-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
WHO DID WHAT TO WHOM
ADO - 8
29 July 1993
Copyright (C) 1993 Homer Wilson Smith
The subject of past lives and the subject of Justice are closely
intertwined.
The subject of Justice arises because there is ugliness, pain and
apparent evil in the world.
The physical universe itself is a cruel task master which cares
little for noble intentions or goodness of causes.
The subject of justice invariably comes down to who did what to
whom, and what should we do about it? In this sense justice is
punishment for wrong doing.
It is a clear fact of human nature that people will often do to
others what has been done to them. The child that is spanked or abused
by his parents will often fall into spanking and abusing his own
children. This is called dramatizing, doing to others what was done to
you. It is an effort to survive by being what WON over you in your own
past. Thus people who have been heavily overwhelmed in their past, will
take refuge as a last resort in overwhelming others.
They feel that the only way they can win is to make others lose, as
they were made to lose.
Dramatizing is called shifting valences, it is shifting into the
beingness or personage of the people in your painful memories,
especially those who were not in pain at the time, and most usually
those who were causing YOU the pain and having a good time at it.
You see they WON and you LOST, and the way to win is to be like
those who did win with a vengeance.
The more painful the memory you have of their winning and you
losing, the more you will feel like they WON! and therefore the way to
avoid losing is to be like them.
Thus father spanks you as a child with a hairbrush, and then later
in life you beat your dog for pooing on the floor. The rage of your
father from the past comes forward as YOUR rage in present time at the
dog.
That's a form of shifting valences or being 'out of valence', in
other words being out of your own natural valence of being yourself.
You can dramatize out of valence in many ways, not always exactly
related to what was done to you. The more exactly you dramatize on
others what was done to you, the more out of valence you are, until
finally you get someone who is totally out of valence, being his mother
saying the exact words to his child that his mother said to him. That's
called being a dramatizing psychotic.
Valence comes from the word VALERE which means TO BE STRONG in
Latin. To the degree that a person has been permanently overwhelmed in
life, his active present time personality will not be his own native
personality, but a composite of everyone who did better than he, most
notably those who did better than he BY making him do worse than them.
However it is just as obvious that people do bad things out of
their own accord, sometimes as a joke, sometimes as a mistake or
accident, sometimes to solve a problem or punish someone. sometimes out
of pure cussedness. Thus not every bad thing that a person does was
done to him in the past. People are quite capable of ORIGINATING and
carrying out their own bad things to do.
Thus when someone does something bad it would take an auditing
address to his past in order to determine if he were dramatizing or
originating which is often called STARTING IT.
Whether or not someone is dramatizing or originating, he will often
later regret what he did. How many times have you gotten angry at
someone, even someone who fully deserved it, and then later felt guilty
about the whole thing as if you had somehow fallen somewhat short of the
true glory of God?
A serious problem arises when someone can not find absolution for
himself either with others, or with himself. He becomes stuck with a
guilt that will not leave him alone. The apparent permanency of things
tends to do this to us. We go out drinking one night, and while driving
back home we run over a child's pet dog. How are you going to make it
up to the child, let alone the dog?
Guilts that won't go away are a real problem, and it doesn't matter
if they were the result of dramatizing or originating, the awareness of
having done wrong, of having harmed life more than it was worth, of not
being able to make amends, of wishing it had never happened, stay with
you for the rest of time.
Since you are an Immortal Being, that can be a very long time.
You can numb them out, you can avoid the arena of life which
reminds you of them, you can become a bum on the street with no
responsibilities and no license to drive. At least you won't be running
anyone's little dog over any more, and you won't be ruining anyone's
life except your own.
If you want to find some withholds to pull, grab a bum someday on
the street by the ear and put him on a meter. Hell he won't care, and
neither will anyone else, he's a bum for Christ's sake.
Talk to him, get him interested in his own case again, and he will
be more than happy to tell you how he got that way. Be careful though,
if you do it right, you will find him somewhere down the road wearing a
suit and tie and carrying a briefcase.
Now the point of all this is that a person can become very
desperate about making his guilts go away. He will limit himself so he
can do no further damage, he will cut off the offending hand, either
overtly with a knife, or covertly with some debilitating disease, and he
will always remove himself from the arena of damage, except perhaps to
panhandle from his one time peers.
Further as time progresses he will tend to have bad things done to
him, as the rain falls on both the good and the bad, and he may even
have done to him what he did to others that he is so upset about.
Maybe he was a high falutin' stock broker who rolled little old
ladies for their retirement funds, and now as a bum, he is rolled every
night, as he sleeps in the grass, by young punks for the few cents he
has managed to panhandle during the day.
To him the seriousness of the crimes being committed against him
now is the same as the seriousness of the crimes he committed and
regretted against the little old ladies with the fat bank accounts.
He harmed their survival then, and the punks who rob him now are
harming his survival.
This really pisses him off, he is just trying to be a good little
bum after all and not harm anyone any more, but the state of his
condition naturally leads him to getting robbed every night, so there is
not much he can do about it.
You see its like this. If you have power and misuse it, you will
end up feeling guilty. If you can't absolve your own guilt, you will
limit yourself and remove yourself from the arena of survival (and not
so survival!) activities you were indulging in. The only way to limit
yourself is to make yourself a victim to your own power, to use your
power against yourself, and then place yourself where you are
overwhelmed by others, either enslaved, imprisoned or tormented, so that
you can do no more harm. Thus you naturally put yourself in an
environment where being a victim and being victimized is second nature.
BEING A VICTIM IS THE SOLUTION TO BEING A VILLAIN.
So of course if you do wrong and regret it and do yourself in, you
will 'get it back.' Being rolled in the park every night has nothing to
do with having robbed people years before, it has to do with being a bum
in the park every night. The victimization comes from the chosen
present time beingness, not the past.
Whether the bum DESERVES to be robbed because he robbed others long
ago is for others to decide. The facts are the bum deserves to be
robbed because being robbed is the natural and logical outcome of his
decision to be a bum and he knows it.
So 'deserves' is not a punishment sort of thing, its a 'Well if you
put a bullet in a gun, and point it at your head, and pull the trigger
why then you 'deserve' to be shot. In this sense 'deservers' is just
the natural functioning of truth.
So every night, right on time, these guys come over to this bum and
take him for every penny he has. He is usually too drunk and tired to
fight them off, so it becomes a chronic thing, and everyone knows that
he is an easy steal.
Worse, being robbed now makes him feel that people are no good, he
should know after all, and so he concludes that the little old ladies he
robbed long ago were no good either, and probably deserved to have their
life savings bilked out from under them.
Thus he comes to feel better about his past, because those he did
in deserve what they got, because people are no good, because people are
robbing him blind every night when its 'all he has'.
He finally concludes there is no decency in the world, AND THERE
NEVER WAS, and so his conscience about little old ladies stops bothering
him, and in fact he decides since all these guys are rolling him every
night, perhaps he ought to consider robbing little old ladies in the
park during the day to make up for his losses!
The logic is contorted, but that is always the case with
aberration. So you pick up this guy one day on the streets of Boston,
and you sit him down on the seats of the public library by Copley Square
and you put him on your meter, right there in public, and you ask him
'What's up bud?'
Now the problem is he is many multilevels of who did what to whom
down from the truth. So the first thing he will tell you is that he is
being robbed blind every night by all the young turks on the street,
apparently no one ever taught them any manners.
And the needle on your meter is just totally dead.
So you press him a little further and the needle starts to react,
and so he starts to tell you about his daily forays into the Charles
River Park to rob old ladies for lunch money, 'Stick 'em up lady, give
me a quarter or I'll piss on you.'
Now this is serious, he just wanted to be a good little bum, but no
one would let him be, so he has fallen into a life of crime. He feels
very justified though at this turn in his life, and he will even brag
that now he is so ornery that sometimes he pisses on the old ladies even
after they give him a quarter just to 'teach them a lesson'.
'What lesson?' you ask him.
'Well not to rip people off and rob them blind when it's all they
got, of course!', he says.
So you say, 'Well tell me about people ripping people off.'
And about this time the needle on your meter goes rock solid still,
like it got collided between two boulders, and then begins to get
nervous and hunts around a bit, and the guy kind of hems and haws, and
finally says 'Well you won't believe this but I used to be a stock
broker making $300,000 a year with a wife and 4 kids and 2 houses in the
country.'
And you start to say 'Yeah you're right, I don't believe you...'
but the needle is now falling and cascading down dial after dial, and
you know a release when you see one, so you just tell him to continue,
and he does so. He tells you about all the sweet little old widows who
lost every penny they had to him investing in junks bonds, and how he
got fat kickbacks from the junk bond companies for pushing their trash.
And he tells you about how one or two of these sweet old ladies
committed suicide when they found out they were broke, and how he used
to brag about this to his buddies over beer, or was it cocaine, he can't
quite remember. He looks a little sad, and says when some of his
widowed clients began to complain and his house of cards began to come
down around him, he even managed to get one of his best buddies blamed
for the fiasco and thrown in jail where he is still rotting.
He tells you how he started snorting an ounce of cocaine every two
days, how his wife left him after an auto accident that put one of his
kids in the hospital with a broken back, and how he eventually lost
everything he owned to the mob and was run out of town where he took up
residence in a garbage pail in a dark corner of Boston park.
Suddenly he sees the light, and he says, 'You know, I shouldn't
have oughta of done that to those poor old ladies! Jesus, no wonder I
am so messed up. Maybe Jesus will forgive me. Do you forgive me?' You
acknowledge his cognitions and he starts his long climb back to being a
civilized animal.
A year later you find him wearing that damn suit and tie, making
$300,000 a year raising millions for sweet old ladies and their
charities.
Oh, and what did you get out of this? Well just before he said good
bye, he paid you for the session with his one last bottle of red wine,
and hasn't touched a drop since.
And what's really in it for you? Well when you come back as a
sweet old lady, there will be someone there looking out for you even if
its 10 million years down the road.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Apr 24 12:00:02 EDT 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/ado8.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)
iD8DBQFa31SCURT1lqxE3HERAtlYAJ0Xqwx1wHEsHGTFatCTRzGVv2ia6wCgtgr+
EqKe64e+cFRuA79pQgfv6Ic=
=Mw4a
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Tuesday, April 24, 2018
ADORE977 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Alan said:
> The Prime Code therefore had to precede the being's choice of "BE".
> For one only chooses a beingness to carry out a Postulate and Vision.
...
> By knowing this the Being can now play ALL games knowingly. A very
> big step forward.
If the being created everything based on a Code and then sought to
hide the Code from himself, why would it be of benefit to know the code
now?
If the being had wanted to know his own Codes, then he would have
known them, end of story.
Thus the choice to NOT KNOW an operating code, would itself be the
application of his code to himself and his knowing of his code, and if
the code didn't want to know itself then, why would it want to know
itself now?
I am not saying that Alan is wrong in these things.
I am saying that Alan speaks much and says little.
I would also surmise that at the very top all beings share the same
desire/want/vision, and then it splits into later individual
desires/wants/visions.
Thus finding individual codes for a being is missing the primary
earlier common code to all.
The individual codes create conflict amongst beings and a desire
that other's not exist or be in the same game stream or at all.
The top level code on the other hand is eternally unanimous and
thus creates prior willingness for everyone and anyone to be in one's
dream, no matter how apparently lousy they later turn out to be.
Thus auditing the top level common code is necessary to restoring
willingness, change, help, problems, creativity and responsibility.
In other words, friendly ARC towards everyone and everything
forever for free.
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
Wed Sep 23 15:09:35 EDT 2015
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Apr 23 12:00:02 EDT 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore977.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)
iD8DBQFa3gMDURT1lqxE3HERAgYmAJ4hpQHbx9N5zU3CNYtRZnR36MdQIQCfX/UV
LVNaPPRR2m5hhW8vsFG9VtY=
=uqc4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
Alan said:
> The Prime Code therefore had to precede the being's choice of "BE".
> For one only chooses a beingness to carry out a Postulate and Vision.
...
> By knowing this the Being can now play ALL games knowingly. A very
> big step forward.
If the being created everything based on a Code and then sought to
hide the Code from himself, why would it be of benefit to know the code
now?
If the being had wanted to know his own Codes, then he would have
known them, end of story.
Thus the choice to NOT KNOW an operating code, would itself be the
application of his code to himself and his knowing of his code, and if
the code didn't want to know itself then, why would it want to know
itself now?
I am not saying that Alan is wrong in these things.
I am saying that Alan speaks much and says little.
I would also surmise that at the very top all beings share the same
desire/want/vision, and then it splits into later individual
desires/wants/visions.
Thus finding individual codes for a being is missing the primary
earlier common code to all.
The individual codes create conflict amongst beings and a desire
that other's not exist or be in the same game stream or at all.
The top level code on the other hand is eternally unanimous and
thus creates prior willingness for everyone and anyone to be in one's
dream, no matter how apparently lousy they later turn out to be.
Thus auditing the top level common code is necessary to restoring
willingness, change, help, problems, creativity and responsibility.
In other words, friendly ARC towards everyone and everything
forever for free.
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
Wed Sep 23 15:09:35 EDT 2015
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Apr 23 12:00:02 EDT 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore977.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)
iD8DBQFa3gMDURT1lqxE3HERAgYmAJ4hpQHbx9N5zU3CNYtRZnR36MdQIQCfX/UV
LVNaPPRR2m5hhW8vsFG9VtY=
=uqc4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Sunday, April 22, 2018
ADORE523 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
SEARCHING FOR THE ARCX
I have very good reality on my first dynamic, but I do not
appreciate myself, always up to my nose in water and I can't breath
through my nose.
My second dynamic is a disaster, hated my parents both of whom
bombed out early leaving me with foster parents who were zombie zoners,
I mean just no one home at all, whom I hated more, and disconnected from
at first chance.
Never knew my grand parents, and could care less about the
Tennessee swamp dwelling sub protoplasm that calls itself relatives on
my mother's side. No clue about my father's side.
Since I debonded with most of life during the second dynamic
disaster of my early years, my mate is non existent, and no children,
and no dreams or affinity for either should I find them.
Most sane people WANT to have children, but they also WANT to be
alive.
My second dynamic was sort of like a nuclear war that spread out
and destroyed or poisoned all my other dynamics.
My third dynamic is almost non existent. Having no family, the
groups that are made of families, both my parents group mates, and my
own group mates are non existent with no real hope of ever existing or
being repaired. I lost everything of my family's groups when I was
deported to my foster parents, and THEIR framily group mates were brain
sucking zombie zoners.
I do have some operating group mates on the
work/production/activity parts of life, running Lightlink Internet, and
we are about to put in a 10 million dollar super computer.
But frankly every goal I can think of fills me with inertia.
I do it because I have to in order to not starve to death.
Beyond that human relationships are scarce and far between, like
two survivors lost at sea crossing each other's paths in life rafts that
can hold only one. That's me and Jane, we have floated together for 23
years.
As for the fourth dynamic, mankind is a loose cannon which should
be bolted down or cast overboard. Probably no more dangerous PTS item
in the universe, next to asteroids, plague and tsunamis.
If mankind survives it will not be because a majority of it
deserved to do so, but because a very small minority pulled it through
in spite of itself.
I kind of like to think I am part of that minority, but MAN DO
I HATE IT, because I do not particularlly want to survive myself.
