-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Rogers (here-i-yam@email.msn.com) wrote:
>Thanks, Ted.
>I'm still not sure why you would discriminate between a cog and a "reality
>change" but nevertheless, this gem was appreciated.
>My feeling (again) is that "support" is one of those perfect words that
>comes closest (so far) to represent an "isness" that we have skirted and/or
>picked at with "contribute to" and "help."
Adore has it as CO-OPERATE.
>Well, I can see it has a positive side, and I can see it represents an
>isness, but I can see how it would (and did) become troublesome.
Support is part of native state as Source supports us all.
All aberration is *ENFORCED* basic truth, so once support becomes
enforced through duty, obligation, agreements etc, then it can become
problematic.
In particular, study "One for all, and all for one", you will
see the dissonance to the all for one part.
Should the group sacrifice itself for the sake of one?
When people join together for support they at first swear 'all
for one', but pretty soon they resent the one that would need 'all for
one', and they prefer the *GROUP* to survive above the survival of
anyone individual. They hope themselves not to be sacrificed for the
*INDIVIDUAL* in this way. Ultimately though the cat comes around and
sits in their lap and they are sacrificed for the *GROUP* in this way.
Support becomes a one for all period, and the group becomes a
black hole sucking in individuals never to return.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Oct 31 12:06:02 EDT 2016
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore63.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help in body
=========== 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)
iD8DBQFYF2vrURT1lqxE3HERAkwQAJ4vPD0A+JSsy6g2DiAiQHPAvPplzgCfR97b
LMHNOLRIVjsxuI1vOmZ1OMk=
=GZuu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Monday, October 31, 2016
CU (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
LOGIC OF CLASSES
The following discussion of logic assumes 3 classes of objects,
Animals, Dogs, and Spaniels.
This can be represented visually by a large circle encompassing all
Animals.
Entirely inside that circle is another smaller circle encompassing
all Dogs.
Entirely inside the circle of Dogs, is yet another smaller circle
encompassing all Spaniels.
Thus all Spaniels are Dogs, and All Dogs are Animals.
This then lays out the rules of logic, for if you say
All Spaniels are Dogs, and all Dogs are Animals, but some Spaniels
are not Animals, what have you said?
Logic thus is the ethics of language.
English has many ways of stating these relationships, the below are
the most used in formal scientific debate.
The words common and unique come from the technical defintion of a
class:
"A class is defined by its pertinent quality set, which is the set
of all qualities that are common and unique (as a group) to the objects
in the class."
Most bad logic comes from misunderstanding and misuse of the unique
column.
COMMON UNIQUE
Dog is common to Spaniels Spaniel is unique to Dogs
All Spaniels are Dogs Only Dogs are Spaniels
Dog is necessary to Spaniel Spaniel is sufficient to Dog
Spaniel implies Dog Not Dog implies not Spaniel
If Spaniel then Dog Only if Dog, then Spaniel
Dog if Spaniel Spaniel only if Dog
Dog is common to Dogs Dog is unique to Dogs
All Dogs are Dogs Only Dogs are Dogs
Dog is necessary to Dog Dog is sufficient to Dog
Dog implies Dog Not Dog implies not Dog
If Dog then Dog Only if Dog, then Dog
Dog if Dog Dog only if Dog
Animal is common to Dogs Dog is unique to Animals
All Dogs are Animals Only Animals are Dogs
Animal is necessary to Dog Dog is sufficient to Animal
Dog implies Animal Not Animal implies not Dog
If Dog then Animal Only if Animal, then Dog
Animal if Dog Dog only if Animal
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Oct 30 12:06:02 EDT 2016
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/cu.script
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help in body
=========== 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)
iD8DBQFYFhprURT1lqxE3HERAidrAJ9ExFHdJNhrhbiKbF102QSiNMbb8wCgm6T2
/SOQpywd0vevs8i41etqk9g=
=SA3r
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
LOGIC OF CLASSES
The following discussion of logic assumes 3 classes of objects,
Animals, Dogs, and Spaniels.
This can be represented visually by a large circle encompassing all
Animals.
Entirely inside that circle is another smaller circle encompassing
all Dogs.
Entirely inside the circle of Dogs, is yet another smaller circle
encompassing all Spaniels.
Thus all Spaniels are Dogs, and All Dogs are Animals.
This then lays out the rules of logic, for if you say
All Spaniels are Dogs, and all Dogs are Animals, but some Spaniels
are not Animals, what have you said?
Logic thus is the ethics of language.
English has many ways of stating these relationships, the below are
the most used in formal scientific debate.
The words common and unique come from the technical defintion of a
class:
"A class is defined by its pertinent quality set, which is the set
of all qualities that are common and unique (as a group) to the objects
in the class."
Most bad logic comes from misunderstanding and misuse of the unique
column.
COMMON UNIQUE
Dog is common to Spaniels Spaniel is unique to Dogs
All Spaniels are Dogs Only Dogs are Spaniels
Dog is necessary to Spaniel Spaniel is sufficient to Dog
Spaniel implies Dog Not Dog implies not Spaniel
If Spaniel then Dog Only if Dog, then Spaniel
Dog if Spaniel Spaniel only if Dog
Dog is common to Dogs Dog is unique to Dogs
All Dogs are Dogs Only Dogs are Dogs
Dog is necessary to Dog Dog is sufficient to Dog
Dog implies Dog Not Dog implies not Dog
If Dog then Dog Only if Dog, then Dog
Dog if Dog Dog only if Dog
Animal is common to Dogs Dog is unique to Animals
All Dogs are Animals Only Animals are Dogs
Animal is necessary to Dog Dog is sufficient to Animal
Dog implies Animal Not Animal implies not Dog
If Dog then Animal Only if Animal, then Dog
Animal if Dog Dog only if Animal
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Oct 30 12:06:02 EDT 2016
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/cu.script
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help in body
=========== 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)
iD8DBQFYFhprURT1lqxE3HERAidrAJ9ExFHdJNhrhbiKbF102QSiNMbb8wCgm6T2
/SOQpywd0vevs8i41etqk9g=
=SA3r
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
ADORE13 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
09/28/10 Tuesday 11:53am EST
TONE SCALE
Basic equation of the tone scale is
Doing = knowing plus wanting times probability of success.
Or something like that.
Instensity of emotion is intensity of desire.
Frequency or tone of emotion is one's consideration of probability
of success.
Actual doing comes from the protocols for different levels of
failure, from strong approach, to covert approach, to strong retreat, to
crying for help, to pretended death, to being dead.
Negative tone scale is an effort to make up for pity on past body
deaths, one becomes the body to give it a better life, and the body
responds with enthusiasm or not as the case may be, which is the 0 to
4.0 part of the BODY tone scale.
Above death and failure, the thetan also has his own 0 to 4, but
while in a body, his usual tone is way down below zero.
See SUB DEATH:
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi/homer/adore315.memo
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
On Mon, 27 Sep 2010, Thaddeus Slamp wrote:
> I don't know if the tone scale would be the best place to start any
> attempt at scientology apologetics, but I think it's where I'd start
>
> Status-wize, I am less than nobody, but 1 of my hobbies is to try to
> think of scientology apologetics, which is difficult, right off the
> bat, because scientology is largely a system of TRAINED OBSERVATION
> based methods. Scientology makes "nearly infinitely' (for lack of a
> better estimate, or term for such) more sence to a person who's been
> trained in such observation. So I think I will start. I know I am
> only a sample of 1-only 1 data point, but I will be pretty honest, and
> a data-point of 1 can have some value.
>
> What I want to say is that I honestly believe that Hubbared is the 1st
> man ever do understand and delineate the nature of human emotion. I
> am not giving official party line here; I really think so. I do not
> mean the tone scale in full; I don't know about that. Might or might
> not be true, far as I'm concerned, but the tone scale, aproximately as
> layed out in Science of Survival, and the Chjart of Human Evaluation
> found in the back of that book. I consider much of that data to be
> hard won fact, that you ignore at your own risk, and the tone-scale as
> a basic concept the first true exposition of the true nature of human
> emotion. A few may agree that it's true, but also think it's "duh
> ralph". Most people already know that. I will defend thus: by
> crediting Freud more than Hubbard did when he gave his thoughts on
> that seminal thinker. Without arguing that the stages are
> psycho-sexual, as Freud argued (I am not going to get into the whole
> yakity yak mistranslation, yak), Freud was the 1st to discribe the
> stages of human development, and Hubbard sometimes overstated his case
> that children do not. His exact quote was something like "Anyone who
> thinks children go thru exact stages, uniformly, deserves to be
> psychoanalysed" (In 1 of the 2nd dynamic lecturs). Freud may hnot be
> the 1st person to notice the stages of child development, but he's the
> 1st scientist to have deineated them, and he did so somewhat
> elegantly. If he'd been a better scientist he would have emediately
> let a better scientist knowck down his theory and give 1 even more
> elegent, and even better at explaining the facts. Well maybe not
> uniformly, but certainly commonly, to the point where if a kid does
> not have any "terrible two's", such is a bit freakish. Not as extreme
> as those of another child sure, not non-present....I'd have that
> checked out, if I were you. There might be a major problem (I am not
> qualified to say there is likely a problem, but that would be my
> guess). In fact Either Erickson's (Eric Ericson's), or Timothy
> Leary's (Tmothy Leary's 8 circuit model of the human nervouse system
> is presented in a number of places, but probably best explained for
> the more cerbral set, in Quantum Psychology, by Robert Anton Wilson [
> and yes, Virginia, I do think it likely, that Leary "stole" the idea
> from Hubbards 8 dynamics...knowing what I know it is impossible to
> think otherwise] )take on Freuds stages of developement are probably
> the 1 other piece of the understanding of human emotion that Hubbard
> neglected (in my opinion of course). I've not found any other takes
> worth mentioning, that are not mentioned in these sources.
>
> There are 3 no longer present items in 2 Hubbard books, that I think
> may help in my making my case as well as I can:
> 1) an essay on philosophy science, inductive method and deductive
> method, found in early printings of DSMH, and
> 2)The psychological study, andq
> 3)Quote from a famouse psychotherapist...
> ...that used to appear, up untill a new printing in the mid to late
> 80's, or maybe very early 90's got rid of them.
>
> I have lost hope of making this argument, as well as I had initially.
> All I know is that subjectively, to me, there is no other way of
> thinking about human emotion than the tone scale, opr @ least that
> does not include such, and it is from accepting the rot of other
> takes, that our society reaches most of it's greater lunacy.
>
> At any rate, Hubbard succeeded by applying philosophy, that is
> developing a theoory that was somewhat elegant from the git-go. I 1ce
> read a book on abnormal psychology where some psychiatrist had
> developed a very elegant spectrum model of the catagories in the DSM.
> It really was elegant. Quite disssapointed in reading the text (tho
> by no means surprised) to learn that it was rejected, becaus, tho
> those who appreciated elegance and symetry, thought it was true, most
> of those who had to try to use it in clinical settings, could not
> conceptualise it. What Hubbard was saying about psychologists ability
> to understand basic concepts might not really be true of psychologists
> or psychiatrists, but everything I know about psychiatric nurses tells
> me, that such is certainly true of them).
>
> So I think that science has erred by letting materialists creep in by
> ignoring philosophy, and I think that the modern intellectual world is
> suffering from data that it could really really use, by failure to
> understand Hubbards achievement in this concept.
>
> There may not be real theta, but there might need to be theta as an
> archetype, and such an archetype reflective of some real
> sociobiological fact. I also think Hubbard was right that people
> below a certain tone level are so turbulant, that dealing with them is
> hazardouse to the health of any untrained person, and pure drag on
> society. If Hubbard was arguably not as humane in Science of
> Survival, as one might hope, we may find we can do better at being
> humane than he, or we may not, but let's not throw the baby out with
> the bathwater.
>
> Over the years I've not been in the church, my certainty on the
> tone-scale, has increased, not decreased. The world messed up in not
> paying more attention to it, in my opinion. Theres some nut on utube
> who claims he can knock it down, but he's so obviously either lying or
> on too pink of a cloud for me to even listen to him for more than 3
> minutes.
>
> I thought I'd do so much better, but all I can say is knowing what I
> know, there is no theory of human emotion that is not inferior to
> Hubbards, and improved understanding of human emotion will begin when
> all realise that Hubbard was 1 of the 1st thinkers to say something
> lucid on the subject.l
>
> This has been my opinion. I wish I'd done better, but I ran outa
> steam or something.
>
> --
> call me: (503) 395-8475
> Find out @ the following constantly evolving site:
> http://slarty.pbworks.com/
> better searches:http://www.zuula.com/
> _______________________________________________
> Clear-L mailing list
> Clear-L@mailman.lightlink.com
> http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/clear-l
>
Tue Sep 28 11:55:45 EDT 2010
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Oct 28 12:06:02 EDT 2016
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore803.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)
iD8DBQFYE3dqURT1lqxE3HERAp26AJ45ZSVE1d8ZTVSwwLfDaIOMSGeKRQCfTcgv
XoQyyyJtLypJZj9bVWx2jlM=
=XtV0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
09/28/10 Tuesday 11:53am EST
TONE SCALE
Basic equation of the tone scale is
Doing = knowing plus wanting times probability of success.
Or something like that.
Instensity of emotion is intensity of desire.
Frequency or tone of emotion is one's consideration of probability
of success.
Actual doing comes from the protocols for different levels of
failure, from strong approach, to covert approach, to strong retreat, to
crying for help, to pretended death, to being dead.
Negative tone scale is an effort to make up for pity on past body
deaths, one becomes the body to give it a better life, and the body
responds with enthusiasm or not as the case may be, which is the 0 to
4.0 part of the BODY tone scale.
Above death and failure, the thetan also has his own 0 to 4, but
while in a body, his usual tone is way down below zero.
See SUB DEATH:
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi/homer/adore315.memo
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
On Mon, 27 Sep 2010, Thaddeus Slamp wrote:
> I don't know if the tone scale would be the best place to start any
> attempt at scientology apologetics, but I think it's where I'd start
>
> Status-wize, I am less than nobody, but 1 of my hobbies is to try to
> think of scientology apologetics, which is difficult, right off the
> bat, because scientology is largely a system of TRAINED OBSERVATION
> based methods. Scientology makes "nearly infinitely' (for lack of a
> better estimate, or term for such) more sence to a person who's been
> trained in such observation. So I think I will start. I know I am
> only a sample of 1-only 1 data point, but I will be pretty honest, and
> a data-point of 1 can have some value.
