-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
NO CHANGE AND CHANGE AGAIN
02/23/20 Sunday 4:05pm EST
Addendum to
NEED FOR NO CHANGE AND NEED FOR SOME CHANGE
http://www.clearing.org/archive?/homer/ador1054,memo
If you are having trouble running NO CHANGE AND SOME CHANGE try the
following.
Conceive:
ENFORCED NO CHANGE
REFUSED SOME CHANGE
End Phenomenon E/P:
Awareness that change is available and ought to be
continued.
VGI'a, very good indicators.
Tone Arm no longer stuck high, and needle loose.
No longer need to call F/Nish Floating Needles above TA = 3.0
in order to pretend a correct process has been run flat.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth, and Peace, Internet, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Sun Feb 23 16:11:57 EST 2020
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/ador1056.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning but
Not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFeUuqdURT1lqxE3HERAvcxAKCACBg8NsTSGxOpMoDM2x8Hv/5+zQCgzRac
0hZ0s31ZgnePqkgMF1ZSwsg=
=ptHO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Sunday, February 23, 2020
Saturday, February 15, 2020
ADORE806 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
10/09/10 Saturday 8:26pm EST
12/08/16 Thursday 4:56pm EST
C/S FOR ROLAND II, Part 3
Roland Berry experienced an exteriorization with full perception
during routine auditing ca. 1999 and wrote up his experiences to the
net.
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/homer/roland0.memo
Not only did he experience a full exteriorization, he WENT exterior
on the exact right buttons laid out by LRH in the 50's, namely,
affinity, nosympathy, sympathy, propitiation, BEING a body.
Apparently however, over time Roland lost reality on his own
experience, and started to publicly berate auditing, dianetics, and
scientology, started demanding proof etc, and eventually became one of
the biggest meatball basher assholes in the history of the net.
Eventually I kind of had it with him, feeling that his direct
experience of something man as longed for, for thousands of years, was
wasted on a useless pinheaded nitwit.
So I started to write up a set of postings detailing a C/S for him
to rehab his experience and get certainty back on the subjects of
dianetics and scientology.
(A C/S is a program of auditing written by a preclear's Case
Supervisor in order to handle the next step in auditing or to repair a
prior step gone wrong.)
These postings are here:
C/S FOR ROLAND
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/homer/roland
C/S FOR ROLAND II Part 1
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/homer/adore615.memo
C/S FOR ROLAND II Part 2
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/homer/adore616.memo
This posting continues where the last one left off, and was
inspired by ADORE86.memo which was recently posted to the net.
ADORE86.memo
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/homer/adore86.memo
We have come a long ways since ADORE86.memo and I can now speak to
some of the problems mentioned there, mostly the unrunability and
unauditability of some items, particularly solo.
QUESTION AND ANSWERS
The first important advance is a better understanding of the nature
of Questions and Answers and the effect they have on a case, something
mentioned in detail in adore86.memo, without full awareness of just how
right it was.
I have gone into this in endless detail in recent postings, so I
will sum it up by saying that the target of auditing is an incident.
An incident is *DEFINED* as a run in with a question causing a
persistence via a prior postulate or consideration that 'things do not
vanish on their own'. The question is usually of the form 'what to do
about it' or one of its many endless variety.
The question "what to DO about it" bypasses the earlier charge on
the prior postulate (called a God Postulate because it works) by putting
the preclear's attention on the future where 'doing something about it'
is hoped to have vanished the problem with the original condition.
So we have in time order:
Condition, failure of some kind.
Postulate that the condition is not caused by a postulate and thus
no postulate can be vanished to handle it.
Question: What to DO about it, where DO is defined as futher
creations of effort in the future to destroy or ameliorate the now
persisting condition.
Answers galore, each one creating solutions to the original problem
which then become problems themselves inviting more questions about what
to DO about them etc, forever.
The above cycle violates the basic truth that one can never vanish
a creation by creating something MORE in the future.
The exact prior condition, failure, postulate and consideration
followed by the exact question and pursuant answers and actions and
estimated future time to solution, need to be recovered to fully erase
the incident.
A Postulate is a posted beingness, something that is there because
you say it is there and you are looking at it. It is looking by knowing
or
KNOWING -> LOOKING (Looking by Knowing)
Know first, see second. Knowing gives rise to looking.
Imagination works this way, things are created to look at in the
very conception of them?
Looking by Knowing is contrasted to Knowing by Looking, or
learning.
LOOKING -> KNOWING (Knowing by Looking).
Look first, know second. Looking gives rise to knowing.
Observations of the physical universe work this way.
A consideration is the postulation of a relationship between two or
more posted beingnesses.
Postulate: This is a cigarette
Postulate: This is an ashtray
Consideration: Ashtrays are used to hold cigarette ashes.
Postulation and consideration are often used interchangeably to
little harm, but in truth considerations are a subset of postulates, as
they are postulates that relate two other standalone postulates to each
other.
Consideration comes from CON SIDE, to put together, or to relate
two standalone postulates to each other.
The consideration that posted things are not self vanishing,
becomes part of a God postulate conglomerate because things ARE self
vanishing until the preclear gets the consideration they aren't.
Thus the God postulate that postulates do not work, works.
The God postulate that we need something ELSE or MORE than just
upostulating creates then the entire future time track of problems
begetting solutions becoming problems begetting more solutions.
Later in time observation of the now unwanted posted beingness
still persisting in time, is then used as evidence to the effect that
things are indeed not self vanishing, and away we go down the time
track.
Thus consideration and observation are dicoms.
The consideration that things do not vanish on their own, plus the
*LATER* observation that things do seem to be persisting on their own to
back it up, is known as the Consideration/Observation flip flop.
Consideration is cause and means I consider it is there, therefore
it is there. That's looking by knowing. Knowing is cause, and looking
is effect.
Observation is effect and means I consider it is there, BECAUSE I
looked and observed it was there. That's knowing by looking, or
learning. Looking is cause and knowing is effect gleaned from looking.
Consideration is 'It is there because I consider it is there.'
Observation is 'I consider it is there because I observe it is
there.'
Consideration says that consideration is cause, until it says LATER
that consideration is not cause.
Observation agrees that consideration is not cause, and provides
evidence that consideration is instead the effect of something already
existing before it was observed or even known to exist.
The observation of the continued persistence of the thing provides
evidence for the truth of the (false) consideration that things do not
vanish on their own, and thus he proves himself into a persisting trap.
LATER observations of persistence are used as conclusive proof
that the persistence was not caused by a self vanishing postulate
in the first place.
This is HOW self vanishing postulates are made to persist!
Things do not vanish on their own because he considers that things
do not vanish on their own, and his observation of those things
persisting verifies it for him that things do not vanish on their own.
So now he has happily verified that he is stuck with a persistence
forever, because things which persist, persist, and that is all there is
to it.
Try to knock out time sometime, and see how far you get.
So there.
Time is the ultimate persisting 'thing'.
He goes from a self vanishing postulate to a consideration that it
won't vanish, to an observation of it persisting, to a an unwanted
persistence, to a question about what to do about it.
This produces a locked down persistence and travels in time away
from the original postulate which in the end is the source of the whole
travail.
Let's do this again for posterities sake.
There are two phases to the consideration/observation flip flop.
In phase A the being is going, there is a pink elephant,
there is a pink elephant, there is a pink elephant, and so he has
a non self persisting pink elephant because he keeps putting it there
as fast as it can self vanish.
But he know that the pink elephant is there BECAUSE he knows
the pink elephant is there.
He is thinking,
I see a pink elephant, knowingness creates beingness.
BUt then he goes I
It is the question that locks it all down into persistence with Q&A
away from pure as-isness of the original postulate.
Vanishing something through as-isness of its original moment of
creation is NOT asking a question about what to do about it.
You see?
Question asking is death when it comes to trying to vanish
something that was created but now is no longer wanted.
The correct way to vanish anything created thing is to be at the
moment of its original creation, be creating it again, and let go of it,
minus all the consideratorial nonsense about things not vanishing on
their own, and especially minus all the question asking about what to do
about its persistence.
Formally we say that the question and answer that he comes up with
(to DO something about it) commits efforts to the idea that the original
postulate won't vanish on his own. The more he DOES to solve that
persistence, the more he commits to the consideration it is not self
vanishing.
Until he has committed effort to solving the unwanted postulate,
his second postulate that the first one won't just vanish on its own is
still tenuous.
He could still flip back to the moment of creation and
let go, not enough time has passed to confuse things.
And it's 'light time' between the postulate and the consideration
it won't vanish, unlike the heavy time that gets created once he gets
into question asking and using effort to make the original postulate not
be any more through change, destruction and outright not-isness.
Once he commits to effort, he *COMMITS* to time and pursuit and he
moves further and further away from as-isness of the original postulate,
thus making it more and more impossible to as-is and vanish.
As-isness of the original postulate exists only at the moment
of original creation.
The further in time he goes away from that moment the more
he has traveled into alter-isness and thus persisting is-ness,
and eventually not-isness.
Q&A stands for Question and Answer, but means veering off course
into new questions without having dealt with the first one.
Such a person starting off at A going to B, has trouble going to B,
so he goes to C. But then he has trouble going to C and so starts for
D. He NEVER gets anywhere he intends to go, but is ALWAYS continuing to
go somewhere new, never getting there either.
No rest, never arrives.
This is a Q&A artist. Every time he changes course he creates
trails of persistence behind him. Eventually he gets buried in them.
Thus the structure of a God postulate is like this:
Postulate -> Consideration -> Observation -> Question -> Answer ->
pursuit and execution of answer via effort in time.
Effort and pursuit creates time, chase and eventual total failure
to vanish an unwanted persistence.
Since the way out is the original way in, the more TIME a being
spends looking for a way out, the further he gets from the original way
in.
Time is a practical joke of magnitude.
NO AND SOME
The second important advance is an understanding of NO and SOME and
how to run them.
The problem with almost all of Church auditing is it only assesses
for and runs the SOME and ignores the NO.
So you ask for 'Hate?' and there is no read, but the auditor
doesn't ask for 'NO Hate?' and so they miss the item entirely.
The problem is worse though, you have to assess for NO hate first!
And if perchance 'Hate' read, you would have to start running NO
hate anyhow right off, because the hate already has flowed in the
original assessment and NO hate is waiting to run next.
If you lose sync between NO and SOME, the item will dry up and
never read again.
If you assess or run the NO item first, the SOME item will then
read and run. For a while. Then you have to go back to the NO item,
then the SOME item again, back and forth and stay in SYNC with the flows
that are happening.
So what happens is after hundreds of hours of normal auditing, all
the isness side of the preclear's items are pretty well flattened as far
as they could be, but the not-isness side of those same items has been
left restimulated but not pulled.
This acts as a missed withhold, creates an ARC break and results in
a blow, leaving the session, leaving auditing, and leaving the Church
who 'couldn't pull a missed withhold if their lives depended on it'.
The SOME item isn't the withhold! The NO item is.
SOME item, some lying, some cheating, some stealing, some murder,
some death, damnation and demise, who cares. If the preclear knows
about it or can access it easily, it just doesn't amount to a hill of
beans no matter how many people are missing it, or he isn't talking to
them about it.
You can run this kind of 'Has a withhold been missed?' forever, and
the preclear will just go lower and lower and lower until you don't have
a preclear any more.
He's taken up dealing drugs in Bangladesh, you see?
But ask him 'Is there a NO missed withhold?' and watch what
happens.
Standard Tech tries to do this with Suppressed and Invalidated, but
neither of them are NO.
And neither are the 20 other items on the standard prepcheck
list, all of which try to mean NO without being NO!
Prepcheck means checking preperatory to clearing and are used
heavily to get a preclear into session and do simply Life Repairs etc.
THE PREPCHECK BUTTONS
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/electra/exm10.memo
The first set of buttons are the standard tech buttons, the rest
were added by the Freezone later, although all are part of LRH tech
in some measure or another.
Talk about missing or bypassing an entire case.
It's not enough to have written the right thing in some corner of a
book, where its importance is completely bypassed or missed.
So its kind of built into their tech, not intentionally, but the
result is the same, NO tech, NO preclears, NO auditing, NO wins and NO
Church.
Here is what happens. Your preclear has interiorized and
exteriorized thousands of times along the whole track, into bodies, out
of bodies, into groups, out of groups, into objects, out of objects,
into memories, out of memories, into universes, out of universe. Just
on and on and on.
50 percent of these are on the isness side of his case, if you ask
him about it, there it is and he will tell you about it. He may have to
dig for it, its charged, he doesn't want to talk about it, but he can
get at it.
The other 50 percent of these are on the not-isness side of his
case, and if you ask him about it, he will give you a blank stare, say
'What exteriorization?' and take a loss.
HE CAN'T GET AT A NO ITEM WITHOUT RUNNING NO ITEM!
Dig it and don't leave it.
He can't contact the not-ised exteriorizations, because they are
not-ised, covered in black, mass and charge, BUT HE CAN CONTACT THE NOT
IS!
The not-is is right there in front of his face.
So instead of saying to him 'Tell me about an exteriorization', you
say instead 'Tell me about NO exteriorization.'
Now you might ask, if he can't contact the exteriorization because
it is not-ised, how can he tell you about it, and guess what, you would
be 100 percent right.
WE DO NOT WANT HIM TO TELL US ABOUT THE EXTERIORIZATION, WE WANT
HIM TO TELL US ABOUT THE NO SITTING ON TOP OF THE EXTERIORIZATION.
Now remember NO means pretended no, remember the CDEINR scale.
Curious about, Desire, Enforce, Inhibit, NO, Refused.
If there were truly a no exteriorization, then the needle would
float as there is nothing there to run.
But if its a not-ised exteriorization then the needle will stop and
fall and get dirty and dance the polka, whistle dixie, play Beethoven's
5th, and the pc will still say 'nothing there'.
He's lying of course, but its what appears to him as the truth, he
can't get at it, and he is totally not sure it is there.
That's because the way to get inside a not-isness is NOT to look
real hard into the darkness and hope to see what is behind it, in it, or
under it. THAT DOES NOT WORK.
A preclear can out not-is himself all day long, for the rest of
time, forever for free.
THE STATIC IS AN EXPERT AT CREATING LOSS AS LOSS AND NOT HAVING IS
WHAT IT CREATES!
Source sources what Source is not.
What source is not is time.
Time is having, via chase and not having.
Thus time is 100 percent wanting and not having and hoping
to get via committed effort.
Believe me SOURCE HAS.
And what Source has is the ability to not have.
Not-isness is a form of pretending to not have what you actually
have, the few times Source messes up and you actually have it!
That's a joke, actually not-isness is often used against
things you have that you don't want, Source is good at that too.
Thus the way to deal with a not-isness is MAKE MORE NOT-ISNESS!
It doesn't matter what is under the not-isness, maybe its an
exteriorization, maybe its not, maybe its beautiful, maybe its ugly, but
once he contacts the not-isness, AS NOT-ISNESS, it will start to run,
flow and lift. Then whatever is under it will in due time become
visible.
Of course he will just shut it out again, but now the jig is up,
now he KNOWS he is not-ising it and will keep control over the matter
for a while.
Now again you might ask, well if he is not-ising the
exteriorization, or what ever item you are asking for, how does he know
that the not-isness he is running is THAT particular not-isness?
Good question. The answer is, it doesn't matter, whatever
not-isness he ends up running is THE not-isness that he needs to run,
next, and if its not an exteriorization under it, but a pink elephant,
well then you probably should be running pink elephants anyhow, instead
of exteriorization.
Running the not-isness will tell you in the end what isness you
should be running.
But really if exteriorization is the next item that needs to be
run, and you ask for NO exteriorization, the file clerk will be damn
sure to hand it to your preclear, because he is sitting in the NO as the
next layer of blackness to be as-ised.
(The file clerk is a Dianetic mechanism that hands the preclear the
next incident necessary to resolve his case, if asked to do so by the
auditor.)
If you don't believe in the file clerk, then believe in yourself,
if the item you are running is truly the next correct item to run, then
the NO item will blow off with complete certainty and amazement, and
will allow the SOME item to continue to run.
Now look this is important, I am not making a big deal over this
for nothing, NO and SOME are the make break between a running case and a
pissed off pc.
Remember in the old days you were told that an ARC broken pc won't
read on the meter?
In fact an ARC broken pc will not read on a meter so much that his
needle will float!
That's called an ARC break float, and must never, ever, ever be
confused with a true float which results from VGI's (very good
indicators) smiling, laughing, cogniting, going WOW! this is great etc.
So why doesn't an ARC broken pc read on a meter?
There he is sitting in front of you, kind of dead, maybe glum or
glowering, and you say,
"Is there an ARC break?"
Well you know not to take up non reading items, but just in case
you also check,
"On the question is there an ARC break, has anything been
Suppressed?"
"On the question, is there an ARC break, has anything been
Invalidated?"
But nothing reads, so the auditor goes on. He writes down there is
no read, but ALSO NO FLOAT, so he knows he is going to have to come back
to it sooner or later, perhaps after he has messed up the preclear more
with present time problems and withholds.
BUT HOW CAN ASKING FOR AN ARC BREAK READ, IF ARC BROKEN PRECLEARS
DON'T READ ON THE METER!?
Sometimes you have to put the meter away, and audit what you see in
front of you, "You LOOK ARC broken dude, so tell me about it whether you
are or not!", but let's take a deeper look at this.
Say the ARC break did read, and Goober says yeah, I am ARC broke
with Dufus.
So now you know that ARC is made of Affinity, Reality and
Communication, so somewhere Goober got pissed off or sad about Dufus and
went out of affinity, out of agreement (reality) or out of
communication, certainly all 3, but maybe one more than the other.
