-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
HELP Part 2 - DEPENDENCY
PROLOGUE
It will be very hard to audit anyone on the following material
until they have been cleared on desire and view, for one of the ways
that parents ruin children is by teaching them the lies of non
sovereignty.
In particular the mortal mind set quickly turns any being into a
zombie, who can't have anything that they want, and therefore must want
everything they have, which is a tombstone at the end of their grave.
There is nothing sadder than a mortal child, and teaching them
either death forever or hell forever is child abuse pure and simple.
Even if the child doesn't believe a word of it for a while, the
horror he feels at believing his parents believe it will eventually
overwhelm him into believing it too.
"It couldn't feel this bad if it weren't true."
One way to stop the Zombie meme passing on from parent to child, is
to teach the child early on to respond to every parental assertion with
"You don't know that."
That will put the parent in his place where he belongs, and if the
child turns out wrong, he will learn to apologize with grace.
The parent is free to use it on the child too, hopefully the child
will mimic back, and a relationship of respect for view will develop
between them.
"If you don't like it, it probably isn't true."
On the surface that might sound crazy, but if you look deep to the
mind and heart of a GodSoul, it is the only path, because at the top
there is perfect accord between desire and view.
If there weren't the GodSoul would remain eternally irritated at
the All_That_Is where it did not agree with his fundamental desires.
Since everything that is created comes from a GodSoul with absolute
veto power over his own creations and those of others in his own dream,
anything created must have met his pleasure when it was first created,
thus perfect accord is the mother of creation.
Thus even any disaccord to follow later must have been approved of
when it was first conceived and created.
DEPENDENCY
Now there is something that happens to a being while mortal that is
peculiar to being in a body. He gets born as a baby when he is utterly
dependent on his parents for survival.
Since his parents, no matter how good they are, are usually Zombie
Zoners, as he is soon to become, there will be certain events during his
childhood which will make him wish dearly that he was not dependent upon
them, and to never enter a parent/child relationship with them again.
This is called debonding.
For some, there will be very little to debond over, for others, the
child wants to kill his parents out of the gate.
But he is unable to break that relationship without killing himself
and perhaps kamikaze-ing them, and so he begins the process of surviving
by succumbing, by creating MORE limitations on his already limited
existence in order to make himself sick, unable, or accident prone, so
as to win the sympathy and cooperation, and avoid the domination, of his
parents and other significant team mates.
"Eat this, don't eat that, say this, don't say that, learn this,
don't learn that, sleep now, don't sleep then" etc. The child has
become a doll in the parent's doll house.
The parents think their child is THEIR child, their possession, to
do with as they will, rather than their responsibility to the greater
community of man kind.
The child is a ward of parental guardians, not the possession of
child abusers.
Your parents are supposed to BE ON YOUR SIDE in the game of
survival.
The parent wants the child to learn how to talk so they can teach
him what not to say.
The child first tries forthright complaint to right the blunt and
crass injustices heaped upon him, and failing that, he takes to
unexpressed resentment or propitiation towards his parents and covert
hostility TOWARDS HIMSELF, to render himself and his body sick and
unable.
All chronic psychosomatic conditions are the result of a covert
intention to succumb, based on the service computation that the way to
live is to die, or the way to survive is to succumb, the way to be able
it to be disabled, the way to be loved is to be sick, dead, or dying, or
something of that sort.
There are millions of them, and the EXACT wording must be found for
it to free up. This is because the words are in the very engrams he is
using, and the engrams will not revivify, release and/or erase unless
the exact words in the engram are found.
Since the child was dependent at the time of these events, and
since his efforts to harm himself made him MORE dependent, and since
these efforts are never relieved, but are compounded by more of the same
kind of thing that he does to HIS children later on when the child grows
up, he carries with him multiple layers of BEING DEPENDENT ON OTHERS TO
SURVIVE, and MAKING OTHERS DEPENDENT ON HIM TO SURVIVE.
The natural dependency of childhood on others goes away as he
matures, but the computational dependencies become utterly inexorable
and intractable, which is why he visits them on his children when he
KNOWS he hated it when his parents did it to him.
He is no longer able to think beyond doing the wrong thing to
deal with life and his own progeny.
So the first thing that needs to be addressed on your preclear's
case is getting him to a point where he is ADEQUATE TO HIS OWN SURVIVAL.
That means he can hold a job that he likes, save up for his old
age, and generally be able to live and breathe alone for himself.
He doesn't have to support a girlfriend, wife or family, and he
doesn't have to run a business with employees, and he doesn't have to
make a million dollars.
He just has to be able to be adequate to his own survival so he
depends on nothing and no one for his next meal, job, place to live,
creative tools to keep him busy, and he can pay for his own tombstone in
the end.
Since the events that led him to create crippling computational
dependencies on others were based on an effort to win their help and
allay their hostilities towards him, the way to resolve these issues is
a direct address to being dependent, as a child, on teammates who are
not playing "all for one and one for all," and the injustices that
occurred therein.
For example, mother feels most useful when the child feels most
useless, so mother makes sure the child is not allowed to feel useful to
himself or others.
In a rage, the child gets sick, whooping cough, nearly dies,
and has mother in tears and regret about having been so mean.
This makes a gorgeous, and I do mean BEAUTIFUL, villan, victim,
golden ally engram which the child can then use for the rest of his life
to keep his mother in line with reminders of guilt and regret.
The child was born with a very high native sense of justice and
where justice was violated with no regard for his well being, the being
is driven into unexpressed anger and resentment, and finally covert
hostility towards himself to make himself sick.
At first he knows he is doing it, but since he is using ENGRAMS,
which are moments of unawareness through force and pain, to bring about
these results on his body, he eventually loses awareness of what he is
doing, and the injury to self and body becomes automatic.
He also becomes ashamed of his 'survive by dying' behavior, and so
he hides it from himself regardless of how provoked he was, and how
necessary it might have been to his survival.
He is a kid, judging himself as a God.
That is in part why they are called PSYCHO SOMATICS, because he has
gone psycho in creating them, and later psycho in trying to stop them.
Psychosis is the effort to stop what one considers he didn't start.
Psychosis is total devotion to trying to stop something.
Since the way to stop any creation is to start it again and then
let it go, if a being can't start the creation again, he can never stop
it, and thus he becomes totally devoted to stopping what he considers he
never started. Thus he fails.
These psychotraumatic (same thing) conditions are created to deal
with the prior injustices, and thus an address to these earlier
injustices will lead to the reason why he created them, and the moment
he did. At that point he can stop doing these things to himself, and
reevaluate the usefulness of self directed covert hostility.
You may have to also audit what HE did as a mother to a child
in a past life and that child's reactions to HIM.
Now at this point it is important to notice that if the being is
STILL dependent on the suppressive parents or teammates, he will find it
hard to let go of surviving by succumbing, but if he is an adult and
free to speak his mind and go off and do his own things, then erasure of
these events is possible.
Even with the child still under suppression you should be able to
bring him up to where he at least knows what he is doing, and remains
good at doing it, and the child will also know exactly why he is doing
it rather than putting it all on automatic, asking 'where did this come
from?'
A clear can make himself sick at will, and a child that is making
himself sick at will is far better off than an adult that no longer has
any clue where all the suffering is coming from.
JUSTICE
Justice is fair exchange, it really has little to do with
punishment which is usually imposing an injustice on another in
retribution for an injustice.
On Earth justice amounts to two wrongs make a right.
True justice has everything to do with agreements, and in
particular agreements as to duties and rights.
From the basic catechism of Adore:
"For every duty there is a right, and for every right there is a
duty. You have a duty to have rights, and you have a right to have
duties. Rights are fair chosen exchange for fair chosen duties.
Justice is an operating balance of duties and rights.
If you would protect your rights, defend your duties.
If you would protect your duties, defend your rights.
The fundamental duty is honor, and the fundamental right is
dignity.
Honor is the ability to make keep and trade fair chosen promises.
Dignity is being the sole operator of yourself.
This I need to be true and this I adore." -From Adore.
An injustice then is any violation of the fair chosen agreements
between parent and child of their respective duties and rights.
Mother has a duty to feed the child and therefore the child has a
right to be fed.
So mother makes breakfast for the child and then eats it herself.
Child has a right to cry when hungry, and mother has a duty to
respond.
Mother refuses to respond while the child is crying not wanting to
spoil the child, and only responds after the child stops crying from
apathy and wanting to die. Every meal becomes a near death experience
for the child.
How hungry do you have to be to stop screaming for food?
Ever starve something you loved to death on purpose?
Morbid fascinations with evil of this order mean that the preclear
has had it done to him and may have done it to others in the past.
Or mother likes to get the child to stop crying by shaking it hard
enough to injure its neck.
Also mother likes to suffocate the child with hand over face until
the child is unconscious in order to get it to be quiet or get sympathy
from emergency visits to the hospital with the unconscious child.
These are extreme examples, but even in good families there are
signature injustice events that cause the child to go into a murderous
rage for the first time in his life.
No one is exempt, and they can be found during the learning phase
of language when the parent first uses illogic against the child to
assert a wrong position and dominate the child into accepting it.
Thus the auditor seeks each and every moment of murderous rage
between parent and child, and in particular the first moment of
murderous rage in this life, and then in any life.
Hubbard said "The preclear has to get angry to get better".
Blowing the caldera (social facade) off his volcano and allowing it
all to release without harming anyone, also raises the preclear's
affinity for others, as he sees they are also stewing in their own
suppressed anger and injustices and acting like flaming assholes in the
meanwhile.
YOU NEED TO SPOT AND RUN OUT EACH AND EVERY MOMENT OF MURDEROUS
RAGE IN THIS LIFE AND EVERY PAST LIFE in order to produce a well and
happy human being.
If these are not resolved and remediated with apologies, tears and
laughter ALL AROUND, they remain as festering sores and will be dealt
with by the child with a vengeance one way or another.
In most families children are taught to talk, but then they are
punished for talking and expressing themselves.
"This is a good word, and that is a bad word, and you shouldn't
even know what that word means..."
"You are too young for this, you are too old for that."
Ask any child of any age what all the words he knows are, and you
will find in the words he DOESN'T know, all the things the parents don't
want him in communication with.
Thus in many instances, in the absence of outright monster mothers,
much of the covert warfare takes place during the time from just before
being able to speak and just after.
A child will forgive its parents for just about anything,
particularly during the early times when it can't talk. But once the
child begins to say 'Mother that isn't fair', and gets back the usual
'Shut up you little sh*t machine', or the "We are your only parents and
you are expendable" routine, the child goes into blame towards the
parents.
Now blame can take three different directions.
The mother can accept the blame and say "you are right, I have been
an insensitive selfish thoughtless incompetent bitch, and I owe you an
apology."
That's the end of it.
Or the mother can refuse the blame, trying to pin it back on the
child as the child's fault, or refuse the blame with force, smacking the
child across the face with 'How dare you talk to me like that..."
The first case is called failure of blame by reversal, and the
second is failure of blame by force.
In these two instances the CHILD FEELS GUILT even though it is the
mother who is at fault.
This results in the covert war of covert hostility towards himself
that the child engages in to make himself more acceptable to the
suppressive teammates involved. It can be particularly bad when both
mother and father gang up on the child, because then the child has no
one to appeal to.
"How dare you talk to your mother that way, say you are sorry!"
"I am sorry mother (that I didn't kill you when I had the chance."
At some point the child will permanently debond, not only with his
parents, but with PARENTING AND HAVING CHILDREN in general, and they
will grow old and die lonely and without children and possibly without
mates.
Debonding is the genesis of loneliness.
No one around to even TRY to bond and debond with.
"You see that girl over there? She's gonna be my next ex-wife."
That's pretty high toned for Earth.
Ask a child if they want to marry someday and have children. If
they look glum or say no, watch out, there is/was a psycho parent in the
background ruining this child's future and temperament.
It will be the parent that smiled the most to the public.
First put the parent in therapy, never the child. A clear parent
will heal any child automatically.
OK, so that's the first thing we want to handle in all our
preclears, unresolved debondings whether great or small, and covert
hostilities towards self resulting in chronic unwanted conditions.
The child has to HATE his parents and then himself in order to get
stuck with a chronic somatic.
By hate I mean wish death and damnation off on them, and mean it
with full body, heart, mind and soul.
Later sympathies for his parents may bury his hate under a cover of
numb, but the somatic remains as long as the hate/symapthy relationship
remains covered and unexpressed.
You can not make a volcano go away by pouring concrete down its
throat.
Address is towards injustice between parent and child, and the
resulting resentment of natural dependency, resulting in refused
operation of the survival modes of that natural dependency, followed by
the creation of computational dependencies which make things better by
making things worse, for a while, but become a chronic problem later.
Specifically address is towards unexpressions of any kind, the
child must be free to speak its mind at all times, in particular about
dependency, basic purposes, justice and fair exchange.
Spot NO unexpression.
Spot SOME unexpression.
If the child doesn't feel free to speak on any subject, you have a
dangerous psychotic suppressive parent at the helm, at least on that
subject, and a dangerously PTS child headed towards becoming a
suppressive parent himself.
APOLOGY
Apology is a Janus two faced word, in that it has two diametrically
opposite meanings.
1.) A statement of acknowledgement expressing regret, or requesting
pardon for a fault or offense.
2.) A formal justification or defense for the transgression.
In all fairness to good parents, everyone is born with a lot of
baggage from their whole track.
Every being is carrying around a time track of his past history in
this universe.
