-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
ASSIGNMENT OF QUALITIES
(Assignment of qualities is now called MAPPING of qualities between
symbols and referents.
In our discussions about symbols and referents we have learned a
number of very important things.
The first is that symbols and referents are two different objects,
the symbol is used to refer to the referent.
(Usually the symbol is a different object that the referent but
they can be the same object, a referent can be used to symbolize
itself.)
Because both symbol and referent are objects they have quality sets
which describe them, and because they are two different objects, each
one has a unique quality set different from the other.
They may have some qualities in common, but they *DEFINITELY* have
some different qualities between them.
The first quality therefore that usually describes both the symbol
and the referent is that the symbol is not the referent and the referent
is not the symbol. They can be the same object, but usually they are
not.
Sometimes the symbol has qualities that encode the various
qualities of the referent, and thus we say the symbol contains data
about the referent.
For example the word 'cow' doesn't contain any data at all about
what a cow really is, but a picture of a cow surely does.
Thus symbols like the word cow are said to have low data content,
and symbols like pictures are said to have high data content.
Also sometimes the qualities of the symbol that contain data about
the referent are very similar to the qualities of the referent itself,
so for example the picture of a cow not only encodes data about the real
cow, it also looks a lot like it.
We call this similarity between the qualities of the symbol and the
referent geometric congruency.
Strictly speaking congruency means the symbol and referent would be
identical in qualities to each other, so we are really talking about
geometric similarity, but we call it congruency anyhow.
Thus a picture of a cube is also clearly cubic, even though it is
only a 2D projection of a cube. The same relation holds between the
picture of a cow and a real cow, they look much the same plus or minus
differences.
As we have discussed the conscious unit consists of a looker and
his looked-ats.
The looker is the conscious agent I, and the looked-ats are his
conscious experiences that surround him, color, sound, taste, smell,
feeling, and agency (causitiveness). Perception of agency is included
as is anything else the conscious unit can be conscious of.
Looked ats are the conscious experiences of the looker, and for
short we call them color forms, even though they are not limited to the
visual range. Sights, sounds, tastes, smells, emotions, are all 'color
forms', different colors or forms of consciousness.
Now visual colors presently come in red, green, blue, yellow, cyan,
magenta and all the colors in between.
There is also this sensation of space between the looker and his
color forms, which gives us the impression of a 3 dimensional world 'out
there'. We call this the looked through.
In general the looker can see color forms under 3 conditions.
First, color forms are apparent when the looker is creating them
out of direct imagination. He considers a red apple on a table, there
it is, he sees it.
Imagination can be forced in which case we call it hallucination.
Second, color forms are apparent when the looker is dreaming at
night during sleep, he has a dream and in the dream he sees a red apple
on a table, there it is, he sees it.
Lastly, color forms are apparent when the looker is causally
connected to the alleged physical sense pathways of his body, which when
awake, are in impingement contact with the external physical universe.
There is an apple on a table out there in the alleged physical
universe, photons from the sun bounce off the apple, hit his eye, then
the retina, then the optic nerve, then the visual cortex, then get
displayed in his conscious display screen.
They are called impingement contacts because he only sees the color
form when his body is impinged upon by a physical causal messenger wave
like a photon, force in transit towards him.
What the looked-at LOOKS LIKE is not affected by which of the 3
possible conditions the being is seeing them under. All three look just
exactly like an apple on a table.
A symbol is a symbol is a symbol, whether it is connected to a
referent or not doesn't change the fact that it is a symbol.
The being USES his conscious color forms as symbols referring
to alleged physical universe referents. He considers that because
he sees space (conscious color form), that there IS space in the
phyiscal universe. Same for time and other material forms.
The physical referents are made of physical universe stuff like
wood, glass, aluminum, iron etc.
The conscious symbols which he actually sees (color forms)
are all made of the same stuff, conscious stuff.
Conscious stuff can LOOK like its made of aluminum, but never is.
The conscious unit while in a body in contact with the physical
universe, is very much like a guy in an army tank looking at the world
through a TV set in the tank connected to a video camera outside the
tank. At no time is the guy in the tank in direct contact with the
outside world, only the images conveyed to him on the TV set.
The conscious unit is in an identical relationship with his body,
only in this case instead of a video camera outside the tank looking at
the world, the body has eyes outside the body looking at the world.
And instead of looking at a TV set rendition of the data coming
from the video camera, he is looking at his conscious display rendition
of the data coming in through his body's eyes. His conscious display is
his panoply of conscious looked-ats (color forms).
If the video camera breaks, the guy in the tank becomes blind to
the outside world but not blind to his TV set which he can still see
inside his tank, although it shows him nothing of the outside world
while the camera is broken or off.
If the body's eyes break, the conscious unit also becomes blind to
the outside world and for the exact same reason, but not blind to his
conscious display which he can still see although it shows him nothing
of the outside world while his body's eyes remain broken or closed.
The guy in the tank is using the image on the TV set to represent
the physical world to him which is outside of the tank. The TV image is
the symbol, the physical world outside the tank is the referent.
The conscious unit is doing the exact same thing, he is using his
conscious looked-ats to represent the alleged physical world to him
which is outside of his body. The conscious display is the symbol and
the physical world outside his body is the referent.
So in either case the being is seeing the external physical
universe with a via, with a symbol of that world, rather than looking at
that world directly.
The guy in the tank can't look at the world directly because he is
stuck in his tank, and the conscious unit can't look at the world
directly because he too is stuck in his conscious unit.
A looker has never seen anything but his conscious looked-ats.
He CAN'T see anything but his conscious looked-ats.
A conscious looked-at is all a conscious unit can look at!
Although in theory the guy can get out of his tank, a conscious
looker can never get out of his conscious unit.
Now it is highly convenient of the TV set in the tank that it
displays a symbol of the physical world that is highly geometrically
congruent to that same physical world. Square things in the outside
world look like square things on the TV set, round things look like
round things, perspective is maintained so things far away look smaller
etc.
In fact if the circuitry of the video camera and the TV set in the
tank are very good, the guy in the tank can *PRETEND* that the TV set is
an open window to the world, with nothing intervening. He can *PRETEND*
there is no via in his perception of the outside world.
The conscious unit experiences the same advantage, the transfer of
data from his eyes to his conscious display is good enough that he can
pretend he is seeing the world directly and not through the complex vias
of eyes, nerves, brain and consciousness.
However the fact that the symbol looks in many ways like the
referent (but not all) does not in any way lessen the fact that the
symbol is not the referent.
Worse, even though the shape of the symbol may match the shape of
the referent closely, the symbol has many other qualities some of which
have nothing at all to do with the referent, and others which the
referent doesn't have, but which are used to encode various qualities of
the referent that the symbol doesn't have.
Let's say that again.
Both the symbol and referent have distinct quality sets.
The symbol may have some qualities that closely resemble or are
identical to qualities in the referent, both are 'square'.
The symbol may have qualities that the referent doesn't have at
all, a picture of a cow is made of paper, the cow isn't. Paper has
nothing to do AT ALL with a cow.
The symbol may have qualities that the referent also doesn't have,
but which are used to refer to qualities in the referent that the
referent does have. Redness in conscious experience is used to refer to
frequency of photons bouncing off the referent. Photons do not have
redness, and consciousness does not have photonic frequency, but there
they are being used to refer to each other.
Let's do that last one again.
For example external world objects are lit by photons which have
energy and frequency.
When these qualities are translated into the conscious display,
they are translated into intensity of experience and color.
For example when a photon of 600 THz (Terra hertz) hits the retina,
it eventually (many milliseconds later) gets displayed in the conscious
display as red. If the frequency of the photon is higher it will be
displayed as yellow, green, then blue and finally violet.
If one replaces the visual spectrum chip in the brain with an X-ray
spectrum chip, then X-rays will display as red and gamma rays will
display as violet and visible light won't register at all!
Thus the mapping between physical frequency to conscious color is
arbitrary.
Even amongst humans who apparently all have the same visable
spectrum chip, there is no way to prove that the primary conscious
colors are arranged in the same order across the spectrum. What he sees
as red, you might see as green. We both call it red because we have
been taught to call it red, but who know what we actually see, except in
ourselves.
Redness is not a quality of photons, and frequency is not a quality
of conscious experiences.
So which frequency of photon is assigned which color in
consciousness is an arbitrary hook together designed around usefulness
rather than necessity.
There is nothing 'red' about any photon at all.
Redness could just as easily have been hooked to X-rays, or even
radio waves, had we the physical senses to pick them up.
In any case its easy enough to prove that the 600 THz photon
doesn't make it through the brain to any part of the visual cortex, so
whatever redness is, it is an arbitrary hook together in consciousness
for the purposes of rendering in consciousness a symbol of the physical
universe.