>
> What I want to say is that I honestly believe that Hubbared is the 1st
> man ever do understand and delineate the nature of human emotion. I
> am not giving official party line here; I really think so. I do not
> mean the tone scale in full; I don't know about that. Might or might
> not be true, far as I'm concerned, but the tone scale, aproximately as
> layed out in Science of Survival, and the Chjart of Human Evaluation
> found in the back of that book. I consider much of that data to be
> hard won fact, that you ignore at your own risk, and the tone-scale as
> a basic concept the first true exposition of the true nature of human
> emotion. A few may agree that it's true, but also think it's "duh
> ralph". Most people already know that. I will defend thus: by
> crediting Freud more than Hubbard did when he gave his thoughts on
> that seminal thinker. Without arguing that the stages are
> psycho-sexual, as Freud argued (I am not going to get into the whole
> yakity yak mistranslation, yak), Freud was the 1st to discribe the
> stages of human development, and Hubbard sometimes overstated his case
> that children do not. His exact quote was something like "Anyone who
> thinks children go thru exact stages, uniformly, deserves to be
> psychoanalysed" (In 1 of the 2nd dynamic lecturs). Freud may hnot be
> the 1st person to notice the stages of child development, but he's the
> 1st scientist to have deineated them, and he did so somewhat
> elegantly. If he'd been a better scientist he would have emediately
> let a better scientist knowck down his theory and give 1 even more
> elegent, and even better at explaining the facts. Well maybe not
> uniformly, but certainly commonly, to the point where if a kid does
> not have any "terrible two's", such is a bit freakish. Not as extreme
> as those of another child sure, not non-present....I'd have that
> checked out, if I were you. There might be a major problem (I am not
> qualified to say there is likely a problem, but that would be my
> guess). In fact Either Erickson's (Eric Ericson's), or Timothy
> Leary's (Tmothy Leary's 8 circuit model of the human nervouse system
> is presented in a number of places, but probably best explained for
> the more cerbral set, in Quantum Psychology, by Robert Anton Wilson [
> and yes, Virginia, I do think it likely, that Leary "stole" the idea
> from Hubbards 8 dynamics...knowing what I know it is impossible to
> think otherwise] )take on Freuds stages of developement are probably
> the 1 other piece of the understanding of human emotion that Hubbard
> neglected (in my opinion of course). I've not found any other takes
> worth mentioning, that are not mentioned in these sources.
>
> There are 3 no longer present items in 2 Hubbard books, that I think
> may help in my making my case as well as I can:
> 1) an essay on philosophy science, inductive method and deductive
> method, found in early printings of DSMH, and
> 2)The psychological study, andq
> 3)Quote from a famouse psychotherapist...
> ...that used to appear, up untill a new printing in the mid to late
> 80's, or maybe very early 90's got rid of them.
>
> I have lost hope of making this argument, as well as I had initially.
> All I know is that subjectively, to me, there is no other way of
> thinking about human emotion than the tone scale, opr @ least that
> does not include such, and it is from accepting the rot of other
> takes, that our society reaches most of it's greater lunacy.
>
> At any rate, Hubbard succeeded by applying philosophy, that is
> developing a theoory that was somewhat elegant from the git-go. I 1ce
> read a book on abnormal psychology where some psychiatrist had
> developed a very elegant spectrum model of the catagories in the DSM.
> It really was elegant. Quite disssapointed in reading the text (tho
> by no means surprised) to learn that it was rejected, becaus, tho
> those who appreciated elegance and symetry, thought it was true, most
> of those who had to try to use it in clinical settings, could not
> conceptualise it. What Hubbard was saying about psychologists ability
> to understand basic concepts might not really be true of psychologists
> or psychiatrists, but everything I know about psychiatric nurses tells
> me, that such is certainly true of them).
>
> So I think that science has erred by letting materialists creep in by
> ignoring philosophy, and I think that the modern intellectual world is
> suffering from data that it could really really use, by failure to
> understand Hubbards achievement in this concept.
>
> There may not be real theta, but there might need to be theta as an
> archetype, and such an archetype reflective of some real
> sociobiological fact. I also think Hubbard was right that people
> below a certain tone level are so turbulant, that dealing with them is
> hazardouse to the health of any untrained person, and pure drag on
> society. If Hubbard was arguably not as humane in Science of
> Survival, as one might hope, we may find we can do better at being
> humane than he, or we may not, but let's not throw the baby out with
> the bathwater.
>
> Over the years I've not been in the church, my certainty on the
> tone-scale, has increased, not decreased. The world messed up in not
> paying more attention to it, in my opinion. Theres some nut on utube
> who claims he can knock it down, but he's so obviously either lying or
> on too pink of a cloud for me to even listen to him for more than 3
> minutes.
>
> I thought I'd do so much better, but all I can say is knowing what I
> know, there is no theory of human emotion that is not inferior to
> Hubbards, and improved understanding of human emotion will begin when
> all realise that Hubbard was 1 of the 1st thinkers to say something
> lucid on the subject.l
>
> This has been my opinion. I wish I'd done better, but I ran outa
> steam or something.
>
> --
> call me: (503) 395-8475
> Find out @ the following constantly evolving site:
> http://slarty.pbworks.com/
> better searches:http://www.zuula.com/
> _______________________________________________
> Clear-L mailing list
> Clear-L@mailman.lightlink.com
> http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/clear-l
>
Tue Sep 28 11:55:45 EDT 2010
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Oct 28 12:06:02 EDT 2016
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore803.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)
iD8DBQFYE3dqURT1lqxE3HERAp26AJ45ZSVE1d8ZTVSwwLfDaIOMSGeKRQCfTcgv
XoQyyyJtLypJZj9bVWx2jlM=
=XtV0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Tuesday, October 25, 2016
clarke3.txt (fwd)
Arthur C. Clarke 3/9 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 03:25am
Dear Esteemed Sir,
In the wee hours of the night, I am again impelled to write you.
Although you have not yet received a complete and comprehensive
overview of the problem, I believe I have sent you enough for your basic
understanding in my very first letter.
The subject matter is learning with certainty about causality.
Learning with certainty that two different events A and B are
causally related.
Causality is a bit of a red herring, because certainty of ANYTHING
is under question.
For B to learn with certainty that A even exists however relates
back to causality, because the WAY that B learns about A is via
causality, A has to have an effect on B, or else A might as well not
exist for B EVEN IF IT DOES.
Thus if causality between A and B is in doubt, then so is learning
about the existence of A, or anything else learned via causality across
a distance.
B learns about A via changes in state in B occasioned by A.
B learns about A through A's effects on B, and if the learning
about causality is in question, how then can anything learned through
causality be certain?
The issues here are quite clear.
When two different objects learn about each other, they must learn
by being an effect of the other, by changing state as a result of the
other.
However it is not a valid leap of certainty that just because B
changed state, that this change had a cause; let alone that the nature
of that cause belongs to the object A one is trying to learn about.
Such trains of thought, that B can learn about A by changing state
as a result of A's influence, are theories at best.
Delusion about illusion at worst.
We have the problem of tracking.
Tracking is when the states of two different objects track each
other.
For example, light switch is on, light is on. Light switch is off,
light is off. The state of the light tracks the state of the light
switch. The state of the light switch comes BEFORE the state of light
in time.
Or light is on, light sensor is buzzing. Light is off, light
sensor is quiet.
Two objects track each other because of a causal pathway between
them. If there is no causal pathway between the two objects, then
their tracking each other is coincidental, no matter how dependable or
repeatable that tracking may be.
We have here a very fundamental theorem that everyone knows,
and everyone agrees with:
Dependability of tracking does not necessarily imply causation
between the two objects.
There is followingness, that means B followed A.
There is dependable followingness, that means B so far has always
followed A every time we have observed both in operation.
There is necessary dependable followingness, that means B MUST
follow A and can do no other.
Necessariness is provided by cause.
Dependable followingness is not NECESSARY dependable
followingness.
Dependability is not guaranteeability.
Only causation can provide necessary or guaranteeable
followingness.
Causation implies necessity and guaranteeability, and necessity
and guaranteeability imply causation.
Causation is DEFINED as necessary dependable followingness.
However it is an immature mind that confuses mere dependable
followingness with NECESSARY dependable followingness and thus with
certainty of causation.
Worse it is an audacious mind that having confused the two, then
tries to assign the nature of the cause with perfect certainty to
something.
Learning is a kind of tracking. It is having an idea that such
and such is true about something else in the hope that in fact it is.
One can 'know' via a number of different methods.
'Guessing.' One can guess the light is on. That gives you a 50
percent chance of being right.
'Trust.' One can be told that the light is on by someone who
claims to have seen it. This is more likely to be right, but is not
perfect certainty as it depends on your level of trust in the claimer.
'Faith.' God can tell you the light is on, as he made it and can
not lie, as his every thought becomes true in the thinking of it.
Well if you believe in such things, you might want to consider
this a good bet, but would you bet your eternity in hell on the light
being on just because God said so? Would you also bet everyone else's
eternity in hell on the matter? I think not. Again direct perception
of the matter and perfect reverifiability is missing, and thus perfect
certainty is lacking.
'Indirect observation.' Your light sensor is screaming over in
the corner. Ok, now we are coming close to something that might be
called a reasonable scientific hypothesis, as long as you trust the
circuitry in the light sensor, and also trust God not to be playing
God at that moment, interferring with the laws of physics. But even
barring this last, there is still no perfect certainty, because one
can not possibly verify with perfect certainty the proper working of
the light sensor.
Indirect observation is actually a kind of trust, trust in the
theories about physical law rather than the word of another being.
There is an interesting theorem that says a machine or any
mechanical system can never verify the integrity of its own circuits
with perfect certainty.
Even if the machine has a correct circuit diagram, and two or
more video cameras that can see each other and into every circuit in
both the cameras and the machine, the machine can still never know if
everything is working the way it should be.
It is always possible that some circuit is wrong that makes it
look like that circuit is right when it isn't. This is a major
theorem in artificial intelligence and goes completely unnoticed by
some.
'Direct observation.' You go look at the light and see that it is
on. Ok, so now we are as close as close comes to having a high
scientific probability that the light is on.
But even then with a clean observation one could be imagining,
dreaming, or hallucinating.
Just because I hear the sensor screaming does that mean the
sensor really is screaming?
One could be imagining. One could be asleep and dreaming! I
have personally woken up out of 7 levels of dreaming, each one as real
as this world we live in now, each time convinced it was the real
world. I still wonder sometimes.
What we call 'direct observation' is of course not direct
observation at all, as the eyeball and retina and brain form just one
more causal pathway and level of indirection no different than trying
to see the world through a video camera or a light through a light
sensor.
Circuits could be bad all along the way including in our brain,
giving the impression of one thing when the truth is something else
entirely.
So where in all this is perfect certainty that the light is on?
There is none, because we are dealing with two different objects,
observed and observer, each one separated by alleged spacetime
dimension and causality that can not be seen and thus not confirmed.
Effects are not sufficient to witness cause with perfect
certainty. Effects are thus only sufficient to allow one to theorize
and hope for the best.
Causality is not sufficient to witness causality.
So causality always remains a theory.
Thus the mechanics of space and time are not sufficient to
witness the mechanics of space and time with perfect certainty, thus
the mechanics of space and time remain forever a theory even to
themselves, ie things made out of space and time.
No space time gizmo can ever know if it is a space time gizmo for
sure, because a space time gizmo can't know anything at all for sure.
In the dream state we see a conscious experience of a light, it
LOOKS real, but there are no photons at all, and certainly no light
bulb made of glass no matter how much it looks there is one.
The dream is self luminous, the light bulb in the dream does not
light the objects in the dream, even if turning off the light in the
dream makes the objects go dark! It's all just a coordinated hook
together.
I have had dreams where I turned the light off, and the room
stayed lit!
Just so in the waking state, we trust we see the alleged physical
universe through our self luminous conscious pictures of it. We have
perfect certainty of the self luminous pictures, but not of the
alleged referents in the phyiscal universe.
All day long when we are awake we TRUST that our conscious
experiences are causally connected to our sensory inputs, eyes, ears,
etc, in such a manner that we can trust that what we experience IN OUR
CONSCIOUSNESS represents accurately what is 'out there.' But this is
trust, not perfect certainty.
But notice.
WE ARE PERFECTLY CERTAIN OF OUR CONSCIOUS EXPERIENCE!
We SEE the red, green and blue and we know we do.
We are using our conscious experience to learn about the alleged
external physical universe. Where there are two different objects,
conscious experiences of, and corresponding physical referents,
one can never learn with certainty about one by looking at the other!
One can never learn with perfect certainty about the physical
referents by looking at the conscious experiences (renditions) of them
in our consciousness!
However we can see our conscious experiences directly, and direct
observation always leads to a perfect certainty.
The conscious self can learn what it is conscious of (color,
sound, etc) with perfect certainty. It can learn of its own
existence, its own personal agency.
Take a look at any two different colors around you, that's a
perfect certainty. You may be imagining, dreaming or hallucinating
the objects, but THE HALLUCINATION IS CERTAIN!
The *EXPERIENCE OF REDNESS* is certain.
The implied existence of an external physical universe referent
out there behind the redness however is not certain.
I see a piece of red paper on my desk, perhaps it is a
hallucination, perhaps there is no red paper on my desk, perhaps no
others will see that paper there, because it isn't there, but they nor
I can possibly doubt that I SEE IT IN MY CONSCIOUSNESS.
Thus in the parts of us that are a machine, our eyes picking up
photons, our lens, retinas, optic nerves, brain pathways, visual
cortex etc, there is no certainty at all, not even that these things
exist.
But in the part of us that is not a machine, our consciousness,
we know that these conscious things exists with out question because
we can see them directly.
Seeing red is direct perception.
Attributing seeing red to some alleged piece of paper in the
physical universe with photons of a particular frequency bouncing off
of it via indirect perception (eyes), is conjecture at best, delusion
about illusion at worst.
Conscious seeing is always direct perception.
But direct perception implies that perceiver and perceived are
one and the same object, even if it LOOKS like there is space between
me and what I am seeing.