The body has its own time track that is separate from the being in
the body (who doesn't belong there by the way), and the body is
surrounded by many other beings intimately involved with the body who
have their own time tracks too.
And all of these beings have time tracks they have bought or stolen
or traded with others down through time.
As time tracks contain a complete record of everything, both good
and bad, that the being has experienced AND DONE, it has a lot of charge
in it that makes it almost impossible to carry along with you without
getting you into trouble.
The primary claim to fame for a time track is its tendency to
restimulate in moments that are similar to present time.
The kid is being spanked in this life for stealing candy, the same
being was publicly whipped to death for stealing gold from the king 500
years ago.
Maybe the whipping happened to the being, maybe it belongs to the
body or its spiritual team mates, maybe its from a bought or stolen time
track.
It doesn't matter, if it comes into restimulation during a
spanking, you can expect the child to have an 'inappropriate' reaction.
Even if the parents are utterly perfect, the ups and downs of life,
school, work, war etc will restimulate a being's whole track and produce
wild and unexpected behavior, usually not appropriate to the situation
at hand.
This can range from heated words to murder.
Usually a being knows when he has over reacted, and the natural
tendency is to apologize for this behavior and make amends to the
wounded party.
Sometimes the wounded party accepts the apology, sometimes not.
Often however the being has no clue where the behavior came from,
it just takes him over and 'makes him do it,' and he feels deep shame
and chagrin at this, sometimes blaming it on the people who were
restimulating him, driving him crazy, making him trigger happy.
In these cases the being will be tempted to make himself right and
the other wrong, and thus justify his over reaction.
This leads to the odd situation where the being feels down deep
that it was wrong, but has to outwardly assert that it was right.
This includes then the tendency to do it again and again when the
restimulation calls for it, but restrain it over and over and punish him
self for it because it is wrong.
The action in question becomes both right AND wrong.
This right wrong oscillation is one form of pure insanity.
Now parents have no idea where this stuff comes from either, AND
THEY ARE GUILTY OF OVER REACTIONS THEMSELVES WHEN THEY WERE CHILDREN,
AND AS ADULTS TOWARDS THEIR OWN CHILDREN.
So wars get started between parent and child where a few apologies
traded back and forth would have brought peace.
For example, parents don't like a friend their child brings home,
and they thoughtlessly refuse to let him play with the friend.
The parents in this case may be right, but child doesn't see it
that way.
2000 years ago, this child's parents kept him away from the one
true love of his life and arranged behind his back to have her killed.
He found out about this before it happened, but could not stop the
murder, and when he learned his parents were directly involved he
debonded from them forever.
So now, the child goes into a fury over being criticized for his
new friend.
It can take some very big parents to bring the child to present
time, and separate the two events.
If instead they get angry at the child and use force to separate
him from his new friend, telling the child to obey and suck it up
without question or recourse, the child may debond for good, and the
parents will lose, for the child will abandon them to die alone without
his care in old age.
God, justice is sweet.
Always use reason first before force or deceit, the child does.
Parents should give their children some tools against the parent's
own insanities.
For example teach your child early on to tell you that if you keep
at it, he won't take care of you in your old age.
Anyhow apologies are important, but can never be forced.
A parent who tells his child to apologize for something the child
is still furious about will be rewarded with a full fledged debonding
that won't heal until the PARENT apologizes to the child for overriding
the child's self determined affinities or lack thereof.
And the child won't TELL the parents what he is so ticked off
about, so if the parents can't figure it out, they are out of luck.
BLAME
Blame happens when someone or something does something wrong to you
and you punish them back.
Usually the villan apologizes, the victim accepts and mutual
affinity is restored.
Sometimes the victim will punish the wrong person, and so the
victim now becomes a villan.
The victim will then blame the true perpetrator for having turned
him accidentally into a villan.
Mother has a bad habit of moving child's toys where he can't find
him.
One day child gets furious at mother for doing this, but finds
this time his toy had been misplaced by someone else.
Now he owes mother an apology who has been jerking him around for
ages, and ridiculing his upsets on the matter, and he blames the person
who did move his toys for irritating him to a point where he blamed his
mother when she was innocent.
"Now I am guilty because of you."
But he also still blames his mother for all the past times she did
mess with his stuff and never apologized, so he is caught in a
humiliation of having to apologize to an enemy, his mother, someone who
might have deserved an apology in the present instance, but certainly
didn't deserve an apology for a long run of past incidents that had been
building up to overflow.
Mother's learing snearing gloat over his humiliation doesn't help.
About the worst thing a being can do is blame another for his own
crimes.
The other gets punished and the being has a major withhold for the
rest of time.
Goober has been warned over and over again never to play with
matches.
One day he is playing with matches and burns the house down.
No one is harmed, but when asked who did it, Goober says Dufus his
friend from next door did it.
Goober's father, who never liked his neighbors anyhow, storms next
door and sets Dufus's house on fire, which burns to the ground, killing
Dufus and his mother.
Goober's father goes to jail, and Dufus's father suspecting Goober,
swears eternal vengeance against Goober.
Goober later arranges for Dufus's father to be killed, and the
matter and accusations are dropped and forgotten.
Goober now has a multi layered skeleton in his closet which is very
hard to audit out.
Sometimes a being can't figure out who is at fault, and gets into
an indecision on blame and or apology.
Thus the blame stays alive and the apology is never given, all
powered by doubt, should I blame or should I apologize?
A being can become completely insane if he has a blame AND an
apology towards the same being at the same time.
That's not an indecision you see, he will be blaming (punishing)
AND apologizing (punishing self) full time.
ANDS kill sanity, like cyanide kills rats.
HOW TO RUN JUSTICE, BLAME, APOLOGY AND INDECISION
So the basic law here is emotional numbness is the result of
withheld or refused apology.
There are a number of flows that can go on which if not handled
will make the various parties VERY SICK on both sides of the war.
Child trying to get an apology from the parent.
Parent refusing to give an apology to the child.
Child trying to give an apology to the parent.
Parent refusing to accept apology from the child.
Parent trying to get an apology from the child.
Child refusing to give an apology to the parent.
Parent trying to give an apology to the child.
Child refusing to accept an apology from the parent.
We run this as follows:
When NO won't run although it obviously should, use REFUSED
instead.
Spot NO apology.
Spot SOME apology.
Spot NO indecision on apology.
Spot SOME indecision on apology.
Spot NO blame.
Spot SOME blame.
Spot NO indecision on blame.
Spot SOME indecision on blame.
Spot NO blame AND apology.
Spot SOME blame AND apology.
Spot NO injustice.
Spot SOME injustice.
Spot NO dependency.
spot SOME dependency.
For the rest of these, ideal can be replaced by perfect,
or best possible.
Spot NO ideal mother.
Spot SOME ideal mother.
Spot NO ideal father.
Spot SOME ideal father.
Spot NO ideal son.
Spot SOME ideal son.
Spot NO ideal daughter.
Spot SOME ideal daughter.
The above can be run between parent and child, or any other
terminals of import in your preclear's life. By import we mean a
dependency where justice and fair exchange went awry.
The word sympathy can be substituted for 'an apology' in the above
processes and should be, on a second run through. This process alone
can keep a person from killing themselves from hysteria.
The suppressive is the terminal who is refusing to apologize or
give sympathy for a true wrong, but engages in justification to cover up
themselves instead.
Probably the only thing wrong with a criminal is he never
apologized. But then neither did his parents.
Suppressiveness is not necessarily a chronic condition, both sides
will act suppressively when surprised by their own over reactions during
moments of perceived injustice.
But suppressiveness can become chronic if the
justification/restraint process is allowed to continue and is not
resolved through apology, sympathy and good will again.
Generally the being will want to know where the over reaction that
controlled him unexpectedly came from, and he will need auditing on the
earlier incident that became restimulated.
Most of these will be almost unconfrontable for how horrific they
were.
But the end result of running them out will be tears and laughter
again.
IN SUMMARY
Getting the first time that the child chose to deploy becoming
sick, disabled or accident prone in order to handle a suppressive
parent, and visa versa, will clear the
injustice/anger/regret/justification/restraint cycle out of the
relationship, and produce a dependency release.
Remember both parent and child will have 'started it'
independently, and both will have continued it once the other started
it.
Who started it first is not relevant, and both are nailed to their
crosses from THEIR OWN lunacy not the lunacy of the other.
What you are looking for is perceived injustice, anger, regret of
anger, followed by justification, no sympathy and failed or refused
apology.
It wasn't what the parent did to the child that aberrated him into
a state of permanent unhealingness, it was what the child did to himself
when the 'reason/anger/deceit' cycle was put into play.
The way to happiness is a true confession all around.
END PHENOMENA
E/P 1 is a well and happy human being, no longer suffering from
computational dependencies and free from deployed somatics or chronic
unwanted disabilities or conditions.
E/P 2 is adequate and sufficient to his own survival with a body.
E/P 3 No longer making other's wrong or justifying self for one's
own misdeeds. Able and willing to apologize for anything whether he did
it or not, no longer stuck in an indecision or an AND on blame or
apology.
E/P 4 No longer needs, but can receive and give sympathy and
apologies freely. Able and willing to be wrong, willing for others to
have been wrong.
E/P 5 Able to spot and not get involved in other's continuing
insanities, justifications and restraints, make wrongs, covert
hostilities towards themselves, or withheld/refused apologies.
E/P 6 Able and interested in raising sane children who can raise
sane children.
E/P 7 Never had a bad parent, and can't imagine what a bad parent
is.
E/P 8 Desire is sovereign on the second dynamic (families).
Sovereign desire means desire = have.
Homer
HELP Part 0, TRIAD
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/homer/help0
HELP Part 1, DESIRE AND VIEW
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/homer/help1
HELP Part 2, DEPENDENCY
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/homer/help2
HELP Part 3, PRIDE
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/homer/help3
HELP Part 4, SUMMARY TO DATE
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/homer/help4
HELP Part 5, PRIDE BY DYNAMICS
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/homer/help5
HELP Part 6, STATURE
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/homer/help6
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Sat Dec 12 01:38:45 EST 2009
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Dec 31 12:00:04 EST 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore681.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)
iD8DBQFcKksVURT1lqxE3HERAsNSAJ4gzrwhwRLJQDEjDC88El6rG4vx4QCgxKts
1CH1gxmZ2SdPHpEB/7zTdQo=
=+n/H
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Monday, December 31, 2018
Sunday, December 30, 2018
ADORE84 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Ron's model of the time track as the source of aberration was a
simple model that everyone could understand, although I doubt if even
Ron would say in the later years that 'it was true'.
I remember some tape where Ron says "When you think facsimile,
think BT", or some such thing, indicating to me that what a facsimile
was, was actually an ongoing mockup in present time on the part of a
BT.
The time track idea was simply that as a being failed to confront
incidents, he made a persisting recording of the incident which could
be keyed out and unavailable but then get keyed in and affect him
later.
When certain facsimile's were keyed in permanently through
dramatization of valences and computations, they then became his
permanent case. Notice the facsimiles didn't CAUSE the aberration,
they merely formed the pattern of aberration, fair chosen by the
thetan, and provided the pain to enforce it once it was put on
automatic.
The best way to make mother feel sympathy for the kid was to use
a moment when the mother did something to the kid that the mother felt
sorry for!
Thus facsimiles of attempted abortions and early pre natal and
post natal abuse were fertile ground for steering mother's attention
in more desirable patterns.
Ron said that the thetan didn't originally have or need a time
track of facsimile based masses, but once he created one and made its
creation automatic, he became entrapped in it by virtue of USING the
force, pain and pattern of these masses in order to survive better
amongst others who were not jiving well with his survival.
Now Adore does not dismiss the idea of a facsimile based time
track, certainly ridges exist, every moment of unconfronted
unwillingness produces a ridge with theta energy on one side, and
'event' energy on the other. And also certainly many such events are
never fully experienced, the ridge is created so fast the being never
fully knows what happened during his own incident.
But Adore goes further to say that the being actually leaves a
part of his attention IN THE PAST event, strewn all along the path of
his travels. Not just on facsimiles he has made of his travels that
ride with him in present time.
Adore says he didn't confront the PAST EVENT, so there he is with
a wall on that event actually in the past.
Since a thetan can travel in time, and move along the time trail
as he pleases as an OT, it is not hard to imagine a thetan moving
along a time trail from event to event and leaving parts of himself
along that path as blocks to fully experiencing them.
In running the 'engram' i.e. moments of unconfronted
unwillingness, one finds that the pc actually has to figure out one
way or another what he should have done DURING THE INCIDENT ITSELF in
order to not form the engram or ridge. He chose to not-is, so he has
a wall against the event, but what SHOULD HE HAVE DONE in order to
leave a fully experienced analytical event behind him when it first
happened?
Once he fully figures out how he SHOULD HAVE handled the event
when it first happened to leave a clean event, there will no longer
be any need of a wall there to make a no-event, and he can then
regather all his attention back up into present time.
So we have two factors going here, we have the facsimile of the
event which the thetan created and which he then carried with him as a
bauble, only later to be put into service to haunt him by his own
choice, and we also have a part of the thetan actually stuck to the
past event in space/time, which has nothing to do with the facsimile.
A thetan that is moving along in space/time is gathering himself
every moment and moving all of himself forward to the next moment in
space/time. If he runs into something that fixes his attention, he
can't believe it, he refuses to confront it, he refuses to admit it,
he will build a wall at that moment of space/time, and when he moves
forward, he leaves as much of himself beind him as it took to build
the wall. Now he exists in multiple places in space/time at the same
time.