Staying alive seems to be the cheaper route pain wise both
for myself and for those that care about me and depend on me to
be around for them.
If it weren't for them I would off myself immediately.
I have lots of affinity for the 5th dynamic in general, cats, mice,
dogs, horses, plants, etc. It's gory out there and hard to stomach when
you find equal beauty in the eater and the eaten. I also have lots of
affinity for some bodies, but not my body which seems to be retarded,
dumb, blind, stupid and genetically damaged and can't breath.
I have almost no affinity for the physical universe, too big, too
complex, almost impossible to understand even simple things like special
relativity, and the spaces and times involved are so vast they leave
everyone in solitary confinement for the rest of time.
In particular my hatred for the MEST universe is all the more so
that I believe I am MADE of MEST.
That's as high as I go in this life, I have no reality on the
seventh dynamic, for now we are postulating something that exists
outside of machines and space time parts.
They may exist, but I have zero reality on it, and even less
affinity that it should exist and I be SO separated from it.
How the fuck did that happen?
Your stupid meter reading yet?
As for the eighth dynamic, I gave up on God a long time ago as a
fatherly being who cared about me or anyone for that matter.
God the father belongs in jail for child abuse.
As for anything else that might come under the notion of supreme
creator or infinity, its all 100 percent unreal to me. I can think
ANALYTICALLY with it, but its not based on any experience that is
lasting or accessible at will.
Most of my writings 'come to me' after sessions, they may sound
good, but they might as well be a birdie chirping in my ear telling me
what to write.
I make a good scribe, that's about it.
So the ARCX with the AllThatIs is clearly spread across the 8
dynamics.
The Communication is enforced, I HAVE to be conscious, the affinity
is negative down around useless, apathy, sorrow and propitiation, and
that's just the social facade.
True sub death tone is probably can't hide.
My agreement with the AllThatIs is negative, totally opposed, next
time it wants to crucify someone, let is choose someone other than me
thank you.
My communication with the AllTHatIs is completely blocked,
recognition, perception, communication, orientation are all completely
zero.
Understandings seem to be all over the place, but none of them do
me any good, so I will trust they are all bogus.
Enlightment is non existent.
Body is a total walking disaster area, can't breath, can't sleep,
can't work, can't find reason to move. A long ways from 'Breathing is
sufficient reason to be.'
Energy is empty, or negative turned against me.
Higher than that, production, prediction, activity are all
substitute goal nerve crushers, that I do for others, sacrifice in case
some day there turns out to be any intelligent life on Earth or
anywhere.
I am not glad I exist, I am not happy to be, and I do not enjoy my
time, life is not worthwhile.
Although I am not truely suicidal, it get that way sometimes when I
am fumed and can't breath at all, but I do spend 10 percent of my time
considering how, if and why to suicide or kamikaze.
Thinking about kamikaze tends to make the suicidal thoughts
go away :)
Everything else in my life is a waste, I ain't going to waste my
death.
I am told I have post partum depression, I have been depressed ever
since I was a baby.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Sun Jun 24 23:09:29 EDT 2007
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Apr 20 12:00:03 EDT 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore523.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)
iD8DBQFa2g6DURT1lqxE3HERAnxWAJwIi2MynfmNm8SSKxcehEgTjBXkrgCfXr0+
DrXvXMYx9aey/Nue1ekvdUA=
=x2eR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
SEARCHING FOR THE ARCX
I have very good reality on my first dynamic, but I do not
appreciate myself, always up to my nose in water and I can't breath
through my nose.
My second dynamic is a disaster, hated my parents both of whom
bombed out early leaving me with foster parents who were zombie zoners,
I mean just no one home at all, whom I hated more, and disconnected from
at first chance.
Never knew my grand parents, and could care less about the
Tennessee swamp dwelling sub protoplasm that calls itself relatives on
my mother's side. No clue about my father's side.
Since I debonded with most of life during the second dynamic
disaster of my early years, my mate is non existent, and no children,
and no dreams or affinity for either should I find them.
Most sane people WANT to have children, but they also WANT to be
alive.
My second dynamic was sort of like a nuclear war that spread out
and destroyed or poisoned all my other dynamics.
My third dynamic is almost non existent. Having no family, the
groups that are made of families, both my parents group mates, and my
own group mates are non existent with no real hope of ever existing or
being repaired. I lost everything of my family's groups when I was
deported to my foster parents, and THEIR framily group mates were brain
sucking zombie zoners.
I do have some operating group mates on the
work/production/activity parts of life, running Lightlink Internet, and
we are about to put in a 10 million dollar super computer.
But frankly every goal I can think of fills me with inertia.
I do it because I have to in order to not starve to death.
Beyond that human relationships are scarce and far between, like
two survivors lost at sea crossing each other's paths in life rafts that
can hold only one. That's me and Jane, we have floated together for 23
years.
As for the fourth dynamic, mankind is a loose cannon which should
be bolted down or cast overboard. Probably no more dangerous PTS item
in the universe, next to asteroids, plague and tsunamis.
If mankind survives it will not be because a majority of it
deserved to do so, but because a very small minority pulled it through
in spite of itself.
I kind of like to think I am part of that minority, but MAN DO
I HATE IT, because I do not particularlly want to survive myself.
Staying alive seems to be the cheaper route pain wise both
for myself and for those that care about me and depend on me to
be around for them.
If it weren't for them I would off myself immediately.
I have lots of affinity for the 5th dynamic in general, cats, mice,
dogs, horses, plants, etc. It's gory out there and hard to stomach when
you find equal beauty in the eater and the eaten. I also have lots of
affinity for some bodies, but not my body which seems to be retarded,
dumb, blind, stupid and genetically damaged and can't breath.
I have almost no affinity for the physical universe, too big, too
complex, almost impossible to understand even simple things like special
relativity, and the spaces and times involved are so vast they leave
everyone in solitary confinement for the rest of time.
In particular my hatred for the MEST universe is all the more so
that I believe I am MADE of MEST.
That's as high as I go in this life, I have no reality on the
seventh dynamic, for now we are postulating something that exists
outside of machines and space time parts.
They may exist, but I have zero reality on it, and even less
affinity that it should exist and I be SO separated from it.
How the fuck did that happen?
Your stupid meter reading yet?
As for the eighth dynamic, I gave up on God a long time ago as a
fatherly being who cared about me or anyone for that matter.
God the father belongs in jail for child abuse.
As for anything else that might come under the notion of supreme
creator or infinity, its all 100 percent unreal to me. I can think
ANALYTICALLY with it, but its not based on any experience that is
lasting or accessible at will.
Most of my writings 'come to me' after sessions, they may sound
good, but they might as well be a birdie chirping in my ear telling me
what to write.
I make a good scribe, that's about it.
So the ARCX with the AllThatIs is clearly spread across the 8
dynamics.
The Communication is enforced, I HAVE to be conscious, the affinity
is negative down around useless, apathy, sorrow and propitiation, and
that's just the social facade.
True sub death tone is probably can't hide.
My agreement with the AllThatIs is negative, totally opposed, next
time it wants to crucify someone, let is choose someone other than me
thank you.
My communication with the AllTHatIs is completely blocked,
recognition, perception, communication, orientation are all completely
zero.
Understandings seem to be all over the place, but none of them do
me any good, so I will trust they are all bogus.
Enlightment is non existent.
Body is a total walking disaster area, can't breath, can't sleep,
can't work, can't find reason to move. A long ways from 'Breathing is
sufficient reason to be.'
Energy is empty, or negative turned against me.
Higher than that, production, prediction, activity are all
substitute goal nerve crushers, that I do for others, sacrifice in case
some day there turns out to be any intelligent life on Earth or
anywhere.
I am not glad I exist, I am not happy to be, and I do not enjoy my
time, life is not worthwhile.
Although I am not truely suicidal, it get that way sometimes when I
am fumed and can't breath at all, but I do spend 10 percent of my time
considering how, if and why to suicide or kamikaze.
Thinking about kamikaze tends to make the suicidal thoughts
go away :)
Everything else in my life is a waste, I ain't going to waste my
death.
I am told I have post partum depression, I have been depressed ever
since I was a baby.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Sun Jun 24 23:09:29 EDT 2007
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Apr 20 12:00:03 EDT 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore523.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)
iD8DBQFa2g6DURT1lqxE3HERAnxWAJwIi2MynfmNm8SSKxcehEgTjBXkrgCfXr0+
DrXvXMYx9aey/Nue1ekvdUA=
=x2eR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
LCC-SRM (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
THE STANDARD REFERENECE MODEL.
This lecture was given on November 27th, 2005 and is entitled the
Standard Reference Model.
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello.
Today is November 27th, 2005.
This lecture will cover the following subjects:
OBJECTS and QUALITIES
SYMBOLS and REFERENTS
CASUAL PATHWAYS
SYMBOLS OF FINAL AUTHORITY
LEARNING AND KNOWELDGE
THE LEARNED ABOUT, THE LEARNER and THE LEARNED
INDIRECT PERCEPTION AND DIRECT PERCEPTION
THEORY AND TRUTH
MODEL AND EVIDENCE
PERFECT CERTAINTY and UNCERTAINTY
GEOMETRIC CONGRUENCY
FOCUSED AND DEFOCUSED
IMPLIED VIEWPOINTS
DIMENSIONALITY and ZERO DIMENSIONALITY
CONSTITUENCY, ARRANGEMENT AND PROCESS
CAUSAL MESSENGER WAVES
RENDITION AND INTERPRETATION
The standard reference model (SRM) is a simplifed version of how we
learn in the physical universe. It is simple, but complete enough to
encompass all forms of learning that takes place at any physical
universe level.
By learning of course we mean coming to know knowledge about
something.
The standard reference model is referred to over and over again by
the proof and therefore it is important to know this thing forwards,
backwards, upside down and inside out in order to understand the proof.
If you can understand the SRM, you can understand any form of
learning that takes place in the physical universe.
The physical universe is considered to be the universe of matter,
energy, space and time and the changes that go on amongst that matter,
energy, space and time which we hereby collectively call mechanics.
The word mechanics comes from the word machine, and we define a
machine as any system of parts interacting via cause and effect across a
spacetime distance (dimension).
Parts of course are any amount of matter and energy in a space and
time.
Thus the process of mechanics is the process of parts interacting,
via cause and effect, across a space time distance.
A process is defined as a change in state in an object or
collection of objects that are in some functional arrangement.
We learned in the previous lecture on Symbols and Referents, that a
symbol is a later object or event (same thing) that is causally related
to an earlier object which is the referent.
In that sense, the symbol is an effect and the referent is cause.
A causal pathway is a series of events in spacetime that are
causally related to each other, one after the other, thus forming a
chain of referents and their symbols as time progresses.
If A causes B, then A is the referent and B is the symbol.
If B then causes C, B becomes a referent in its own right, and C is
the symbol. C is in fact a symbol for both B and A, for C will be
imprinted with data about both B and A via the causal impingement
emmanating from A through B to C.
In general when we learn in the physical universe, we are learning
by looking at effects, by being an effect of a cause, and thus computing
back to what the cause must have been like, considering what the effect
was plus our current theories of the moment.
In that sense, when we change state as a result of some causal
referent (influence) out there which we are trying to learn about, we
have become a symbol for that referent. The event of the new changed
state in ourselves is a symbol that is causally related to the referent
that caused that change in state in ourselves.
This symbol that we have become then, is called the symbol of final
authority, for it is the last event in the causal pathway that is being
looked at directly in order to learn about the qualities of the referent
that caused it.
So you have this referent out in spacetime somewhere, and it causes
various effects which cause other effects, which cause other effects,
which eventually come down to an effect caused in ourselves as observer.
We call this chain of cause and effects a causal pathway.
All mechanical observation is actually receiving an effect from
some cause, and then changing state as a result of that cause.
Thus we define mechanical observation as changing state as an
effect of some cause.
We also call this indirect perception, because one is learning
about A out there by looking at B, namely one's self in here.
Direct perception would be learning about A by looking directly at
A. But this is not possible in the physical universe, as any kind of
space or time separation between observed and observer limits the
observer to observing changes in himself (B) in order to learn about A.
If B is separated from A by a space time distance, B can never be
in direct contact with A.
B can only be in indirect contact with A via effects propagated
from A across that space time distance to B a moment later.
Worse by the time that effect reaches B, A may not even exist any
more!
That means even when B is in indirect contact with A via the effect
it receives from A, the indirect contact is not with A as it is now, but
with A as it was when it emmanated the causal messenger wave. This is
because the speed of causal propagation is finite.
Thus at the moment that B 'sees' A via the change in state in
itself, A may in fact no longer even exist.
Thus at no time is B seeing A directly.
Clearly if one does not receive an effect from a cause, if one does
not change state from a cause, then one can not have learned anything
about that cause.
Thus we assert the Fundamental Theorem of Learning:
There must be a causal pathway between learned about and learner,
in order for the learned to be considered learning.
Notice the learned about is the referent, and the learner is the
symbol of final authority: that's how the learner learns. The Learner
changes state as a result of a causal messenger wave allegedly
emmanated by the learned about and later received by the learner.
The learned are any deductions or hypotheses that the learner can
make about the learned about because of the particular nature of the
change in state that the learner received from the learned about.
In other words if there is no causal pathway between learned about
and learner, then no learning can take place. The dependability of
knowledge 'learned without a causal pathway' would be randomly correct
at best.
So the symbol of final authority is the last effect, the last
change in state in the chain between referent and observer that is
actually used to learn from, and is actually observed by the observer
and in fact IS the new state OF the observer.
And it is from the data gleaned from that being an effect, that
change of state, that the observer then computes back to what the nature
of the referent might have been.
For example, the light coming off the sun, hits a photo electric
cell, which generates an electric current, which rings a bell. By the
time the bell is rung, the photon that came from the sun that hit the
photo electric cell is long gone. And in fact by the time the bell
rings, the little impluse that came from the little electric cell that
triggered the bell is also gone.
So what we observe is the bell ringing, we haven't observed the
electric impluse that started the bell ringing, and we certainly haven't
observed any of the photons hitting the photo electric cell.
So the bell ringing is the symbol of final authority, and we are
going to learn from that whether or not the sun is there.
But in fact it is worse than this, because the bell ringing is of
no use unless it produces air waves that hit our ears, enters our brain,
and reaches our consciousness, where our HEARING the bell ring is in
fact the final final symbol of authority in the chain. A deaf person
would have learned nothing from the bell ringing because he wouldn't
have received the effect, he wouldn't have changed state when the bell
rang.
The standard reference model replicates this process of learning
four times, in four different ways. The purpose of this is to show us
that although implemented in many different ways, the underlying
learning process is always the same, receive an effect and from that
theorize about the nature of the cause.
Knowledge then learned in this way consists of theory alone.
Theory consists of evidence and model. The symbol of final authority is
the evidence, the computed description of the possible nature of the
cause is the theoretical model.
As we shall see no where is truth or perfect certainty to be found
in this process.
By the time one understands the standard reference model well one
should understand that learning can take place in many different ways,
but its always the same fundmental process, you are being or observing a
symbol, in order to make a conclusion about a referent.
You are looking at B to learn about A.
Until we get to the 4th stage at which point something new and
startling happens.
The SRM does something relatively odd in that it considers
consciousness and the being who is conscious, and what he is conscious
of, to be the fourth stage of learning and to be distinct from all the
other stages of the learning process described below.