Our consciousness and its 'color forms' (including all senses)
are the only things we can know that we see, because we can see
ourselves seeing them.
Seeing ourselves seeing is infinite reverifiability which is
mandatory to perfect certainty.
A machine can not do this.
A machine can try, but it would take forever to complete a
perfect reverification of any state, and it would fail in the end.
A machine can not see at all, let alone see itself seeing.
A machine can let one video camera paint pretty pictures of the
alleged external world on its insides, and it can use it's other video
camera to paint another picture *OF THE FIRST PICTURE* on its insides,
but that just creates a second state that vouches for a first state,
neither one of which produce a certainty of what they represent.
In the first place the second state is AFTER the first state.
The machine could then point its cameras at the second state and
produce a third state that would vouch for the second state, but it
would yet again be later than either of the first two.
And it can continue to do this, using later states to vouch for
earlier states, but this only leads to an infinite regression in time
that never produces a single certainty in any of the states and takes
FOREVER to complete!
True self awareness is a moment that verifies itself in the SAME
MOMENT!
Thus a machine can not be self aware.
A machine can be 'aware' it WAS 'aware'.
A conscious unit can be aware that it IS aware.
Conscious self luminous certainty is all in the single now.
The conscious *NOW*, proves that the conscious now *IS*.
Consciousness doesn't use a second state to prove the existence
of the first state, the first state is SELF PROVING.
And this is a timeless process or else it would never complete.
The time between being conscious-of, and being conscious-of being
conscious-of, is zero.
If it weren't zero you couldn't see it, as you can't see
something directly that is in the past, something that is separated
from you by a distance in time.
CAN A MACHINE LEARN OF ITS OWN EXISTENCE?
We can ask a simple but convoluted question. Can a machine learn
with perfect certainty that it itself exists?
Well this would involve the machine existing and being in some
various states or another.
But then the machine would have to OBSERVE itself existing by
indirect observation via its external video cameras to observe itself,
thus giving rise to a SECOND state in the machine indicating it's
evidence supporting it's conclusion that it existed.
This second state must be causally related to the prior existence
of the machine, because without causal relation the machine is not
learning, its just guessing.
But because the machine can not witness that cause directly, it
can only trust that its circuitry is working properly during its
observation of itself, and thus can only attain a level of trust that
the second state actually tracks its existence BECAUSE of its
existence.
When ever a second state or object is used to track a first state
or object, there CAN BE NO PERFECT CERTAINTY of the first object in
the second object, because direct observation of the NECESSITY of the
dependable followingness between them is missing.
The second object never has direct perception of the first
object, nor of the causation between them.
Until you can prove there is cause between A and B, you can never
prove anything at all with perfect certainty about either by looking
at the other.
So what this comes down to is a problem in two different objects
or states. "Two different" anythings are limited to learning about
each other via cause and effect, and since effect doesn't prove cause,
they may never attain certainty of the other.
Thus if there is going to be a certainty between learner and
learned about, learner and learned about must be one and the same
object!
Being one and the same object means there can be no space between
them nor any time! Any form of dimensional separation between A and B
guarantees that A and B are two different objects.
Thus the search for certainty is not towards greater and more
dimensions, but towards zero dimensions, no dimension altogether.
We understand easily how we learn by indirect perception, such as
using a light sensor to learn about the light.
But it boggles our brain trying to understand how *ANYTHING*
could ever learn anything by direct perception.
If if A and B are the same object, how does direct perception
work?
The 'How?' engine in the brain is designed to handle cause and
effect sequences on an evidential and theoretical basis, it KNOWS
there is no certainty in this.
However ask it 'How can we produce a perfect certainty through
direct perception' and it will break, because it only understands
indirect perception via sequences of cause and effects separated from
each other by distance in space and time.
To most people of learning, 'indirect perception' is redundant,
and 'direct perception' a self contradicting oxymoron.
However indirect perception produces no certainty or self
luminosity, yet both certainty and self luminosity are self evident in
the conscious unit, not only in its perception of the color forms
around it, but also in its perception of it's self and personal agency
between desire, will and final action.
Thus we call this process direct perception, even though it may
presently remain incomprehensible to our 'How?' engine in the brain,
as to how it works.
Certainty IS consciousness, consciousness IS certainty.
There can be no certainty in the absence of consciousness, and
there can be no consciousness in the absence of certainty.
That is a very big statement.
In the presence of separation caused by dimension between two
different objects, there can be no certainty-of and there can be no
consciousness-of.
If A is separate from you, you can never be conscious of A, you
can only be conscious of some later effect of A IN YOURSELF, namely
your conscious experience of A!
Thus certainty and consciousness can only exist when an object is
learning about itself, but not by cause and effect! At least not when
cause and effect are two different events separated by space and time,
such as when a machine turns its video cameras on itself to learn
about itself.
Certainty and consciousness are more like a spaceless and
timeless moment where cause and effect are one and the same event.
Following the lead of Einstein who called our universe a single
entity of spacetime we offer to call self luminosity a moment of
causeeffect.
Causeeffect is when there is no spactime between cause and
effect!
Then we can have learning about our own existence, our own cause,
our own personal agency, our own data screens of conscious color, with
perfect certainty.
Your faithful servant,
Homer Wilson Smith, who hates the term causeeffect with a
passion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Sat Aug 11 00:41:14 EDT 2007
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Oct 25 12:06:02 EDT 2016
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/clarke/clarke3.txt
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.
_______________________________________________
Clear-L mailing list
Clear-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/clear-l
_______________________________________________
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 03:25am
Dear Esteemed Sir,
In the wee hours of the night, I am again impelled to write you.
Although you have not yet received a complete and comprehensive
overview of the problem, I believe I have sent you enough for your basic
understanding in my very first letter.
The subject matter is learning with certainty about causality.
Learning with certainty that two different events A and B are
causally related.
Causality is a bit of a red herring, because certainty of ANYTHING
is under question.
For B to learn with certainty that A even exists however relates
back to causality, because the WAY that B learns about A is via
causality, A has to have an effect on B, or else A might as well not
exist for B EVEN IF IT DOES.
Thus if causality between A and B is in doubt, then so is learning
about the existence of A, or anything else learned via causality across
a distance.
B learns about A via changes in state in B occasioned by A.
B learns about A through A's effects on B, and if the learning
about causality is in question, how then can anything learned through
causality be certain?
The issues here are quite clear.
When two different objects learn about each other, they must learn
by being an effect of the other, by changing state as a result of the
other.
However it is not a valid leap of certainty that just because B
changed state, that this change had a cause; let alone that the nature
of that cause belongs to the object A one is trying to learn about.
Such trains of thought, that B can learn about A by changing state
as a result of A's influence, are theories at best.
Delusion about illusion at worst.
We have the problem of tracking.
Tracking is when the states of two different objects track each
other.
For example, light switch is on, light is on. Light switch is off,
light is off. The state of the light tracks the state of the light
switch. The state of the light switch comes BEFORE the state of light
in time.
Or light is on, light sensor is buzzing. Light is off, light
sensor is quiet.
Two objects track each other because of a causal pathway between
them. If there is no causal pathway between the two objects, then
their tracking each other is coincidental, no matter how dependable or
repeatable that tracking may be.
We have here a very fundamental theorem that everyone knows,
and everyone agrees with:
Dependability of tracking does not necessarily imply causation
between the two objects.
There is followingness, that means B followed A.
There is dependable followingness, that means B so far has always
followed A every time we have observed both in operation.
There is necessary dependable followingness, that means B MUST
follow A and can do no other.
Necessariness is provided by cause.
Dependable followingness is not NECESSARY dependable
followingness.
Dependability is not guaranteeability.
Only causation can provide necessary or guaranteeable
followingness.
Causation implies necessity and guaranteeability, and necessity
and guaranteeability imply causation.
Causation is DEFINED as necessary dependable followingness.
However it is an immature mind that confuses mere dependable
followingness with NECESSARY dependable followingness and thus with
certainty of causation.
Worse it is an audacious mind that having confused the two, then
tries to assign the nature of the cause with perfect certainty to
something.
Learning is a kind of tracking. It is having an idea that such
and such is true about something else in the hope that in fact it is.
One can 'know' via a number of different methods.
'Guessing.' One can guess the light is on. That gives you a 50
percent chance of being right.
'Trust.' One can be told that the light is on by someone who
claims to have seen it. This is more likely to be right, but is not
perfect certainty as it depends on your level of trust in the claimer.
'Faith.' God can tell you the light is on, as he made it and can
not lie, as his every thought becomes true in the thinking of it.
Well if you believe in such things, you might want to consider
this a good bet, but would you bet your eternity in hell on the light
being on just because God said so? Would you also bet everyone else's
eternity in hell on the matter? I think not. Again direct perception
of the matter and perfect reverifiability is missing, and thus perfect
certainty is lacking.
'Indirect observation.' Your light sensor is screaming over in
the corner. Ok, now we are coming close to something that might be
called a reasonable scientific hypothesis, as long as you trust the
circuitry in the light sensor, and also trust God not to be playing
God at that moment, interferring with the laws of physics. But even
barring this last, there is still no perfect certainty, because one
can not possibly verify with perfect certainty the proper working of
the light sensor.
Indirect observation is actually a kind of trust, trust in the
theories about physical law rather than the word of another being.
There is an interesting theorem that says a machine or any
mechanical system can never verify the integrity of its own circuits
with perfect certainty.
Even if the machine has a correct circuit diagram, and two or
more video cameras that can see each other and into every circuit in
both the cameras and the machine, the machine can still never know if
everything is working the way it should be.
It is always possible that some circuit is wrong that makes it
look like that circuit is right when it isn't. This is a major
theorem in artificial intelligence and goes completely unnoticed by
some.
'Direct observation.' You go look at the light and see that it is
on. Ok, so now we are as close as close comes to having a high
scientific probability that the light is on.
But even then with a clean observation one could be imagining,
dreaming, or hallucinating.
Just because I hear the sensor screaming does that mean the
sensor really is screaming?
One could be imagining. One could be asleep and dreaming! I
have personally woken up out of 7 levels of dreaming, each one as real
as this world we live in now, each time convinced it was the real
world. I still wonder sometimes.
What we call 'direct observation' is of course not direct
observation at all, as the eyeball and retina and brain form just one
more causal pathway and level of indirection no different than trying
to see the world through a video camera or a light through a light
sensor.
Circuits could be bad all along the way including in our brain,
giving the impression of one thing when the truth is something else
entirely.
So where in all this is perfect certainty that the light is on?
There is none, because we are dealing with two different objects,
observed and observer, each one separated by alleged spacetime
dimension and causality that can not be seen and thus not confirmed.
Effects are not sufficient to witness cause with perfect
certainty. Effects are thus only sufficient to allow one to theorize
and hope for the best.
Causality is not sufficient to witness causality.
So causality always remains a theory.
Thus the mechanics of space and time are not sufficient to
witness the mechanics of space and time with perfect certainty, thus
the mechanics of space and time remain forever a theory even to
themselves, ie things made out of space and time.
No space time gizmo can ever know if it is a space time gizmo for
sure, because a space time gizmo can't know anything at all for sure.
In the dream state we see a conscious experience of a light, it
LOOKS real, but there are no photons at all, and certainly no light
bulb made of glass no matter how much it looks there is one.
The dream is self luminous, the light bulb in the dream does not
light the objects in the dream, even if turning off the light in the
dream makes the objects go dark! It's all just a coordinated hook
together.
I have had dreams where I turned the light off, and the room
stayed lit!
Just so in the waking state, we trust we see the alleged physical
universe through our self luminous conscious pictures of it. We have
perfect certainty of the self luminous pictures, but not of the
alleged referents in the phyiscal universe.
All day long when we are awake we TRUST that our conscious
experiences are causally connected to our sensory inputs, eyes, ears,
etc, in such a manner that we can trust that what we experience IN OUR
CONSCIOUSNESS represents accurately what is 'out there.' But this is
trust, not perfect certainty.
But notice.
WE ARE PERFECTLY CERTAIN OF OUR CONSCIOUS EXPERIENCE!
We SEE the red, green and blue and we know we do.
We are using our conscious experience to learn about the alleged
external physical universe. Where there are two different objects,
conscious experiences of, and corresponding physical referents,
one can never learn with certainty about one by looking at the other!
One can never learn with perfect certainty about the physical
referents by looking at the conscious experiences (renditions) of them
in our consciousness!
However we can see our conscious experiences directly, and direct
observation always leads to a perfect certainty.
The conscious self can learn what it is conscious of (color,
sound, etc) with perfect certainty. It can learn of its own
existence, its own personal agency.
Take a look at any two different colors around you, that's a
perfect certainty. You may be imagining, dreaming or hallucinating
the objects, but THE HALLUCINATION IS CERTAIN!
The *EXPERIENCE OF REDNESS* is certain.
The implied existence of an external physical universe referent
out there behind the redness however is not certain.
I see a piece of red paper on my desk, perhaps it is a
hallucination, perhaps there is no red paper on my desk, perhaps no
others will see that paper there, because it isn't there, but they nor
I can possibly doubt that I SEE IT IN MY CONSCIOUSNESS.
Thus in the parts of us that are a machine, our eyes picking up
photons, our lens, retinas, optic nerves, brain pathways, visual
cortex etc, there is no certainty at all, not even that these things
exist.
But in the part of us that is not a machine, our consciousness,
we know that these conscious things exists with out question because
we can see them directly.
Seeing red is direct perception.
Attributing seeing red to some alleged piece of paper in the
physical universe with photons of a particular frequency bouncing off
of it via indirect perception (eyes), is conjecture at best, delusion
about illusion at worst.
Conscious seeing is always direct perception.
But direct perception implies that perceiver and perceived are
one and the same object, even if it LOOKS like there is space between
me and what I am seeing.
Our consciousness and its 'color forms' (including all senses)
are the only things we can know that we see, because we can see
ourselves seeing them.
Seeing ourselves seeing is infinite reverifiability which is
mandatory to perfect certainty.
A machine can not do this.
A machine can try, but it would take forever to complete a
perfect reverification of any state, and it would fail in the end.
A machine can not see at all, let alone see itself seeing.
A machine can let one video camera paint pretty pictures of the
alleged external world on its insides, and it can use it's other video
camera to paint another picture *OF THE FIRST PICTURE* on its insides,
but that just creates a second state that vouches for a first state,
neither one of which produce a certainty of what they represent.
