LESSONS and TRUTH
Lessons are not what the dramatizers say, nor what the PTS fear.
The primary 'lesson to learn' is to unlearn the lessons we already
learned that get us into the troubles we are in.
Every negative God Postulate is a 'lesson learned' through
'observation'.
PC runs into 1500 bitches in a row and concludes that all women are
bitches.
Once learned we are prone to reapplying those postulates in the
future on an automatic basis, thus we get stuck over and over again in the
same messes. 15 lifetimes later, he runs into a woman, and suddenly
"She's a bitch!"
Observation or causal consideration? Can you TURN a woman into a
bitch by the mere consideration that she is?
An OT can. You want to be an OT?
Once the lesson is unlearned, we no longer are prone to making
negative God Postulates and thus we no longer get stuck in things.
So you get a pc who wants to learn how to get out of trouble and stay
out of trouble, well he has to learn how to stop postulating that he is IN
trouble and that his postulates have nothing to do with it!
"I am in trouble and my postulate that I am in trouble has nothing to
do with it" is BEING AN EFFECT on the Awareness Characteristic Chart.
A God postulate is that postulate that the pc thinks is true because
he has observed it to be true, when in fact it is true because the mere
consideration of it makes it true.
A true OT is someone who has unlearned all his 'lessons' and is no
longer prone to making any God Postulates at all except for his own
enjoyment.
Tar, yum!
Run,
"Get the idea that Life is Gorgeous".
Run to full E/P of life and future are gorgeous again and Affinity,
Reality and Communication are in accord and pc knows "Who or what is cause
around here and why is it such an asshole!?"
Clear the word *IS*, then run the process as stated.
Do not run get the idea that Life should be, could be, would be
Gorgeous if only...
If you do run that, write them down until the arch stone God
Postulates show up.
You will know a God postulate with "Christ there is NOTHING I could
ever DO that would change that!"
That's right, DOING is a failure of vanishment through as-isness.
At the very worst the process will throw the pc into the abyss
between OT and human.
In particular spot the times your preclear decided it wouldn't be OK
if all of life were OK, and he DETERMINED to make sure never to feel that
life was OK ever again.
Probably lost a cat to a car or something stupid.
Core of case is a refusal to move off a NOT-OK to an OK ever again.
Refused change *FOREVER* without a sunset clause.
Auditing restores the sunset.
Homer
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith I would rather die poor Lightlink Internet
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF than suffer the patronage Ithaca, NY
homer@lightlink.com of bigots and pinheads. www.lightlink.com
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Wednesday, July 31, 2013
CLARKE4
Arthur C. Clarke 4/9 ART MATRIX - LIGHTLINK
http://www.lightlink.com/theproof PO 880 Ithaca, NY 14851-0880
(607) 277-0959 Voice
(607) 277-8913 Fax
(607) 277-5026 Modems
homer@lightlink.com E-mail
jes@lightlink.com E-mail
01/22/07 2:52pm
Dear Esteemed Sir,
I wish to take up in more detail the 'simple but convoluted'
question of whether a machine can verify with certainty its own
existence.
This can be answered by analyzing an earlier question which is
can a machine verify with certainty its own circuitry?
Consider a simple learning machine, with two video cameras for
learning inputs, whose purpose is to capture pictures of the world 'as
it is'.
The two video cameras give it stereo vision thus allowing it to
record a continuous stream of standard visual attributes of the
alleged physical world around it such as color and distance.
Other sensors give it temperature, humidity, atmospheric
pressure, quality of the air, and sound at the same time.
Each picture that is taken of the external world is recorded with
a spacetime stamp taken from the global positioning service, that
details the machine's exact location in space and time at the moment
the picture was taken.
Thus later the owner of the machine can peruse through the memory
banks of the machine and see that Goober walked past the machine's
field of view at 12 noon on Jan 1st, 2007. Further, because the
machine recorded where IT was at that same time, it can compute from
its stereo vision, where Goober was when he walked past the cameras.
We would trust the recordings of such a machine, would we not?
Good enough for a court of law?
OK, so say during the night, when the machine isn't looking,
someone opens up the back and replaces a circuit chip with another one
intended to produce consistent but false readings in the recordings.
The next day when Goober walks by, the machine records a clear
image of Dufus walking by instead.
Not good, since this machine's recordings are going to be used in
a court of law, right?
Ok, as a set up to the question under scrutiny let's say when
this machine was built it was given a purportedly complete and
accurate set of diagrams of all of its components, right down to the
last transistor.
Put in another way, it has a complete image of itself in its own
recordings.
Further let's say both video cameras of this machine are very
special cameras, they can see through and into any part of the machine
they want through x-ray vision.
Thus in theory they should be able to compare the present time
parts that make up the machine and how they are connected with each
other, with the parts on the circuit diagrams.
More simply the machine should be able to compare its present
state with its past 'known good' state and report any differences
found.
We assume a few things.
We assume that all circuits are working properly, because if they
are not, how is a mis behaving circuit going to properly report on the
condition of other circuits?
Yes the machine has two cameras for redundancy in case one fails.
The probabilities that there are errors in both cameras and the
circuits that connect them to the machine are less than the probability
that only one camera is bad,
But there is always going to be a finite non zero probability that
all cameras are bad no matter how many cameras the machine has!
For example if the machine had 10 cameras, and 9 reported one
thing, and 1 reported another, normal probabilities would indicate to
trust the majority report. But trust is not certainty. And if someone
has messed with the machine intentionally, then all bets are off.
Because causation is not sufficient to witness causation, meaning
you can't witness the causation between two events merely by witnessing
the two events, a circuit can not verify itself because it can not
verify the causal pathways necessary to its functioning properly.
By this we mean that observing effects will never give one direct
perception of the causation between the effect and its cause.
Thus just because the end effect is that the circuitry reports all
is well and good, it is only a theory that this was produced by a
properly working machine.
Thus it becomes impossible for a machine to verify its own
conformance to original specs EVEN IF IT HAS ACCESS TO THOSE SPECS TO
COMPARE TO.
It can't even verify that it HAS original specs, because even if it
had a secret copy and the public copy was changed, it couldn't know for
absolute sure that the comparison circuitry itself was reporting
properly.
Worse in this case, the machine has been intentionally changed to
observe or report incorrectly, and when those changes were made, the
machine was also changed to incorrectly report that its circuitry was
NOT changed even if at some point in its investigation it gets some hint
that it was changed.
Thus even if its circuit diagrams were left intact by the intruder,
the changed machine wouldn't report properly anyhow.
And if the embedded circuit diagrams were changed to match the
changes made to the circuits themselves, then spotting the changes
becomes utterly hopeless. The machine could go off happily
hallucinating little green martians everywhere, and consider itself
quite sane because its observations of itself match exactly its original
specs which it knows are correct because its maker said they were!
Thus we must conclude that a machine can not verify its own
operational integrity at any time and under any circumstances.
Thus if the machine reports that it exists or does not exist, then
any such report must always be in doubt.
This raises however another question. How can a machine report
that it exists unless it does?! Doesn't the mere fact of any report at
all necessarily imply the machine's existence?
The answer is not to confuse the machine itself with an observer of
the machine, particularly a conscious observer!
The observer of the machine may rightly conclude that the machine
exists because it reports that it exists, but the same observer would
conclude that the machine exists even if the machine reports that it
doesn't exist!
What we need to do is look at it from the point of view of the
machine.
And we need to go back to basics.
Learning is a relationship between two different objects, most
fundamentally, learning is a tracking in the state of one object about
the state of another object.
If B is learning about A, then B's state must track with the state
of A.
For example if A is red, B must change state to include a
representation of 'A is red'. If A changes state to green, then B must
also change state to 'A is green'. In this way the state of B tracks
the state of A and this tracking is the process of learning.
Tracking is the result of a causal pathway between A and B, in
other words A has an effect on B, A puts a causal imprint on B, B
changes state as a result of A, and thus B has 'learned' something about
A. B's new state IS it's learning about A.
Any change in state at all in B caused by A can be considered
learning by B about A.
More to the point, in the absence of any change in state in B,
there can be no learning at all about A.
For example, B is moving along and passes A, and after the
encounter B is in exactly the same state as it was in before the
encounter with A. Clearly B didn't learn anything about A.
So in the above we call B the symbol and A the referent.
A's being red is the referent state, and B's idea 'A is red' is the
symbol state.
Two completely different objects, A and B.
Two completely different states, 'A being red' and 'B thinks A is
red'.
A is the learned about, and B is the learner. The change in state
in B, is B's learning about A, which state in B acts as a symbol for
whatever learning it represents about A as the referent.
Learning thus implies tracking between the symbol and the referent,
and that tracking must include a causal pathway between the referent and
the symbol or else no learning has taken place.
Now notice A might be red, and B might have the idea 'A is red',
which would make B right, but unless B got the idea through a process of
learning (tracking BECAUSE of causation), then B's idea is mere
guesswork, or coincidental good luck.
There is a difference between being right, and LEARNING you are
right.
The first involves being in a state that happens to coincidentally
track for the moment the object you are learning about.
The second demands that your state be a CAUSAL CONSEQUENCE of the
object you are learning about.
Being right is meaningless and useless unless it is engendered
through the causal process of learning.
So we have a machine that want's to know if it exists, and in its
memory banks is a statement 'I exist'.
The first object A is the machine existing.
The second object B is the statement 'I exist' in that machine's
memory banks.
Notice in this case the first and second object are the same object
because in this case the machine is trying to learn about itself!
There is no problem with a single object playing both roles in the
causal pathway, referent and symbol, because in reality the symbol state
is a subset of the whole machine.
So really one smaller part of the machine is learning about another
part of the machine or the 'machine as a whole'.
Notice however that the referent state, the fact of the machine
existing, comes before the symbol state in time.
There is a time distance (delay) between the machine existing and
its final report that it does exist.
It takes time for the image of the existing machine to be
transfered through the video cameras and back into the machine's own
memory.
Thus the symbol state of 'I exist' is a different event than the
referent state of the machine existing.
Two different events happen here.
One is the referent state of the machine existing, at which time
the symbol state doesn't yet exist.
The second is a moment later in time, which is the symbol state,
which records the alleged fact that the machine exists a MOMENT BEFORE.
Notice the symbol state NOW can not possibly be about the machine
state NOW, because there HAS to be some time distance between cause and
effect for learning to take place in the physical universe!
So, the symbol state represents "I existed 1 second ago", there is
no way for the machine to learn that it exists NOW as there will always
be a time delay between the machine existing and the symbol state being
recorded that it existed.
Now we already know that being right is not sufficient to prove
learning, as the machine can say 'I exist' whether or not it has
bothered to learn that it has.
And we admit that a machine could very well exist and yet still be
utterly incapable of learning that it exists with perfect certainty!
And we know that an external observer would think that saying 'I
exist' would be sufficient evidence that the machine existed, and so it
would to the external observer.
But so would the machine saying 'I don't exist' also be sufficient
evidence that the machine existed to the external observer.
What we want to know is, did the machine *LEARN* that it exists via
a causal pathway to itself, or did it just guess or happen to be right
by coincidence?
If there is no causal pathway at all between the machine's memory
banks saying 'I exist' and the existence of the machine, then no
learning has taken place.
If there is a causal pathway, if the machine concluded 'I exist'
BECAUSE it looked and interacted with itself via cause and effect, then
some learning has taken place.
However we have already determined that no circuit can verify
itself, thus if the machine has been modified to report wrongly, or
worse randomly, then whatever it reports can not be trusted even if it
does exist and reports 'I exist'!
Since the machine can not verify the integrity of the causal
pathway between it's own existence and its report that "I exist", it can
not be said to have learned with certainty of its own existence.
And lastly a machine can't even look at its own report that 'I
exist!", and conclude from that report that it must exist.
This is because, as already detailed, a machine can't be certain of
anything it observes at all, including it's own statement that 'I
exist'.
Thus the machine has no clue from that observation whether or not
its own statement actually exists, nor that it or anything really caused
the report in the first place.
It is bad enough that effect never proves cause, but if you can't
even be certain of the effect, what hope can there ever be of being
certain of the cause?
The machine has no light of self luminous consciousness.
Without consciousness there is no certainty.
Without certainty there is no consciousness.
Final conclusions.
One can never learn with certainty about a referent by looking at a
symbol unless the referent and the symbol are one and the same event,
with no spacetime dimensional separation between them.
Trust can of course come from certainty, but certainty can not come
from trust.
Mechanics of any kind consists of parts interacting via cause and
effect across a spacetime distance. Parts that are separated by
spacetime distance are of necessity two or more different parts and thus
must learn about each other via cause and effect.
Since effect does not prove cause, no part can ever learn with
certainty that any other part exists or is cause over the first part's
state.
Worse a machine can not even tell it has changed state with perfect
certainty, thus without certainty of having been an effect, how can it
be certain there might have been a cause?
Thus a machine can not be certain of anything.
Since consciousness can be certain of red/green experience
differences and many other things, consciousness and the conscious unit
can not be a machine.
By which we mean not a system of parts interacting via cause and
effect across a space time dimension.
Which leaves us with the conclusion that the conscious unit is
zero dimensional.
Your faithful servant,
Homer Wilson Smith
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Sun Aug 12 01:40:56 EDT 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth, and Peace, Internet, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
http://www.lightlink.com/theproof PO 880 Ithaca, NY 14851-0880
(607) 277-0959 Voice
(607) 277-8913 Fax
(607) 277-5026 Modems
homer@lightlink.com E-mail
jes@lightlink.com E-mail
01/22/07 2:52pm
Dear Esteemed Sir,
I wish to take up in more detail the 'simple but convoluted'
question of whether a machine can verify with certainty its own
existence.
This can be answered by analyzing an earlier question which is
can a machine verify with certainty its own circuitry?
Consider a simple learning machine, with two video cameras for
learning inputs, whose purpose is to capture pictures of the world 'as
it is'.
The two video cameras give it stereo vision thus allowing it to
record a continuous stream of standard visual attributes of the
alleged physical world around it such as color and distance.
Other sensors give it temperature, humidity, atmospheric
pressure, quality of the air, and sound at the same time.
Each picture that is taken of the external world is recorded with
a spacetime stamp taken from the global positioning service, that
details the machine's exact location in space and time at the moment
the picture was taken.
Thus later the owner of the machine can peruse through the memory
banks of the machine and see that Goober walked past the machine's
field of view at 12 noon on Jan 1st, 2007. Further, because the
machine recorded where IT was at that same time, it can compute from
its stereo vision, where Goober was when he walked past the cameras.
We would trust the recordings of such a machine, would we not?
Good enough for a court of law?
OK, so say during the night, when the machine isn't looking,
someone opens up the back and replaces a circuit chip with another one
intended to produce consistent but false readings in the recordings.