Pretty soon he is spread so thin being buttered all over the
*PATH* through space/time that he took, that he has less than 50
percent of his theta free any more in present time. At this point he
can no longer solo or deal with present time without the past walls
starting to break down and leak through 'as present time'. He begins
to see the past as if it is now. His perception is drawn back to the
past, but he thinks it is now.
So you get aberration meaning he is doing things now that were
appropriate to then, because 'then is now'.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth and Peace. Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Dec 30 12:00:03 EST 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore84.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)
iD8DBQFcKPmTURT1lqxE3HERAvF+AJ9u+eq6zKRQX2dMm9j5prLtLtW6pQCcC+ti
8vTBnjdk8qf9Ng27LWmPNG0=
=4NtE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
Ron's model of the time track as the source of aberration was a
simple model that everyone could understand, although I doubt if even
Ron would say in the later years that 'it was true'.
I remember some tape where Ron says "When you think facsimile,
think BT", or some such thing, indicating to me that what a facsimile
was, was actually an ongoing mockup in present time on the part of a
BT.
The time track idea was simply that as a being failed to confront
incidents, he made a persisting recording of the incident which could
be keyed out and unavailable but then get keyed in and affect him
later.
When certain facsimile's were keyed in permanently through
dramatization of valences and computations, they then became his
permanent case. Notice the facsimiles didn't CAUSE the aberration,
they merely formed the pattern of aberration, fair chosen by the
thetan, and provided the pain to enforce it once it was put on
automatic.
The best way to make mother feel sympathy for the kid was to use
a moment when the mother did something to the kid that the mother felt
sorry for!
Thus facsimiles of attempted abortions and early pre natal and
post natal abuse were fertile ground for steering mother's attention
in more desirable patterns.
Ron said that the thetan didn't originally have or need a time
track of facsimile based masses, but once he created one and made its
creation automatic, he became entrapped in it by virtue of USING the
force, pain and pattern of these masses in order to survive better
amongst others who were not jiving well with his survival.
Now Adore does not dismiss the idea of a facsimile based time
track, certainly ridges exist, every moment of unconfronted
unwillingness produces a ridge with theta energy on one side, and
'event' energy on the other. And also certainly many such events are
never fully experienced, the ridge is created so fast the being never
fully knows what happened during his own incident.
But Adore goes further to say that the being actually leaves a
part of his attention IN THE PAST event, strewn all along the path of
his travels. Not just on facsimiles he has made of his travels that
ride with him in present time.
Adore says he didn't confront the PAST EVENT, so there he is with
a wall on that event actually in the past.
Since a thetan can travel in time, and move along the time trail
as he pleases as an OT, it is not hard to imagine a thetan moving
along a time trail from event to event and leaving parts of himself
along that path as blocks to fully experiencing them.
In running the 'engram' i.e. moments of unconfronted
unwillingness, one finds that the pc actually has to figure out one
way or another what he should have done DURING THE INCIDENT ITSELF in
order to not form the engram or ridge. He chose to not-is, so he has
a wall against the event, but what SHOULD HE HAVE DONE in order to
leave a fully experienced analytical event behind him when it first
happened?
Once he fully figures out how he SHOULD HAVE handled the event
when it first happened to leave a clean event, there will no longer
be any need of a wall there to make a no-event, and he can then
regather all his attention back up into present time.
So we have two factors going here, we have the facsimile of the
event which the thetan created and which he then carried with him as a
bauble, only later to be put into service to haunt him by his own
choice, and we also have a part of the thetan actually stuck to the
past event in space/time, which has nothing to do with the facsimile.
A thetan that is moving along in space/time is gathering himself
every moment and moving all of himself forward to the next moment in
space/time. If he runs into something that fixes his attention, he
can't believe it, he refuses to confront it, he refuses to admit it,
he will build a wall at that moment of space/time, and when he moves
forward, he leaves as much of himself beind him as it took to build
the wall. Now he exists in multiple places in space/time at the same
time.
Pretty soon he is spread so thin being buttered all over the
*PATH* through space/time that he took, that he has less than 50
percent of his theta free any more in present time. At this point he
can no longer solo or deal with present time without the past walls
starting to break down and leak through 'as present time'. He begins
to see the past as if it is now. His perception is drawn back to the
past, but he thinks it is now.
So you get aberration meaning he is doing things now that were
appropriate to then, because 'then is now'.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth and Peace. Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Dec 30 12:00:03 EST 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore84.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)
iD8DBQFcKPmTURT1lqxE3HERAvF+AJ9u+eq6zKRQX2dMm9j5prLtLtW6pQCcC+ti
8vTBnjdk8qf9Ng27LWmPNG0=
=4NtE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Friday, December 28, 2018
ADORE496 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
IMPINGEMENT AND THE IMP SOUL
We define native state as utter non manifestation and unimpingeable
peace.
That means only you wake you up.
Native state has been called the Static, the Void, Source, and the
Big Snooze by various religions.
The primary function of the static is to create the apparancy of
cause in kinetics in spacetime whiles.
Time is the interjection of chase between conception and
realization.
This too has to be conceived to be functional.
The static is about cause.
Cause in the physical universe is force applied to mass brings
about changes in kinetic states.
Kinetic states are states of mass in motion at positions of space
and time.
Spacetime whiles are holographic projections of space and time in
the zero dimensional substrate called consciousness, in which the
apparances of kinetics can play out their course.
This is the form of manifestation and is engaged in for the
purpose of fun.
Fun is the other side of the coin to peace.
Because the static is cause, in order to get kinetics to persist in
the eyes of its beholders, static must confuse the subject of cause by
casting apparent cause out into the kinetic.
Thus those in the world of kinetics consider that cause is all
around them, outside of them, coming from others, other places, other
things, other times. This cause consists entirely of force, causing
changes in motion and energy in masses.
Since OUT THERE is itself a holographic illusion, so is any cause
that is presumed to be OUT THERE.
From the static's point of view two electrons repel each other
because the static moves them apart. Static is cause and electrons are
both the effect of the static. There is no cause BETWEEN the electrons,
and electrons have no cause over each other.
From the kinetic's point of view the two electrons push each other
apart because, both are cause over each other, and thus both are also
effect of each other.
Thus the static casts (apparent) cause out into its kinetic
creations, all the while (actually) maintaining cause itself.
This is called causal orchestration from above.
The static is thus acting as a third party to all of kinetic
existence, making two kinetic events happen as if they caused each other
without outside influence.
Since the static adds a level of complexity to the causal structure
that makes things go in the world of kinetics, Occam's Razor tells us
not to consider it.
Occam tells us that cause in the kinetic world is sufficient to
explain changes in the kinetic world, and thus no one considers the
static while in the kinetic world.
This is necessary to keep the true source of cause confused and
thus the kinetic world persisting.
Since the kinetic world is a virtual rendition in consciousness of
spacetime objects and the cause between them, not considering the static
works until one starts to ask where the rendition and consciousness
comes from.
Although consciousness is conscious OF kinetics, consciousness
itself is static. Perception of this is called enlightenment.
However the only way to assign cause to other things in the kinetic
world, is to ALSO assign oneself (a static) as an effect, while walking
in the kinetic world.
Thus one can be impinged upon.
An impingement is an expected or unexpected causal wave coming in
to us, apparently without our intention, that changes our state directly
or forces us to change our own state to compensate.
In the kinetic world, desire is separated from accomplishment by
time, during which is a dance of effort designed to bring out the
desired state.
The dance of effort is computed from what we know about the rules
of the game, the laws of the universe, and what exactly it is we want.
DOING = WANTING + KNOWING
In the kinetic world, you can't just light a fire by wanting it any
more, thus one has to DO various specific things to bring the fire
about.
If you fail to bring the fire about in a timely manner, then you
lose the game of survival.
The kinetic world is mostly a game of survival, a game of anti
entropy against an ever spreading sea of entropy.
Entropy is unuseful energy, that eventually renders the entire
universe diffuse and constant in all directions.
The sun is a huge momentary concentrated source of anti entropy,
and as it radiates out into spacetime, it too heads in the direction of
final dispersement.
However while on their way to the abyss, some of the rays of the
sun hit the Earth, and are gathered into useful pools of anti entropy
called plants and animals. And thus life and civilization goes on,
trying to keep the light of life alive as long as possible.
That is the game of survival.
Certain kinds of anti entropy are quite capable of collecting and
concentrating other energy, (which would otherwise head out into the
void,) into greater pools of useful energy than itself, thus for a while,
the game of survival is afoot, through profit and affluence of margin
against failure.
We call this process and the margin it creates civilization.
Impingements of importance then are between sources of entropy and
anti entropy.
You have a silo full of corn (anti entropy) and it gets hit by
lightning burning it to the ground (entropy). Your hard won anti
entropy is now useless.
To deal with these impingements your game of survival demands that
you impinge back on the universe and build a better and stronger silo.
Thus the game of survival is a game of impingement and counter
impingement.
Some impingements are pro survival, you get a good rain storm and
things grow.
Some impingements are contra survival, you get too much rain and
everything rots.
Or you have too little rain, and everything dies. That's a lack of
needed impingement!
Thus, as in all games, there is too much impingement and too little
impingement both of which are contra survival.
Optimum randomity is optimum impingement.
A motivator is a moment of non optimum impingement, too much or too
little.
An overt is also a moment of non optimum impingement on your part
against something else, too much or too little, either accidental or
intentional.
The effort to survive then is directed at optimizing impingement so
there is not too much nor too little.
Too little rain can be optimized by irrigation, you don't get
impinged upon enough by the rain, so you impinge back and move a river
to run through your land, or you build water storage tanks to hold
excess rain for times of less.
Impingement and counter impingement is the game of life directed at
bringing about a continuing optimum impingement all around.
So the sun impinges on the Earth and pushes plants into existence.
Animals, acting like a slow fire to plants, impinge on the plants
by eating them, converting their stored energy into motion, namely sow
and reap cycles of more plants. This is the process of consumption and
production.
As long as the sun continues to impinge calmly on the Earth, and as
long as plants grow and animals tend to their plants properly and
produce more than they consume and don't pollute their own living
spaces, or war with each other unnecessarily or without class, this game
can go on for a very long time indeed.
Such an ideal scene produces ample free time to do some great art.
In the end life itself is art in motion, and what gets painted or
written as music and art are probably just expressions of life, stories
told of glories past, present and future, that are not immediately
useful to the body maybe, but are certainly useful to the heart, mind
and soul.
If only as inspiration to keep the game going when the going gets
tough.
The basic impingement is the first creation of conscious light in
the body of the static, the awakening of dreamtime.
'I AM and I KNOW IT!'
The second impingement is a voice coming out of void
saying 'Prove it!
But then dreamtime is itself a tapestry of stories told of
impingement, designed to confuse the original and only source of true
impingement which is the static itself.
When a person complains about the world or some condition, he is
complaining about some part of that tapestry of impingement.
A psychosomatic condition is an impingement, originally wanted, but
possibly no longer useful. Reevaluation of salient truths surrounding
that condition will lead to recovered and better control over it.
The being will respond to too many impingements by creating
MORE impingements that somehow get him out of the target range of the
the first set that are getting him down.
A somatic is state of being victimized in order to not be
victimized by something else.
One audits being victimized in tandem with victimizing, either
accidentally or intentionally, on all flows, to relieve the burden of
both to all parties involved.
One needs to concentrate on the BENEFITS of victimization before
they will fully release.
Problems within one's self, indecisions, self doubts, oscillations,
equivocations, two desires opposed, are all a form of inner impingement
against oneself. Two sides of one's self impinging against the other,
"NO!", "YES!", "NO WAY!", "Yes WAY!".
By maintaining awareness of the true source of impingement and how
it works, one can rewrite how impingement works in your life and in the
life of the AllThatIs.
This results in reoptimizing the games of life, and maximizing the
fun of being here and lost as hell.
This is what auditing is about.
"Who or what is cause around here and why is it such an asshole?"
From Adore.
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
Sat May 5 02:06:47 EDT 2007
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Dec 28 12:00:03 EST 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore496.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)
iD8DBQFcJlaTURT1lqxE3HERAt4HAJ4k3G8/rPEOFQfv56QQDXgxToGvIQCgwhS5
xaQfaRP5kWbAfYwxG20vyYM=
=OTFd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
IMPINGEMENT AND THE IMP SOUL
We define native state as utter non manifestation and unimpingeable
peace.
That means only you wake you up.
Native state has been called the Static, the Void, Source, and the
Big Snooze by various religions.
The primary function of the static is to create the apparancy of
cause in kinetics in spacetime whiles.
Time is the interjection of chase between conception and
realization.
This too has to be conceived to be functional.
The static is about cause.
Cause in the physical universe is force applied to mass brings
about changes in kinetic states.
Kinetic states are states of mass in motion at positions of space
and time.
Spacetime whiles are holographic projections of space and time in
the zero dimensional substrate called consciousness, in which the
apparances of kinetics can play out their course.
This is the form of manifestation and is engaged in for the
purpose of fun.
Fun is the other side of the coin to peace.
Because the static is cause, in order to get kinetics to persist in
the eyes of its beholders, static must confuse the subject of cause by
casting apparent cause out into the kinetic.
Thus those in the world of kinetics consider that cause is all
around them, outside of them, coming from others, other places, other
things, other times. This cause consists entirely of force, causing
changes in motion and energy in masses.