In the first place the second state is AFTER the first state.
The machine could then point its cameras at the second state and
produce a third state that would vouch for the second state, but it
would yet again be later than either of the first two.
And it can continue to do this, using later states to vouch for
earlier states, but this only leads to an infinite regression in time
that never produces a single certainty in any of the states and takes
FOREVER to complete!
True self awareness is a moment that verifies itself in the SAME
MOMENT!
Thus a machine can not be self aware.
A machine can be 'aware' it WAS 'aware'.
A conscious unit can be aware that it IS aware.
Conscious self luminous certainty is all in the single now.
The conscious *NOW*, proves that the conscious now *IS*.
Consciousness doesn't use a second state to prove the existence
of the first state, the first state is SELF PROVING.
And this is a timeless process or else it would never complete.
The time between being conscious-of, and being conscious-of being
conscious-of, is zero.
If it weren't zero you couldn't see it, as you can't see
something directly that is in the past, something that is separated
from you by a distance in time.
CAN A MACHINE LEARN OF ITS OWN EXISTENCE?
We can ask a simple but convoluted question. Can a machine learn
with perfect certainty that it itself exists?
Well this would involve the machine existing and being in some
various states or another.
But then the machine would have to OBSERVE itself existing by
indirect observation via its external video cameras to observe itself,
thus giving rise to a SECOND state in the machine indicating it's
evidence supporting it's conclusion that it existed.
This second state must be causally related to the prior existence
of the machine, because without causal relation the machine is not
learning, its just guessing.
But because the machine can not witness that cause directly, it
can only trust that its circuitry is working properly during its
observation of itself, and thus can only attain a level of trust that
the second state actually tracks its existence BECAUSE of its
existence.
When ever a second state or object is used to track a first state
or object, there CAN BE NO PERFECT CERTAINTY of the first object in
the second object, because direct observation of the NECESSITY of the
dependable followingness between them is missing.
The second object never has direct perception of the first
object, nor of the causation between them.
Until you can prove there is cause between A and B, you can never
prove anything at all with perfect certainty about either by looking
at the other.
So what this comes down to is a problem in two different objects
or states. "Two different" anythings are limited to learning about
each other via cause and effect, and since effect doesn't prove cause,
they may never attain certainty of the other.
Thus if there is going to be a certainty between learner and
learned about, learner and learned about must be one and the same
object!
Being one and the same object means there can be no space between
them nor any time! Any form of dimensional separation between A and B
guarantees that A and B are two different objects.
Thus the search for certainty is not towards greater and more
dimensions, but towards zero dimensions, no dimension altogether.
We understand easily how we learn by indirect perception, such as
using a light sensor to learn about the light.
But it boggles our brain trying to understand how *ANYTHING*
could ever learn anything by direct perception.
If if A and B are the same object, how does direct perception
work?
The 'How?' engine in the brain is designed to handle cause and
effect sequences on an evidential and theoretical basis, it KNOWS
there is no certainty in this.
However ask it 'How can we produce a perfect certainty through
direct perception' and it will break, because it only understands
indirect perception via sequences of cause and effects separated from
each other by distance in space and time.
To most people of learning, 'indirect perception' is redundant,
and 'direct perception' a self contradicting oxymoron.
However indirect perception produces no certainty or self
luminosity, yet both certainty and self luminosity are self evident in
the conscious unit, not only in its perception of the color forms
around it, but also in its perception of it's self and personal agency
between desire, will and final action.
Thus we call this process direct perception, even though it may
presently remain incomprehensible to our 'How?' engine in the brain,
as to how it works.
Certainty IS consciousness, consciousness IS certainty.
There can be no certainty in the absence of consciousness, and
there can be no consciousness in the absence of certainty.
That is a very big statement.
In the presence of separation caused by dimension between two
different objects, there can be no certainty-of and there can be no
consciousness-of.
If A is separate from you, you can never be conscious of A, you
can only be conscious of some later effect of A IN YOURSELF, namely
your conscious experience of A!
Thus certainty and consciousness can only exist when an object is
learning about itself, but not by cause and effect! At least not when
cause and effect are two different events separated by space and time,
such as when a machine turns its video cameras on itself to learn
about itself.
Certainty and consciousness are more like a spaceless and
timeless moment where cause and effect are one and the same event.
Following the lead of Einstein who called our universe a single
entity of spacetime we offer to call self luminosity a moment of
causeeffect.
Causeeffect is when there is no spactime between cause and
effect!
Then we can have learning about our own existence, our own cause,
our own personal agency, our own data screens of conscious color, with
perfect certainty.
Your faithful servant,
Homer Wilson Smith, who hates the term causeeffect with a
passion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Sat Aug 11 00:41:14 EDT 2007
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Oct 25 12:06:02 EDT 2016
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/clarke/clarke3.txt
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.
_______________________________________________
Clear-L mailing list
Clear-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/clear-l
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
LOGIC25 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
CAN A PERFECT CERTAINTY BE WRONG?
Levi Murphy (CONFRONT23@aol.com) wrote:
>I disagree, as I deem it totally possible for one to be totally
>certain of something that is completly wrong. Heres my proof.
Homer Wilson Smith (homer@lightlink.com) wrote:
"It is possible to be certain of something that is wrong!"
"Are you certain?"
"Yes."
"Then could you be wrong?"
"Yes."
"Then you are not certain?"
"Yes."
Certainty = Uncertainty.
Q.E.D.
>Homer and I are both certain that we are right in this matter.
>Our positions contradict each other.
You *ASSERT* that you are certain, that does not mean that you are
certain.
You may think you are certain, believe you are certain, but you are
not in fact certain.
Part of the problem with certainty is people do not have a perfect
standard of certainty, to compare their certainties against, thus they
fall into using knowing by emoting or effort or some such nonsense.
Once a person has a *PERFECT* standard of certainty, one that CAN
NOT BE WRONG, then all the things they 'are certain of' can be compared,
in their certainty, against the perfect standard of certainty, and most
of them they will see fall short of perfect certainty.
What they 'thought, believed, or felt' they were certain of was really
an imposter of true certainty. They also realize that merely by looking
at such imposters of certainty, they can ALWAYS TELL that they are
imposters. Thus a person can only be certain of a TRUE certainty, and
all the rest can be told to be imposters IF the person will give it a
proper look.
People who hold to certainties of things that are false, actually
have an ethics problem, their personal *INTEGRITY* is out, its a matter
of WILLINGNESS, not a matter of simple mistake.
At one time they knew they were shamming, now it has become the
norm.
Listing for false certainties and running them leads to a state of
perfect certainty and a standard of certainty that is always correct.
Personal integrity comes back in, and the person is no longer claiming
to himself or others to be sure of things that are false.
Once the false certainties are gone, and the perfect standard of
certainty is in place, the being's mind is then open again to receive
information and data about worlds not before open to him.
Those that believe the PU exists, CAN NOT see the 7th dynamic.
>Therefore, one of us is COMPLETLY WRONG, and one of us is right as
>two contray facts cannot coexist.
>Therefore, one of us is COMPLETLY WRONG and CERTAIN that we are right,
>at the same time.
Yeah you, you are wrong that you are certain, and you are wrong
that you are certain that you are certain. You are merely claiming to
yourself to be certain. Its an out integrity.
Carol:
>In this case, it would be true to say "even if I am wrong I am right"
>because if Homer proves me wrong he proved that I am certain of
>something and yet wrong about it.
Carol you haven't a *CLUE* what perfect certainty is, that which
can not be wrong. You are a loud proclaimer of certainties, but no
actual certainty in sight.
When you can tell me a perfect certainty that you know is right,
and CAN NOT BE WRONG UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, then you will see that I
am right that it is quite impossible to be ACTUALLY CERTAIN of something
that is false.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Oct 25 12:06:02 EDT 2016
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/logic25.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help in body
=========== 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)
iD8DBQFYD4LrURT1lqxE3HERAh5iAJ0Qd93cVtLvSmKC4cWwBSGxbAMd5gCgqYHo
HVzp3ARVTOZX2aLqgb4T6XA=
=pTJ6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
CAN A PERFECT CERTAINTY BE WRONG?
Levi Murphy (CONFRONT23@aol.com) wrote:
>I disagree, as I deem it totally possible for one to be totally
>certain of something that is completly wrong. Heres my proof.
Homer Wilson Smith (homer@lightlink.com) wrote:
"It is possible to be certain of something that is wrong!"
"Are you certain?"
"Yes."
"Then could you be wrong?"
"Yes."
"Then you are not certain?"
"Yes."
Certainty = Uncertainty.
Q.E.D.
>Homer and I are both certain that we are right in this matter.
>Our positions contradict each other.
You *ASSERT* that you are certain, that does not mean that you are
certain.
You may think you are certain, believe you are certain, but you are
not in fact certain.
Part of the problem with certainty is people do not have a perfect
standard of certainty, to compare their certainties against, thus they
fall into using knowing by emoting or effort or some such nonsense.
Once a person has a *PERFECT* standard of certainty, one that CAN
NOT BE WRONG, then all the things they 'are certain of' can be compared,
in their certainty, against the perfect standard of certainty, and most
of them they will see fall short of perfect certainty.
What they 'thought, believed, or felt' they were certain of was really
an imposter of true certainty. They also realize that merely by looking
at such imposters of certainty, they can ALWAYS TELL that they are
imposters. Thus a person can only be certain of a TRUE certainty, and
all the rest can be told to be imposters IF the person will give it a
proper look.
People who hold to certainties of things that are false, actually
have an ethics problem, their personal *INTEGRITY* is out, its a matter
of WILLINGNESS, not a matter of simple mistake.
At one time they knew they were shamming, now it has become the
norm.
Listing for false certainties and running them leads to a state of
perfect certainty and a standard of certainty that is always correct.
Personal integrity comes back in, and the person is no longer claiming
to himself or others to be sure of things that are false.
Once the false certainties are gone, and the perfect standard of
certainty is in place, the being's mind is then open again to receive
information and data about worlds not before open to him.
Those that believe the PU exists, CAN NOT see the 7th dynamic.
>Therefore, one of us is COMPLETLY WRONG, and one of us is right as
>two contray facts cannot coexist.
>Therefore, one of us is COMPLETLY WRONG and CERTAIN that we are right,
>at the same time.
Yeah you, you are wrong that you are certain, and you are wrong
that you are certain that you are certain. You are merely claiming to
yourself to be certain. Its an out integrity.
Carol:
>In this case, it would be true to say "even if I am wrong I am right"
>because if Homer proves me wrong he proved that I am certain of
>something and yet wrong about it.
Carol you haven't a *CLUE* what perfect certainty is, that which
can not be wrong. You are a loud proclaimer of certainties, but no
actual certainty in sight.
When you can tell me a perfect certainty that you know is right,
and CAN NOT BE WRONG UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, then you will see that I
am right that it is quite impossible to be ACTUALLY CERTAIN of something
that is false.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Oct 25 12:06:02 EDT 2016
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/logic25.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help in body
=========== 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)
iD8DBQFYD4LrURT1lqxE3HERAh5iAJ0Qd93cVtLvSmKC4cWwBSGxbAMd5gCgqYHo
HVzp3ARVTOZX2aLqgb4T6XA=
=pTJ6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Monday, October 24, 2016
ADORE831 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
THE GENERAL AND THE SPECIFIC
In alt.clearing.technology dapperdobbs <GeorgeCFL@hotmail.com> wrote:
> You brought up a number of interesting points, and I don't really do
> them justice here with this reply. I'm all for anyone getting to the
> truth about life. I believe that no matter how one arrives,the truth
> will be found to be the same. From all I've seen Scn is the only
> subject that encompasses the basics of life, and it is the fastest way
> to arrive at the truth.
Fastest is unclear.
One has to distinguish between fundamentals and approach.
We can all agree that finding the truth of the matter will cause its
vanishment.
That's the axioms.
One can nitpick the axioms, but they are basically right.
But HOW to find that truth is quite another story.
Scientology is a brand of auditing, although LRH liked to think that
auditing belonged only to scientology, any one trying to find the truth
about an unwanted condition in himself or another is auditing: listening,
asking, and computing.
Although LRH made much of not evaluating for the pc in session, the
entire bridge is one huge evaluation of how to audit and what to audit.
Adore breaks it up this way, The auditor asks the questions, and the
preclear gives the answers. That's called being in session.
What LRH forbade was for the auditor to answer the question for the
preclear, and for the preclear to ask the question (about himself) of the
auditor, that was defined as evaluation and out of session.
But the preclear EXPECTS the auditor to know what to do, namely what
question to ask.
The preclear may hope the auditor can then also answer it, but that's
out of session again.
So evaluation of what to run, and how to run it lies in the auditor's
lap, every Case Supervisor who wrote a program, does an evaluation of the
preclear's case and then directs the auditor to run it as written.
Is this telling the preclear what to think about his case in session?
Yes on the question side, and no on the answer side.
LRH never clarified this.
For example in dianetics we list for attitudes, emotions, sensations
and pains, we DO NOT tell the pc WHAT attitudes, emotions, sensations or
pains to list or run. But we do insist that he list and run AESP's.
Why? Because we know they glue the track together with charge on
them.
Part of the problem with just asking the preclear what he is
interested in talking about is generally he will hide behind surface
stuff, blame and pain and suffering etc, and never get to the deeper stuff
of personal responsibility for condition.
Adore handles it this way, the auditor is expected by the preclear to
know in GENERAL what is wrong with him, but not the specifics of it.
The auditor knows there is some attitude that is munging up the pc's
bank and causing him to feel sick all day long, but the auditor hasn't a
clue what it is. If he thinks he does he is out of session.
That it IS an attitude is the same for all beings, WHAT attitude it
is, is different for all beings.
Thus it takes the auditor to know one needs to find the attitude, and
it takes the preclear to find it.
The evaluation by the auditor to the preclear that it is an attitude
that is being looked for IS EXPECTED by the preclear, and he will ARC
break with the auditor if that indication is not forthcoming when it
should be, even if the preclear doesn't know what the indication is going
to be before the auditor starts the process!
If the auditor indicates (evaluates) the next level of the bank to the
preclear correctly, the preclear will be very happy and start looking and
finding answers.
If the auditor gets the next level wrong, the preclear will spin.
That is what happened to me.