It asserts that the conscious experience and the being who is
having the conscious experience are fundamentally different and distinct
stuff from any of the other preceeding stages and should not be confused
with them.
In other words, consciousness is its own thing and needs to be
studied as its own thing on its own terms. Although the data it
displays to the viewer depends on prior causal pathways, the process of
consciousness itself is not merely a process in those causal precursors,
but is different from them.
In particular a learning process within consciousness about itself
should not be considered a learning process in the brain, nor a
mechanical learning process in any space time medium of any sort.
This assertion may be considered purely arbitrary, and to stand
only until proven wrong, but its done because, as will be shown later,
there are qualities in consciousness that are qualities OF consciousness
and are not qualities of anything involved in the prior stages of
learning in the brain.
As an example, say you are aiming your eyes at a physical brick out
on a table in front of you.
You have a physical brick out there on the table and then you have
your conscious picture of the brick.
When you close your eyes, the conscious picture of the brick
disappears, but the physical brick doesn't. Thus clearly the brick and
the conscious picture of the brick are two different objects.
Remembering what we learned from the A's and the B's, if A and B
are objects, and B changes state and A doesn't, then A and B are two
DIFFERENT objects, each with their own existence.
Also since B changes state, B must exist. B is your conscious
experience of the brick which disappears when you close your eyes.
Since A, in this case, is a physical brick on a table out there, we
will assume that A is not a nothing either, and thus A also exists.
Thus both A and B exist and are two different objects.
The brick has qualities, location, weight and temperature, and your
conscious picture of the brick has qualities, which are different from
the physical brick's qualities, we will get into these later.
Your consciousness is clearly being the effect of the brick via
your brain and eyes, so your conscious picture is acting as a symbol for
the brick.
Your consciousness tries to represent the referent brick out on the
table to you via the symbol which is your conscious picture of the
brick.
The conscious picture of the brick is a RENDITION or conscious
RENDERING of the brick. From this you draw your INTERPRETATION of that
symbol in order to conclude what the brick on the table must be like.
Your conscious experience is a rendition, a rendering if you will,
of the physical universe in a symbolic medium, namely conscious color
forms, red, green, blue, experiences of cold and hot, hard and soft etc.
What you believe about the physical universe is an interpretation
you make of the symbol panoply rendered in your consciousness.
The physical universe is the referent.
Consciousness is used as the symbol.
Consciousness is the rendering.
The physical universe is the interpretation.
The physical universe is a THEORY based on our interpretation of
the observed rendering in our consciousness.
Put simply, in our observation of the brick, what we end up
observing is our conscious picture of the brick, not the physical brick
itself directly.
Because the conscious picture of the brick has qualities that the
physical brick doesn't have, and because the brick has qualities that
the conscious picture of the brick doesn't have, we therefore must
consider them two different objects, and thus the standard reference
model treats them as two separate objects, with a possible causal
pathway between as referent and symbol.
Alright let's take a break, we will come back to this after
coffee and donuts.
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
When you are talking about the process of learning, of coming to
know knowledge about, you are always talking about a causal pathway that
goes from the original referent to the symbol of final authority.
As was described in the previous lecture on Symbols and Referents,
the symbol is a separate object from the original referent, its in a
different space and time, certainly in a different time because its
later, and being a different object, it has qualities that are different
from the original referent.
Presumably there is enough mapping from the qualities of the final
symbol to the qualities of the original referent that one can draw
possible conclusions about the original referent from looking at the
final symbol.
That is why we call the causal imprint left by the referent on the
symbol a data imprint, it contains data about the possible nature of the
referent.
And it is this process that we want to lay out in great detail with
what we call the standard reference model.
So the standard reference model starts with an original referent,
in this case let us consider the lowly Rubic's cube. Rememeber the
Rubic's cube? I used to play with these things for hours. I used to
feel that if I could figure out how to solve one of these things, after
it was scrambled, I would understand the mystery of the universe.
It was quite a disappointment because when I finally learned how to
solve them, there was nothing there. It was a total let down.
Little did I know how big a role the Rubic's cube would play in my
final understanding of the universe.
In the physical universe learning takes place via causal pathways.
A causal pathway is a series of changes in state in spacetime
objects that are related to each other via alleged causation. They had
better be so related, because without causation, there is no learning.
Now the first thing to understand about the standard reference
model, is that it is not meant to be an assertion that it is right or
all encompassing.
The standard reference model is merely a way of looking at
processes of learning in the physical universe which is easy to
understand, generally accepted, and fits in with most of mainstream
science.
We are in fact, trying to prove this model wrong when it comes to
how we see our own consciousness and its colorform pictures.
But in the physical universe the standard reference model is the
generally accepted state of the art theory as to how physical universe
learning takes place.
THE GUY IN THE TANK
OK, so the standard reference model describes the experience of a
guy in an army tank whose only vision of the world is through a TV set
that is connected to a video camera outside the tank.
The video camera is aimed at the Rubic's cube sitting outside the
tank on a table in the sunlight. The Rubic's cube will be considered
our original referent. The Rubic's cube is what we and the guy in the
tank are trying to learn about, including whether or not it exists.
The Rubic's cube is lit by the sun light. So here we have the sun
and its rays come down onto the Rubic's cube, and those rays bounce off
the Rubic's cube and hit a lens that goes to a video camera.
In the back of the video camera is a Charge Coupled Device (CCD),
which receives a focused image of the Rubic's cube, on its surface.
We assume that the video camera has only one lens, so that the
image on the CCD is upside down relative to the original referent, a
result which is a standard property of simple lenses.
Now we know from earlier discussion, an object can have different
kinds of qualities, it can have qualities of being, namely those
qualities it has by virtue of being alone, and it can have qualities of
relation, which are those qualities it has by virtue of being in
relation with other objects.
There are a number of different kinds of qualities of relation,
there are spacial, temporal, material, energetic and causal.
For example spacial relations would be above and below, next to, on
top of etc.
Temporal relations would be before and after, etc.
Material relations might be heavier or lighter than.
Energetic relations might be faster or slower than.
And lastly and most importantly, causal relations would be things
like is cause of or is affected by.
One of the qualities of the Rubic's cube is a causal quality of
relation, namely that it affects photons. It absorbs photons of some
frequencies, and reflects photons of other frequencies.
So what happens here at this interface where the photons from the
sun hit the Rubic's cube is an imprinting of data about the nature of
the Rubic's cube on the stream of photon's leaving the surface of the
Rubic's cube after absorbtion and reflection have taken place.
The photon's have 'learned something' about the cube and that
learning is now imprinted on the outgoing photon stream headed for the
video camera.
The photon's coming in from the sun are kind of a clean slate,
unimprinted with any data on them except maybe data about the sun!
Then you get these photons colliding with the Rubic's cube, and the
photon's coming out of that interaction are very specifically affected
by the nature of the Rubic's cube.
Remember the Rubic's cube has 6 different faces with 6 different
colors, red, orange, yellow, green, blue, and white.
However only 3 faces at a time are facing the video camera, no
matter which way the cube is oriented. Thus the pattern of photons
coming off the cube towards the video camera have imprinted in them a
very complex data set about exactly which faces are facing the camera,
at what angles, and what their colors are.
Also if you were foolish enough to play with the cube before the
experiment, whether it is scrambled or not!
That's a lot of data to be carried by one small stream of photons.
Alright, so the photon's come into the lens of the video camera,
and they get bent and refocused right here on the surface of the CCD,
which is the retina of the video camera if you will.
I you look into the device in a dark room, you can see a nice
focused but upside down image of the Rubic's cube right there.
GEOMETRIC CONGRUENCY
OK, so now we have to take up something that is very important, for
without this, most people will probably miss the whole point of this
discussion.
Two objects are geometrically congruent to each other when they
have the same spacetime shape as each other. Technically two objects
are congruent when their geometries are identical to each other, but we
are going to call two objects congruent when they are merely
recognizably similar to each other.
For example, if we have a small cube and a big cube, technically
they are geometrically similar but not congruent. Only if we have two
cubes of the same size and color would they be considered congruent.
But for our purposes, we going to say the smaller cube is
geometrically congruent with the bigger one, and we are going to go even
further and say a 2 dimensional PICTURE of one of these cubes is also
geometrically congruent to the 3 dimensional original.
Thus we DEFINE geometical congruency not to mean geometric
identicality, but geometrically recognizably similar, both in form,
color, and materiality.
Thus if it is a cube or it looks like a cube, then it is
geometically congruent to a cube.
THE REFERENT AS SYMBOL FOR ITSELF
Now if we consider that the original cube can be considered a
symbol for itself, then referent and symbol are clearly perfectly
geometically congruent in the technical sense, because any object is
geometrically congruent to itself.
But then as the stream of photons bounce off the cube, they begin
to disperse in space and lose that congruency. They remain a symbol for
the original cube as they travel away from the cube, because they are in
the direct causal path of the cube, but they no longer look like a cube!
We call this process defocusing, namely the geometrical congruency
of the symbol becomes more defocused as it moves away from the original
referent.
The symbol becomes more and more less like a cube in shape and
form.
In fact if you put a piece of paper between the cube and the video
camera lens, you will not see a picture of the cube at all even though
many of the photons that are leaving the cube are hitting the paper.
The image on the paper of the cube is completely defocused.
But all the data about the cube is still there!
Then as the stream of photons carrying the data about the cube hit
the lens, they are forced to converge again in the direction of the CCD
screen at the back of the video camera.
As soon as the photons start to pass through the lens they begin to
refocus again, until they become completely focused again at the exact
moment they hit the CCD screen.
Thus we have the following diagram which is crucial to our
understanding of the standard reference model. The down direction
shows the progress of cause from the original referent to the image
on the CCD screen.
Cube Referent Focused Hi Geo Congruency
Photons before lens Symbol Defocusing Lower Geo congruency
Photons at lens Symbol Defocused Lowest Goe congruency
Photons after lens Symbol Focusing Higher Geo Congruency
CCD screen Symbol Focused Hi Geo Congruency
The fact that the symbol at the CCD screen is focused and
geometically congruent to the referent means that at least some data has
been conserved about the cube during the causal transit from referent to
final symbol on the CCD screen.
We are going to replicate the above on each stage of this
journey to help us keep a clear eye on what is being described here.
Then you have some electronics, a couple of circuits in there that
convert the image on the CCD screen into a serialized bit stream, 1's
and 0's. And the 1's and 0's are now going to go to a standard Cathode
Ray TV set, with a little electron gun. And the TV set has a screen,
and the electrons scan the screen back and forth and up and down, and
replicate the image one more time on the TV screen, only this time it's
right side up again.
Now this TV set exists inside of an Army Tank, and we use that
because this is an actual application, this happens all the time, tanks
no longer have windows to see through, they only have video monitors to
give a detailed view of the outside world.
And in the tank there is a guy sitting in a chair, and he's looking
at the TV set, and he can't see anything else about the outside world
but what is on the TV set.
This is very important, because all he has is the TV set to look at
about the outside world. If he were born in the tank, we might consider
that he has never seen the outside world directly.
So new light rays are generated on the surface of the TV screen and
they leave the TV set and head for the guy's eyes which act in analogue
fashion to the lens and CCD in the video camera, that picked up the
image in the first place.
Now we are going to do a blow up of the guys' eye over here into a
much bigger box and what we have is an eye ball, and we have a retina,
and we have some neurological circuitry called the optic nerve and optic
chiasm where they cross.
This neurological circuitry comes into the brain and makes its way
to the visual cortex in the back of the brain.
So here are the eye and the lens, and the light waves come into the
eye and they get focused on the retina, and once again on the back of
the retina you have your little Rubic's cube showing up again as a very
clear focused image, you can see it, if you cut the eye open, its right
there, very recognizable. And its up side down again just as the image
on the CCD screen was upside down and for exactly the same reason.
Now here is where the standard reference model separates from
science, from the science of today, you won't read about this in your
physics books. But as I said in the beginning of this lecture there is
reason for doing this, if only for the purpose of offering the
possibility of it, so if we want to prove it wrong we can, but if it
isn't stated you can't prove it wrong. So we are going to state it.
Just as we drew a bigger circle to represent the guy's head
and eyes, we are going to draw another circle representing the
conscious unit of the soldier, with a little star in the middle
representing the conscious viewer himself.
The conscious viewer at the very center of the circle is looking at
and seeing a conscious display of color forms on the inside of the
circle that encompases the viewer. He is locked inside his
consciousness and never see outside of it, except through symbolic
displays on his conscious screen.
And so is one more function that goes on here, which is that you
have the consciousness of the guy, with the little guy here in the
middle, a little ghost, the little 'I AM!', the looker, the being who is
aware of being aware, and the consciousness is the whole color picture
he sees around him.
Even though most of us only see the color picture in front of us,
it goes all the way around spherically, 360 degrees, as you know if you
have ever had a 360 degree dream or out of body experience, and it
includes sound, touch, taste, smell and a whole litany of other
conscious sense forms that give us data about the alleged world around
us.
360 degree surround sound consciousness is the native
state of a conscious being.
Our consciousness is just like the TV screen, it displays conscious
color forms for our viewing pleasure.
And the data coming from the eye, through the optic nerve and then
the visual cortext, one way or another gets displayed onto the conscious
color screen we call our conscious picture of the world, which is
everything you see around you.
And then lo and behold on the consciousness, you have your little
rubic's cube all over again, for the last time, only this time it is
right side up again!
So notice just for yuks, at the referent, the cube is
right side up. At the CCD screen, the symbol is upside down,
at the TV Screen the symbol is right side up again, at
the retina the symbol is upside down again, and in the
conscious color form display, it is finally right side up again.
AND IT STILL LOOKS LIKE A CUBE. So through all the defocusing and
refocusing, from referent cube out on the table to symbol of final
authority, conscious display, the data in the causal pathway has been
conserved, and is finally reconstructed in the concious display with
very high geometric congruency indeed.
In fact we believe that the original referent is a cube BECAUSE
that is the way it looks in the conscious display! We believe the
qualities of the final symbol ARE the qualities of the original
referent.
OK, so this diagram can be broken up into four sections.
It can be broken up into the original referent, which is section
zero.
It can be broken up into the CCD which is section one.
It can be broken up into the TV set which is section two.
It can be broken up into the eye retina, which is section three.
And it can be broken up into the conscious picture is which is
section four.
Now there are a couple of things I want you to notice here.
In the lecture on symbols and referents we talked about how a
symbol can have data content and it can have picture form.
Picture form is just what it sounds like, it is a 1 to 1
correspondance in space and time, between the geometric shape and form
of the symbol and the shape and form of the referent.
Picture form is exactly what we mean by high geometric congruency,
that is space time relationships between referent and symbol have a 1 to
1 correspondance, and recognizably look like each other.
For example, the image on the surface of the CCD, even though it
shows up as a two dimensional projection, is very obviously and
recognizably a Rubic's cube, complete with color and perspective.
We refer to this picture form recognizability between symbol and
referent as geometric congruency. Strictly speaking true congruency
would mean an exact match in shape, size and dimensionality, between
symbol and referent, so in this case we really only have geometric
similarity, but we will continue to use the term geometric congruency
none the less to refer to symbols that have a high picture form content
relative to their referents.