Since OUT THERE is itself a holographic illusion, so is any cause
that is presumed to be OUT THERE.
From the static's point of view two electrons repel each other
because the static moves them apart. Static is cause and electrons are
both the effect of the static. There is no cause BETWEEN the electrons,
and electrons have no cause over each other.
From the kinetic's point of view the two electrons push each other
apart because, both are cause over each other, and thus both are also
effect of each other.
Thus the static casts (apparent) cause out into its kinetic
creations, all the while (actually) maintaining cause itself.
This is called causal orchestration from above.
The static is thus acting as a third party to all of kinetic
existence, making two kinetic events happen as if they caused each other
without outside influence.
Since the static adds a level of complexity to the causal structure
that makes things go in the world of kinetics, Occam's Razor tells us
not to consider it.
Occam tells us that cause in the kinetic world is sufficient to
explain changes in the kinetic world, and thus no one considers the
static while in the kinetic world.
This is necessary to keep the true source of cause confused and
thus the kinetic world persisting.
Since the kinetic world is a virtual rendition in consciousness of
spacetime objects and the cause between them, not considering the static
works until one starts to ask where the rendition and consciousness
comes from.
Although consciousness is conscious OF kinetics, consciousness
itself is static. Perception of this is called enlightenment.
However the only way to assign cause to other things in the kinetic
world, is to ALSO assign oneself (a static) as an effect, while walking
in the kinetic world.
Thus one can be impinged upon.
An impingement is an expected or unexpected causal wave coming in
to us, apparently without our intention, that changes our state directly
or forces us to change our own state to compensate.
In the kinetic world, desire is separated from accomplishment by
time, during which is a dance of effort designed to bring out the
desired state.
The dance of effort is computed from what we know about the rules
of the game, the laws of the universe, and what exactly it is we want.
DOING = WANTING + KNOWING
In the kinetic world, you can't just light a fire by wanting it any
more, thus one has to DO various specific things to bring the fire
about.
If you fail to bring the fire about in a timely manner, then you
lose the game of survival.
The kinetic world is mostly a game of survival, a game of anti
entropy against an ever spreading sea of entropy.
Entropy is unuseful energy, that eventually renders the entire
universe diffuse and constant in all directions.
The sun is a huge momentary concentrated source of anti entropy,
and as it radiates out into spacetime, it too heads in the direction of
final dispersement.
However while on their way to the abyss, some of the rays of the
sun hit the Earth, and are gathered into useful pools of anti entropy
called plants and animals. And thus life and civilization goes on,
trying to keep the light of life alive as long as possible.
That is the game of survival.
Certain kinds of anti entropy are quite capable of collecting and
concentrating other energy, (which would otherwise head out into the
void,) into greater pools of useful energy than itself, thus for a while,
the game of survival is afoot, through profit and affluence of margin
against failure.
We call this process and the margin it creates civilization.
Impingements of importance then are between sources of entropy and
anti entropy.
You have a silo full of corn (anti entropy) and it gets hit by
lightning burning it to the ground (entropy). Your hard won anti
entropy is now useless.
To deal with these impingements your game of survival demands that
you impinge back on the universe and build a better and stronger silo.
Thus the game of survival is a game of impingement and counter
impingement.
Some impingements are pro survival, you get a good rain storm and
things grow.
Some impingements are contra survival, you get too much rain and
everything rots.
Or you have too little rain, and everything dies. That's a lack of
needed impingement!
Thus, as in all games, there is too much impingement and too little
impingement both of which are contra survival.
Optimum randomity is optimum impingement.
A motivator is a moment of non optimum impingement, too much or too
little.
An overt is also a moment of non optimum impingement on your part
against something else, too much or too little, either accidental or
intentional.
The effort to survive then is directed at optimizing impingement so
there is not too much nor too little.
Too little rain can be optimized by irrigation, you don't get
impinged upon enough by the rain, so you impinge back and move a river
to run through your land, or you build water storage tanks to hold
excess rain for times of less.
Impingement and counter impingement is the game of life directed at
bringing about a continuing optimum impingement all around.
So the sun impinges on the Earth and pushes plants into existence.
Animals, acting like a slow fire to plants, impinge on the plants
by eating them, converting their stored energy into motion, namely sow
and reap cycles of more plants. This is the process of consumption and
production.
As long as the sun continues to impinge calmly on the Earth, and as
long as plants grow and animals tend to their plants properly and
produce more than they consume and don't pollute their own living
spaces, or war with each other unnecessarily or without class, this game
can go on for a very long time indeed.
Such an ideal scene produces ample free time to do some great art.
In the end life itself is art in motion, and what gets painted or
written as music and art are probably just expressions of life, stories
told of glories past, present and future, that are not immediately
useful to the body maybe, but are certainly useful to the heart, mind
and soul.
If only as inspiration to keep the game going when the going gets
tough.
The basic impingement is the first creation of conscious light in
the body of the static, the awakening of dreamtime.
'I AM and I KNOW IT!'
The second impingement is a voice coming out of void
saying 'Prove it!
But then dreamtime is itself a tapestry of stories told of
impingement, designed to confuse the original and only source of true
impingement which is the static itself.
When a person complains about the world or some condition, he is
complaining about some part of that tapestry of impingement.
A psychosomatic condition is an impingement, originally wanted, but
possibly no longer useful. Reevaluation of salient truths surrounding
that condition will lead to recovered and better control over it.
The being will respond to too many impingements by creating
MORE impingements that somehow get him out of the target range of the
the first set that are getting him down.
A somatic is state of being victimized in order to not be
victimized by something else.
One audits being victimized in tandem with victimizing, either
accidentally or intentionally, on all flows, to relieve the burden of
both to all parties involved.
One needs to concentrate on the BENEFITS of victimization before
they will fully release.
Problems within one's self, indecisions, self doubts, oscillations,
equivocations, two desires opposed, are all a form of inner impingement
against oneself. Two sides of one's self impinging against the other,
"NO!", "YES!", "NO WAY!", "Yes WAY!".
By maintaining awareness of the true source of impingement and how
it works, one can rewrite how impingement works in your life and in the
life of the AllThatIs.
This results in reoptimizing the games of life, and maximizing the
fun of being here and lost as hell.
This is what auditing is about.
"Who or what is cause around here and why is it such an asshole?"
From Adore.
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
Sat May 5 02:06:47 EDT 2007
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Dec 28 12:00:03 EST 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore496.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)
iD8DBQFcJlaTURT1lqxE3HERAt4HAJ4k3G8/rPEOFQfv56QQDXgxToGvIQCgwhS5
xaQfaRP5kWbAfYwxG20vyYM=
=OTFd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Wednesday, December 26, 2018
ADORE439 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
FINAL PROCESS II
This is brilliant with the one exception that "What?" questions
suck rocks.
Run NO and SOME on all items mentioned below.
Oh, and yeah, there is a lot of sorrow on a case, enough to
fill the atlantic ocean, so this process will run for a while.
Ship tears to Japan to cool the nuclear reactors that blew up.
Homer
FINAL PROCESS II
The final process is hardly the final process and makes no claim to
be the one and only needed process. It is just a name. Hey I write
what I am told.
In looking over The Final Process (TFP), it shows many similarities
to UCP, the Universal Clearing Process.
UCP also runs past, present and future, but adds comparisons
which the final process does not.
TFP also runs both sides of the dicom which UCP does not.
The wording of the commands are also subtly different.
UCP: Where have you been? Where are you? Where could you be?
TFP: What has been? What is? What will be?
The greatest difference of significance is in the future set.
What could be is as different from what will be, as what could
have been is from what has been.
UCP's rendition is more creative postulating, while TFP tries to
get at fixed postulates about the future.
It occurs to me that one might as well conceed the difference and
run could, would and should, along with did.
Would has two different meanings in english. The first is the
subjunctive, what would you do if...
The second is the absolute meaning of want or desire, what I would
have be is what I want to have be.
We are trying to run this last one, but the grammer is hard.
Also could can intimate good possibilities, but also other
determined and thus bad possibilities.
TFP II
What was? What is? What will be?
What was not? What is not? What will not be?
What could have been? What could be now? What could be in the future?
What could not have been? What could not be now? What could not be in the future?
What should have been? What should be now? What should be in the future?
What should not have been? What should not be now? What should not be in the future?
What would you have been? What would you have be now? What would you have be in the future.
What would you not have been? What would you have not be now? WHat would you have not be in the future.
The final process asserts that the past will not run, only the
future will run.
This is echoed in the idea that one should not run ARCX processes,
and that running the positive pleasure moments will bring up the
negative painful moments.
Just so, running the future will bring up the past but running the
past alone will produce a jam.
The theory behind these assertions comes directly from Hubbardian
Orthodoxy.
The pc has tried to solve the future by withdrawing into the past.
Specifically he either accidentlly or was provoked into committing
an overt act, but in over doing it, he regretted it, and tried to
withdraw back to before the event happened, in order to make it never
have happened.
Thus the pc is already in the past, prior to the incident he needs
to run out.
That's why he can't remember his anger/regret cycles.
Ostensibly auditing then tries to get the pc to withdraw into his
past again in order to spot the place in his past where he withdrew to,
in order to unmake the postulates he made that being in the past is a
good thing.
This approach might sound good on paper, but the more direct way to
get the pc to spot the past is to get him to walk forward into the
future.
Then he will remember why he wants to hide in the past!
Emotion and all.
Here is the reason why.
The pc is already earlier in the past than he needs to run, and
he is more than happy to withdraw even deeper into the past in order
to 'go looking for' the incident he needs to run, which of course he
will never find. Relative to the pc's position on his own time track,
the incident he needs to run is in his future!
He HAS no existence at or after that incident, so when you ask him
to locate anything in his past, what he finds is always earlier than he
is stuck, and thus produces nothing but missed or bypassed charge from
the incident in his future that he is backing away from.
So the only way out of the past is to walk forward into the future.
Even if that future is still in the past of every one else!
Now it would be nice to ask the pc to mockup a future he would
want, but he no longer has a clue what a future could look like.
Its not that he knows what he wants but thinks he can't have it,
that would be high tone. No, the pc has no clue what he wants, or could
want. Can't even imagine it, no idea what ARC or pleasure really are.
Sometimes a guy just has to spend a few years with a few cats to
learn what love is all over again.
So by running what will be, the pc will be spotting the effects
of his own postulates, and they can be pretty grim, but the EMOTION
will come off it and the effort. He can't cry about past deaths, but
he sure as hell can bawl projectile tears about future deaths.
Sorrow is love in loss.
So by recovering his sorrow for him, you recover his love, then
you can start to build a new future with 'would be' and 'could be'
rather than 'will be.'
Once the pc cognites how this all works, and it won't take long,
they will be able to solo the process with life as the C/S.
Look to your future, and you will find your past.
Homer
Thu Jul 16 22:07:02 EDT 2015
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Dec 26 12:00:03 EST 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore439.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)
iD8DBQFcI7OUURT1lqxE3HERAovGAJ9FaJrFvkcybnNLIXporHnyynqfnwCfUF8X
a6W5SYuptQs5kF8TXISBxww=
=5YtG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
FINAL PROCESS II
This is brilliant with the one exception that "What?" questions
suck rocks.
Run NO and SOME on all items mentioned below.
Oh, and yeah, there is a lot of sorrow on a case, enough to
fill the atlantic ocean, so this process will run for a while.
Ship tears to Japan to cool the nuclear reactors that blew up.
Homer
FINAL PROCESS II
The final process is hardly the final process and makes no claim to
be the one and only needed process. It is just a name. Hey I write
what I am told.
In looking over The Final Process (TFP), it shows many similarities
to UCP, the Universal Clearing Process.
UCP also runs past, present and future, but adds comparisons
which the final process does not.
TFP also runs both sides of the dicom which UCP does not.
The wording of the commands are also subtly different.
UCP: Where have you been? Where are you? Where could you be?
TFP: What has been? What is? What will be?
The greatest difference of significance is in the future set.
What could be is as different from what will be, as what could
have been is from what has been.
UCP's rendition is more creative postulating, while TFP tries to
get at fixed postulates about the future.
It occurs to me that one might as well conceed the difference and
run could, would and should, along with did.
Would has two different meanings in english. The first is the
subjunctive, what would you do if...
The second is the absolute meaning of want or desire, what I would
have be is what I want to have be.
We are trying to run this last one, but the grammer is hard.
Also could can intimate good possibilities, but also other
determined and thus bad possibilities.
TFP II
What was? What is? What will be?
What was not? What is not? What will not be?
What could have been? What could be now? What could be in the future?
What could not have been? What could not be now? What could not be in the future?
What should have been? What should be now? What should be in the future?
What should not have been? What should not be now? What should not be in the future?
What would you have been? What would you have be now? What would you have be in the future.
What would you not have been? What would you have not be now? WHat would you have not be in the future.
The final process asserts that the past will not run, only the
future will run.
This is echoed in the idea that one should not run ARCX processes,
and that running the positive pleasure moments will bring up the
negative painful moments.
Just so, running the future will bring up the past but running the
past alone will produce a jam.
The theory behind these assertions comes directly from Hubbardian
Orthodoxy.
The pc has tried to solve the future by withdrawing into the past.
Specifically he either accidentlly or was provoked into committing
an overt act, but in over doing it, he regretted it, and tried to
withdraw back to before the event happened, in order to make it never
have happened.