That symbol may have very high geometric congruency with its
referent in the physical universe, but in no way and at no time is
seeing the symbol the same thing as seeing the physical universe
referent. The physical universe is in fact never seen at all, but
merely theorized from the seeing of the symbol.
So say the guy is looking with his body's eyes at a red ball on a
table.
The ball on the table is in fact spherical and is reflecting light
in the 600 THz range. In his consciousness he sees a red ball.
Now the roundness of the physical ball matches very closely the
roundness of the image he sees in his consciousness, he doesn't see a
square or a triangle for example, and so we have a close agreement on
geometric congruency between his symbol in consciousness and the actual
physical referent on the table.
So the shape of the symbol is used to encode data about and
represent the shape of the referent and there is a very close match.
But notice that when it comes to color, the color of the symbol red
has no counterpart in the referent. The referent, the physical universe
ball, does not have color! What it does have is the ability to reflect
light of a certain frequency, and so color in the conscious symbol is
then hooked with the frequency of the physical reflection, and we say
the ball is red.
The physical ball is not red, the conscious experience of the ball
is red, the physical ball is not anything, but a reflector of photons of
600 Thz.
The conscious display of the ball is certainly red, but the
physical referent is decidedly not red at all.
Thus 'the ball is red' is correct when talking about the conscious
symbol, but is false when talking about the alleged physical referent.
Redness does not apply to physical objects, only conscious objects.
What we have been discussing here is called ASSIGNMENT OF QUALITY.
The being sees various qualities in the symbol and then assigns
them either colloquially or literally to the referent.
Now we all know what we mean by 'a red ball', and most of us are
smart enough to know that a red ball really isn't red but is a reflector
of 600 THz light. And most of the time we get away with collapsing the
qualities of the symbol into the qualities of the referent.
Redness is a quality of being of the conscious symbol.
Reflection of 600 THz light is a quality of causal relation between
the alleged physical ball and the alleged physical photon, two different
objects interacting.
But this collapsing between symbol and referent can be carried too
far to a point of insanity, particularly when the being is no longer
able to recognize that he is looking at a symbol in the first place but
thinks instead that the symbol he sees is actually the referent.
Beings can get so far gone they no longer realize that the symbol
is not the referent, and they no longer realize that the TRUE qualities
of the referent are different than the TRUE qualities of the symbol.
They take the qualities of the symbol AS the qualities of the
referent.
For example Dufus and Goober are two guys in the tank and they are
fighting a war with other tanks. Dufus puts his finger on the TV screen
and says 'Hey look at that tank, let's shoot it!' and Goober says "Uh,
that's not a tank, thats a picture of a tank on a TV screen, you are
confusing symbol and referent!"
Dufus says in return 'You idiot I know very well that's a TV
screen, but it's representing real tanks out in the world which we have
to shoot before they shoot us, so shoot it already!"
You see that's sanity, Dufus is collapsing symbol and referent for
the purpose of game play, he knows he is doing it, it is the way games
are played.
But then later after the battle, they are still in the tank toking
up preparing to rest for the night, and Goober puts on a video tape of
an old war movie through the same TV set. Now Dufus sees the tanks in
the war movie and thinks they are actual tanks and starts to shoot
everywhere.
That's not sanity.
Sanity is knowing what referent your symbols are causally connected
to, or if they are connected to any referent at all.
HALLUCINATION
So let's take a fighter pilot whose helmet shows him a display of
the space around him projected by a laser on the inside of the helmet
visor. These are called heads up displays and are more and more common
in modern airplanes.
The helmet display is connected to circuitry which is connected to
cameras and advanced radar sensors on the surface of the plane. It can
sense an enemy plane miles away, and even tell what kind of plane it is,
how fast it is flying, in what direction, how many missles it has,
whether they are armed, and whether they are aimed at him.
Now in his heads up display he doesn't see a picture of a MIG
coming at him, but he does see a little red dot, with various data about
it printed in close proximity that tells him what he needs to know about
the nature and level of the threat.
So the image he sees in his helmet is a symbol for the real event
happening in the outside world which he can not see, because it's too
far away.
Now let's say one day he's flying around and suddenly the red dot
indicating a MIG turns on, and shows that it is aimed right at him and
has fired its missle already. He takes evasive action and fires back.
After it is all over, his high commander starts yelling at him
asking what the hell happened. He realizes there was no MIG, he was
never in danger and the missle he fired hit a mountain side full of some
poor guy's goats.
So was the pilot hallucinating? Well more accurately, in this
case, his equipment was hallucinating, it was presenting to him a symbol
for a referent that did not in fact exist.
The symbol was actual, but the fact that it was associated with a
referent was an illusion, and the pilot operated under the delusion that
the symbol was not an illusion, ie was in fact connected causally to its
proper referent.
That is the definition of a hallucination, a symbol without a
referent.
Hallucination is complete (and dangerous), when illusion is
compounded by the delusion that there is no illusion. The delusion is
that the symbol is causally connected to a referent when it isn't.
Now notice the *SYMBOL* is not an illusion, its there and actual
but the implied referent isn't there at all, the existence of the
referent is an illusion brought about by the insistence of the symbol.
But what about when the pilot puts his plane into test mode to
verify that all the alarms work properly. There is that red dot
indicating the MIG again, but there is no MIG as this is just a test.
Is that a hallucination? It LOOKS the same whether testing, in
real combat or during mal function doesn't it?
There is no way to tell from looking at the symbol alone whether
the symbol is a hallucination or not.
The same thing is true of the conscious unit looking at a looked
at.
He can be imagining it intentionally, he can be dreaming it during
sleep, or he can be seeing it because his consciousness is connected to
his body's senses which are connected to their circuitry properly.
How does he know which is which?
Well the point is he can't know merely by looking at the looked-at,
he has to look at the context surrounding the looked-at to tell if it is
an imagining, dream, hallucination or causal physical contact.
The point is that whether or not the referent exists, the symbol
definitely exists. So the 'hallucination' (the symbol), if it is one,
is ITSELF never a hallucination.
The symbol, if seen, is always actual.
So if a guy says he is seeing things that don't exist,
he means he is seeing symbols (conscious color forms), that
are SUPPOSED to refer to referents but which in this case are not
there.
He has a deep philosophical problem, all he can EVER see is the
symbol, so how does he know the referent is not there?
Hallucination is not a thing, it is neither symbol nor referent, a
hallucination is a relationship between the looker at a symbol and his
consideration that the symbol implies a referent when the referent is
absent.
If a conscious unit sees some thing, he sees it, no question about
it. Whether there is a referent on the other side of the circuitry is a
whole different matter.
So when a conscious unit says he sees a red apple, and someone asks
him 'how do you know you aren't hallucinating', the answer is 'I am not
talking about some possible referent, I am talking about the symbol, the
perceived red apple, which is WITHOUT QUESTION actual and visible to me
in my conscious display screen.'
If he says he is seeing a red apple, he should be talking about his
conscious color form and not the physical referent, because physical
apples ARE NOT RED.
The question of how a conscious unit knows that any symbol he
experiences has a referent causing it, is a difficult question to
answer, and may not in fact be answerable.
In any case, what is certain is that: the conscious symbol we are
certain of, the alleged referent forever remains a theory.
That's because one can not tell if a referent exists just
because the symbol exists and is known.
YOu can't prove the existence of A by looking at B,
and you can't prove the existence of the referent by looking
at a symbol for the referent.
Just notice that the whole idea that the referent EXISTS comes from
the certainty that the conscious symbol EXISTS, whbich it does, and the
person is then assigning the quality of existence to the referent
because of the directly perceived existence of the symbol.
That is like assuming a cow is made of paper because the picture of
the cow is made of paper.
Homer
02/14/07 Wednesday 02:13am EST
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Mon Apr 6 15:43:47 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore441.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)
iD8DBQFVIuHzURT1lqxE3HERAj5LAKCouWvR6THH6QbiaA9OrEoLxolzUACdGzop
xQXixZYkzovp+tRWIYJC5pk=
=+DNn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Monday, April 6, 2015
ADORE422 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
TIME ENOUGH FOR LOVE
RolandRB (rolandberry@hotmail.com) wrote:
>Awareness of self as a body and a mortal Being mixed in with others the
>same to which you owe allegiance and support. Live your life in full
>awareness of this and you will have led a life better than any example
>so far. In your life, create something lasting that is of clear worth
>to your fellow Man and acceptable to yourself and you can die a
>contented mortal. There is nothing higher than that.
It is not possible to have had time enough for love nor to die a
contented mortal.
You sing the Devil's Tune.
Homer
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Mon Dec 25 23:17:09 EST 2006
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Apr 4 03:06:02 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore422.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFVH41aURT1lqxE3HERAug3AKCyBZlTBWImtJKhgvjL9Zp0wKtlLwCeOTfq
o7YG5Bwxu+okWAxpvy719mw=
=otnL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
TIME ENOUGH FOR LOVE
RolandRB (rolandberry@hotmail.com) wrote:
>Awareness of self as a body and a mortal Being mixed in with others the
>same to which you owe allegiance and support. Live your life in full
>awareness of this and you will have led a life better than any example
>so far. In your life, create something lasting that is of clear worth
>to your fellow Man and acceptable to yourself and you can die a
>contented mortal. There is nothing higher than that.