The preclear is expected to know the specifics but not the general
until he is better trained.
But the preclear can not get at the specifics unless the auditor
directs him to the area with the general.
Thus we run problems, withholds, computations, engrams, secondaries,
GPMS and the rest, which are in fact wrong with everyone, and are ALL that
is wrong with anyone, but we do not push any specific items off on the
preclear.
Personally I do not believe that Hubbard got this clear enough to
make it work well.
He missed some of the generals, and make up for it by forcing
specifics.
Homer
Sat Dec 11 00:07:01 EST 2010
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Oct 24 12:06:02 EDT 2016
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore831.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help in body
=========== 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)
iD8DBQFYDjFqURT1lqxE3HERArImAJ4kpz/f/04oNixRNITlQkZXemA5zwCeJaDc
1rEKdoc4JWzEUsOnwvoQB7s=
=Ylh5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
THE GENERAL AND THE SPECIFIC
In alt.clearing.technology dapperdobbs <GeorgeCFL@hotmail.com> wrote:
> You brought up a number of interesting points, and I don't really do
> them justice here with this reply. I'm all for anyone getting to the
> truth about life. I believe that no matter how one arrives,the truth
> will be found to be the same. From all I've seen Scn is the only
> subject that encompasses the basics of life, and it is the fastest way
> to arrive at the truth.
Fastest is unclear.
One has to distinguish between fundamentals and approach.
We can all agree that finding the truth of the matter will cause its
vanishment.
That's the axioms.
One can nitpick the axioms, but they are basically right.
But HOW to find that truth is quite another story.
Scientology is a brand of auditing, although LRH liked to think that
auditing belonged only to scientology, any one trying to find the truth
about an unwanted condition in himself or another is auditing: listening,
asking, and computing.
Although LRH made much of not evaluating for the pc in session, the
entire bridge is one huge evaluation of how to audit and what to audit.
Adore breaks it up this way, The auditor asks the questions, and the
preclear gives the answers. That's called being in session.
What LRH forbade was for the auditor to answer the question for the
preclear, and for the preclear to ask the question (about himself) of the
auditor, that was defined as evaluation and out of session.
But the preclear EXPECTS the auditor to know what to do, namely what
question to ask.
The preclear may hope the auditor can then also answer it, but that's
out of session again.
So evaluation of what to run, and how to run it lies in the auditor's
lap, every Case Supervisor who wrote a program, does an evaluation of the
preclear's case and then directs the auditor to run it as written.
Is this telling the preclear what to think about his case in session?
Yes on the question side, and no on the answer side.
LRH never clarified this.
For example in dianetics we list for attitudes, emotions, sensations
and pains, we DO NOT tell the pc WHAT attitudes, emotions, sensations or
pains to list or run. But we do insist that he list and run AESP's.
Why? Because we know they glue the track together with charge on
them.
Part of the problem with just asking the preclear what he is
interested in talking about is generally he will hide behind surface
stuff, blame and pain and suffering etc, and never get to the deeper stuff
of personal responsibility for condition.
Adore handles it this way, the auditor is expected by the preclear to
know in GENERAL what is wrong with him, but not the specifics of it.
The auditor knows there is some attitude that is munging up the pc's
bank and causing him to feel sick all day long, but the auditor hasn't a
clue what it is. If he thinks he does he is out of session.
That it IS an attitude is the same for all beings, WHAT attitude it
is, is different for all beings.
Thus it takes the auditor to know one needs to find the attitude, and
it takes the preclear to find it.
The evaluation by the auditor to the preclear that it is an attitude
that is being looked for IS EXPECTED by the preclear, and he will ARC
break with the auditor if that indication is not forthcoming when it
should be, even if the preclear doesn't know what the indication is going
to be before the auditor starts the process!
If the auditor indicates (evaluates) the next level of the bank to the
preclear correctly, the preclear will be very happy and start looking and
finding answers.
If the auditor gets the next level wrong, the preclear will spin.
That is what happened to me.
The preclear is expected to know the specifics but not the general
until he is better trained.
But the preclear can not get at the specifics unless the auditor
directs him to the area with the general.
Thus we run problems, withholds, computations, engrams, secondaries,
GPMS and the rest, which are in fact wrong with everyone, and are ALL that
is wrong with anyone, but we do not push any specific items off on the
preclear.
Personally I do not believe that Hubbard got this clear enough to
make it work well.
He missed some of the generals, and make up for it by forcing
specifics.
Homer
Sat Dec 11 00:07:01 EST 2010
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Oct 24 12:06:02 EDT 2016
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore831.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help in body
=========== 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)
iD8DBQFYDjFqURT1lqxE3HERArImAJ4kpz/f/04oNixRNITlQkZXemA5zwCeJaDc
1rEKdoc4JWzEUsOnwvoQB7s=
=Ylh5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
ACT29 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
ELECTRON LOVE
ACT - 29
28 November 1993
Copyright (C) 1993 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
>I'd still really like to know how thetans influence the particles >they
are attached too.
OK. It's a fair question.
To start with we have to ask 'What is a thetan?' In other words
what properties do thetans (elemental souls) have that might manifest
themselves in an electron which would support the idea that a thetan is
causally connected to the behavior of the electron?
First let's get two things out of the way.
As unpleasant as it might seem, it is not a priori necessary for
something to affect a particle just because it is attached to it. In
such a case though, it may be impossible to demonstrate the existence of
such an attachment, especially if you are dependent upon looking at
purported effects to support the existence of cause. If there are no
effects to observe, there is no support for a cause. So why claim such
a cause exists?
One might assume that existence is not wasteful of its connections,
(Occam's Razor) so that if a thetan is connected to an electron at any
level, then somewhere that connection should manifest or be made to
manifest even if it is not in the normal every day operations of the
electron.
It would be more reasonable to assume however that if a thetan is
connected to an electron, such a connection would manifest in every warp
and woof of the electron's interaction with the world and it is merely
up to us to find it.
Secondly if we ASSUME that a thetan IS merely a composite of
electrons and other 'particles', then asking what evidence is there to
support that a thetan is attached to an electron is meaningless because
that assumes inherently that a thetan is its own thing, not itself made
of electrons.
So those of us who claim that thetans exist and are part and parcel
of many mechanical organizations, such as particles, atoms, molecules,
biological subsystems, and macro systems, are then presented with the
task of clearly delineating what a thetan IS that is not itself merely
an electron or an involved composite of electrons.
This might also include having to indicate what merely mechanical
aspects there are to the system (force and mass alone), and what
'emergent' non mechanical aspects there might be that would require an
extra mechanical entity or even an extra space time process to account
for them.
This not only forces us to say what a thetan IS, but also what an
electron and its composites are NOT.
Once we have done this, then perhaps we can show that models of
organisms and smaller units or cause show behavior that can not be
reduced to things that an electron is, and must per force take into
account what a thetan is too, thus implying that thetan's AND electrons
are involved in the structure of the item in question.
If one assumes that everything in existence can be explained by
already existing fundamental concepts and particles, then such a
division between electron and thetan is impossible.
You comment 'Well beings have such and such a property' and they
respond 'No problem, electrons can do it.'
Their basic party line is that everything that can be done
in existence can be done by force and mass alone, namely systems
of parts operating via cause and effect across a space time distance.
Everything is a machine, a space time gizmo, dominoes falling
because earlier dominoes fell etc, and the only difference between
things we understand with this model and do not yet understand is merely
a matter of complexity of parts.
Fine, all kinds of properties exist, and electrons exist, why not
just say it's a closed system and all properties can be explained by
electrons?
(Please remember that by 'electron' I really mean the entire class
of fundamental particles known to present physics from which all known
complexities are believed to arise.)
The only way that one would have any justification for introducing
a new fundamental particle into the system is if a contradiction or non
understanding would arise by assigning all observed phenomena to the
present class of fundamental particles.
For example, it is easy enough to prove that there are two kinds of
electric charge, positive and negative. Simple experiments with Glass
and Silk, Amber and Wool show clearly the need for two different kinds
of charge.
For those of you who are not familiar with the experiment involved
I present it here for your edification. The rest of you can skip this
section.
Early electrical scientists knew that when glass was rubbed with
silk and amber was rubbed with wool that both took on some sort of
electrical charge, similar to what you get when you walk across a dry
carpet in winter and spark yourself when you touch a door knob.
Or perhaps if you are like me you use acrylic blankets which
develop a veritable lightning storm in the dead of night as you pull
them apart and play around in them. After doing this for a while you
can give yourself quite a shock if you then touch the air conditioner.
One early way of measuring this charge was with a crude device
called an electroscope which was a closed container with a glass plate
that allowed you to see inside it. There were various forms of this
device but the one of interest here had 3 metal terminals on the top
which led through the top of the device to inside the device where three
pith balls were hung from the three terminals by wire equally spaced
from each other.
Pith is a sticky biological substance found in the center of plant
stalks, and in these experiments it was often coated with a thin film of
aluminum so that each ball could hold some electrical charge. They were
very light and allowed people to measure deflection forces on the balls
which would have been impossible had the balls been made of solid metal.
The experiment went as follows. First you rub the glass rod with
silk until it was fully charged and then you touch the rod to the left
and middle terminal of the electroscope. The charge on the silk would
'run down' the two terminals and charge up the pith balls which would
then swing away from each other in repulsion.
This observation gave support to the idea that electricity was some
kind of substance that could run off of one object onto another, and it
'didn't like being with itself.'
Then you discharge the electroscope back to a neutral condition by
touching the two charged terminals to the nearest radiator or ground and
you do the same experiment with the amber rod. Again as the two
terminals are touched with the fully charged amber rod the two pith
balls swing away from each other due to the charge that comes down from
the amber rod onto the pith balls.
Well at first these experimenters were not too bright about what
they observed. They correctly concluded that electricity was a
substance that could flow from one object to another, and further they
concluded that this substance sort of didn't like being with itself and
so it caused a repulsive force on two charged objects.
This idea of repulsiveness also accounted for why the electricity
so readily flowed from the glass or amber rods onto the pith balls,
because the stuff was trying to escape itself on the rods and so would
flow anywhere it could that gave it some solid ground to flow on. This
also explained why touching the rods to the radiator at the end of the
experiment or something else connected to the earth would discharge the
pith balls, because again the electricity wanted to go anywhere but
where it was.
Believe it or not they left it this way for a long time until
someone a little brighter than the rest decided that the third terminal
on the electroscope should be used for something too! So he charged up
both the glass and the amber rods, one with silk and the other with
wool, and applied them both to the electroscope.
The glass rod was applied to the left and middle terminals
producing repelling pith balls, and WHILE the left and middle terminals
remained charged from the glass, the amber rod was applied to the right
hand terminal with full expectations that its pith ball would repel too.
But much to his amazement the right hand pith ball was ATTRACTED to the
middle pith ball that had been charged by the glass.
Now no matter how they did this experiment the results always came
out the same. If they touched the glass rod to all three terminals, all
3 pith balls would repel. If they touched the amber rod to all three
terminals, all 3 pith balls would repel. But any time they touched the
glass rod to one pith ball and the amber rod to the other they would
ATTRACT!
So they had a problem. Their present theory was that electricity
consisted of some fundamental particle that didn't like to be in its own
presence. As long as they did the glass and amber experiments
independently this theory was not invalidated. Glass electricity and
Amber electricity both cause repulsive forces, BUT ONLY ON THEIR OWN
KIND, and that was what was missed.
When they did the glass and amber experiments in tandem they saw
attractive forces too and it became very clear that the particle of
electricity couldn't both attract and repel at the same time, because
that would be a contradiction, so there had to be two fundamental
particles of electricity, which we now know to be the electron and the
proton.
The new theory said that both electrons and protons repel their own
kind, but attract each other. Therefore clearly if protons were on the
glass rod, then electrons had to be on the amber rod, or visa versa.
We now theorize that all matter contains equal measures of
electrons and protons, but the protons are held tightly in the nucleus
of the atom and can not indeed flow anywhere, while the electrons are
held in loose orbits around the protons and can quite easily flow
everywhere.
The ACTUAL difference between the glass and the amber is that the
silk steals electrons from the glass and so the glass becomes positively
charged due to a deficit of electrons. The amber steals electrons from
the wool so the amber becomes negatively charged due to an excess of
electrons.
Thus if there were only ONE fundamental particle, the electron say,
then assigning all these observed phenomena to the sole electron would
give rise to the contradiction that the electron had both positive and
negative charge. It becomes necessary to introduce another fundamental
particle, the proton, in order to account for all observable phenomena,
without creating contradictions in the qualities assigned to the
presently extant fundamental particles.
So the only justification for creating a new fundamental, such as a
'thetan', is if some of the properties in the world that we observe
would create a contradiction if they were assigned to the presently
extant fundamentals that every one is familiar with, such as the
fundamental particles of nuclear physics.
So here is where we begin to walk on hot water, because people are
very adamant about not creating new fundamental particles, they like
their theories the way they are and they don't want to change them. It
takes TREMENDOUS pressure and argument to get these people to even look
at the possibility that their theories are incomplete that they are
missing a fundamental particle or thetan or two.
But such toppling of entrenched theories starts with observations
that can not be explained by the fundamental particle set that already
exists. Of course such observations may be discounted by the theorists
in power whose theories and world views would fall if something new had
to be added, or god forbid, something new erected in its place.
For example if someone COULD get out of their bodies, or even just
perceive things far away in closed rooms, that single datum alone would
destroy the foundation of modern understanding. Nothing would be left.
There would not even be ashes left with which to pick up the pieces.
Physicists would be completely out of a job the next day, except maybe
those good at denial and spin control.
A few perhaps would have the wherewithal to start from scratch and
perhaps build a new theory completely alien to what had gone before, but
which hopefully would reduce to the old theories and the old ideas when
limited to smaller arenas of observation.
A common example of this process is how Einstein's theory of
Special Relativity reduces to Newtonian Mechanics when observations are
limited to the smaller arena of low velocities.
But as it is, most damning observations you come up with are going
to be met with the same old same old.
'Love? Electrons can do it, electron love!'
'Free Will? No problem, Heisenberg said it fine with his
uncertainty principle.'
'Ethics? No problem, pure calculation of best return for your
money.'
'Beauty? Well I am sure we will understand it a few years down the
road, besides quarks have charm, that's close even if strange.'