The fact that symbol and referent are not absolutely congruent
merely indicates that they are two different objects because they have
different qualities. This is very important, because the Fundamental
Theorem of Identicality says that if two objects have any different
qualities at all, they must be two different distinct separate objects
with their own separate existence and equal ontological status.
Both referent and symbol ARE, and both EQUALLY ARE.
There is no relativity to existence, there is no "I am more ARE
than you."
The symbol merely comes AFTER the referent, this does not in any
diminish the equal actuality of either.
On the other hand, let's look at the the light waves coming
directly off the Rubic's cube. If you were to put a piece of paper at a
point half way between the cube and lens of the video camera, you
wouldn't be able to see a Rubic's cube.
That's because the symbol has become defocused, meaning
it has lost its high picture form, lost its geometric congruency
to the original referent.
The data imprinted in the light waves is all there however. so the
data content remains high, while the picture content becomes low. Data
content is always conserved even while picture content comes and goes.
Notice however that because the data content is at least in part ABOUT
the geometricity of the original referent the picture form should always
be recoverable at a later stage. If not, then the data content relating
to geometricity is truely gone.
So you have the following situation.
You have something coming in from the sun which contains no data
and no picture, which hits the original referent namely the Rubic's cube
and is imprinted with data about the cube.
The Rubic's cube itself is a picture, it has a space time
arrangement, but the photon's coming off it immediately lose their
picturness as they get away from it, because each point on the cube
radiates reflected light in all directions, but they don't lose their
data content.
We know this because the entirety of the Rubic's cube can be
recreated from it using a lens. The reason that a piece of paper placed
between the cube and the lens does not show a picture form of the cube
is because each point on the paper is being illuminated by EVERY point
on the cube at the same time.
As the photons hit the paper, they are coming from different
directions, but once they hit the paper and are rescattered back to an
observer, their original direction of travel is lost, and thus the data
content of the photon stream is also lost never to be recovered.
You can't look at the paper with a lens and see the cube,
you will only see the paper!
On the other hand by allowing the photon stream to go through a
lens, the various photons that came off a single point on the cube are
redirected back to a single point on the focusing surface, name the CCD
screen, thus not only is data content conserved along the entire
pathway, the symbol at the CCD interface is in a state of high picture
form again, high geometric congruency.
Thus the causal pathway starts at the Rubic's cube with high data
content and high picture form as the cube itself, then travels with high
data content and lowering picture form until it hits the lens with high
data content and almost no picture form at all.
From the lens the causal pathway continues with high data content
and increasing picture form until it hits the CCD screen as a highly
focused image, namely high data content and high picture form.
So at the point of the original referent, we have high data and
high picture. In this sense the referent is a symbol for itself and
therefore the data content and pictureness are both 100 percent perfect.
But then as soon as the light waves come off of it, we are now
looking at something with high data and low picture.
Then it hits the lens which refocuses the image on the CCD screen
where we get high data and high picture form on the screen once again.
But notice that the data content at the CCD is somewhat less than
the original referent. The whole cube is not represented there, only
certain faces of it are visible, there is a certain amount of loss of
clarity and perfection of rendition, data is lost. Probably if there
were some very fine print on the side of the Rubic's cube you would not
see it at the CCD screen if the print were small enough.
So its not a perfect replication. There are a lot of differences
between the picture form symbol on the CCD screen and the original
referent, not the least of which is that the original referent is a 3D
object, and the symbol on the CCD screen is a 2D projection of it.
The image on the CCD screen is nonetheless a symbol for the
original referent, a symbol which is has high but not perfect data
content, and high but not perfect picture form.
And also notice with two video cameras looking at the cube from
slightly different angles, the full 3D data content of the original
referent could be reconstructed from the two slightly different 2D
projections.
Notice that the light waves going through the lens is also a symbol
of the cube, but it has low picture form so its not geometrically
recognizable as such.
Now the electronic circuitry that scans the CCD, converts the image
symbol on its surface to a series of 1's and 0's.
And if you were to actually take a look at a printout of those
one's and zero's you would not see a clear Rubic's cube. Maybe if you
printed out the 1's and 0's just right, you might see a faint image of
the cube in the background of a bigger mess.
The data stream however could be encrypted, in which case the data
stream would be completely unrecognizeable.
This stripping the data off the CCD screen and encrypting it
is a form of defocusing, the data is still there, but the picture form
is not.
So at the point between the CCD and the TV set we have another
symbol which is this data stream, and it has low picture form but still
all the data is there. But again there is slightly less data than in
the previous symbol. Data content is decaying with distance along the
causal pathway.
Every step we go along a causal chain we lose a little bit of data.
Thus we say that data is conserved to the degree that the
causl pathway is short, or is 100 percent digital.
Now the serial data stream from the CCD and hits the TV, hits the
circuitry inside the TV, and the electron beam starts to scan on that
phosphor screen, and we get a recognizable Rubic's cube on that phospor
screen. So again we have another symbol, and this one has high picture
content and and high data content.
But again the light coming off the TV screen goes off in all
directions, just like the light from the original referent went off in
all directions, and so if you put a piece of paper between the TV screen
and the guy's eyes, you get another symbol, which is this dispersal of
light traveling between them, that has high data content but no picture
content.
So I think we see a pattern here.
We have high picture content, low picture content, high picture
content, low picture contentm etc.
Original cube High picture content Right side up
Lens Low picture content
CCD High picture content Up side down
TV circuity Low picture content
TV screen High picture content Right side up
Lens of eye Low picture content
Retina of eye High picture content Up side down
Brain/Visual Cortex Low picture content
Conscious picture High picture content Right side up
And this pattern continues on in the same way into the eye. We get
into the eye ball, the symbol gets recreated on the retina as yet
another symbol in the chain of symbols, and this symbol is high picture
form again, although upside down and high data.
And this thing gets into the brain, and whatever is going on here
in the visual cortex is low picture, but again the data is conserved,
the data is very well intact.
We say the data in the visual cortex is low picture content,
because if you cut open the brain while it is viewing a cube, no where
AT ALL in the brain anywhere, is there an electrical or energy pattern
that geometrically resembles a cube!
You just can't tell trivially what the guy is looking at by
looking at the activity in the brain.
And then the data stream gets to the conscious unit, and lo and
behold we have a final last symbol, which is what the guy as a conscious
unit is looking at, and this last symbol is high picture and high data,
and all right side up as it should be.
This is the last symbol on the chain in the conscious picture, that
started from the first symbol on the chain which was the original
referent.
This picture in his consciousness therefore, is the Symbol of Final
Authority for this observer.
That means that everything this guy is going to learn about the
original refeerent is going to come from this last symbol in his
conscious picture.
He no longer has contact with the photons that came in to the video
camera, because they got absorbed by the CCD. He can't see them,
because they are long gone. He can't see any of the data stream
connecting the CCD to the TV set because it too is long gone.
He can't see any of the photons coming off the TV set because they
were absorbed by his retina and are long gone by the time the image gets
to his brain and visual cortex.
So if this guy is going to learn anything about the original
referent, all he has to study is his symbol of final authority, namely
the conscious picture that forms in his consciousness.
Now this is not the place in this lecture for me to get into this,
but I am going to get into it anyhow.
Just to take a look at why do we separate off consciousness and its
pictures as a separate fundamental thing separate from the brain and the
visual cortex.
And that is because if you cut the brain open and you LOOK no where
will you find a cube.
The LAST place a cube exists in the human body is on the
surface of the retina.
You will see the data of a cube encoded in the visual cortex,
however it is encoded, but no where will there be a picture. Yet what
we see in our consciousness is a picture which is in fact very
geometrically congruent to the original referent, the cube out in the
sun's light.
Therefore this picture in consciousness is actual, and therefore
the thing which displays the picture is actual, and consciousness is
therefore defined as the symbol of final authority.
Whatever consciousness is, whatever it is made of, however it
works, it is picture form, it is high picture form and high data form,
and no where in the brain is anything anywhere near high picture form.
Also note that the guy can't see the original cube,
nor the picture on the CCD, nor the picture on the TV set,
nor even the picture on his retina, because as a conscious viewer
he is a different object than all these things.
He can only see his conscious picture because in fact he
and his conscious picture are one and the same object, even
those there is the illusion of space and separation between the viewer
and viewed.
Close one eye, that's more the truth.
The way you know that the conscious picture is not a physical
object or process is because you can SEE the object you are looking at!
If it were a different object than you, you would never
be able to see it.
OK, this is something else that doesn't really belong here, but we
are going to go into it quickly, just to get it down.
We know from previous lectures that objects have qualities.
Further more, at any given time, over time, an object can change its
quality set. The very movement in time itself is a change in that
object because it now has a quality that it is at 2 minutes after
midnight rather than at 2 minutes before midnight.
That is a quality of relation, but a quality of the object's
quality set none the less.
For example take two identical cubes, and place one to the
right of Goober, and the other to left of him. Thus the quality
sets of each cube are not identical because one is to the left
and one to the right of Goob's.
Same thing with space or time. We consider that now the
basketball is here, and a few seconds later it is there. We make
the mistake of thinking it is the same basketball that has just
moved around a bit in space and time. But just as a candle flame
in a windless room might look identical from moment to moment,
it is in fact a totally new flame in each instant.
Thus moving through time alone continuously creates new objects
of any object in existence.
A process is a change in state in an object, a change in an
object's quality set.
The standard reference model depends very much on the concept of
two different objects.
Meaning that the world isn't all just one object all mushed
together, this is a whole slew of objects, a whole series of space time
events, each one being an object, and that what is going on here in the
brain, is not what is going on over here on the CCD, but they do have
analogous qualities between them and perhaps a casual pathway between
them.
Having analogous qualities doesn't mean that two different objects
are the same one object, it means they are two different objects with
similar but different qualities.
Thus a video camera may work similar to an eye, but a video camera
is not an eye.
Like wise a TV screen may work similar to a conscious display, but
a TV is not a conscious unit.
Lastly and most importantly, just because the final image in the
conscious display looks like a cube, doesn't mean it IS a cube. The
original referent cube is 4 stages of casuation and learning away from
the symbol conscious image in the mind's eye, and therefore they are two
different objects each with their own unique onotological right to
claim they exist and are actual.
There are no degrees of existence, thus the original cube,
and the conscious picture of the cube both exist, period, and
thus both need careful and equal study.
By studying the standard reference model out from beginning to end
and all the parts inbetween, we should be able to tell the causal
pathway that takes place between original referent and the symbol of
final authority at the end of the chain.
The photons bouncing off the original referent is one process.
The photons traveling across space to the lens is another process.
The photons being focused by the lens is another process.
The photons traveling between the lens and the CCD screen is
another process.
The photons hitting the CCD screen is another process.
And the data from the CCD being converted into a serial stream is
another process etc.
And each one involves a different object changing state.
The CDD does not change state until the photon hits it, or so we
hope.
And the photon doesn't hit the CCD until it has first hit the cube
and changes state there.
Now this is really important, so I am going to bring it up at this
point.
At the TV screen, let's take a look at the TV screen, its very
important. The TV screen is basically made of glass, and the glass has
phosphors on it, and there are electrons coming in that are scanning the
TV screen that hit the phosphors.
When an electron hits a phosphor it causes ANOTHER DIFFERENT
electron in the phosphor atom to kick up into a higher energy level.
The original electron is then drained off to the side to be recycled
later.
The phosphor's electron then later falls back down a level and
emits another photon of a particular frequency.
And so you have electrons coming in, and you have photons going
out.
One of the things we want to point out here is that this not all
just one process.
A process is a change in state in an object, and there are at least
3 separate objects here.
The first object is the stream of electrons coming into the glass
from the electron gun. That's a process, they are changing position in
space, they are coming into the glass,
When they hit the glass, they kick the electron's up a level in the
atoms of the phosphors on the glass, and that's a process in the atom's
of the phospors.
The atom's of phosphor on the glass are not the same object as the
electrons coming into to hit them. Two separate objects, two completely
separate processes, however they are causally related in that the
electrons coming into the glass are a causal precursor to the phosphors
changing energy states.
It is very important to not take two processes that are causally
related and then claim that they are one and the same process.
That would be like saying that the conscious picture of the cube is
merely a process in the brain. The conscious picture of the cube MAY BE
CONNECTED TO AND RESULT FROM a casual precursor process in the brain,
but processes in the brain are different objects than processes in
consciousness.
And by the time the picture ends up in consciousness, the precursor
causal process in the brain is long gone.
Proof? There are no cubes in the brain, and the brain, being a
multidimensional entity, couldn't see what it is looking at anyhow, as
everything is separated by space and time.
Remember the fact that a conscious unit can see its own conscious
pictures with perfect certainty, means that conscious picture and
conscious viewer must be one and the same object, thus consciousness
must be zero dimensional. Since the brain is multidimensional, the
brain can not be the consciousness.
Then as the electrons fall back down in the phosphor atoms, they
emit photons and start to move through space towards the guy's eyes.
And so now we have a third object, because the photons are not a
phosphor atom, they are not an electron orbiting around a phosphor atom,
and they are not the original electrons coming in, hitting the glass.
So you have a third object, and because these photons are moving
through space, this object is also undergoing a process, namely change
in space and time.
The point here is that we have three separate objects undergoing
three separate processes, and it is scientifically incorrect to collapse
them all into one process.
For example if someone were to say to you that the photon leaving
the glass is the SAME THING, the same process as the electrons coming
into the glass, they would be wrong.
Collapsing multiple parts of a causal pathway into one part causes
a failure to distinguish the various parts going on within the collapsed
part.
It would also be very wrong to claim that the photons traveling
across space after leaving the phosphors were merely the same process AS
the phosphors absorbing and emitting energy.
Confusing two different processes that are causally related as one
single process again results in a failure to discriminate properly the
various different processes going on.
We belabor the point because people make these mistakes all the
time when considering where in the causal pathway their own
consciousness lies.
So over here in stage four of the standard reference model, we have
a diagram of a brain, and we have a diagram of a conscious unit with
little conscious being inside it, looking at his conscious experience,
his conscious TV set if you will, a 360 degree surround sound movie
house, filled with the color forms he sees around him.
We are claiming that the brain and the conscious unit are two
different events, two different processes, and two different objects.
It is very tempting for people to say that their consciousness IS
merely a process going on in the brain or visual cortex.
Now we know there are lots of processes going on in the brain, and
we know that we are not conscious of many of them, so what they are
claiming is that there is a subset of processes in the brain which ARE
in fact their consciousness.
They claim there is no separate object called a conscious unit
undergoing a separate independent process from those going on in the
brain.
Some might claim that if you took away all of the brain, there
would be no more conscious unit, but they have in fact never done this,
so their claim is asserted without merit. And many have in fact died,
flatlined, no brain, and came back and reported being very much alive
outside the body while the brain was dead.
Maybe the brain was not so dead after all, maybe not.
All of which is anecdotal evidence to cause us to study the matter
further.
Notice that even if processes in the brain are necessary causal
precursors to processes going on in consciousness, this does not in any
way lessen the distinction between the two different objects, namely the
brain and its processes and the consciousness and its processes.
Remember there is no cube in the brain, and yet there
is a cube in the consciousness. That alone is damning.
But the consciousness can see with perfect certainty what it is
looking at, the brain, being a machine, can't.
Notice also that just because there may necessarily be a causal
pathway between the brain and the conscious unit SO THAT DATA MAY PASS
FROM THE BRAIN TO THE CONSCIOUS BEING, this alone does not prove that
the conscious unit depends upon the existence of the brain for its own
existence.
