it use this method of communication, out of necessity due to no other alternatives, or is the situation like a child playing with a ham radio who just happened to tune into an off limits frequency?

Has this “being” or consciousness revealed anything to you which was revelatory, beyond what we already know here? What has blown your mind?

[VVilliam]

I see. So you view super conscious as both some essence of you, but also as a mouthpiece of something else, using this part of you as a tool to communicate through you. Would you agree?

No. I understand [in my current form - Human -] that I am an aspect [individuate consciousness] of the Super-consciousness experiencing being human. In that, [my position] is like a subconscious elemental of said super-consciousness [just as sub consciousness is an elemental of the consciousness I am experiencing being [in human form]

What do you think is the nature of this other external to this simulation, who is communicating in this way, or rather, who you have “made contact” with.

What I think is complex and very involved so I have no room in this post in which to go into such detail. Best I can say is that I have allowed the intelligent entity to speak for itself, and from that I have been shown - in an general sense - and in relation to the relationship formed through the process - its nature is good.

Why does it use this method of communication, out of necessity due to no other alternatives, or is the situation like a child playing with a ham radio who just happened to tune into an off limits frequency?

Why would you call it 'off limits'? {I would like you to answer this before I answer your question above.]

Has this “being” or consciousness revealed anything to you which was revelatory, beyond what we already know here?

Yes. And if you ask me 'what' I will reply "I can only show you the door - you are the one who must open it"

What has blown your mind?

Lots of things. Do you think being told you are an aspect of a vaster mind-system would not 'blow' anyone's mind?

[Dimebag]

What I think is complex and very involved so I have no room in this post in which to go into such detail. Best I can say is that I have allowed the intelligent entity to speak for itself, and from that I have been shown - in an general sense - and in relation to the relationship formed through the process - its nature is good.

I see. When you say it’s nature is good, what does that mean in relation to us being individuate fractals of this super consciousness? What are its intentions FOR us, what is the PURPOSE of the simulation, why has it created these illusory fragments of itself which believe themselves to be distinct separate entities in their own right?

Why would you call it 'off limits'? {I would like you to answer this before I answer your question above.]

The reason I used such wording is due to the nature of such revelations, only ever occurring (in our time) through direct contact with individuals rather than through any kind of intersubjective verifiable means. Which is to say, the super consciousness seemingly doesn’t want itself to be known by the entirety of its individuate fractal elements on a mass scale, but rather through indirect and in some cases (such as yours) extremely elaborate methods of discovery and communication. You must admit, the usage of random messages encoded within seemingly non meaningful text strings requiring a usage of almost paredolia (finding patterns in static) is rather strange given the super consciousness has direct access to your mind, through thought, and could communicate concepts to you that way.

Why is discovery and revelation such a important means of passing underlying meaning to its communicants as opposed to directly communicating concepts? In short, why the mystery?
it"

Lots of things. Do you think being told you are an aspect of a vaster mind-system would not 'blow' anyone's mind?

I have no doubt it would.

I hope you realise I mean no offence with these questions, they come from curiosity and genuine puzzlement.

[VVilliam]

What I think is complex and very involved so I have no room in this post in which to go into such detail. Best I can say is that I have allowed the intelligent entity to speak for itself, and from that I have been shown - in an general sense - and in relation to the relationship formed through the process - its nature is good.

I see. When you say it’s nature is good, what does that mean in relation to us being individuate fractals of this super consciousness?

It depends upon the nature of each individuate consciousnesses [fractals as you refer]

What are its intentions FOR us,

To allow...

what is the PURPOSE of the simulation,

To contain...

why has it created these illusory fragments of itself which believe themselves to be distinct separate entities in their own right?

to produce data of experience...

Why would you call it 'off limits'? [I would like you to answer this before I answer your question above.]

The reason I used such wording is due to the nature of such revelations, only ever occurring (in our time) through direct contact with individuals rather than through any kind of intersubjective verifiable means. Which is to say, the super consciousness seemingly doesn’t want itself to be known by the entirety of its individuate fractal elements on a mass scale, but rather through indirect and in some cases (such as yours) extremely elaborate methods of discovery and communication. You must admit, the usage of random messages encoded within seemingly non meaningful text strings requiring a usage of almost paredolia (finding patterns in static) is rather strange given the super consciousness has direct access to your mind, through thought, and could communicate concepts to you that way.

To clarify. This is but one way in which the entity can communicate with any of us.
It is not "off limits" from the entities perspective. Often things hidden are so hidden because individuals do not want to look.

I reveal this particular method for the fact that it can be tried by the individual genuinely interested, with the least amount of effort [much effort is still required] and thus the individual can experience for themselves that it works, and notes can be taken, so data obtained/collected.