So you start to assess for which was it mostly, was it affinity,
was it reality, was it communication?
Goober says "Oh yes, its reality, Dufus thinks global warming is
all a bunch of bunk invented by the greenies to stop our God given
rights to produce and conquer the Earth!"
You say 'Thank you, now let's find out just how ARC broken
you are by that reality.'
Was it a curious about a reality?
Was it a desired reality?
Was it an enforced reality?
Was it an inhibited reality?
Was is a NO reality?
Was it a refused reality?
Goober says, "Oh yeah it was an enforced reality, he was pushing it
so hard, making cracks about anyone who disagreed with him, insulting
anyone who brought up data about it etc."
You say "Thank you, was there an earlier similar ARC break?"
and away you go to finish the ruds with a floating needle before
you begin session proper.
(Ruds are rudiments before starting a session, cleaning up ARC
breaks, Present Time Problems (PTP's) and missed Withholds.)
But now let's take a different example.
An ARC break consists of Affinity, Reality and Communication where
each of the 3 legs is somewhere on the CDEINR scale.
So say instead Goober happens to have an ARC break of long duration
where EACH OF THE LEGS IS DOWN AT NO!
NO affinity, NO reality, NO communication.
So you ask Goober "Is there an ARC break?" and he just looks at
you, and says NO, and the needle does not read nor float, and session
goes no where.
So you get this evil grin on your face, you put on your atomic
protective clothing, you stand back a few feet from the meter, you get
your preclear's undivided attention, and you say,
"Goober is there a NO ARC break?"
Once the smoke has cleared, the fuses in the building replaced, and
you have a new e-meter, you will then find Goober more than willing and
interested to run,
"Get the idea of NO ARC break."
"Get the idea of SOME ARC break."
And you know he will be all smiles from there on out.
THE STRUCTURE OF NOT-IS
OK, there is one more thing that is important here.
Your average woggy on the street doesn't know he has a case.
He has a NO case.
He is completely oblivious to the fact that he has dicoms he is
dramatizing and their items, but that most of them are in a state of NO
item.
(A dicom is a DIchotomy of Comparable but Opposite Magnitude).
He knows he gets mad once in a while or sad, but he has not the
faintest slightest clue that these are but fumaroles blowing off steam
on the side of a NO volcano of charge, emotion, grief, anguish, turmoil
and eternal hell forever.
That's why he is mortal in his own mind, that's a kind of NO
Immortality, NO hell forever, NO thank God!
Now a well trained preclear will understand after a few hours of
auditing that he has many SOME items and many NO items. All it takes is
finding one NO item and he's hooked on finding more, the relief is so
great.
So this preclear is now living with SOME SOME items, and SOME NO
ITEMS, and he is happy with that.
But the unaudited woggy doesn't know this, he is living with NO
SOME items, and NO NO items!
He doesn't know that he doesn't know, that's a NO NO item.
No if you think about it, if you really want to forget something,
you ALSO need to forget that you wanted to forget it!
Thus as soon as you create a NO item, you HAVE to create a NO NO
item to make the NO item stick, or else it will just come up to the
surface again the next time you sneeze.
But even the NO NO item won't stick forever, you have to forget
that too, so now you have a NO NO NO item. You see how this goes?
So in fact when a being gets dead serious about never knowing about
something never again, he creates an infinite regression of ... NO NO NO
NO item, which puts the power of the infinite behind that forgetfulness.
This infinite regression is part of what keeps time going, because
NO is another layer of effort committed to covering over the item, and
then covering over the covering over,etc forever.
As your preclear starts to run NO items, he will suddenly start to
contact the infinite regression and his time and space will rock and
start to expand significantly.
This can be dangerous, so watch it.
If your preclear goes wildly unstable, just continue to run NO and
SOME. He can stabilize anything with NO for a while, then SOME for a
while etc.
Remember also that at the craziest part of his core, the part that
really starts him swirling and swimming in dizziness, he is running both
NO *AND* SOME on the same item at the same time.
We used to talk about the poor guy who came to a fork in the
road and couldn't decide whether to go left or right. So eventually
he built a house at the fork, and decided to live there for
rest of his life.
He got stuck in an indecision, and yes building the house
was pure Q&A from getting on with going where he was going.
But he's not insane. He's stuck in an indecision to
go left *OR* go right.
The indecision is not only not insane, it isn't unethical
either, because its not illogical, and ethics is logic.
But his indecision is problematic in that his life stops
at that point and he does something else.
But imagine now that rather than settle for an unending
indecision to left or right, he makes a DECISION to go BOTH
left *AND* right.
Now he is insane, because he can't do that, and its not logical,
and thus it is unethical, and this is beginning of hysteria and all out
loss of control.
So just so is your preclear doing a item *AND* NOT item on various
things, he is also doing a NO *AND* SOME on both the item AND its
opposite.
NO *AND* SOME on love *AND* hate for mother.
This is the beginning of hysteria and insanity, because he can't
open and close the door at the same time, but the way to stabilize it is
to DO IT knowingly. Just get the idea of NO *AND* SOME of the item at
the same time, and it will stabilize and he can let go of it SLOWLY and
under control.
The destabilization comes from letting go of the nut and fruit
factory too fast.
He starts to feel unstable with all this hysteria energy swirling
around him, making his dizzy and nauseous, and he starts to panic and
starts asking questions "What should I do?!!!!" which is NOT what he
should do. He should get the idea of NO AND SOME item at the same time,
and keep doing that, and he will maintain control, and not die on you.
OK, so we didn't know all that back in adore86.memo.
That was hard won knowledge, I am lucky to be sitting here writing
this.
The important part is, that if you don't run the NO, the preclear
will start to fall into the NO anyhow and eventually blow.
(Blow means leave, leave his post, leave his friends, his auditor,
auditing, and eventually the Church).
Say you are running exteriorization, and you run it and you run it,
and the preclear exteriorizes, full perception, lights on bright in the
room even if the lights are off, moves out of his body, over across the
street, and sees all kinds of things, remote reports back and proves
each and every one of them, and then comes back into his body, and you
continue to run ext, ext, ext, ext.
Two weeks later, you are talking to this preclear and you say 'Hey
Goober I heard you exteriorized in session!"
Goober says "Yeah, well, I don't really believe in exteriorization,
there's all kinds of mental phenomenon that you really just can't say
whether its real or not."
And you say "What? What about all those things you saw outside and
could prove?"
And Goober says "Prove? Oh well, right, prove, can we talk about
this later? Thanks..."
See? Goober has had so much SOME exteriorization run that he is
now totally swamped in the missed wittholds of NO exteriorizations,
charge restimulated by auditing SOME, but not pulled by failing to run
NO.
So you grab Goober and put him back into session, and you ask him
"Tell me about NO exteriorization".
The room goes dark, blackness forever runs out and covers the
earth, and 3 hours later all the dark matter in the universe is glowing
bright, and he is so exteriorized you don't know which galaxy he is in,
or which time line.
So this is an important phenomenon. Particularly if you consider
that 'case gain' is an item, and what the consequences of failing to run
NO case gain will be to your clearing production line.
Not to mention what the consequences of failing to run NO
exteriorization on Roland will be to your future reputation in his field.
OK, take a break, donuts and coffee for everyone!
Homer
Sat Oct 9 20:51:05 EDT 2010
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Dec 8 12:06:02 EST 2016
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore806.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)
iD8DBQFYSZL7URT1lqxE3HERApMuAJ0bzfaQw5M7Wvne1XuTfKZve4YdSwCdHiX8
QHUE2ck/clKizuiMJSvjLts=
=yk+8
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Sun Jan 29 14:57:59 EST 2017
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Feb 14 12:00:04 EST 2020
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore806.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)
iD8DBQFeRtIVURT1lqxE3HERAntUAJ9BkMgclRFlqVq0hEnyvaW/45aFgACfdWjL
WZcqG63uU4jdV9KpXK2K6LE=
=Zwo5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
10/09/10 Saturday 8:26pm EST
12/08/16 Thursday 4:56pm EST
C/S FOR ROLAND II, Part 3
Roland Berry experienced an exteriorization with full perception
during routine auditing ca. 1999 and wrote up his experiences to the
net.
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/homer/roland0.memo
Not only did he experience a full exteriorization, he WENT exterior
on the exact right buttons laid out by LRH in the 50's, namely,
affinity, nosympathy, sympathy, propitiation, BEING a body.
Apparently however, over time Roland lost reality on his own
experience, and started to publicly berate auditing, dianetics, and
scientology, started demanding proof etc, and eventually became one of
the biggest meatball basher assholes in the history of the net.
Eventually I kind of had it with him, feeling that his direct
experience of something man as longed for, for thousands of years, was
wasted on a useless pinheaded nitwit.
So I started to write up a set of postings detailing a C/S for him
to rehab his experience and get certainty back on the subjects of
dianetics and scientology.
(A C/S is a program of auditing written by a preclear's Case
Supervisor in order to handle the next step in auditing or to repair a
prior step gone wrong.)
These postings are here:
C/S FOR ROLAND
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/homer/roland
C/S FOR ROLAND II Part 1
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/homer/adore615.memo
C/S FOR ROLAND II Part 2
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/homer/adore616.memo
This posting continues where the last one left off, and was
inspired by ADORE86.memo which was recently posted to the net.
ADORE86.memo
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/homer/adore86.memo
We have come a long ways since ADORE86.memo and I can now speak to
some of the problems mentioned there, mostly the unrunability and
unauditability of some items, particularly solo.
QUESTION AND ANSWERS
The first important advance is a better understanding of the nature
of Questions and Answers and the effect they have on a case, something
mentioned in detail in adore86.memo, without full awareness of just how
right it was.
I have gone into this in endless detail in recent postings, so I
will sum it up by saying that the target of auditing is an incident.
An incident is *DEFINED* as a run in with a question causing a
persistence via a prior postulate or consideration that 'things do not
vanish on their own'. The question is usually of the form 'what to do
about it' or one of its many endless variety.
The question "what to DO about it" bypasses the earlier charge on
the prior postulate (called a God Postulate because it works) by putting
the preclear's attention on the future where 'doing something about it'
is hoped to have vanished the problem with the original condition.
So we have in time order:
Condition, failure of some kind.
Postulate that the condition is not caused by a postulate and thus
no postulate can be vanished to handle it.
Question: What to DO about it, where DO is defined as futher
creations of effort in the future to destroy or ameliorate the now
persisting condition.
Answers galore, each one creating solutions to the original problem
which then become problems themselves inviting more questions about what
to DO about them etc, forever.
The above cycle violates the basic truth that one can never vanish
a creation by creating something MORE in the future.
The exact prior condition, failure, postulate and consideration
followed by the exact question and pursuant answers and actions and
estimated future time to solution, need to be recovered to fully erase
the incident.
A Postulate is a posted beingness, something that is there because
you say it is there and you are looking at it. It is looking by knowing
or
KNOWING -> LOOKING (Looking by Knowing)
Know first, see second. Knowing gives rise to looking.
Imagination works this way, things are created to look at in the
very conception of them?
Looking by Knowing is contrasted to Knowing by Looking, or
learning.
LOOKING -> KNOWING (Knowing by Looking).
Look first, know second. Looking gives rise to knowing.
Observations of the physical universe work this way.
A consideration is the postulation of a relationship between two or
more posted beingnesses.
Postulate: This is a cigarette
Postulate: This is an ashtray
Consideration: Ashtrays are used to hold cigarette ashes.
Postulation and consideration are often used interchangeably to
little harm, but in truth considerations are a subset of postulates, as
they are postulates that relate two other standalone postulates to each
other.
Consideration comes from CON SIDE, to put together, or to relate
two standalone postulates to each other.
The consideration that posted things are not self vanishing,
becomes part of a God postulate conglomerate because things ARE self
vanishing until the preclear gets the consideration they aren't.
Thus the God postulate that postulates do not work, works.
The God postulate that we need something ELSE or MORE than just
upostulating creates then the entire future time track of problems
begetting solutions becoming problems begetting more solutions.
Later in time observation of the now unwanted posted beingness
still persisting in time, is then used as evidence to the effect that
things are indeed not self vanishing, and away we go down the time
track.
Thus consideration and observation are dicoms.
The consideration that things do not vanish on their own, plus the
*LATER* observation that things do seem to be persisting on their own to
back it up, is known as the Consideration/Observation flip flop.
Consideration is cause and means I consider it is there, therefore
it is there. That's looking by knowing. Knowing is cause, and looking
is effect.
Observation is effect and means I consider it is there, BECAUSE I
looked and observed it was there. That's knowing by looking, or
learning. Looking is cause and knowing is effect gleaned from looking.
Consideration is 'It is there because I consider it is there.'
Observation is 'I consider it is there because I observe it is
there.'
Consideration says that consideration is cause, until it says LATER
that consideration is not cause.
Observation agrees that consideration is not cause, and provides
evidence that consideration is instead the effect of something already
existing before it was observed or even known to exist.
The observation of the continued persistence of the thing provides
evidence for the truth of the (false) consideration that things do not
vanish on their own, and thus he proves himself into a persisting trap.
LATER observations of persistence are used as conclusive proof
that the persistence was not caused by a self vanishing postulate
in the first place.
This is HOW self vanishing postulates are made to persist!
Things do not vanish on their own because he considers that things
do not vanish on their own, and his observation of those things
persisting verifies it for him that things do not vanish on their own.
So now he has happily verified that he is stuck with a persistence
forever, because things which persist, persist, and that is all there is
to it.
Try to knock out time sometime, and see how far you get.
So there.
Time is the ultimate persisting 'thing'.
He goes from a self vanishing postulate to a consideration that it
won't vanish, to an observation of it persisting, to a an unwanted
persistence, to a question about what to do about it.
This produces a locked down persistence and travels in time away
from the original postulate which in the end is the source of the whole
travail.
Let's do this again for posterities sake.
There are two phases to the consideration/observation flip flop.
In phase A the being is going, there is a pink elephant,
there is a pink elephant, there is a pink elephant, and so he has
a non self persisting pink elephant because he keeps putting it there
as fast as it can self vanish.
But he know that the pink elephant is there BECAUSE he knows
the pink elephant is there.
He is thinking,
I see a pink elephant, knowingness creates beingness.
BUt then he goes I
It is the question that locks it all down into persistence with Q&A
away from pure as-isness of the original postulate.
Vanishing something through as-isness of its original moment of
creation is NOT asking a question about what to do about it.
You see?
Question asking is death when it comes to trying to vanish
something that was created but now is no longer wanted.
The correct way to vanish anything created thing is to be at the
moment of its original creation, be creating it again, and let go of it,
minus all the consideratorial nonsense about things not vanishing on
their own, and especially minus all the question asking about what to do
about its persistence.
Formally we say that the question and answer that he comes up with
(to DO something about it) commits efforts to the idea that the original
postulate won't vanish on his own. The more he DOES to solve that
persistence, the more he commits to the consideration it is not self
vanishing.
Until he has committed effort to solving the unwanted postulate,
his second postulate that the first one won't just vanish on its own is
still tenuous.
He could still flip back to the moment of creation and
let go, not enough time has passed to confuse things.
And it's 'light time' between the postulate and the consideration
it won't vanish, unlike the heavy time that gets created once he gets
into question asking and using effort to make the original postulate not
be any more through change, destruction and outright not-isness.
Once he commits to effort, he *COMMITS* to time and pursuit and he
moves further and further away from as-isness of the original postulate,
thus making it more and more impossible to as-is and vanish.
As-isness of the original postulate exists only at the moment
of original creation.
The further in time he goes away from that moment the more
he has traveled into alter-isness and thus persisting is-ness,
and eventually not-isness.
Q&A stands for Question and Answer, but means veering off course
into new questions without having dealt with the first one.
Such a person starting off at A going to B, has trouble going to B,
so he goes to C. But then he has trouble going to C and so starts for
D. He NEVER gets anywhere he intends to go, but is ALWAYS continuing to
go somewhere new, never getting there either.
No rest, never arrives.
This is a Q&A artist. Every time he changes course he creates
trails of persistence behind him. Eventually he gets buried in them.
Thus the structure of a God postulate is like this:
Postulate -> Consideration -> Observation -> Question -> Answer ->
pursuit and execution of answer via effort in time.
Effort and pursuit creates time, chase and eventual total failure
to vanish an unwanted persistence.
Since the way out is the original way in, the more TIME a being
spends looking for a way out, the further he gets from the original way
in.
Time is a practical joke of magnitude.
NO AND SOME
The second important advance is an understanding of NO and SOME and
how to run them.
The problem with almost all of Church auditing is it only assesses
for and runs the SOME and ignores the NO.
So you ask for 'Hate?' and there is no read, but the auditor
doesn't ask for 'NO Hate?' and so they miss the item entirely.
The problem is worse though, you have to assess for NO hate first!
And if perchance 'Hate' read, you would have to start running NO
hate anyhow right off, because the hate already has flowed in the
original assessment and NO hate is waiting to run next.
If you lose sync between NO and SOME, the item will dry up and
never read again.
If you assess or run the NO item first, the SOME item will then
read and run. For a while. Then you have to go back to the NO item,
then the SOME item again, back and forth and stay in SYNC with the flows
that are happening.
So what happens is after hundreds of hours of normal auditing, all
the isness side of the preclear's items are pretty well flattened as far
as they could be, but the not-isness side of those same items has been
left restimulated but not pulled.
This acts as a missed withhold, creates an ARC break and results in
a blow, leaving the session, leaving auditing, and leaving the Church
who 'couldn't pull a missed withhold if their lives depended on it'.
The SOME item isn't the withhold! The NO item is.