It might very well be that if the brain dies, the conscious unit
might have nothing of interest to display, but self consciousness would
always remain, like a TV set that was on with no show to play on it.
So the standard reference model asserts with malice aforethought
that there are two separate objects between brain and conscious unit,
and thus two separate processes going on, with a data bridge between
them.
The first hint that this may be valid is that the symbol of final
authority in the conscious unit is in fact a picture of a cube. The
data content is there, but so is the picture form.
There is no picture form in the visual cortex or any other part of
the brain goin all the way back to the retina.
You cut open the brain and look at the patterns of what is going on
there, and no where is there a picture.
If object A and object B have different qualities, then A and B are
two different objects.
If A has qualities that B doesn't, or B has qualities that A
doesn't, then they can't be one and the same object and under no
circumstances can it be meaningful to say that are.
So since consciousness has highly geometrically congruent picture
forms in it, but the brain and visual cortex do not, there is no way
that consciousness can be MERELY THE SAME THING AS a process in the
brain or visual cortex.
Notice we are not denying that some processes in consciousness may
be causally related to processes in the brain, but causal relation
between two different objects does not imply that the two objects are
one and the same object.
IN SUMMARY
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Data Pict Orien- Refle Made
Form From tation Focus Facing ction Of
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cube 100% 100% up high left right plastic
Lens high low low glass
CCD high high down high right left silicon
Circuit high low low metal
TV high high up high left right glass
Eye lens high low low cells
Retina high high down high right left cells
Brain high low low neurons
CU high high up high left right consciousness
Notice that there is yellow light coming off the Cube, but no
yellow light coming off the TV set, instead the TV set is emitting red
and green to fake yellow. So they gotta be two different objects.
Notice nothing is lighting the conscious picture of the cube,
consciousness is lighting itself, consciousness is self luminous.
There are no photons in a dream or in the imagination, but both
can be seen clearly in the consciousness.
Notice the blockage between the symbol and referent destroys the
symbol. Paper between the Cube and the lens destroys the cube on the
CCD screen. Cutting the circuitry between the CCD and the TV screen
destroys the image on the TV screen. Paper between the TV screen and
the eye destroys the image on the retina. Cutting the optic nerve
between the retina and the conscious unit, destroys the image in the
conscious unit.
OK, so this is the end of the lecture on the Standard Reference
Model given on November 27th 2005.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Mon Mar 24 01:35:12 EDT 2008
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Apr 19 12:00:02 EDT 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/lcc-srm
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)
iD8DBQFa2L0CURT1lqxE3HERAve/AKDVLSkie4J7YxyFAKDUlsIBxUYplQCguW9x
KPobawjJFUWWjB7deJVxfNI=
=E4Ef
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
THE STANDARD REFERENECE MODEL.
This lecture was given on November 27th, 2005 and is entitled the
Standard Reference Model.
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello.
Today is November 27th, 2005.
This lecture will cover the following subjects:
OBJECTS and QUALITIES
SYMBOLS and REFERENTS
CASUAL PATHWAYS
SYMBOLS OF FINAL AUTHORITY
LEARNING AND KNOWELDGE
THE LEARNED ABOUT, THE LEARNER and THE LEARNED
INDIRECT PERCEPTION AND DIRECT PERCEPTION
THEORY AND TRUTH
MODEL AND EVIDENCE
PERFECT CERTAINTY and UNCERTAINTY
GEOMETRIC CONGRUENCY
FOCUSED AND DEFOCUSED
IMPLIED VIEWPOINTS
DIMENSIONALITY and ZERO DIMENSIONALITY
CONSTITUENCY, ARRANGEMENT AND PROCESS
CAUSAL MESSENGER WAVES
RENDITION AND INTERPRETATION
The standard reference model (SRM) is a simplifed version of how we
learn in the physical universe. It is simple, but complete enough to
encompass all forms of learning that takes place at any physical
universe level.
By learning of course we mean coming to know knowledge about
something.
The standard reference model is referred to over and over again by
the proof and therefore it is important to know this thing forwards,
backwards, upside down and inside out in order to understand the proof.
If you can understand the SRM, you can understand any form of
learning that takes place in the physical universe.
The physical universe is considered to be the universe of matter,
energy, space and time and the changes that go on amongst that matter,
energy, space and time which we hereby collectively call mechanics.
The word mechanics comes from the word machine, and we define a
machine as any system of parts interacting via cause and effect across a
spacetime distance (dimension).
Parts of course are any amount of matter and energy in a space and
time.
Thus the process of mechanics is the process of parts interacting,
via cause and effect, across a space time distance.
A process is defined as a change in state in an object or
collection of objects that are in some functional arrangement.
We learned in the previous lecture on Symbols and Referents, that a
symbol is a later object or event (same thing) that is causally related
to an earlier object which is the referent.
In that sense, the symbol is an effect and the referent is cause.
A causal pathway is a series of events in spacetime that are
causally related to each other, one after the other, thus forming a
chain of referents and their symbols as time progresses.
If A causes B, then A is the referent and B is the symbol.
If B then causes C, B becomes a referent in its own right, and C is
the symbol. C is in fact a symbol for both B and A, for C will be
imprinted with data about both B and A via the causal impingement
emmanating from A through B to C.
In general when we learn in the physical universe, we are learning
by looking at effects, by being an effect of a cause, and thus computing
back to what the cause must have been like, considering what the effect
was plus our current theories of the moment.
In that sense, when we change state as a result of some causal
referent (influence) out there which we are trying to learn about, we
have become a symbol for that referent. The event of the new changed
state in ourselves is a symbol that is causally related to the referent
that caused that change in state in ourselves.
This symbol that we have become then, is called the symbol of final
authority, for it is the last event in the causal pathway that is being
looked at directly in order to learn about the qualities of the referent
that caused it.
So you have this referent out in spacetime somewhere, and it causes
various effects which cause other effects, which cause other effects,
which eventually come down to an effect caused in ourselves as observer.
We call this chain of cause and effects a causal pathway.
All mechanical observation is actually receiving an effect from
some cause, and then changing state as a result of that cause.
Thus we define mechanical observation as changing state as an
effect of some cause.
We also call this indirect perception, because one is learning
about A out there by looking at B, namely one's self in here.
Direct perception would be learning about A by looking directly at
A. But this is not possible in the physical universe, as any kind of
space or time separation between observed and observer limits the
observer to observing changes in himself (B) in order to learn about A.
If B is separated from A by a space time distance, B can never be
in direct contact with A.
B can only be in indirect contact with A via effects propagated
from A across that space time distance to B a moment later.
Worse by the time that effect reaches B, A may not even exist any
more!
That means even when B is in indirect contact with A via the effect
it receives from A, the indirect contact is not with A as it is now, but
with A as it was when it emmanated the causal messenger wave. This is
because the speed of causal propagation is finite.
Thus at the moment that B 'sees' A via the change in state in
itself, A may in fact no longer even exist.
Thus at no time is B seeing A directly.
Clearly if one does not receive an effect from a cause, if one does
not change state from a cause, then one can not have learned anything
about that cause.
Thus we assert the Fundamental Theorem of Learning:
There must be a causal pathway between learned about and learner,
in order for the learned to be considered learning.
Notice the learned about is the referent, and the learner is the
symbol of final authority: that's how the learner learns. The Learner
changes state as a result of a causal messenger wave allegedly
emmanated by the learned about and later received by the learner.
The learned are any deductions or hypotheses that the learner can
make about the learned about because of the particular nature of the
change in state that the learner received from the learned about.
In other words if there is no causal pathway between learned about
and learner, then no learning can take place. The dependability of
knowledge 'learned without a causal pathway' would be randomly correct
at best.
So the symbol of final authority is the last effect, the last
change in state in the chain between referent and observer that is
actually used to learn from, and is actually observed by the observer
and in fact IS the new state OF the observer.
And it is from the data gleaned from that being an effect, that
change of state, that the observer then computes back to what the nature
of the referent might have been.
For example, the light coming off the sun, hits a photo electric
cell, which generates an electric current, which rings a bell. By the
time the bell is rung, the photon that came from the sun that hit the
photo electric cell is long gone. And in fact by the time the bell
rings, the little impluse that came from the little electric cell that
triggered the bell is also gone.
So what we observe is the bell ringing, we haven't observed the
electric impluse that started the bell ringing, and we certainly haven't
observed any of the photons hitting the photo electric cell.
So the bell ringing is the symbol of final authority, and we are
going to learn from that whether or not the sun is there.
But in fact it is worse than this, because the bell ringing is of
no use unless it produces air waves that hit our ears, enters our brain,
and reaches our consciousness, where our HEARING the bell ring is in
fact the final final symbol of authority in the chain. A deaf person
would have learned nothing from the bell ringing because he wouldn't
have received the effect, he wouldn't have changed state when the bell
rang.
The standard reference model replicates this process of learning
four times, in four different ways. The purpose of this is to show us
that although implemented in many different ways, the underlying
learning process is always the same, receive an effect and from that
theorize about the nature of the cause.
Knowledge then learned in this way consists of theory alone.
Theory consists of evidence and model. The symbol of final authority is
the evidence, the computed description of the possible nature of the
cause is the theoretical model.
As we shall see no where is truth or perfect certainty to be found
in this process.
By the time one understands the standard reference model well one
should understand that learning can take place in many different ways,
but its always the same fundmental process, you are being or observing a
symbol, in order to make a conclusion about a referent.
You are looking at B to learn about A.
Until we get to the 4th stage at which point something new and
startling happens.
The SRM does something relatively odd in that it considers
consciousness and the being who is conscious, and what he is conscious
of, to be the fourth stage of learning and to be distinct from all the
other stages of the learning process described below.
It asserts that the conscious experience and the being who is
having the conscious experience are fundamentally different and distinct
stuff from any of the other preceeding stages and should not be confused
with them.
In other words, consciousness is its own thing and needs to be
studied as its own thing on its own terms. Although the data it
displays to the viewer depends on prior causal pathways, the process of
consciousness itself is not merely a process in those causal precursors,
but is different from them.
In particular a learning process within consciousness about itself
should not be considered a learning process in the brain, nor a
mechanical learning process in any space time medium of any sort.
This assertion may be considered purely arbitrary, and to stand
only until proven wrong, but its done because, as will be shown later,
there are qualities in consciousness that are qualities OF consciousness
and are not qualities of anything involved in the prior stages of
learning in the brain.
As an example, say you are aiming your eyes at a physical brick out
on a table in front of you.
You have a physical brick out there on the table and then you have
your conscious picture of the brick.
When you close your eyes, the conscious picture of the brick
disappears, but the physical brick doesn't. Thus clearly the brick and
the conscious picture of the brick are two different objects.
Remembering what we learned from the A's and the B's, if A and B
are objects, and B changes state and A doesn't, then A and B are two
DIFFERENT objects, each with their own existence.
Also since B changes state, B must exist. B is your conscious
experience of the brick which disappears when you close your eyes.
Since A, in this case, is a physical brick on a table out there, we
will assume that A is not a nothing either, and thus A also exists.
Thus both A and B exist and are two different objects.
The brick has qualities, location, weight and temperature, and your
conscious picture of the brick has qualities, which are different from
the physical brick's qualities, we will get into these later.
Your consciousness is clearly being the effect of the brick via
your brain and eyes, so your conscious picture is acting as a symbol for
the brick.
Your consciousness tries to represent the referent brick out on the
table to you via the symbol which is your conscious picture of the
brick.
The conscious picture of the brick is a RENDITION or conscious
RENDERING of the brick. From this you draw your INTERPRETATION of that
symbol in order to conclude what the brick on the table must be like.
Your conscious experience is a rendition, a rendering if you will,
of the physical universe in a symbolic medium, namely conscious color
forms, red, green, blue, experiences of cold and hot, hard and soft etc.
What you believe about the physical universe is an interpretation
you make of the symbol panoply rendered in your consciousness.
The physical universe is the referent.
Consciousness is used as the symbol.
Consciousness is the rendering.
The physical universe is the interpretation.
The physical universe is a THEORY based on our interpretation of
the observed rendering in our consciousness.
Put simply, in our observation of the brick, what we end up
observing is our conscious picture of the brick, not the physical brick
itself directly.
Because the conscious picture of the brick has qualities that the
physical brick doesn't have, and because the brick has qualities that
the conscious picture of the brick doesn't have, we therefore must
consider them two different objects, and thus the standard reference
model treats them as two separate objects, with a possible causal
pathway between as referent and symbol.
Alright let's take a break, we will come back to this after
coffee and donuts.
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
When you are talking about the process of learning, of coming to
know knowledge about, you are always talking about a causal pathway that
goes from the original referent to the symbol of final authority.
As was described in the previous lecture on Symbols and Referents,
the symbol is a separate object from the original referent, its in a
different space and time, certainly in a different time because its
later, and being a different object, it has qualities that are different
from the original referent.
Presumably there is enough mapping from the qualities of the final
symbol to the qualities of the original referent that one can draw
possible conclusions about the original referent from looking at the
final symbol.
That is why we call the causal imprint left by the referent on the
symbol a data imprint, it contains data about the possible nature of the
referent.
And it is this process that we want to lay out in great detail with
what we call the standard reference model.
So the standard reference model starts with an original referent,
in this case let us consider the lowly Rubic's cube. Rememeber the
Rubic's cube? I used to play with these things for hours. I used to
feel that if I could figure out how to solve one of these things, after
it was scrambled, I would understand the mystery of the universe.
It was quite a disappointment because when I finally learned how to
solve them, there was nothing there. It was a total let down.
Little did I know how big a role the Rubic's cube would play in my
final understanding of the universe.
In the physical universe learning takes place via causal pathways.
A causal pathway is a series of changes in state in spacetime
objects that are related to each other via alleged causation. They had
better be so related, because without causation, there is no learning.
Now the first thing to understand about the standard reference
model, is that it is not meant to be an assertion that it is right or
all encompassing.
The standard reference model is merely a way of looking at
processes of learning in the physical universe which is easy to
understand, generally accepted, and fits in with most of mainstream
science.
We are in fact, trying to prove this model wrong when it comes to
how we see our own consciousness and its colorform pictures.
But in the physical universe the standard reference model is the
generally accepted state of the art theory as to how physical universe
learning takes place.
THE GUY IN THE TANK
OK, so the standard reference model describes the experience of a
guy in an army tank whose only vision of the world is through a TV set
that is connected to a video camera outside the tank.
The video camera is aimed at the Rubic's cube sitting outside the
tank on a table in the sunlight. The Rubic's cube will be considered
our original referent. The Rubic's cube is what we and the guy in the
tank are trying to learn about, including whether or not it exists.
The Rubic's cube is lit by the sun light. So here we have the sun
and its rays come down onto the Rubic's cube, and those rays bounce off
the Rubic's cube and hit a lens that goes to a video camera.
In the back of the video camera is a Charge Coupled Device (CCD),
which receives a focused image of the Rubic's cube, on its surface.
We assume that the video camera has only one lens, so that the
image on the CCD is upside down relative to the original referent, a
result which is a standard property of simple lenses.
Now we know from earlier discussion, an object can have different
kinds of qualities, it can have qualities of being, namely those
qualities it has by virtue of being alone, and it can have qualities of
relation, which are those qualities it has by virtue of being in
relation with other objects.