The next day when Goober walks by, the machine records a clear
image of Dufus walking by instead.
Not good, since this machine's recordings are going to be used in
a court of law, right?
Ok, as a set up to the question under scrutiny let's say when
this machine was built it was given a purportedly complete and
accurate set of diagrams of all of its components, right down to the
last transistor.
Put in another way, it has a complete image of itself in its own
recordings.
Further let's say both video cameras of this machine are very
special cameras, they can see through and into any part of the machine
they want through x-ray vision.
Thus in theory they should be able to compare the present time
parts that make up the machine and how they are connected with each
other, with the parts on the circuit diagrams.
More simply the machine should be able to compare its present
state with its past 'known good' state and report any differences
found.
We assume a few things.
We assume that all circuits are working properly, because if they
are not, how is a mis behaving circuit going to properly report on the
condition of other circuits?
Yes the machine has two cameras for redundancy in case one fails.
The probabilities that there are errors in both cameras and the
circuits that connect them to the machine are less than the probability
that only one camera is bad,
But there is always going to be a finite non zero probability that
all cameras are bad no matter how many cameras the machine has!
For example if the machine had 10 cameras, and 9 reported one
thing, and 1 reported another, normal probabilities would indicate to
trust the majority report. But trust is not certainty. And if someone
has messed with the machine intentionally, then all bets are off.
Because causation is not sufficient to witness causation, meaning
you can't witness the causation between two events merely by witnessing
the two events, a circuit can not verify itself because it can not
verify the causal pathways necessary to its functioning properly.
By this we mean that observing effects will never give one direct
perception of the causation between the effect and its cause.
Thus just because the end effect is that the circuitry reports all
is well and good, it is only a theory that this was produced by a
properly working machine.
Thus it becomes impossible for a machine to verify its own
conformance to original specs EVEN IF IT HAS ACCESS TO THOSE SPECS TO
COMPARE TO.
It can't even verify that it HAS original specs, because even if it
had a secret copy and the public copy was changed, it couldn't know for
absolute sure that the comparison circuitry itself was reporting
properly.
Worse in this case, the machine has been intentionally changed to
observe or report incorrectly, and when those changes were made, the
machine was also changed to incorrectly report that its circuitry was
NOT changed even if at some point in its investigation it gets some hint
that it was changed.
Thus even if its circuit diagrams were left intact by the intruder,
the changed machine wouldn't report properly anyhow.
And if the embedded circuit diagrams were changed to match the
changes made to the circuits themselves, then spotting the changes
becomes utterly hopeless. The machine could go off happily
hallucinating little green martians everywhere, and consider itself
quite sane because its observations of itself match exactly its original
specs which it knows are correct because its maker said they were!
Thus we must conclude that a machine can not verify its own
operational integrity at any time and under any circumstances.
Thus if the machine reports that it exists or does not exist, then
any such report must always be in doubt.
This raises however another question. How can a machine report
that it exists unless it does?! Doesn't the mere fact of any report at
all necessarily imply the machine's existence?
The answer is not to confuse the machine itself with an observer of
the machine, particularly a conscious observer!
The observer of the machine may rightly conclude that the machine
exists because it reports that it exists, but the same observer would
conclude that the machine exists even if the machine reports that it
doesn't exist!
What we need to do is look at it from the point of view of the
machine.
And we need to go back to basics.
Learning is a relationship between two different objects, most
fundamentally, learning is a tracking in the state of one object about
the state of another object.
If B is learning about A, then B's state must track with the state
of A.
For example if A is red, B must change state to include a
representation of 'A is red'. If A changes state to green, then B must
also change state to 'A is green'. In this way the state of B tracks
the state of A and this tracking is the process of learning.
Tracking is the result of a causal pathway between A and B, in
other words A has an effect on B, A puts a causal imprint on B, B
changes state as a result of A, and thus B has 'learned' something about
A. B's new state IS it's learning about A.
Any change in state at all in B caused by A can be considered
learning by B about A.
More to the point, in the absence of any change in state in B,
there can be no learning at all about A.
For example, B is moving along and passes A, and after the
encounter B is in exactly the same state as it was in before the
encounter with A. Clearly B didn't learn anything about A.
So in the above we call B the symbol and A the referent.
A's being red is the referent state, and B's idea 'A is red' is the
symbol state.
Two completely different objects, A and B.
Two completely different states, 'A being red' and 'B thinks A is
red'.
A is the learned about, and B is the learner. The change in state
in B, is B's learning about A, which state in B acts as a symbol for
whatever learning it represents about A as the referent.
Learning thus implies tracking between the symbol and the referent,
and that tracking must include a causal pathway between the referent and
the symbol or else no learning has taken place.
Now notice A might be red, and B might have the idea 'A is red',
which would make B right, but unless B got the idea through a process of
learning (tracking BECAUSE of causation), then B's idea is mere
guesswork, or coincidental good luck.
There is a difference between being right, and LEARNING you are
right.
The first involves being in a state that happens to coincidentally
track for the moment the object you are learning about.
The second demands that your state be a CAUSAL CONSEQUENCE of the
object you are learning about.
Being right is meaningless and useless unless it is engendered
through the causal process of learning.
So we have a machine that want's to know if it exists, and in its
memory banks is a statement 'I exist'.
The first object A is the machine existing.
The second object B is the statement 'I exist' in that machine's
memory banks.
Notice in this case the first and second object are the same object
because in this case the machine is trying to learn about itself!
There is no problem with a single object playing both roles in the
causal pathway, referent and symbol, because in reality the symbol state
is a subset of the whole machine.
So really one smaller part of the machine is learning about another
part of the machine or the 'machine as a whole'.
Notice however that the referent state, the fact of the machine
existing, comes before the symbol state in time.
There is a time distance (delay) between the machine existing and
its final report that it does exist.
It takes time for the image of the existing machine to be
transfered through the video cameras and back into the machine's own
memory.
Thus the symbol state of 'I exist' is a different event than the
referent state of the machine existing.
Two different events happen here.
One is the referent state of the machine existing, at which time
the symbol state doesn't yet exist.
The second is a moment later in time, which is the symbol state,
which records the alleged fact that the machine exists a MOMENT BEFORE.
Notice the symbol state NOW can not possibly be about the machine
state NOW, because there HAS to be some time distance between cause and
effect for learning to take place in the physical universe!
So, the symbol state represents "I existed 1 second ago", there is
no way for the machine to learn that it exists NOW as there will always
be a time delay between the machine existing and the symbol state being
recorded that it existed.
Now we already know that being right is not sufficient to prove
learning, as the machine can say 'I exist' whether or not it has
bothered to learn that it has.
And we admit that a machine could very well exist and yet still be
utterly incapable of learning that it exists with perfect certainty!
And we know that an external observer would think that saying 'I
exist' would be sufficient evidence that the machine existed, and so it
would to the external observer.
But so would the machine saying 'I don't exist' also be sufficient
evidence that the machine existed to the external observer.
What we want to know is, did the machine *LEARN* that it exists via
a causal pathway to itself, or did it just guess or happen to be right
by coincidence?
If there is no causal pathway at all between the machine's memory
banks saying 'I exist' and the existence of the machine, then no
learning has taken place.
If there is a causal pathway, if the machine concluded 'I exist'
BECAUSE it looked and interacted with itself via cause and effect, then
some learning has taken place.
However we have already determined that no circuit can verify
itself, thus if the machine has been modified to report wrongly, or
worse randomly, then whatever it reports can not be trusted even if it
does exist and reports 'I exist'!
Since the machine can not verify the integrity of the causal
pathway between it's own existence and its report that "I exist", it can
not be said to have learned with certainty of its own existence.
And lastly a machine can't even look at its own report that 'I
exist!", and conclude from that report that it must exist.
This is because, as already detailed, a machine can't be certain of
anything it observes at all, including it's own statement that 'I
exist'.
Thus the machine has no clue from that observation whether or not
its own statement actually exists, nor that it or anything really caused
the report in the first place.
It is bad enough that effect never proves cause, but if you can't
even be certain of the effect, what hope can there ever be of being
certain of the cause?
The machine has no light of self luminous consciousness.
Without consciousness there is no certainty.
Without certainty there is no consciousness.
Final conclusions.
One can never learn with certainty about a referent by looking at a
symbol unless the referent and the symbol are one and the same event,
with no spacetime dimensional separation between them.
Trust can of course come from certainty, but certainty can not come
from trust.
Mechanics of any kind consists of parts interacting via cause and
effect across a spacetime distance. Parts that are separated by
spacetime distance are of necessity two or more different parts and thus
must learn about each other via cause and effect.
Since effect does not prove cause, no part can ever learn with
certainty that any other part exists or is cause over the first part's
state.
Worse a machine can not even tell it has changed state with perfect
certainty, thus without certainty of having been an effect, how can it
be certain there might have been a cause?
Thus a machine can not be certain of anything.
Since consciousness can be certain of red/green experience
differences and many other things, consciousness and the conscious unit
can not be a machine.
By which we mean not a system of parts interacting via cause and
effect across a space time dimension.
Which leaves us with the conclusion that the conscious unit is
zero dimensional.
Your faithful servant,
Homer Wilson Smith
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Sun Aug 12 01:40:56 EDT 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth, and Peace, Internet, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
COPYRIG3 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
You see copyrights have to do with communication, specifically
with NOT communicating freely.
The internet and the group mind has to do with communicating
freely.
So copyrights and the internet are opposed.
*OWNERSHIP* of information may be preserved in the group mind,
tag it with who originated it, but controlling distribution of it in a
group mind is impossible.
Controlling distribution of creations is how we lost the group
mind in the first place, "you can have this, but you can't."
A gives it to B but forbids B from giving it to C, so now A is
building barriers between B and C.
B and C allowed this to happen so they deserve what they get,
can't talk to each other freely, and A can push pablum all day long to
both.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth and Peace. Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Jul 30 03:06:02 EDT 2013
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/copyrig3.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFR92XaURT1lqxE3HERAoDLAKDQu3Whto38oDYF0MAVPoZXqj5J8wCeLn8A
Az6TGnCv7dbeO1TNeEQTEvM=
=e2uD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
You see copyrights have to do with communication, specifically
with NOT communicating freely.
The internet and the group mind has to do with communicating
freely.
So copyrights and the internet are opposed.
*OWNERSHIP* of information may be preserved in the group mind,
tag it with who originated it, but controlling distribution of it in a
group mind is impossible.
Controlling distribution of creations is how we lost the group
mind in the first place, "you can have this, but you can't."
A gives it to B but forbids B from giving it to C, so now A is
building barriers between B and C.
B and C allowed this to happen so they deserve what they get,
can't talk to each other freely, and A can push pablum all day long to
both.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth and Peace. Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Jul 30 03:06:02 EDT 2013
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/copyrig3.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFR92XaURT1lqxE3HERAoDLAKDQu3Whto38oDYF0MAVPoZXqj5J8wCeLn8A
Az6TGnCv7dbeO1TNeEQTEvM=
=e2uD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Monday, July 29, 2013
ADORE247 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
BEING OBJECTS
With children being objectified as being dolls in their parent's doll
house, and women being objectified in sex, and men being objectified as
wasteable pawns in wars between political and military leaders, it would
seem that every way we look we are BEING OBJECTS.
When women start bitching about being considered sex objects I always
say don't sweat the small stuff, if the worst that ever happened to you
was to be considered a sex object, life would be good.
Wait until you are out on the battle fields with bullets whizzing by
your tits, then you will know what objectification really means and you
will PRAY for the days of being merely a sex object.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Jul 29 03:06:01 EDT 2013
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore247.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFR9hRZURT1lqxE3HERAk2RAKCVf13uU2Sp2jX52QvvO0GsB/+iPwCeLT+W
WXBq3Rzzl3e4/tUlX1D8hLQ=
=dLu/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
BEING OBJECTS
With children being objectified as being dolls in their parent's doll
house, and women being objectified in sex, and men being objectified as
wasteable pawns in wars between political and military leaders, it would
seem that every way we look we are BEING OBJECTS.
When women start bitching about being considered sex objects I always
say don't sweat the small stuff, if the worst that ever happened to you
was to be considered a sex object, life would be good.
Wait until you are out on the battle fields with bullets whizzing by
your tits, then you will know what objectification really means and you
will PRAY for the days of being merely a sex object.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Jul 29 03:06:01 EDT 2013
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore247.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFR9hRZURT1lqxE3HERAk2RAKCVf13uU2Sp2jX52QvvO0GsB/+iPwCeLT+W
WXBq3Rzzl3e4/tUlX1D8hLQ=
=dLu/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Sunday, July 28, 2013
ON BEING COMPLETELY WELL
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
ON BEING COMPLETELY WELL
The reason that getting better is so hard, is because the moment
one starts on that path one runs into a wall of infinite hideosities
that are infinitely hard to stomach from the human perspective.
One runs into the infinite Anti-God, before one runs into God.
God turns out to be us, and thus so must the anti-God, and so must
we be both the source and sufferer of hideous joy and divine joy.
Every person alive is fighting something that he CAN NOT take
responsibility for and wouldn't PUT IT THERE TO FIGHT if he could.
With most of existence arrayed against him, he can't stop
dramatizing for a second either.
Drama means must fight.
Drama means seriousness, importance, permanent loss, and pain.
All of life is dog eat dog, getting pleasure by causing pain
to others.
Life lives by causing death.
Either you eat life or life eats you.
You may feel good with a full tummy and the bones of your conquests
laid around your neck, but its tainted by your sense of abomination
about the game and having to play it.
Life then becomes making a virtue out of horrible necessity.
And that is the smiling facade of the social zombie zone you feel
and see around you.
Thus each being needs to wake up, but the lucid state is a
whirlwind of adoration and abomination. That's from the human point of
view, it looks different looking down from above the clouds.
A very good solo process to throw you into the whirl wind is as
follows.
Run,
"Get the idea of being completely well."
Define well as no more unwanted conditions unless they are wanted.
"What would have to change or be different for you to be completely
well?"
Write down everything that comes to mind, get it all laid out.
Notice the impossibles, the incredibles, the unconfrontables, the
preposterousness, the unconsolable self casting doubts, and the lack of
permissions.
The solution to the problem is the problem. - LRH
That little piece of idiocy is the greatest wisdom ever written.
It means the being no longer knows what the problem is, he is 100
percent tied up fighting wall to wall lesser unrealities.
The real problem and its enormity has been missed since day one.
He knows there is a problem but still thinks its meaningful to get
pissed off about it or feel guilty.
Oh no.
Once he sees the enormity of what he is upset about, two opposing
infinite forces, both of which are his own, he will chill out and
confront the problem with respect, honor and smooth flowing power.
He will have found a worthwhile opponent, himself.
No anger or guilt here, just divinity playing with it self in the
battle field of the cosmos.