It is not possible to have had time enough for love nor to die a
contented mortal.
You sing the Devil's Tune.
Homer
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Mon Dec 25 23:17:09 EST 2006
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Apr 4 03:06:02 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore422.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFVH41aURT1lqxE3HERAug3AKCyBZlTBWImtJKhgvjL9Zp0wKtlLwCeOTfq
o7YG5Bwxu+okWAxpvy719mw=
=otnL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Saturday, April 4, 2015
I AM THE DESTROYER OF WORLDS
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
I AM THE DESTROYER OF WORLDS
> Is a memory in a conscious mind an example of perfect certainty? In other
> words, is a memory in the same class as simple self-awareness, in that the
> memory, even if flawed or deluded, exists in a way that can be categorized
> as direct perception?
Most mechanical memory is simple picture taking, so no, a mere
picture of the past is not proof of squat. SEEING THE MEMORY in present
time is a perfect certainty, but relating it to what happened where you
can no longer look is not a certainty.
Certainty is ONLY of the living now.
You can never learn with certainty about A (the past) by looking at
B (a picture of the past in the present).
However that said, the question is more difficult for trailing near
present time memories, like the ones I have of writing this posting as I
am writing it.
Imagine trying to build a machine that could tell if time is taking
place. You take a picture, you take another picture later and compare,
if different there was time.
But causal pathways can be 'messed' with, how does the machine
really know something didn't mess up the second picture during the
taking of it, to make it different when it shouldn't have been.
Since any causal pathway can be messed with by a superior third
party such as God, no causal pathway can be trusted. And no amount of
other causal pathways can verify the first causal pathway.
Using more causal pathways to inspect and verify other causal
pathways is nuts, for who will inspect and verify the second inspector
and verfier pathways.
So when trying to verify a causal pathway, "More causal pathways do
not a more certain causal pathway make."
If a machine has 3 cameras, and 2 says something happened and 1
didn't, which report do you trust, the majority report or the minority
report?
Because of the causal path way problem, it is well known that no
matter how many cameras a machine has, nor how well they can see into
the very circuits of the machine itself, nor how accurate the machine's
internal records of its own circuits are, it is impossible for the
machine to verify the correctness of its circuits to a perfect certainty
by comparing what it sees to its internal diagrams.
What ever conclusion it draws is always a theory based on trust
that things are working and not being messed with by a higher causal
third party.
Thus a machine can ever verify that it is working properly.
So that's the third party law, any two events in the physical
universe that follow each other, might be causing each other, or might
be being caused by a third cause that causes both of the other events in
such a way that they LOOK like they cause each other.
Do electrons have anything to do with why electrons repell?
In the arcade game of PONG do the light paddle and light ball and
light wall have anything to do with the ball bouncing off the paddle and
the wall?
In the first place nothing is bouncing, only being reprojected. in
new locations. As time goes on, the paddle, the ball and the wall are
each forever new.
No, the 'bounce' is caused by a spanning third party causing the
ILLUSION of cause between the paddle, the ball and the wall.
Worse a machine can not even tell if it has changed state, because
its present state contains no data about any possible prior state. The
machine is stuck forever in IS, it can't know anything of BECOMING.
So a machine takes a picture, then another picture, and compares
them and finds out they are different. That whole set of circuitry
right there, who knows where the results come from, any third party or
interfering party could cause results to be wrong no matter how careful
the machine is to 'look' at what is going on.
Thus a machine can not tell it has changed state with perfect
certainty, let alone compare states with perfect certainty. Since all
learning IS a change in state, the machine can never tell with perfect
certainty if it has learned anything or not.
Thus a machine can not learn with perfect certainty anything about
anything.
And in particular, can not tell with perfect certainty that time is
taking place which involves a certainty that a change has taken place.
So you go out and look at a blinking red stop light for a few hours
at night at 3am in the morning. Is the light blinking? Yes, how do you
know?
YOU CAN SEE IT BLINK.
That is not seeing just states, but CHANGES in state.
A machine can never see the change directly, it can only BE in one
or the other of the two ends states. Your consciousness can see the
CHANGE.
A non scalar machine can not do that.
So would you bet your and everyone else's eternity in hell on your
perception that the light is blinking?
Yes of course.
But how are you doing this, by taking a memory picture, then
comparing to a later picture when the light has changed state. At the
later time, how do you KNOW the memory is correct and not messed with?
Can you take a memory and then 10 seconds later LOOK INTO THE PAST
by 10 seconds DIRECTLY and compare the memory with the past directly?
How about a memory of 1 second ago?
How wide is present time? Can we see into the past and future by
even a millionth of a second, thus having trans time 'memory' which is
perfectly certain? Or is that just direct perception of a width of time
and not memory at all but none the less gives us certainty of time and
change.
Same thing with the perception of time and space, both are
illusions, if they existed you could never know it, so the fact that you
'know it' by seeing it with certainty, means they don't actually exist.
Only a timeless entity could be certain of change and time. Only a
spaceless entity could be perceptually certain of space and distance, a
machine can't do it at all.
This isn't true because a timeless entity can see time, its because
a machine working in time CAN'T see time.
Thus if you can see time, you must not be a machine working in
time.
That does not at all explain how a timeless entity can experience
time.
It is conceivable that there is both the timeless state and the
timefull state, then the timeless entity can see time in the timefull
state, but the timefull machine never will.
Same thing for differences, look at two different colors. Are you
certain they look different? A machine can't do that, it can only
receive signals and voltages, compare them with some circuitry that may
or may not work and print out a yes or a no.
The machine never SEES anything, it just passes incoming effects on
through it self back to the outside again.
Two frequencies come in, and it prints yes they are different.
That's just dominoes falling according to code.
No domino can see any prior domino, it can only change state (fall)
as an alleged result of the prior domino pushing on it with a causal
messenger wave when they 'collide'.
The two domino's never actually touch, and after the second domino
starts falling, it can never know that it was 'touched' to start the
fall.
So the second domino can never know anything about the cause of its
falling, and there is not continuity of certainty from moment of touch
to later during the fall.
And WHAT it was touched by will always remain a mystery of theory,
never direct perception of the touching domino, nor even the virtual
photon that came across during the collision.
The falling domino doesn't even 'feel the force' pushing it, in any
conscious sense of the word, it merely responds to the force by falling.
Just as pleasure and pain can not be reduced to force and mass in
motion, either can color nor any other conscious experience including
the experience of time and space.
Color in particular can not be numerified, yes shades of red can be
numerified, but the difference between red and green can not, thus a
machine can never see red, as machines are nothing but numbers of force
and mass.
OK, so you have a memory of what you ate at breakfast.
Are you willing to bet your eternity in hell its right?
If yes, then that mechanism is not a mechanical one, and only a
scalar non mechanical conscious entity could do it.
But what is the mechanism?
And what the hell is a scalar 'mechanism anyhow' where cause and
effect are one and the same event.
In a mechanical system the learner computes back to the nature of
the cause from the effect it receives.
That's indirect perception.
In a scalar system, the learner and the learned about are one and
the same entity, and the learning about cause is NOT from looking at the
effect and computing back to some theoretical nature and existence of
the cause, but from looking at the cause directly.
Well what is the mechanism behind an object being able to see
itself without merely being the effect of itself and declaring that
because it was an effect it must have been cause.
That's thinking and logical deduction, 'there was an effect so
there must have been a cause.'
Scalar perception is 'There's a cause because I can SEE it
directly.'
In the physical universe, causation is not sufficient to witness
causation.
That's why causal pathways can't be used to verify either
themselves or other causal pathways. And if they can't verify
themselves, they sure as hell can't verify any other causal pathway.
Verification of a causal pathway means one can tell with perfect
certainty that any particular change happened BECAUSE of a designated
change before it, and not some 3rd party making it look like there was a
prior different cause.
In the physical universe all we can see are the two end events, the
two things that 'changed because of each other'. We can never see the
CAUSE between them.
We can never tell if two electrons repel because they have actual
cause between them, or because God is moving them directly as if they
have cause between them.
If two electrons are out in space, and you wiggle one, a while
later the second will wiggle. Are you perfectly certain that because
the second electron wiggled, that the first one even existed.
No, God or anything could have wiggled the second for no reason at
all. So its a theory that the second wiggled BECAUSE the first wiggled,
and the theory is made of model and evidence.
The model is that there is a first electron that wiggled first and
causal messenger wiggles went between them, and thus the evidence that
there is a first electron is BECAUSE the second wiggled.
The evidence is always the EFFECT, never the cause.