There are a number of different kinds of qualities of relation,
there are spacial, temporal, material, energetic and causal.
For example spacial relations would be above and below, next to, on
top of etc.
Temporal relations would be before and after, etc.
Material relations might be heavier or lighter than.
Energetic relations might be faster or slower than.
And lastly and most importantly, causal relations would be things
like is cause of or is affected by.
One of the qualities of the Rubic's cube is a causal quality of
relation, namely that it affects photons. It absorbs photons of some
frequencies, and reflects photons of other frequencies.
So what happens here at this interface where the photons from the
sun hit the Rubic's cube is an imprinting of data about the nature of
the Rubic's cube on the stream of photon's leaving the surface of the
Rubic's cube after absorbtion and reflection have taken place.
The photon's have 'learned something' about the cube and that
learning is now imprinted on the outgoing photon stream headed for the
video camera.
The photon's coming in from the sun are kind of a clean slate,
unimprinted with any data on them except maybe data about the sun!
Then you get these photons colliding with the Rubic's cube, and the
photon's coming out of that interaction are very specifically affected
by the nature of the Rubic's cube.
Remember the Rubic's cube has 6 different faces with 6 different
colors, red, orange, yellow, green, blue, and white.
However only 3 faces at a time are facing the video camera, no
matter which way the cube is oriented. Thus the pattern of photons
coming off the cube towards the video camera have imprinted in them a
very complex data set about exactly which faces are facing the camera,
at what angles, and what their colors are.
Also if you were foolish enough to play with the cube before the
experiment, whether it is scrambled or not!
That's a lot of data to be carried by one small stream of photons.
Alright, so the photon's come into the lens of the video camera,
and they get bent and refocused right here on the surface of the CCD,
which is the retina of the video camera if you will.
I you look into the device in a dark room, you can see a nice
focused but upside down image of the Rubic's cube right there.
GEOMETRIC CONGRUENCY
OK, so now we have to take up something that is very important, for
without this, most people will probably miss the whole point of this
discussion.
Two objects are geometrically congruent to each other when they
have the same spacetime shape as each other. Technically two objects
are congruent when their geometries are identical to each other, but we
are going to call two objects congruent when they are merely
recognizably similar to each other.
For example, if we have a small cube and a big cube, technically
they are geometrically similar but not congruent. Only if we have two
cubes of the same size and color would they be considered congruent.
But for our purposes, we going to say the smaller cube is
geometrically congruent with the bigger one, and we are going to go even
further and say a 2 dimensional PICTURE of one of these cubes is also
geometrically congruent to the 3 dimensional original.
Thus we DEFINE geometical congruency not to mean geometric
identicality, but geometrically recognizably similar, both in form,
color, and materiality.
Thus if it is a cube or it looks like a cube, then it is
geometically congruent to a cube.
THE REFERENT AS SYMBOL FOR ITSELF
Now if we consider that the original cube can be considered a
symbol for itself, then referent and symbol are clearly perfectly
geometically congruent in the technical sense, because any object is
geometrically congruent to itself.
But then as the stream of photons bounce off the cube, they begin
to disperse in space and lose that congruency. They remain a symbol for
the original cube as they travel away from the cube, because they are in
the direct causal path of the cube, but they no longer look like a cube!
We call this process defocusing, namely the geometrical congruency
of the symbol becomes more defocused as it moves away from the original
referent.
The symbol becomes more and more less like a cube in shape and
form.
In fact if you put a piece of paper between the cube and the video
camera lens, you will not see a picture of the cube at all even though
many of the photons that are leaving the cube are hitting the paper.
The image on the paper of the cube is completely defocused.
But all the data about the cube is still there!
Then as the stream of photons carrying the data about the cube hit
the lens, they are forced to converge again in the direction of the CCD
screen at the back of the video camera.
As soon as the photons start to pass through the lens they begin to
refocus again, until they become completely focused again at the exact
moment they hit the CCD screen.
Thus we have the following diagram which is crucial to our
understanding of the standard reference model. The down direction
shows the progress of cause from the original referent to the image
on the CCD screen.
Cube Referent Focused Hi Geo Congruency
Photons before lens Symbol Defocusing Lower Geo congruency
Photons at lens Symbol Defocused Lowest Goe congruency
Photons after lens Symbol Focusing Higher Geo Congruency
CCD screen Symbol Focused Hi Geo Congruency
The fact that the symbol at the CCD screen is focused and
geometically congruent to the referent means that at least some data has
been conserved about the cube during the causal transit from referent to
final symbol on the CCD screen.
We are going to replicate the above on each stage of this
journey to help us keep a clear eye on what is being described here.
Then you have some electronics, a couple of circuits in there that
convert the image on the CCD screen into a serialized bit stream, 1's
and 0's. And the 1's and 0's are now going to go to a standard Cathode
Ray TV set, with a little electron gun. And the TV set has a screen,
and the electrons scan the screen back and forth and up and down, and
replicate the image one more time on the TV screen, only this time it's
right side up again.
Now this TV set exists inside of an Army Tank, and we use that
because this is an actual application, this happens all the time, tanks
no longer have windows to see through, they only have video monitors to
give a detailed view of the outside world.
And in the tank there is a guy sitting in a chair, and he's looking
at the TV set, and he can't see anything else about the outside world
but what is on the TV set.
This is very important, because all he has is the TV set to look at
about the outside world. If he were born in the tank, we might consider
that he has never seen the outside world directly.
So new light rays are generated on the surface of the TV screen and
they leave the TV set and head for the guy's eyes which act in analogue
fashion to the lens and CCD in the video camera, that picked up the
image in the first place.
Now we are going to do a blow up of the guys' eye over here into a
much bigger box and what we have is an eye ball, and we have a retina,
and we have some neurological circuitry called the optic nerve and optic
chiasm where they cross.
This neurological circuitry comes into the brain and makes its way
to the visual cortex in the back of the brain.
So here are the eye and the lens, and the light waves come into the
eye and they get focused on the retina, and once again on the back of
the retina you have your little Rubic's cube showing up again as a very
clear focused image, you can see it, if you cut the eye open, its right
there, very recognizable. And its up side down again just as the image
on the CCD screen was upside down and for exactly the same reason.
Now here is where the standard reference model separates from
science, from the science of today, you won't read about this in your
physics books. But as I said in the beginning of this lecture there is
reason for doing this, if only for the purpose of offering the
possibility of it, so if we want to prove it wrong we can, but if it
isn't stated you can't prove it wrong. So we are going to state it.
Just as we drew a bigger circle to represent the guy's head
and eyes, we are going to draw another circle representing the
conscious unit of the soldier, with a little star in the middle
representing the conscious viewer himself.
The conscious viewer at the very center of the circle is looking at
and seeing a conscious display of color forms on the inside of the
circle that encompases the viewer. He is locked inside his
consciousness and never see outside of it, except through symbolic
displays on his conscious screen.
And so is one more function that goes on here, which is that you
have the consciousness of the guy, with the little guy here in the
middle, a little ghost, the little 'I AM!', the looker, the being who is
aware of being aware, and the consciousness is the whole color picture
he sees around him.
Even though most of us only see the color picture in front of us,
it goes all the way around spherically, 360 degrees, as you know if you
have ever had a 360 degree dream or out of body experience, and it
includes sound, touch, taste, smell and a whole litany of other
conscious sense forms that give us data about the alleged world around
us.
360 degree surround sound consciousness is the native
state of a conscious being.
Our consciousness is just like the TV screen, it displays conscious
color forms for our viewing pleasure.
And the data coming from the eye, through the optic nerve and then
the visual cortext, one way or another gets displayed onto the conscious
color screen we call our conscious picture of the world, which is
everything you see around you.
And then lo and behold on the consciousness, you have your little
rubic's cube all over again, for the last time, only this time it is
right side up again!
So notice just for yuks, at the referent, the cube is
right side up. At the CCD screen, the symbol is upside down,
at the TV Screen the symbol is right side up again, at
the retina the symbol is upside down again, and in the
conscious color form display, it is finally right side up again.
AND IT STILL LOOKS LIKE A CUBE. So through all the defocusing and
refocusing, from referent cube out on the table to symbol of final
authority, conscious display, the data in the causal pathway has been
conserved, and is finally reconstructed in the concious display with
very high geometric congruency indeed.
In fact we believe that the original referent is a cube BECAUSE
that is the way it looks in the conscious display! We believe the
qualities of the final symbol ARE the qualities of the original
referent.
OK, so this diagram can be broken up into four sections.
It can be broken up into the original referent, which is section
zero.
It can be broken up into the CCD which is section one.
It can be broken up into the TV set which is section two.
It can be broken up into the eye retina, which is section three.
And it can be broken up into the conscious picture is which is
section four.
Now there are a couple of things I want you to notice here.
In the lecture on symbols and referents we talked about how a
symbol can have data content and it can have picture form.
Picture form is just what it sounds like, it is a 1 to 1
correspondance in space and time, between the geometric shape and form
of the symbol and the shape and form of the referent.
Picture form is exactly what we mean by high geometric congruency,
that is space time relationships between referent and symbol have a 1 to
1 correspondance, and recognizably look like each other.
For example, the image on the surface of the CCD, even though it
shows up as a two dimensional projection, is very obviously and
recognizably a Rubic's cube, complete with color and perspective.
We refer to this picture form recognizability between symbol and
referent as geometric congruency. Strictly speaking true congruency
would mean an exact match in shape, size and dimensionality, between
symbol and referent, so in this case we really only have geometric
similarity, but we will continue to use the term geometric congruency
none the less to refer to symbols that have a high picture form content
relative to their referents.
The fact that symbol and referent are not absolutely congruent
merely indicates that they are two different objects because they have
different qualities. This is very important, because the Fundamental
Theorem of Identicality says that if two objects have any different
qualities at all, they must be two different distinct separate objects
with their own separate existence and equal ontological status.
Both referent and symbol ARE, and both EQUALLY ARE.
There is no relativity to existence, there is no "I am more ARE
than you."
The symbol merely comes AFTER the referent, this does not in any
diminish the equal actuality of either.
On the other hand, let's look at the the light waves coming
directly off the Rubic's cube. If you were to put a piece of paper at a
point half way between the cube and lens of the video camera, you
wouldn't be able to see a Rubic's cube.
That's because the symbol has become defocused, meaning
it has lost its high picture form, lost its geometric congruency
to the original referent.
The data imprinted in the light waves is all there however. so the
data content remains high, while the picture content becomes low. Data
content is always conserved even while picture content comes and goes.
Notice however that because the data content is at least in part ABOUT
the geometricity of the original referent the picture form should always
be recoverable at a later stage. If not, then the data content relating
to geometricity is truely gone.
So you have the following situation.
You have something coming in from the sun which contains no data
and no picture, which hits the original referent namely the Rubic's cube
and is imprinted with data about the cube.
The Rubic's cube itself is a picture, it has a space time
arrangement, but the photon's coming off it immediately lose their
picturness as they get away from it, because each point on the cube
radiates reflected light in all directions, but they don't lose their
data content.
We know this because the entirety of the Rubic's cube can be
recreated from it using a lens. The reason that a piece of paper placed
between the cube and the lens does not show a picture form of the cube
is because each point on the paper is being illuminated by EVERY point
on the cube at the same time.
As the photons hit the paper, they are coming from different
directions, but once they hit the paper and are rescattered back to an
observer, their original direction of travel is lost, and thus the data
content of the photon stream is also lost never to be recovered.
You can't look at the paper with a lens and see the cube,
you will only see the paper!
On the other hand by allowing the photon stream to go through a
lens, the various photons that came off a single point on the cube are
redirected back to a single point on the focusing surface, name the CCD
screen, thus not only is data content conserved along the entire
pathway, the symbol at the CCD interface is in a state of high picture
form again, high geometric congruency.
Thus the causal pathway starts at the Rubic's cube with high data
content and high picture form as the cube itself, then travels with high
data content and lowering picture form until it hits the lens with high
data content and almost no picture form at all.
From the lens the causal pathway continues with high data content
and increasing picture form until it hits the CCD screen as a highly
focused image, namely high data content and high picture form.
So at the point of the original referent, we have high data and
high picture. In this sense the referent is a symbol for itself and
therefore the data content and pictureness are both 100 percent perfect.
But then as soon as the light waves come off of it, we are now
looking at something with high data and low picture.
Then it hits the lens which refocuses the image on the CCD screen
where we get high data and high picture form on the screen once again.
But notice that the data content at the CCD is somewhat less than
the original referent. The whole cube is not represented there, only
certain faces of it are visible, there is a certain amount of loss of
clarity and perfection of rendition, data is lost. Probably if there
were some very fine print on the side of the Rubic's cube you would not
see it at the CCD screen if the print were small enough.
So its not a perfect replication. There are a lot of differences
between the picture form symbol on the CCD screen and the original
referent, not the least of which is that the original referent is a 3D
object, and the symbol on the CCD screen is a 2D projection of it.
The image on the CCD screen is nonetheless a symbol for the
original referent, a symbol which is has high but not perfect data
content, and high but not perfect picture form.
And also notice with two video cameras looking at the cube from
slightly different angles, the full 3D data content of the original
referent could be reconstructed from the two slightly different 2D
projections.
Notice that the light waves going through the lens is also a symbol
of the cube, but it has low picture form so its not geometrically
recognizable as such.
Now the electronic circuitry that scans the CCD, converts the image
symbol on its surface to a series of 1's and 0's.
And if you were to actually take a look at a printout of those
one's and zero's you would not see a clear Rubic's cube. Maybe if you
printed out the 1's and 0's just right, you might see a faint image of
the cube in the background of a bigger mess.
The data stream however could be encrypted, in which case the data
stream would be completely unrecognizeable.
This stripping the data off the CCD screen and encrypting it
is a form of defocusing, the data is still there, but the picture form
is not.
So at the point between the CCD and the TV set we have another
symbol which is this data stream, and it has low picture form but still
all the data is there. But again there is slightly less data than in
the previous symbol. Data content is decaying with distance along the
causal pathway.
Every step we go along a causal chain we lose a little bit of data.
Thus we say that data is conserved to the degree that the
causl pathway is short, or is 100 percent digital.
Now the serial data stream from the CCD and hits the TV, hits the
circuitry inside the TV, and the electron beam starts to scan on that
phosphor screen, and we get a recognizable Rubic's cube on that phospor
screen. So again we have another symbol, and this one has high picture
content and and high data content.
But again the light coming off the TV screen goes off in all
directions, just like the light from the original referent went off in
all directions, and so if you put a piece of paper between the TV screen
and the guy's eyes, you get another symbol, which is this dispersal of
light traveling between them, that has high data content but no picture
content.
So I think we see a pattern here.
We have high picture content, low picture content, high picture
content, low picture contentm etc.
Original cube High picture content Right side up
Lens Low picture content
CCD High picture content Up side down
TV circuity Low picture content
TV screen High picture content Right side up
Lens of eye Low picture content
Retina of eye High picture content Up side down
Brain/Visual Cortex Low picture content
Conscious picture High picture content Right side up
And this pattern continues on in the same way into the eye. We get
into the eye ball, the symbol gets recreated on the retina as yet
another symbol in the chain of symbols, and this symbol is high picture
form again, although upside down and high data.