Then the problem and its concerns will start to come apart on its
own.
Might take a little faith for a few seconds while looking it
over, all those dead bodies and sad eyes... :)
God postulates have a time persistence built into them before they
start to come apart under scrutiny.
Bliss is laughter followed by unimpingable peace.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth, and Peace, Internet, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Sun Jul 28 16:48:30 EDT 2013
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore945.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning but
Not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFR9YOeURT1lqxE3HERAgEzAKDHs4s7exbyrBcZektEEF15/M1vJwCdHpwa
ogjTWZ0HfMDj4/ImHdcJH9M=
=NLO6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
ON BEING COMPLETELY WELL
The reason that getting better is so hard, is because the moment
one starts on that path one runs into a wall of infinite hideosities
that are infinitely hard to stomach from the human perspective.
One runs into the infinite Anti-God, before one runs into God.
God turns out to be us, and thus so must the anti-God, and so must
we be both the source and sufferer of hideous joy and divine joy.
Every person alive is fighting something that he CAN NOT take
responsibility for and wouldn't PUT IT THERE TO FIGHT if he could.
With most of existence arrayed against him, he can't stop
dramatizing for a second either.
Drama means must fight.
Drama means seriousness, importance, permanent loss, and pain.
All of life is dog eat dog, getting pleasure by causing pain
to others.
Life lives by causing death.
Either you eat life or life eats you.
You may feel good with a full tummy and the bones of your conquests
laid around your neck, but its tainted by your sense of abomination
about the game and having to play it.
Life then becomes making a virtue out of horrible necessity.
And that is the smiling facade of the social zombie zone you feel
and see around you.
Thus each being needs to wake up, but the lucid state is a
whirlwind of adoration and abomination. That's from the human point of
view, it looks different looking down from above the clouds.
A very good solo process to throw you into the whirl wind is as
follows.
Run,
"Get the idea of being completely well."
Define well as no more unwanted conditions unless they are wanted.
"What would have to change or be different for you to be completely
well?"
Write down everything that comes to mind, get it all laid out.
Notice the impossibles, the incredibles, the unconfrontables, the
preposterousness, the unconsolable self casting doubts, and the lack of
permissions.
The solution to the problem is the problem. - LRH
That little piece of idiocy is the greatest wisdom ever written.
It means the being no longer knows what the problem is, he is 100
percent tied up fighting wall to wall lesser unrealities.
The real problem and its enormity has been missed since day one.
He knows there is a problem but still thinks its meaningful to get
pissed off about it or feel guilty.
Oh no.
Once he sees the enormity of what he is upset about, two opposing
infinite forces, both of which are his own, he will chill out and
confront the problem with respect, honor and smooth flowing power.
He will have found a worthwhile opponent, himself.
No anger or guilt here, just divinity playing with it self in the
battle field of the cosmos.
Then the problem and its concerns will start to come apart on its
own.
Might take a little faith for a few seconds while looking it
over, all those dead bodies and sad eyes... :)
God postulates have a time persistence built into them before they
start to come apart under scrutiny.
Bliss is laughter followed by unimpingable peace.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth, and Peace, Internet, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Sun Jul 28 16:48:30 EDT 2013
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore945.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning but
Not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFR9YOeURT1lqxE3HERAgEzAKDHs4s7exbyrBcZektEEF15/M1vJwCdHpwa
ogjTWZ0HfMDj4/ImHdcJH9M=
=NLO6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
ON BEING COMPLETELY WELL.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
ON BEING COMPLETELY WELL
The reason that getting better is so hard, is because the moment
one starts on that path one runs into a wall of infinite hideosities
that are infinitely hard to stomach from the human perspective.
One runs into the infinite Anti-God, before one runs into God.
God turns out to be us, and thus so must the anti-God, and so must
we be both the source and sufferer of hideous joy and divine joy.
Every person alive is fighting something that he CAN NOT take
responsibility for and wouldn't PUT IT THERE TO FIGHT if he could.
With most of existence arrayed against him, he can't stop
dramatizing for a second either.
Drama means must fight.
Drama means seriousness, importance, permanent loss, and pain.
All of life is dog eat dog, getting pleasure by causing pain
to others.
Life lives by causing death.
Either you eat life or life eats you.
You may feel good with a full tummy and the bones of your conquests
laid around your neck, but its tainted by your sense of abomination
about the game and having to play it.
Life then becomes making a virtue out of horrible necessity.
And that is the smiling facade of the social zombie zone you feel
and see around you.
Thus each being needs to wake up, but the lucid state is a
whirlwind of adoration and abomination. That's from the human point of
view, it looks different looking down from above the clouds.
A very good solo process to throw you into the whirl wind is as
follows.
Run,
"Get the idea of being completely well."
Define well as no more unwanted conditions unless they are wanted.
"What would have to change or be different for you to be completely
well?"
Write down everything that comes to mind, get it all laid out.
Notice the impossibles, the incredibles, the unconfrontables, the
preposterousness, the unconsolable self casting doubts, and the lack of
permissions.
The solution to the problem is the problem. - LRH
That little piece of idiocy is the greatest wisdom ever written.
It means the being no longer knows what the problem is, he is 100
percent tied up fighting wall to wall lesser unrealities.
The real problem and its enormity has been missed since day one.
He knows there is a problem but still thinks its meaningful to get
pissed off about it or feel guilty.
Oh no.
Once he sees the enormity of what he is upset about, two opposing
infinite forces, both of which are his own, he will chill out and
confront the problem with respect, honor and smooth flowing power.
He will have found a worthwhile opponent, himself.
No anger or guilt here, just divinity playing with it self in the
battle field of the cosmos.
Then the problem and its concerns will start to come apart on its
own.
Might take a little faith for a few seconds while looking it
over, all those dead bodies and sad eyes... :)
God postulates have a time persistence built into them before they
start to come apart under scrutiny.
Bliss is laughter followed by unimpingable peace.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth, and Peace, Internet, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Sun Jul 28 16:48:30 EDT 2013
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore945.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning but
Not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFR9YOeURT1lqxE3HERAgEzAKDHs4s7exbyrBcZektEEF15/M1vJwCdHpwa
ogjTWZ0HfMDj4/ImHdcJH9M=
=NLO6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
ON BEING COMPLETELY WELL
The reason that getting better is so hard, is because the moment
one starts on that path one runs into a wall of infinite hideosities
that are infinitely hard to stomach from the human perspective.
One runs into the infinite Anti-God, before one runs into God.
God turns out to be us, and thus so must the anti-God, and so must
we be both the source and sufferer of hideous joy and divine joy.
Every person alive is fighting something that he CAN NOT take
responsibility for and wouldn't PUT IT THERE TO FIGHT if he could.
With most of existence arrayed against him, he can't stop
dramatizing for a second either.
Drama means must fight.
Drama means seriousness, importance, permanent loss, and pain.
All of life is dog eat dog, getting pleasure by causing pain
to others.
Life lives by causing death.
Either you eat life or life eats you.
You may feel good with a full tummy and the bones of your conquests
laid around your neck, but its tainted by your sense of abomination
about the game and having to play it.
Life then becomes making a virtue out of horrible necessity.
And that is the smiling facade of the social zombie zone you feel
and see around you.
Thus each being needs to wake up, but the lucid state is a
whirlwind of adoration and abomination. That's from the human point of
view, it looks different looking down from above the clouds.
A very good solo process to throw you into the whirl wind is as
follows.
Run,
"Get the idea of being completely well."
Define well as no more unwanted conditions unless they are wanted.
"What would have to change or be different for you to be completely
well?"
Write down everything that comes to mind, get it all laid out.
Notice the impossibles, the incredibles, the unconfrontables, the
preposterousness, the unconsolable self casting doubts, and the lack of
permissions.
The solution to the problem is the problem. - LRH
That little piece of idiocy is the greatest wisdom ever written.
It means the being no longer knows what the problem is, he is 100
percent tied up fighting wall to wall lesser unrealities.
The real problem and its enormity has been missed since day one.
He knows there is a problem but still thinks its meaningful to get
pissed off about it or feel guilty.
Oh no.
Once he sees the enormity of what he is upset about, two opposing
infinite forces, both of which are his own, he will chill out and
confront the problem with respect, honor and smooth flowing power.
He will have found a worthwhile opponent, himself.
No anger or guilt here, just divinity playing with it self in the
battle field of the cosmos.
Then the problem and its concerns will start to come apart on its
own.
Might take a little faith for a few seconds while looking it
over, all those dead bodies and sad eyes... :)
God postulates have a time persistence built into them before they
start to come apart under scrutiny.
Bliss is laughter followed by unimpingable peace.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth, and Peace, Internet, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Sun Jul 28 16:48:30 EDT 2013
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore945.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning but
Not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFR9YOeURT1lqxE3HERAgEzAKDHs4s7exbyrBcZektEEF15/M1vJwCdHpwa
ogjTWZ0HfMDj4/ImHdcJH9M=
=NLO6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
ADORE775
07/23/10 Friday 4:37pm EST
ADORE140 REDUX
I have deleted the following lines quotes below as I no longer
agree with them.
We agree that there is a ONE and a MANY, two sides to the same coin
called the GodSoul.
There is no infinite one I-AM, I-AM is reserved for the many
individual units. They can however group in an unincarnated state into
a super group mind that can act in unison as if it were a ONE, but it
isn't.
The ONE is the substrate underlying all the MANY that allows the
many to communicate and co operate together independently or in unison.
One could call the ONE Source, under the caveate that the One sources
only when the many cast.
"Source sources when will casts.
"Sourcers cast Sourcery from Source by casting Pride before
Magnificence." - Adore
The implication that the actions of the individual I-AM is
orchestrated by the ONE infinite I-AM is wrong, each individual has
independent causal agency, and can exercise it either in the incarnated
state, or in the unincarnated super mind state. They can however come
to a unanimous decision, and thus all games are based on agreement.
"An infinite number of infinite minds was beyond the ken of modern
day philosophers."
Collapsing it all down to one infinite mind, God, destroyed the
sanity of people, philosophy and religion forever more.
The endless argument over whether we are One that thinks it is
Many, or Many that thinks it is One is resolved through a more quantum
kind of thinking that would claim we are One AND Many, depending on
which side of the two sided coin we are looking at.
There is no effort to posit bad logic here, logic is the ethics of
language and truth, and rules at all times.
To claim it doesn't is to claim it does.
(For example to say that logic IS illogical or DOES NOT apply, is
to assert the validity of logic through use of the word IS and its many
isotopes (does), as logic is merely a description of the nature of IS
and IS NOT gleaned through the nature of our own consciousness which
certainly IS and is not IS NOT.
The description of IS and IS NOT gleaned through a description of
the nature of our consciousness, *IS* all there is to logic.
We merely admit to a two function GodSoul, where the One exists to
support the Many, but only the Many are conscious.
The Many are agency, the One is the underlying ground of agency
connecting the many together so the can co agency together. :)
Deleted...
> They feel they are independent of each other, but in the end this
> too is an illusion. From the higher point of view, one can see that
> all the independent I-AM's are in fact acting in orchestrated unison
> as the one infinite I-AM flows through them.
>
...
> and ultimately are orchestrated by the fundamental desires of the infinite
> "I-AM" of which the individual will is a part.
Homer
Fri Jul 23 16:38:30 EDT 2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth, and Peace, Internet, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
ADORE140 REDUX
I have deleted the following lines quotes below as I no longer
agree with them.
We agree that there is a ONE and a MANY, two sides to the same coin
called the GodSoul.
There is no infinite one I-AM, I-AM is reserved for the many
individual units. They can however group in an unincarnated state into
a super group mind that can act in unison as if it were a ONE, but it
isn't.
The ONE is the substrate underlying all the MANY that allows the
many to communicate and co operate together independently or in unison.
One could call the ONE Source, under the caveate that the One sources
only when the many cast.
"Source sources when will casts.
"Sourcers cast Sourcery from Source by casting Pride before
Magnificence." - Adore
The implication that the actions of the individual I-AM is
orchestrated by the ONE infinite I-AM is wrong, each individual has
independent causal agency, and can exercise it either in the incarnated
state, or in the unincarnated super mind state. They can however come
to a unanimous decision, and thus all games are based on agreement.
"An infinite number of infinite minds was beyond the ken of modern
day philosophers."
Collapsing it all down to one infinite mind, God, destroyed the
sanity of people, philosophy and religion forever more.
The endless argument over whether we are One that thinks it is
Many, or Many that thinks it is One is resolved through a more quantum
kind of thinking that would claim we are One AND Many, depending on
which side of the two sided coin we are looking at.
There is no effort to posit bad logic here, logic is the ethics of
language and truth, and rules at all times.
To claim it doesn't is to claim it does.
(For example to say that logic IS illogical or DOES NOT apply, is
to assert the validity of logic through use of the word IS and its many
isotopes (does), as logic is merely a description of the nature of IS
and IS NOT gleaned through the nature of our own consciousness which
certainly IS and is not IS NOT.
The description of IS and IS NOT gleaned through a description of
the nature of our consciousness, *IS* all there is to logic.
We merely admit to a two function GodSoul, where the One exists to
support the Many, but only the Many are conscious.
The Many are agency, the One is the underlying ground of agency
connecting the many together so the can co agency together. :)
Deleted...
> They feel they are independent of each other, but in the end this
> too is an illusion. From the higher point of view, one can see that
> all the independent I-AM's are in fact acting in orchestrated unison
> as the one infinite I-AM flows through them.
>
...
> and ultimately are orchestrated by the fundamental desires of the infinite
> "I-AM" of which the individual will is a part.
Homer
Fri Jul 23 16:38:30 EDT 2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth, and Peace, Internet, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Saturday, July 27, 2013
ADORE171 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
BEING AND BECOMING
>homer@lightlink.com wrote:
>> Becoming is replaced by being. (As one goes OT)
>> *THIS IS A NEW THOUGHT*.
CB Willis (cbwillis@adore.lightlink.com) wrote:
>Still seems intimately related to your Proof.
Oh yes. Its been there for years, but finding the application of
it and really getting it makes a difference.
When Hubbard said the question IS the answer, what the hell did he
mean? I mean how is a question an answer?
Well to a meatball it makes no sense, but to a being that obtains
in the mere conception of having, the pre postulations that questions
commit to, are deadly.
The Proof talks endlessly about the cycle of creation, wherein a
being creates something via Looking by Knowing, and then flip flops into
making it persist via Knowing by Looking, which is learning about it and
question asking.
The efforts to ask the questions of life tie up the body in force
and pain. The questions that have sunk into failure, forgetfulness and
oblivion still wriggle once in a while causing alarming pains and
shifts in internal arrangement and mood.