Thus the pc is already in the past, prior to the incident he needs
to run out.
That's why he can't remember his anger/regret cycles.
Ostensibly auditing then tries to get the pc to withdraw into his
past again in order to spot the place in his past where he withdrew to,
in order to unmake the postulates he made that being in the past is a
good thing.
This approach might sound good on paper, but the more direct way to
get the pc to spot the past is to get him to walk forward into the
future.
Then he will remember why he wants to hide in the past!
Emotion and all.
Here is the reason why.
The pc is already earlier in the past than he needs to run, and
he is more than happy to withdraw even deeper into the past in order
to 'go looking for' the incident he needs to run, which of course he
will never find. Relative to the pc's position on his own time track,
the incident he needs to run is in his future!
He HAS no existence at or after that incident, so when you ask him
to locate anything in his past, what he finds is always earlier than he
is stuck, and thus produces nothing but missed or bypassed charge from
the incident in his future that he is backing away from.
So the only way out of the past is to walk forward into the future.
Even if that future is still in the past of every one else!
Now it would be nice to ask the pc to mockup a future he would
want, but he no longer has a clue what a future could look like.
Its not that he knows what he wants but thinks he can't have it,
that would be high tone. No, the pc has no clue what he wants, or could
want. Can't even imagine it, no idea what ARC or pleasure really are.
Sometimes a guy just has to spend a few years with a few cats to
learn what love is all over again.
So by running what will be, the pc will be spotting the effects
of his own postulates, and they can be pretty grim, but the EMOTION
will come off it and the effort. He can't cry about past deaths, but
he sure as hell can bawl projectile tears about future deaths.
Sorrow is love in loss.
So by recovering his sorrow for him, you recover his love, then
you can start to build a new future with 'would be' and 'could be'
rather than 'will be.'
Once the pc cognites how this all works, and it won't take long,
they will be able to solo the process with life as the C/S.
Look to your future, and you will find your past.
Homer
Thu Jul 16 22:07:02 EDT 2015
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Dec 26 12:00:03 EST 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore439.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)
iD8DBQFcI7OUURT1lqxE3HERAovGAJ9FaJrFvkcybnNLIXporHnyynqfnwCfUF8X
a6W5SYuptQs5kF8TXISBxww=
=5YtG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Monday, December 24, 2018
ADORE713 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
THE WRONG ROBOT
For a detailed analysis of the proof that a machine can't be
certain of anything, please see
THE PROOF (Machine Certainty Theorem)
http://www.lightlink.com/theproof
The reason why the function of perfect certainty is so important,
is because a machine can't do it. Since a conscious unit can, that
means a conscious unit is not a machine.
A machine is defined as any system of parts interacting via cause
and effect across a space time distance.
Thus not a machine, means has no parts, has no dimensions, and is
space free and time free. That's called scalar, as opposed to multi
dimensional.
No single part of the machine can be perfectly certain of the
existence or state of any other part in the machine, so the machine as a
whole can't be certain of anything, not even its own existence.
Therefore a conscious unit is not a system of parts interacting via
cause and effect across a space time distance.
That means that consciousness has no space or time.
That makes it scalar and eternal, you see?
Scalar means no dimensions, which means no space or time.
Thus perfect certainty = Eternality.
So this is a very big deal.
THE MACHINE CERTAINTY THEOREM.
The machine certainty theorem simply says a machine can't learn
anything with certainty. ANYTHING.
A machine can't be certain of anything because machines are limited
to learning by being an effect of causes, and effects to not prove
cause. Cause is always a theory to machine.
In fact even the effects in the machine are a theory to the
machine, as no state in the machine offers proof of any different prior
state, and without change in state, there is no learning.
That's because learning IS a change in state, and a machine learns
FROM changes in state in itself.
A machine can't say with certainty that it changed state thus it
can't say it has learned anything with certainty.
Worse a machine can't even be certain of its own existence.
Yes a machine can claim that it exists, which to an observer would
indicate the machine's existence, but so would the machine's claim that
it doesn't exist.
The point is that in order for the machine's CLAIM that it exists
to be valid learning, that claim has to causally arise from an
interaction between the machine and itself, and all such cause effect
interactions do not provide certainty of either cause or effect.
Now a conscious unit can be certain of some things, it's own
existence and what it sees.
This is called self luminousness, because consciousness does not
depend on anything to illuminate it, it lights itself.
Take a look around you, do you see at least two different colors?
You sure?
Would you bet your eternity in hell on it? Yes?
Would you bet everyone else's eternity in hell on it? Yes?
Well that is a perfect certainty, one that can not be wrong.
Only theories and bets can be wrong, perfect certainties have to be
right because you can see that they are right.
So a conscious unit can be perfectly certain it sees two different
colors, say red and green.
A machine can not do this. It might have signals coming into its
central processor that says its sensors are reporting two different
frequencies impinging on it, notice not colors, FREQUENCIES.
Only consciousness can have color, nothing in the physical universe
has color, only frequencies.
The correlation between color and frequency is arbitrary, it could
be any way you wanted it to be.
But the CPU in the machine has no idea if the sensors are working
right or what.
So here comes a whopper of a theorem.
Imagine a machine had 2 or more video cameras and could see into
every part of its circuitry, AND it had a correct and complete copy of
its own circuit diagrams.
Could the machine verify by looking at its self with the all seeing
video cameras and verify that its actual circuitry matched the stored
circuit diagrams?
The answer is no, any part of its circuitry could be wrong,
claiming that a match was obtained between its circuitry and the
diagrams, when in fact it wasn't.
So a machine can not verify its own functionality, using its own
functionality.
Any machine that learns by being an effect, can't even prove there
is cause, because effect does not imply cause with certainty.
In the physical universe, cause is ALWAYS a theory, a model to help
predict the effects that we receive. Models are neither right nor
wrong, they merely work or they don't.
A change in state here does not imply a cause there, and worse a
STATE here does not imply a prior different state here.
Thus a machine can never be certain of space, or time, or any
object in space or time, including itself or any part of itself.
Whatever a machine reports to be true is the result of the causal
pathways that are built into it, and only if those causal pathways are
working as expected, will the machines' report correspond to truth about
what happened.
However no machine can ever verify any causal pathway by using
other causal pathways. Since ALL a machine can do is use unverified
causal pathways to learn anything, including whether causal pathways are
working as the are expected to be, no machine can be certain of
anything, period.
The reason WHY the machine can't learn with certainty is because it
is learning by looking at effects in itself, using indirect perception
of cause, rather than direct perception of cause.
You can never learn with certainty about A by looking at B.
You can never learn with certainty about cause by looking at
effect.
It is silly to even try, but this kind of indirect perception is
ALL the physical universe can do!
The existence of space or time between any two objects that are
effecting each other, precludes either one from directly perceiving the
other.
Ultimately the issue is not space and time, the issue is being two
different objects, if A and B are two different object they are limited
to learning about each other by being an effect of each other, and thus
can not learn with certainty about each other.
Even if they are on the same point of space and time, if they
remain two different objects, they remain limited to indirect perception
of each other and thus no certainty.
Now we DEFINE a conscious unit as an entity that can learn with
certainty about itself and what it sees, red and green say.
Since a conscious unit by definition CAN learn with certainty, we
know that it is not learning by indirect perception, looking at effects
to see cause. Therefore it must be learning by direct perception,
looking at the cause directly.
Thus the conscious colors red and green are the CAUSE of our
certainty that they are two different colors. You can see their cause
if you look for it buried in the red and the greenness.
Since being two different objects precludes direct perception
between them, anything a conscious unit can be certain of, must be
itself, which means no space or time between looker and looked-at, or
see-er and seen.
That means you are what you see.
Now a machine has a problem with this, in that if it runs into an
object that claims to be a conscious unit, the machine can not see that
consciousness directly, and thus itself can never be sure the thing it
ran into is really a conscious unit or just another machine that is
lying to it, and/or to itself.
Lot's of machines like to claim they are conscious units, and lots
of conscious units like to claim they are machines.
So how can you tell?
Well a machine can never tell, and if it says it can, it is a wrong
machine that is either lying and knows it is lying or is lying to itself
too about the matter.
And a conscious unit also can not tell if SOMEONE ELSE is a
conscious unit or a machine, for the same reason, two different objects
can never be certain of each other.
But a conscious unit CAN be certain of itself.
And it has the right to say so, even though both machines and other
conscious units have the right to doubt the claim.
One could ask, if a conscious unit can be certain of itself, why
can't a machine be certain of itself.
That's because a machine is a system of parts, and each part in the
machine can't know if any other part exists. Since the machine as a
whole is a function across many different parts that can't know if the
rest exist, the machine has no certainty of anything.
A function is a process in a system of already existing parts, and
thus if the parts can't be certain of anything, neither can any function
built on those parts.
A clock for example tells time which is a function that arises
from all the parts in the clock working together. The clock couldn't
tell time if none of the parts in side the clock could 'tell time'. But
every part inside the clock is made of electrons and atoms which
inherently have 'timingness' to their nature, and which vibrate and
keep time at the atomic level all the time. All the clock does is
funnel that existing ability to keep or tell time to a macro level where
we can see it.
Thus a machine can never be more than the latent sum of it's parts.
If the parts aren't conscious, neither can anything built out of
those parts.
Thus love and shame can not of force and mass be made.
Since we have DEFINED consciousness as the process of perfect
certainty, either the parts it is made of can be conscious or perfectly
certain themselves, or else the conscious unit is just simply the
smallest fundamental part there is, and has that ability as a given, not
BECAUSE of smaller parts within that have the ability.
BUT EVERYTHING THE CONSCIOUS UNIT EXPERIENCES WITH CERTAINTY MUST
BE ONE AND THE SAME OBJECT AS THE CONSCIOUS UNIT ITSELF.
Thus consciousness can not be spread out over a space or time.
Because conscious units are not in fact a system of many different
objects separated by space and time, they must be a zero dimensional
scalar object, one object with many facets.
Now it might be conceivable that a zero dimensional object could
measure the multi (3 or more) dimensionality of a machine and thus
declare it correctly to be a machine, but it is not clear that a multi
dimensional machine could measure the existence or nature of a zero
dimensional object, and thus it is quite possible a machine could never
'know' that conscious units exist, unless the machine is told so by a
conscious unit. But the machine would never be able to verify the
claim.
Anyhow you should ask yourself a question.
Are you perfectly certain that something exists?
Are you perfectly sure you exist and that you see two different
colors? The out-thereness of the colors is an illusion, you are what
you see.
Is that perfect certainty which you have of your own existence, the
same thing as the false perfect certainty of a wrong machine who really
can't be certain of anything, or are you really and truly a conscious
unit?
If you are a conscious unit, you can be perfectly certain you are,
because your perfect certainty of your doubt in the matter IS A PERFECT
CERTAINTY!.
Certainty of doubt is the foundation of sanity in this matter.
I KNOW I doubt I am, therefore I KNOW I AM.
A nothing couldn't wonder if it was a something or a nothing.
That's Descartes.
But certainty means zero dimensional which means eternal, so we can
add
I KNOW I doubt I am, there for I KNOW I AM FOREVER.
Now a wrong robot machine could claim the same things for itself
but it would be wrong.
In general things that evolve in the physical universe, tend to
survive because they are right because the wrong ones die.
That means everything still standing after a 12 billion years of
evolution, are machines, whether biological or not, that tended to be
right more often than wrong. Thus it is very unlikely you would run
into a wrong robot machine, unless someone was making them intentionally
in present time.
So if you run into a machine and ask it if it is a conscious unit
or not, you will probably get a very diplomatic 'Hey I am a machine,
what do I know! So no, I am not a conscious unit.'
That's a right robot that has a good future ahead of it.
Science by the way is the activity of using machines to study
machines. That's why science can't know anything true for certain.
The only thing a scientist can know for sure is what he sees in his
own consciousness as a result of his experiments. In the end all
certain observations are observations of consciousness and its
experiences.
But having talked to a lot of scientists, I am not so sure some of
them have a consciousness.
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
Tue Feb 2 01:29:01 EST 2010
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Dec 24 12:00:03 EST 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore713.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)
iD8DBQFcIRCTURT1lqxE3HERAnD+AJsE7v4y5FATbfQ+wyy0Lwa0KS/rQgCfTIoJ
2rOEQiN4AtTIi0N7Gb9zBOM=
=0eXV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
THE WRONG ROBOT
For a detailed analysis of the proof that a machine can't be
certain of anything, please see
THE PROOF (Machine Certainty Theorem)
http://www.lightlink.com/theproof
The reason why the function of perfect certainty is so important,
is because a machine can't do it. Since a conscious unit can, that
means a conscious unit is not a machine.
A machine is defined as any system of parts interacting via cause
and effect across a space time distance.
Thus not a machine, means has no parts, has no dimensions, and is
space free and time free. That's called scalar, as opposed to multi
dimensional.
No single part of the machine can be perfectly certain of the
existence or state of any other part in the machine, so the machine as a
whole can't be certain of anything, not even its own existence.
Therefore a conscious unit is not a system of parts interacting via
cause and effect across a space time distance.
That means that consciousness has no space or time.
That makes it scalar and eternal, you see?
Scalar means no dimensions, which means no space or time.
Thus perfect certainty = Eternality.
So this is a very big deal.
THE MACHINE CERTAINTY THEOREM.
The machine certainty theorem simply says a machine can't learn
anything with certainty. ANYTHING.