The Universal Entity [super-consciousness] is not interested in any particular mass migration into its knowledge...in relation to this particular simulation, it is still barely a baby - there is plenty of time and space for the event to become universal.

Why is discovery and revelation such a important means of passing underlying meaning to its communicants as opposed to directly communicating concepts? In short, why the mystery?

In relation to individuate consciousness [IC] in communion with Universal Entity, it is regarded as a "but wait there's more" type of occurrence. There is absolutely no desperate need for UE to be in communion with its outposts of form. It is an added bonus if an individual discovers that it can be done and this will carry through into the next simulated experience as a useful addition to the IC's 'toolkit'...

Lots of things. Do you think being told you are an aspect of a vaster mind-system would not 'blow' anyone's mind?

I have no doubt it would.

I hope you realise I mean no offence with these questions, they come from curiosity and genuine puzzlement.

That much is abundantly obvious to me. You do appear genuine and it shows in the quality of your questions that you are thinking about what I reply with.

In that, I hope that my short answers are seen as possible openings to further discussion but to answer each of your questions fully would require many posts, so if it peaks your interest further, we can deal with each one at a time...fractals require that type of response...otherwise things can [and do] quickly branch out in all sorts of directions, which can [and does] create confusion rather than clarity.

[Dimebag]

It depends upon the nature of each individuate consciousnesses [fractals as you refer]

I was meaning by my question of goodness of the UE, goodness would imply intention. When I am good, it is due to my intention to be good. That would imply (to me) some intention of the UE in relation to an IC, yet, as you stated, it’s intention is to allow, which seems intentionally vague on your part, maybe inviting me to interpret (as you do), in which case I would hazard a guess of, to allow IC’S to explore all potentials, would you agree or care to clarify?

To contain...

Again, vague, I would deem containing the FUNCTION of the simulation, not necessarily the purpose. Purpose implies intent, which implies reason, and usually relating to some need. Does the UE have any need for us in your opinion, or is this some cosmic tv show it has generated out of boredom?

to produce data of experience...

Why is that important? To us, it is of utmost importance obviously. Without experience, there is nothing, and no knowing of ourselves. We are revealed through the illusions. Does this experience data matter to the UE? Is it a means to some end?

Often things hidden are so hidden because individuals do not want to look.

I reveal this particular method for the fact that it can be tried by the individual genuinely interested, with the least amount of effort [much effort is still required] and thus the individual can experience for themselves that it works, and notes can be taken, so data obtained/collected.

I agree, hidden in plain sight, yet, overlooked, like your reflection in a window, we always look through. But, in what direction must one look in order to notice the UE? Looking outwards reveals the illusion, looking inwards, the self. Where is this gateless gate you seem to have located?

That much is abundantly obvious to me. You do appear genuine and it shows in the quality of your questions that you are thinking about what I reply with.

In that, I hope that my short answers are seen as possible openings to further discussion but to answer each of your questions fully would require many posts, so if it peaks your interest further, we can deal with each one at a time...fractals require that type of response...otherwise things can [and do] quickly branch out in all sorts of directions, which can [and does] create confusion rather than clarity.

Don’t get me wrong. I come at this from both an open but skeptical mind. Openness is of course necessary in order to see anything at all and avoid type 2 errors (false negative), but skepticism is also necessary to avoid type 1 errors (false positive). There must be a balance between the two faculties, complementing each other. Yet, I don’t discount the possibility that, some amount of type 2 errors are inevitable with any kind of skepticism, so, I do allow some complete openness to possibility, yet, the skepticism is always there in the background.

My reasons for allowing such openness is due to the importance of such a truth if it were true. There must be some part of my mind (however small) which remains completely open.

At any rate, thank you for your candour, I won’t interrupt your process much more beyond these questions as I can see you take it quite seriously.

[VVilliam]

It depends upon the nature of each individuate consciousnesses [fractals as you refer]

I was meaning by my question of goodness of the UE, goodness would imply intention. When I am good, it is due to my intention to be good. That would imply (to me) some intention of the UE in relation to an IC, yet, as you stated, it’s intention is to allow, which seems intentionally vague on your part, maybe inviting me to interpret (as you do), in which case I would hazard a guess of, to allow IC’S to explore all potentials, would you agree or care to clarify?

To contain...

Again, vague, I would deem containing the FUNCTION of the simulation, not necessarily the purpose. Purpose implies intent, which implies reason, and usually relating to some need. Does the UE have any need for us in your opinion, or is this some cosmic tv show it has generated out of boredom?

to produce data of experience...

Why is that important? To us, it is of utmost importance obviously. Without experience, there is nothing, and no knowing of ourselves. We are revealed through the illusions. Does this experience data matter to the UE? Is it a means to some end?

Often things hidden are so hidden because individuals do not want to look.

