OUT GOING CAUSE AND IN COMING CAUSE
MCT - 1
13 December 1993
Copyright (C) 1993 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
> (If you hadn't noticed, I'm not convinced that certainty is
>absolute rather than relative.)
Fine let's accept a relative scale of certainty.
I submit that there is NO reason whatsoever to conclude that there
is cause connecting any two events that can be gleaned from merely
observing those events no matter how often they follow each other.
Correlation does not absolutely imply causation.
All a machine could do was model an intervening series of
followingnesses to 'explain' the two events that gave predictable
results, but the concept of cause would never enter into it.
Cause is something we perceive directly with consciousness in
ourselves, so we anthropomorphize and assume there is cause between
external events too.
THE CONCEPT OF CAUSE CAME FROM THE DIRECT OBSERVATION BY
CONSCIOUSNESS OF ITSELF! Not from some external observation as no
external observation can be of cause, only of the change in state that
the implied cause was responsible for.
It is this ability of consciousness to observe cause directly that
is what a machine can not do.
Learning about the existence of cause with certainty is impossible
for a space time machine. Those who deny the existence of certainty are
denying their certain knowledge of their own causation as an operating
responsible being.
You can not have your cake and eat it too. You can not say there
is no certainty of anything and then claim to be a certainly responsible
man.
Denial of certainty is essentially denial of certainty of
responsibility.
For any observed followingness in the external physical universe
between two events, there are always at least two equally possible
models to 'explain' it. The first is that there is direct cause between
the two events, and the second is that there is a third party causing
both events to happen sequentially in such a way as to make it look like
there was direct cause between the two events.
This we call the 'Causal Third Party Law', not to be confused with
Hubbard's third party law of people saying bad things about each other.
This can be diagramed with a 'flow of cause' diagram using 'cause
lines' to delineate the flow of cause.
In one case B follows A and is caused directly by A. This is
diagramed with,
A --------> B
In the other case B follows A because C causes both A and B to
happen to make it look like A caused B. This is diagrammed like,
A B
^ ^
\ /
\ /
\ /
C
Computer games are an example of how a 3rd party, the computer,
projects apparent cause on the screen by making the little light
pictures bounce off of each other and explode when hit by other light
pictures. There is NO CAUSE taking place between objects on the screen.
As an aside, I submit that the apparency of the physical universe
is such a computer arcade projection in our conscious color form.
One can say that this 3rd party theory is a more complex theory
than just assuming direct cause between observed events, and in the
sense that there is a third party, this is correct, so one would expect
or hope to find reason to support the more complex theory.
Just notice that in dreams where I knew I was dreaming, I have
bounced tennis balls off of walls to see if they were solid and worked
like 'real walls', and indeed they did. And clearly in a dream the ball
bounces of of the wall because of a third party, as the ball and wall
are merely mockups and have no external causally agent actuality
associated with them.
I could just have easily had the ball go right through the wall in
the dream merely by changing my mind about the solidity of the wall, so
clearly the wall and the ball in the dream have no cause of their own
when it comes to why the ball bounces off the wall. This is classic
example of a 3rd causal party operating to make a virtual universe
function like a real universe.
By the way I had an interesting lucid dream the other night. I
found my self dreaming in an area I did not recognize, as far as I could
remember I had never seen or been there before, in dreams, in waking
life or in past lives. So who knows whose picture it was.
I have taken to trying not to waste these times, and I have spent
many hours thinking about what I should audit or think about during
these lucid dreams, because often they are just solid as a rock, and
nothing of interest happens, I just wander up and down lonely corridors
peeking into empty rooms and offices. I figure if I could just remember
the right subject I could stir up some interesting encounters with my
past or whatever.
Sometimes I run into BT's and things, you know blobs of goo
floating or rolling along the floor leaving slime trails, and making
faces at me or trying to distract me from what ever I am trying to do
like fly or feel up some girl.
Feelable girls are real scarce in my dreams, a reflection of my
life and my childhood, and of the kind of girl I was in many past lives.
So in this dream I started listing what I might think about to see
if it caused any effects in the dream. Suddenly I came up with the idea
of making myself younger. I looked around for a mirror, but there was
none to be found, so I MADE ONE appear merely by demanding it do so. It
was unstable for a moment, but I looked away from it for a moment and
when I looked back, it was clear and stable.
In the mirror was an image of me, but actually it was NOT what I
look like now or this life, similar but not really the same. Usually in
mirrors I look like me in this life, or I look like something I
recognize from past lives, but this image was just an image, not really
one I had seen before.
So I said, ok now you will become younger, and the image in the
mirror did indeed change to a younger me. I did this a few more times
and the image finally stuck at about 17 years old, I could not get it to
go any younger. I got frustrated and again started listing for what I
might do with this mirror. Then I said, I know, I will become a girl!
A solution to the scarcity of feelies no doubt.
Suddenly there I was in the mirror, a 17 year old girl, tits and
everything, actually kind of cute, but the front teeth were ever so
slightly too big. I did not recognize the image, either from this life
or a past life. So again I don't know whose image it was or where I got
it from. Lots of BT's around I guess.
Later that night I had another dream, this time with my mother.