A machine can't be certain of anything because machines are limited
to learning by being an effect of causes, and effects to not prove
cause. Cause is always a theory to machine.
In fact even the effects in the machine are a theory to the
machine, as no state in the machine offers proof of any different prior
state, and without change in state, there is no learning.
That's because learning IS a change in state, and a machine learns
FROM changes in state in itself.
A machine can't say with certainty that it changed state thus it
can't say it has learned anything with certainty.
Worse a machine can't even be certain of its own existence.
Yes a machine can claim that it exists, which to an observer would
indicate the machine's existence, but so would the machine's claim that
it doesn't exist.
The point is that in order for the machine's CLAIM that it exists
to be valid learning, that claim has to causally arise from an
interaction between the machine and itself, and all such cause effect
interactions do not provide certainty of either cause or effect.
Now a conscious unit can be certain of some things, it's own
existence and what it sees.
This is called self luminousness, because consciousness does not
depend on anything to illuminate it, it lights itself.
Take a look around you, do you see at least two different colors?
You sure?
Would you bet your eternity in hell on it? Yes?
Would you bet everyone else's eternity in hell on it? Yes?
Well that is a perfect certainty, one that can not be wrong.
Only theories and bets can be wrong, perfect certainties have to be
right because you can see that they are right.
So a conscious unit can be perfectly certain it sees two different
colors, say red and green.
A machine can not do this. It might have signals coming into its
central processor that says its sensors are reporting two different
frequencies impinging on it, notice not colors, FREQUENCIES.
Only consciousness can have color, nothing in the physical universe
has color, only frequencies.
The correlation between color and frequency is arbitrary, it could
be any way you wanted it to be.
But the CPU in the machine has no idea if the sensors are working
right or what.
So here comes a whopper of a theorem.
Imagine a machine had 2 or more video cameras and could see into
every part of its circuitry, AND it had a correct and complete copy of
its own circuit diagrams.
Could the machine verify by looking at its self with the all seeing
video cameras and verify that its actual circuitry matched the stored
circuit diagrams?
The answer is no, any part of its circuitry could be wrong,
claiming that a match was obtained between its circuitry and the
diagrams, when in fact it wasn't.
So a machine can not verify its own functionality, using its own
functionality.
Any machine that learns by being an effect, can't even prove there
is cause, because effect does not imply cause with certainty.
In the physical universe, cause is ALWAYS a theory, a model to help
predict the effects that we receive. Models are neither right nor
wrong, they merely work or they don't.
A change in state here does not imply a cause there, and worse a
STATE here does not imply a prior different state here.
Thus a machine can never be certain of space, or time, or any
object in space or time, including itself or any part of itself.
Whatever a machine reports to be true is the result of the causal
pathways that are built into it, and only if those causal pathways are
working as expected, will the machines' report correspond to truth about
what happened.
However no machine can ever verify any causal pathway by using
other causal pathways. Since ALL a machine can do is use unverified
causal pathways to learn anything, including whether causal pathways are
working as the are expected to be, no machine can be certain of
anything, period.
The reason WHY the machine can't learn with certainty is because it
is learning by looking at effects in itself, using indirect perception
of cause, rather than direct perception of cause.
You can never learn with certainty about A by looking at B.
You can never learn with certainty about cause by looking at
effect.
It is silly to even try, but this kind of indirect perception is
ALL the physical universe can do!
The existence of space or time between any two objects that are
effecting each other, precludes either one from directly perceiving the
other.
Ultimately the issue is not space and time, the issue is being two
different objects, if A and B are two different object they are limited
to learning about each other by being an effect of each other, and thus
can not learn with certainty about each other.
Even if they are on the same point of space and time, if they
remain two different objects, they remain limited to indirect perception
of each other and thus no certainty.
Now we DEFINE a conscious unit as an entity that can learn with
certainty about itself and what it sees, red and green say.
Since a conscious unit by definition CAN learn with certainty, we
know that it is not learning by indirect perception, looking at effects
to see cause. Therefore it must be learning by direct perception,
looking at the cause directly.
Thus the conscious colors red and green are the CAUSE of our
certainty that they are two different colors. You can see their cause
if you look for it buried in the red and the greenness.
Since being two different objects precludes direct perception
between them, anything a conscious unit can be certain of, must be
itself, which means no space or time between looker and looked-at, or
see-er and seen.
That means you are what you see.
Now a machine has a problem with this, in that if it runs into an
object that claims to be a conscious unit, the machine can not see that
consciousness directly, and thus itself can never be sure the thing it
ran into is really a conscious unit or just another machine that is
lying to it, and/or to itself.
Lot's of machines like to claim they are conscious units, and lots
of conscious units like to claim they are machines.
So how can you tell?
Well a machine can never tell, and if it says it can, it is a wrong
machine that is either lying and knows it is lying or is lying to itself
too about the matter.
And a conscious unit also can not tell if SOMEONE ELSE is a
conscious unit or a machine, for the same reason, two different objects
can never be certain of each other.
But a conscious unit CAN be certain of itself.
And it has the right to say so, even though both machines and other
conscious units have the right to doubt the claim.
One could ask, if a conscious unit can be certain of itself, why
can't a machine be certain of itself.
That's because a machine is a system of parts, and each part in the
machine can't know if any other part exists. Since the machine as a
whole is a function across many different parts that can't know if the
rest exist, the machine has no certainty of anything.
A function is a process in a system of already existing parts, and
thus if the parts can't be certain of anything, neither can any function
built on those parts.
A clock for example tells time which is a function that arises
from all the parts in the clock working together. The clock couldn't
tell time if none of the parts in side the clock could 'tell time'. But
every part inside the clock is made of electrons and atoms which
inherently have 'timingness' to their nature, and which vibrate and
keep time at the atomic level all the time. All the clock does is
funnel that existing ability to keep or tell time to a macro level where
we can see it.
Thus a machine can never be more than the latent sum of it's parts.
If the parts aren't conscious, neither can anything built out of
those parts.
Thus love and shame can not of force and mass be made.
Since we have DEFINED consciousness as the process of perfect
certainty, either the parts it is made of can be conscious or perfectly
certain themselves, or else the conscious unit is just simply the
smallest fundamental part there is, and has that ability as a given, not
BECAUSE of smaller parts within that have the ability.
BUT EVERYTHING THE CONSCIOUS UNIT EXPERIENCES WITH CERTAINTY MUST
BE ONE AND THE SAME OBJECT AS THE CONSCIOUS UNIT ITSELF.
Thus consciousness can not be spread out over a space or time.
Because conscious units are not in fact a system of many different
objects separated by space and time, they must be a zero dimensional
scalar object, one object with many facets.
Now it might be conceivable that a zero dimensional object could
measure the multi (3 or more) dimensionality of a machine and thus
declare it correctly to be a machine, but it is not clear that a multi
dimensional machine could measure the existence or nature of a zero
dimensional object, and thus it is quite possible a machine could never
'know' that conscious units exist, unless the machine is told so by a
conscious unit. But the machine would never be able to verify the
claim.
Anyhow you should ask yourself a question.
Are you perfectly certain that something exists?
Are you perfectly sure you exist and that you see two different
colors? The out-thereness of the colors is an illusion, you are what
you see.
Is that perfect certainty which you have of your own existence, the
same thing as the false perfect certainty of a wrong machine who really
can't be certain of anything, or are you really and truly a conscious
unit?
If you are a conscious unit, you can be perfectly certain you are,
because your perfect certainty of your doubt in the matter IS A PERFECT
CERTAINTY!.
Certainty of doubt is the foundation of sanity in this matter.
I KNOW I doubt I am, therefore I KNOW I AM.
A nothing couldn't wonder if it was a something or a nothing.
That's Descartes.
But certainty means zero dimensional which means eternal, so we can
add
I KNOW I doubt I am, there for I KNOW I AM FOREVER.
Now a wrong robot machine could claim the same things for itself
but it would be wrong.
In general things that evolve in the physical universe, tend to
survive because they are right because the wrong ones die.
That means everything still standing after a 12 billion years of
evolution, are machines, whether biological or not, that tended to be
right more often than wrong. Thus it is very unlikely you would run
into a wrong robot machine, unless someone was making them intentionally
in present time.
So if you run into a machine and ask it if it is a conscious unit
or not, you will probably get a very diplomatic 'Hey I am a machine,
what do I know! So no, I am not a conscious unit.'
That's a right robot that has a good future ahead of it.
Science by the way is the activity of using machines to study
machines. That's why science can't know anything true for certain.
The only thing a scientist can know for sure is what he sees in his
own consciousness as a result of his experiments. In the end all
certain observations are observations of consciousness and its
experiences.
But having talked to a lot of scientists, I am not so sure some of
them have a consciousness.
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
Tue Feb 2 01:29:01 EST 2010
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Dec 24 12:00:03 EST 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore713.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)
iD8DBQFcIRCTURT1lqxE3HERAnD+AJsE7v4y5FATbfQ+wyy0Lwa0KS/rQgCfTIoJ
2rOEQiN4AtTIi0N7Gb9zBOM=
=0eXV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
ADORE713 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
THE WRONG ROBOT
For a detailed analysis of the proof that a machine can't be
certain of anything, please see
THE PROOF (Machine Certainty Theorem)
http://www.lightlink.com/theproof
The reason why the function of perfect certainty is so important,
is because a machine can't do it. Since a conscious unit can, that
means a conscious unit is not a machine.
A machine is defined as any system of parts interacting via cause
and effect across a space time distance.
Thus not a machine, means has no parts, has no dimensions, and is
space free and time free. That's called scalar, as opposed to multi
dimensional.
No single part of the machine can be perfectly certain of the
existence or state of any other part in the machine, so the machine as a
whole can't be certain of anything, not even its own existence.
Therefore a conscious unit is not a system of parts interacting via
cause and effect across a space time distance.
That means that consciousness has no space or time.
That makes it scalar and eternal, you see?
Scalar means no dimensions, which means no space or time.
Thus perfect certainty = Eternality.
So this is a very big deal.
THE MACHINE CERTAINTY THEOREM.
The machine certainty theorem simply says a machine can't learn
anything with certainty. ANYTHING.
A machine can't be certain of anything because machines are limited
to learning by being an effect of causes, and effects to not prove
cause. Cause is always a theory to machine.
In fact even the effects in the machine are a theory to the
machine, as no state in the machine offers proof of any different prior
state, and without change in state, there is no learning.
That's because learning IS a change in state, and a machine learns
FROM changes in state in itself.
A machine can't say with certainty that it changed state thus it
can't say it has learned anything with certainty.
Worse a machine can't even be certain of its own existence.
Yes a machine can claim that it exists, which to an observer would
indicate the machine's existence, but so would the machine's claim that
it doesn't exist.
The point is that in order for the machine's CLAIM that it exists
to be valid learning, that claim has to causally arise from an
interaction between the machine and itself, and all such cause effect
interactions do not provide certainty of either cause or effect.
Now a conscious unit can be certain of some things, it's own
existence and what it sees.
This is called self luminousness, because consciousness does not
depend on anything to illuminate it, it lights itself.
Take a look around you, do you see at least two different colors?
You sure?
Would you bet your eternity in hell on it? Yes?
Would you bet everyone else's eternity in hell on it? Yes?
Well that is a perfect certainty, one that can not be wrong.
Only theories and bets can be wrong, perfect certainties have to be
right because you can see that they are right.
So a conscious unit can be perfectly certain it sees two different
colors, say red and green.
A machine can not do this. It might have signals coming into its
central processor that says its sensors are reporting two different
frequencies impinging on it, notice not colors, FREQUENCIES.
Only consciousness can have color, nothing in the physical universe
has color, only frequencies.
The correlation between color and frequency is arbitrary, it could
be any way you wanted it to be.
But the CPU in the machine has no idea if the sensors are working
right or what.
So here comes a whopper of a theorem.
Imagine a machine had 2 or more video cameras and could see into
every part of its circuitry, AND it had a correct and complete copy of
its own circuit diagrams.
Could the machine verify by looking at its self with the all seeing
video cameras and verify that its actual circuitry matched the stored
circuit diagrams?
The answer is no, any part of its circuitry could be wrong,
claiming that a match was obtained between its circuitry and the
diagrams, when in fact it wasn't.
So a machine can not verify its own functionality, using its own
functionality.
Any machine that learns by being an effect, can't even prove there
is cause, because effect does not imply cause with certainty.
In the physical universe, cause is ALWAYS a theory, a model to help
predict the effects that we receive. Models are neither right nor
wrong, they merely work or they don't.
A change in state here does not imply a cause there, and worse a
STATE here does not imply a prior different state here.
Thus a machine can never be certain of space, or time, or any
object in space or time, including itself or any part of itself.
Whatever a machine reports to be true is the result of the causal
pathways that are built into it, and only if those causal pathways are
working as expected, will the machines' report correspond to truth about
what happened.
However no machine can ever verify any causal pathway by using
other causal pathways. Since ALL a machine can do is use unverified
causal pathways to learn anything, including whether causal pathways are
working as the are expected to be, no machine can be certain of
anything, period.
The reason WHY the machine can't learn with certainty is because it
is learning by looking at effects in itself, using indirect perception
of cause, rather than direct perception of cause.
You can never learn with certainty about A by looking at B.
You can never learn with certainty about cause by looking at
effect.
It is silly to even try, but this kind of indirect perception is
ALL the physical universe can do!