In auditing you want to spot the incident, find the postulates,
spot the questions, make sure the asking of the questions ceases utterly
in present time and forever more. The common cognition to every
incident is how the question about "the condition postulated", continued
the condition postulated.
You can't just stop asking questions, but once you hit the big ones
and run them and spot how the question about the condition is and always
was and always will be the answer to itself, then the mind just sits
still. There is just no reason to move.
I mean if you never HAD to ask or answer another question ever
again, would that be heaven on Earth?
You see the being postulates something, any postulate is a decent
from surviving by being into becoming, its a change, hence becoming.
If the being loses sight of HOW he does this, then he feels
survival is ONLY by becoming. But that means he CAN not survive, so
he has to continually question how to continue to survive, think,
think, think.
Thinking is question asking is thinking is question asking.
Hubbard said it when he mentioned that thinking was the silliest
activity there was. Few got it, because it makes no sense if all there
is, is surviving by becoming.
The ONLY way to survive by becoming is to think, compute on DOING =
KNOWING + WANTING.
What do I want? What do I know? What should I do?
Once a being falls away from knowing that he can survive outside of
time by being, and can't help but do so, he gets the idea he can die.
You can only die forever IN TIME.
This scares the hell out of him, the mere contemplation of the
possibility of dying forever, to be no more etc, is enough to make him
feel so bad he becomes just SURE its quite possible, for no being who
couldn't die could ever feel that way! :)
Adore calls that the Doubt Effect.
Feelings generated by doubting immortality or Eternality are
further evidence of mortality!
This is the decent into seriousness and dramatization.
Dramatization means to bring drama to.
Drama is seriousness, importance, *PERMANENCE* and pain.
Drama enters when FOREVER enters into the realm of becoming.
To become something FOREVER is hell forever, to become nothing
FOREVER is death forever. Both are lies.
The permanence of dying forever, of becoming nothing forever, is
infinite, and thus the seriousness of this becomes infinite too, so the
being starts to dramatize INFINITELY on the subject of how to survive
FOREVER. But that's a game he can't win. He isn't trying to BE
forever, he's trying to BECOME forever, and he knows damn well that it
just won't work.
There is no ethics to a mortal.
As the questions on how to survive forever begin to fail, one by
one, they fail into infinite charge in the back of the brain, sink into
oblivion where the beast is 'never disturbed', and pretty soon, like
layers of sediment, you have layers of dead questions, each containing
infinite charge on infinite failure of infinite survival.
It's this question stack of pancakes that needs to be audited.
It is mind (question asking) and becoming in time that keeps the
stack charged and stirred up, seething in the bowels of the spirit.
Homer
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Jul 27 03:06:02 EDT 2013
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore171.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFR83FaURT1lqxE3HERAg/rAJwMgBZzyoV0gMJ4UYWM1iRXelPvwwCguSuS
lvUySEB39lOXowY1pcGaLNM=
=GdkG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
BEING AND BECOMING
>homer@lightlink.com wrote:
>> Becoming is replaced by being. (As one goes OT)
>> *THIS IS A NEW THOUGHT*.
CB Willis (cbwillis@adore.lightlink.com) wrote:
>Still seems intimately related to your Proof.
Oh yes. Its been there for years, but finding the application of
it and really getting it makes a difference.
When Hubbard said the question IS the answer, what the hell did he
mean? I mean how is a question an answer?
Well to a meatball it makes no sense, but to a being that obtains
in the mere conception of having, the pre postulations that questions
commit to, are deadly.
The Proof talks endlessly about the cycle of creation, wherein a
being creates something via Looking by Knowing, and then flip flops into
making it persist via Knowing by Looking, which is learning about it and
question asking.
The efforts to ask the questions of life tie up the body in force
and pain. The questions that have sunk into failure, forgetfulness and
oblivion still wriggle once in a while causing alarming pains and
shifts in internal arrangement and mood.
In auditing you want to spot the incident, find the postulates,
spot the questions, make sure the asking of the questions ceases utterly
in present time and forever more. The common cognition to every
incident is how the question about "the condition postulated", continued
the condition postulated.
You can't just stop asking questions, but once you hit the big ones
and run them and spot how the question about the condition is and always
was and always will be the answer to itself, then the mind just sits
still. There is just no reason to move.
I mean if you never HAD to ask or answer another question ever
again, would that be heaven on Earth?
You see the being postulates something, any postulate is a decent
from surviving by being into becoming, its a change, hence becoming.
If the being loses sight of HOW he does this, then he feels
survival is ONLY by becoming. But that means he CAN not survive, so
he has to continually question how to continue to survive, think,
think, think.
Thinking is question asking is thinking is question asking.
Hubbard said it when he mentioned that thinking was the silliest
activity there was. Few got it, because it makes no sense if all there
is, is surviving by becoming.
The ONLY way to survive by becoming is to think, compute on DOING =
KNOWING + WANTING.
What do I want? What do I know? What should I do?
Once a being falls away from knowing that he can survive outside of
time by being, and can't help but do so, he gets the idea he can die.
You can only die forever IN TIME.
This scares the hell out of him, the mere contemplation of the
possibility of dying forever, to be no more etc, is enough to make him
feel so bad he becomes just SURE its quite possible, for no being who
couldn't die could ever feel that way! :)
Adore calls that the Doubt Effect.
Feelings generated by doubting immortality or Eternality are
further evidence of mortality!
This is the decent into seriousness and dramatization.
Dramatization means to bring drama to.
Drama is seriousness, importance, *PERMANENCE* and pain.
Drama enters when FOREVER enters into the realm of becoming.
To become something FOREVER is hell forever, to become nothing
FOREVER is death forever. Both are lies.
The permanence of dying forever, of becoming nothing forever, is
infinite, and thus the seriousness of this becomes infinite too, so the
being starts to dramatize INFINITELY on the subject of how to survive
FOREVER. But that's a game he can't win. He isn't trying to BE
forever, he's trying to BECOME forever, and he knows damn well that it
just won't work.
There is no ethics to a mortal.
As the questions on how to survive forever begin to fail, one by
one, they fail into infinite charge in the back of the brain, sink into
oblivion where the beast is 'never disturbed', and pretty soon, like
layers of sediment, you have layers of dead questions, each containing
infinite charge on infinite failure of infinite survival.
It's this question stack of pancakes that needs to be audited.
It is mind (question asking) and becoming in time that keeps the
stack charged and stirred up, seething in the bowels of the spirit.
Homer
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Jul 27 03:06:02 EDT 2013
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore171.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFR83FaURT1lqxE3HERAg/rAJwMgBZzyoV0gMJ4UYWM1iRXelPvwwCguSuS
lvUySEB39lOXowY1pcGaLNM=
=GdkG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Thursday, July 25, 2013
ADORE456
SEEING
Seeing is a hard concept to grasp mostly because of the tortuous
route between the physical apple on the table and the final conscious
display, 90 percent of which is not seeing at all.
The light bulb emanates a wave front of photons which hits and
bounces off the apple towards the eye, where the image is refocused by
the lens and formed on the retina.
But you know that wave front that hits the eye could just as easily
have been created by a holograph film with lasers pointed at it, there
is no way for the eye to tell the difference in theory from an actual
apple or a hologram film plate. That's the whole idea of a hologram, it
recreates the wave front of an actual apple as if the apple were there.
That's what holograph film does, it recreates the wave front of the
objects behind it when the hologram was first taken.
So just because the wave front purports to be coming from an apple
on the table doesn't mean there is or even was an apple on the table.
The whole thing could be a computer artist's rendition.
The being could just create an apple in his consciousness, and have
an apple. But then it would as-is and then he wouldn't have the apple
any more.
So as-isness has been a problem to the being.
He solves as-isness by adding a lie into the apple, which then
makes it persist. One of the primary lies is that he didn't make the
apple, somebody else did! You see if he can just get the idea that the
apple came from somewhere else than here now, then it must have already
existed before he ran into it, and so it wasn't his creation, so it
won't as-is.
You can only have what someone or something else made!
But where did that somebody or someone else come from?
In truth the being created the other's presence in his dream too,
they had to co agree to a co resonance, so the minute the guy realizes
he created the other guy, the other guy as-ises, leaving the apple to
have come from nowhere and so it as-ises too, and again the being has
nothing.
You see the problem?
So the being goes on a mad "everything had to come from somewhere"
campaign. He creates giga cubic light years of space and time, puts
untold numbers of untrackable particles in it, creates unbelievably
complex and beautiful laws of mathematics that no one could possibly be
bright enough to understand, just so all this stuff can evolve for
billions of years, and finally a seed drops in the forest, a tree grows
and an apple forms.
Now the guy can HAVE the apple and have NO idea where it came from.
That's persistence and thus happiness and havingness.
But there is one last lie the being has to subscribe to in order to
glue the whole thing together so it doesn't unravel the next time he
sneezes.
The being has to believe that HE HIMSELF is made of and evolved
from all this stuff that he created.
He considers his creature, all this stuff, to be his own creator.
He becomes a creature of the universe with the same ontological
status as his apple. Then he too came from somewhere else than himself,
and the self locking loop is complete.
True responsibility as knowing willing cause, becomes defined out
of existence as 'obeying orders'.
Thus belief in the apple, space and time, out thereness and out
thenness, external cause and mechanics is very strong because he HAS TO
BELIEVE HE HIMSELF IS MADE OF THESE THINGS OR THE WHOLE THING WILL
UNRAVEL.
You tell him the world is a dream, and he will go ok that's fine,
so what? You remind him that includes his BRAIN, and he will go Ooooh
Noooo.....
He needs to have one little thing left that is physical and actual
to account for the hallucination. For without the brain, who or what is
hallucinating? This forces him to FIND HIMSELF for the first time.
Naked and without a brain.
WHO OR WHAT IS *MAKING* THE MOCKUP?!
If there is no outthereness, no external space and time, no
external cause that created him out of external mud and grime, then he
is left holding the bag again, and the whole thing begins to unwind.
That's vanishment, unhappiness and unhavingness.
Since his belief that the apple is actually out there is so solid,
so is his belief that he is seeing the apple, when in fact he isn't
seeing it at all, he is seeing a representation of it in his
consciousness, his internal color TV set.
Now even a slightly educated meatball will tell you that by the
time the photon wave front hits the eye, the apple that reflected it is
long gone in space and time. There might still be an apple there, but
the original apple that actually reflected the wave has vanished into
the past.
Thus the best the being will ever do by absorbing wave fronts
across space and time into his retina is get a possible symbolic
representation of how an apple WAS, not how the apple IS, if there even
is one still there.
For example if the apple is a light year away, then in the year
between when the wave front reflected off the apple and when it hit the
eye, the apple will have long rotted and become worm food. Thus the
apple the guy sees is actually not there any more.
And if you consider that the wavefront could have been created by a
hologram, then the apple may never have been there.
And if you consider that the whole universe may have been created
by God only half a year ago, with wave fronts in mid flight, to look
like the universe had been there for a whole year, then the apple AND
hologram never existed at all.
This is not silly, fully 50 percent of the population believes that
God created the universe 6000 years ago to look like it has been here
for billions.
In this scheme, Andromeda which is some 64 million light years away
may not actually exist 64 million years ago, although the wave front we
are receiving from it today indicates that it did.
As long as the universe is only 6000 years old, and as long as it
will never actually last 64 million years, then there is no need for God
to actually create Andromeda, when he can save time and money by
creating only the wave front hitting us now while purporting to come
from Andromeda 64 million years ago.
And since no one has actually ever been to Andromeda or back, and
the waves of light originating 6000 years ago from 6000 light years
away, are just hitting us now, the existence of anything more than 6000
light years away from us in all directions is merely a theory necessary
to make sure that the apple continues to exist long enough to eat it.
lest we all wake up with the realization that 6000 years ago God has
created an illusion of an old universe that looks 12 billion years old.
Scientists won't like that theory, but they can't prove it one way
or the other.
This is always the problem with learning by being an effect of
messenger waves of causality, one never knows if they really and truly
got created where and when they represent themselves to have been
created.
OK, so the wave front that left the apple finally hits the retina
and forms an image there.
More technically the retina changes state, the cells start firing
where before they were quiescent, and energy is sent down the optic
nerve towards the brain.
Now here is a really deep philosophical question, suitable only for
the most advanced of 3rd graders.
Does the fact that an object is IN a state mean that the object
KNOWS that it is in a state?
This is a hard one because the temptation for lazy minds is to
anthropomorphize their own conscious experiences into the physical
universe.
It is true that if the conscious unit is in a state, of seeing red
for example, it CAN KNOW that it is in that state.
This is self awareness.
This is the hall mark of consciousness, resplendent self awareness.
But is the retina self aware? It has the image of the apple right
there on it's surface but does it know that it does?
Is a retina capable of KNOWING at all?
Or is it just capable of BEING in a state?
Now some people ascribe consciousness to everything, including a
rock on the ground. So in that case if the rock is warm, the rock will
know that it is warm.
That's fine.
But most meatballs consider that consciousness is a very complex
process in a very complex system of biology called the brain, and
without a nervous system to convey data to a brain, there is no way a
rock can know what state it is in.
In other words BEING IN A STATE and KNOWING YOU ARE IN A STATE are
TWO DIFFERENT STATES!
And worse, knowing that you know you are in a state is a third
state.
Thus if a rock were warm and knew it was warm, someone studying the
rock should be able to see the two different states, namely one, the
rock is warm, and two the rock knows that it is warm.
The first thing we have to notice here is that 'knowing you are in
a state' can be simulated by a computer. Any computer can be in a state
and also know it is in a state. Its got one register that has the
number 1 in it, and another register that also has the number 1 in it
indicating that the first register has the number 1 in it.
Notice however that it takes TIME for the second register
to notice that the first register has a 1 in it, thus the second
register can never know what state the first register IS in, only
what state it WAS in.
Any possible self awareness on the part of a machine is always
of its own PAST, never of its present.
So what happens if we wish this computer to not only be in a state,
but then know that it is in a state, and then also know that it knows it
is in a state.
Now we have 3 states, each one needs a register, indicating the
existence of the register before it.
Clearly if we wish to build a truly self aware computer that can
know that it knows that it knows, which is an infinite regression, then
it will need an infinite number of registers to hold each state of
knowing about the prior register.
Since things move at a finite speed in the physical universe, it
would take an infinite amount of time for the computer to actually
complete all infinite levels of knowing that it knows and so would never
complete.
The same is true of any biological computer such as the brain. The
impossibility of infinite self recursive certainty does not lie in the
stuff of which something is made, the impossibility arises from the
dimensional substrate which underlies it.
In other words it doesn't matter WHAT you put into a space and time
continuum, it will never be able to complete knowing that it knows in a
finite amount of time. This is a problem with space time, a problem
with the nature of separation and TWO DIFFERENT OBJECTS, not a problem
with the stuff filling space time, namely matter and energy.