"Giving a Damn? Well why do you think similar charges repel, and
unalike charges attract, they care!"
You see it's on and on. So you have to start somewhere. First you
have to take a good look at what people have already defined electrons
to be. Once you understand THAT thoroughly then you won't be able to be
fooled so easily once you start to come up with damning observations
that can't be explained in terms of the present model.
For example. There is something called State Determinism. That
means that the evolution of the system is a function of its present
state and the laws that govern what happens next from any given present
state.
I don't know what the present opinion on State Determinism is, but
if people define electrons in a state determined way, such as Maxwell
did with his theory of light, and you manage to show that some things
are not state determined, in other words, what they do next is NOT a
function of their present or their past, well then the reigning theory
which says that the electron is state determine must either go out the
window or else you must introduce ANOTHER fundamental particle (a thetan
perhaps) which is not state determined but which can work in conjunction
with the electron.
Further its pretty obvious that if something which is not state
determined, such as a thetan, is effecting something which is, such as
an electron, then you will be able to measure the UNstate determinedness
of the thetan by looking at the behavior of the electron. In other
words once you introduce any un state determined entity into a system,
the whole system will start to manifest un state determinedness.
Now this whole argument about free will centers around people's
ideas that we are not state determined beings, that we can do things
that are not a function of our past or present, that we are not bound by
mathematical law to do or choose in any one given way according to our
present state.
A lot of people want there to be a free will only because they
enjoy punishing people for their transgressions which wouldn't make a
hell of a lot of sense if people couldn't help themselves.
That is called having a religious bone to grind. 'We went to all
this trouble to build a Hell Forever which serves no purpose except to
make us feel better by giving bad people what's coming to them, and now
you tell me they don't deserve it. Sheesh what a waste of tax payer's
dollars, maybe we ought to just squelch the evidence that everything is
state determined and go ahead and burn the heathen bastards.' This has
actually happened between the Church and various proponents of
mechanical science.
So you start to ask some probing and embarrassing questions, which
begin to bother everyone except those who already have everything
figured out. (Their theses are already written, they can't afford to
have it all proven bunk.)
The primary questions would be on the subject of machines, trying
to figure out what present theory says they are capable of, and
comparing that to what you can observe YOU are capable of. That way you
can come to a better understanding of whether you are just a machine or
not.
For example,
Can a machine hurt? Do machines NEED anesthetics on humane
grounds when damaged, broken or being operated on?
Can a Conscious Unit hurt? Do CU's NEED anesthetics on humane
grounds?
Would it ever be immoral to torture a machine in the sense that it
would be immoral to torture a CU?
There is something people keep forgetting about machines, they have
FUNCTION and STRUCTURE. They are very much like a program and a
computer. The function of the program, what it does, is completely
independent of the kind of computer you run it on or the programming
language you wrote it in, which together form the underlying structure
which implements the function.
The same is true of machines. What they do, like tell time say,
which is a FUNCTION, is completely independent of what MEDIUM you build
the machine in. You can build a clock with wheels and springs, or with
electronics, or with atomic molecules or with biological systems, or
even with planetary systems.
The FUNCTION of a machine is independent of the MEDIUM.
All clocks have an energy storage unit which needs to be refilled
periodically. They all have some escapement mechanism that allows the
stored energy to escape over time in a highly accurate way, and they all
have some method of recording to show the time or a count of how much
energy has escaped.
You can build this with ball bearings, you can build this with
circuits, you can build this with candles, you can build this with water
wheels, you can build this with ANYTHING.
You can even build this with a mountain of scientists spilling over
into the abyss forever more at 3 scientists per second.
We call this the Machine Medium Theorem, which states that a
machine's function is independent of the medium it is built in.
Thus if the brain is a machine, then it can be built out of ball
bearings, wheels, springs, electric circuits with wire and solder, and
even solid state transistors or integrated circuits.
So here is where you get to ask yourself a really deep
philosophical question. Could a brain built out of wheels and gears and
levers and springs, no matter how big it was or how small the parts
were, ever HURT? Or could it merely RESPOND.
And if this mechanical brain did hurt, how would you know? How
would its behavior differ from a purely force and mass robot?
Is pain merely a symbol to the mind that something is wrong
or is pain CAUSE?
Is the causal relation between force and mass the same as
the causal relation between pain and a consciious will?
Does pain MAKE THE WILL MOVE the way that force makes the mass
move?
If you conclude that such a mechanical brain, wired function for
function like the real brain, could not hurt, then you must conclude
that the real brain can not hurt either. You would also have to
conclude that since we do hurt, the 'we' that hurts is not the brain.
If on the other hand you conclude that a mechanical brain could
hurt, then it's fine if you also conclude that the actual brain hurts,
in which case there is no need for further fundamental particles to
'explain' hurt, such as a conscious unit or a thetan.
Similarly you must ask yourselves about other things that humans
can do which machines might not be able to do.
Can a machine learn anything with perfect certainty? The Machine
Certainty Theorem says no.
MACHINE CERTAINTY THEOREM
http://www.lightlink.com/theproof
Can a machine be self aware or is it limited to having one set of
circuits study another set of circuits which study the first set of
circuits? If both circuits are wrong or malfunction what other circuit
would know for sure?
Can a circuit study itself? Is there a limit to how much of itself
a circuit can study? Does a conscious unit have the same limitation?
Can a machine ever feel injustice? Can a machine be moved to anger
and hatred and revenge, or would it be cold and calculating because
really it was only programmed to survive and in fact it couldn't give a
damn if it wanted to?
What survival value is there to anger and real feelings and caring
and desire? Why not just compute, do and survive? Is it possible that
such things as real feelings actually serve no useful survival
potential, they are merely there because they have to be there, because
the thing which is surviving is a conscious unit which happens to be
stuck with CARING about its own survival by virtue of its own nature?
Even the Extropians, the 'Up Loaders' will tell you that pain
serves no useful function. All you really need is a red light going off
in your mind to tell you you are in danger. Of course what would make a
being avoid damage or death if it didn't hurt? Well he would be
programmed to avoid such. Why torture someone with pain to MOTIVATE
them to do something when you can just program them to do it BY FORCE.
Motivation and force the same exact thing, or do they merely
serve similar purposes through very different means.
And so we come to the real thing that needs the most study, the
difference between FORCE and MOTIVATION.
You can be FORCED to move and you can be MOTIVATED (by pain) to
move. BOTH cause motion, and because of this, some people confuse them
as being the same thing, or they think pain can be reduced to force and
mass in motion.
Christians place a big deal on the free will. Certainly if
everything we did was FORCED by programming, then that could hardly be
called free will. So a prerequisite for a free will is to have at least
something that operates on MOTIVATION.
But really, even a person who is pushed and pulled around the
universe by various motivations can hardly be considered to be free or
have a free will. He is still a puppet of his desires.
So then you need some ability to CHOOSE your motivations and to
suppress others. You say to yourself, I won't be motivated by greed and
lust for tender loins, and I will be motivated by the desire to learn
and make better of myself and do the world some good.
It must be noticed however that even these CHOICES to be motivated
by some things and not by others, come from some motivation to make such
a choice.
You can't change a desire or squash a desire or choose a desire
unless you have a desire to do so. Where did THAT desire come from?
You can't even chose to have THAT desire unless you desire to have it.
So ultimately all choices come from desires that exist before the
choices. Some choices can change, add or delete other desires, but
always there is at least one desire that is pre existing to any choice,
and that desire is sovereign in the ruling sense, and guides what that
being will do.
Perhaps that is what the Christians are talking about when they
talk about the choice between good and evil, or between selfishness and
self sacrifice for the greater good. Perhaps they are trying to sort
out those who have the motivation to cooperate with others and enjoy
other's well being, from those who are not motivated by the well being
of others and who see using and abusing others as a fast route to
happiness, wealth and success.
If so, hell then is not a matter of free will, it's a matter of
motivation and sensitivity to other's pain. People are the most
compassionate when other's pain is their pain. That's not free will,
that's an open door of perception. Perhaps people can choose to open
that door, but what would motivate them to?
More likely they are born with an open door of sensitivity to
other's pain and they shut it closed for one reason or another as they
grow up. Understanding this would go far to understanding man's
inhumanity towards man.
Ultimately choice is always ruled by desire, fundamental desire is
never ruled by choice, unless that choice is itself unruled by desire or
motivation of any kind. If a choice is unruled by any desire, then it
is also unruled by the desire to do good, so it can hardly be said that
the choice to be good comes from being good, because you would have
already had to BE good, so your choice to be good would be redundant.
What the choice to be good, cooperative and sensitive comes from
then becomes a good question at best.
LRH by the way says that being good is fundamental to a being and
that any decision to be bad comes from a crazy effort to be good.
The Christians say that being bad is fundamental, that
FUNDAMENTALLY we are all in need of forgiveness, but rarely do they
discuss WHY people do bad things. They say we make this choice between
good and evil and that's the end of it. If we choose to do evil, we
know we are doing wrong, so we DESERVE to go to Hell Forever.
I don't believe it is meaningful to say that 'evil' people know
they are doing 'WRONG'. It might be meaningful to say that they know
they are hurting others and don't care because they are not sensitive to
other's pain and do not take joy in other's well being.
Such evil people might know that other's think what they are doing
is 'wrong' but why would they consider it wrong themselves?
If they don't think it is wrong, why do they deserve punishment
FOREVER for what they do? Punishment for a while might be corrective,
at least it might teach them that OTHER's think what they are doing is
wrong and that they had better stop if they want to be left alone. But
punishment forever? What does it serve except to make the good feel
better about the abuse they received at the hands of the bad? In which
case how just good are these good?
One doesn't usually picture vengeful bitterness as the embodiment
of 'good'.
More likely the 'good' wish the bad to go to hell forever to make
up to the good for all the pain the good had to suffer obeying God's
rules, all the while the 'evil' where having a ball of it.
What good is being good, if the evil get off scott free. This
implies that there is much suffering to being good, almost an unnatural
form of self restraint, and the good damn well want some payment in
return for their efforts.
Is a being who forces himself to be 'good' and follow God's laws
only because he fears Eternal Punishment, really all that good?
Is it really possible that beings who believe in God behave
themselves better because of this fear of reprisal than other beings who
are just naturally good but think that this God and Hell thing is a lot
of bunk?
Would a being who obeyed God perfectly only because of his fear of
punishment hold a higher place in Heaven than a being who was just good
naturally but may have broken a few rules in some areas because he
ignored the nonsensical and capricious rules of a bitter and jealous
God?
Does the person who propitiated God properly only because he feared
Hell deserve to go to Heaven? Does the person who was good naturally
but who rejects the existence of God deserve to go to Hell?
I don't think so.
Compassion doesn't demand Eternal Punishment for anything.
If evil people thought what they were doing was wrong in their own
hearts, they wouldn't do it. If they DID do it, even though they
thought it was wrong in their own hearts, then clearly they are not in
control and so they don't deserve punishment.
Punishment must always serve a purpose to the PUNISHED! Punishing
someone FOREVER can only serve a purpose to the PUNISHER.
If someone is hell bent on doing wrong, you are well within your
rights to level pain at him to teach him a lesson, or merely to get him
to stop doing what he is doing. But you gotta at least give him a
chance to respond to the corrective or constraining action of the
punishment. If the guy is intractable and won't change and won't
restrain himself no matter what you do, why waste your time punishing
him forever, just destroy him. End of story, end of problem.
The only possible reason that any God would punish someone bad
forever was because it satisfied the good that He do so. In other words
Hell is not payment to the wicked, it is payment to the righteous, for
having remained righteous. It's a fulfillment of a promised contract,
'I will hurt your enemies bad if you but remain righteous.' So putting
the wicked in hell is where the righteous come to get their full measure
of satisfaction for having fulfilled their part of the bargain of
staying righteous. In which case the righteous are worse than the
wicked, feeding at the trough of the suffering of the wicked.
'What would I do if I didn't have someone bad to torture for the
rest of time, life would be so empty, it's hard being good.'
The only possible SANE justification for some sort of ongoing
punishment is if the person being punished may some day change his mind
and become tractable or better yet civilized. So you throw him in the
lake of fire until he cries uncle. Maybe some never cry uncle, so they
stay there. At least they have the chance to cry uncle and get out and
become part of the GNP again. And they have this chance FOREVER.
But throwing someone into a lake of fire forever, GIVING HIM NO
CHANCE TO CRY UNCLE AND KEEPING HIM THERE EVEN IF HE DOES CRY UNCLE
BECAUSE 'IT'S TOO LATE, YOU HAD YOUR CHANCE', just means you belong in
that lake of fire yourself until YOU cry uncle.
YAHWEH, hear me, I am coming after you. You gotta stop lying to
your children man. It ain't right.
Anyway, if you KNOW that someone will never cry uncle and will
continue to do bad forever, then you have a problem.
Fine, so you destroy them as defective. You don't punish them in
hell forever where the good can come look into the screaming pits for
the rest of time taking in and admiring the beauty of it all.
"Ah, those satisfying screams, now I KNOW God is good!"
So the subject of free will, pain and motivation etc. is very
important to what makes something a living conscious unit and what makes
a machine.
If a machine decides to follow the dark side of the force, do you
punish it in hell forever, or do you pull its plug?
Would it make any sense to punish a machine in hell forever? Even
if this satisfied your benighted craving for punishment, would the
machine give a damn? Would it beg to die and feel sorry for what it had
done? Would it promise to love you forever if you would only end its
misery in the peace of death or disassemblement?
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Oct 22 12:06:02 EDT 2016
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/act29.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help in body
=========== 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)
iD8DBQFYC45qURT1lqxE3HERAky1AKCJDO7St1Y2oDqIZocpxRSlunU2xQCfX+ff
rLArWUK0QqXL09810Ec4KRY=
=Wov7
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Mon Oct 24 15:38:41 EDT 2016
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/act29.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)
iD8DBQFYDmNBURT1lqxE3HERAgr6AKCfEpZjrJMAnzo08mPRKXjDg8yL2ACgwRvr
47oMzAva7XdVEzh/VwRucxs=
=WLUA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
ELECTRON LOVE
ACT - 29
28 November 1993
Copyright (C) 1993 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
>I'd still really like to know how thetans influence the particles >they
are attached too.
OK. It's a fair question.