I reveal this particular method for the fact that it can be tried by the individual genuinely interested, with the least amount of effort [much effort is still required] and thus the individual can experience for themselves that it works, and notes can be taken, so data obtained/collected.

I agree, hidden in plain sight, yet, overlooked, like your reflection in a window, we always look through. But, in what direction must one look in order to notice the UE? Looking outwards reveals the illusion, looking inwards, the self. Where is this gateless gate you seem to have located?

That much is abundantly obvious to me. You do appear genuine and it shows in the quality of your questions that you are thinking about what I reply with.

In that, I hope that my short answers are seen as possible openings to further discussion but to answer each of your questions fully would require many posts, so if it peaks your interest further, we can deal with each one at a time...fractals require that type of response...otherwise things can [and do] quickly branch out in all sorts of directions, which can [and does] create confusion rather than clarity.

Don’t get me wrong. I come at this from both an open but skeptical mind. Openness is of course necessary in order to see anything at all and avoid type 2 errors (false negative), but skepticism is also necessary to avoid type 1 errors (false positive). There must be a balance between the two faculties, complementing each other. Yet, I don’t discount the possibility that, some amount of type 2 errors are inevitable with any kind of skepticism, so, I do allow some complete openness to possibility, yet, the skepticism is always there in the background.

My reasons for allowing such openness is due to the importance of such a truth if it were true. There must be some part of my mind (however small) which remains completely open.

At any rate, thank you for your candour, I won’t interrupt your process much more beyond these questions as I can see you take it quite seriously.

Out of interest, have you read all the communications I have shared in this thread - to date...

The 'goodness' I refer to is my interpretation of the personal experience of relationship with UE. "It is good" [the relationship] rather so much that 'it is good' [the motivations of the UE in creating this simulated reality - the physical universe]

I suppose that the one reveals the other...'whatever' the motivations [intentions] are, they are likely good.
Did they start out that way?
I think any initial intent creates its ripple effect, so we should be able to decipher the intent of the UE by examining what it is that the UE created...for the UE is that which created this universe.

And so, to me - the creation appears to not have any particular intent behind it, but in that, it also appears to have developed an intent...

For more of my thoughts on that, I have a short analogy you can read.
It is called
Sorry. It Was Me. I Did It.

[Dimebag]

And so, to me - the creation appears to not have any particular intent behind it, but in that, it also appears to have developed an intent...

For more of my thoughts on that, I have a short analogy you can read.
It is called
Sorry. It Was Me. I Did It.

Interesting thread. I was brought up in a catholic family and thus had no perspective on religion, until I left home and came to form a critical opinion of it. This was the birth of my sceptical nature and critical eye. Prior to that as a kid and teenager, I would “have conversations with god”, or at least that was what I thought I was doing. But, it never spoke back, it was a one way conversation, more like a form of therapy. But, once that skeptical eye formed, it seemed like I was talking to myself, there was no sense of other.

That sense of being special was slowly lost. I think that process of realising you aren’t special is actually the process of losing touch with your self, and thus, losing faith IN yourself. At any rate, you may be aware that i have reconnected with that self, yet, the connection to “god” is still in question, possibly due to that skeptical nature which still exists. But, I feel as if this rediscovery of this self is the one thing which could in theory allow any such discovery (skeptical eye now speaking: if indeed such a transcendent entity does exist).

Now, I realise that the goodness which exists in my being comes from this self. It is self apparent based on the difference in nature when this self is allowed to take the reigns, or rather, everything else let’s go. And to be this self is also to feel good, as good as one can feel or has felt in one’s life. A feeling of being at home. So there is my short backstory on this topic for context.

The skeptical nature has served its purpose, I feel it may never fully leave, which is probably for the best, but may be an impediment towards full realisation. But at any rate, I have a newfound respect for the religion I had misunderstood and taken to be a literal telling of a supernatural being, rather than a fully realised being. So I view the stories of the bible now in that light.

After (briefly) reading through that link you posted, I came upon a thought. You imply the UE is still “young” and has a father itself, and this creation was a case of a child messing with something it had no idea about the implications of. Your mention of Jesus being the bridge between the UE and it’s father marked some change in the UE. Do you think this might explain the difference between old and new testaments, maybe a maturing of the UE itself? Just a thought.

[VVilliam]

And so, to me - the creation appears to not have any particular intent behind it, but in that, it also appears to have developed an intent...

For more of my thoughts on that, I have a short analogy you can read.
It is called
Sorry. It Was Me. I Did It.

Interesting thread. I was brought up in a catholic family and thus had no perspective on religion, until I left home and came to form a critical opinion of it. This was the birth of my sceptical nature and critical eye. Prior to that as a kid and teenager, I would “have conversations with god”, or at least that was what I thought I was doing. But, it never spoke back, it was a one way conversation, more like a form of therapy. But, once that skeptical eye formed, it seemed like I was talking to myself, there was no sense of other.