Now you know me and my mother, we are like cats and dogs, but in this
dream my mother was very young and very beautiful, and she was being a
really decent person, and she was concerned about my well being and we
started to talk about my case and auditing and what I had been running
recently.
I showed her an injury I had when I was a kid, a badly cut finger
that needed stitches which is one of the key incidents on my case,
involving her and my extreme distaste for her, and she took my hand in
her hand and looked at the injury and expressed sadness and surprise
because she did not remember my getting the cut.
Then she started telling me how sorry she was for an engram that I
had received as a baby during the first year of my life, apparently some
kids at a beach were dropping me in the sand and smashing my head into
the sand for fun. This startled me because I had never conceived of
such an engram. It is still not real to me, but my love for my mother
was very strong. I accepted her apology and woke up.
I can still feel love and emotion for this ideal archetypal mother.
No doubt Margaret was really like that before HER upbringing brought her
to ruin.
Now I NEVER dream about my mother, maybe 5 times in my whole life,
and the last 3 times have been in the past 2 months. This is because
the charge on my mother is some of the hardest charge to confront having
to with death and hell and the whole mess I have been writing about. So
clearly someone is making case gain around here.
>
>HS> ... Machines can observe EFFECTS, Conscious Units can observe the
> > CAUSE BETWEEN EFFECTS.
>
>I understand this assertion about machines. I await your demonstration
>of the assertion about Conscious Units; i.e. "Looking at Cause."
Are you aware of the existence of cause within yourself?
When you move your arm, is the movement of your arm CAUSALLY
connected to your volition to move it, and is your volition to move it
causally connected to your desire to move it?
Can you determine the answer to this question by observing the
three events, desire to move the arm, the volition to move the arm, and
the moving of the arm?
Are these proclaimed causal connections merely surmised and modeled
theories created to explain the apparent followingness, or can you see
for sure that there is cause between your desire and your arm moving?
That is Out Going cause, between you and a change in your color
form.
Here is another example of Out Going cause.
Making a mental image picture is creating color form. When you
make a mockup of an apple in your mind's eye, how clear it is? Can you
hallucinate an apple totally solid so that by observation alone you can
not tell it from the 'real' thing? Can you do this in self aware
dreams? Can you make it so solid that you can feel its color weight and
temperature, and take a bite out of it and taste the cold apple against
your tongue and the bitter sweet taste and smell?
While you are making that apple, can you directly observe that the
creation of that apple is causally related to your prior desire and
present volition to create that apple?
Or does the appearance of the apple in your conscious color-form,
your mind's eye, merely follow the appearance of your desire and
volition with no clear directly observable causal connection?
Is there a third party, such as God, waiting until you desire to
make an apple and then He makes it for you? If not, are you sure not?
Are YOU responsible for the apple, or do you merely desire it and
something else creates it for you? Even if something else creates it
for you, can you observe directly and personally that this something
else is doing so BECAUSE you want it to, even if only because it wants
to?
Is there any directly observable causal connection between wanting
an apple to appear, and the apple appearing?
Do you ever have images come to you that you are NOT able to
directly or easily see the causal connection of the appearance of the
image to your desire? Do you have images come to you INSPITE of your
desire? Is the image of the physical universe itself such an image
which is observed to impinge on you inspite of or without invitation by
your desire?
There is also In Coming cause.
Now In Coming cause is NOT from other beings, it is ONLY from your
own conscious color-form back to yourself, it is what allows you to
check out that what you wanted to create actually got created. In
Coming cause IS the process of perception of color form.
Notice we are not talking about light or photons or any other of
that external physical universe nonsense, we are talking about
perceiving conscious color-form, just like you do in a dream.
Self luminous color form is what you see around you when you 'open'
your eyes and look, or when you imagine something, or what you see in
dreams. It is color in apparent space and time, and is used to
symbolize and refer to the implied external physical universe which may
or may not be out there. The color form is certainly there.
Say you desire to visualize (create) a color-form of two different
colors. There is the idea 'different' in your mind which is it self not
a color or a visualization of a color.
Then you create a mockup in front of you that is one half yellow
and one half red. Do you see the yellow color-form next to the red-
color form? Is the appearance of the two toned color form causally
related to your desire to see a two toned color form of two different
colors? Are you perfectly certain? If yes, then that is certainty of
Out Going cause.
But now, how do you know that what you WANTED to create actually
got created? By looking at the color form you can tell if two different
colors got created. That is CERTAINTY OF IN COMING CAUSE and is the
'checking it out process'.
Can you see IN THE CONSCIOUS SELF LUMINOUS NATURE OF THE MOCKUP
ITSELF that IT IS CAUSE of you knowing that is it there and that indeed
it has two colors?
We have two events here that follow each other. The color form
appears in your view is the first event. You know it has two colors is
the second event. We are doing this in a dream so there are no photons
to worry about, just you and your color form and direct perception by
self of its color form.
Here is the question. Is the existence of the color form in your
view, and the fact that you are looking at it, in any way causally
connected to your coming to know that it has two colors?
Maybe a third party is making the color form have 2 colors and
making you 'know' it has 2 colors so, yes you are right, but it could
just as easily given you false data, and you would never know.