SOME item, some lying, some cheating, some stealing, some murder,
some death, damnation and demise, who cares. If the preclear knows
about it or can access it easily, it just doesn't amount to a hill of
beans no matter how many people are missing it, or he isn't talking to
them about it.
You can run this kind of 'Has a withhold been missed?' forever, and
the preclear will just go lower and lower and lower until you don't have
a preclear any more.
He's taken up dealing drugs in Bangladesh, you see?
But ask him 'Is there a NO missed withhold?' and watch what
happens.
Standard Tech tries to do this with Suppressed and Invalidated, but
neither of them are NO.
And neither are the 20 other items on the standard prepcheck
list, all of which try to mean NO without being NO!
Prepcheck means checking preperatory to clearing and are used
heavily to get a preclear into session and do simply Life Repairs etc.
THE PREPCHECK BUTTONS
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/electra/exm10.memo
The first set of buttons are the standard tech buttons, the rest
were added by the Freezone later, although all are part of LRH tech
in some measure or another.
Talk about missing or bypassing an entire case.
It's not enough to have written the right thing in some corner of a
book, where its importance is completely bypassed or missed.
So its kind of built into their tech, not intentionally, but the
result is the same, NO tech, NO preclears, NO auditing, NO wins and NO
Church.
Here is what happens. Your preclear has interiorized and
exteriorized thousands of times along the whole track, into bodies, out
of bodies, into groups, out of groups, into objects, out of objects,
into memories, out of memories, into universes, out of universe. Just
on and on and on.
50 percent of these are on the isness side of his case, if you ask
him about it, there it is and he will tell you about it. He may have to
dig for it, its charged, he doesn't want to talk about it, but he can
get at it.
The other 50 percent of these are on the not-isness side of his
case, and if you ask him about it, he will give you a blank stare, say
'What exteriorization?' and take a loss.
HE CAN'T GET AT A NO ITEM WITHOUT RUNNING NO ITEM!
Dig it and don't leave it.
He can't contact the not-ised exteriorizations, because they are
not-ised, covered in black, mass and charge, BUT HE CAN CONTACT THE NOT
IS!
The not-is is right there in front of his face.
So instead of saying to him 'Tell me about an exteriorization', you
say instead 'Tell me about NO exteriorization.'
Now you might ask, if he can't contact the exteriorization because
it is not-ised, how can he tell you about it, and guess what, you would
be 100 percent right.
WE DO NOT WANT HIM TO TELL US ABOUT THE EXTERIORIZATION, WE WANT
HIM TO TELL US ABOUT THE NO SITTING ON TOP OF THE EXTERIORIZATION.
Now remember NO means pretended no, remember the CDEINR scale.
Curious about, Desire, Enforce, Inhibit, NO, Refused.
If there were truly a no exteriorization, then the needle would
float as there is nothing there to run.
But if its a not-ised exteriorization then the needle will stop and
fall and get dirty and dance the polka, whistle dixie, play Beethoven's
5th, and the pc will still say 'nothing there'.
He's lying of course, but its what appears to him as the truth, he
can't get at it, and he is totally not sure it is there.
That's because the way to get inside a not-isness is NOT to look
real hard into the darkness and hope to see what is behind it, in it, or
under it. THAT DOES NOT WORK.
A preclear can out not-is himself all day long, for the rest of
time, forever for free.
THE STATIC IS AN EXPERT AT CREATING LOSS AS LOSS AND NOT HAVING IS
WHAT IT CREATES!
Source sources what Source is not.
What source is not is time.
Time is having, via chase and not having.
Thus time is 100 percent wanting and not having and hoping
to get via committed effort.
Believe me SOURCE HAS.
And what Source has is the ability to not have.
Not-isness is a form of pretending to not have what you actually
have, the few times Source messes up and you actually have it!
That's a joke, actually not-isness is often used against
things you have that you don't want, Source is good at that too.
Thus the way to deal with a not-isness is MAKE MORE NOT-ISNESS!
It doesn't matter what is under the not-isness, maybe its an
exteriorization, maybe its not, maybe its beautiful, maybe its ugly, but
once he contacts the not-isness, AS NOT-ISNESS, it will start to run,
flow and lift. Then whatever is under it will in due time become
visible.
Of course he will just shut it out again, but now the jig is up,
now he KNOWS he is not-ising it and will keep control over the matter
for a while.
Now again you might ask, well if he is not-ising the
exteriorization, or what ever item you are asking for, how does he know
that the not-isness he is running is THAT particular not-isness?
Good question. The answer is, it doesn't matter, whatever
not-isness he ends up running is THE not-isness that he needs to run,
next, and if its not an exteriorization under it, but a pink elephant,
well then you probably should be running pink elephants anyhow, instead
of exteriorization.
Running the not-isness will tell you in the end what isness you
should be running.
But really if exteriorization is the next item that needs to be
run, and you ask for NO exteriorization, the file clerk will be damn
sure to hand it to your preclear, because he is sitting in the NO as the
next layer of blackness to be as-ised.
(The file clerk is a Dianetic mechanism that hands the preclear the
next incident necessary to resolve his case, if asked to do so by the
auditor.)
If you don't believe in the file clerk, then believe in yourself,
if the item you are running is truly the next correct item to run, then
the NO item will blow off with complete certainty and amazement, and
will allow the SOME item to continue to run.
Now look this is important, I am not making a big deal over this
for nothing, NO and SOME are the make break between a running case and a
pissed off pc.
Remember in the old days you were told that an ARC broken pc won't
read on the meter?
In fact an ARC broken pc will not read on a meter so much that his
needle will float!
That's called an ARC break float, and must never, ever, ever be
confused with a true float which results from VGI's (very good
indicators) smiling, laughing, cogniting, going WOW! this is great etc.
So why doesn't an ARC broken pc read on a meter?
There he is sitting in front of you, kind of dead, maybe glum or
glowering, and you say,
"Is there an ARC break?"
Well you know not to take up non reading items, but just in case
you also check,
"On the question is there an ARC break, has anything been
Suppressed?"
"On the question, is there an ARC break, has anything been
Invalidated?"
But nothing reads, so the auditor goes on. He writes down there is
no read, but ALSO NO FLOAT, so he knows he is going to have to come back
to it sooner or later, perhaps after he has messed up the preclear more
with present time problems and withholds.
BUT HOW CAN ASKING FOR AN ARC BREAK READ, IF ARC BROKEN PRECLEARS
DON'T READ ON THE METER!?
Sometimes you have to put the meter away, and audit what you see in
front of you, "You LOOK ARC broken dude, so tell me about it whether you
are or not!", but let's take a deeper look at this.
Say the ARC break did read, and Goober says yeah, I am ARC broke
with Dufus.
So now you know that ARC is made of Affinity, Reality and
Communication, so somewhere Goober got pissed off or sad about Dufus and
went out of affinity, out of agreement (reality) or out of
communication, certainly all 3, but maybe one more than the other.
So you start to assess for which was it mostly, was it affinity,
was it reality, was it communication?
Goober says "Oh yes, its reality, Dufus thinks global warming is
all a bunch of bunk invented by the greenies to stop our God given
rights to produce and conquer the Earth!"
You say 'Thank you, now let's find out just how ARC broken
you are by that reality.'
Was it a curious about a reality?
Was it a desired reality?
Was it an enforced reality?
Was it an inhibited reality?
Was is a NO reality?
Was it a refused reality?
Goober says, "Oh yeah it was an enforced reality, he was pushing it
so hard, making cracks about anyone who disagreed with him, insulting
anyone who brought up data about it etc."
You say "Thank you, was there an earlier similar ARC break?"
and away you go to finish the ruds with a floating needle before
you begin session proper.
(Ruds are rudiments before starting a session, cleaning up ARC
breaks, Present Time Problems (PTP's) and missed Withholds.)
But now let's take a different example.
An ARC break consists of Affinity, Reality and Communication where
each of the 3 legs is somewhere on the CDEINR scale.
So say instead Goober happens to have an ARC break of long duration
where EACH OF THE LEGS IS DOWN AT NO!
NO affinity, NO reality, NO communication.
So you ask Goober "Is there an ARC break?" and he just looks at
you, and says NO, and the needle does not read nor float, and session
goes no where.
So you get this evil grin on your face, you put on your atomic
protective clothing, you stand back a few feet from the meter, you get
your preclear's undivided attention, and you say,
"Goober is there a NO ARC break?"
Once the smoke has cleared, the fuses in the building replaced, and
you have a new e-meter, you will then find Goober more than willing and
interested to run,
"Get the idea of NO ARC break."
"Get the idea of SOME ARC break."
And you know he will be all smiles from there on out.
THE STRUCTURE OF NOT-IS
OK, there is one more thing that is important here.
Your average woggy on the street doesn't know he has a case.
He has a NO case.
He is completely oblivious to the fact that he has dicoms he is
dramatizing and their items, but that most of them are in a state of NO
item.
(A dicom is a DIchotomy of Comparable but Opposite Magnitude).
He knows he gets mad once in a while or sad, but he has not the
faintest slightest clue that these are but fumaroles blowing off steam
on the side of a NO volcano of charge, emotion, grief, anguish, turmoil
and eternal hell forever.
That's why he is mortal in his own mind, that's a kind of NO
Immortality, NO hell forever, NO thank God!
Now a well trained preclear will understand after a few hours of
auditing that he has many SOME items and many NO items. All it takes is
finding one NO item and he's hooked on finding more, the relief is so
great.
So this preclear is now living with SOME SOME items, and SOME NO
ITEMS, and he is happy with that.
But the unaudited woggy doesn't know this, he is living with NO
SOME items, and NO NO items!
He doesn't know that he doesn't know, that's a NO NO item.
No if you think about it, if you really want to forget something,
you ALSO need to forget that you wanted to forget it!
Thus as soon as you create a NO item, you HAVE to create a NO NO
item to make the NO item stick, or else it will just come up to the
surface again the next time you sneeze.
But even the NO NO item won't stick forever, you have to forget
that too, so now you have a NO NO NO item. You see how this goes?
So in fact when a being gets dead serious about never knowing about
something never again, he creates an infinite regression of ... NO NO NO
NO item, which puts the power of the infinite behind that forgetfulness.
This infinite regression is part of what keeps time going, because
NO is another layer of effort committed to covering over the item, and
then covering over the covering over,etc forever.
As your preclear starts to run NO items, he will suddenly start to
contact the infinite regression and his time and space will rock and
start to expand significantly.
This can be dangerous, so watch it.
If your preclear goes wildly unstable, just continue to run NO and
SOME. He can stabilize anything with NO for a while, then SOME for a
while etc.
Remember also that at the craziest part of his core, the part that
really starts him swirling and swimming in dizziness, he is running both
NO *AND* SOME on the same item at the same time.
We used to talk about the poor guy who came to a fork in the
road and couldn't decide whether to go left or right. So eventually
he built a house at the fork, and decided to live there for
rest of his life.
He got stuck in an indecision, and yes building the house
was pure Q&A from getting on with going where he was going.
But he's not insane. He's stuck in an indecision to
go left *OR* go right.
The indecision is not only not insane, it isn't unethical
either, because its not illogical, and ethics is logic.
But his indecision is problematic in that his life stops
at that point and he does something else.
But imagine now that rather than settle for an unending
indecision to left or right, he makes a DECISION to go BOTH
left *AND* right.
Now he is insane, because he can't do that, and its not logical,
and thus it is unethical, and this is beginning of hysteria and all out
loss of control.
So just so is your preclear doing a item *AND* NOT item on various
things, he is also doing a NO *AND* SOME on both the item AND its
opposite.
NO *AND* SOME on love *AND* hate for mother.
This is the beginning of hysteria and insanity, because he can't
open and close the door at the same time, but the way to stabilize it is
to DO IT knowingly. Just get the idea of NO *AND* SOME of the item at
the same time, and it will stabilize and he can let go of it SLOWLY and
under control.
The destabilization comes from letting go of the nut and fruit
factory too fast.
He starts to feel unstable with all this hysteria energy swirling
around him, making his dizzy and nauseous, and he starts to panic and
starts asking questions "What should I do?!!!!" which is NOT what he
should do. He should get the idea of NO AND SOME item at the same time,
and keep doing that, and he will maintain control, and not die on you.
OK, so we didn't know all that back in adore86.memo.
That was hard won knowledge, I am lucky to be sitting here writing
this.
The important part is, that if you don't run the NO, the preclear
will start to fall into the NO anyhow and eventually blow.
(Blow means leave, leave his post, leave his friends, his auditor,
auditing, and eventually the Church).
Say you are running exteriorization, and you run it and you run it,
and the preclear exteriorizes, full perception, lights on bright in the
room even if the lights are off, moves out of his body, over across the
street, and sees all kinds of things, remote reports back and proves
each and every one of them, and then comes back into his body, and you
continue to run ext, ext, ext, ext.
Two weeks later, you are talking to this preclear and you say 'Hey
Goober I heard you exteriorized in session!"
Goober says "Yeah, well, I don't really believe in exteriorization,
there's all kinds of mental phenomenon that you really just can't say
whether its real or not."
And you say "What? What about all those things you saw outside and
could prove?"
And Goober says "Prove? Oh well, right, prove, can we talk about
this later? Thanks..."
See? Goober has had so much SOME exteriorization run that he is
now totally swamped in the missed wittholds of NO exteriorizations,
charge restimulated by auditing SOME, but not pulled by failing to run
NO.
So you grab Goober and put him back into session, and you ask him
"Tell me about NO exteriorization".
The room goes dark, blackness forever runs out and covers the
earth, and 3 hours later all the dark matter in the universe is glowing
bright, and he is so exteriorized you don't know which galaxy he is in,
or which time line.
So this is an important phenomenon. Particularly if you consider
that 'case gain' is an item, and what the consequences of failing to run
NO case gain will be to your clearing production line.
Not to mention what the consequences of failing to run NO
exteriorization on Roland will be to your future reputation in his field.
OK, take a break, donuts and coffee for everyone!
Homer
Sat Oct 9 20:51:05 EDT 2010
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Dec 8 12:06:02 EST 2016
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore806.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)
iD8DBQFYSZL7URT1lqxE3HERApMuAJ0bzfaQw5M7Wvne1XuTfKZve4YdSwCdHiX8
QHUE2ck/clKizuiMJSvjLts=
=yk+8
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Sun Jan 29 14:57:59 EST 2017
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Feb 14 12:00:04 EST 2020
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore806.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)
iD8DBQFeRtIVURT1lqxE3HERAntUAJ9BkMgclRFlqVq0hEnyvaW/45aFgACfdWjL
WZcqG63uU4jdV9KpXK2K6LE=
=Zwo5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Tuesday, February 11, 2020
PROOF5 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
ORDINARY AND EXTRAORDINARY
Roland,
I would like to take you to task in a bit of dharma battle on
your stated position.
You say that ideas should be savaged until they either die the
death, or survive triumphant.
This is Dharma Battle.
So here it is.
Meatballs like to appeal to the 'extraordinary theory' principle,
which is that the person espousing the extraordinary theory is some
how more burdened with proof than those espousing the ordinary theory.
I sense a touch of hypocrisy here, because it is the very people
who are complacent in their common beliefs that are most in need of
dharma battle and having their beliefs savaged to death once again,
just for yuks, wouldn't you say?
Anyhow, first I have posited that there are two theories.
Meatball: Consciousness arises out of MEST
Dreamball: Apparencies of MEST arise out of Consciousness
I submit that both theories are of equal and opposite magnitude,
thus forming a balanced dicom. (Dicom = Dichotomy of Comparable and
Opposite Magnitude.)
Neither has any evidence presently supporting or denying it.
Both allow for and value advances in the physical sciences, but
only the second allows for and values OT powers.
I submit since both theories are equal and opposite in magnitude
that therefore neither is the extraordinary theory, or else both are,
in any case both sides are under equal burden of proof.
Now perhaps one can define the 'ordinary' theory as the one held
by the ordinary man, the common man, the masses or majority of people
in order words.
Then of course the meatball theory is the ordinary theory and the
dreamball theory is the extra ordinary theory.
Now I submit to you that there is a form of Dharm Treason called
Appeal to Authority. It claims that such and such is true because
some authority holds it to be true, Hubbard, the Bible, Parents, the
School Principle, the President, the Government, Doctors, Scientists
etc.
As a man of science you know that any such Appeal to Authority to
determine the truth of a statement is tantamount of scientific fraud,
and is thus worthy of the name Dharma Treason.
However there is another similar form of Dharma Treason that I
might call Appeal to the Masses or Common Man. This states that
something is true because the majority of people believe it.
Surely this is just as much scientific fraud as Appeal to
Authority, and is equally of worth the name Dharma Treason.
Now if Appeal to the Masses is scientific fraud when determining
the truth of a matter, I would submit that it is reasonable to
consider it also scientific fraud when Appeal to the Masses is used to
give weight, importance or seniority to one theory over another.
Theories gain seniority by standing the test of time, not through
appeal to the masses, surely you can agree to this. One might assert
that they only reason the masses widely hold to a theory is BECAUSE it
has stood the test of time, but this I submit is also a subtle form of
Dharma Treason, as the masses are not scientists, and science itself
may not be properly operational in the civilization over the time,
period in question.
Thus one can not use Appeal to the Masses to determine the
seniority of a theory.
Now I submit to you, that the dreamball theory in no way
contradicts or invalidates any scientific theory within the meatball
theory, in fact the dreamball theory says that the PURPOSE of the
dream is to engage in the game of science and conquer the virtaul
meatball universe.
The dreamball theory does not invalidate any of math, logic,
astronomy, evolution, biology, geology, physics, or chemistry etc.
All of these remain completely valid in the dreamball theory.
The only place where the dreamball theory and the meatball
theory differ is in what arose from what.
