‘Santa Claus’ was nothing more and nothing less than an illusion. As such, and like all naturally occurring phenomena, dynamic conditions configured ‘Santa Claus’ into existence at one point and dynamic conditions later configured him out of existence.
‘Santa Claus’ did exist in the first place; ‘he’ always existed as something. In this case, ‘Santa Claus’ did not exist as an obese elf in the North Pole, but instead as an illusion of an obese elf in the North Pole proliferated by Western society and Coca Cola. Conditions at first brought that illusion into existence through an interplay of a variety of variables; whereat some later point, conditions brought that illusion to an end through yet another interplay of a variety of variables.
‘Santa Claus’ was never anything more (and never anything less) than that illusion; and yet, for the duration that it persisted, the illusion was inseparable from the physical variables that birthed, sustained, and terminated ‘his’ existence; ‘he’, like all things, existed inseparably from this physical universe, and was therefore just as physical as anything else in nature. ‘Santa Claus’ – that illusion – was therefore as fundamentally actual as the flesh-and-blood parents that would covertly place gifts under the tree in an attempt to sustain the illusion; parents who, through a variety of dynamic physical variables, likewise were subject to birth, subsistence, and termination.
That which occurs inside the brain – images, beliefs, abstractions, or illusions – do not have a fundamentally different form of existence to that which occurs outside the brain.
The conventional perspective – the typical way of thinking – dictates that a perception is ‘real’ or ‘actual’ if what is being perceived has an external existence, whereas a perception is ‘false’ if what is being perceived does not have an external existence (the perception of a tree is considered ‘real’ if there is an externally existent tree whereas the perception of a tree is ‘false’ if there is no externally existent tree). Yet our illusion sample of the scintillating rays demonstrates that perceptions of objects that have no external existence can be just as actual as perceptions of objects that have external existence; in other words, fundamentally, the experience and existence of the illusion is just as actual as the experience and existence of the non-illusion. Despite this understanding, in typical conversation, we say, “those ‘beams’ are not actual, they don’t actually exist.” Yet, what is typically said is in actuality not correct, because those ‘beams’ do actually exist, they are happening. We call it an illusion because there is the perception of an object which does not exist outside the mind; nonetheless, the illusion – the scintillating beams – is, in every respect, as actual as the black polygons in that image which do exist outside the mind.
The universe does not distinguish between what happens inside or outside the human mind.
When the children reach a certain stage, the illusion of ‘Santa’ will disintegrate, the physical mechanisms in place that sustained ‘him’ as an illusion will disassemble, and the now-disillusioned children will scoff and say that, “Of course Santa doesn’t exist, he never existed, it was all an illusion, don’t ya know? There’s no fat man with a magic sled.” They ignore the fact that ‘he’ did exist (or they ignore the way in which he existed); ‘he’ of course was an illusion – a demonstrably actual phenomenon – that materialized inseparably from the physical universe that bore, sustained, and ultimately terminated ‘him’. ‘His’ dynamic existence was as actual as anything that ever was.
What you refer to in that paragraph as ‘actual’ are perceptions with attendant external objects, whose externality can be verified, among other methods, via human consensus. In truth, perceptions which occur absent external stimulus are just as much of the universe as those perceptions with attendant external stimulus. The actually free person’s mental visualization of the ‘number four’ is just as actual as if it were written on paper, no? Richard’s thoughts about tea would be just as fundamentally actual as the tea he sips, as another example.
Thoroughly!
For myself at least, I cannot view the scintillating rays as anything other than actually existing; to my perception and understanding, they exist just as much as the polygons. The polygons exist outside the brain to be perceived whereas the scintillating rays are manufactured inside the brain to be perceived. In both instances there are actual perceptions of actual things (one of those things does not exist outside the skull whereas the other does).
That is typically the case, yes.
Yet that very perception of what is typically regarded as ‘not real’ is, as you can attest, so plainly happening as a material/ physical phenomenon occurring in time and space as form.
Further, that not only is a perception occurring, but that a perception of something is occurring; it is plainly not a perception of nothing. Perception does not occur unless there is actually something to be perceived. That something – that object of perception – does not need to originate outside the skull for it to be actual; the activity of the brain is just as actual as the activity going on anywhere in the universe.
I arrived at a different conclusion: that the illusory rays or beams do exist in this universe; that just because the illusory objects do not exist outside the skull does not mean that they do not actually exist. Typically, however, people do not regard the objects that arise in the brain as actually existing, they typically relegate as actual only that which has existence outside the skull.
I arrived at a different conclusion: that the illusory Santa Claus does exist in this universe; just because the illusory object does not exist outside the skull does not mean that it does not actually exist. Typically, however, people do not regard the objects that arise in the brain as actually existing, they typically relegate as actual only that which has existence outside the skull.
I arrived at a different conclusion: that the illusory feeling-being does exist in this universe; just because the illusory object does not exist outside the skull does not mean that it does not actually exist. Typically, however, people do not regard the objects that arise in the brain as actually existing; they typically relegate as actual only that which has existence outside the skull.
Here’s a question: do the raw emotions of a new-born infant fresh out the womb actually exist?