And the model is whatever THEORETICAL causation you wish to surmise
between the effect and its prior cause.
Since all observation of effects and their so called causes USES
this very mechanism to look with, the whole thing may be consistent and
peer reviewed, and completely wrong with God laughing at everyone.
And with what peers are you going to review your proof that peers
even exist?
So the whole dependency on peer review depends on ASSUMING with out
peer review without peer review.
The bedrock of 'objective universe' science is fairy dust.
Consciousness however can see the cause between things, hold your
finger up, notice the cause between YOU and your finger being in the
air. That's direct perception of personal agency.
Look at two different colors, and then hold your finger up BECAUSE
they are different. Notice the intra conscious causal pathway between
colors, YOU and figure in the air.
Certainty that any cause of any kind exists at all is the hall mark
of consiousness.
It may be hard to behold, but in the absence of cause there can be
no learning. No change, means no learning.
Thus there has to be cause of some kind, scalar or not, between the
two different conscious colors (not PHOTONS, photons have no color) and
your knowing they are different. You can see this incoming cause IN THE
COLORS, glowing at you TELLING you with perfect certainty that they are
different.
Thus you are learning about the existence of cause by looking at
cause in the colors directly, not by looking at some effect in yourself
and computing back taht the two alleged colors must be different and
might be cause of whatever you are computing back from.
Think is not direct perception is not think is not direct
perception.
Thus certainty of incoming causation is unique to conscious
experiences. Certainty of outgoing cause is also unique as you observe
yourself hold your finger up and know YOU are doing it, and that it is
up BECAUSE you are PUTTING IT UP, not because some third party is
putting it up for you, or worse making you THINK it is up via some
return effect, when really its still down.
We are not talking about the physical finger, but the conscious
finger you can see.
You see the reason you can't learn about A by looking at B, is the
their party could always be between A and B. You see B, but can't see
A, so you have to trust the changes in B were 'caused by A'.
A messenger hands you a message from the King, how do you know it
came from the King?
But with two different colors, you can SEE the KING, you can see
the colors, you can SEE there is no third party between the event of the
colors and your knowledge that they are two different colors. Thus your
learning is certain, and continuously reverifiable.
Doubt free perception is the miracle of scalar learning.
So we have this spaceless timeless mechanism by which consciousness
can behold itself in the NOW, not the THEN which ALL mechanical cause
and effect systems are limited to, because they take TIME betwen the
cause and the effect!
By the time the effect happens, the cause is gone, so what
certainty is there from the effect that there was a cause?
Only direct perception of CAUSE proves cause!
But direct perception of CAUSE has to be timeless by definition,
otherwise one is learning LATER about the cause EARLIER, and now we are
back to learning about A by looking at B.
Since our minds can ONLY understand scalar mechanics, looking at
effects and computing possible causes (which is not directly perceiving
them), we are at a loss to UNDERSTAND spaceless timeless processes.
And if spaceless timeless process isn't an oxymoron squared, then I
don't know what is.
But there it is, no space time process can be certain of anything,
but certainty surely exists.
Uncertainty certainty exists. To doubt this is to prove it.
Therefore certainty exists. QED
Certainty of uncertainty is the beginning of wisdom.
So we DEFINE that which is perfectly certain to be a scalar
process, which uses an oxymoron at best to describe it.
Scalar processes violate everything we know about everything
because in our lives we are using (wasting) our scalar consciousness to
monitor and learn about the non scalar dimensional universe of space and
time.
Its an arcade game in our consciousness, how can it be more
important in its utter uncertainty of existence, than the consciousness
which perceives it with perfect certainty?
Certainty of the TV set is more important than anything going on in
the TV screen.
We conceive we ARE our space time avatars, bodies, that
consciousness is a process in constituency (what we are made of),
arrangement (of that constituency,) and process, which is the flow of
energy through the machine from high anti entropy to high entropy.
If the arrangement or the consituency are destroy, busted apart or
jammed, the process dies, and if consciousness IS merely the process,
chemistry bubbling away at 98.6, then the consious unit dies too.
But if consciousness is scalar, then there is no time for it to
come and go in, so it must be eternal, can't be created nor destroyed,
and in truth, it can't even CHANGE, and when the dream avatars die, the
illusion that we ARE our avatar blows up and we ext from the dream
forcibly.
What we are exting from is not the avatar but the illusion that we
ARE the avatar.
We can do that while still living, if we dare.
Also notice about memory, the primary memory of interest is
RECOGNITION OF SELF, that means I know I am the same self as I was 30
years ago, its still me, and although a lot of my avatars that I
identify myself with are changing all the time, there is at least one
thing about me that isn't changing at all, or I wouldn't be me any more.
Every atom in my body can be replaced but the core conscious is
never touched.
So when the avatar dies, and space time blow up when the being
wakes up to his eternality, there he is again, FOREVER AND EVER the same
being, and remembers again WHAT he is, and what he has chosen and how he
got into this mess. But above that there is no memory of anything to do
with space time retained at all, that's when the being is ready to sleep
and then start a whole new cycle. No memory of past cycles remain, but
he is aware this is what he does, so he knows there have been past
cycles and will be again, none of which he will remember once they are
done, all by his own choice.
How likely is that? Too good to be true?
An infinite number of finite whiles in which to create, play, close
up shop, sleep and do it again.
In present time we are using a conscious display screen capable of
perceiving itself and its displays with perfect certainty, to display a
universe in which there IS and CAN NOT BE perfect certainty due to the
two different objects rule.
Its like the guy in a tank looking at a TV screen and fighting a
life and death war with all the people displayed on the screen, but he
doesn't know if any of the are actual, but he does know that the TV is
actual.
Kind of inverted, to use a perfect certainty to symbolize a
hallucinated virtual reality.
And from inside the tank he can never prove one way or another that
the story line on TV screen is actually going on, because he can't get
out of the tank. So he plays his arcade game forever.
Of course he will eventually realize that even his TV screen is
part of the arcade because he is seeing that with his eyes, and brain,
and even they are part of the arcade, because all he really has is his
conscious unit, himself, which is actual and sure.
But as long as the conscious unit thinks it is a brain in a tank in
a universe, well then fight he must, and the perfect certainty facility
of his conscious unit goes to total waste.
The perfect certainty facility is subserviated to the needs of
defending himself in a certainly uncertain nightmare of magnitude.
"Who cares about perfect certainty, all I care about are the enemy
out there, who I don't have a fucking clue whether they exist or not,
AND CAN'T have a clue, because it is fundamentally unclueable."
So if you have a memory of which you are perfectly certain, then
its not a mechanical memory, its part of the scalar magic that
consciousness is doing all day long, perhaps even a direct perception of
the past.
Sometimes you can get flooded with pictures with exquisite detail
and you know this must be SOMEBODY'S picture memory, but without
RECOGNITION as to having seen it before, it can't be yours.
Since every huma body being is a composite of billions of other
smaller and bigger beings, any one walking around has trillions of
memories to take experiences from and get confused by thinking they are
his own.
Recognition however comes from the eternal awareness of one's self
as one's self, unchanging, immutable and always you and always will be
you.
If you have a memory of a time in which you recognized yourself,
then perhaps those memories have enough of an eternal aspect that they
can be said to be perfectly certain, but that's really stretching it.
The fact of you recognizing yourself may be certain, but the space
time avatarial circumstances surrounding the event, well who knows...
Recognition of others is also important, loves from forever ago are
just as alive today as they were, and just as you can recognize yourself
though the cloud of illusory spaces and times, so can you recognize
others across eternity.
But you have to perceive via eternity, not via space and time!
> Theory two is pure and simple Vedic philosophy.
Yes, I know I wrote it.
They still don't believe me :)
> I always thought this was nicely poetic, but never understood a word of what
> it meant. Years later I was given a translation of this work, and when I got
> to the good part, I was floored. It read:
>
> "Time I am, the shatterer of worlds"
>
> Shows how different translations can change the very heart of a text.
>
> Anyway, this I got. Timelessness is, I think. what you meant by:
>
> "It casts APPARENT cause into the kinetics, but in fact the static scale
> maintains cause at all time over the kinetics to make it seem like the
> kinetics has cause over itself."
Yes, in a sleep dream, the ball bounces off the wall not
because there is cause between them, but because the alleged brain
controls both to make it seem like they control each other.
Same with the waking state.
All physics is orchestrated down to the last quark.
Some will complain 'But how could I have gotten the idea
that a ball could bounce off a wall' unless I had first experienced
a real ball bouncing of a real wall?
They define themselves as the accumulation of being an effect.
God did not have to see a tree before he could creat one.
Since we are all God in carnation, the High US, and at the top we
create in the mere conception of things, we do not need to have been the
prior effect of external impingement in order to create an experience
for ourselves or others.
Thus one can dream new things anytime one wants, either in sleep
or in the 'awake' state.