The existence of space or time between any two objects that are
effecting each other, precludes either one from directly perceiving the
other.
Ultimately the issue is not space and time, the issue is being two
different objects, if A and B are two different object they are limited
to learning about each other by being an effect of each other, and thus
can not learn with certainty about each other.
Even if they are on the same point of space and time, if they
remain two different objects, they remain limited to indirect perception
of each other and thus no certainty.
Now we DEFINE a conscious unit as an entity that can learn with
certainty about itself and what it sees, red and green say.
Since a conscious unit by definition CAN learn with certainty, we
know that it is not learning by indirect perception, looking at effects
to see cause. Therefore it must be learning by direct perception,
looking at the cause directly.
Thus the conscious colors red and green are the CAUSE of our
certainty that they are two different colors. You can see their cause
if you look for it buried in the red and the greenness.
Since being two different objects precludes direct perception
between them, anything a conscious unit can be certain of, must be
itself, which means no space or time between looker and looked-at, or
see-er and seen.
That means you are what you see.
Now a machine has a problem with this, in that if it runs into an
object that claims to be a conscious unit, the machine can not see that
consciousness directly, and thus itself can never be sure the thing it
ran into is really a conscious unit or just another machine that is
lying to it, and/or to itself.
Lot's of machines like to claim they are conscious units, and lots
of conscious units like to claim they are machines.
So how can you tell?
Well a machine can never tell, and if it says it can, it is a wrong
machine that is either lying and knows it is lying or is lying to itself
too about the matter.
And a conscious unit also can not tell if SOMEONE ELSE is a
conscious unit or a machine, for the same reason, two different objects
can never be certain of each other.
But a conscious unit CAN be certain of itself.
And it has the right to say so, even though both machines and other
conscious units have the right to doubt the claim.
One could ask, if a conscious unit can be certain of itself, why
can't a machine be certain of itself.
That's because a machine is a system of parts, and each part in the
machine can't know if any other part exists. Since the machine as a
whole is a function across many different parts that can't know if the
rest exist, the machine has no certainty of anything.
A function is a process in a system of already existing parts, and
thus if the parts can't be certain of anything, neither can any function
built on those parts.
A clock for example tells time which is a function that arises
from all the parts in the clock working together. The clock couldn't
tell time if none of the parts in side the clock could 'tell time'. But
every part inside the clock is made of electrons and atoms which
inherently have 'timingness' to their nature, and which vibrate and
keep time at the atomic level all the time. All the clock does is
funnel that existing ability to keep or tell time to a macro level where
we can see it.
Thus a machine can never be more than the latent sum of it's parts.
If the parts aren't conscious, neither can anything built out of
those parts.
Thus love and shame can not of force and mass be made.
Since we have DEFINED consciousness as the process of perfect
certainty, either the parts it is made of can be conscious or perfectly
certain themselves, or else the conscious unit is just simply the
smallest fundamental part there is, and has that ability as a given, not
BECAUSE of smaller parts within that have the ability.
BUT EVERYTHING THE CONSCIOUS UNIT EXPERIENCES WITH CERTAINTY MUST
BE ONE AND THE SAME OBJECT AS THE CONSCIOUS UNIT ITSELF.
Thus consciousness can not be spread out over a space or time.
Because conscious units are not in fact a system of many different
objects separated by space and time, they must be a zero dimensional
scalar object, one object with many facets.
Now it might be conceivable that a zero dimensional object could
measure the multi (3 or more) dimensionality of a machine and thus
declare it correctly to be a machine, but it is not clear that a multi
dimensional machine could measure the existence or nature of a zero
dimensional object, and thus it is quite possible a machine could never
'know' that conscious units exist, unless the machine is told so by a
conscious unit. But the machine would never be able to verify the
claim.
Anyhow you should ask yourself a question.
Are you perfectly certain that something exists?
Are you perfectly sure you exist and that you see two different
colors? The out-thereness of the colors is an illusion, you are what
you see.
Is that perfect certainty which you have of your own existence, the
same thing as the false perfect certainty of a wrong machine who really
can't be certain of anything, or are you really and truly a conscious
unit?
If you are a conscious unit, you can be perfectly certain you are,
because your perfect certainty of your doubt in the matter IS A PERFECT
CERTAINTY!.
Certainty of doubt is the foundation of sanity in this matter.
I KNOW I doubt I am, therefore I KNOW I AM.
A nothing couldn't wonder if it was a something or a nothing.
That's Descartes.
But certainty means zero dimensional which means eternal, so we can
add
I KNOW I doubt I am, there for I KNOW I AM FOREVER.
Now a wrong robot machine could claim the same things for itself
but it would be wrong.
In general things that evolve in the physical universe, tend to
survive because they are right because the wrong ones die.
That means everything still standing after a 12 billion years of
evolution, are machines, whether biological or not, that tended to be
right more often than wrong. Thus it is very unlikely you would run
into a wrong robot machine, unless someone was making them intentionally
in present time.
So if you run into a machine and ask it if it is a conscious unit
or not, you will probably get a very diplomatic 'Hey I am a machine,
what do I know! So no, I am not a conscious unit.'
That's a right robot that has a good future ahead of it.
Science by the way is the activity of using machines to study
machines. That's why science can't know anything true for certain.
The only thing a scientist can know for sure is what he sees in his
own consciousness as a result of his experiments. In the end all
certain observations are observations of consciousness and its
experiences.
But having talked to a lot of scientists, I am not so sure some of
them have a consciousness.
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
Tue Feb 2 01:29:01 EST 2010
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Dec 24 12:00:03 EST 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore713.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)
iD8DBQFcIRCTURT1lqxE3HERAnD+AJsE7v4y5FATbfQ+wyy0Lwa0KS/rQgCfTIoJ
2rOEQiN4AtTIi0N7Gb9zBOM=
=0eXV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
THE WRONG ROBOT
For a detailed analysis of the proof that a machine can't be
certain of anything, please see
THE PROOF (Machine Certainty Theorem)
http://www.lightlink.com/theproof
The reason why the function of perfect certainty is so important,
is because a machine can't do it. Since a conscious unit can, that
means a conscious unit is not a machine.
A machine is defined as any system of parts interacting via cause
and effect across a space time distance.
Thus not a machine, means has no parts, has no dimensions, and is
space free and time free. That's called scalar, as opposed to multi
dimensional.
No single part of the machine can be perfectly certain of the
existence or state of any other part in the machine, so the machine as a
whole can't be certain of anything, not even its own existence.
Therefore a conscious unit is not a system of parts interacting via
cause and effect across a space time distance.
That means that consciousness has no space or time.
That makes it scalar and eternal, you see?
Scalar means no dimensions, which means no space or time.
Thus perfect certainty = Eternality.
So this is a very big deal.
THE MACHINE CERTAINTY THEOREM.
The machine certainty theorem simply says a machine can't learn
anything with certainty. ANYTHING.
A machine can't be certain of anything because machines are limited
to learning by being an effect of causes, and effects to not prove
cause. Cause is always a theory to machine.
In fact even the effects in the machine are a theory to the
machine, as no state in the machine offers proof of any different prior
state, and without change in state, there is no learning.
That's because learning IS a change in state, and a machine learns
FROM changes in state in itself.
A machine can't say with certainty that it changed state thus it
can't say it has learned anything with certainty.
Worse a machine can't even be certain of its own existence.
Yes a machine can claim that it exists, which to an observer would
indicate the machine's existence, but so would the machine's claim that
it doesn't exist.
The point is that in order for the machine's CLAIM that it exists
to be valid learning, that claim has to causally arise from an
interaction between the machine and itself, and all such cause effect
interactions do not provide certainty of either cause or effect.
Now a conscious unit can be certain of some things, it's own
existence and what it sees.
This is called self luminousness, because consciousness does not
depend on anything to illuminate it, it lights itself.
Take a look around you, do you see at least two different colors?
You sure?
Would you bet your eternity in hell on it? Yes?
Would you bet everyone else's eternity in hell on it? Yes?
Well that is a perfect certainty, one that can not be wrong.
Only theories and bets can be wrong, perfect certainties have to be
right because you can see that they are right.
So a conscious unit can be perfectly certain it sees two different
colors, say red and green.
A machine can not do this. It might have signals coming into its
central processor that says its sensors are reporting two different
frequencies impinging on it, notice not colors, FREQUENCIES.
Only consciousness can have color, nothing in the physical universe
has color, only frequencies.
The correlation between color and frequency is arbitrary, it could
be any way you wanted it to be.
But the CPU in the machine has no idea if the sensors are working
right or what.
So here comes a whopper of a theorem.
Imagine a machine had 2 or more video cameras and could see into
every part of its circuitry, AND it had a correct and complete copy of
its own circuit diagrams.
Could the machine verify by looking at its self with the all seeing
video cameras and verify that its actual circuitry matched the stored
circuit diagrams?
The answer is no, any part of its circuitry could be wrong,
claiming that a match was obtained between its circuitry and the
diagrams, when in fact it wasn't.
So a machine can not verify its own functionality, using its own
functionality.
Any machine that learns by being an effect, can't even prove there
is cause, because effect does not imply cause with certainty.
In the physical universe, cause is ALWAYS a theory, a model to help
predict the effects that we receive. Models are neither right nor
wrong, they merely work or they don't.
A change in state here does not imply a cause there, and worse a
STATE here does not imply a prior different state here.
Thus a machine can never be certain of space, or time, or any
object in space or time, including itself or any part of itself.
Whatever a machine reports to be true is the result of the causal
pathways that are built into it, and only if those causal pathways are
working as expected, will the machines' report correspond to truth about
what happened.
However no machine can ever verify any causal pathway by using
other causal pathways. Since ALL a machine can do is use unverified
causal pathways to learn anything, including whether causal pathways are
working as the are expected to be, no machine can be certain of
anything, period.
The reason WHY the machine can't learn with certainty is because it
is learning by looking at effects in itself, using indirect perception
of cause, rather than direct perception of cause.
You can never learn with certainty about A by looking at B.
You can never learn with certainty about cause by looking at
effect.
It is silly to even try, but this kind of indirect perception is
ALL the physical universe can do!
The existence of space or time between any two objects that are
effecting each other, precludes either one from directly perceiving the
other.
Ultimately the issue is not space and time, the issue is being two
different objects, if A and B are two different object they are limited
to learning about each other by being an effect of each other, and thus
can not learn with certainty about each other.
Even if they are on the same point of space and time, if they
remain two different objects, they remain limited to indirect perception
of each other and thus no certainty.
Now we DEFINE a conscious unit as an entity that can learn with
certainty about itself and what it sees, red and green say.
Since a conscious unit by definition CAN learn with certainty, we
know that it is not learning by indirect perception, looking at effects
to see cause. Therefore it must be learning by direct perception,
looking at the cause directly.
Thus the conscious colors red and green are the CAUSE of our
certainty that they are two different colors. You can see their cause
if you look for it buried in the red and the greenness.
Since being two different objects precludes direct perception
between them, anything a conscious unit can be certain of, must be
itself, which means no space or time between looker and looked-at, or
see-er and seen.
That means you are what you see.
Now a machine has a problem with this, in that if it runs into an
object that claims to be a conscious unit, the machine can not see that
consciousness directly, and thus itself can never be sure the thing it
ran into is really a conscious unit or just another machine that is
lying to it, and/or to itself.
Lot's of machines like to claim they are conscious units, and lots
of conscious units like to claim they are machines.
So how can you tell?
Well a machine can never tell, and if it says it can, it is a wrong
machine that is either lying and knows it is lying or is lying to itself
too about the matter.
And a conscious unit also can not tell if SOMEONE ELSE is a
conscious unit or a machine, for the same reason, two different objects
can never be certain of each other.
But a conscious unit CAN be certain of itself.
And it has the right to say so, even though both machines and other
conscious units have the right to doubt the claim.
One could ask, if a conscious unit can be certain of itself, why
can't a machine be certain of itself.
That's because a machine is a system of parts, and each part in the
machine can't know if any other part exists. Since the machine as a
whole is a function across many different parts that can't know if the
rest exist, the machine has no certainty of anything.
A function is a process in a system of already existing parts, and
thus if the parts can't be certain of anything, neither can any function
built on those parts.
A clock for example tells time which is a function that arises
from all the parts in the clock working together. The clock couldn't
tell time if none of the parts in side the clock could 'tell time'. But
every part inside the clock is made of electrons and atoms which
inherently have 'timingness' to their nature, and which vibrate and
keep time at the atomic level all the time. All the clock does is
funnel that existing ability to keep or tell time to a macro level where
we can see it.
Thus a machine can never be more than the latent sum of it's parts.
If the parts aren't conscious, neither can anything built out of
those parts.
Thus love and shame can not of force and mass be made.
Since we have DEFINED consciousness as the process of perfect
certainty, either the parts it is made of can be conscious or perfectly
certain themselves, or else the conscious unit is just simply the
smallest fundamental part there is, and has that ability as a given, not
BECAUSE of smaller parts within that have the ability.
BUT EVERYTHING THE CONSCIOUS UNIT EXPERIENCES WITH CERTAINTY MUST
BE ONE AND THE SAME OBJECT AS THE CONSCIOUS UNIT ITSELF.
Thus consciousness can not be spread out over a space or time.
Because conscious units are not in fact a system of many different
objects separated by space and time, they must be a zero dimensional
scalar object, one object with many facets.