To start with we have to ask 'What is a thetan?' In other words
what properties do thetans (elemental souls) have that might manifest
themselves in an electron which would support the idea that a thetan is
causally connected to the behavior of the electron?
First let's get two things out of the way.
As unpleasant as it might seem, it is not a priori necessary for
something to affect a particle just because it is attached to it. In
such a case though, it may be impossible to demonstrate the existence of
such an attachment, especially if you are dependent upon looking at
purported effects to support the existence of cause. If there are no
effects to observe, there is no support for a cause. So why claim such
a cause exists?
One might assume that existence is not wasteful of its connections,
(Occam's Razor) so that if a thetan is connected to an electron at any
level, then somewhere that connection should manifest or be made to
manifest even if it is not in the normal every day operations of the
electron.
It would be more reasonable to assume however that if a thetan is
connected to an electron, such a connection would manifest in every warp
and woof of the electron's interaction with the world and it is merely
up to us to find it.
Secondly if we ASSUME that a thetan IS merely a composite of
electrons and other 'particles', then asking what evidence is there to
support that a thetan is attached to an electron is meaningless because
that assumes inherently that a thetan is its own thing, not itself made
of electrons.
So those of us who claim that thetans exist and are part and parcel
of many mechanical organizations, such as particles, atoms, molecules,
biological subsystems, and macro systems, are then presented with the
task of clearly delineating what a thetan IS that is not itself merely
an electron or an involved composite of electrons.
This might also include having to indicate what merely mechanical
aspects there are to the system (force and mass alone), and what
'emergent' non mechanical aspects there might be that would require an
extra mechanical entity or even an extra space time process to account
for them.
This not only forces us to say what a thetan IS, but also what an
electron and its composites are NOT.
Once we have done this, then perhaps we can show that models of
organisms and smaller units or cause show behavior that can not be
reduced to things that an electron is, and must per force take into
account what a thetan is too, thus implying that thetan's AND electrons
are involved in the structure of the item in question.
If one assumes that everything in existence can be explained by
already existing fundamental concepts and particles, then such a
division between electron and thetan is impossible.
You comment 'Well beings have such and such a property' and they
respond 'No problem, electrons can do it.'
Their basic party line is that everything that can be done
in existence can be done by force and mass alone, namely systems
of parts operating via cause and effect across a space time distance.
Everything is a machine, a space time gizmo, dominoes falling
because earlier dominoes fell etc, and the only difference between
things we understand with this model and do not yet understand is merely
a matter of complexity of parts.
Fine, all kinds of properties exist, and electrons exist, why not
just say it's a closed system and all properties can be explained by
electrons?
(Please remember that by 'electron' I really mean the entire class
of fundamental particles known to present physics from which all known
complexities are believed to arise.)
The only way that one would have any justification for introducing
a new fundamental particle into the system is if a contradiction or non
understanding would arise by assigning all observed phenomena to the
present class of fundamental particles.
For example, it is easy enough to prove that there are two kinds of
electric charge, positive and negative. Simple experiments with Glass
and Silk, Amber and Wool show clearly the need for two different kinds
of charge.
For those of you who are not familiar with the experiment involved
I present it here for your edification. The rest of you can skip this
section.
Early electrical scientists knew that when glass was rubbed with
silk and amber was rubbed with wool that both took on some sort of
electrical charge, similar to what you get when you walk across a dry
carpet in winter and spark yourself when you touch a door knob.
Or perhaps if you are like me you use acrylic blankets which
develop a veritable lightning storm in the dead of night as you pull
them apart and play around in them. After doing this for a while you
can give yourself quite a shock if you then touch the air conditioner.
One early way of measuring this charge was with a crude device
called an electroscope which was a closed container with a glass plate
that allowed you to see inside it. There were various forms of this
device but the one of interest here had 3 metal terminals on the top
which led through the top of the device to inside the device where three
pith balls were hung from the three terminals by wire equally spaced
from each other.
Pith is a sticky biological substance found in the center of plant
stalks, and in these experiments it was often coated with a thin film of
aluminum so that each ball could hold some electrical charge. They were
very light and allowed people to measure deflection forces on the balls
which would have been impossible had the balls been made of solid metal.
The experiment went as follows. First you rub the glass rod with
silk until it was fully charged and then you touch the rod to the left
and middle terminal of the electroscope. The charge on the silk would
'run down' the two terminals and charge up the pith balls which would
then swing away from each other in repulsion.
This observation gave support to the idea that electricity was some
kind of substance that could run off of one object onto another, and it
'didn't like being with itself.'
Then you discharge the electroscope back to a neutral condition by
touching the two charged terminals to the nearest radiator or ground and
you do the same experiment with the amber rod. Again as the two
terminals are touched with the fully charged amber rod the two pith
balls swing away from each other due to the charge that comes down from
the amber rod onto the pith balls.
Well at first these experimenters were not too bright about what
they observed. They correctly concluded that electricity was a
substance that could flow from one object to another, and further they
concluded that this substance sort of didn't like being with itself and
so it caused a repulsive force on two charged objects.
This idea of repulsiveness also accounted for why the electricity
so readily flowed from the glass or amber rods onto the pith balls,
because the stuff was trying to escape itself on the rods and so would
flow anywhere it could that gave it some solid ground to flow on. This
also explained why touching the rods to the radiator at the end of the
experiment or something else connected to the earth would discharge the
pith balls, because again the electricity wanted to go anywhere but
where it was.
Believe it or not they left it this way for a long time until
someone a little brighter than the rest decided that the third terminal
on the electroscope should be used for something too! So he charged up
both the glass and the amber rods, one with silk and the other with
wool, and applied them both to the electroscope.
The glass rod was applied to the left and middle terminals
producing repelling pith balls, and WHILE the left and middle terminals
remained charged from the glass, the amber rod was applied to the right
hand terminal with full expectations that its pith ball would repel too.
But much to his amazement the right hand pith ball was ATTRACTED to the
middle pith ball that had been charged by the glass.
Now no matter how they did this experiment the results always came
out the same. If they touched the glass rod to all three terminals, all
3 pith balls would repel. If they touched the amber rod to all three
terminals, all 3 pith balls would repel. But any time they touched the
glass rod to one pith ball and the amber rod to the other they would
ATTRACT!
So they had a problem. Their present theory was that electricity
consisted of some fundamental particle that didn't like to be in its own
presence. As long as they did the glass and amber experiments
independently this theory was not invalidated. Glass electricity and
Amber electricity both cause repulsive forces, BUT ONLY ON THEIR OWN
KIND, and that was what was missed.
When they did the glass and amber experiments in tandem they saw
attractive forces too and it became very clear that the particle of
electricity couldn't both attract and repel at the same time, because
that would be a contradiction, so there had to be two fundamental
particles of electricity, which we now know to be the electron and the
proton.
The new theory said that both electrons and protons repel their own
kind, but attract each other. Therefore clearly if protons were on the
glass rod, then electrons had to be on the amber rod, or visa versa.
We now theorize that all matter contains equal measures of
electrons and protons, but the protons are held tightly in the nucleus
of the atom and can not indeed flow anywhere, while the electrons are
held in loose orbits around the protons and can quite easily flow
everywhere.
The ACTUAL difference between the glass and the amber is that the
silk steals electrons from the glass and so the glass becomes positively
charged due to a deficit of electrons. The amber steals electrons from
the wool so the amber becomes negatively charged due to an excess of
electrons.
Thus if there were only ONE fundamental particle, the electron say,
then assigning all these observed phenomena to the sole electron would
give rise to the contradiction that the electron had both positive and
negative charge. It becomes necessary to introduce another fundamental
particle, the proton, in order to account for all observable phenomena,
without creating contradictions in the qualities assigned to the
presently extant fundamental particles.
So the only justification for creating a new fundamental, such as a
'thetan', is if some of the properties in the world that we observe
would create a contradiction if they were assigned to the presently
extant fundamentals that every one is familiar with, such as the
fundamental particles of nuclear physics.
So here is where we begin to walk on hot water, because people are
very adamant about not creating new fundamental particles, they like
their theories the way they are and they don't want to change them. It
takes TREMENDOUS pressure and argument to get these people to even look
at the possibility that their theories are incomplete that they are
missing a fundamental particle or thetan or two.
But such toppling of entrenched theories starts with observations
that can not be explained by the fundamental particle set that already
exists. Of course such observations may be discounted by the theorists
in power whose theories and world views would fall if something new had
to be added, or god forbid, something new erected in its place.
For example if someone COULD get out of their bodies, or even just
perceive things far away in closed rooms, that single datum alone would
destroy the foundation of modern understanding. Nothing would be left.
There would not even be ashes left with which to pick up the pieces.
Physicists would be completely out of a job the next day, except maybe
those good at denial and spin control.
A few perhaps would have the wherewithal to start from scratch and
perhaps build a new theory completely alien to what had gone before, but
which hopefully would reduce to the old theories and the old ideas when
limited to smaller arenas of observation.
A common example of this process is how Einstein's theory of
Special Relativity reduces to Newtonian Mechanics when observations are
limited to the smaller arena of low velocities.
But as it is, most damning observations you come up with are going
to be met with the same old same old.
'Love? Electrons can do it, electron love!'
'Free Will? No problem, Heisenberg said it fine with his
uncertainty principle.'
'Ethics? No problem, pure calculation of best return for your
money.'
'Beauty? Well I am sure we will understand it a few years down the
road, besides quarks have charm, that's close even if strange.'
"Giving a Damn? Well why do you think similar charges repel, and
unalike charges attract, they care!"
You see it's on and on. So you have to start somewhere. First you
have to take a good look at what people have already defined electrons
to be. Once you understand THAT thoroughly then you won't be able to be
fooled so easily once you start to come up with damning observations
that can't be explained in terms of the present model.
For example. There is something called State Determinism. That
means that the evolution of the system is a function of its present
state and the laws that govern what happens next from any given present
state.
I don't know what the present opinion on State Determinism is, but
if people define electrons in a state determined way, such as Maxwell
did with his theory of light, and you manage to show that some things
are not state determined, in other words, what they do next is NOT a
function of their present or their past, well then the reigning theory
which says that the electron is state determine must either go out the
window or else you must introduce ANOTHER fundamental particle (a thetan
perhaps) which is not state determined but which can work in conjunction
with the electron.
Further its pretty obvious that if something which is not state
determined, such as a thetan, is effecting something which is, such as
an electron, then you will be able to measure the UNstate determinedness
of the thetan by looking at the behavior of the electron. In other
words once you introduce any un state determined entity into a system,
the whole system will start to manifest un state determinedness.
Now this whole argument about free will centers around people's
ideas that we are not state determined beings, that we can do things
that are not a function of our past or present, that we are not bound by
mathematical law to do or choose in any one given way according to our
present state.
A lot of people want there to be a free will only because they
enjoy punishing people for their transgressions which wouldn't make a
hell of a lot of sense if people couldn't help themselves.
That is called having a religious bone to grind. 'We went to all
this trouble to build a Hell Forever which serves no purpose except to
make us feel better by giving bad people what's coming to them, and now
you tell me they don't deserve it. Sheesh what a waste of tax payer's
dollars, maybe we ought to just squelch the evidence that everything is
state determined and go ahead and burn the heathen bastards.' This has
actually happened between the Church and various proponents of
mechanical science.
So you start to ask some probing and embarrassing questions, which
begin to bother everyone except those who already have everything
figured out. (Their theses are already written, they can't afford to
have it all proven bunk.)
The primary questions would be on the subject of machines, trying
to figure out what present theory says they are capable of, and
comparing that to what you can observe YOU are capable of. That way you
can come to a better understanding of whether you are just a machine or
not.
For example,
Can a machine hurt? Do machines NEED anesthetics on humane
grounds when damaged, broken or being operated on?
Can a Conscious Unit hurt? Do CU's NEED anesthetics on humane
grounds?
Would it ever be immoral to torture a machine in the sense that it
would be immoral to torture a CU?
There is something people keep forgetting about machines, they have
FUNCTION and STRUCTURE. They are very much like a program and a
computer. The function of the program, what it does, is completely
independent of the kind of computer you run it on or the programming
language you wrote it in, which together form the underlying structure
which implements the function.
The same is true of machines. What they do, like tell time say,
which is a FUNCTION, is completely independent of what MEDIUM you build
the machine in. You can build a clock with wheels and springs, or with
electronics, or with atomic molecules or with biological systems, or
even with planetary systems.
The FUNCTION of a machine is independent of the MEDIUM.
All clocks have an energy storage unit which needs to be refilled
periodically. They all have some escapement mechanism that allows the
stored energy to escape over time in a highly accurate way, and they all
have some method of recording to show the time or a count of how much
energy has escaped.
You can build this with ball bearings, you can build this with
circuits, you can build this with candles, you can build this with water
wheels, you can build this with ANYTHING.
You can even build this with a mountain of scientists spilling over
into the abyss forever more at 3 scientists per second.
We call this the Machine Medium Theorem, which states that a
machine's function is independent of the medium it is built in.
Thus if the brain is a machine, then it can be built out of ball
bearings, wheels, springs, electric circuits with wire and solder, and
even solid state transistors or integrated circuits.
So here is where you get to ask yourself a really deep
philosophical question. Could a brain built out of wheels and gears and
levers and springs, no matter how big it was or how small the parts
were, ever HURT? Or could it merely RESPOND.
And if this mechanical brain did hurt, how would you know? How
would its behavior differ from a purely force and mass robot?
Is pain merely a symbol to the mind that something is wrong
or is pain CAUSE?
Is the causal relation between force and mass the same as
the causal relation between pain and a consciious will?
Does pain MAKE THE WILL MOVE the way that force makes the mass
move?
If you conclude that such a mechanical brain, wired function for
function like the real brain, could not hurt, then you must conclude
that the real brain can not hurt either. You would also have to
conclude that since we do hurt, the 'we' that hurts is not the brain.
If on the other hand you conclude that a mechanical brain could
hurt, then it's fine if you also conclude that the actual brain hurts,
in which case there is no need for further fundamental particles to
'explain' hurt, such as a conscious unit or a thetan.
Similarly you must ask yourselves about other things that humans
can do which machines might not be able to do.
Can a machine learn anything with perfect certainty? The Machine
Certainty Theorem says no.
MACHINE CERTAINTY THEOREM
http://www.lightlink.com/theproof
Can a machine be self aware or is it limited to having one set of
circuits study another set of circuits which study the first set of
circuits? If both circuits are wrong or malfunction what other circuit
would know for sure?