> Arjuna was being told that all of time is an illusion, that the battle, its
> antecedents and its consequences are all, have all been, predetermined, have
> all taken place, and will take place, and always will. Same with the
> universe.
Not sure about predetermined, the static is envessled in the
kinetic avatar and it CAN act like a state determined machine, dominos
falling, but it can also make a prime postulate and start something new
not related to the past or present of the existing avatarial scene or
state of things.
The creation of the dream physical universe was itself not state
determined by an earlier dream universe, and thus that same creator can
create new again again even within the avatarial context of his
immediate surroundings.
He has to be awake enough to do it.
If he thinks he is a machine and his consciousness is a process
in a space time gizmo like the brain, he won't be able to rise
above is own conception of things.
> Did you ever read Slaughterhouse Five?
No.
> The read was terrific. Did you write that just to me?
Yes.
But its now in the public archives, as is this one.
> Do you know that years ago, I wrote the line in your father's Wikipedia
> entry, about you?
I will check it out.
>
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth, and Peace, Internet, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Sat Apr 4 23:43:02 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore969.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)
iD8DBQFVIK9GURT1lqxE3HERAlA+AJwO4hHiU5OqFCYFLZPX5qnAGdbwGwCgpY6d
nSqZmspWkuAqNUI53QERGyw=
=3h7R
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
I AM THE DESTROYER OF WORLDS
> Is a memory in a conscious mind an example of perfect certainty? In other
> words, is a memory in the same class as simple self-awareness, in that the
> memory, even if flawed or deluded, exists in a way that can be categorized
> as direct perception?
Most mechanical memory is simple picture taking, so no, a mere
picture of the past is not proof of squat. SEEING THE MEMORY in present
time is a perfect certainty, but relating it to what happened where you
can no longer look is not a certainty.
Certainty is ONLY of the living now.
You can never learn with certainty about A (the past) by looking at
B (a picture of the past in the present).
However that said, the question is more difficult for trailing near
present time memories, like the ones I have of writing this posting as I
am writing it.
Imagine trying to build a machine that could tell if time is taking
place. You take a picture, you take another picture later and compare,
if different there was time.
But causal pathways can be 'messed' with, how does the machine
really know something didn't mess up the second picture during the
taking of it, to make it different when it shouldn't have been.
Since any causal pathway can be messed with by a superior third
party such as God, no causal pathway can be trusted. And no amount of
other causal pathways can verify the first causal pathway.
Using more causal pathways to inspect and verify other causal
pathways is nuts, for who will inspect and verify the second inspector
and verfier pathways.
So when trying to verify a causal pathway, "More causal pathways do
not a more certain causal pathway make."
If a machine has 3 cameras, and 2 says something happened and 1
didn't, which report do you trust, the majority report or the minority
report?
Because of the causal path way problem, it is well known that no
matter how many cameras a machine has, nor how well they can see into
the very circuits of the machine itself, nor how accurate the machine's
internal records of its own circuits are, it is impossible for the
machine to verify the correctness of its circuits to a perfect certainty
by comparing what it sees to its internal diagrams.
What ever conclusion it draws is always a theory based on trust
that things are working and not being messed with by a higher causal
third party.
Thus a machine can ever verify that it is working properly.
So that's the third party law, any two events in the physical
universe that follow each other, might be causing each other, or might
be being caused by a third cause that causes both of the other events in
such a way that they LOOK like they cause each other.
Do electrons have anything to do with why electrons repell?
In the arcade game of PONG do the light paddle and light ball and
light wall have anything to do with the ball bouncing off the paddle and
the wall?
In the first place nothing is bouncing, only being reprojected. in
new locations. As time goes on, the paddle, the ball and the wall are
each forever new.
No, the 'bounce' is caused by a spanning third party causing the
ILLUSION of cause between the paddle, the ball and the wall.
Worse a machine can not even tell if it has changed state, because
its present state contains no data about any possible prior state. The
machine is stuck forever in IS, it can't know anything of BECOMING.
So a machine takes a picture, then another picture, and compares
them and finds out they are different. That whole set of circuitry
right there, who knows where the results come from, any third party or
interfering party could cause results to be wrong no matter how careful
the machine is to 'look' at what is going on.
Thus a machine can not tell it has changed state with perfect
certainty, let alone compare states with perfect certainty. Since all
learning IS a change in state, the machine can never tell with perfect
certainty if it has learned anything or not.
Thus a machine can not learn with perfect certainty anything about
anything.
And in particular, can not tell with perfect certainty that time is
taking place which involves a certainty that a change has taken place.
So you go out and look at a blinking red stop light for a few hours
at night at 3am in the morning. Is the light blinking? Yes, how do you
know?
YOU CAN SEE IT BLINK.
That is not seeing just states, but CHANGES in state.
A machine can never see the change directly, it can only BE in one
or the other of the two ends states. Your consciousness can see the
CHANGE.
A non scalar machine can not do that.
So would you bet your and everyone else's eternity in hell on your
perception that the light is blinking?
Yes of course.
But how are you doing this, by taking a memory picture, then
comparing to a later picture when the light has changed state. At the
later time, how do you KNOW the memory is correct and not messed with?
Can you take a memory and then 10 seconds later LOOK INTO THE PAST
by 10 seconds DIRECTLY and compare the memory with the past directly?
How about a memory of 1 second ago?
How wide is present time? Can we see into the past and future by
even a millionth of a second, thus having trans time 'memory' which is
perfectly certain? Or is that just direct perception of a width of time
and not memory at all but none the less gives us certainty of time and
change.
Same thing with the perception of time and space, both are
illusions, if they existed you could never know it, so the fact that you
'know it' by seeing it with certainty, means they don't actually exist.
Only a timeless entity could be certain of change and time. Only a
spaceless entity could be perceptually certain of space and distance, a
machine can't do it at all.
This isn't true because a timeless entity can see time, its because
a machine working in time CAN'T see time.
Thus if you can see time, you must not be a machine working in
time.
That does not at all explain how a timeless entity can experience
time.
It is conceivable that there is both the timeless state and the
timefull state, then the timeless entity can see time in the timefull
state, but the timefull machine never will.
Same thing for differences, look at two different colors. Are you
certain they look different? A machine can't do that, it can only
receive signals and voltages, compare them with some circuitry that may
or may not work and print out a yes or a no.
The machine never SEES anything, it just passes incoming effects on
through it self back to the outside again.
Two frequencies come in, and it prints yes they are different.
That's just dominoes falling according to code.
No domino can see any prior domino, it can only change state (fall)
as an alleged result of the prior domino pushing on it with a causal
messenger wave when they 'collide'.
The two domino's never actually touch, and after the second domino
starts falling, it can never know that it was 'touched' to start the
fall.
So the second domino can never know anything about the cause of its
falling, and there is not continuity of certainty from moment of touch
to later during the fall.
And WHAT it was touched by will always remain a mystery of theory,
never direct perception of the touching domino, nor even the virtual
photon that came across during the collision.
The falling domino doesn't even 'feel the force' pushing it, in any
conscious sense of the word, it merely responds to the force by falling.
Just as pleasure and pain can not be reduced to force and mass in
motion, either can color nor any other conscious experience including
the experience of time and space.
Color in particular can not be numerified, yes shades of red can be
numerified, but the difference between red and green can not, thus a
machine can never see red, as machines are nothing but numbers of force
and mass.
OK, so you have a memory of what you ate at breakfast.
Are you willing to bet your eternity in hell its right?
If yes, then that mechanism is not a mechanical one, and only a
scalar non mechanical conscious entity could do it.
But what is the mechanism?
And what the hell is a scalar 'mechanism anyhow' where cause and
effect are one and the same event.
In a mechanical system the learner computes back to the nature of
the cause from the effect it receives.
That's indirect perception.
In a scalar system, the learner and the learned about are one and
the same entity, and the learning about cause is NOT from looking at the
effect and computing back to some theoretical nature and existence of
the cause, but from looking at the cause directly.
Well what is the mechanism behind an object being able to see
itself without merely being the effect of itself and declaring that
because it was an effect it must have been cause.
That's thinking and logical deduction, 'there was an effect so
there must have been a cause.'
Scalar perception is 'There's a cause because I can SEE it
directly.'
In the physical universe, causation is not sufficient to witness
causation.
That's why causal pathways can't be used to verify either
themselves or other causal pathways. And if they can't verify
themselves, they sure as hell can't verify any other causal pathway.
Verification of a causal pathway means one can tell with perfect
certainty that any particular change happened BECAUSE of a designated
change before it, and not some 3rd party making it look like there was a
prior different cause.
In the physical universe all we can see are the two end events, the
two things that 'changed because of each other'. We can never see the
CAUSE between them.
We can never tell if two electrons repel because they have actual
cause between them, or because God is moving them directly as if they
have cause between them.
If two electrons are out in space, and you wiggle one, a while
later the second will wiggle. Are you perfectly certain that because
the second electron wiggled, that the first one even existed.
