Tony wrote: "This is generated by the manipulation of hologram-like images and using the processing power of the greatest computer in the universe – your brain. . . . You are not here at all, you are being fooled into thinking you are. You are somewhere else entirely."
Am I the only one to notice the contradiction here? If we are in a bardo state and don't know it, then our brains belong to the distant past. Whatever is generating our consciousness here, it isn't a bunch of neurons.
In the end, Tony's CTF model of existence is no less arbitrary a model than my own MW one - the point being, they are just models, built to represent a truth that we cannot yet even begin to grasp, in any but metaphorical terms. The moment we begin to talk as if we are literally in a computer-generated Matrix, or literally living out replays of a once-real life in some bardo state, then we are effectively fixing the program, admittedly into an evolved function, but one that only traps us once again. It is just as if the matrix created a second "Zion" matrix, and tricked the warriors into thinking they had unplugged. The Tao that can be talked about is not the true Tao.
The problem (for me) with Tony's thesis is similar to the problem I had trying to apply the premise of The Matrix to reality (by which I mean, what I already think I know about it): I keep coming up against areas of experience that don't fit into the model.
Here's a big one: many NDE report a reliving of the events of their previous life, not merely as they happened, but as they affected other people, i.e., through the eyes of others. Both Michael Talbot's Holographic Universe and Whitley Strieber's The Key refer to this process of facing up to the full truth (consequences) of our thoughts, words, and actions after we die. Buddhism refers to a similar, purgatory-like process, in which a Soul must gaze into a mirror and see the truth of its former life, and allow the fire of shame to burn away all attachments to that life.
Personally, whether Quantum Mechanics can back this up or not, I believe this pertains to a greater Truth - and would indeed be how that life would look through the eyes of the Daimon, since the Daimon is connected to existence in a way we cannot imagine.
So are we then to think that, after this "cleansing" process, we still go back into the simulator, as if to make amends (yet with no memory of what we have seen)? Or is it that this more holisitic life review only occurs at the end of countless replay lives, when the Eidolon has finally surrendered to the Daimonic awareness? Neither seems a very satisfactory explanation to me. As always, there is something we are not seeing.
Here's another example: Just as with the reincarnation model, we need to question where all the new "souls" are coming from with the population explosion. If six billion plus people on the planet are reincarnations of previous humans, where were all these souls 2000 years ago, when there were only a few million people on the planet? Logically, most people now alive are not reincarnations, but "first-borns." This is born out by the average level of spiritual awareness on the planet, and indeed by the current global situation. If there was a majority of evolved souls, would we really be in the mess we are in now?
Likewise, in Tony's model, the likelihood is that most people alive now are on their first time out, which means that, for most people on the planet, this is literal reality and not a simulation. But for the more "evolved" among us (those of you at this blog ; )), it's a simulation! So what are we doing in the same reality???? (And how come 70% of people still experience deja vu?!)
You see what I am getting at? Apply questioning logic to Tony's model and it falls down very quickly, just as does my own MW model. That doesn't mean these models aren't valid, only that they are extremely partial.
They are tools for describing states of being that otherwise we have no language for. They are transitional models between Eidolon and Daimonic reality. In other words, none of this is literally true, because until we attain the Daimonic perspective, nothing is literally true.