In other words more complexity of parts will not create self
awareness where before it did not exist.
Notice that true consciousness has no such problems with being
resplendently and self luminously self aware, any conscious unit can
know that it knows instantly and completely. This is a significant fact
overlooked by the meatball community.
Self luminousness is in fact the infinite regression of knowing
that you know that you know, all happening in ZERO time, because its not
a sequence of consecutive learning events the way it would have to be in
a computer.
Self luminousness is effectively an infinite number of knowing that
you knows in one event! That creates conscious light which illuminates
nothing but itself.
Now if a rock has a conscious unit in it, then perhaps it can know
that it is warm, and know that it is knows completely, ie be self aware.
But in any case this conscious function in the rock would NOT be
possible given any *PHYSICAL* mechanics going on in the rock even if it
did have a central nervous system and a brain. That's because mere
physical mechanics can't produce zero time self luminousness.
So if we are to consider that a rock is conscious, then that
consciousness would have to be a function external to the rock's space
and time, just as a human's consciousness is external to the alleged
space and time of the body.
If we are to consider that a rock does NOT have a conscious unit in
it, then we must conclude that being in a state is not sufficient to
knowing one is in that state.
Thus the rock may be warm, but does not know it is warm.
Just so for the retina.
Just because it has an image of the long gone apple on it, doesn't
mean that the retina knows in any sense of the word that the image is
there. Its just a rock being warm, instead of cold.
The retina is being "apple", rather than "not apple."
The data then travels from the retina through the optic nerve,
through the optic chiasm, to the visual cortex and finally to the
conscious display where the conscious looker can finally SEE his looked
at.
Notice there is no redness in the optic nerve nor visual cortex,
nor is there anything that looks like a picture in any sense of the
word. The data in the brain before it gets to the conscious unit is in
a form that has almost zero geometric congruency with the original
referent, the apple out there on the table.
But once it hits the conscious display, the data is once again in a
high picture form format, a symbol for the original referent, with
almost perfect matching geometric congruency.
This image in the conscious display is what is being 'seen' by the
conscious being.
The being is not seeing his visual cortex nor anything in it, nor
his optic nerve, not anything on the retina, and certainly not the apple
on the table which is long gone by the time the conscious display lights
up with a red apple.
In fact by the time the the conscious being sees the image in his
conscious display, the data is gone from the retina, optic nerve AND
brain. By the time the wave front hits the optic nerve is its gone from
the retina. By the time the wave front hits the brain, it is gone from
the optic nerve. By the time the wave front hits the consciousness, it
is gone from the brain. The wave front is continuously moving on,
leaving all bridges behind intact for the next wave front to come in and
do the same thing.
Thus when people think they are 'seeing' a physical universe apple,
they are collapsing their conscious symbol onto the physical referent.
It's easy enough to prove that what is seen is not the physical
apple, close your eyes and the conscious displayed apple of red goes
away, but the physical referent surely is not affected.
Since in the process of closing one's eyes, the conscious displayed
apple changes and the physical referent does not, the conscious
displayed apple is not the physical apple.
If B changes and A does not, then B is not A.
Such a difficult theorem, but you can't pass 3rd grade without it.
Homer
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Sun Feb 25 01:23:40 EST 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth, and Peace, Internet, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Seeing is a hard concept to grasp mostly because of the tortuous
route between the physical apple on the table and the final conscious
display, 90 percent of which is not seeing at all.
The light bulb emanates a wave front of photons which hits and
bounces off the apple towards the eye, where the image is refocused by
the lens and formed on the retina.
But you know that wave front that hits the eye could just as easily
have been created by a holograph film with lasers pointed at it, there
is no way for the eye to tell the difference in theory from an actual
apple or a hologram film plate. That's the whole idea of a hologram, it
recreates the wave front of an actual apple as if the apple were there.
That's what holograph film does, it recreates the wave front of the
objects behind it when the hologram was first taken.
So just because the wave front purports to be coming from an apple
on the table doesn't mean there is or even was an apple on the table.
The whole thing could be a computer artist's rendition.
The being could just create an apple in his consciousness, and have
an apple. But then it would as-is and then he wouldn't have the apple
any more.
So as-isness has been a problem to the being.
He solves as-isness by adding a lie into the apple, which then
makes it persist. One of the primary lies is that he didn't make the
apple, somebody else did! You see if he can just get the idea that the
apple came from somewhere else than here now, then it must have already
existed before he ran into it, and so it wasn't his creation, so it
won't as-is.
You can only have what someone or something else made!
But where did that somebody or someone else come from?
In truth the being created the other's presence in his dream too,
they had to co agree to a co resonance, so the minute the guy realizes
he created the other guy, the other guy as-ises, leaving the apple to
have come from nowhere and so it as-ises too, and again the being has
nothing.
You see the problem?
So the being goes on a mad "everything had to come from somewhere"
campaign. He creates giga cubic light years of space and time, puts
untold numbers of untrackable particles in it, creates unbelievably
complex and beautiful laws of mathematics that no one could possibly be
bright enough to understand, just so all this stuff can evolve for
billions of years, and finally a seed drops in the forest, a tree grows
and an apple forms.
Now the guy can HAVE the apple and have NO idea where it came from.
That's persistence and thus happiness and havingness.
But there is one last lie the being has to subscribe to in order to
glue the whole thing together so it doesn't unravel the next time he
sneezes.
The being has to believe that HE HIMSELF is made of and evolved
from all this stuff that he created.
He considers his creature, all this stuff, to be his own creator.
He becomes a creature of the universe with the same ontological
status as his apple. Then he too came from somewhere else than himself,
and the self locking loop is complete.
True responsibility as knowing willing cause, becomes defined out
of existence as 'obeying orders'.
Thus belief in the apple, space and time, out thereness and out
thenness, external cause and mechanics is very strong because he HAS TO
BELIEVE HE HIMSELF IS MADE OF THESE THINGS OR THE WHOLE THING WILL
UNRAVEL.
You tell him the world is a dream, and he will go ok that's fine,
so what? You remind him that includes his BRAIN, and he will go Ooooh
Noooo.....
He needs to have one little thing left that is physical and actual
to account for the hallucination. For without the brain, who or what is
hallucinating? This forces him to FIND HIMSELF for the first time.
Naked and without a brain.
WHO OR WHAT IS *MAKING* THE MOCKUP?!
If there is no outthereness, no external space and time, no
external cause that created him out of external mud and grime, then he
is left holding the bag again, and the whole thing begins to unwind.
That's vanishment, unhappiness and unhavingness.
Since his belief that the apple is actually out there is so solid,
so is his belief that he is seeing the apple, when in fact he isn't
seeing it at all, he is seeing a representation of it in his
consciousness, his internal color TV set.
Now even a slightly educated meatball will tell you that by the
time the photon wave front hits the eye, the apple that reflected it is
long gone in space and time. There might still be an apple there, but
the original apple that actually reflected the wave has vanished into
the past.
Thus the best the being will ever do by absorbing wave fronts
across space and time into his retina is get a possible symbolic
representation of how an apple WAS, not how the apple IS, if there even
is one still there.
For example if the apple is a light year away, then in the year
between when the wave front reflected off the apple and when it hit the
eye, the apple will have long rotted and become worm food. Thus the
apple the guy sees is actually not there any more.
And if you consider that the wavefront could have been created by a
hologram, then the apple may never have been there.
And if you consider that the whole universe may have been created
by God only half a year ago, with wave fronts in mid flight, to look
like the universe had been there for a whole year, then the apple AND
hologram never existed at all.
This is not silly, fully 50 percent of the population believes that
God created the universe 6000 years ago to look like it has been here
for billions.
In this scheme, Andromeda which is some 64 million light years away
may not actually exist 64 million years ago, although the wave front we
are receiving from it today indicates that it did.
As long as the universe is only 6000 years old, and as long as it
will never actually last 64 million years, then there is no need for God
to actually create Andromeda, when he can save time and money by
creating only the wave front hitting us now while purporting to come
from Andromeda 64 million years ago.
And since no one has actually ever been to Andromeda or back, and
the waves of light originating 6000 years ago from 6000 light years
away, are just hitting us now, the existence of anything more than 6000
light years away from us in all directions is merely a theory necessary
to make sure that the apple continues to exist long enough to eat it.
lest we all wake up with the realization that 6000 years ago God has
created an illusion of an old universe that looks 12 billion years old.
Scientists won't like that theory, but they can't prove it one way
or the other.
This is always the problem with learning by being an effect of
messenger waves of causality, one never knows if they really and truly
got created where and when they represent themselves to have been
created.
OK, so the wave front that left the apple finally hits the retina
and forms an image there.
More technically the retina changes state, the cells start firing
where before they were quiescent, and energy is sent down the optic
nerve towards the brain.
Now here is a really deep philosophical question, suitable only for
the most advanced of 3rd graders.
Does the fact that an object is IN a state mean that the object
KNOWS that it is in a state?
This is a hard one because the temptation for lazy minds is to
anthropomorphize their own conscious experiences into the physical
universe.
It is true that if the conscious unit is in a state, of seeing red
for example, it CAN KNOW that it is in that state.
This is self awareness.
This is the hall mark of consciousness, resplendent self awareness.
But is the retina self aware? It has the image of the apple right
there on it's surface but does it know that it does?
Is a retina capable of KNOWING at all?
Or is it just capable of BEING in a state?
Now some people ascribe consciousness to everything, including a
rock on the ground. So in that case if the rock is warm, the rock will
know that it is warm.
That's fine.
But most meatballs consider that consciousness is a very complex
process in a very complex system of biology called the brain, and
without a nervous system to convey data to a brain, there is no way a
rock can know what state it is in.
In other words BEING IN A STATE and KNOWING YOU ARE IN A STATE are
TWO DIFFERENT STATES!
And worse, knowing that you know you are in a state is a third
state.
Thus if a rock were warm and knew it was warm, someone studying the
rock should be able to see the two different states, namely one, the
rock is warm, and two the rock knows that it is warm.
The first thing we have to notice here is that 'knowing you are in
a state' can be simulated by a computer. Any computer can be in a state
and also know it is in a state. Its got one register that has the
number 1 in it, and another register that also has the number 1 in it
indicating that the first register has the number 1 in it.
Notice however that it takes TIME for the second register
to notice that the first register has a 1 in it, thus the second
register can never know what state the first register IS in, only
what state it WAS in.
Any possible self awareness on the part of a machine is always
of its own PAST, never of its present.
So what happens if we wish this computer to not only be in a state,
but then know that it is in a state, and then also know that it knows it
is in a state.
Now we have 3 states, each one needs a register, indicating the
existence of the register before it.
Clearly if we wish to build a truly self aware computer that can
know that it knows that it knows, which is an infinite regression, then
it will need an infinite number of registers to hold each state of
knowing about the prior register.
Since things move at a finite speed in the physical universe, it
would take an infinite amount of time for the computer to actually
complete all infinite levels of knowing that it knows and so would never
complete.
The same is true of any biological computer such as the brain. The
impossibility of infinite self recursive certainty does not lie in the
stuff of which something is made, the impossibility arises from the
dimensional substrate which underlies it.
In other words it doesn't matter WHAT you put into a space and time
continuum, it will never be able to complete knowing that it knows in a
finite amount of time. This is a problem with space time, a problem
with the nature of separation and TWO DIFFERENT OBJECTS, not a problem
with the stuff filling space time, namely matter and energy.
In other words more complexity of parts will not create self
awareness where before it did not exist.
Notice that true consciousness has no such problems with being
resplendently and self luminously self aware, any conscious unit can
know that it knows instantly and completely. This is a significant fact
overlooked by the meatball community.
Self luminousness is in fact the infinite regression of knowing
that you know that you know, all happening in ZERO time, because its not
a sequence of consecutive learning events the way it would have to be in
a computer.
Self luminousness is effectively an infinite number of knowing that
you knows in one event! That creates conscious light which illuminates
nothing but itself.
Now if a rock has a conscious unit in it, then perhaps it can know
that it is warm, and know that it is knows completely, ie be self aware.
But in any case this conscious function in the rock would NOT be
possible given any *PHYSICAL* mechanics going on in the rock even if it
did have a central nervous system and a brain. That's because mere
physical mechanics can't produce zero time self luminousness.
So if we are to consider that a rock is conscious, then that
consciousness would have to be a function external to the rock's space
and time, just as a human's consciousness is external to the alleged
space and time of the body.
If we are to consider that a rock does NOT have a conscious unit in
it, then we must conclude that being in a state is not sufficient to
knowing one is in that state.
Thus the rock may be warm, but does not know it is warm.
Just so for the retina.
Just because it has an image of the long gone apple on it, doesn't
mean that the retina knows in any sense of the word that the image is
there. Its just a rock being warm, instead of cold.
The retina is being "apple", rather than "not apple."
The data then travels from the retina through the optic nerve,
through the optic chiasm, to the visual cortex and finally to the
conscious display where the conscious looker can finally SEE his looked
at.
Notice there is no redness in the optic nerve nor visual cortex,
nor is there anything that looks like a picture in any sense of the
word. The data in the brain before it gets to the conscious unit is in
a form that has almost zero geometric congruency with the original
referent, the apple out there on the table.
But once it hits the conscious display, the data is once again in a
high picture form format, a symbol for the original referent, with
almost perfect matching geometric congruency.
This image in the conscious display is what is being 'seen' by the
conscious being.
The being is not seeing his visual cortex nor anything in it, nor
his optic nerve, not anything on the retina, and certainly not the apple
on the table which is long gone by the time the conscious display lights
up with a red apple.
In fact by the time the the conscious being sees the image in his
conscious display, the data is gone from the retina, optic nerve AND
brain. By the time the wave front hits the optic nerve is its gone from
the retina. By the time the wave front hits the brain, it is gone from
the optic nerve. By the time the wave front hits the consciousness, it
is gone from the brain. The wave front is continuously moving on,
leaving all bridges behind intact for the next wave front to come in and
do the same thing.
Thus when people think they are 'seeing' a physical universe apple,
they are collapsing their conscious symbol onto the physical referent.
It's easy enough to prove that what is seen is not the physical
apple, close your eyes and the conscious displayed apple of red goes
away, but the physical referent surely is not affected.
Since in the process of closing one's eyes, the conscious displayed
apple changes and the physical referent does not, the conscious
displayed apple is not the physical apple.
If B changes and A does not, then B is not A.
Such a difficult theorem, but you can't pass 3rd grade without it.
Homer
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Sun Feb 25 01:23:40 EST 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth, and Peace, Internet, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Wednesday, July 24, 2013
ADORE413 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
STATIC - KINETIC
Michael (mickel1234@blueyonder.co.uk) wrote:
>So, what we really are is that which is beyond dicoms, our natural state is
>unity, still you and me but capable of creating a game using dicoms or
>polarities.