Do you know for sure what you know about the color of your color
form?
Can you see that your knowledge that the color form has two colors
is directly and causally connected to the nature of the color form which
has two colors?
Can you see that there is NOT a third party orchestrating the two
events of 1) color form existing and 2) your knowledge about the color
of the color form?
Can you see that your knowledge of the color form is certain and
can not be wrong because you are in direct contact with the color form
as DIRECT CAUSE of your knowledge that it has two colors?
Can you see it's CAUSE?
Can you see it CAUSING you to know it has two colors, red and
yellow?
This is certainty of In Coming cause, perception.
So there are only two kinds of cause that a CU can be certain of.
Both are related to self and creation and perception of creation.
Out going cause is related to self and creation of color form.
In Coming cause is related to self and perception of color form.
The first is certainty of Out Going cause between self/desire and
the color forms that the self creates. The existence of the created
color-form is causally connected to the volition of the self to create
the color form.
This causal train from self through desire to created color form is
directly perceivable WITH CERTAINTY by the self to be CAUSATION AND NOT
MERELY FOLLOWINGNESS OR EVENT CORRELATION.
The second certainty of cause is the In Coming cause of the self
learning about and verifying or checking out that what it wanted to
create it actually created. This IS the process by which we perceive
our own color forms.
There are really only two causes operating here. The first is the
Out Going causation called creation (or change) of color-form. The
second is In Coming causation called perception of color-form.
Color-form by the way includes any conscious experience, be it
visual, auditory, tactile, the 52 perceptions of Dianetics, etc.
Both the Out Going cause of creation of color-form and the In
Coming cause of perception of color form can be directly observed to be
CAUSAL with certainty.
There is certainly NO third party between your looking at a color
form and knowing what its shape and color are, you can SEE that your
knowledge about it's color comes directly from SEEING it's color.
This is looking at cause, not looking at some effect it has had in
you and computing back to what its color must be like to create that
effect, which is what a machine does.
You can see that the color of the color-form is CAUSALLY
responsible for you being able to know its color and to know if it is
different from some other color near by.
You can see the LIVING CAUSE IN IT as it causes you to SEE it!
You see most people are used to looking at their color form to see
what its color is, but they are NOT used to looking at their color form
to see that it is CAUSALLY AGENT in the process of coming to know what
color it is. That is because most people are basically asleep.
They are looking at their color form to know what's going on in the
implied physical universe, not to know about the nature of color form
itself.
It never occurs to them that the fact that they can see cause in
color form with certainty means they are not a space time machine.
The process of learning by looking at cause can not happen in a
space time continuum. Thus all INTRA conscious processes of certainty
do not involve space or time. There is no space or time between the
self and its color form. The image LOOKS 3D, but it is actually 0
dimensional.
There is no time between the event of a color form appearing and
the event of seeing it, because SEEING IS APPEARING.
There is no space between the event of a color form and the event
of the self coming to know how many colors it has, because if there were
space between self and its color forms, self could never see them, it
could only impute them from effects they might have in self.
Logically deducing what color something would have to be OVER
THERE, in order to have this effect OVER HERE, is not the same as being
able to see the color there. Since you can't see across a distance or
across a time directly, if you ARE seeing something directly there can
be no space and time between what is seen and what is doing the seeing.
Self and color form are one.
You are actually looking at yourself when you look at the world.
>HS> Direct perception of cause is almost magical in nature compared
> > to the mechanics of machines, and is the sole purview of a true
> > conscious unit.
>
>I do not have certainty on the existence of direct perception of cause.
Then you can not have certainty of the existence of cause.
This if fine.
>HS> Let's start with,
> >
> > SOMETHING EXISTS WHICH IS NOT A NOTHING.
>
>Okay. Granted. Next?
Granted what? Granted that maybe this is true, or granted that
certainly this is true? Would you bet your Eternity in Hell that this
is true? (If you say yes, and you are wrong, you go to Hell forever.
It's a good but not perfect check on one's certainty on a matter.)
>
>TG> When you are wrong, your absolute certainty is not perfect.
>
>HS> Absolute certainty can not be wrong.
>
>If you propose that this is true by definition, then I suspect that
>Conscious Units in a physical body cannot possess absolute certainty as
>defined.
Fine, but by your own statement you can not be sure of this.
Therefore you might be wrong. Right? If you're wrong, then maybe I am
right and such absolute certainty is maybe possible.
Saying there is no certainty merely invalidates the surety of
everything you say afterwards including your original statement there is
no certainty.
"THERE IS NO CERTAINTY" = "MAYBE THERE IS CERTAINTY"
The statement 'There is no certainty' is itself unsure by its own
statement, so maybe it is wrong, so maybe there IS certainty.
Certainly.
If maybe there is certainty, then the only way to find out is to
OBSERVE and see if you see any.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Oct 29 06:06:02 EDT 2019
FTP://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/mct/mct1.memo
WWW://www.clearing.org
BLOG://adoretheproof.blogspot.comSend mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
_______________________________________________
Clear-L mailing list
Clear-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/clear-l
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
No comments:
Post a Comment