Since the meatball theory has no real theory of the nature of
consciousness to speak of, and really very little ultimate cosmology
either, as the singularity of the Big Bang leaves them not knowing
where it all came from, I would submit that the meatball theory has no
seniority over the dream ball theory, as both are at the starting gate
of proving which one is more useful, to explain the origins of the
universe AS A WHOLE and consciousness.
If you can agree to this analysis, then we can start dealing with
the various evidences that might exist on both sides, and build
predictive experiments to validate one or the other.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The paths of lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 cross in Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com the line of duty. http://www.lightlink.com
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Feb 10 12:00:04 EST 2020
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/proof5.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)
iD8DBQFeQYwVURT1lqxE3HERAtZ/AJ9Y8DJxLOCpXUcajO85eQ1hfy2gdQCgia90
HcEc9KH+lvfnUL3GIDGF6wc=
=U/7M
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
ORDINARY AND EXTRAORDINARY
Roland,
I would like to take you to task in a bit of dharma battle on
your stated position.
You say that ideas should be savaged until they either die the
death, or survive triumphant.
This is Dharma Battle.
So here it is.
Meatballs like to appeal to the 'extraordinary theory' principle,
which is that the person espousing the extraordinary theory is some
how more burdened with proof than those espousing the ordinary theory.
I sense a touch of hypocrisy here, because it is the very people
who are complacent in their common beliefs that are most in need of
dharma battle and having their beliefs savaged to death once again,
just for yuks, wouldn't you say?
Anyhow, first I have posited that there are two theories.
Meatball: Consciousness arises out of MEST
Dreamball: Apparencies of MEST arise out of Consciousness
I submit that both theories are of equal and opposite magnitude,
thus forming a balanced dicom. (Dicom = Dichotomy of Comparable and
Opposite Magnitude.)
Neither has any evidence presently supporting or denying it.
Both allow for and value advances in the physical sciences, but
only the second allows for and values OT powers.
I submit since both theories are equal and opposite in magnitude
that therefore neither is the extraordinary theory, or else both are,
in any case both sides are under equal burden of proof.
Now perhaps one can define the 'ordinary' theory as the one held
by the ordinary man, the common man, the masses or majority of people
in order words.
Then of course the meatball theory is the ordinary theory and the
dreamball theory is the extra ordinary theory.
Now I submit to you that there is a form of Dharm Treason called
Appeal to Authority. It claims that such and such is true because
some authority holds it to be true, Hubbard, the Bible, Parents, the
School Principle, the President, the Government, Doctors, Scientists
etc.
As a man of science you know that any such Appeal to Authority to
determine the truth of a statement is tantamount of scientific fraud,
and is thus worthy of the name Dharma Treason.
However there is another similar form of Dharma Treason that I
might call Appeal to the Masses or Common Man. This states that
something is true because the majority of people believe it.
Surely this is just as much scientific fraud as Appeal to
Authority, and is equally of worth the name Dharma Treason.
Now if Appeal to the Masses is scientific fraud when determining
the truth of a matter, I would submit that it is reasonable to
consider it also scientific fraud when Appeal to the Masses is used to
give weight, importance or seniority to one theory over another.
Theories gain seniority by standing the test of time, not through
appeal to the masses, surely you can agree to this. One might assert
that they only reason the masses widely hold to a theory is BECAUSE it
has stood the test of time, but this I submit is also a subtle form of
Dharma Treason, as the masses are not scientists, and science itself
may not be properly operational in the civilization over the time,
period in question.
Thus one can not use Appeal to the Masses to determine the
seniority of a theory.
Now I submit to you, that the dreamball theory in no way
contradicts or invalidates any scientific theory within the meatball
theory, in fact the dreamball theory says that the PURPOSE of the
dream is to engage in the game of science and conquer the virtaul
meatball universe.
The dreamball theory does not invalidate any of math, logic,
astronomy, evolution, biology, geology, physics, or chemistry etc.
All of these remain completely valid in the dreamball theory.
The only place where the dreamball theory and the meatball
theory differ is in what arose from what.
Since the meatball theory has no real theory of the nature of
consciousness to speak of, and really very little ultimate cosmology
either, as the singularity of the Big Bang leaves them not knowing
where it all came from, I would submit that the meatball theory has no
seniority over the dream ball theory, as both are at the starting gate
of proving which one is more useful, to explain the origins of the
universe AS A WHOLE and consciousness.
If you can agree to this analysis, then we can start dealing with
the various evidences that might exist on both sides, and build
predictive experiments to validate one or the other.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The paths of lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 cross in Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com the line of duty. http://www.lightlink.com
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Feb 10 12:00:04 EST 2020
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/proof5.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)
iD8DBQFeQYwVURT1lqxE3HERAtZ/AJ9Y8DJxLOCpXUcajO85eQ1hfy2gdQCgia90
HcEc9KH+lvfnUL3GIDGF6wc=
=U/7M
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Sunday, February 9, 2020
ADORE285 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
acw (wisdom@cyberstation.net) wrote:
>Thank god you don't believe in dochotomous behavior as you so
>undichotomously opposed what was written on the subject earlier.
Right, most new age crystal gazers talk about transcending
dicoms, but that's just another dicom, transcended/not trancended.
Adore solves this by claiming there are vertical dicoms and
horizontal dicoms.
Vertical dicoms take the being from Native State to Non Native
State, non manifestation to manifestation, static to kinetic, peace to
worry, no spacetime to spacetime, truth to lies, non persistence to
persistence, humor to sorrow etc. Lots of them.
Horizontal dicoms take place within the manifested side of the
vertical dicoms, love/hate, beauty/ugly, humor/sorrow, good/evil etc.
No Horizontal/Horizontal dicom is a vertical dicom.
The Sword of Excalibur is the two edged sword of ExCaliper and
ExCaliber, and all other dicoms in existence.
The handle has the verticals and the blade has the horizontals.
ExCaliper means without measure, worth beyond measure.
ExCaliber means without worth.
Homer
>Alan
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Sep 13 23:13:23 EDT 2005
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Feb 9 12:00:04 EST 2020
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore285.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)
iD8DBQFeQDqVURT1lqxE3HERAkKFAKCwFxp/JiXlW9tvLddZRd50c8TpzgCcDuAr
iejkqHuVwkl5SRaUiQpKIUE=
=AUQU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
acw (wisdom@cyberstation.net) wrote:
>Thank god you don't believe in dochotomous behavior as you so
>undichotomously opposed what was written on the subject earlier.
Right, most new age crystal gazers talk about transcending
dicoms, but that's just another dicom, transcended/not trancended.
Adore solves this by claiming there are vertical dicoms and
horizontal dicoms.
Vertical dicoms take the being from Native State to Non Native
State, non manifestation to manifestation, static to kinetic, peace to
worry, no spacetime to spacetime, truth to lies, non persistence to
persistence, humor to sorrow etc. Lots of them.
Horizontal dicoms take place within the manifested side of the
vertical dicoms, love/hate, beauty/ugly, humor/sorrow, good/evil etc.
No Horizontal/Horizontal dicom is a vertical dicom.
The Sword of Excalibur is the two edged sword of ExCaliper and
ExCaliber, and all other dicoms in existence.
The handle has the verticals and the blade has the horizontals.
ExCaliper means without measure, worth beyond measure.
ExCaliber means without worth.
Homer
>Alan
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Sep 13 23:13:23 EDT 2005
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Feb 9 12:00:04 EST 2020
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore285.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)
iD8DBQFeQDqVURT1lqxE3HERAkKFAKCwFxp/JiXlW9tvLddZRd50c8TpzgCcDuAr
iejkqHuVwkl5SRaUiQpKIUE=
=AUQU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
ADORE638 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
SELF LUMINOUSNESS II
Self luminousness is a relatively odd phenomenon, in that it is
more easily explained using mechanisms of the physical universe than
mechanisms of consciousness.
The whole idea of mechanisms of consciousness is an oxymoron
anyhow, as there is no space or time in consciousness to have a
'mechanism'.
Consciousness is not a space time gizmo.
Although it has a penchant for thinking that it is.
We use the mechanisms of the physical universe to show what self
luminousness is NOT, because the mind is good at understanding cause and
effect in the physical universe, and at the end, we can ask the mind "If
not that, then what?"
There are two kinds of luminous objects in the physical universe,
sources and reflectors.
The sun, stars, fire and light bulbs are sources, and most
everything they light up are reflectors.
Sources originate "causal messenger waves" called photons that move
across space and time to the end receiver which then causally receives
them, that is becomes an effect of them and changes state because of
them.
The photons carry a data imprint about the nature of the source, so
one can theorize about the nature of the source by receiving the
photons.
In our terminology the source of the photons is the referent and
the photons themselves are symbols for the source. Eventually the
photons hit the receiver, causes the receiver to change state, and now
the receiver has become a symbol too, and thus has imprinted on it data
from the photons which allows the receiver to theorize about both the
photons and the original source.
Remember that the terms referent and symbol are relative to each
other, once a symbol is created by a referent, that symbol itself
becomes a referent relative to the next symbol in line which it causes.
Thus Sun -> Photons -> Eye creates a chain of referents and symbols
where each item is a symbol to the referent before it, and each item is
also a referent to each symbol after it!
Relative to the photons, the sun is the referent and photons are
the symbol.
Relative to the eye, the photons are the referent and the eye is
the symbol.
Reflectors don't originate causal waves on their own, but reflect
those coming in from other sources.
More generally 'to reflect' means to make changes in.
The moon is a reflector of the sun's photons, and doesn't really
originate many of its own photons in the body's visible spectrum.
Because a reflector changes the nature of the causal messenger wave
impinging on it, it ADDS a data imprint to the wave on top of whatever
data imprint was already there from the source.
Another word for data imprint is a data signature.
Thus photons coming from the sun are already imprinted with data
about the sun, and when they bounce off the moon, the moon adds its own
imprint to the photons, so the photons now carry data about two
different events, the first is being originated from the sun and the
second is being reflected off the moon.
Every time the photons interact with something, more data is
imprinted on the photons, and it is pretty easy to see that after many
such imprints, the earlier imprints might be lost in the morass and
confusion of later imprints.
For example the stream of photons coming from the sun contains data
about what elements are in the sun. This data is called spectral lines
and actually are MISSING frequencies due to absorbtion on the sun before
the photon leaves its surface.
Once that stream bounces off the moon, a similar set of absorptions
take place according to the elements on the moon or its atmosphere.
Thus when the waves hit Earth, and there is a signature for Element
X, it becomes difficult to tell whether X existed on the moon, the sun
or both.
Further as the photons travel through space they interact with gas
clouds and other phenomenon in 'empty space' enroute to the Earth, and
these add and detract to the data stream making it even harder to
determine what's what.
'Causal distance' is the number of different interactions between
the original referent and the symbol of final authority, that have
changed the data content of the messenger wave.
It's called a messenger wave because it carries data about its
sources and all interactions in between.
The symbol of final authority is the last event in the chain that
is actually being studied to determine the nature of all prior referents
and symbols back to the original referent.
Any symbol in the chain can be used as a symbol of final authority,
they aren't special symbols except for having been chosen as the one we
are going to start learning from about the prior chain.
Nor are symbols of final authority the last symbol in the chain,
causal chains continue on out to infinity in space and time like an
endless line of dominos falling. A symbol of final authority is merely
one random and arbitrary domino chosen in the middle of the chain to
start theorizing back to the beginning.
There is another kind of luminousness in the physical universe
called phosphorescence. If one shines ultra violet photons on certain
chemicals, they will glow with visible light. The UV photons kick
electrons up a few orbit levels, and when they fall back down, they may
fall one level at a time, each level sourcing a photon of a different
frequency than the one that kicked the electron up.
Some chemicals will continue to glow even after the UV rays are
removed, as there is a time delay between kicking the electrons up a few
levels, and having them fall back down. Such chemicals act as a storage
device for energy, giving it back slowly over time in a different form.
Phosphorescent chemicals are sources, not reflectors, although they
also reflect normal light at the same time.
Barium Sulfide looks one way with the lights on (reflector), and
another way with the lights out (source)!
So here is the problem with physical luminousness, that is things
that glow in the light, and things that glow in the dark.
Referents and symbols in the physical universe are always two
different objects separated from each other by space and time.
By the time a symbol is created later in time, the original moment
of the referent is gone.
It is tempting to say that an object that is resting in space but
moving in time is the same object from moment to moment.
For example in a perfectly still room, we light a candle and
consider the flame. It is unmoving, unwavering, and might as well be a
still picture, but is it really the 'same flame' from moment to moment?
Only poetically.
The photons coming off the flame are different from moment to
moment, the atoms and molecules in the flame are different, so no the
flame is a new flame every instant even though it looks like the old
flame.
Well the same is true for the candle, it looks like the same candle
from moment to moment, but in fact there are many changes inside the
candle as time takes place, and even if there weren't, the very fact
that the object has moved forward in time one moment, means it is a
brand new instantiation of that object and thus is a different object
than the 'same' object a moment before.
This is an important issue because the human conscious unit is a
spaceless timeless object that IS in fact the exact same object from
moment to moment, because it's roots have no time to change in.
Thus we feel that although every part of us is changing from moment
to moment we are still the same being from moment to moment. I may be
an younger or older being, a ignorant wiser being, an energetic or tired
being as time moves on, but I am always me, the same being.
We then anthropomorize this 'continuity of objectification' onto
physical universe objects by claiming that the objects we see in the
physical universe are also the same object from moment to moment. We
admit they may have internal changes going on, a light flashing on and
off, but its the same light bulb as time goes on, right?
No.
Every moment of time recreates the entire physical universe over
and over again. Nothing is actually moving in time, each moment of time
is a brand new instantiation of things, where in it is made to look like
some objects have continuity through time.
Just as two tennis balls in different places in space are two
different objects, two tennis balls in different moments of time are two
different objects, even if the first ball 'became' the second ball a
moment later.
Anthropomorphization of qualities that belong to the spaceless
timeless conscious unit onto physical universe objects that have space
and time is philosophically very dangerous.
The dangers are ending up thinking either the physical universe is
conscious, or that consciousness is meat.
Thus we can say that at the moment the symbol is created in a
causal chain, the referent that gave rise to it is gone, the original
referent to that symbol exists no more because it is in the past.
Only that which is in the present exists and is causally agent.
Thus in NO sense are we seeing the referent by looking at the
symbol.
That's like claiming we see the plane by looking at its
condensation trails 30 minutes later.
The condensation trails act as EVIENCE for the prior existence of
the plane, but are not themselves the plane.
Someone who has looked at condensation trails all his life, has
never actually seen a plane, even though he might have walls and walls
of theories about what a plane is like, derived from the data imprinted
on the condensation trails about the plane that created them.
For example if the condensation trails come in sets of 4 smaller
trails in parallel, he might conclude the plane had 4 engines spread out
in space, on what though only God knows.
The problem is if the symbol that is created by a referent is a
different object than the observer trying to learn about the referent,
the observer can't see the symbol either!
Go on, read it again until you get it.
Thus the observer can't see the sun, nor can the observer see the
moon which has become a symbol to the sun.
Both sun and moon are distant in space and time from the observer
and thus are different objects than the observer.
The observer can't see anything until the observer BECOMES a symbol
in the causal chain himself, the symbol of final authority, and even
then the observer can only see himself.
Thus it is not enough for the sun to emit a photon to see the sun.
It is not enough for the photon to reflect off the moon to see the
moon.
It is not enough for the photon to hit our retina for us to see the
retina.
That photon has to somehow hit US by creating a conscious
experience and then we can see THAT!
THE ONLY THING THAT CAN BE 'SEEN' BY AN OBSERVER IS THE SYMBOL OF
FINAL AUTHORITY, AND EVEN THEN ONLY IF THE OBSERVER *IS* THE SYMBOL OF
FINAL AUTHORITY.
That means that the observer and the symbol of final authority can
not be two different objects, but must be one and the same object.
Since any imposition of space or time between two objects means
they are two different objects, there can not be any imposition of space
or time between the observer and the symbol of final authority if the
observer expects to use that symbol to learn anything.
THE ONLY WAY TO LEARN ABOUT A REFERENT ACROSS A SPACE TIME DISTANCE
IS TO BE THE EFFECT OF THAT REFERENT, TO BECOME A SYMBOL OF THAT
REFERENT.
One then only sees oneself, as the symbol, never the source, as the
referent.
Thus the observer can never see anything that is separated from him
by any amount of space or time.
Read it again, until you get.
YOU CAN'T SEE ANYTHING THAT IS SEPARATED FROM YOU BY SPACE OR TIME.
YOU CAN SEE AN ALLEGED SYMBOL OF THE REMOTE OBJECT BUT ONLY IF YOU
ARE THE SYMBOL.
Now if you take a look around you, you can clearly see your own
conscious renditions, pictures, of the physical universe, we call these
color forms. They can be of color, sound, taste, smell, feeling, effort
etc, all are called 'color forms'.
Your conscious unit is the rendition zone in which color forms are
displayed and used to symbolize referent events allegedly happening in
the physical universe.
You turn a light on in the room and it reflects off a ball emitting
5000 Angstrom light which hits your eye, retina, brain, and
consciousness and is finally rendered as a red round thing in your
cosnciousness.
Color forms are different objects than the objects they represent.
There are no red photons for example, redness is a quality of a
conscious experience, not of photons.
Photons have frequency, speed, wavelength, intensity, energy,
momentum, but no redness. There may be a causal connection between a
photon coming in and the redness we see in our consciousness, but the
redness is a quality of our conscious experience, not the photon. In
fact the photon is long gone before we ever see any redness, because it
was absorbed by the retina microseconds before, and NO PART OF ITS 5000
ANGSTROM WAVELENGTH PERSISTS INTO THE BRAIN.