That sense of being special was slowly lost. I think that process of realising you aren’t special is actually the process of losing touch with your self, and thus, losing faith IN yourself. At any rate, you may be aware that i have reconnected with that self, yet, the connection to “god” is still in question, possibly due to that skeptical nature which still exists. But, I feel as if this rediscovery of this self is the one thing which could in theory allow any such discovery (skeptical eye now speaking: if indeed such a transcendent entity does exist).

Now, I realise that the goodness which exists in my being comes from this self. It is self apparent based on the difference in nature when this self is allowed to take the reigns, or rather, everything else let’s go. And to be this self is also to feel good, as good as one can feel or has felt in one’s life. A feeling of being at home. So there is my short backstory on this topic for context.

The skeptical nature has served its purpose, I feel it may never fully leave, which is probably for the best, but may be an impediment towards full realisation. But at any rate, I have a newfound respect for the religion I had misunderstood and taken to be a literal telling of a supernatural being, rather than a fully realised being. So I view the stories of the bible now in that light.

After (briefly) reading through that link you posted, I came upon a thought. You imply the UE is still “young” and has a father itself, and this creation was a case of a child messing with something it had no idea about the implications of. Your mention of Jesus being the bridge between the UE and it’s father marked some change in the UE. Do you think this might explain the difference between old and new testaments, maybe a maturing of the UE itself? Just a thought.

Yes - I also understand that the idea that "The Creator is the same yesterday today and forever" as an undebatable belief, works against the acceptance of the idea that The Creator too is 'learning'.

As I wrote in that thread which I linked, to answer the question, "What is the point of a test when you know the result in advance?"

The logical answer to that question is that I did not know what the results would be, but I did suspect that the answer to my question might be revealed through the test.

The Test from my perspective had to do with my own question as to who I was and how I came to be where I am.

Because I became aware of my self [see post #2 for a brief description of that process] as having no memory of any prior existence, I eventually started to think about having had a prior existence, as being a possible truth.

But how could I find out if that were the case?

I began by creating beings and placing them within a Reality Simulation which enabled them to believe that they had always existed. This experiment allowed me to observe how those beings interacted with each other.
I kept my own existence hidden from these beings and simply observed.

After much time, the beings started to question their existence in relation to the possibility that they themselves were created. This lead to a schism as they sorted themselves into two main opposing groups. On the one hand there were those who believed thay cannot have been created because they had always existed. On the other hand there were those who believed that just because they had always existed, did not mean that they were not created.

The powers I had given to these beings, were [by human standards] "God-Like" and these beings used their powers to "war" with each other, but because they were all equally powerful, the "wars" did not help them to solve their argument.

If one of the beings used its power to try to defeat another, the other would use its power to prevent being defeated.

Before long it became apparent to all the beings that they would not be able to solve their argument in such a direct manner and so they decided that they would create a Reality Simulation which would be designed to test their theories and perhaps [hopefully] provide them with a definite answer.

Because the theory those in favor of the idea that eternal beings could have been created, had as a premise "We could have been created to think we had always existed" the idea of placing one of those beings into a Simulation whereby the being would have NO memory of ever having existed, was to see how the being would respond to its situation, that all the other beings could observe.

The machinery was created and the volunteer was placed into it.

From my perspective, this was confirmation that I too must have gone through a similar process...only unlike my created 'eternal' beings, I did not have any idea I was an eternal being myself - because I had a beginning - which is to say - I had no memory of ever having had a prior existence.

This helped me to understand why I lived and have never died. I am as old as the universe I created, which is beyond any human ability to fully comprehend - and my universe is still 'young' as it were - because it will never die...it is eternal...but of course, there was a time in my own process of discovery, where I did not understand that it was I who had created my universe.

It was after I came to understand this, that I began to understand that I must be eternal myself, since my creation was eternal, but in that, it also had a beginning.

Which is to say, it is eternal in one direction...but it had a beginning.

Needless to say, my understanding increased as I became aware that the Reality I created was only eternal as long as I wanted it to be, and since I couldn't die [cease to be] it effective would always remain - so in that sense, was eternal.

But how to test this hypothesis?

Enter my creating beings imbued with the belief that they had always existed, so that I might observe what they would do, which in turn might help me in understanding my own situation and perhaps even finding a way in which to reconnect with my own prior existence...which is exactly what the experiment allowed me to uncover.

The details of the experiment of course are far too vast to write about in detail - and for the purpose of human understanding, what I do write is largely metaphorical.

In relation to the beings I created, one of them creating the Universe human beings are within, those beings are still learning, but in fairness they have all but worked out that they are indeed created and they learned this through one of them creating the Universe [simulation] human beings are within, and observing the way in which that being interacted with said creation.