The static is itself part of the static - kinetic dicom.
There are vertical and horizontal dicoms, not exactly clear to me
how it all works.
Primary vertical dicom is manifest/unmanifest.
Horz dicoms are like good and bad, love and hate etc.
>The false self is the ego, a mind construct, our true self is just (I am)
>with nothing else (physical I mean) and yet is everything, as we go along we
>collect mass, solidity about us and we forget what we really are.
We CREATE with majesty aforethought that which we are not.
"Source sources what source is not" - Adore
"Majesty is the sovereign desire that desire not be sovereign
for a while." - Adore
The only thing a static could create is a kinetic, the only thing
Truth could create is a Lie.
Creation is itself a down under, in time, view of things, from
the top down, creation is not what is happening.
>There are two states of which many people are aware, one could be described
>as total freedom
Freedom from means freedom to.
Being able to be apparently 'nothing' is balanced by the ability
to be apparently 'something.'
the other totally identified with the body , mind, physical
>universe, until a person releases themselves from this hypnotic trap they
>are doomed to repeat this physical experience over and over.
The term doomed is relative to one's intent. If the intent is to
create a game that will never end, then beings are hardly doomed,
except to failure because all games end one day.
There are also many levels of doom, each one an artful dodge of
the one before it.
"The hurry of impending mortal doom obscures the hurry of
impending eternal doom." - Adore
"Safe is Hell and High Water via Eternal Omni Awesome Peace." - Adore
Since you can not be destroyed and can not go anywhere, the
safest place to be is lost in illusions of space and time. If you
were free again, who knows WHAT you would create! Look what you
created or agreed to the last time. :)
>Why would anyone choose this type of existence? in a state of
total freedom >all this physical, mental stuff is nothing.
Freedom from manifestation is balanced by freedom to manifest.
Given the ability there must be a good use for it.
Every ability the being has will one day be put to use in the art
work.
>How about this for a precept/postulate " What is the point of all this
>compared to what we really are?"
>Maybe there is a dicom there also.
What is the point to drama?
Drama = seriousness, importance, permanence and pain.
Homer
>Mike
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
>> (607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
>> homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Mon Dec 11 16:43:43 EST 2006
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Jul 24 03:06:01 EDT 2013
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore413.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFR73zZURT1lqxE3HERAlVKAJ0SvA5/glI4J6Ml7XCj2Esm3AqUswCfUTN0
Rd+K9iuyeNwF+04PJq+xEy8=
=UYfT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
STATIC - KINETIC
Michael (mickel1234@blueyonder.co.uk) wrote:
>So, what we really are is that which is beyond dicoms, our natural state is
>unity, still you and me but capable of creating a game using dicoms or
>polarities.
The static is itself part of the static - kinetic dicom.
There are vertical and horizontal dicoms, not exactly clear to me
how it all works.
Primary vertical dicom is manifest/unmanifest.
Horz dicoms are like good and bad, love and hate etc.
>The false self is the ego, a mind construct, our true self is just (I am)
>with nothing else (physical I mean) and yet is everything, as we go along we
>collect mass, solidity about us and we forget what we really are.
We CREATE with majesty aforethought that which we are not.
"Source sources what source is not" - Adore
"Majesty is the sovereign desire that desire not be sovereign
for a while." - Adore
The only thing a static could create is a kinetic, the only thing
Truth could create is a Lie.
Creation is itself a down under, in time, view of things, from
the top down, creation is not what is happening.
>There are two states of which many people are aware, one could be described
>as total freedom
Freedom from means freedom to.
Being able to be apparently 'nothing' is balanced by the ability
to be apparently 'something.'
the other totally identified with the body , mind, physical
>universe, until a person releases themselves from this hypnotic trap they
>are doomed to repeat this physical experience over and over.
The term doomed is relative to one's intent. If the intent is to
create a game that will never end, then beings are hardly doomed,
except to failure because all games end one day.
There are also many levels of doom, each one an artful dodge of
the one before it.
"The hurry of impending mortal doom obscures the hurry of
impending eternal doom." - Adore
"Safe is Hell and High Water via Eternal Omni Awesome Peace." - Adore
Since you can not be destroyed and can not go anywhere, the
safest place to be is lost in illusions of space and time. If you
were free again, who knows WHAT you would create! Look what you
created or agreed to the last time. :)
>Why would anyone choose this type of existence? in a state of
total freedom >all this physical, mental stuff is nothing.
Freedom from manifestation is balanced by freedom to manifest.
Given the ability there must be a good use for it.
Every ability the being has will one day be put to use in the art
work.
>How about this for a precept/postulate " What is the point of all this
>compared to what we really are?"
>Maybe there is a dicom there also.
What is the point to drama?
Drama = seriousness, importance, permanence and pain.
Homer
>Mike
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
>> (607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
>> homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Mon Dec 11 16:43:43 EST 2006
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Jul 24 03:06:01 EDT 2013
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore413.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFR73zZURT1lqxE3HERAlVKAJ0SvA5/glI4J6Ml7XCj2Esm3AqUswCfUTN0
Rd+K9iuyeNwF+04PJq+xEy8=
=UYfT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Tuesday, July 23, 2013
ADORE291 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
If God is all that is, and God is a multi I-AM being, and the
universe of space/time is a virtual reality projected in God's
imagination, with no objective existence of its own, then we are each
a part of God viewing that imagination, and the brain does not exist
except as a virtual reality in God's imagination.
Ergo, What works is God, not the brain.
Static is cause, not kinetics.
Homer
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Fri Oct 28 17:48:12 EDT 2005
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Jul 23 03:06:02 EDT 2013
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore291.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFR7itaURT1lqxE3HERApLiAJ4luqAxuQkkX+eujFN3rRcA3QrbgACghPdg
ScmS9QeisCXo5kHE4rZBmbU=
=u6jf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
If God is all that is, and God is a multi I-AM being, and the
universe of space/time is a virtual reality projected in God's
imagination, with no objective existence of its own, then we are each
a part of God viewing that imagination, and the brain does not exist
except as a virtual reality in God's imagination.
Ergo, What works is God, not the brain.
Static is cause, not kinetics.
Homer
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Fri Oct 28 17:48:12 EDT 2005
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Jul 23 03:06:02 EDT 2013
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore291.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFR7itaURT1lqxE3HERApLiAJ4luqAxuQkkX+eujFN3rRcA3QrbgACghPdg
ScmS9QeisCXo5kHE4rZBmbU=
=u6jf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Sunday, July 21, 2013
ADORE868
JUSTICE OF CHOICE
It is pretty clear that most of the psychosomatic stuff people are
walking around with is not of this life, but rather immortal hells of
their own or others they are pulling in on themselves to deal with the
blunt injustices of life that they have suffered and have occasioned on
others, in this life and prior, including inbetween lives.
One might claim that all these restimulations were done in this
life, thus auditing this life alone should be able to key them all out
again, but I would counter that the being was in a highly restimulated
state when he took on the body in the first place, and in fact the
assumption of the body was itself part of those immortal hells he was
stuck in before.
Namely, immortally stuck in the hell of having to suffer mortal
flesh over and over again and not know it.
Thus our lives are in no way benign, we are here to suffer and
eventually perish as spiritual beings at the bottom of the tone scale.
We are not in the good hands of AllState.
However, since the whole thing is based on a stupidity, not a true
deservingness, it can be turned around for everyone.
In looking at our present sufferings then, and possibly recognizing
them to be a cave in of pre existing immortal hells, we need to consider
the possibility of a GOD, similar to the Christian God, from whom only
good flows, and from whom man flowed, but from whom all evil flows.
As an eternal being we are theoretically able to mock up any kind
of nonsense universe we wish, including the above mentioned scenario,
particularly in our lust for such hells that always arise.
It is perfectly conceivable that we mocked up a universe, with a
God who 'created' us, and got involved in the war between good and evil,
and annoyed our God a bit too much and got thrown into an immortal hell,
of one kind or another. Namely the one we are sitting in, in present
time, going to doctors for.
Doctors in this sense are the devil's minions, as they help us to
cover symptoms, but in the end hardly help us undo the source of our
sufferings.
In trying to run this out, one naturally tries to rebuild one's
relationship to that God, hey if he can throw us into a hell, he can
throw us into a heaven too. Maybe with a little humility and awareness
of God's purpose (which WE created), we could realign ourselves with
him, and stop making him wrong, and maybe on a good day he might forgive
us, and set our lives right.
But in trying to do this, one always runs into the problem of
CHOICE.
If God created us in the absolute sense, (assuming we didn't mock
him up to pretend he did so), then we had no CHOICE in being created and
thus no choice in our existing.
For a being conceived in choice, and whose very nature is to make
choices, it would be odd that this being's very existence was based in
NO choice, or SOMEONE ELSE'S CHOICE.
"I exist because someone else wanted me to and created me for their
purposes."
If you didn't have a choice in your very existence, then probably
you would have no choice in needing to choose more choices after you
existed, You know, you gotta make choices just to survive in this
universe.
So once you exist, making choices becomes mandatory whether you
want to make them or not.
Now maybe you didn't have to choose more choices after you were
created, maybe you could have just sat there forever doing nothing.
But could you have chosen to not exist if you had wanted to, to
just end it all forever?
So there may be a God, or a being playing God, or a being elected
to the post of God by the rest of us, but in all cases, the idea that
God CREATED us is problematic, because that starts our existence with no
choice, or the apparency of no choice.
And if God CREATED us, he can UNCREATE us on a bad hair day, and
that forever puts our very existence which we didn't choose in the first
place, in jeopardy.
Some say that this God is a woman, imagine keeping a bitch happy
forever?
Now if we are eternal beings, above, before and outside of time,
then we probably have no choice about existing anyway, and just so do we
also not have any choice about not existing, because we can't not exist.
I don't mean existing in time, I mean existing period.
If there is no time where we exist, there can't be any TIME in
which to CHANGE from existing to non existing, get it?
So a timeless home guarantees eternal existence.
But we as good as have a choice to not exist in that we can choose
sleep and unimpingable unmanifestation for as long as we wish.
We do not need to not exist to be free, we do however need
unimpingable sleep for as long as we wish, to be free.
Sleep at least gives us the option to dream again and get into
trouble only when we want to :)
The problem with God then, is not that we didn't have a choice to
exist or not, but that our existence was dependent on SOMETHING ELSE'S
choice, and thus so is our non existence similarly dependent.
What created us, can destroy us.
As an eternal being nothing created us, we simply existed forever,
and thus nothing can destroy us either.
But with a God, we didn't exist, then by his choice we came to
exist, and by his choice we can come to not exist again, or not, as his
whim determines.
This is an ARC break of magnitude. Most beings are not willing to
admit it, because they are afraid of their God, a petty jealous tyrant,
to say the least, who detests the truth of himself most of all, and the
truth of his creatures who secretly hate him. And he is just vain
enough to miss it on them. Or to hold it against them if he manages to
notice the seething incandescent broil of hatred underneath their
smiling renditions of the hymn "Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty".
But the truth is, being created is like being raped, only worse.
You couldn't have been raped until you were created.
If there is no choice in our existence, and no choice in the kind
of universe we find ourselves in, that creates a whole hell of a lot of
people walking around in a hot bed of charge on the subject of no
choice.
It's not the rape or the crucifixion that matters, its the prior no
choice in being there.
Even if one didn't choose the crucifixion, even if one wasn't even
vaguely appraised of the possibility of the crucifixion, the mere fact
that one had CHOSEN to be in that arena and could have not chosen, makes
the crucifixion runable, where otherwise it never will be.
That goes for rape too, and any other childhood or adult injustice.
Because nothing will run until basic on the chain is resolved, and
basic on the chain of injustice is EXISTENCE IN THE HANDS OF SOMEONE
ELSE'S CHOICE.
That's the primary DONE TO YOU, you were MADE without a purchase
order.
Being created IMPLIES no purchase order.
No invite.
Thus it is the aim of auditing to spot and run the purchase order
anyhow:
The choice to believe in no choice.
Homer
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Mon May 30 10:58:19 EDT 2011
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
It is pretty clear that most of the psychosomatic stuff people are
walking around with is not of this life, but rather immortal hells of
their own or others they are pulling in on themselves to deal with the
blunt injustices of life that they have suffered and have occasioned on
others, in this life and prior, including inbetween lives.
One might claim that all these restimulations were done in this
life, thus auditing this life alone should be able to key them all out
again, but I would counter that the being was in a highly restimulated
state when he took on the body in the first place, and in fact the
assumption of the body was itself part of those immortal hells he was
stuck in before.
Namely, immortally stuck in the hell of having to suffer mortal
flesh over and over again and not know it.
Thus our lives are in no way benign, we are here to suffer and
eventually perish as spiritual beings at the bottom of the tone scale.
We are not in the good hands of AllState.
However, since the whole thing is based on a stupidity, not a true
deservingness, it can be turned around for everyone.
In looking at our present sufferings then, and possibly recognizing
them to be a cave in of pre existing immortal hells, we need to consider
the possibility of a GOD, similar to the Christian God, from whom only
good flows, and from whom man flowed, but from whom all evil flows.
As an eternal being we are theoretically able to mock up any kind
of nonsense universe we wish, including the above mentioned scenario,
particularly in our lust for such hells that always arise.
It is perfectly conceivable that we mocked up a universe, with a
God who 'created' us, and got involved in the war between good and evil,
and annoyed our God a bit too much and got thrown into an immortal hell,
of one kind or another. Namely the one we are sitting in, in present
time, going to doctors for.
Doctors in this sense are the devil's minions, as they help us to
cover symptoms, but in the end hardly help us undo the source of our
sufferings.
In trying to run this out, one naturally tries to rebuild one's
relationship to that God, hey if he can throw us into a hell, he can
throw us into a heaven too. Maybe with a little humility and awareness
of God's purpose (which WE created), we could realign ourselves with
him, and stop making him wrong, and maybe on a good day he might forgive
us, and set our lives right.
But in trying to do this, one always runs into the problem of
CHOICE.
If God created us in the absolute sense, (assuming we didn't mock
him up to pretend he did so), then we had no CHOICE in being created and
thus no choice in our existing.
For a being conceived in choice, and whose very nature is to make
choices, it would be odd that this being's very existence was based in
NO choice, or SOMEONE ELSE'S CHOICE.
"I exist because someone else wanted me to and created me for their
purposes."
If you didn't have a choice in your very existence, then probably
you would have no choice in needing to choose more choices after you
existed, You know, you gotta make choices just to survive in this
universe.
So once you exist, making choices becomes mandatory whether you
want to make them or not.
Now maybe you didn't have to choose more choices after you were
created, maybe you could have just sat there forever doing nothing.
But could you have chosen to not exist if you had wanted to, to
just end it all forever?