Thus photons and conscious experiences of photons are two different
objects.
Further one can imagine, dream, and hallucinate redness without
having any photons at all!
Thus photons are not conscious redness, and conscious redness is
not photons.
Conscious rendess is not nothing either, it is quite something,
just as the photons are something. In fact our whole idea that photons
are something comes from our direct perception that conscious redness is
something.
If conscious redness were nothing we would never have gotten the
idea that photon's were something.
All learning about the referent (photons) comes from the symbol
(conscious redness).
We anthropomorphize that because the symbol exists, so must the
photons.
The symbol certainly does exist, as it is self aware, therefore
certain of is own existence, but the photons forever remain a theory.
NO ONE HAS EVER SEEN A PHOTON.
What a hoot, eh?
Thus one is using one's entire consciousness to symbolize something
that is not conscious, namely the physical universe of force, mass,
energy, space and time.
Yet when we look at the red ball we see in our consciousness it
looks like it OUT THERE. There is the apparency of distance between
ourselves, the conscious looker, and the conscious looked at which is
the conscious experience of the red ball.
It may be fitting and convenient that the concious experience of
the red ball LOOKS like it is OUT THERE because we consider the physical
ball is also out there. We hope dearly that because we see space that
there must be space.
BUT IF THE CONSCIOUS EXPERIENCE OF THE RED BALL WERE REALLY OUT
THERE WHERE IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS, WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO SEE IT!
If we assumed that the conscious experience of the bed ball is
actually out there because it looks like it is out there, then we have a
problem.
'Out there' would mean space and time separate looker and looked
at.
That means looker and looked-at are two different objects, and so
can never see each other.
Which means the looker could only see the looked-at by being an
effect of the looked-at.
Which means the looker could never see the looked-at directly but
only the effect in himself allgedly resulting from the looked-at.
The effect in himself can never be OUT THERE, because then it isn't
HIMSELF.
But the conscious red ball IS the final effect in himself, which is
why he can see it directly.
Thus even though his conscious experience of the red ball LOOKS
LIKE IT IS OUT THERE, it can't be.
The fact that he can see it directly means the looker and looked-at
are one and the same object, both of them HERE NOW.
And so the being IS his own conscious experience, even though it
seems bent on creating illusions that he is not.
So now we come to self luminousness.
Every thing in the universe which is luminous, is a referent that
creats a causal wave of symbols emmanating away from it.
Both referent and symbol are actual objects made of force, matter,
energy, space and time.
Basically luminousness in the physical universe is referent objects
creating or affecting other objects forever outward into space and
forward into time.
Physical luminousness is this causal wave expanding outwards
forever in space and time away from the referent, giving those that
become the effect of it the opportunity to theorize about the nature of
the referent that started it, and all the other referents in between
that got involved.
Luminousness in the physical universe IS the process by which two
different objects 'learn' about each other, all the while remaining
totally blind to the original source as all they can see is themselves.
Luminousness is HOW causality and data (same thing) flow from here
to there in space and time.
Now a machine can not even see itself, as it's parts are spread out
across space and time, and no system of parts can tell if any other part
actually exists or not because they can't see each other directly, The
existence of a machine remains a theory even unto the machine!
The existence of any part of a machine remains a theory to every
other different part.
And worse, once a machine in a causal pathway changes state due to
an impingement from a causal messenger wave, the machine has no absolute
proof that it ever was in a prior state, thus a machine can only
theorize that it has changed state.
Any record of its prior state could have been tampered with.
through faulty circuitry or mal intent on the part of others. No
machine can verify it's own circuitry with absolute certainty.
Thus any learning that a machine does about a referent is
theoretical learning about the referent based on theoretical data
gleaned from its own alleged changes in state!
A machine can have no direct perception of anything because it is
spread out in space and time across many different parts interacting via
cause and effect.
By the time the right side of a machine receives a signal from the
left side, the left side that started it is GONE!
And here we come to the very subtle difference between BEING and
KNOWING.
BEING AND KNOWING
Does the fact that one IS, mean necessarily that one KNOWS that one
IS?
For a machine the answer is clearly no.
For a machine or any kind of space time gizmo, knowledge is
particular set of states in the machine that represent or symbolize the
existence of other states in the machine, or even the existence of the
machine itself.
The fact that something is in a state, doesn't mean it KNOWS it is
in a state. Knowing it is in a state is ANOTHER state representing its
'knowledge' about the first state.
But no state can symbolize itself because no state can result from
having interacted with itself, and thus producing a symbol attesting to
its own existence as a referent, where the referent and symbol exist AT
THE SAME TIME.
Now a machine CAN investigate itself, and some parts of the machine
can be the effect of other parts of the machine, and the effect that is
produced in some parts could be considered 'knowledge' about those other
parts.
But that knowledge comes at the cost of being too late to be
knowledge about what is TRUE NOW, as the causing parts are long gone in
time by the time the effect on the learning parts is completed.
It is conceivable that a single part could be in a state, and
interact with itself and thus ADD ON another state which would be
'knowledge' about the first state.
But the second state would ALWAYS have to be later in time, and
thus always relegated to be knowledge about the past and something it
can't see directly, even if it is looking at 'itself'. It isn't really
looking at itself, because the itself that it looked at is gone into the
past by the time the knowledge about itself becomes manifest.
Being the effect of itself does not remove the fact that time must
exist between the state that is cause and the state that is effect, and
thus the second state remains a symbol for a long vanished referent
(itself prior). Thus self awareness of self NOW remains impossible to a
machine.
AN INFINITE REGRESSION OF LATER STATES SYMBOLIZING PRIOR STATES IS
NOT SELF LUMINOUSNESS, it is merely an infinite regression of indirect
perceptions, thus nothing is seen or known by any particular state, OF
ITSELF IN THE NOW.
A machine that turns it's video cameras onto itself will record an
image of itself, then record a SECOND image of itself containing the
first image recorded of itself, then record a third image of itself
containing the first two images recorded of itself etc.
It takes time to record an image.
The machine has to emit a photon which is picked up by its own
video camera which lays down an image of the machine in the machine's
own memory a moment later.
Then the machine AND the image in the memory both emit photons
which are picked up by the video camera and a second image containing
the machine and the first image is laid down in the machine's memory.
Then the machine and each of its two recorded images emit photons
which are picked up by the video camera and a third image is recorded
contining the machine, and its first two images.
AT NO TIME CAN THE VIDEO CAMERA TAKE A PICTURE THAT WILL INCLUDE
THAT PICTURE ITSELF!
A video camera can not take a first image of a machine with the
first image already in the machine, because at the time the picture is
taken, the first image IS NOT in the machine!
Thus no picture of a machine can include itself in the same
picture, and thus a machine 'looking at itself' can not be self aware or
self luminous.
Each picture is NOT self symbolizing.
Each picture is a symbol of a referent picture BEFORE IT, not of
itself.
To 'know' about any picture, ANOTHER later picture must be taken to
represent the earlier picture we wish to know about.
So we are always dealing with two different objects here: the
picture and the second picture of the picture are two different objects.
With true self luminosity, the referent and the symbol are one and
the same object, thus knowledge about the referent is knowledge about
the referent is NOW. This only comes about by direct contact of the
referent with itself with no time between cause and effect.
In the machine we get a series of states, one after the other like
this, each separated from the other by time.
A1 -> A2 -> A3 -> A4 -> A5
A2 symbolizes the existence of A1, A3 symbolizes the existence of
A2, A4 symbolizes the existence of A3 etc.
Each symbol represents the existence of the machine in the past,
that it learned about by being the effect of the machine IN THE PAST.
By the time A2 exists, A1 doesn't exist any more. And even if one
wants to claim that A2 arose BECAUSE of A1, that claim remains forever a
theory, not a self luminous certainty.
A2 never had direct contact with A1, because direct contact means
that A2 sees A1 in the NOW.
Now let's take a cat.
A cat is an enormously complex space time gizmo, parts interacting
across a space time distance via cause and effect.
In order to know everything there was to know about that cat, one
would have to know everything about amino acids, proteins, nucleic
acids, genetics, glucose cycles. In fact one would have to know just
about all of biology, chemistry, molecular and atomic physics and
quantum mechanics etc.
One would have to know these things to build a cat from utter
scratch.
So that's a lot of knowledge embodied by one cat, certainly more
knowledge than man has at this time, not to mention why the cat is so
cute.
Certainly if man doesn't know everything there is to know about a
cat, the cat doesn't either.
But the cat is quite capable of BEING a cat even if it doesn't know
clue one about what a cat is or how they work.
The cat is an INSTANTIATION of knowledge, without itself actually
knowing much about itself.
Thus a cat can BE with facility, but not KNOW about that being.
Now clearly in order to KNOW one has to BE first, but one can
clearly BE and not know anything. Consider a rock.
Again a rock is a functional instantiation, an embodiment, of
everything there is to know about that rock, but not one state in the
rock actually represents or symbolizes that knowledge, and not one state
in the rock CAUSUALLY RESULTS FROM AN EFFORT OF THE ROCK TO LEARN ABOUT
ITSELF.
A rock is an example of pure being without knowing.
A cat has more knowing than a rock, and may even be aware of
itself, but one may doubt that a cat is aware of being aware of itself,
although in theory it could be because it is conscious.
A human has way more knowing than either a rock or a cat, and it
also has knowing about BEING, and knowing about knowing, and knowing
about knowing about knowing etc.
Although it might be tempting to claim that knowing about knowing
about knowing is similar to the machine produces temorally separated
states each knowing about the prior one, the human consciousness is in
fact capable of knowing about knowing about knowing all in the same
instant.
In otherwords the human being is self aware, and aware that it is
self aware all in the NOW.
A machine can not do that.
The self awareness of consciousness, the ability to look at oneself
looking, is not a space time process which produces effects later than
the cause. It is a spaceless timeless non process that produces
certainty in present time OF what it is looking at in present time.
If you look at yourself looking, you are not looking at your self
looking in the past. If you were, you could never see it as what you
were looking at would be gone by the time you were the effect of it.
You can look at yourself looking NOW.
If you see a red ball in your conscious experience, and you see
that you are seeing a red ball, that is all happening NOW, because you
are seeing the red ball directly not via a symbol caused in yourself by
the red ball earlier.
If you were seeing the red ball in your consciousness, by looking
at a later symbol for it, YOU WOULD NEVER SEE THE RED BALL, as the
referent is never seen at all when looking at the symbol later in time.
Since you do see the red ball in your consciousness, you are
looking at the referent directly, in the NOW, and THAT is self
luminousness.
No photons, just BEINGNESS AND KNOWINGNESS that is one and the same
event.
In the machine's case, being and knowing are always two different
events, as the knowing is always about a prior being.
Being is the referent and knowing is the symbol.
In the physical universe, being and knowing are always separated by
space and time between cause (being) and effect (knowing).
Thus the knowing arises from indirect perception, and is never more
than theory about the being. The knowing can never SEE the being
directly as the separation between the two by space and time forever
make them two different objects.
Thus in the physical universe the machine can never SEE anything,
it can only BE something and theorize later about that being.
In the consciousness however, being and knowing are one and the
same event, not only does the knowing know about the being, the knowing
can also know about the knowing about being, all in the same instant.
That is knowledge NOW OF NOW.
SEEING is the process by which conscious knowing directly contacts
BEING, and this seeing is what we call self luminosity.
In the absence of seeing, there is no self luminosity, and in the
absence of self luminosity there is no seeing.
In the presence of direct seeing there must be self luminosity, and
in the presence of self luminosity, there must be direct seing.
Direct seeing is redundant, and indirect seeing is an oxymoron.
There is no indirect seeing, indirection means only theorizing,
and seeing is not theorizing.
Machines can not see, you can, therefore you are not a machine.
With indirect perception the symbol can never see the referent and
in fact can never know with certainty that there WAS a referent, because
effect does not prove cause, and even if it did, it would be a theory, a
logical syllogism, anyhow, not a direct perception.
Syllogism:
1.) I know all effects are caused
2.) I know I was an effect
3.) Therefore I know there must have been a cause.
Logical thought is not seeing.
Notice that no machine can prove that all effects are caused,
merely by looking at effects, BECAUSE EFFECT DOES NOT PROVE CAUSE.
Notice that no machine can know it has changed state, because
present state has no certain evidence of any prior different state, thus
a machine can't know with perfect certainty it was an effect.
Thus a machine can't know 1.) or 2.) above with certainty, thus
can't even conclude 3.) with certainty. And even IF a machine COULD
know 1.) and 2.) with certainty, it still could only logically conclude
that there must have been a cause, which is not the same as SEEING that
there is cause directly.
A conscious unit can see causal agency directly. When it is
looking at red and green conscious experiences, it can see that it's
conclusion that it is seeing two different colors is directly causally
connected to the red and green itself.
Red and green are not just red and green, they are
causally agent allowing the looker to know there are two different
colors.
Because the looker can not only see the BEINGNESS of the red and
the green, but the CAUSINGNESS of the red and green towards it's
conclusion that they are different the looker can verify that there is
in fact a causal connection going on, and therefore the learning must be
true.
Consciousness can see the causal process take place, and no
machine limited to being an effect can do this.
Thus a machine can not verify that any effect was actually
caused by anything at all let alone what might have caused it,
and thus can never attain pefect certainty on anything.
A conscious unit can.
With direct perception, the referent and symbol are two different
co existing FUNCTIONS in a single non spacetime object, where cause and
effect are the same event, instantaneous to each other, and the symbol
can see the referent directly because the symbol IS the referent, thus
having perfect certainty not only of the referent but of the process of
seeing itself.
The conscious unit IS everything that it can see.
Everything it can see is self luminous, there is no causal
wave between referent and symbol, the referent and symbol
ARE each other and light each other directly.
Self luminous seeing is not small stuff.
And it is not mechanical.
A machine can not do this.
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
Wed Jan 28 17:55:31 EST 2009
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Feb 8 12:00:05 EST 2020
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore638.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)
iD8DBQFePukWURT1lqxE3HERAmxLAJ9hF4UEsbDGSpCFQBilv1p1ejUK2wCffx4e
kEfYwz1mEgdOVewLisRfgsk=
=TtpO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
SELF LUMINOUSNESS II
Self luminousness is a relatively odd phenomenon, in that it is
more easily explained using mechanisms of the physical universe than
mechanisms of consciousness.
The whole idea of mechanisms of consciousness is an oxymoron
anyhow, as there is no space or time in consciousness to have a
'mechanism'.
Consciousness is not a space time gizmo.
Although it has a penchant for thinking that it is.
We use the mechanisms of the physical universe to show what self
luminousness is NOT, because the mind is good at understanding cause and
effect in the physical universe, and at the end, we can ask the mind "If
not that, then what?"
There are two kinds of luminous objects in the physical universe,
sources and reflectors.
The sun, stars, fire and light bulbs are sources, and most
everything they light up are reflectors.
Sources originate "causal messenger waves" called photons that move
across space and time to the end receiver which then causally receives
them, that is becomes an effect of them and changes state because of
them.
The photons carry a data imprint about the nature of the source, so
one can theorize about the nature of the source by receiving the
photons.
In our terminology the source of the photons is the referent and
the photons themselves are symbols for the source. Eventually the
photons hit the receiver, causes the receiver to change state, and now
the receiver has become a symbol too, and thus has imprinted on it data
from the photons which allows the receiver to theorize about both the
photons and the original source.
Remember that the terms referent and symbol are relative to each
other, once a symbol is created by a referent, that symbol itself
becomes a referent relative to the next symbol in line which it causes.
Thus Sun -> Photons -> Eye creates a chain of referents and symbols
where each item is a symbol to the referent before it, and each item is
also a referent to each symbol after it!
Relative to the photons, the sun is the referent and photons are
the symbol.
Relative to the eye, the photons are the referent and the eye is
the symbol.
Reflectors don't originate causal waves on their own, but reflect
those coming in from other sources.
More generally 'to reflect' means to make changes in.
The moon is a reflector of the sun's photons, and doesn't really
originate many of its own photons in the body's visible spectrum.
Because a reflector changes the nature of the causal messenger wave
impinging on it, it ADDS a data imprint to the wave on top of whatever
data imprint was already there from the source.
Another word for data imprint is a data signature.
Thus photons coming from the sun are already imprinted with data
about the sun, and when they bounce off the moon, the moon adds its own
imprint to the photons, so the photons now carry data about two
different events, the first is being originated from the sun and the
second is being reflected off the moon.
Every time the photons interact with something, more data is
imprinted on the photons, and it is pretty easy to see that after many
such imprints, the earlier imprints might be lost in the morass and
confusion of later imprints.
For example the stream of photons coming from the sun contains data
about what elements are in the sun. This data is called spectral lines
and actually are MISSING frequencies due to absorbtion on the sun before
the photon leaves its surface.
Once that stream bounces off the moon, a similar set of absorptions
take place according to the elements on the moon or its atmosphere.
Thus when the waves hit Earth, and there is a signature for Element
X, it becomes difficult to tell whether X existed on the moon, the sun
or both.
Further as the photons travel through space they interact with gas
clouds and other phenomenon in 'empty space' enroute to the Earth, and
these add and detract to the data stream making it even harder to
determine what's what.
'Causal distance' is the number of different interactions between
the original referent and the symbol of final authority, that have
changed the data content of the messenger wave.
It's called a messenger wave because it carries data about its
sources and all interactions in between.
The symbol of final authority is the last event in the chain that
is actually being studied to determine the nature of all prior referents
and symbols back to the original referent.