No, God or anything could have wiggled the second for no reason at
all. So its a theory that the second wiggled BECAUSE the first wiggled,
and the theory is made of model and evidence.
The model is that there is a first electron that wiggled first and
causal messenger wiggles went between them, and thus the evidence that
there is a first electron is BECAUSE the second wiggled.
The evidence is always the EFFECT, never the cause.
And the model is whatever THEORETICAL causation you wish to surmise
between the effect and its prior cause.
Since all observation of effects and their so called causes USES
this very mechanism to look with, the whole thing may be consistent and
peer reviewed, and completely wrong with God laughing at everyone.
And with what peers are you going to review your proof that peers
even exist?
So the whole dependency on peer review depends on ASSUMING with out
peer review without peer review.
The bedrock of 'objective universe' science is fairy dust.
Consciousness however can see the cause between things, hold your
finger up, notice the cause between YOU and your finger being in the
air. That's direct perception of personal agency.
Look at two different colors, and then hold your finger up BECAUSE
they are different. Notice the intra conscious causal pathway between
colors, YOU and figure in the air.
Certainty that any cause of any kind exists at all is the hall mark
of consiousness.
It may be hard to behold, but in the absence of cause there can be
no learning. No change, means no learning.
Thus there has to be cause of some kind, scalar or not, between the
two different conscious colors (not PHOTONS, photons have no color) and
your knowing they are different. You can see this incoming cause IN THE
COLORS, glowing at you TELLING you with perfect certainty that they are
different.
Thus you are learning about the existence of cause by looking at
cause in the colors directly, not by looking at some effect in yourself
and computing back taht the two alleged colors must be different and
might be cause of whatever you are computing back from.
Think is not direct perception is not think is not direct
perception.
Thus certainty of incoming causation is unique to conscious
experiences. Certainty of outgoing cause is also unique as you observe
yourself hold your finger up and know YOU are doing it, and that it is
up BECAUSE you are PUTTING IT UP, not because some third party is
putting it up for you, or worse making you THINK it is up via some
return effect, when really its still down.
We are not talking about the physical finger, but the conscious
finger you can see.
You see the reason you can't learn about A by looking at B, is the
their party could always be between A and B. You see B, but can't see
A, so you have to trust the changes in B were 'caused by A'.
A messenger hands you a message from the King, how do you know it
came from the King?
But with two different colors, you can SEE the KING, you can see
the colors, you can SEE there is no third party between the event of the
colors and your knowledge that they are two different colors. Thus your
learning is certain, and continuously reverifiable.
Doubt free perception is the miracle of scalar learning.
So we have this spaceless timeless mechanism by which consciousness
can behold itself in the NOW, not the THEN which ALL mechanical cause
and effect systems are limited to, because they take TIME betwen the
cause and the effect!
By the time the effect happens, the cause is gone, so what
certainty is there from the effect that there was a cause?
Only direct perception of CAUSE proves cause!
But direct perception of CAUSE has to be timeless by definition,
otherwise one is learning LATER about the cause EARLIER, and now we are
back to learning about A by looking at B.
Since our minds can ONLY understand scalar mechanics, looking at
effects and computing possible causes (which is not directly perceiving
them), we are at a loss to UNDERSTAND spaceless timeless processes.
And if spaceless timeless process isn't an oxymoron squared, then I
don't know what is.
But there it is, no space time process can be certain of anything,
but certainty surely exists.
Uncertainty certainty exists. To doubt this is to prove it.
Therefore certainty exists. QED
Certainty of uncertainty is the beginning of wisdom.
So we DEFINE that which is perfectly certain to be a scalar
process, which uses an oxymoron at best to describe it.
Scalar processes violate everything we know about everything
because in our lives we are using (wasting) our scalar consciousness to
monitor and learn about the non scalar dimensional universe of space and
time.
Its an arcade game in our consciousness, how can it be more
important in its utter uncertainty of existence, than the consciousness
which perceives it with perfect certainty?
Certainty of the TV set is more important than anything going on in
the TV screen.
We conceive we ARE our space time avatars, bodies, that
consciousness is a process in constituency (what we are made of),
arrangement (of that constituency,) and process, which is the flow of
energy through the machine from high anti entropy to high entropy.
If the arrangement or the consituency are destroy, busted apart or
jammed, the process dies, and if consciousness IS merely the process,
chemistry bubbling away at 98.6, then the consious unit dies too.
But if consciousness is scalar, then there is no time for it to
come and go in, so it must be eternal, can't be created nor destroyed,
and in truth, it can't even CHANGE, and when the dream avatars die, the
illusion that we ARE our avatar blows up and we ext from the dream
forcibly.
What we are exting from is not the avatar but the illusion that we
ARE the avatar.
We can do that while still living, if we dare.
Also notice about memory, the primary memory of interest is
RECOGNITION OF SELF, that means I know I am the same self as I was 30
years ago, its still me, and although a lot of my avatars that I
identify myself with are changing all the time, there is at least one
thing about me that isn't changing at all, or I wouldn't be me any more.
Every atom in my body can be replaced but the core conscious is
never touched.
So when the avatar dies, and space time blow up when the being
wakes up to his eternality, there he is again, FOREVER AND EVER the same
being, and remembers again WHAT he is, and what he has chosen and how he
got into this mess. But above that there is no memory of anything to do
with space time retained at all, that's when the being is ready to sleep
and then start a whole new cycle. No memory of past cycles remain, but
he is aware this is what he does, so he knows there have been past
cycles and will be again, none of which he will remember once they are
done, all by his own choice.
How likely is that? Too good to be true?
An infinite number of finite whiles in which to create, play, close
up shop, sleep and do it again.
In present time we are using a conscious display screen capable of
perceiving itself and its displays with perfect certainty, to display a
universe in which there IS and CAN NOT BE perfect certainty due to the
two different objects rule.
Its like the guy in a tank looking at a TV screen and fighting a
life and death war with all the people displayed on the screen, but he
doesn't know if any of the are actual, but he does know that the TV is
actual.
Kind of inverted, to use a perfect certainty to symbolize a
hallucinated virtual reality.
And from inside the tank he can never prove one way or another that
the story line on TV screen is actually going on, because he can't get
out of the tank. So he plays his arcade game forever.
Of course he will eventually realize that even his TV screen is
part of the arcade because he is seeing that with his eyes, and brain,
and even they are part of the arcade, because all he really has is his
conscious unit, himself, which is actual and sure.
But as long as the conscious unit thinks it is a brain in a tank in
a universe, well then fight he must, and the perfect certainty facility
of his conscious unit goes to total waste.
The perfect certainty facility is subserviated to the needs of
defending himself in a certainly uncertain nightmare of magnitude.
"Who cares about perfect certainty, all I care about are the enemy
out there, who I don't have a fucking clue whether they exist or not,
AND CAN'T have a clue, because it is fundamentally unclueable."
So if you have a memory of which you are perfectly certain, then
its not a mechanical memory, its part of the scalar magic that
consciousness is doing all day long, perhaps even a direct perception of
the past.
Sometimes you can get flooded with pictures with exquisite detail
and you know this must be SOMEBODY'S picture memory, but without
RECOGNITION as to having seen it before, it can't be yours.
Since every huma body being is a composite of billions of other
smaller and bigger beings, any one walking around has trillions of
memories to take experiences from and get confused by thinking they are
his own.
Recognition however comes from the eternal awareness of one's self
as one's self, unchanging, immutable and always you and always will be
you.
If you have a memory of a time in which you recognized yourself,
then perhaps those memories have enough of an eternal aspect that they
can be said to be perfectly certain, but that's really stretching it.
The fact of you recognizing yourself may be certain, but the space
time avatarial circumstances surrounding the event, well who knows...
Recognition of others is also important, loves from forever ago are
just as alive today as they were, and just as you can recognize yourself
though the cloud of illusory spaces and times, so can you recognize
others across eternity.
But you have to perceive via eternity, not via space and time!
> Theory two is pure and simple Vedic philosophy.
Yes, I know I wrote it.
They still don't believe me :)
> I always thought this was nicely poetic, but never understood a word of what
> it meant. Years later I was given a translation of this work, and when I got
> to the good part, I was floored. It read:
>
> "Time I am, the shatterer of worlds"
>
> Shows how different translations can change the very heart of a text.
>
> Anyway, this I got. Timelessness is, I think. what you meant by:
>
> "It casts APPARENT cause into the kinetics, but in fact the static scale
> maintains cause at all time over the kinetics to make it seem like the
> kinetics has cause over itself."
Yes, in a sleep dream, the ball bounces off the wall not
because there is cause between them, but because the alleged brain
controls both to make it seem like they control each other.
Same with the waking state.
All physics is orchestrated down to the last quark.
Some will complain 'But how could I have gotten the idea
that a ball could bounce off a wall' unless I had first experienced
a real ball bouncing of a real wall?