So there may be a God, or a being playing God, or a being elected
to the post of God by the rest of us, but in all cases, the idea that
God CREATED us is problematic, because that starts our existence with no
choice, or the apparency of no choice.
And if God CREATED us, he can UNCREATE us on a bad hair day, and
that forever puts our very existence which we didn't choose in the first
place, in jeopardy.
Some say that this God is a woman, imagine keeping a bitch happy
forever?
Now if we are eternal beings, above, before and outside of time,
then we probably have no choice about existing anyway, and just so do we
also not have any choice about not existing, because we can't not exist.
I don't mean existing in time, I mean existing period.
If there is no time where we exist, there can't be any TIME in
which to CHANGE from existing to non existing, get it?
So a timeless home guarantees eternal existence.
But we as good as have a choice to not exist in that we can choose
sleep and unimpingable unmanifestation for as long as we wish.
We do not need to not exist to be free, we do however need
unimpingable sleep for as long as we wish, to be free.
Sleep at least gives us the option to dream again and get into
trouble only when we want to :)
The problem with God then, is not that we didn't have a choice to
exist or not, but that our existence was dependent on SOMETHING ELSE'S
choice, and thus so is our non existence similarly dependent.
What created us, can destroy us.
As an eternal being nothing created us, we simply existed forever,
and thus nothing can destroy us either.
But with a God, we didn't exist, then by his choice we came to
exist, and by his choice we can come to not exist again, or not, as his
whim determines.
This is an ARC break of magnitude. Most beings are not willing to
admit it, because they are afraid of their God, a petty jealous tyrant,
to say the least, who detests the truth of himself most of all, and the
truth of his creatures who secretly hate him. And he is just vain
enough to miss it on them. Or to hold it against them if he manages to
notice the seething incandescent broil of hatred underneath their
smiling renditions of the hymn "Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty".
But the truth is, being created is like being raped, only worse.
You couldn't have been raped until you were created.
If there is no choice in our existence, and no choice in the kind
of universe we find ourselves in, that creates a whole hell of a lot of
people walking around in a hot bed of charge on the subject of no
choice.
It's not the rape or the crucifixion that matters, its the prior no
choice in being there.
Even if one didn't choose the crucifixion, even if one wasn't even
vaguely appraised of the possibility of the crucifixion, the mere fact
that one had CHOSEN to be in that arena and could have not chosen, makes
the crucifixion runable, where otherwise it never will be.
That goes for rape too, and any other childhood or adult injustice.
Because nothing will run until basic on the chain is resolved, and
basic on the chain of injustice is EXISTENCE IN THE HANDS OF SOMEONE
ELSE'S CHOICE.
That's the primary DONE TO YOU, you were MADE without a purchase
order.
Being created IMPLIES no purchase order.
No invite.
Thus it is the aim of auditing to spot and run the purchase order
anyhow:
The choice to believe in no choice.
Homer
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Mon May 30 10:58:19 EDT 2011
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
MCT0 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
OJBECTS, QUALITIES, AND CLASSES
MCT - 0
1 August 1993
Originally posted as ACT - 12
Revised and Expanded 12/06/93
Copyright (C) 1993 Homer Wilson Smith
In article <1993Jul18.165558.3457@fuug.fi> an19788@anon.penet.fi writes:
>Just so there's no misunderstanding, could you tell me if you
>use special definitions of: "Reason", "Rationality", and "Logic".
I have very primitive and simple definitions for these words that
derive from my experience that I definitely AM and definitely am not AM
NOT.
I looked up reason, rational, and logic in my CDROM dictionary, (Am
Heritage) and what I would boil out of the definitions was that all
three words refer to 'sound logic'.
For me sound logic is a very simple thing that can be summarized by
the following statements.
IS is IS
IS is not IS NOT
IS NOT is IS NOT
IS NOT is not IS
Or more simply
For all X, X is either A or not A.
For all X, X is not both A and not A.
For all X, X implies X, and X implies not not X.
These simple rules give me a framework in which to reject certain
statements as unsound or unworthy of further consideration.
'Well from a higher state you can see that the world neither is nor
is not. Logic doesn't hold'.
'Logic is illogical' (By what logic?)
'You can't prove anything' (Prove it.)
'There is no such thing as Perfect Certainty. (Are you perfectly
certain?'
'There are no absolutes.' (That IS an absolute)
'All truth is relative...' (...except for that truth which is
absolute!)
'All generalities are false.'
I am sure you get the drift.
Logic has for me two forms, deductive and inductive.
Deductive:
If all humans have brains, and Chris is a human, then Chris has a
brain.
Inductive:
Every time I see a human it has a brain, therefore there may be
some rule that says 'All humans have brains.'
Reason therefore for me is the ability to make sure that a group of
statements is self consistent which means that things which "IS", aren't
"ISN'T".
Further it is the ability to induce out of experience, rules of
occurrence ('Every time I let go of an apple it will fall') and then
apply those rules deductively to specific situations.
The problem therefore is not whether reason is king, because in its
own field it is. The problem is rather where to we get our statements
from to put through the reasoning mill?
For me, they are DEFINITION, OBSERVATION, INTUITION and LOGICAL
TAUTOLOGY. THEN once you have something to grind, you can put your data
through the reasoning mill.
The subject of data is a big one, probably bigger than I can span,
but here follows my analysis of data that I have formed from 30 years of
thinking about it.
My present thought system admits to 3 kinds of data entities:
1.) Objects
2.) Qualities
3.) Classes
Objects have zero or more Qualities.
Objects with zero qualities are called nothings.
Objects with more than zero qualities are called somethings.
Objects have associated with them an Object Quality Set (OQS) which
is the set of all qualities that describe that object.
A nothing has an empty object quality set.
A something has a non empty object quality set.
Qualities come in two kinds, Qualities of Being and Qualities of
Relation.
Qualities of being are those qualities that an object has alone.
'Exists', 'has volume', 'is made of matter', are qualities of being.
Qualities of relation are those qualities that an object has by
virtue of its unaloneness, in other words its relation to other objects.
There are Spatial, Temporal, Material, and Causal qualities of relation.
'Bigger than', 'earlier than', 'hotter than', 'father of' etc. are
examples of each of these various kinds of qualities of relation.
Qualities of relation can not be expressed without the mention of
at least two or more objects. "The DOG is BIGGER THAN the CAT"
Qualities of being can always be expressed with mention of just one
object. "The DOG is BROWN."
There can be IMPLIED others in a statement. "I am SURROUNDED."
Surrounded is a quality of relation, not a quality of being.
Being alone is a quality of being.
You don't have to have anything else exist to be alone.
Being unalone is a quality of relation.
You can't be unalone unless something else exists.
The sum totality of those things which exist, form a collection of
objects called THE UNIVERSE, which as a whole, is alone.
'THE' universe is considered different from 'A' universe which may
be any sub universe within the grand totality of all universes which we
call THE universe.
As such, THE UNIVERSE includes all possible existing universes,
past, present and future, and outside of which there is nothing.
Qualities of relation can not exist except in the presence of
qualities of being. You have to at least exist as something (beingness)
before you can be in relation to something else.
Therefore qualities of relation imply qualities of being.
Qualities of being however do not imply qualities of relation.
Many qualities that are considered to be qualities of being are
actually qualities of relation. Weight is an example, we say 'it is
heavy', but weight is a relationship between an object and a
gravitational field of another object. An object can not have weight
when it is alone.
Or we say 'It is red'. But in the physical universe, 'redness' is
actually a causal relation between the object and the photons that
bounce off of it.
In a conscious picture though, redness is a quality of being, as
there are no photons or similar mechanisms involved in the perception of
self luminous conscious pictures.
In the assumed physical universe, the only way one object can learn
about another object is by being the effect of the other object's cause.
This is called Learning by Being an Effect.
In other words the only way A can learn about B is for B to be
cause and effect A. B causes a change in state in A. The change in
state in A IS the learning that A does about B.
If B causes nothing to A, then A can never learn anything about B
no matter how much A might cause things to B.
Since the only contact A has with B is via causal connection, the
only thing that A can learn about B are causal relations, namely how B
causes effects in A.
However since a change in state HERE alone does not imply the
existence of cause THERE, A can never be certain of anything about B
even if B IS causing things in A. All A has are its own changes in
state from which it can deduce back to the existence of B, IF A assumes
that all effects or changes in state are caused.
It is impossible to prove that a change in state is caused, solely
by changing state in response to a cause. In other words, changing
state in response to a cause, is not sufficient to prove that the change
in state was CAUSED.
Changes in state do not, in and of themselves, prove the existence
of CAUSE.
Therefore if A is limited to Learning by Being an Effect, A can
never be certain there is anything causing those effects.
Correlation does not prove causation.
Effect does not prove cause.
If you learn only by being an effect, by looking at the effects or
changes in state in yourself of those causes, you can never be certain
of cause.
Since the human soul is capable of certainty of cause, both of its
own personal causal agency, and of the causal agency of its conscious
color form, it follows that the soul is not learning about this
causation by Learning by Being an Effect.
However since the ONLY way anything can learn across an actual
space or time would be Learning by Being an Effect, it follows that when
the soul is learning about cause it is not learning across a space or
time. Thus the soul is not a space time machine.
Thus any causation of which the soul is certain can not be
separated from the soul by any extension in space or time. Thus the
claim that the certainty of certainty unit is a zero dimensional
operating actuality.
Further it should be noted that there is no time delay between
cause and direct perception of cause, as there is between cause and
perception of effect.
Learning by Looking at Effect can not produce certainty of Cause,
where as Learning by Looking at Cause can.
The actual mechanism by which a soul learns about cause is unstated
at this time, but it is not modelable by known space time processes,
which are all learning by being and looking at effect.
We will however give it a name, Learning by Looking at Cause, to
distinguish it from Learning by Looking at Effect.
Qualities of relation can not be destroyed except by transformation
into other qualities of relation, EXCEPT if you destroy one or more of
the qualities of being that were in relation.
If two objects are NEXT TO each other (quality of relation) you can
not destroy the 'next to' relation except by transforming it into some
other relation like ON TOP OF, unless you destroy some or all of the
qualities of being of the objects whose qualities of being were in
relation.
In other words the only way that qualities of relation come and go
is by coming from some other quality of relation and going into some
other quality of relation.
It is this fact that gives people the impression that they are
mortal and will die one day. They conceive themselves to be a
multiplicity of parts in relation to each other. They feel also that
their personal life depends on those parts being in a certain narrowly
defined sets of relations, called a living body. It's no good to have
your parts spread out all over the known universe. The parts are all
there, the relations are all there, but not THE relations necessary for
a person to consider that he exists.
This of course has to do with functionality. Any system of things
in relation have some measure of functionality that is a function of
their relation. If you change the relation you change the
functionality. The functionality of being 'alive' is more desirable
than the functionality of being dead. Both are functional, but the
being considers that only alive can he be conscious and enjoy himself.
However the conscious unit is not a multiplicity of parts, it is a
single zero dimensional operating actuality, therefore its own internal
relations, if indeed it has any, can not change. Thus it can not die.
It however is occupying very convincingly an apparent illusion of a
multiple dimensional operating reality called a body, which is a
multiplicity of apparent parts.
As long as the conscious unit thinks it IS a body, it will continue
to think it will die when the body dies, or seek strange goals like
making the body immortal. A Fragile Immortality at best.
Actually though when the body dies, you don't die with it, you wake
up. Usually with quite a jolt. You were wrong after all, and you were
quite an asshole about it too.
Objects which have a subset of qualities common and unique to them
can be grouped into classes. The subset of qualities that defines a
class is called the Pertinent Quality Set of that class.
Every object implies an object quality set.
Every class implies a pertinent quality set.
Pertinent qualities are those qualities that are both common and
unique to the objects in that class.
Commonness means that every object in that class has the pertinent
quality set as a subset of its object quality set.
Uniqueness means that every object that has the pertinent quality
set is in the class.
Words can be object-labels, quality-labels and class-labels.
Black is a quality label.
Dog is a Class label.
Joey, my black dog, is an object label.
Objects are classified as dogs because of a common and unique set
of qualities that all dogs share and only dogs share, which is what
makes a dog a dog, and is the pertinent quality set of the class of
dogs.
Joey my dog, and dogs in general have many other qualities besides
those that make them a dog. But if its a dog, then it must have the
base set of qualities that make it a dog, and everything that has those
base qualities is also a dog.
Any object quality set or pertinent quality set can contain the
quality that it does NOT have some other quality.
One might chose for political reasons to define a 'human being' as
someone who has all the usual characteristics and who also does NOT
indulge in child molestation, cannabalism, or serial murder.
Christians, who are enjoined to love their neighbor, routinely
define neighbor as someone who is not a Jew.
Any object quality set or pertinent quality set can contain
qualities of being or qualities of relation.
Since an object can't have a quality of relation if it is alone, it
follows that somethings are defined only by their relation to other
things. A 'My Mate' is such an object that can exist as a mate only by
virtue of its relation to another, or in other words, its unaloneness.
The words object, quality and class are all class labels.
Statements of fact are statements of the form,
Quality belongs to Object, (Object statement)
Object belongs to Class. (Class statement)
Truth is a quality of relation between a statement of fact and a
given specified actuality.
In this usage here the word FACT does NOT imply truth. A statement
of fact may be either true or false depending on the given specified
actuality. The term 'statement' and the phrase 'statement of fact' are
equivalent and interchangeable.
There are 4 kinds of statements
1.) Definitional statements
"A nothing is not a something".
Definitional statements are those statements whose truth must be
determined by looking at the definitions of the words and not by
observation, logic or intuition.
2.) Observational statements
"This house is red."
Observational statements are those statements whose truth must be
determined by actual observation of a given specified actuality and not
by definition, logic or intuition.
2.) Logical statements (Tautology)
"Either I exist or I don't exist."
Logical statements are those statements whose truth or falsity can
be determined by address to logic alone, and not by address to
definition, observation, or intuition.
3.) Intuitional statements
"Something can't come from nothing."
Intuitional statements are those statements whose truth or falsity
can only be determined by intuition and not by address to definitions,
observation or logic.
From these four kinds of statements I would proffer that all
possible thinking and reasoning may proceed.
For example.
1.) Something can't come from nothing (intuition statement)
2.) Something exists now (observation statement)
QED 3.) Something has always existed (logical deduction
from 1 and 2.)
Another example,
1.) There is only one nothing, all nothings are the same nothing,
and all nothings are identical. (Definitional statement) QED 2.) If A
is a nothing and B is a nothing, then A is identical to B. QED 3.) If
A and B are different, then one or both are not nothings.
Another example,
If A changes and B doesn't, then A is not B.
(We leave the derivation up the reader.)
Another example,
If A changes, then A either was or is a something.