Any symbol in the chain can be used as a symbol of final authority,
they aren't special symbols except for having been chosen as the one we
are going to start learning from about the prior chain.
Nor are symbols of final authority the last symbol in the chain,
causal chains continue on out to infinity in space and time like an
endless line of dominos falling. A symbol of final authority is merely
one random and arbitrary domino chosen in the middle of the chain to
start theorizing back to the beginning.
There is another kind of luminousness in the physical universe
called phosphorescence. If one shines ultra violet photons on certain
chemicals, they will glow with visible light. The UV photons kick
electrons up a few orbit levels, and when they fall back down, they may
fall one level at a time, each level sourcing a photon of a different
frequency than the one that kicked the electron up.
Some chemicals will continue to glow even after the UV rays are
removed, as there is a time delay between kicking the electrons up a few
levels, and having them fall back down. Such chemicals act as a storage
device for energy, giving it back slowly over time in a different form.
Phosphorescent chemicals are sources, not reflectors, although they
also reflect normal light at the same time.
Barium Sulfide looks one way with the lights on (reflector), and
another way with the lights out (source)!
So here is the problem with physical luminousness, that is things
that glow in the light, and things that glow in the dark.
Referents and symbols in the physical universe are always two
different objects separated from each other by space and time.
By the time a symbol is created later in time, the original moment
of the referent is gone.
It is tempting to say that an object that is resting in space but
moving in time is the same object from moment to moment.
For example in a perfectly still room, we light a candle and
consider the flame. It is unmoving, unwavering, and might as well be a
still picture, but is it really the 'same flame' from moment to moment?
Only poetically.
The photons coming off the flame are different from moment to
moment, the atoms and molecules in the flame are different, so no the
flame is a new flame every instant even though it looks like the old
flame.
Well the same is true for the candle, it looks like the same candle
from moment to moment, but in fact there are many changes inside the
candle as time takes place, and even if there weren't, the very fact
that the object has moved forward in time one moment, means it is a
brand new instantiation of that object and thus is a different object
than the 'same' object a moment before.
This is an important issue because the human conscious unit is a
spaceless timeless object that IS in fact the exact same object from
moment to moment, because it's roots have no time to change in.
Thus we feel that although every part of us is changing from moment
to moment we are still the same being from moment to moment. I may be
an younger or older being, a ignorant wiser being, an energetic or tired
being as time moves on, but I am always me, the same being.
We then anthropomorize this 'continuity of objectification' onto
physical universe objects by claiming that the objects we see in the
physical universe are also the same object from moment to moment. We
admit they may have internal changes going on, a light flashing on and
off, but its the same light bulb as time goes on, right?
No.
Every moment of time recreates the entire physical universe over
and over again. Nothing is actually moving in time, each moment of time
is a brand new instantiation of things, where in it is made to look like
some objects have continuity through time.
Just as two tennis balls in different places in space are two
different objects, two tennis balls in different moments of time are two
different objects, even if the first ball 'became' the second ball a
moment later.
Anthropomorphization of qualities that belong to the spaceless
timeless conscious unit onto physical universe objects that have space
and time is philosophically very dangerous.
The dangers are ending up thinking either the physical universe is
conscious, or that consciousness is meat.
Thus we can say that at the moment the symbol is created in a
causal chain, the referent that gave rise to it is gone, the original
referent to that symbol exists no more because it is in the past.
Only that which is in the present exists and is causally agent.
Thus in NO sense are we seeing the referent by looking at the
symbol.
That's like claiming we see the plane by looking at its
condensation trails 30 minutes later.
The condensation trails act as EVIENCE for the prior existence of
the plane, but are not themselves the plane.
Someone who has looked at condensation trails all his life, has
never actually seen a plane, even though he might have walls and walls
of theories about what a plane is like, derived from the data imprinted
on the condensation trails about the plane that created them.
For example if the condensation trails come in sets of 4 smaller
trails in parallel, he might conclude the plane had 4 engines spread out
in space, on what though only God knows.
The problem is if the symbol that is created by a referent is a
different object than the observer trying to learn about the referent,
the observer can't see the symbol either!
Go on, read it again until you get it.
Thus the observer can't see the sun, nor can the observer see the
moon which has become a symbol to the sun.
Both sun and moon are distant in space and time from the observer
and thus are different objects than the observer.
The observer can't see anything until the observer BECOMES a symbol
in the causal chain himself, the symbol of final authority, and even
then the observer can only see himself.
Thus it is not enough for the sun to emit a photon to see the sun.
It is not enough for the photon to reflect off the moon to see the
moon.
It is not enough for the photon to hit our retina for us to see the
retina.
That photon has to somehow hit US by creating a conscious
experience and then we can see THAT!
THE ONLY THING THAT CAN BE 'SEEN' BY AN OBSERVER IS THE SYMBOL OF
FINAL AUTHORITY, AND EVEN THEN ONLY IF THE OBSERVER *IS* THE SYMBOL OF
FINAL AUTHORITY.
That means that the observer and the symbol of final authority can
not be two different objects, but must be one and the same object.
Since any imposition of space or time between two objects means
they are two different objects, there can not be any imposition of space
or time between the observer and the symbol of final authority if the
observer expects to use that symbol to learn anything.
THE ONLY WAY TO LEARN ABOUT A REFERENT ACROSS A SPACE TIME DISTANCE
IS TO BE THE EFFECT OF THAT REFERENT, TO BECOME A SYMBOL OF THAT
REFERENT.
One then only sees oneself, as the symbol, never the source, as the
referent.
Thus the observer can never see anything that is separated from him
by any amount of space or time.
Read it again, until you get.
YOU CAN'T SEE ANYTHING THAT IS SEPARATED FROM YOU BY SPACE OR TIME.
YOU CAN SEE AN ALLEGED SYMBOL OF THE REMOTE OBJECT BUT ONLY IF YOU
ARE THE SYMBOL.
Now if you take a look around you, you can clearly see your own
conscious renditions, pictures, of the physical universe, we call these
color forms. They can be of color, sound, taste, smell, feeling, effort
etc, all are called 'color forms'.
Your conscious unit is the rendition zone in which color forms are
displayed and used to symbolize referent events allegedly happening in
the physical universe.
You turn a light on in the room and it reflects off a ball emitting
5000 Angstrom light which hits your eye, retina, brain, and
consciousness and is finally rendered as a red round thing in your
cosnciousness.
Color forms are different objects than the objects they represent.
There are no red photons for example, redness is a quality of a
conscious experience, not of photons.
Photons have frequency, speed, wavelength, intensity, energy,
momentum, but no redness. There may be a causal connection between a
photon coming in and the redness we see in our consciousness, but the
redness is a quality of our conscious experience, not the photon. In
fact the photon is long gone before we ever see any redness, because it
was absorbed by the retina microseconds before, and NO PART OF ITS 5000
ANGSTROM WAVELENGTH PERSISTS INTO THE BRAIN.
Thus photons and conscious experiences of photons are two different
objects.
Further one can imagine, dream, and hallucinate redness without
having any photons at all!
Thus photons are not conscious redness, and conscious redness is
not photons.
Conscious rendess is not nothing either, it is quite something,
just as the photons are something. In fact our whole idea that photons
are something comes from our direct perception that conscious redness is
something.
If conscious redness were nothing we would never have gotten the
idea that photon's were something.
All learning about the referent (photons) comes from the symbol
(conscious redness).
We anthropomorphize that because the symbol exists, so must the
photons.
The symbol certainly does exist, as it is self aware, therefore
certain of is own existence, but the photons forever remain a theory.
NO ONE HAS EVER SEEN A PHOTON.
What a hoot, eh?
Thus one is using one's entire consciousness to symbolize something
that is not conscious, namely the physical universe of force, mass,
energy, space and time.
Yet when we look at the red ball we see in our consciousness it
looks like it OUT THERE. There is the apparency of distance between
ourselves, the conscious looker, and the conscious looked at which is
the conscious experience of the red ball.
It may be fitting and convenient that the concious experience of
the red ball LOOKS like it is OUT THERE because we consider the physical
ball is also out there. We hope dearly that because we see space that
there must be space.
BUT IF THE CONSCIOUS EXPERIENCE OF THE RED BALL WERE REALLY OUT
THERE WHERE IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS, WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO SEE IT!
If we assumed that the conscious experience of the bed ball is
actually out there because it looks like it is out there, then we have a
problem.
'Out there' would mean space and time separate looker and looked
at.
That means looker and looked-at are two different objects, and so
can never see each other.
Which means the looker could only see the looked-at by being an
effect of the looked-at.
Which means the looker could never see the looked-at directly but
only the effect in himself allgedly resulting from the looked-at.
The effect in himself can never be OUT THERE, because then it isn't
HIMSELF.
But the conscious red ball IS the final effect in himself, which is
why he can see it directly.
Thus even though his conscious experience of the red ball LOOKS
LIKE IT IS OUT THERE, it can't be.
The fact that he can see it directly means the looker and looked-at
are one and the same object, both of them HERE NOW.
And so the being IS his own conscious experience, even though it
seems bent on creating illusions that he is not.
So now we come to self luminousness.
Every thing in the universe which is luminous, is a referent that
creats a causal wave of symbols emmanating away from it.
Both referent and symbol are actual objects made of force, matter,
energy, space and time.
Basically luminousness in the physical universe is referent objects
creating or affecting other objects forever outward into space and
forward into time.
Physical luminousness is this causal wave expanding outwards
forever in space and time away from the referent, giving those that
become the effect of it the opportunity to theorize about the nature of
the referent that started it, and all the other referents in between
that got involved.
Luminousness in the physical universe IS the process by which two
different objects 'learn' about each other, all the while remaining
totally blind to the original source as all they can see is themselves.
Luminousness is HOW causality and data (same thing) flow from here
to there in space and time.
Now a machine can not even see itself, as it's parts are spread out
across space and time, and no system of parts can tell if any other part
actually exists or not because they can't see each other directly, The
existence of a machine remains a theory even unto the machine!
The existence of any part of a machine remains a theory to every
other different part.
And worse, once a machine in a causal pathway changes state due to
an impingement from a causal messenger wave, the machine has no absolute
proof that it ever was in a prior state, thus a machine can only
theorize that it has changed state.
Any record of its prior state could have been tampered with.
through faulty circuitry or mal intent on the part of others. No
machine can verify it's own circuitry with absolute certainty.
Thus any learning that a machine does about a referent is
theoretical learning about the referent based on theoretical data
gleaned from its own alleged changes in state!
A machine can have no direct perception of anything because it is
spread out in space and time across many different parts interacting via
cause and effect.
By the time the right side of a machine receives a signal from the
left side, the left side that started it is GONE!
And here we come to the very subtle difference between BEING and
KNOWING.
BEING AND KNOWING
Does the fact that one IS, mean necessarily that one KNOWS that one
IS?
For a machine the answer is clearly no.
For a machine or any kind of space time gizmo, knowledge is
particular set of states in the machine that represent or symbolize the
existence of other states in the machine, or even the existence of the
machine itself.
The fact that something is in a state, doesn't mean it KNOWS it is
in a state. Knowing it is in a state is ANOTHER state representing its
'knowledge' about the first state.
But no state can symbolize itself because no state can result from
having interacted with itself, and thus producing a symbol attesting to
its own existence as a referent, where the referent and symbol exist AT
THE SAME TIME.
Now a machine CAN investigate itself, and some parts of the machine
can be the effect of other parts of the machine, and the effect that is
produced in some parts could be considered 'knowledge' about those other
parts.
But that knowledge comes at the cost of being too late to be
knowledge about what is TRUE NOW, as the causing parts are long gone in
time by the time the effect on the learning parts is completed.
It is conceivable that a single part could be in a state, and
interact with itself and thus ADD ON another state which would be
'knowledge' about the first state.
But the second state would ALWAYS have to be later in time, and
thus always relegated to be knowledge about the past and something it
can't see directly, even if it is looking at 'itself'. It isn't really
looking at itself, because the itself that it looked at is gone into the
past by the time the knowledge about itself becomes manifest.
Being the effect of itself does not remove the fact that time must
exist between the state that is cause and the state that is effect, and
thus the second state remains a symbol for a long vanished referent
(itself prior). Thus self awareness of self NOW remains impossible to a
machine.
AN INFINITE REGRESSION OF LATER STATES SYMBOLIZING PRIOR STATES IS
NOT SELF LUMINOUSNESS, it is merely an infinite regression of indirect
perceptions, thus nothing is seen or known by any particular state, OF
ITSELF IN THE NOW.
A machine that turns it's video cameras onto itself will record an
image of itself, then record a SECOND image of itself containing the
first image recorded of itself, then record a third image of itself
containing the first two images recorded of itself etc.
It takes time to record an image.
The machine has to emit a photon which is picked up by its own
video camera which lays down an image of the machine in the machine's
own memory a moment later.
Then the machine AND the image in the memory both emit photons
which are picked up by the video camera and a second image containing
the machine and the first image is laid down in the machine's memory.
Then the machine and each of its two recorded images emit photons
which are picked up by the video camera and a third image is recorded
contining the machine, and its first two images.
AT NO TIME CAN THE VIDEO CAMERA TAKE A PICTURE THAT WILL INCLUDE
THAT PICTURE ITSELF!
A video camera can not take a first image of a machine with the
first image already in the machine, because at the time the picture is
taken, the first image IS NOT in the machine!
Thus no picture of a machine can include itself in the same
picture, and thus a machine 'looking at itself' can not be self aware or
self luminous.
Each picture is NOT self symbolizing.
Each picture is a symbol of a referent picture BEFORE IT, not of
itself.
To 'know' about any picture, ANOTHER later picture must be taken to
represent the earlier picture we wish to know about.
So we are always dealing with two different objects here: the
picture and the second picture of the picture are two different objects.
With true self luminosity, the referent and the symbol are one and
the same object, thus knowledge about the referent is knowledge about
the referent is NOW. This only comes about by direct contact of the
referent with itself with no time between cause and effect.
In the machine we get a series of states, one after the other like
this, each separated from the other by time.
A1 -> A2 -> A3 -> A4 -> A5
A2 symbolizes the existence of A1, A3 symbolizes the existence of
A2, A4 symbolizes the existence of A3 etc.
Each symbol represents the existence of the machine in the past,
that it learned about by being the effect of the machine IN THE PAST.
By the time A2 exists, A1 doesn't exist any more. And even if one
wants to claim that A2 arose BECAUSE of A1, that claim remains forever a
theory, not a self luminous certainty.
A2 never had direct contact with A1, because direct contact means
that A2 sees A1 in the NOW.
Now let's take a cat.
A cat is an enormously complex space time gizmo, parts interacting
across a space time distance via cause and effect.
In order to know everything there was to know about that cat, one
would have to know everything about amino acids, proteins, nucleic
acids, genetics, glucose cycles. In fact one would have to know just
about all of biology, chemistry, molecular and atomic physics and
quantum mechanics etc.
One would have to know these things to build a cat from utter
scratch.
So that's a lot of knowledge embodied by one cat, certainly more
knowledge than man has at this time, not to mention why the cat is so
cute.
Certainly if man doesn't know everything there is to know about a
cat, the cat doesn't either.
But the cat is quite capable of BEING a cat even if it doesn't know
clue one about what a cat is or how they work.
The cat is an INSTANTIATION of knowledge, without itself actually
knowing much about itself.
Thus a cat can BE with facility, but not KNOW about that being.
Now clearly in order to KNOW one has to BE first, but one can
clearly BE and not know anything. Consider a rock.
Again a rock is a functional instantiation, an embodiment, of
everything there is to know about that rock, but not one state in the
rock actually represents or symbolizes that knowledge, and not one state
in the rock CAUSUALLY RESULTS FROM AN EFFORT OF THE ROCK TO LEARN ABOUT
ITSELF.
A rock is an example of pure being without knowing.
A cat has more knowing than a rock, and may even be aware of
itself, but one may doubt that a cat is aware of being aware of itself,
although in theory it could be because it is conscious.
A human has way more knowing than either a rock or a cat, and it
also has knowing about BEING, and knowing about knowing, and knowing
about knowing about knowing etc.
Although it might be tempting to claim that knowing about knowing
about knowing is similar to the machine produces temorally separated
states each knowing about the prior one, the human consciousness is in
fact capable of knowing about knowing about knowing all in the same
instant.
In otherwords the human being is self aware, and aware that it is
self aware all in the NOW.
A machine can not do that.
The self awareness of consciousness, the ability to look at oneself
looking, is not a space time process which produces effects later than
the cause. It is a spaceless timeless non process that produces
certainty in present time OF what it is looking at in present time.
If you look at yourself looking, you are not looking at your self
looking in the past. If you were, you could never see it as what you
were looking at would be gone by the time you were the effect of it.
You can look at yourself looking NOW.
If you see a red ball in your conscious experience, and you see
that you are seeing a red ball, that is all happening NOW, because you
are seeing the red ball directly not via a symbol caused in yourself by
the red ball earlier.
If you were seeing the red ball in your consciousness, by looking
at a later symbol for it, YOU WOULD NEVER SEE THE RED BALL, as the
referent is never seen at all when looking at the symbol later in time.
Since you do see the red ball in your consciousness, you are
looking at the referent directly, in the NOW, and THAT is self
luminousness.
No photons, just BEINGNESS AND KNOWINGNESS that is one and the same
event.
In the machine's case, being and knowing are always two different
events, as the knowing is always about a prior being.
Being is the referent and knowing is the symbol.
In the physical universe, being and knowing are always separated by
space and time between cause (being) and effect (knowing).
Thus the knowing arises from indirect perception, and is never more
than theory about the being. The knowing can never SEE the being
directly as the separation between the two by space and time forever
make them two different objects.