They define themselves as the accumulation of being an effect.
God did not have to see a tree before he could creat one.
Since we are all God in carnation, the High US, and at the top we
create in the mere conception of things, we do not need to have been the
prior effect of external impingement in order to create an experience
for ourselves or others.
Thus one can dream new things anytime one wants, either in sleep
or in the 'awake' state.
> Arjuna was being told that all of time is an illusion, that the battle, its
> antecedents and its consequences are all, have all been, predetermined, have
> all taken place, and will take place, and always will. Same with the
> universe.
Not sure about predetermined, the static is envessled in the
kinetic avatar and it CAN act like a state determined machine, dominos
falling, but it can also make a prime postulate and start something new
not related to the past or present of the existing avatarial scene or
state of things.
The creation of the dream physical universe was itself not state
determined by an earlier dream universe, and thus that same creator can
create new again again even within the avatarial context of his
immediate surroundings.
He has to be awake enough to do it.
If he thinks he is a machine and his consciousness is a process
in a space time gizmo like the brain, he won't be able to rise
above is own conception of things.
> Did you ever read Slaughterhouse Five?
No.
> The read was terrific. Did you write that just to me?
Yes.
But its now in the public archives, as is this one.
> Do you know that years ago, I wrote the line in your father's Wikipedia
> entry, about you?
I will check it out.
>
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth, and Peace, Internet, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Sat Apr 4 23:43:02 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore969.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)
iD8DBQFVIK9GURT1lqxE3HERAlA+AJwO4hHiU5OqFCYFLZPX5qnAGdbwGwCgpY6d
nSqZmspWkuAqNUI53QERGyw=
=3h7R
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Friday, April 3, 2015
ADORE847 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
EVIDENCE AND PROOF
There is a difference between support for the possibile truth of
something, and perfect certainty that something is true.
Evidence is support for the possible truth of something.
Proof is a perfect certainty that something is true.
Evidence is an observation, and as such it is true that evidence
can prove existential statements true, and universal statements false.
Existential Statement:
"Daisies exist" can be proven by one observation of a single daisy.
Universal Statement:
"All Daisies are white" can be disproven by one observation of a
black daisy.
But evidence that a universal statement is true is not proof.
"All daisies are white" is not proven by finding one white daisy,
or even an infinite number of tthem.
And evidence that an existential statement is false, is not proof.
"Daisies exist" is not disproven by failing to ever find a single
daisy.
In particular absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Thus by defining proof = evidence, as some dictionaries do, one
denies the ability to distinguish between mere evidence and actual
certain proof, which confusion then can be used by scammers to imply
they have proof when they only have supporting evidence.
The claim that "Keith exists now" is an existential statement and
can be proven by one observation that he exists now. But only Keith can
observe himself (not his body), thus only Keith can know for sure if he
exists now.
The claim that "Keith existed 20 life times ago" is a universal
statement and thus can not be proven with any number of observations in
present time.
The reason is that the past can not be observed directly, and thus
only observations of things in the present can be offered as evidence
for Keith's existence in the past.
But THAT depends on the idea that present objects are causally
related to events in the past so that one can use present objects, or
their state, as evidence for the past.
But THAT depends on the idea that the past ALWAYS gives rise to
such present objects, or that present objects are ALWAYS given rise to
by the past. Footprints are ALWAYS caused by someone walking by.
And those are universal statements.
The truth of universal statements are not subject to proof, only to
supporting evidence of their possibility.
Keith's foot print in the mud now, does not and can never prove
with perfect certainty that Keith walked by here yesterday.
The law requires 'beyond reasonable doubt' in 'proving' people
guilty, but it is evidential only because it is always about the past,
who *DID* what.
True proof would be 'beyond a shadow of a doubt' which is a perfect
certainty.
Using observations of the present to provide perfect certainty
about the past is ludicrous.
Thus those that like to confuse evidence with proof are like the
crooked lawyer who tells his jury that the evidence they have provided
is PROOF the defendant is guilty.
It's always bogus at an absolute level, and those that fall for it,
and those that engage in it are alike unworthy of polluting the air with
their breath.
Homer
- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Mon Feb 14 17:05:57 EST 2011
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Fri Apr 3 11:53:31 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore847.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)
iD8DBQFVHrd7URT1lqxE3HERArSSAJ45/3HSKfmbx0LkryzRUBSQa6CQOgCfUYAZ
O+o1JIzWT0fLA9Zeqk4v0Zw=
=/dDf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
EVIDENCE AND PROOF
There is a difference between support for the possibile truth of
something, and perfect certainty that something is true.
Evidence is support for the possible truth of something.
Proof is a perfect certainty that something is true.
Evidence is an observation, and as such it is true that evidence
can prove existential statements true, and universal statements false.
Existential Statement:
"Daisies exist" can be proven by one observation of a single daisy.
Universal Statement:
"All Daisies are white" can be disproven by one observation of a
black daisy.
But evidence that a universal statement is true is not proof.
"All daisies are white" is not proven by finding one white daisy,
or even an infinite number of tthem.
And evidence that an existential statement is false, is not proof.
"Daisies exist" is not disproven by failing to ever find a single
daisy.
In particular absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Thus by defining proof = evidence, as some dictionaries do, one
denies the ability to distinguish between mere evidence and actual
certain proof, which confusion then can be used by scammers to imply
they have proof when they only have supporting evidence.
The claim that "Keith exists now" is an existential statement and
can be proven by one observation that he exists now. But only Keith can
observe himself (not his body), thus only Keith can know for sure if he
exists now.
The claim that "Keith existed 20 life times ago" is a universal
statement and thus can not be proven with any number of observations in
present time.
The reason is that the past can not be observed directly, and thus
only observations of things in the present can be offered as evidence
for Keith's existence in the past.
But THAT depends on the idea that present objects are causally
related to events in the past so that one can use present objects, or
their state, as evidence for the past.
But THAT depends on the idea that the past ALWAYS gives rise to
such present objects, or that present objects are ALWAYS given rise to
by the past. Footprints are ALWAYS caused by someone walking by.
And those are universal statements.
The truth of universal statements are not subject to proof, only to
supporting evidence of their possibility.
Keith's foot print in the mud now, does not and can never prove
with perfect certainty that Keith walked by here yesterday.
The law requires 'beyond reasonable doubt' in 'proving' people
guilty, but it is evidential only because it is always about the past,
who *DID* what.
True proof would be 'beyond a shadow of a doubt' which is a perfect
certainty.
Using observations of the present to provide perfect certainty
about the past is ludicrous.
Thus those that like to confuse evidence with proof are like the
crooked lawyer who tells his jury that the evidence they have provided
is PROOF the defendant is guilty.
It's always bogus at an absolute level, and those that fall for it,
and those that engage in it are alike unworthy of polluting the air with
their breath.
Homer
- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Mon Feb 14 17:05:57 EST 2011
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Fri Apr 3 11:53:31 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore847.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)
iD8DBQFVHrd7URT1lqxE3HERArSSAJ45/3HSKfmbx0LkryzRUBSQa6CQOgCfUYAZ
O+o1JIzWT0fLA9Zeqk4v0Zw=
=/dDf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Thursday, April 2, 2015
ECO3
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
GOVERNMENT AND ALLOPATHY
Government officials like to practice allopathy on the population.
Allopathy works on the principle that a alot of poison is bad for
you, but a little poison is good for you.
Government officials wish to take wealth from the rich and give it
to the poor. Ok, let's take that to its logical extreme.
Say we passed a law that said everyone had to put all the money
they make every day into one large pool of money no matter how much or
how little they make. Then the amount of money in that pool was divided
by the total number of people in the country, and was doled out to them
on that basis.
That would level things wouldn't it?
If there was enough money to go around then everyone would be doing
well, well enough to survive at least. If not, then everyone would not
survive. Fair is fair.
(You might want to ask yourself if there would be enough to go
around, or if everyone would be starving to death the next week. Just
how rich is the country as a whole, with people breeding out of control
and no natural selection testing them.)
OK, now what's the problem with this scheme?
Well for one, investment risk takes place only the presence of
abundance. People will not risk investment capital unless they have
some to lose. They will weigh the risks against the possible gains, and
only act if they have some margin to fall back on, in case everything
goes to hell.
Simple fact is, people who are living a marginal life never invest.
They can't afford to lose anything because they have no financial
margin. They only want sure things.
Financial margin is simply affluence above and beyond your
immediate needs.
People wish to redistribute the wealth from the rich to the poor
but they don't want to redistribute the risk the wealthy took in making
the investments that made them wealthy in the first place. They want to
distribute the comfort of gains won, with out distributing the
discomfort of the fear and work and sleepless nights and bowel movements
that went into producing those gains.
The poor of course think that the wealthy didn't take any risks
making their money, they just stole it from the poor, but holding that
view makes the poor not only poor but insane.