Reason is therefore what you DO with your statements once you have
them. So of course reason is king once it has some meat to grind.
To say that reason is not king, is to say that IS means ISN'T, in
which case your statement that reason IS NOT king means the same as
reason IS king, so why talk?
If IS and ISN'T don't mean different things, then they must mean
the same thing, in which case if reason isn't king, then reason is king,
so of course reason is king no matter how your work it.
Reason is a tool with which we draw inferences and make
conclusions. As such it is absolute and inviolable.
But reason is not sufficient to tell us what IS. We need
definitions, observation, logic AND intuition to get what is. Then with
that in hand, we can use reason to determine what else is or might be.
Reason is the meat grinder. Reason is not the meat.
They have no evidence that the physical universe exists.
It's not even a good model for what has been observed to exist.
Namely CERTAINTY OF CAUSE.
>How would you evaluate the following assertion?
>"If you want to know something, don't think about it, pervade it."
Thinking is usually number crunching on your facsimiles taken from
prior observation.
Pervasion is a form of observation. It's finding out about
something by BEING it. OT's can do this literally, us humans can do it
to some degree in our mind.
Thinking is applying reason to the meat.
Pervasion and other forms of looking are what provide the meat.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Jul 20 03:06:01 EDT 2013
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/mct0.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFR6jbaURT1lqxE3HERAn/TAKDTOrKfcmxGtfpt8AkK2fM40H9WVwCgtozZ
Ec4OAeFGglqQED/agcR+tHk=
=2Xqd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
OJBECTS, QUALITIES, AND CLASSES
MCT - 0
1 August 1993
Originally posted as ACT - 12
Revised and Expanded 12/06/93
Copyright (C) 1993 Homer Wilson Smith
In article <1993Jul18.165558.3457@fuug.fi> an19788@anon.penet.fi writes:
>Just so there's no misunderstanding, could you tell me if you
>use special definitions of: "Reason", "Rationality", and "Logic".
I have very primitive and simple definitions for these words that
derive from my experience that I definitely AM and definitely am not AM
NOT.
I looked up reason, rational, and logic in my CDROM dictionary, (Am
Heritage) and what I would boil out of the definitions was that all
three words refer to 'sound logic'.
For me sound logic is a very simple thing that can be summarized by
the following statements.
IS is IS
IS is not IS NOT
IS NOT is IS NOT
IS NOT is not IS
Or more simply
For all X, X is either A or not A.
For all X, X is not both A and not A.
For all X, X implies X, and X implies not not X.
These simple rules give me a framework in which to reject certain
statements as unsound or unworthy of further consideration.
'Well from a higher state you can see that the world neither is nor
is not. Logic doesn't hold'.
'Logic is illogical' (By what logic?)
'You can't prove anything' (Prove it.)
'There is no such thing as Perfect Certainty. (Are you perfectly
certain?'
'There are no absolutes.' (That IS an absolute)
'All truth is relative...' (...except for that truth which is
absolute!)
'All generalities are false.'
I am sure you get the drift.
Logic has for me two forms, deductive and inductive.
Deductive:
If all humans have brains, and Chris is a human, then Chris has a
brain.
Inductive:
Every time I see a human it has a brain, therefore there may be
some rule that says 'All humans have brains.'
Reason therefore for me is the ability to make sure that a group of
statements is self consistent which means that things which "IS", aren't
"ISN'T".
Further it is the ability to induce out of experience, rules of
occurrence ('Every time I let go of an apple it will fall') and then
apply those rules deductively to specific situations.
The problem therefore is not whether reason is king, because in its
own field it is. The problem is rather where to we get our statements
from to put through the reasoning mill?
For me, they are DEFINITION, OBSERVATION, INTUITION and LOGICAL
TAUTOLOGY. THEN once you have something to grind, you can put your data
through the reasoning mill.
The subject of data is a big one, probably bigger than I can span,
but here follows my analysis of data that I have formed from 30 years of
thinking about it.
My present thought system admits to 3 kinds of data entities:
1.) Objects
2.) Qualities
3.) Classes
Objects have zero or more Qualities.
Objects with zero qualities are called nothings.
Objects with more than zero qualities are called somethings.
Objects have associated with them an Object Quality Set (OQS) which
is the set of all qualities that describe that object.
A nothing has an empty object quality set.
A something has a non empty object quality set.
Qualities come in two kinds, Qualities of Being and Qualities of
Relation.
Qualities of being are those qualities that an object has alone.
'Exists', 'has volume', 'is made of matter', are qualities of being.
Qualities of relation are those qualities that an object has by
virtue of its unaloneness, in other words its relation to other objects.
There are Spatial, Temporal, Material, and Causal qualities of relation.
'Bigger than', 'earlier than', 'hotter than', 'father of' etc. are
examples of each of these various kinds of qualities of relation.
Qualities of relation can not be expressed without the mention of
at least two or more objects. "The DOG is BIGGER THAN the CAT"
Qualities of being can always be expressed with mention of just one
object. "The DOG is BROWN."
There can be IMPLIED others in a statement. "I am SURROUNDED."
Surrounded is a quality of relation, not a quality of being.
Being alone is a quality of being.
You don't have to have anything else exist to be alone.
Being unalone is a quality of relation.
You can't be unalone unless something else exists.
The sum totality of those things which exist, form a collection of
objects called THE UNIVERSE, which as a whole, is alone.
'THE' universe is considered different from 'A' universe which may
be any sub universe within the grand totality of all universes which we
call THE universe.
As such, THE UNIVERSE includes all possible existing universes,
past, present and future, and outside of which there is nothing.
Qualities of relation can not exist except in the presence of
qualities of being. You have to at least exist as something (beingness)
before you can be in relation to something else.
Therefore qualities of relation imply qualities of being.
Qualities of being however do not imply qualities of relation.
Many qualities that are considered to be qualities of being are
actually qualities of relation. Weight is an example, we say 'it is
heavy', but weight is a relationship between an object and a
gravitational field of another object. An object can not have weight
when it is alone.
Or we say 'It is red'. But in the physical universe, 'redness' is
actually a causal relation between the object and the photons that
bounce off of it.
In a conscious picture though, redness is a quality of being, as
there are no photons or similar mechanisms involved in the perception of
self luminous conscious pictures.
In the assumed physical universe, the only way one object can learn
about another object is by being the effect of the other object's cause.
This is called Learning by Being an Effect.
In other words the only way A can learn about B is for B to be
cause and effect A. B causes a change in state in A. The change in
state in A IS the learning that A does about B.
If B causes nothing to A, then A can never learn anything about B
no matter how much A might cause things to B.
Since the only contact A has with B is via causal connection, the
only thing that A can learn about B are causal relations, namely how B
causes effects in A.
However since a change in state HERE alone does not imply the
existence of cause THERE, A can never be certain of anything about B
even if B IS causing things in A. All A has are its own changes in
state from which it can deduce back to the existence of B, IF A assumes
that all effects or changes in state are caused.
It is impossible to prove that a change in state is caused, solely
by changing state in response to a cause. In other words, changing
state in response to a cause, is not sufficient to prove that the change
in state was CAUSED.
Changes in state do not, in and of themselves, prove the existence
of CAUSE.
Therefore if A is limited to Learning by Being an Effect, A can
never be certain there is anything causing those effects.
Correlation does not prove causation.
Effect does not prove cause.
If you learn only by being an effect, by looking at the effects or
changes in state in yourself of those causes, you can never be certain
of cause.
Since the human soul is capable of certainty of cause, both of its
own personal causal agency, and of the causal agency of its conscious
color form, it follows that the soul is not learning about this
causation by Learning by Being an Effect.
However since the ONLY way anything can learn across an actual
space or time would be Learning by Being an Effect, it follows that when
the soul is learning about cause it is not learning across a space or
time. Thus the soul is not a space time machine.
Thus any causation of which the soul is certain can not be
separated from the soul by any extension in space or time. Thus the
claim that the certainty of certainty unit is a zero dimensional
operating actuality.
Further it should be noted that there is no time delay between
cause and direct perception of cause, as there is between cause and
perception of effect.
Learning by Looking at Effect can not produce certainty of Cause,
where as Learning by Looking at Cause can.
The actual mechanism by which a soul learns about cause is unstated
at this time, but it is not modelable by known space time processes,
which are all learning by being and looking at effect.
We will however give it a name, Learning by Looking at Cause, to
distinguish it from Learning by Looking at Effect.
Qualities of relation can not be destroyed except by transformation
into other qualities of relation, EXCEPT if you destroy one or more of
the qualities of being that were in relation.
If two objects are NEXT TO each other (quality of relation) you can
not destroy the 'next to' relation except by transforming it into some
other relation like ON TOP OF, unless you destroy some or all of the
qualities of being of the objects whose qualities of being were in
relation.
In other words the only way that qualities of relation come and go
is by coming from some other quality of relation and going into some
other quality of relation.
It is this fact that gives people the impression that they are
mortal and will die one day. They conceive themselves to be a
multiplicity of parts in relation to each other. They feel also that
their personal life depends on those parts being in a certain narrowly
defined sets of relations, called a living body. It's no good to have
your parts spread out all over the known universe. The parts are all
there, the relations are all there, but not THE relations necessary for
a person to consider that he exists.
This of course has to do with functionality. Any system of things
in relation have some measure of functionality that is a function of
their relation. If you change the relation you change the
functionality. The functionality of being 'alive' is more desirable
than the functionality of being dead. Both are functional, but the
being considers that only alive can he be conscious and enjoy himself.
However the conscious unit is not a multiplicity of parts, it is a
single zero dimensional operating actuality, therefore its own internal
relations, if indeed it has any, can not change. Thus it can not die.
It however is occupying very convincingly an apparent illusion of a
multiple dimensional operating reality called a body, which is a
multiplicity of apparent parts.
As long as the conscious unit thinks it IS a body, it will continue
to think it will die when the body dies, or seek strange goals like
making the body immortal. A Fragile Immortality at best.
Actually though when the body dies, you don't die with it, you wake
up. Usually with quite a jolt. You were wrong after all, and you were
quite an asshole about it too.
Objects which have a subset of qualities common and unique to them
can be grouped into classes. The subset of qualities that defines a
class is called the Pertinent Quality Set of that class.
Every object implies an object quality set.
Every class implies a pertinent quality set.
Pertinent qualities are those qualities that are both common and
unique to the objects in that class.
Commonness means that every object in that class has the pertinent
quality set as a subset of its object quality set.
Uniqueness means that every object that has the pertinent quality
set is in the class.
Words can be object-labels, quality-labels and class-labels.
Black is a quality label.
Dog is a Class label.
Joey, my black dog, is an object label.
Objects are classified as dogs because of a common and unique set
of qualities that all dogs share and only dogs share, which is what
makes a dog a dog, and is the pertinent quality set of the class of
dogs.
Joey my dog, and dogs in general have many other qualities besides
those that make them a dog. But if its a dog, then it must have the
base set of qualities that make it a dog, and everything that has those
base qualities is also a dog.
Any object quality set or pertinent quality set can contain the
quality that it does NOT have some other quality.
One might chose for political reasons to define a 'human being' as
someone who has all the usual characteristics and who also does NOT
indulge in child molestation, cannabalism, or serial murder.
Christians, who are enjoined to love their neighbor, routinely
define neighbor as someone who is not a Jew.
Any object quality set or pertinent quality set can contain
qualities of being or qualities of relation.
Since an object can't have a quality of relation if it is alone, it
follows that somethings are defined only by their relation to other
things. A 'My Mate' is such an object that can exist as a mate only by
virtue of its relation to another, or in other words, its unaloneness.
The words object, quality and class are all class labels.
Statements of fact are statements of the form,
Quality belongs to Object, (Object statement)
Object belongs to Class. (Class statement)
Truth is a quality of relation between a statement of fact and a
given specified actuality.
In this usage here the word FACT does NOT imply truth. A statement
of fact may be either true or false depending on the given specified
actuality. The term 'statement' and the phrase 'statement of fact' are
equivalent and interchangeable.
There are 4 kinds of statements
1.) Definitional statements
"A nothing is not a something".
Definitional statements are those statements whose truth must be
determined by looking at the definitions of the words and not by
observation, logic or intuition.
2.) Observational statements
"This house is red."
Observational statements are those statements whose truth must be
determined by actual observation of a given specified actuality and not
by definition, logic or intuition.
2.) Logical statements (Tautology)
"Either I exist or I don't exist."
Logical statements are those statements whose truth or falsity can
be determined by address to logic alone, and not by address to
definition, observation, or intuition.
3.) Intuitional statements
"Something can't come from nothing."
Intuitional statements are those statements whose truth or falsity
can only be determined by intuition and not by address to definitions,
observation or logic.
From these four kinds of statements I would proffer that all
possible thinking and reasoning may proceed.
For example.
1.) Something can't come from nothing (intuition statement)
2.) Something exists now (observation statement)
QED 3.) Something has always existed (logical deduction
from 1 and 2.)
Another example,
1.) There is only one nothing, all nothings are the same nothing,
and all nothings are identical. (Definitional statement) QED 2.) If A
is a nothing and B is a nothing, then A is identical to B. QED 3.) If
A and B are different, then one or both are not nothings.
Another example,
If A changes and B doesn't, then A is not B.
(We leave the derivation up the reader.)
Another example,
If A changes, then A either was or is a something.
Reason is therefore what you DO with your statements once you have
them. So of course reason is king once it has some meat to grind.
To say that reason is not king, is to say that IS means ISN'T, in
which case your statement that reason IS NOT king means the same as
reason IS king, so why talk?
If IS and ISN'T don't mean different things, then they must mean
the same thing, in which case if reason isn't king, then reason is king,
so of course reason is king no matter how your work it.
Reason is a tool with which we draw inferences and make
conclusions. As such it is absolute and inviolable.
But reason is not sufficient to tell us what IS. We need
definitions, observation, logic AND intuition to get what is. Then with
that in hand, we can use reason to determine what else is or might be.
Reason is the meat grinder. Reason is not the meat.
They have no evidence that the physical universe exists.
It's not even a good model for what has been observed to exist.
Namely CERTAINTY OF CAUSE.
>How would you evaluate the following assertion?
>"If you want to know something, don't think about it, pervade it."
Thinking is usually number crunching on your facsimiles taken from
prior observation.
Pervasion is a form of observation. It's finding out about
something by BEING it. OT's can do this literally, us humans can do it
to some degree in our mind.
Thinking is applying reason to the meat.
Pervasion and other forms of looking are what provide the meat.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Jul 20 03:06:01 EDT 2013
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/mct0.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFR6jbaURT1lqxE3HERAn/TAKDTOrKfcmxGtfpt8AkK2fM40H9WVwCgtozZ
Ec4OAeFGglqQED/agcR+tHk=
=2Xqd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)