Now it might be conceivable that a zero dimensional object could
measure the multi (3 or more) dimensionality of a machine and thus
declare it correctly to be a machine, but it is not clear that a multi
dimensional machine could measure the existence or nature of a zero
dimensional object, and thus it is quite possible a machine could never
'know' that conscious units exist, unless the machine is told so by a
conscious unit. But the machine would never be able to verify the
claim.
Anyhow you should ask yourself a question.
Are you perfectly certain that something exists?
Are you perfectly sure you exist and that you see two different
colors? The out-thereness of the colors is an illusion, you are what
you see.
Is that perfect certainty which you have of your own existence, the
same thing as the false perfect certainty of a wrong machine who really
can't be certain of anything, or are you really and truly a conscious
unit?
If you are a conscious unit, you can be perfectly certain you are,
because your perfect certainty of your doubt in the matter IS A PERFECT
CERTAINTY!.
Certainty of doubt is the foundation of sanity in this matter.
I KNOW I doubt I am, therefore I KNOW I AM.
A nothing couldn't wonder if it was a something or a nothing.
That's Descartes.
But certainty means zero dimensional which means eternal, so we can
add
I KNOW I doubt I am, there for I KNOW I AM FOREVER.
Now a wrong robot machine could claim the same things for itself
but it would be wrong.
In general things that evolve in the physical universe, tend to
survive because they are right because the wrong ones die.
That means everything still standing after a 12 billion years of
evolution, are machines, whether biological or not, that tended to be
right more often than wrong. Thus it is very unlikely you would run
into a wrong robot machine, unless someone was making them intentionally
in present time.
So if you run into a machine and ask it if it is a conscious unit
or not, you will probably get a very diplomatic 'Hey I am a machine,
what do I know! So no, I am not a conscious unit.'
That's a right robot that has a good future ahead of it.
Science by the way is the activity of using machines to study
machines. That's why science can't know anything true for certain.
The only thing a scientist can know for sure is what he sees in his
own consciousness as a result of his experiments. In the end all
certain observations are observations of consciousness and its
experiences.
But having talked to a lot of scientists, I am not so sure some of
them have a consciousness.
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
Tue Feb 2 01:29:01 EST 2010
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Dec 24 12:00:03 EST 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore713.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)
iD8DBQFcIRCTURT1lqxE3HERAnD+AJsE7v4y5FATbfQ+wyy0Lwa0KS/rQgCfTIoJ
2rOEQiN4AtTIi0N7Gb9zBOM=
=0eXV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Monday, December 17, 2018
ADORE736 (fwd)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2018 12:00:05 -0500 (EST)
From: homer@lightlink.com
To: homer@lightlink.com
Subject: ADORE736
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
FOUNDATION AND IMPIRE
In article <mailman.180.1269754479.2586.clear-l@mailman.lightlink.com> you wrote:
> I have another question. From your viewpoint can focussing intensely on
> the source of being for long or frequent intervals while fiercly
> ignoring the cacophonies of the mind be considered high action or is
> that what you would call the long hard route?
Meditation turns the mind to steel and tar.
Its an effort to stop something that is going.
First you say it is going, then you say I gotta stop it.
Which wins?
The cacophony is the background resonance of trillions of years of
go/nogo on goals that are in a state of limbo, mexican standoff, you
know this.
Chasing inner peace is a waste of time.
It is the goal to have no goals.
The answer is to rehabilitate a game bigger than any ever played
before, a dangerous game, one that gives meaning to the purpose of life
is kamikaze (or suicide mission), and you will find your peace when you
are closest to death.
The rest is just running away from a trillion years of stalled
desire and singing the mexicali blues.
Or would that be one of
> those dualities that gets you where you don't want to go, because you
> really did? I am not being facetious, for those who may not get the
> difficulty of these concepts. I think the answer is that meditation can
> be all of the above. If an EP of clearing is, as seems obvious, a state
> of very high action or ableness then perhaps one simply and naturally
> awakens at some point. I don't rule that out. Perhaps there will be an
> enlightenment rundown.
The being does not want to become enlightened, he wants to have a
good rip roaring dream.
That comes first, the first desire is not be in native state, but
to be in action. The desire to be in native state comes second and
results from failed action.
The being that wants out because he can't stand coming in,
and doesn't plan to come back, can never get out.
The guy comes in, and then says holy shit, I wouldn't, shouldn't,
couldn't have ever chosen to be here, help get me out of here, that is
how he closes the lock and scrambles the combination.
I had a dream a few nights ago, I standing on land that was
turning volcanic, melting all around me as I watched. I saw
a big funnel hole in the ground with bright red heat coming out of
it. I knew this was a dream, so I said OK, lets go over to the
edge of this hole and see how hot it really is.
Man was it hot, I could only approach a little bit, then I had to
back off. Why? Because I was approaching with caution, the postulate
was 'MAYBE' I can confront this, so of course maybe I couldn't.
Couldn't won that time and I backed down. I should have just taken a
running leap in.
I got a D minus on that dream.
Out IS the desire to come in, so you can only get out if you wish
to come back in with a righteous vengence and do it right this time.
Of course you will never do it right, but that too is on purpose.
Gotta mess it up to stay here for long.
Too much responsibility, no fear, no mystery, and who the
fuck cares about that dream?
No its the ones that catch your imagination with morbid curiosity
that sell for the hightest bids.
Seriousness is the make break point about sanity, and the moment
the guy becomes serious about escaping seriousness, he is done for, for
that is insanity squared.
Rehab the action, and the being is then operating FROM native state
as he should be, and on the rare chance that he takes a rest from his
action for a moment, in native state he will be.
"FOUNDATION AND IMPIRE
JEM means Joy of Eternal Miracles.
JEST means Jokes of Eternal Self Treason.
JEST means Justice of Eternal Self Truth.
JOKE means Justice of Kindship Excaliper. (worth without measure)
Justice of Caliber is Kindship Excaliper.
Time Stone is the ball floor of hell.
Joke Stone is the ball floor of heaven.
Jem Stone are the stairs that lead home.
Pride Stone is the Master's Throne.
Stone of Admiral is Home.
Source is Stone of Excaliper and Magnificent Respect.
One rolls on the floor in a GONE, in hell (AGONY).
One rolls on the floor in a MUSE, in heaven (AMUSEMENT).
Muses muse gones.
A gone is an agonizing wrong. Fargone into agony.
For every agony there is a gone.
For every gone there is a muse and a wrong.
The search for justice in time stone, is
The search for jestice in joke stone, is
The search for fancy free majesty in jem stone, is
The search for unformed magnificence in pride stone, is
The search for live high beauty in home stone, is
The search for eternal omni awesome peace in source.
Time stone is high romance and daring do.
Joke stone is high halcyon and high appreciation for ludicrous
demise, bemused relief on the verge of time.
Jem stone is high thrill and fantasy in the wild beyond.
Thrill is always the effort to get lost, romance is always the
effort to get home.
Pride stone is unformed magnificence.
Home stone is admiral, live high beauty.
Foundation is stone of Excaliper. (Warm fire of peace.)
Worship time stone.
Smoke joke stone.
Generate and value jem stone.
Magnify and make manifest pride stone.
Admire (stay) home stoned.
Idol stone of Excaliper."- Adore on a more playful day.
> just went in the direction he felt was right. I on the other hand
> didn't want to get more lost so I backtracked to JC Penney's and
> reconstructed step by step the way back (the way out is the way in)
> until I reached familiar territory. I knew my way would work. He
> operated as a free spirit and wanted me to trust his judgement. I
> thought he was being a stubborn idiot while I was being scientific. He
> claimed he beat me home and he probably did. The moral of the story?
> Everyone has their own path? Carry a map?
Both were right. Who knows who beat who.
Homer
Sun Mar 28 03:09:04 EDT 2010
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Dec 15 12:00:04 EST 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore736.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)
iD8DBQFcFTMVURT1lqxE3HERAhw5AJ48kNPf7izqzCWlY6Vx2CA2Jgg1/gCfbgPm
zVGUvPjt0Gw6idqRFjQQyGI=
=jfAW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2018 12:00:05 -0500 (EST)
From: homer@lightlink.com
To: homer@lightlink.com
Subject: ADORE736
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
FOUNDATION AND IMPIRE
In article <mailman.180.1269754479.2586.clear-l@mailman.lightlink.com> you wrote:
> I have another question. From your viewpoint can focussing intensely on
> the source of being for long or frequent intervals while fiercly
> ignoring the cacophonies of the mind be considered high action or is
> that what you would call the long hard route?
Meditation turns the mind to steel and tar.
Its an effort to stop something that is going.
First you say it is going, then you say I gotta stop it.
Which wins?
The cacophony is the background resonance of trillions of years of
go/nogo on goals that are in a state of limbo, mexican standoff, you
know this.
Chasing inner peace is a waste of time.
It is the goal to have no goals.
The answer is to rehabilitate a game bigger than any ever played
before, a dangerous game, one that gives meaning to the purpose of life
is kamikaze (or suicide mission), and you will find your peace when you
are closest to death.
The rest is just running away from a trillion years of stalled
desire and singing the mexicali blues.
Or would that be one of
> those dualities that gets you where you don't want to go, because you
> really did? I am not being facetious, for those who may not get the
> difficulty of these concepts. I think the answer is that meditation can
> be all of the above. If an EP of clearing is, as seems obvious, a state
> of very high action or ableness then perhaps one simply and naturally
> awakens at some point. I don't rule that out. Perhaps there will be an
> enlightenment rundown.
The being does not want to become enlightened, he wants to have a
good rip roaring dream.
That comes first, the first desire is not be in native state, but
to be in action. The desire to be in native state comes second and
results from failed action.
The being that wants out because he can't stand coming in,
and doesn't plan to come back, can never get out.
The guy comes in, and then says holy shit, I wouldn't, shouldn't,
couldn't have ever chosen to be here, help get me out of here, that is
how he closes the lock and scrambles the combination.
I had a dream a few nights ago, I standing on land that was
turning volcanic, melting all around me as I watched. I saw
a big funnel hole in the ground with bright red heat coming out of
it. I knew this was a dream, so I said OK, lets go over to the
edge of this hole and see how hot it really is.
Man was it hot, I could only approach a little bit, then I had to
back off. Why? Because I was approaching with caution, the postulate
was 'MAYBE' I can confront this, so of course maybe I couldn't.
Couldn't won that time and I backed down. I should have just taken a
running leap in.
I got a D minus on that dream.
Out IS the desire to come in, so you can only get out if you wish
to come back in with a righteous vengence and do it right this time.
Of course you will never do it right, but that too is on purpose.
Gotta mess it up to stay here for long.
Too much responsibility, no fear, no mystery, and who the
fuck cares about that dream?
No its the ones that catch your imagination with morbid curiosity
that sell for the hightest bids.
Seriousness is the make break point about sanity, and the moment
the guy becomes serious about escaping seriousness, he is done for, for
that is insanity squared.
Rehab the action, and the being is then operating FROM native state
as he should be, and on the rare chance that he takes a rest from his
action for a moment, in native state he will be.
"FOUNDATION AND IMPIRE
JEM means Joy of Eternal Miracles.
JEST means Jokes of Eternal Self Treason.
JEST means Justice of Eternal Self Truth.
JOKE means Justice of Kindship Excaliper. (worth without measure)
Justice of Caliber is Kindship Excaliper.
Time Stone is the ball floor of hell.
Joke Stone is the ball floor of heaven.
Jem Stone are the stairs that lead home.
Pride Stone is the Master's Throne.
Stone of Admiral is Home.
Source is Stone of Excaliper and Magnificent Respect.
One rolls on the floor in a GONE, in hell (AGONY).
One rolls on the floor in a MUSE, in heaven (AMUSEMENT).
Muses muse gones.
A gone is an agonizing wrong. Fargone into agony.
For every agony there is a gone.
For every gone there is a muse and a wrong.
The search for justice in time stone, is
The search for jestice in joke stone, is
The search for fancy free majesty in jem stone, is
The search for unformed magnificence in pride stone, is
The search for live high beauty in home stone, is
The search for eternal omni awesome peace in source.
Time stone is high romance and daring do.
Joke stone is high halcyon and high appreciation for ludicrous
demise, bemused relief on the verge of time.
Jem stone is high thrill and fantasy in the wild beyond.
Thrill is always the effort to get lost, romance is always the
effort to get home.
Pride stone is unformed magnificence.
Home stone is admiral, live high beauty.
Foundation is stone of Excaliper. (Warm fire of peace.)
Worship time stone.
Smoke joke stone.
Generate and value jem stone.
Magnify and make manifest pride stone.
Admire (stay) home stoned.
Idol stone of Excaliper."- Adore on a more playful day.
> just went in the direction he felt was right. I on the other hand
> didn't want to get more lost so I backtracked to JC Penney's and
> reconstructed step by step the way back (the way out is the way in)
> until I reached familiar territory. I knew my way would work. He
> operated as a free spirit and wanted me to trust his judgement. I
> thought he was being a stubborn idiot while I was being scientific. He
> claimed he beat me home and he probably did. The moral of the story?
> Everyone has their own path? Carry a map?
Both were right. Who knows who beat who.
Homer
Sun Mar 28 03:09:04 EDT 2010
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Dec 15 12:00:04 EST 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore736.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)
iD8DBQFcFTMVURT1lqxE3HERAhw5AJ48kNPf7izqzCWlY6Vx2CA2Jgg1/gCfbgPm
zVGUvPjt0Gw6idqRFjQQyGI=
=jfAW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)