Thus in the physical universe the machine can never SEE anything,
it can only BE something and theorize later about that being.
In the consciousness however, being and knowing are one and the
same event, not only does the knowing know about the being, the knowing
can also know about the knowing about being, all in the same instant.
That is knowledge NOW OF NOW.
SEEING is the process by which conscious knowing directly contacts
BEING, and this seeing is what we call self luminosity.
In the absence of seeing, there is no self luminosity, and in the
absence of self luminosity there is no seeing.
In the presence of direct seeing there must be self luminosity, and
in the presence of self luminosity, there must be direct seing.
Direct seeing is redundant, and indirect seeing is an oxymoron.
There is no indirect seeing, indirection means only theorizing,
and seeing is not theorizing.
Machines can not see, you can, therefore you are not a machine.
With indirect perception the symbol can never see the referent and
in fact can never know with certainty that there WAS a referent, because
effect does not prove cause, and even if it did, it would be a theory, a
logical syllogism, anyhow, not a direct perception.
Syllogism:
1.) I know all effects are caused
2.) I know I was an effect
3.) Therefore I know there must have been a cause.
Logical thought is not seeing.
Notice that no machine can prove that all effects are caused,
merely by looking at effects, BECAUSE EFFECT DOES NOT PROVE CAUSE.
Notice that no machine can know it has changed state, because
present state has no certain evidence of any prior different state, thus
a machine can't know with perfect certainty it was an effect.
Thus a machine can't know 1.) or 2.) above with certainty, thus
can't even conclude 3.) with certainty. And even IF a machine COULD
know 1.) and 2.) with certainty, it still could only logically conclude
that there must have been a cause, which is not the same as SEEING that
there is cause directly.
A conscious unit can see causal agency directly. When it is
looking at red and green conscious experiences, it can see that it's
conclusion that it is seeing two different colors is directly causally
connected to the red and green itself.
Red and green are not just red and green, they are
causally agent allowing the looker to know there are two different
colors.
Because the looker can not only see the BEINGNESS of the red and
the green, but the CAUSINGNESS of the red and green towards it's
conclusion that they are different the looker can verify that there is
in fact a causal connection going on, and therefore the learning must be
true.
Consciousness can see the causal process take place, and no
machine limited to being an effect can do this.
Thus a machine can not verify that any effect was actually
caused by anything at all let alone what might have caused it,
and thus can never attain pefect certainty on anything.
A conscious unit can.
With direct perception, the referent and symbol are two different
co existing FUNCTIONS in a single non spacetime object, where cause and
effect are the same event, instantaneous to each other, and the symbol
can see the referent directly because the symbol IS the referent, thus
having perfect certainty not only of the referent but of the process of
seeing itself.
The conscious unit IS everything that it can see.
Everything it can see is self luminous, there is no causal
wave between referent and symbol, the referent and symbol
ARE each other and light each other directly.
Self luminous seeing is not small stuff.
And it is not mechanical.
A machine can not do this.
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
Wed Jan 28 17:55:31 EST 2009
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Feb 8 12:00:05 EST 2020
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore638.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)
iD8DBQFePukWURT1lqxE3HERAmxLAJ9hF4UEsbDGSpCFQBilv1p1ejUK2wCffx4e
kEfYwz1mEgdOVewLisRfgsk=
=TtpO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Friday, February 7, 2020
ADORE330 (fwd)
MOTHER AND SON
Clearing Archive Roboposter (roboposter@lightlink.com) wrote:
> Thus I submit that we should look into how women feel about
>the FACT that they create men, and yet they feel overwhelmed by
>their own creation. We must also look at how mothers who have
>these attitudes relate with their sons, and how this in turn
>results in sons that become what the mother fears most.
>Implied in this inquiry is the attitude that women are not
>INsignificant in the scheme of things. ^^ Typo corrected.
Bottom line is equal rights means equal duties, and visa versa.
If you want equal rights, INSIST on equal duties.
If you want the right to vote, insist on being draftable along
with everyone else who has the right to vote.
Or else vote the draft out of existence.
For those with ears to hear, and a vote to cast.
Homer
Sun Jun 4 23:02:46 EDT 2006
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Feb 7 12:00:03 EST 2020
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore330.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)
iD8DBQFePZeXURT1lqxE3HERAoxQAJ9PYgD4KVOnAyUB9CjvueYr0xnaGACggKw9
7vcxKoQlwYhFi+0lRykv61A=
=GSy9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Clearing Archive Roboposter (roboposter@lightlink.com) wrote:
> Thus I submit that we should look into how women feel about
>the FACT that they create men, and yet they feel overwhelmed by
>their own creation. We must also look at how mothers who have
>these attitudes relate with their sons, and how this in turn
>results in sons that become what the mother fears most.
>Implied in this inquiry is the attitude that women are not
>INsignificant in the scheme of things. ^^ Typo corrected.
Bottom line is equal rights means equal duties, and visa versa.
If you want equal rights, INSIST on equal duties.
If you want the right to vote, insist on being draftable along
with everyone else who has the right to vote.
Or else vote the draft out of existence.
For those with ears to hear, and a vote to cast.
Homer
Sun Jun 4 23:02:46 EDT 2006
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Feb 7 12:00:03 EST 2020
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore330.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)
iD8DBQFePZeXURT1lqxE3HERAoxQAJ9PYgD4KVOnAyUB9CjvueYr0xnaGACggKw9
7vcxKoQlwYhFi+0lRykv61A=
=GSy9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Thursday, February 6, 2020
ENGRAMS (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
DO ENGRAMS EXIST?
If its ok for me to say that the physical universe doesn't exist
in actuality but only in virtual reality, then it is just as ok to say
the same of engrams, i.e. engrams exist as function but not as
structure.
The physical universe certainly exists as function, but the
meatball thinks it exists as structure too.
They see space, so they think there IS space.
They admit that the seeing of space is not the same as space
itself, and that the seeing of space is but a symbol in consciousness
for space itself, but they continue to insist that the symbol could
not exist without the referent also existing.
To the meatball the existence of the symbol necessarily implies
the existence of the referent. The existence of function necessarily
implies the existence of structure.
Now clearly the existence of function implies the existence of
SOME structure, but one can get very lost if one takes one's cue about
the nature of that structure from the image shown by the symbol.
The conscious experience of space (symbol) LOOKS 3 dimensional,
but that doesn't mean actual space (referent) is 3 dimensional!
OK, so the same with engrams.
The functions described are pretty clear.
We have incidents, not-isness, encystment of free theta,
resulting in ridges, dispersals, vaccums, mental masses, energies,
spaces and times, that don't vanish after the incident is over.
The whole idea that a being can take a 'picture' of an event and
keep it around as a separate actuality from the event itself is
probably pretty odd, but again the functions we can observe and are
trying to describe fit well enough with this structural model of a
persisting picture, that we have come to use it easily.
The main issue here is cause, what CAUSES the being to suffer after
a non confronted traumatic event? What causes the being to dramatize
and compute psychotically after the scaring over of such an event
without full healing?
Why does healing involve fully reexperiencing the event in
question?
Well one can model certain things in the incident after resistence,
capacitors and inductors.
As the being piles not-isness on the incident, he builds up
'mental' mass on pictures of the event, and this mass has mental
resistence so his ability to flow into the event and perceive it becomes
less.
Further such things also have capacitance, which means that as the
being flows into the event trying to stop it, it builds up charge that
pushes back. Thus in order to keep the event hidden he has to apply
continuous pressure on the event to keep it in place. If he let's go,
the charge built up on the event flows back at him, like current flowing
out of a highly charged capacitance.
Worse such events also have inductance. If he flows into the
event to keep it hidden, and then suddenly lets go, the being will be
forced to flow MORE into the event, he can't stop flowing for a short
while after he tries to stop, THEN he gets the kick back from its
capacitance :).
One may complain bitterly at the idea that traumatic events
ACTUALLY have resistence, capacitance or inductance, but they
certainly do act with those functions, and thus we come to talk about
circuits in the mind, because in the physical universe, circuits are
made of power sources, resistance, capacitance and inductance.
In the physical universe inductance and capacitance form a
resonant circuit that will oscillate at a resonant frequency. Sure
enough, a pc caught in an incident with both capacitance and
inductance will be found to be oscillating back and forth at the
command of the incident at the resonant frequence. One can SEE this
on the meter.
By bleeding the incident of all charge, the effects of
capacitance and inductance are reduced to zero, by removing the mental
masses scaring over the picture, we remove the resistence, and that
leaves the thetan in control of the incident again, rather than the
other way around.
Being dogmatic about function may be stupid but being dogmatic
about structure is completely nuts.
Not even Hubbard made that mistake, which you will well know if
you have read ALL of Hubbard.
As for engrams, Hubbard said, when you think engram, think BT.
What he meant was that living life forces are involved in the
persistence of mental masses and pictures and their restimulation, it
ain't made out of "electrons, protons and morons"... :)
So in some sense KP is right, there are no engrams as far as
structure is concerned. Its all caused by living beings and their
postulates.
Hubbard also said that the fate of most thetans is to dwindle down
to become other's BT's. So thats a fitting fate for KP eh? To become
someone else's engram!
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Feb 6 12:00:05 EST 2020
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/engrams
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)
iD8DBQFePEYWURT1lqxE3HERAqO3AJ48bDY/6GbSAq1SwF4K5oX0OxydqgCfTNp0
ZrgDVU9AIlHSin+0qdqDhDA=
=VbLZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
DO ENGRAMS EXIST?
If its ok for me to say that the physical universe doesn't exist
in actuality but only in virtual reality, then it is just as ok to say
the same of engrams, i.e. engrams exist as function but not as
structure.
The physical universe certainly exists as function, but the
meatball thinks it exists as structure too.
They see space, so they think there IS space.
They admit that the seeing of space is not the same as space
itself, and that the seeing of space is but a symbol in consciousness
for space itself, but they continue to insist that the symbol could
not exist without the referent also existing.
To the meatball the existence of the symbol necessarily implies
the existence of the referent. The existence of function necessarily
implies the existence of structure.
Now clearly the existence of function implies the existence of
SOME structure, but one can get very lost if one takes one's cue about
the nature of that structure from the image shown by the symbol.
The conscious experience of space (symbol) LOOKS 3 dimensional,
but that doesn't mean actual space (referent) is 3 dimensional!
OK, so the same with engrams.
The functions described are pretty clear.
We have incidents, not-isness, encystment of free theta,
resulting in ridges, dispersals, vaccums, mental masses, energies,
spaces and times, that don't vanish after the incident is over.
The whole idea that a being can take a 'picture' of an event and
keep it around as a separate actuality from the event itself is
probably pretty odd, but again the functions we can observe and are
trying to describe fit well enough with this structural model of a
persisting picture, that we have come to use it easily.
The main issue here is cause, what CAUSES the being to suffer after
a non confronted traumatic event? What causes the being to dramatize
and compute psychotically after the scaring over of such an event
without full healing?
Why does healing involve fully reexperiencing the event in
question?
Well one can model certain things in the incident after resistence,
capacitors and inductors.
As the being piles not-isness on the incident, he builds up
'mental' mass on pictures of the event, and this mass has mental
resistence so his ability to flow into the event and perceive it becomes
less.
Further such things also have capacitance, which means that as the
being flows into the event trying to stop it, it builds up charge that
pushes back. Thus in order to keep the event hidden he has to apply
continuous pressure on the event to keep it in place. If he let's go,
the charge built up on the event flows back at him, like current flowing
out of a highly charged capacitance.
Worse such events also have inductance. If he flows into the
event to keep it hidden, and then suddenly lets go, the being will be
forced to flow MORE into the event, he can't stop flowing for a short
while after he tries to stop, THEN he gets the kick back from its
capacitance :).
One may complain bitterly at the idea that traumatic events
ACTUALLY have resistence, capacitance or inductance, but they
certainly do act with those functions, and thus we come to talk about
circuits in the mind, because in the physical universe, circuits are
made of power sources, resistance, capacitance and inductance.
In the physical universe inductance and capacitance form a
resonant circuit that will oscillate at a resonant frequency. Sure
enough, a pc caught in an incident with both capacitance and
inductance will be found to be oscillating back and forth at the
command of the incident at the resonant frequence. One can SEE this
on the meter.
By bleeding the incident of all charge, the effects of
capacitance and inductance are reduced to zero, by removing the mental
masses scaring over the picture, we remove the resistence, and that
leaves the thetan in control of the incident again, rather than the
other way around.
Being dogmatic about function may be stupid but being dogmatic
about structure is completely nuts.
Not even Hubbard made that mistake, which you will well know if
you have read ALL of Hubbard.
As for engrams, Hubbard said, when you think engram, think BT.
What he meant was that living life forces are involved in the
persistence of mental masses and pictures and their restimulation, it
ain't made out of "electrons, protons and morons"... :)
So in some sense KP is right, there are no engrams as far as
structure is concerned. Its all caused by living beings and their
postulates.
Hubbard also said that the fate of most thetans is to dwindle down
to become other's BT's. So thats a fitting fate for KP eh? To become
someone else's engram!
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Feb 6 12:00:05 EST 2020
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/engrams
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)
iD8DBQFePEYWURT1lqxE3HERAqO3AJ48bDY/6GbSAq1SwF4K5oX0OxydqgCfTNp0
ZrgDVU9AIlHSin+0qdqDhDA=
=VbLZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Monday, February 3, 2020
clarke8.txt (fwd)
Arthur C. Clarke 8/9 ART MATRIX - LIGHTLINK
http://www.lightlink.com/theproof PO 880 Ithaca, NY 14851-0880
(607) 277-0959 Voice
(607) 277-8913 Fax
(607) 277-5026 Modems
homer@lightlink.com E-mail
jes@lightlink.com E-mail
03/21/08 12:46am
Dear Esteemed Sir,
DIRECT AND INDIRECT PERCEPTION
Direct perception means looking directly at an object under
investigation.
Direct perception means being in direct casusal contact with the
object under investigation.
Indirect perception means looking at some other object causally
related to, but different from, the object under investigation.
Indirect perception means being in indirect causal contact with the object
under investigation.
Being in contact with means being in the causal line of fire so to
speak of the object under investigation.
Direct contact means being in contact with the object itself.
Indirect contact means being in contact with some other object
removed in space or time from the original object under investigation.
Notice without causal contact of some kind or another, whether
direct or indirect, there is no perception or learning at all.
Direct perception is an oxymoron in the physical universe, because
two different objects, observer and observed, can never be in direct
contact with each other because they are always separated from each
other by space and time.
Always the observer is removed from the observed by some distance
in space and time, and the observer depends on a causal messenger wave
to relay data from the observed to the observer.
Being the recipient of a causal wave from some star a million light
years away does not mean one is in contact WITH THE STAR, but only with
the star's effects many light years of spacetime later.
In fact the observer will never know the star is there, unless the
observer HIMSELF, one way or another, is the effect of that star.
Just as Newton claimed there can be no direct action at a distance,
there can be no direct knowing or learning or perception or seeing at a
distance using physical universe means about physical universe objects.
This results in a conundrum which we will call Zeno's Paradox II.
Zeno's second paradox is easy enough to state.
In the physical universe, all learning is learning by looking at
something else.
The question then is how do we learn about that something else?
Indirect perception is defined as learning about something by
looking at something else.
At what point then do we finallly get to learn about the something
else by looking at IT.
That would be direct perception now wouldn't it?
Indirect perception produces theories which are composed
of evidence and models.
Direct perception produces perfect certainties.
"I see it, therefore I AM and it IS."
That won't make any sense to the guy who is collapsing
symbol and referent, he KNOWS he sees the symbol and not the
referent, and he KNOWS the existence of the symbol does not necessarily
imply the existence of the referent.
So he has to be careful not to change the meaning of the word
'*IT*' in the above sentence from symbol to referent mid sentence.
So the following is wrong.
"I see *IT* (the symbol) and therefore I am and *IT* (referent)
is too."
But the following is the essence of clarity.
"I see *IT* (the symbol), therefore I am, and *IT* (the symbol) is
too."
OK, now let's do a Gedankenexperiment, a thought experiment to the
uneducated.
Consider a star that emits a photon that comes to earth and hits a
sensor.
The observer on Earth can not see the star directly but can look at
the sensor instead and surmise about the star according to the state of
the sensor.
Use of the sensor to learn about the star is clearly indirect
perception of the star.
Learning about A by looking at B is clearly indirect perception of
A.
We say that A is the referent, and B is the symbol, in this case B
is the symbol of final authority which the observer then uses to
determine the nature of A.
But does the observer have direct perception of the sensor?
No, the sensor is removed from the observer just as the star is
removed from the sensor.
Just as causal messenger photons must travel through space and time
from the star to the sensor, similar photons must travel through space
and time from the sensor to the observer.
At this point the sensor is merely another way point on the causal
pathway from the star to the observer a 'causal hop' so to speak.
In order for the observer to learn about the star, the observer
must BECOME the symbol of final authority by changing state himself as a
result of the star, the final effect in a long line of effects.
The observer must himself BE the final hop of cause traveling from
the distant star to him.
Those changes in himself are then his learning about the star.
Now let's say the observer writes up his conclusions and prints
them in Nature magazine which is then read by another observer many
months later.
The causal pathway is longer now, it goes from star to sensor to
the first observer, to written paper, to published magazine, to photons
off the magazine page over to the second observer's eye as he reads the
page.
From the point of view of the second observer, HE is the symbol of
final authority from which HE learns about the star.
Thus we can conclude a silly but very important theorem:
A symbol is any event that contains a causal imprint of the
original referent.
A causal imprint means the quality set of the symbol has been
changed to track the quality set of the original referent.