And this thing gets into the brain, and whatever is going on here
in the visual cortex is low picture, but again the data is conserved,
the data is very well intact.
We say the data in the visual cortex is low picture content,
because if you cut open the brain while it is viewing a cube, no where
AT ALL in the brain anywhere, is there an electrical or energy pattern
that geometrically resembles a cube!
You just can't tell trivially what the guy is looking at by
looking at the activity in the brain.
And then the data stream gets to the conscious unit, and lo and
behold we have a final last symbol, which is what the guy as a conscious
unit is looking at, and this last symbol is high picture and high data,
and all right side up as it should be.
This is the last symbol on the chain in the conscious picture, that
started from the first symbol on the chain which was the original
referent.
This picture in his consciousness therefore, is the Symbol of Final
Authority for this observer.
That means that everything this guy is going to learn about the
original refeerent is going to come from this last symbol in his
conscious picture.
He no longer has contact with the photons that came in to the video
camera, because they got absorbed by the CCD. He can't see them,
because they are long gone. He can't see any of the data stream
connecting the CCD to the TV set because it too is long gone.
He can't see any of the photons coming off the TV set because they
were absorbed by his retina and are long gone by the time the image gets
to his brain and visual cortex.
So if this guy is going to learn anything about the original
referent, all he has to study is his symbol of final authority, namely
the conscious picture that forms in his consciousness.
Now this is not the place in this lecture for me to get into this,
but I am going to get into it anyhow.
Just to take a look at why do we separate off consciousness and its
pictures as a separate fundamental thing separate from the brain and the
visual cortex.
And that is because if you cut the brain open and you LOOK no where
will you find a cube.
The LAST place a cube exists in the human body is on the
surface of the retina.
You will see the data of a cube encoded in the visual cortex,
however it is encoded, but no where will there be a picture. Yet what
we see in our consciousness is a picture which is in fact very
geometrically congruent to the original referent, the cube out in the
sun's light.
Therefore this picture in consciousness is actual, and therefore
the thing which displays the picture is actual, and consciousness is
therefore defined as the symbol of final authority.
Whatever consciousness is, whatever it is made of, however it
works, it is picture form, it is high picture form and high data form,
and no where in the brain is anything anywhere near high picture form.
Also note that the guy can't see the original cube,
nor the picture on the CCD, nor the picture on the TV set,
nor even the picture on his retina, because as a conscious viewer
he is a different object than all these things.
He can only see his conscious picture because in fact he
and his conscious picture are one and the same object, even
those there is the illusion of space and separation between the viewer
and viewed.
Close one eye, that's more the truth.
The way you know that the conscious picture is not a physical
object or process is because you can SEE the object you are looking at!
If it were a different object than you, you would never
be able to see it.
OK, this is something else that doesn't really belong here, but we
are going to go into it quickly, just to get it down.
We know from previous lectures that objects have qualities.
Further more, at any given time, over time, an object can change its
quality set. The very movement in time itself is a change in that
object because it now has a quality that it is at 2 minutes after
midnight rather than at 2 minutes before midnight.
That is a quality of relation, but a quality of the object's
quality set none the less.
For example take two identical cubes, and place one to the
right of Goober, and the other to left of him. Thus the quality
sets of each cube are not identical because one is to the left
and one to the right of Goob's.
Same thing with space or time. We consider that now the
basketball is here, and a few seconds later it is there. We make
the mistake of thinking it is the same basketball that has just
moved around a bit in space and time. But just as a candle flame
in a windless room might look identical from moment to moment,
it is in fact a totally new flame in each instant.
Thus moving through time alone continuously creates new objects
of any object in existence.
A process is a change in state in an object, a change in an
object's quality set.
The standard reference model depends very much on the concept of
two different objects.
Meaning that the world isn't all just one object all mushed
together, this is a whole slew of objects, a whole series of space time
events, each one being an object, and that what is going on here in the
brain, is not what is going on over here on the CCD, but they do have
analogous qualities between them and perhaps a casual pathway between
them.
Having analogous qualities doesn't mean that two different objects
are the same one object, it means they are two different objects with
similar but different qualities.
Thus a video camera may work similar to an eye, but a video camera
is not an eye.
Like wise a TV screen may work similar to a conscious display, but
a TV is not a conscious unit.
Lastly and most importantly, just because the final image in the
conscious display looks like a cube, doesn't mean it IS a cube. The
original referent cube is 4 stages of casuation and learning away from
the symbol conscious image in the mind's eye, and therefore they are two
different objects each with their own unique onotological right to
claim they exist and are actual.
There are no degrees of existence, thus the original cube,
and the conscious picture of the cube both exist, period, and
thus both need careful and equal study.
By studying the standard reference model out from beginning to end
and all the parts inbetween, we should be able to tell the causal
pathway that takes place between original referent and the symbol of
final authority at the end of the chain.
The photons bouncing off the original referent is one process.
The photons traveling across space to the lens is another process.
The photons being focused by the lens is another process.
The photons traveling between the lens and the CCD screen is
another process.
The photons hitting the CCD screen is another process.
And the data from the CCD being converted into a serial stream is
another process etc.
And each one involves a different object changing state.
The CDD does not change state until the photon hits it, or so we
hope.
And the photon doesn't hit the CCD until it has first hit the cube
and changes state there.
Now this is really important, so I am going to bring it up at this
point.
At the TV screen, let's take a look at the TV screen, its very
important. The TV screen is basically made of glass, and the glass has
phosphors on it, and there are electrons coming in that are scanning the
TV screen that hit the phosphors.
When an electron hits a phosphor it causes ANOTHER DIFFERENT
electron in the phosphor atom to kick up into a higher energy level.
The original electron is then drained off to the side to be recycled
later.
The phosphor's electron then later falls back down a level and
emits another photon of a particular frequency.
And so you have electrons coming in, and you have photons going
out.
One of the things we want to point out here is that this not all
just one process.
A process is a change in state in an object, and there are at least
3 separate objects here.
The first object is the stream of electrons coming into the glass
from the electron gun. That's a process, they are changing position in
space, they are coming into the glass,
When they hit the glass, they kick the electron's up a level in the
atoms of the phosphors on the glass, and that's a process in the atom's
of the phospors.
The atom's of phosphor on the glass are not the same object as the
electrons coming into to hit them. Two separate objects, two completely
separate processes, however they are causally related in that the
electrons coming into the glass are a causal precursor to the phosphors
changing energy states.
It is very important to not take two processes that are causally
related and then claim that they are one and the same process.
That would be like saying that the conscious picture of the cube is
merely a process in the brain. The conscious picture of the cube MAY BE
CONNECTED TO AND RESULT FROM a casual precursor process in the brain,
but processes in the brain are different objects than processes in
consciousness.
And by the time the picture ends up in consciousness, the precursor
causal process in the brain is long gone.
Proof? There are no cubes in the brain, and the brain, being a
multidimensional entity, couldn't see what it is looking at anyhow, as
everything is separated by space and time.
Remember the fact that a conscious unit can see its own conscious
pictures with perfect certainty, means that conscious picture and
conscious viewer must be one and the same object, thus consciousness
must be zero dimensional. Since the brain is multidimensional, the
brain can not be the consciousness.
Then as the electrons fall back down in the phosphor atoms, they
emit photons and start to move through space towards the guy's eyes.
And so now we have a third object, because the photons are not a
phosphor atom, they are not an electron orbiting around a phosphor atom,
and they are not the original electrons coming in, hitting the glass.
So you have a third object, and because these photons are moving
through space, this object is also undergoing a process, namely change
in space and time.
The point here is that we have three separate objects undergoing
three separate processes, and it is scientifically incorrect to collapse
them all into one process.
For example if someone were to say to you that the photon leaving
the glass is the SAME THING, the same process as the electrons coming
into the glass, they would be wrong.
Collapsing multiple parts of a causal pathway into one part causes
a failure to distinguish the various parts going on within the collapsed
part.
It would also be very wrong to claim that the photons traveling
across space after leaving the phosphors were merely the same process AS
the phosphors absorbing and emitting energy.
Confusing two different processes that are causally related as one
single process again results in a failure to discriminate properly the
various different processes going on.
We belabor the point because people make these mistakes all the
time when considering where in the causal pathway their own
consciousness lies.
So over here in stage four of the standard reference model, we have
a diagram of a brain, and we have a diagram of a conscious unit with
little conscious being inside it, looking at his conscious experience,
his conscious TV set if you will, a 360 degree surround sound movie
house, filled with the color forms he sees around him.
We are claiming that the brain and the conscious unit are two
different events, two different processes, and two different objects.
It is very tempting for people to say that their consciousness IS
merely a process going on in the brain or visual cortex.
Now we know there are lots of processes going on in the brain, and
we know that we are not conscious of many of them, so what they are
claiming is that there is a subset of processes in the brain which ARE
in fact their consciousness.
They claim there is no separate object called a conscious unit
undergoing a separate independent process from those going on in the
brain.
Some might claim that if you took away all of the brain, there
would be no more conscious unit, but they have in fact never done this,
so their claim is asserted without merit. And many have in fact died,
flatlined, no brain, and came back and reported being very much alive
outside the body while the brain was dead.
Maybe the brain was not so dead after all, maybe not.
All of which is anecdotal evidence to cause us to study the matter
further.
Notice that even if processes in the brain are necessary causal
precursors to processes going on in consciousness, this does not in any
way lessen the distinction between the two different objects, namely the
brain and its processes and the consciousness and its processes.
Remember there is no cube in the brain, and yet there
is a cube in the consciousness. That alone is damning.
But the consciousness can see with perfect certainty what it is
looking at, the brain, being a machine, can't.
Notice also that just because there may necessarily be a causal
pathway between the brain and the conscious unit SO THAT DATA MAY PASS
FROM THE BRAIN TO THE CONSCIOUS BEING, this alone does not prove that
the conscious unit depends upon the existence of the brain for its own
existence.
It might very well be that if the brain dies, the conscious unit
might have nothing of interest to display, but self consciousness would
always remain, like a TV set that was on with no show to play on it.
So the standard reference model asserts with malice aforethought
that there are two separate objects between brain and conscious unit,
and thus two separate processes going on, with a data bridge between
them.
The first hint that this may be valid is that the symbol of final
authority in the conscious unit is in fact a picture of a cube. The
data content is there, but so is the picture form.
There is no picture form in the visual cortex or any other part of
the brain goin all the way back to the retina.
You cut open the brain and look at the patterns of what is going on
there, and no where is there a picture.
If object A and object B have different qualities, then A and B are
two different objects.
If A has qualities that B doesn't, or B has qualities that A
doesn't, then they can't be one and the same object and under no
circumstances can it be meaningful to say that are.
So since consciousness has highly geometrically congruent picture
forms in it, but the brain and visual cortex do not, there is no way
that consciousness can be MERELY THE SAME THING AS a process in the
brain or visual cortex.
Notice we are not denying that some processes in consciousness may
be causally related to processes in the brain, but causal relation
between two different objects does not imply that the two objects are
one and the same object.
IN SUMMARY
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Data Pict Orien- Refle Made
Form From tation Focus Facing ction Of
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cube 100% 100% up high left right plastic
Lens high low low glass
CCD high high down high right left silicon
Circuit high low low metal
TV high high up high left right glass
Eye lens high low low cells
Retina high high down high right left cells
Brain high low low neurons
CU high high up high left right consciousness
Notice that there is yellow light coming off the Cube, but no
yellow light coming off the TV set, instead the TV set is emitting red
and green to fake yellow. So they gotta be two different objects.
Notice nothing is lighting the conscious picture of the cube,
consciousness is lighting itself, consciousness is self luminous.
There are no photons in a dream or in the imagination, but both
can be seen clearly in the consciousness.
Notice the blockage between the symbol and referent destroys the
symbol. Paper between the Cube and the lens destroys the cube on the
CCD screen. Cutting the circuitry between the CCD and the TV screen
destroys the image on the TV screen. Paper between the TV screen and
the eye destroys the image on the retina. Cutting the optic nerve
between the retina and the conscious unit, destroys the image in the
conscious unit.
OK, so this is the end of the lecture on the Standard Reference
Model given on November 27th 2005.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Mon Mar 24 01:35:12 EDT 2008
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Apr 19 12:00:02 EDT 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/lcc-srm
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)
iD8DBQFa2L0CURT1lqxE3HERAve/AKDVLSkie4J7YxyFAKDUlsIBxUYplQCguW9x
KPobawjJFUWWjB7deJVxfNI=
=E4Ef
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Wednesday, April 18, 2018
ADORE2 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
WHY GOD?
> You also mentioned having many lives spanning trilions of years, which is
> something I've always wanted to believe in, but I've never quite been able
> to set aside western philosophy, and the christian religion. What do you
> believe is our purpose here, if we're not in a selection lottery to
> determine who goes to heaven to spend the rest of eternity with god?
First let me ask you, is that what you want to spend
the rest of Eternity with a God who made you against your will
and put you in a lottery knowing full well you might not make it?
Will there be unix in Heaven?
Let me cop out by saying that probably the answer is beyond
our immediate comprehension, but that the truth will set you free.
Thus if you can find a view of the cosmic all that puts you at
peace with 'what you are doing here' it is undoubtedly right. Gotta
be honest with yourself though, lot of people say they are at peace
with 'God's ways', but ask them if THEY would have created this world
and stuck creatures in it and "NO WAY MAN!" is their immediate answer.
They will in fact tell you that God is a mystery to them, downright
inscrutable in fact.
My view is that man kind is evolving up through 4 Great Lies.
The first lie was that the Earth was flat. Try going outside
some time, and picture *BELIEVING* the Earth is flat. It is quite
enlightening because it immediately defines and limits the larger
context in which the flat Earth exists.
It makes the All That Is *VERY SMALL*.
Then man woke up to the fact that the Earth was not flat, and
suddenly was faced with an enormous philosophic vertigo, like what the
hell is keeping the Earth up then? My God we are all *FALLING*! :)
But then for a long time they thought even though the Earth was
round and out in space, that it was still the center of the universe.
Again go out and imagine believing Earth is the center, and the whole
universe revolves around it. See how the larger context becomes
bigger compared to the Flat Earth but is still very small compared to
your present view.
Then they admited the Earth was not the center of the universe,
but surely was the only one with Life. Christ, when he was hanging
from the Cross was over heard to say "Only once, God damnit, only
once!"
Imagine having to die on many crosses on many planets to save
everyone? It's nuts.
So again people were faced with enormous philosphical vertigo
when they realized that there are billions of suns in our galaxy and
*BILLIONS* of galaxies for as far as the eye can see. Recent pictures
from the Hubble show amazing pictures of star fields studded with
galaxies as numerous as stars.
Clearly life has formed many times in this galaxy, and will form
again, the life of the galaxy is many times longer than the mere few
billion years our Earth has been around, and the few thousand years of
civilization has been here is but a flash in the pan. The universe is
teaming with life like pond water, we just haven't run into it yet, Or
more likely we are political exiles from the local cluster and Earth
is a dumping ground for criminals, perverts, artists and geniuses,
anyone who didn't fit the status quo in the vast inter stellar
civiliaztion that is still out there. Of course we don't remember!
Although that all may be colorful science fiction depending on
your drug or religion of the moment, the fact remains that *CLEARLY*
there is life everywhere in space and time and always has been and
always will be.