Can a circuit study itself? Is there a limit to how much of itself
a circuit can study? Does a conscious unit have the same limitation?
Can a machine ever feel injustice? Can a machine be moved to anger
and hatred and revenge, or would it be cold and calculating because
really it was only programmed to survive and in fact it couldn't give a
damn if it wanted to?
What survival value is there to anger and real feelings and caring
and desire? Why not just compute, do and survive? Is it possible that
such things as real feelings actually serve no useful survival
potential, they are merely there because they have to be there, because
the thing which is surviving is a conscious unit which happens to be
stuck with CARING about its own survival by virtue of its own nature?
Even the Extropians, the 'Up Loaders' will tell you that pain
serves no useful function. All you really need is a red light going off
in your mind to tell you you are in danger. Of course what would make a
being avoid damage or death if it didn't hurt? Well he would be
programmed to avoid such. Why torture someone with pain to MOTIVATE
them to do something when you can just program them to do it BY FORCE.
Motivation and force the same exact thing, or do they merely
serve similar purposes through very different means.
And so we come to the real thing that needs the most study, the
difference between FORCE and MOTIVATION.
You can be FORCED to move and you can be MOTIVATED (by pain) to
move. BOTH cause motion, and because of this, some people confuse them
as being the same thing, or they think pain can be reduced to force and
mass in motion.
Christians place a big deal on the free will. Certainly if
everything we did was FORCED by programming, then that could hardly be
called free will. So a prerequisite for a free will is to have at least
something that operates on MOTIVATION.
But really, even a person who is pushed and pulled around the
universe by various motivations can hardly be considered to be free or
have a free will. He is still a puppet of his desires.
So then you need some ability to CHOOSE your motivations and to
suppress others. You say to yourself, I won't be motivated by greed and
lust for tender loins, and I will be motivated by the desire to learn
and make better of myself and do the world some good.
It must be noticed however that even these CHOICES to be motivated
by some things and not by others, come from some motivation to make such
a choice.
You can't change a desire or squash a desire or choose a desire
unless you have a desire to do so. Where did THAT desire come from?
You can't even chose to have THAT desire unless you desire to have it.
So ultimately all choices come from desires that exist before the
choices. Some choices can change, add or delete other desires, but
always there is at least one desire that is pre existing to any choice,
and that desire is sovereign in the ruling sense, and guides what that
being will do.
Perhaps that is what the Christians are talking about when they
talk about the choice between good and evil, or between selfishness and
self sacrifice for the greater good. Perhaps they are trying to sort
out those who have the motivation to cooperate with others and enjoy
other's well being, from those who are not motivated by the well being
of others and who see using and abusing others as a fast route to
happiness, wealth and success.
If so, hell then is not a matter of free will, it's a matter of
motivation and sensitivity to other's pain. People are the most
compassionate when other's pain is their pain. That's not free will,
that's an open door of perception. Perhaps people can choose to open
that door, but what would motivate them to?
More likely they are born with an open door of sensitivity to
other's pain and they shut it closed for one reason or another as they
grow up. Understanding this would go far to understanding man's
inhumanity towards man.
Ultimately choice is always ruled by desire, fundamental desire is
never ruled by choice, unless that choice is itself unruled by desire or
motivation of any kind. If a choice is unruled by any desire, then it
is also unruled by the desire to do good, so it can hardly be said that
the choice to be good comes from being good, because you would have
already had to BE good, so your choice to be good would be redundant.
What the choice to be good, cooperative and sensitive comes from
then becomes a good question at best.
LRH by the way says that being good is fundamental to a being and
that any decision to be bad comes from a crazy effort to be good.
The Christians say that being bad is fundamental, that
FUNDAMENTALLY we are all in need of forgiveness, but rarely do they
discuss WHY people do bad things. They say we make this choice between
good and evil and that's the end of it. If we choose to do evil, we
know we are doing wrong, so we DESERVE to go to Hell Forever.
I don't believe it is meaningful to say that 'evil' people know
they are doing 'WRONG'. It might be meaningful to say that they know
they are hurting others and don't care because they are not sensitive to
other's pain and do not take joy in other's well being.
Such evil people might know that other's think what they are doing
is 'wrong' but why would they consider it wrong themselves?
If they don't think it is wrong, why do they deserve punishment
FOREVER for what they do? Punishment for a while might be corrective,
at least it might teach them that OTHER's think what they are doing is
wrong and that they had better stop if they want to be left alone. But
punishment forever? What does it serve except to make the good feel
better about the abuse they received at the hands of the bad? In which
case how just good are these good?
One doesn't usually picture vengeful bitterness as the embodiment
of 'good'.
More likely the 'good' wish the bad to go to hell forever to make
up to the good for all the pain the good had to suffer obeying God's
rules, all the while the 'evil' where having a ball of it.
What good is being good, if the evil get off scott free. This
implies that there is much suffering to being good, almost an unnatural
form of self restraint, and the good damn well want some payment in
return for their efforts.
Is a being who forces himself to be 'good' and follow God's laws
only because he fears Eternal Punishment, really all that good?
Is it really possible that beings who believe in God behave
themselves better because of this fear of reprisal than other beings who
are just naturally good but think that this God and Hell thing is a lot
of bunk?
Would a being who obeyed God perfectly only because of his fear of
punishment hold a higher place in Heaven than a being who was just good
naturally but may have broken a few rules in some areas because he
ignored the nonsensical and capricious rules of a bitter and jealous
God?
Does the person who propitiated God properly only because he feared
Hell deserve to go to Heaven? Does the person who was good naturally
but who rejects the existence of God deserve to go to Hell?
I don't think so.
Compassion doesn't demand Eternal Punishment for anything.
If evil people thought what they were doing was wrong in their own
hearts, they wouldn't do it. If they DID do it, even though they
thought it was wrong in their own hearts, then clearly they are not in
control and so they don't deserve punishment.
Punishment must always serve a purpose to the PUNISHED! Punishing
someone FOREVER can only serve a purpose to the PUNISHER.
If someone is hell bent on doing wrong, you are well within your
rights to level pain at him to teach him a lesson, or merely to get him
to stop doing what he is doing. But you gotta at least give him a
chance to respond to the corrective or constraining action of the
punishment. If the guy is intractable and won't change and won't
restrain himself no matter what you do, why waste your time punishing
him forever, just destroy him. End of story, end of problem.
The only possible reason that any God would punish someone bad
forever was because it satisfied the good that He do so. In other words
Hell is not payment to the wicked, it is payment to the righteous, for
having remained righteous. It's a fulfillment of a promised contract,
'I will hurt your enemies bad if you but remain righteous.' So putting
the wicked in hell is where the righteous come to get their full measure
of satisfaction for having fulfilled their part of the bargain of
staying righteous. In which case the righteous are worse than the
wicked, feeding at the trough of the suffering of the wicked.
'What would I do if I didn't have someone bad to torture for the
rest of time, life would be so empty, it's hard being good.'
The only possible SANE justification for some sort of ongoing
punishment is if the person being punished may some day change his mind
and become tractable or better yet civilized. So you throw him in the
lake of fire until he cries uncle. Maybe some never cry uncle, so they
stay there. At least they have the chance to cry uncle and get out and
become part of the GNP again. And they have this chance FOREVER.
But throwing someone into a lake of fire forever, GIVING HIM NO
CHANCE TO CRY UNCLE AND KEEPING HIM THERE EVEN IF HE DOES CRY UNCLE
BECAUSE 'IT'S TOO LATE, YOU HAD YOUR CHANCE', just means you belong in
that lake of fire yourself until YOU cry uncle.
YAHWEH, hear me, I am coming after you. You gotta stop lying to
your children man. It ain't right.
Anyway, if you KNOW that someone will never cry uncle and will
continue to do bad forever, then you have a problem.
Fine, so you destroy them as defective. You don't punish them in
hell forever where the good can come look into the screaming pits for
the rest of time taking in and admiring the beauty of it all.
"Ah, those satisfying screams, now I KNOW God is good!"
So the subject of free will, pain and motivation etc. is very
important to what makes something a living conscious unit and what makes
a machine.
If a machine decides to follow the dark side of the force, do you
punish it in hell forever, or do you pull its plug?
Would it make any sense to punish a machine in hell forever? Even
if this satisfied your benighted craving for punishment, would the
machine give a damn? Would it beg to die and feel sorry for what it had
done? Would it promise to love you forever if you would only end its
misery in the peace of death or disassemblement?
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Oct 22 12:06:02 EDT 2016
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/act29.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help in body
=========== 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)
iD8DBQFYC45qURT1lqxE3HERAky1AKCJDO7St1Y2oDqIZocpxRSlunU2xQCfX+ff
rLArWUK0QqXL09810Ec4KRY=
=Wov7
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Mon Oct 24 15:38:41 EDT 2016
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/act29.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)
iD8DBQFYDmNBURT1lqxE3HERAgr6AKCfEpZjrJMAnzo08mPRKXjDg8yL2ACgwRvr
47oMzAva7XdVEzh/VwRucxs=
=WLUA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Sunday, October 23, 2016
UNLIMITED POWER
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
UNLIMITED POWER
We do not give the government unlimited power.
Why then do they suppose we should give the goverment
unlimited privacy?
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 Oct 23 01:44:24 EDT 2016
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/ador1029.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)
iD8DBQFYDE45URT1lqxE3HERAsQWAJ9ouAtc3kaYrlKGJHdgQOBvGGDgeQCgooce
Ydo4B+YGFfZlvEgEx1lzSyg=
=vaMj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
UNLIMITED POWER
We do not give the government unlimited power.
Why then do they suppose we should give the goverment
unlimited privacy?
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 Oct 23 01:44:24 EDT 2016
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/ador1029.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)
iD8DBQFYDE45URT1lqxE3HERAsQWAJ9ouAtc3kaYrlKGJHdgQOBvGGDgeQCgooce
Ydo4B+YGFfZlvEgEx1lzSyg=
=vaMj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Saturday, October 22, 2016
LEFT AND RIGHT
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
LEFT AND RIGHT
People do not vote for the left because the right are all idiots.
People do not vote for the right because the left are all idiots.
That's not the way the game works, and if you think it is, then
*YOU* are an idiot.
The left is a union for the employee, and the right is a union for
the employer.
The employee is trying to enslave the employer, and the employer is
trying to enslave the employee.
Those are the two basic groups in the left/right tension in
society.
The two unions working against each other prevent these
enslavements from happening.
There is a time to be an employee and vote for the left, and there
is a time to be an employer and vote for the right.
A sane society results from a BALANCE between left and right,
never from a total victory of one over the other.
Dig it and don't leave it.
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: Sat Oct 22 02:59:32 EDT 2016
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/ador1028.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)
iD8DBQFYCw5UURT1lqxE3HERAmV/AJsExHcmGVxlb+SHJk7jALr/1oKkJgCfQU++
hoUKenFQWfH8acJSVQk+eCY=
=mmC5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
LEFT AND RIGHT
People do not vote for the left because the right are all idiots.
People do not vote for the right because the left are all idiots.
That's not the way the game works, and if you think it is, then
*YOU* are an idiot.
The left is a union for the employee, and the right is a union for
the employer.
The employee is trying to enslave the employer, and the employer is
trying to enslave the employee.
Those are the two basic groups in the left/right tension in
society.
The two unions working against each other prevent these
enslavements from happening.
There is a time to be an employee and vote for the left, and there
is a time to be an employer and vote for the right.
A sane society results from a BALANCE between left and right,
never from a total victory of one over the other.
Dig it and don't leave it.
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: Sat Oct 22 02:59:32 EDT 2016
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/ador1028.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)
iD8DBQFYCw5UURT1lqxE3HERAmV/AJsExHcmGVxlb+SHJk7jALr/1oKkJgCfQU++
hoUKenFQWfH8acJSVQk+eCY=
=mmC5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
NEVER PUT A GOOD CAUSE...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
NEVER PUT A GOOD CAUSE...
Never put a good cause in the hands of the pathologically criminal.
They will grab the ball and run with it in ways that you would not
expect.
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: Sat Oct 22 02:42:33 EDT 2016
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/ador1027.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)
iD8DBQFYCwpZURT1lqxE3HERAsBWAJ4j1wwgYnklizQxrteVNAh4HhsWvQCgjop9
Iwz9aDp+xsA6Vww4rfOxd0g=
=hAwW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
NEVER PUT A GOOD CAUSE...
Never put a good cause in the hands of the pathologically criminal.
They will grab the ball and run with it in ways that you would not
expect.
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: Sat Oct 22 02:42:33 EDT 2016
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/ador1027.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)
iD8DBQFYCwpZURT1lqxE3HERAsBWAJ4j1wwgYnklizQxrteVNAh4HhsWvQCgjop9
Iwz9aDp+xsA6Vww4rfOxd0g=
=hAwW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Friday, October 21, 2016
WORTH
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
WORTH
They say that the life of one policeman is worth the life of 100
citizens.
That means in a conflict between policeman and citizen, if you lose
only one policeman for every 100 citisens that go down, you have done
well, it was 'worth it'.
This is not because the policeman is worth more than the citizen,
but because the policman is following your orders and the citizen isn't.
When following orders becomes the most valuable attribute that a
person can have, the society is on its way out.
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: Fri Oct 21 19:57:48 EDT 2016
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/ador1026.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)
iD8DBQFYCqt8URT1lqxE3HERAmeIAJ9h+8zlIrEtv2JolMQvTTuJsvCHfgCeIreD
NT4qSojy7JunXmIgwZr6dQA=
=/MJI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
WORTH
They say that the life of one policeman is worth the life of 100
citizens.
That means in a conflict between policeman and citizen, if you lose
only one policeman for every 100 citisens that go down, you have done
well, it was 'worth it'.
This is not because the policeman is worth more than the citizen,
but because the policman is following your orders and the citizen isn't.
When following orders becomes the most valuable attribute that a
person can have, the society is on its way out.
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: Fri Oct 21 19:57:48 EDT 2016
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/ador1026.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)
iD8DBQFYCqt8URT1lqxE3HERAmeIAJ9h+8zlIrEtv2JolMQvTTuJsvCHfgCeIreD
NT4qSojy7JunXmIgwZr6dQA=
=/MJI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)