A symbol of final authority is the last symbol in the chain used to
extract data about the original referent from causal changes in the
symbol.
Each observer is himself the symbol of final authority for his own
learning about any referent under investigation via indirect
perception.
All symbols of final authority are observers.
All observers are symbols of final authority.
Here in lies the conundrum.
Say we have a learning machine with video cameras and circuitry
leading to a video memory.
Star -> Photons -> Sensor -> Photons -> Video Camera -> Video
Memory.
The machine wishes to learn about the star and thus points its
cameras at the sensor on Earth receiving photons from the star.
The room in which the sensor rests is lighted, so photons coming
from the room lights bounce off the sensor showing its reading and they
hit the video camera connected to the machine.
The video camera focuses the image of the sensor on its CCD screen
(charge coupled device), and the remaining circuity translates the image
on the CCD screen into a bit pattern in the video memory of the machine.
The sensor, the video camera, and the video memory are all later
and later symbols for the star, because they all change state because of
the star and the photon that it emits, and these changes in state are
all sequential in time, and all contain a causal imprint of the nature
of the star from which data about the star might be gleaned.
But which is the symbol of final authority for the machine to learn
about the star?
At what point is the star 'seen' by the machine?
The machine certainly can't see the star at all, because its
looking at the sensor!
But in fact the machine can't see the sensor either, because its
really looking at its own video memory.
Does the sensor 'see' the star by virtue of it's reception of the
photons from the star and recording them in its needle movement?
Does the video camera 'see' the star by virtue of it's image of the
sensor on the CCD screen?
Does the machine 'see' the star by virtue of the video bit pattern
on its video memory?
What does it mean to 'see'?
Does seeing mean to merely change state as a result of?
One can BE an effect, but is that the same as KNOWING one was an
effect?
Earlier we learned that the changes in state in OURSELVES
caused by the incoming causal messenger waves *IS* our learning
about the original referent.
But just because a machine changes state, does it know
that it has changed state?
Wouldn't that be ANOTHER change in state a moment later
recording the first change in state?
Doesn't conscious seeing imply conscious knowing that one sees?
Isn't conscious seeing self knowing?
Are being, and knowing that one is being, two co incident aspects
of the same conscious event of seeing?
In other words is there more to conscious seeing than merely
changing state?
Now for the machine to learn anything about the star from the bit
pattern in its video memory it has to process that data in some way,
perhaps to determine the reading on the scale of the sensor showing how
bright the star is.
This circuitry which reads the video memory then produces a final
result which is printed on paper for permanent record.
Does the video memory 'see' the star?
Does the circuity which scans the video memory 'see' the star in
any sense of the word?
Does the paper with the printed result 'see' the star?
Each of these events are simply further symbols along the pathway
from star to final printed result.
Just dominos falling.
Each event can not see anything, it can only BE itself, and be the
effect of the prior event which can only be itself and the effect of the
prior event, etc...
The end printed paper certainly can't see anything, it can only BE
paper.
The video memory can't see anything, it can only be in various
states of on or off.
The sensor can't see anything, it can only be in a state where it's
needle is somewhere on a scale.
None of these states have any DIRECT contact with the star, so how
can any of them claim to be 'seeing the star?'
Does 'being an effect' of the star mean the same thing as 'seeing'
the star?
In a universe where everything is just dominos falling, can any
single domino claim to be able to 'see' the original domino that started
the chain just because it is the effect of that domino many such falls
later?
We already know that all learning results in a change in state, and
without that change in state no learning has occured.
In the same way any change of state is learning of some kind or
another.
However indirect perception works by learning FROM that change in
state, learning from the effect.
Direct perception works by learning directly from the cause itself.
That's why direct perception can say with certainty that cause
exists, it can not only see the cause and the effect, it can
SEE the cause between them!
That's because direct perception perceives cause and effect in the
same moment of time.
Perceiving in one moment of time does NOT guarantee perception
of cause, but perception of cause does necessitate perceiving
in one moment of time.
How can something learn by being in direct contact with something
else?
Only if the two are one and the same object.
Because no two truly different objects can ever be in direct
contact with each other.
That would be akin to Newton's action at a distance.
But in direct perception of cause, cause and effect are one and the
same event, not separated by space or time or dimension of any kind.
Separation or twoness create mandatory indirection of perception.
Thus direct perception is limited to learning about one's self, but
results in being able to see what one is learning about, because one is
in direct contact with it.
Thus one can verify learning about the object with the object
directly.
The learning afforded by direct perception can be checked out, or
continuously reverified in the moment.
"Hmmm, yes there is A and there is B, and yes A is cause of B, and
thus A = B".
Objects in the physical universe, separated by space and time, can
not do that with each other.
Now what we are really talking about here is how the conscious unit
can learn if it is seeing two different colors or not, say red and
green.
So we do a thought experiment, say some guy is sound asleep and
having a dream.
In the dream there is a table, and on the table are two beach
balls, one red and one green.
Notice we aren't talking about photons here, photons are not red or
green in the first place, and there are no photons in a dream anyhow.
The balls are self luminous red and green consciousness.
First we must notice that the red and green really and truely LOOK
like they are out there, at a distance from us.
But we know that if there WERE distance between the the looker and
the looked at, the looker could never see the looked at, for that would
be direct perception across a distance.
Thus the fact that we can see the red and green, means we are
seeing them directly, not indirectly via something else spanning the
distance between ourselves and the two colors.
But the fact that we are seeing them directly means the looked
through (space) is an illusion, that the sense that they are out there
and we are here is holographic.
If both the looker and the looked at have no separation between
them in space or time, then the looker and the looked at must be one
event, one and the same object.
Thus by learning with certainty about the red and the green and
that they are indeed two different colors, we can only be learning about
OURSELVES!
Consciousness is like a mirror, everything we see in the mirror
looks like it is OUT THERE on the other side of the mirror, but
everything we see in the mirror is really only ourselves in reflection.
Its a terrible analogy as mirrors use physical reflection
in 3 dimensional space, while conscious peception is scalar.
Just as you can see yourself in a mirror, just so you can only see
yourself in your conscious experiences of the world.
That's YOU 'out there' glowing in the dark of the void.
Looker and looked at are one, and the looked through is an illusion
of separation.
Homer
P.S. The analogy between consciousness and a mirror is a TERRIBLE
analogy, do not take it any further than it can be taken. In
particular, consciousness is not a bunch of rays bouncing back and
forth.
Conscious pictures are not the result of something here, sending
out rays to a mirror out there, and reflecting back to here, so that we
end up seeing here by looking there.
Conscious pictures simply self glow, end of causal story.
Homer
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Fri Aug 17 01:13:23 EDT 2007
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Feb 2 18:06:02 EST 2020
FTP://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/clarke/clarke8.txt
WWW://www.clearing.org
BLOG://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
_______________________________________________
Clear-L mailing list
Clear-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/clear-l
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
http://www.lightlink.com/theproof PO 880 Ithaca, NY 14851-0880
(607) 277-0959 Voice
(607) 277-8913 Fax
(607) 277-5026 Modems
homer@lightlink.com E-mail
jes@lightlink.com E-mail
03/21/08 12:46am
Dear Esteemed Sir,
DIRECT AND INDIRECT PERCEPTION
Direct perception means looking directly at an object under
investigation.
Direct perception means being in direct casusal contact with the
object under investigation.
Indirect perception means looking at some other object causally
related to, but different from, the object under investigation.
Indirect perception means being in indirect causal contact with the object
under investigation.
Being in contact with means being in the causal line of fire so to
speak of the object under investigation.
Direct contact means being in contact with the object itself.
Indirect contact means being in contact with some other object
removed in space or time from the original object under investigation.
Notice without causal contact of some kind or another, whether
direct or indirect, there is no perception or learning at all.
Direct perception is an oxymoron in the physical universe, because
two different objects, observer and observed, can never be in direct
contact with each other because they are always separated from each
other by space and time.
Always the observer is removed from the observed by some distance
in space and time, and the observer depends on a causal messenger wave
to relay data from the observed to the observer.
Being the recipient of a causal wave from some star a million light
years away does not mean one is in contact WITH THE STAR, but only with
the star's effects many light years of spacetime later.
In fact the observer will never know the star is there, unless the
observer HIMSELF, one way or another, is the effect of that star.
Just as Newton claimed there can be no direct action at a distance,
there can be no direct knowing or learning or perception or seeing at a
distance using physical universe means about physical universe objects.
This results in a conundrum which we will call Zeno's Paradox II.
Zeno's second paradox is easy enough to state.
In the physical universe, all learning is learning by looking at
something else.
The question then is how do we learn about that something else?
Indirect perception is defined as learning about something by
looking at something else.
At what point then do we finallly get to learn about the something
else by looking at IT.
That would be direct perception now wouldn't it?
Indirect perception produces theories which are composed
of evidence and models.
Direct perception produces perfect certainties.
"I see it, therefore I AM and it IS."
That won't make any sense to the guy who is collapsing
symbol and referent, he KNOWS he sees the symbol and not the
referent, and he KNOWS the existence of the symbol does not necessarily
imply the existence of the referent.
So he has to be careful not to change the meaning of the word
'*IT*' in the above sentence from symbol to referent mid sentence.
So the following is wrong.
"I see *IT* (the symbol) and therefore I am and *IT* (referent)
is too."
But the following is the essence of clarity.
"I see *IT* (the symbol), therefore I am, and *IT* (the symbol) is
too."
OK, now let's do a Gedankenexperiment, a thought experiment to the
uneducated.
Consider a star that emits a photon that comes to earth and hits a
sensor.
The observer on Earth can not see the star directly but can look at
the sensor instead and surmise about the star according to the state of
the sensor.
Use of the sensor to learn about the star is clearly indirect
perception of the star.
Learning about A by looking at B is clearly indirect perception of
A.
We say that A is the referent, and B is the symbol, in this case B
is the symbol of final authority which the observer then uses to
determine the nature of A.
But does the observer have direct perception of the sensor?
No, the sensor is removed from the observer just as the star is
removed from the sensor.
Just as causal messenger photons must travel through space and time
from the star to the sensor, similar photons must travel through space
and time from the sensor to the observer.
At this point the sensor is merely another way point on the causal
pathway from the star to the observer a 'causal hop' so to speak.
In order for the observer to learn about the star, the observer
must BECOME the symbol of final authority by changing state himself as a
result of the star, the final effect in a long line of effects.
The observer must himself BE the final hop of cause traveling from
the distant star to him.
Those changes in himself are then his learning about the star.
Now let's say the observer writes up his conclusions and prints
them in Nature magazine which is then read by another observer many
months later.
The causal pathway is longer now, it goes from star to sensor to
the first observer, to written paper, to published magazine, to photons
off the magazine page over to the second observer's eye as he reads the
page.
From the point of view of the second observer, HE is the symbol of
final authority from which HE learns about the star.
Thus we can conclude a silly but very important theorem:
A symbol is any event that contains a causal imprint of the
original referent.
A causal imprint means the quality set of the symbol has been
changed to track the quality set of the original referent.
A symbol of final authority is the last symbol in the chain used to
extract data about the original referent from causal changes in the
symbol.
Each observer is himself the symbol of final authority for his own
learning about any referent under investigation via indirect
perception.
All symbols of final authority are observers.
All observers are symbols of final authority.
Here in lies the conundrum.
Say we have a learning machine with video cameras and circuitry
leading to a video memory.
Star -> Photons -> Sensor -> Photons -> Video Camera -> Video
Memory.
The machine wishes to learn about the star and thus points its
cameras at the sensor on Earth receiving photons from the star.
The room in which the sensor rests is lighted, so photons coming
from the room lights bounce off the sensor showing its reading and they
hit the video camera connected to the machine.
The video camera focuses the image of the sensor on its CCD screen
(charge coupled device), and the remaining circuity translates the image
on the CCD screen into a bit pattern in the video memory of the machine.
The sensor, the video camera, and the video memory are all later
and later symbols for the star, because they all change state because of
the star and the photon that it emits, and these changes in state are
all sequential in time, and all contain a causal imprint of the nature
of the star from which data about the star might be gleaned.
But which is the symbol of final authority for the machine to learn
about the star?
At what point is the star 'seen' by the machine?
The machine certainly can't see the star at all, because its
looking at the sensor!
But in fact the machine can't see the sensor either, because its
really looking at its own video memory.
Does the sensor 'see' the star by virtue of it's reception of the
photons from the star and recording them in its needle movement?
Does the video camera 'see' the star by virtue of it's image of the
sensor on the CCD screen?
Does the machine 'see' the star by virtue of the video bit pattern
on its video memory?
What does it mean to 'see'?
Does seeing mean to merely change state as a result of?
One can BE an effect, but is that the same as KNOWING one was an
effect?
Earlier we learned that the changes in state in OURSELVES
caused by the incoming causal messenger waves *IS* our learning
about the original referent.
But just because a machine changes state, does it know
that it has changed state?
Wouldn't that be ANOTHER change in state a moment later
recording the first change in state?
Doesn't conscious seeing imply conscious knowing that one sees?
Isn't conscious seeing self knowing?
Are being, and knowing that one is being, two co incident aspects
of the same conscious event of seeing?
In other words is there more to conscious seeing than merely
changing state?
Now for the machine to learn anything about the star from the bit
pattern in its video memory it has to process that data in some way,
perhaps to determine the reading on the scale of the sensor showing how
bright the star is.
This circuitry which reads the video memory then produces a final
result which is printed on paper for permanent record.
Does the video memory 'see' the star?
Does the circuity which scans the video memory 'see' the star in
any sense of the word?
Does the paper with the printed result 'see' the star?
Each of these events are simply further symbols along the pathway
from star to final printed result.
Just dominos falling.
Each event can not see anything, it can only BE itself, and be the
effect of the prior event which can only be itself and the effect of the
prior event, etc...
The end printed paper certainly can't see anything, it can only BE
paper.
The video memory can't see anything, it can only be in various
states of on or off.
The sensor can't see anything, it can only be in a state where it's
needle is somewhere on a scale.
None of these states have any DIRECT contact with the star, so how
can any of them claim to be 'seeing the star?'
Does 'being an effect' of the star mean the same thing as 'seeing'
the star?
In a universe where everything is just dominos falling, can any
single domino claim to be able to 'see' the original domino that started
the chain just because it is the effect of that domino many such falls
later?
We already know that all learning results in a change in state, and
without that change in state no learning has occured.
In the same way any change of state is learning of some kind or
another.
However indirect perception works by learning FROM that change in
state, learning from the effect.
Direct perception works by learning directly from the cause itself.
That's why direct perception can say with certainty that cause
exists, it can not only see the cause and the effect, it can
SEE the cause between them!
That's because direct perception perceives cause and effect in the
same moment of time.
Perceiving in one moment of time does NOT guarantee perception
of cause, but perception of cause does necessitate perceiving
in one moment of time.
How can something learn by being in direct contact with something
else?
Only if the two are one and the same object.
Because no two truly different objects can ever be in direct
contact with each other.
That would be akin to Newton's action at a distance.
But in direct perception of cause, cause and effect are one and the
same event, not separated by space or time or dimension of any kind.
Separation or twoness create mandatory indirection of perception.
Thus direct perception is limited to learning about one's self, but
results in being able to see what one is learning about, because one is
in direct contact with it.
Thus one can verify learning about the object with the object
directly.
The learning afforded by direct perception can be checked out, or
continuously reverified in the moment.
"Hmmm, yes there is A and there is B, and yes A is cause of B, and
thus A = B".
Objects in the physical universe, separated by space and time, can
not do that with each other.
Now what we are really talking about here is how the conscious unit
can learn if it is seeing two different colors or not, say red and
green.
So we do a thought experiment, say some guy is sound asleep and
having a dream.
In the dream there is a table, and on the table are two beach
balls, one red and one green.
Notice we aren't talking about photons here, photons are not red or
green in the first place, and there are no photons in a dream anyhow.
The balls are self luminous red and green consciousness.
First we must notice that the red and green really and truely LOOK
like they are out there, at a distance from us.
But we know that if there WERE distance between the the looker and
the looked at, the looker could never see the looked at, for that would
be direct perception across a distance.
Thus the fact that we can see the red and green, means we are
seeing them directly, not indirectly via something else spanning the
distance between ourselves and the two colors.
But the fact that we are seeing them directly means the looked
through (space) is an illusion, that the sense that they are out there
and we are here is holographic.
If both the looker and the looked at have no separation between
them in space or time, then the looker and the looked at must be one
event, one and the same object.
Thus by learning with certainty about the red and the green and
that they are indeed two different colors, we can only be learning about
OURSELVES!
Consciousness is like a mirror, everything we see in the mirror
looks like it is OUT THERE on the other side of the mirror, but
everything we see in the mirror is really only ourselves in reflection.
Its a terrible analogy as mirrors use physical reflection
in 3 dimensional space, while conscious peception is scalar.
Just as you can see yourself in a mirror, just so you can only see
yourself in your conscious experiences of the world.
That's YOU 'out there' glowing in the dark of the void.
Looker and looked at are one, and the looked through is an illusion
of separation.
Homer
P.S. The analogy between consciousness and a mirror is a TERRIBLE
analogy, do not take it any further than it can be taken. In
particular, consciousness is not a bunch of rays bouncing back and
forth.
Conscious pictures are not the result of something here, sending
out rays to a mirror out there, and reflecting back to here, so that we
end up seeing here by looking there.
Conscious pictures simply self glow, end of causal story.
Homer
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Fri Aug 17 01:13:23 EDT 2007
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Feb 2 18:06:02 EST 2020
FTP://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/clarke/clarke8.txt
WWW://www.clearing.org
BLOG://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
_______________________________________________
Clear-L mailing list
Clear-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/clear-l
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)