So those are the first 3 Great Lies, flat earth, center of the
universe, and only one with Life. Breaking out of each one involved a
huge step of philosophical and emotional vertigo, and the *LOSS* of
knowing that one had been *WRONG* for a long time, and the gain of now
having a bigger and grander future in store.
The 4th great lie is about to unfold, we are at the opening edge
of it, particularly those in the field of computers.
The 4th great lie is that the external physical universe exists
at all. The truth is consciousness exists, and the external universe
is a holographic projection in the mind of an infinite number of micro
gods all playing human or something similar. There is no "God", there
is only the High Us, the All That Is, experiencing itself for its own
edification, in a projected consciousness of virtual reality.
The virtual reality is quite complete all the way down to the
last quark. Clearly using dream machines to measure the dream reality
will never prove that the dream reality is a dream. So one can't go
banging on dream pianos with dream bodies to prove that the dream is
not a dream. The piano plays perfectly, then you wake up.
How much mathematics would a God Being have to know to create the
physical universe either as an actual reality or a virtual reality?
"Apparently God was a Mathematician first, and a Purveyor of
Damnation second."
Now talk about vertigo, this is quite a leap. The first three
lies expanded the size of the earth and the universe and maybe even of
God in people's conception, but they remained pretty much themselves
in their own eyes. This fourth one changes everything. It means you
and me were not made by God, but are co eternal with the underlying
All That Is, that we *CHOSE* to enagage in all this virtual co
activity including perhaps amnesia of our past and our *CHOICES* to
engage!
The 4th lie changes our *RESPONSIBILITY* for our condition, from
almost none, to total, including being responsibile for presently being
unaware of our responsibility.
Take a 3rd lie man, someone who has gotten over the first 3 great
lies. He believes the physical universe exists, and made him. Did he
have a choice? No. Did he make the stars? No. Did he make the
Earth? No. Did he choose to come to Earth and choose his parents?
No. How much in life did he actually choose compared to how much
there is in life? One out of how much? Is there a fraction small
enough to measure the total amount of responsibility such a being has
for his own existence?
He is a meatball and a microdot in the scheme of things.
He wants to be responsibile, to say he is responsible, but he is
overwhelmed by the infinitesimal amount of responsibility he actually
has for anything to the point where he will start defining down
'responsibility' to mean his own level of irresponsiblity!
Eventually you get people who think 'being responsible' means
obeying orders, that's 'the responsible' thing to do!
Now take a 4th lie man, he suddenly realizes he is in his own
virtual game along with all his zillions of buddies who long ago
designed and put into play everything that led up to now.
*EVERYONE* is his friend from long ago, therefore there can be no
hell forever. No one would choose that for themselves, and no one would
choose it for another. They may all hate each other now, but that hate
must be based on an original friendship and sanity back when everyone
invited everyone else into play!
Life is a Holodeck and we are the participants, and the 4 great
Lies are the trappings we chose to wear.
The ignorance was *DESIGNED*.
*BY US*.
Now this is a hard one, because emotionally for many it is
preposterous, and this wall will keep most settled down into belief in
the physical universe as a real actuality, and themselves as meatballs.
But in a meatball's view, he has no chance of immortal life, as he is
made of parts and once the parts are busted apart, so too is the
consciousness that arose from the aggregation.
But I would claim that Love and Shame can not of Force and Mass be
made, so the idea that consciousness can arise out of ball bearings
bouncing around with one over R squared laws is nuts.
And so we are left with the only other alternative theory which is
that conscious units are the primal fundamental actuality, and
projections of three or 4 dimensional space and time are intricate and
convincing but nonetheless projected virtual realities, virtual machines
if you will in the minds of conscious units.
Just as you don't move anywhere when you walk down a streat in a
dream, just so you don't go anywhere when you walk down the streat when
awake. The picture is recast as a virtual reality around you.
As one guy said to me, consciousness does not exist inside the
universe, the universe exists inside of consciousness.
Once you admit to the possibility that the world is a virtual
projection in consciousness, the possibility arises that there have
been, are and will be, endless numbers of universes to play in, so again
the context in which the All That Is exists becomes another order of
magnitude bigger, almost infinite. The philosophical and emotional
vertigo of an infinite future in an infinite number of games with an
infinite number of eternal friends is almost breathtakingly
insufferable.
The standard books on all this stuff in the 60's were Be Here Now,
The Only Dance There Is, and The Taboo against Knowing Who You Really
Are. Also of course Johnathan Livingston Seagull, a neat story about a
seagull who had to separate from the flock once he realized the truth.
The sequel was a Diary of a Reluctant Messiah.
None of the above denies the existence of Christ Consciousness, as
a higher state of consciousness, but it kind of puts to rest the silly
notion that people go to hell forever for the sins of one life.
That's nuts, don't you see?
"There is peace in the thought that one day, *ALL* men will attain
the awakened state."
"Class is an attitude, that *ALL* should live forever and be my
friend.
Cool is the ability to maintain Class. :)
Desire is Sovereign.
Majesty is the *SOVEREIGN* Desire that Desire NOT be Sovereign *FOR
A WHILE*."
The universe is as you would make it, once you find out how you
would make it, you will know how it is. This is not a trivial
undertaking.
And why we don't remember our past lives is a major area of study.
Why does anyone get amnesia? Why do we not remember prior dreams when
dreaming in our sleep?
If we call this waking state dream level 0, then our night dreams
are dream level 1. When in dream level 1 we don't remember other dream
level 1 dreams easily, although we can if we are very lucid, know we are
dreaming, and keep our wits about us, and take a pause from feeling up
girls to consider our past dreams where we were feeling up other girls.
But once we wake up to this dream level 0, we can remember lots of
dream level 1's from prior nights. Although we forget many also. Also
sometimes we don't remember level 1 dreams even when we do wake up,
until way later when something reminds us of them. Where did it go in
the meanwhile? Where did our past trillion years go? Same place
presumably.
Perhaps when we die, we wake up to the next dream level minus 1
out from this one, and then we can remember our prior dreams or
lifetimes at this level 0 we are at now.
I have no clue really.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Apr 18 12:00:02 EDT 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore2.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)
iD8DBQFa12uCURT1lqxE3HERAvh7AJ4mHgJMBD4hAEhP0qkYROXb/SNHfACgpaMM
qG9aPHzzWi7uSvPcFygZLwk=
=k8yn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
WHY GOD?
> You also mentioned having many lives spanning trilions of years, which is
> something I've always wanted to believe in, but I've never quite been able
> to set aside western philosophy, and the christian religion. What do you
> believe is our purpose here, if we're not in a selection lottery to
> determine who goes to heaven to spend the rest of eternity with god?
First let me ask you, is that what you want to spend
the rest of Eternity with a God who made you against your will
and put you in a lottery knowing full well you might not make it?
Will there be unix in Heaven?
Let me cop out by saying that probably the answer is beyond
our immediate comprehension, but that the truth will set you free.
Thus if you can find a view of the cosmic all that puts you at
peace with 'what you are doing here' it is undoubtedly right. Gotta
be honest with yourself though, lot of people say they are at peace
with 'God's ways', but ask them if THEY would have created this world
and stuck creatures in it and "NO WAY MAN!" is their immediate answer.
They will in fact tell you that God is a mystery to them, downright
inscrutable in fact.
My view is that man kind is evolving up through 4 Great Lies.
The first lie was that the Earth was flat. Try going outside
some time, and picture *BELIEVING* the Earth is flat. It is quite
enlightening because it immediately defines and limits the larger
context in which the flat Earth exists.
It makes the All That Is *VERY SMALL*.
Then man woke up to the fact that the Earth was not flat, and
suddenly was faced with an enormous philosophic vertigo, like what the
hell is keeping the Earth up then? My God we are all *FALLING*! :)
But then for a long time they thought even though the Earth was
round and out in space, that it was still the center of the universe.
Again go out and imagine believing Earth is the center, and the whole
universe revolves around it. See how the larger context becomes
bigger compared to the Flat Earth but is still very small compared to
your present view.
Then they admited the Earth was not the center of the universe,
but surely was the only one with Life. Christ, when he was hanging
from the Cross was over heard to say "Only once, God damnit, only
once!"
Imagine having to die on many crosses on many planets to save
everyone? It's nuts.
So again people were faced with enormous philosphical vertigo
when they realized that there are billions of suns in our galaxy and
*BILLIONS* of galaxies for as far as the eye can see. Recent pictures
from the Hubble show amazing pictures of star fields studded with
galaxies as numerous as stars.
Clearly life has formed many times in this galaxy, and will form
again, the life of the galaxy is many times longer than the mere few
billion years our Earth has been around, and the few thousand years of
civilization has been here is but a flash in the pan. The universe is
teaming with life like pond water, we just haven't run into it yet, Or
more likely we are political exiles from the local cluster and Earth
is a dumping ground for criminals, perverts, artists and geniuses,
anyone who didn't fit the status quo in the vast inter stellar
civiliaztion that is still out there. Of course we don't remember!
Although that all may be colorful science fiction depending on
your drug or religion of the moment, the fact remains that *CLEARLY*
there is life everywhere in space and time and always has been and
always will be.
So those are the first 3 Great Lies, flat earth, center of the
universe, and only one with Life. Breaking out of each one involved a
huge step of philosophical and emotional vertigo, and the *LOSS* of
knowing that one had been *WRONG* for a long time, and the gain of now
having a bigger and grander future in store.
The 4th great lie is about to unfold, we are at the opening edge
of it, particularly those in the field of computers.
The 4th great lie is that the external physical universe exists
at all. The truth is consciousness exists, and the external universe
is a holographic projection in the mind of an infinite number of micro
gods all playing human or something similar. There is no "God", there
is only the High Us, the All That Is, experiencing itself for its own
edification, in a projected consciousness of virtual reality.
The virtual reality is quite complete all the way down to the
last quark. Clearly using dream machines to measure the dream reality
will never prove that the dream reality is a dream. So one can't go
banging on dream pianos with dream bodies to prove that the dream is
not a dream. The piano plays perfectly, then you wake up.
How much mathematics would a God Being have to know to create the
physical universe either as an actual reality or a virtual reality?
"Apparently God was a Mathematician first, and a Purveyor of
Damnation second."
Now talk about vertigo, this is quite a leap. The first three
lies expanded the size of the earth and the universe and maybe even of
God in people's conception, but they remained pretty much themselves
in their own eyes. This fourth one changes everything. It means you
and me were not made by God, but are co eternal with the underlying
All That Is, that we *CHOSE* to enagage in all this virtual co
activity including perhaps amnesia of our past and our *CHOICES* to
engage!
The 4th lie changes our *RESPONSIBILITY* for our condition, from
almost none, to total, including being responsibile for presently being
unaware of our responsibility.
Take a 3rd lie man, someone who has gotten over the first 3 great
lies. He believes the physical universe exists, and made him. Did he
have a choice? No. Did he make the stars? No. Did he make the
Earth? No. Did he choose to come to Earth and choose his parents?
No. How much in life did he actually choose compared to how much
there is in life? One out of how much? Is there a fraction small
enough to measure the total amount of responsibility such a being has
for his own existence?
He is a meatball and a microdot in the scheme of things.
He wants to be responsibile, to say he is responsible, but he is
overwhelmed by the infinitesimal amount of responsibility he actually
has for anything to the point where he will start defining down
'responsibility' to mean his own level of irresponsiblity!
Eventually you get people who think 'being responsible' means
obeying orders, that's 'the responsible' thing to do!
Now take a 4th lie man, he suddenly realizes he is in his own
virtual game along with all his zillions of buddies who long ago
designed and put into play everything that led up to now.
*EVERYONE* is his friend from long ago, therefore there can be no
hell forever. No one would choose that for themselves, and no one would
choose it for another. They may all hate each other now, but that hate
must be based on an original friendship and sanity back when everyone
invited everyone else into play!
Life is a Holodeck and we are the participants, and the 4 great
Lies are the trappings we chose to wear.
The ignorance was *DESIGNED*.
*BY US*.
Now this is a hard one, because emotionally for many it is
preposterous, and this wall will keep most settled down into belief in
the physical universe as a real actuality, and themselves as meatballs.
But in a meatball's view, he has no chance of immortal life, as he is
made of parts and once the parts are busted apart, so too is the
consciousness that arose from the aggregation.
But I would claim that Love and Shame can not of Force and Mass be
made, so the idea that consciousness can arise out of ball bearings
bouncing around with one over R squared laws is nuts.
And so we are left with the only other alternative theory which is
that conscious units are the primal fundamental actuality, and
projections of three or 4 dimensional space and time are intricate and
convincing but nonetheless projected virtual realities, virtual machines
if you will in the minds of conscious units.
Just as you don't move anywhere when you walk down a streat in a
dream, just so you don't go anywhere when you walk down the streat when
awake. The picture is recast as a virtual reality around you.
As one guy said to me, consciousness does not exist inside the
universe, the universe exists inside of consciousness.
Once you admit to the possibility that the world is a virtual
projection in consciousness, the possibility arises that there have
been, are and will be, endless numbers of universes to play in, so again
the context in which the All That Is exists becomes another order of
magnitude bigger, almost infinite. The philosophical and emotional
vertigo of an infinite future in an infinite number of games with an
infinite number of eternal friends is almost breathtakingly
insufferable.
The standard books on all this stuff in the 60's were Be Here Now,
The Only Dance There Is, and The Taboo against Knowing Who You Really
Are. Also of course Johnathan Livingston Seagull, a neat story about a
seagull who had to separate from the flock once he realized the truth.
The sequel was a Diary of a Reluctant Messiah.
None of the above denies the existence of Christ Consciousness, as
a higher state of consciousness, but it kind of puts to rest the silly
notion that people go to hell forever for the sins of one life.
That's nuts, don't you see?
"There is peace in the thought that one day, *ALL* men will attain
the awakened state."
"Class is an attitude, that *ALL* should live forever and be my
friend.
Cool is the ability to maintain Class. :)
Desire is Sovereign.
Majesty is the *SOVEREIGN* Desire that Desire NOT be Sovereign *FOR
A WHILE*."
The universe is as you would make it, once you find out how you
would make it, you will know how it is. This is not a trivial
undertaking.
And why we don't remember our past lives is a major area of study.
Why does anyone get amnesia? Why do we not remember prior dreams when
dreaming in our sleep?
If we call this waking state dream level 0, then our night dreams
are dream level 1. When in dream level 1 we don't remember other dream
level 1 dreams easily, although we can if we are very lucid, know we are
dreaming, and keep our wits about us, and take a pause from feeling up
girls to consider our past dreams where we were feeling up other girls.
But once we wake up to this dream level 0, we can remember lots of
dream level 1's from prior nights. Although we forget many also. Also
sometimes we don't remember level 1 dreams even when we do wake up,
until way later when something reminds us of them. Where did it go in
the meanwhile? Where did our past trillion years go? Same place
presumably.
Perhaps when we die, we wake up to the next dream level minus 1
out from this one, and then we can remember our prior dreams or
lifetimes at this level 0 we are at now.
I have no clue really.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Apr 18 12:00:02 EDT 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore2.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)
iD8DBQFa12uCURT1lqxE3HERAvh7AJ4mHgJMBD4hAEhP0qkYROXb/SNHfACgpaMM
qG9aPHzzWi7uSvPcFygZLwk=
=k8yn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)