The poor also consider that the fear and the risk the wealthy took
to make their gains ain't nothing compared to the fear and the risk the
poor take just by being alive and being poor.
Now the magic of investment is that when an investment cycle wins,
everyone wins big time, everyone. The returns from a successful
investment cycle can be 10 to 1000 fold for all of civilization.
You an bitch about Nynex, but Graham Bell took a risk and the whole
world benefited from it.
But the losses can be catestrophic too, particularly for the life
of the little guy who first took the risk. He stands to lose all, even
though civilization stands to win everything.
Sometimes the original inventor does lose everything, even though
the benefits of his risk investment change the course of history.
The more a person wins in the investment game, the more he has in
financial cushion to cover future losses, and the more he is likely to
REINVEST his winnings, and eventually make really big investments with
huge returns that no one in the proper mind would undertake living on a
usual salary.
By distributing the wealth completely to everyone, one levels not
only the havingness of everyone to the same level, but also the margin
to cushion future risk investment.
If NO ONE has a large financial margin to risk investment, then the
really large risks with the really huge returns are never taken, and
society falls into a mediocrity that is hard to describe.
People are not equal, either in ability, courage, or vision.
The entire weight of the advance of civilization lies on the backs
of a very small percentage of the human race. Most people have neither
the ability nor the courage to take the risks and make the investments
that civilization needs to really advance. By hampering those that do
have this ability, we guarantee the final demise of civilization into a
black hole of eternal mediocrity.
It is unfortunate however that there are so many losers in life.
Mother Nature did not produce winners by decreeing that everyone
should win. The vast majority of animals never live long enough to
breed.
We in our infinite wisdom wish to guarantee that everyone live to
breed.
There are two ways to level the playing field.
1.) Hamper the winners making it easier for the losers to win
2.) Enhance the losers making it harder for the winners to win
Taking winnings from the winners and giving it to the poor is the
first. "Your're winnings are not yours, they belong to everyone, you
MUST share!".
Empowering the losers with ability and courage to play is the
second. "You can win too and give the winners a run for their money,
and what you win is YOURS, but what they win is THEIRS too, ok?"
These are two very different messages.
Basically since the rich control the world anyway, including the
government, building a government that takes from the rich and gives to
the poor, will never work, because the rich will take it back in some
other way anyhow. So I would give that up now.
That means the only way to help the poor is to help the poor become
more able through training and education.
This provides competition to the rich, and in the end produces a
better product for the population because only competition can guarantee
a better product, better warranties, better support and better return
policies.
This is a very important point. The signs of no competition are
1.) Shoddy products
2.) High prices
3.) No Tech support
4.) No return policies.
5.) Withheld sales if you try to go elsewhere.
Hell, check out the Church of Scientology if you want to see a
dictionary example of 'no competition.'
If you allow the rich to continue with no competition but merely
take their product and give it to the poor, then you will be giving the
poor the shoddy products of the rich.
If instead you enhance the ability of the poor to compete, then the
rich get leveled down to size anyhow, and the poor get a better product,
probably because its their own anyhow, and the rich have to bone up on
quality and customer service or else go totally out of business.
The single most subversive thing you can do to a top heavy society
is provide competition.
And that's social justice.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Thu Apr 2 21:34:33 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/eco3.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)
iD8DBQFVHe4pURT1lqxE3HERAgYqAJ9cLUMtnvD1eH9Jec4pdneJAq56CQCgl1JS
23fSvcp0SZ3jM3ajiT+wwok=
=8wrQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
GOVERNMENT AND ALLOPATHY
Government officials like to practice allopathy on the population.
Allopathy works on the principle that a alot of poison is bad for
you, but a little poison is good for you.
Government officials wish to take wealth from the rich and give it
to the poor. Ok, let's take that to its logical extreme.
Say we passed a law that said everyone had to put all the money
they make every day into one large pool of money no matter how much or
how little they make. Then the amount of money in that pool was divided
by the total number of people in the country, and was doled out to them
on that basis.
That would level things wouldn't it?
If there was enough money to go around then everyone would be doing
well, well enough to survive at least. If not, then everyone would not
survive. Fair is fair.
(You might want to ask yourself if there would be enough to go
around, or if everyone would be starving to death the next week. Just
how rich is the country as a whole, with people breeding out of control
and no natural selection testing them.)
OK, now what's the problem with this scheme?
Well for one, investment risk takes place only the presence of
abundance. People will not risk investment capital unless they have
some to lose. They will weigh the risks against the possible gains, and
only act if they have some margin to fall back on, in case everything
goes to hell.
Simple fact is, people who are living a marginal life never invest.
They can't afford to lose anything because they have no financial
margin. They only want sure things.
Financial margin is simply affluence above and beyond your
immediate needs.
People wish to redistribute the wealth from the rich to the poor
but they don't want to redistribute the risk the wealthy took in making
the investments that made them wealthy in the first place. They want to
distribute the comfort of gains won, with out distributing the
discomfort of the fear and work and sleepless nights and bowel movements
that went into producing those gains.
The poor of course think that the wealthy didn't take any risks
making their money, they just stole it from the poor, but holding that
view makes the poor not only poor but insane.
The poor also consider that the fear and the risk the wealthy took
to make their gains ain't nothing compared to the fear and the risk the
poor take just by being alive and being poor.
Now the magic of investment is that when an investment cycle wins,
everyone wins big time, everyone. The returns from a successful
investment cycle can be 10 to 1000 fold for all of civilization.
You an bitch about Nynex, but Graham Bell took a risk and the whole
world benefited from it.
But the losses can be catestrophic too, particularly for the life
of the little guy who first took the risk. He stands to lose all, even
though civilization stands to win everything.
Sometimes the original inventor does lose everything, even though
the benefits of his risk investment change the course of history.
The more a person wins in the investment game, the more he has in
financial cushion to cover future losses, and the more he is likely to
REINVEST his winnings, and eventually make really big investments with
huge returns that no one in the proper mind would undertake living on a
usual salary.
By distributing the wealth completely to everyone, one levels not
only the havingness of everyone to the same level, but also the margin
to cushion future risk investment.
If NO ONE has a large financial margin to risk investment, then the
really large risks with the really huge returns are never taken, and
society falls into a mediocrity that is hard to describe.
People are not equal, either in ability, courage, or vision.
The entire weight of the advance of civilization lies on the backs
of a very small percentage of the human race. Most people have neither
the ability nor the courage to take the risks and make the investments
that civilization needs to really advance. By hampering those that do
have this ability, we guarantee the final demise of civilization into a
black hole of eternal mediocrity.
It is unfortunate however that there are so many losers in life.
Mother Nature did not produce winners by decreeing that everyone
should win. The vast majority of animals never live long enough to
breed.
We in our infinite wisdom wish to guarantee that everyone live to
breed.
There are two ways to level the playing field.
1.) Hamper the winners making it easier for the losers to win
2.) Enhance the losers making it harder for the winners to win
Taking winnings from the winners and giving it to the poor is the
first. "Your're winnings are not yours, they belong to everyone, you
MUST share!".
Empowering the losers with ability and courage to play is the
second. "You can win too and give the winners a run for their money,
and what you win is YOURS, but what they win is THEIRS too, ok?"
These are two very different messages.
Basically since the rich control the world anyway, including the
government, building a government that takes from the rich and gives to
the poor, will never work, because the rich will take it back in some
other way anyhow. So I would give that up now.
That means the only way to help the poor is to help the poor become
more able through training and education.
This provides competition to the rich, and in the end produces a
better product for the population because only competition can guarantee
a better product, better warranties, better support and better return
policies.
This is a very important point. The signs of no competition are
1.) Shoddy products
2.) High prices
3.) No Tech support
4.) No return policies.
5.) Withheld sales if you try to go elsewhere.
Hell, check out the Church of Scientology if you want to see a
dictionary example of 'no competition.'
If you allow the rich to continue with no competition but merely
take their product and give it to the poor, then you will be giving the
poor the shoddy products of the rich.
If instead you enhance the ability of the poor to compete, then the
rich get leveled down to size anyhow, and the poor get a better product,
probably because its their own anyhow, and the rich have to bone up on
quality and customer service or else go totally out of business.
The single most subversive thing you can do to a top heavy society
is provide competition.
And that's social justice.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Thu Apr 2 21:34:33 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/eco3.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)
iD8DBQFVHe4pURT1lqxE3HERAgYqAJ9cLUMtnvD1eH9Jec4pdneJAq56CQCgl1JS
23fSvcp0SZ3jM3ajiT+wwok=
=8wrQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
QM, SP AND PC
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
QUANTUM MECHANICS, SPECIAL RELATIVITY and PERFECT CERTAINTY
One day God was playing dice with the Devil in the dark of the
void, and He invented the universe.
The devil looked at it and said 'It needs something more', and
threw in special relativity.
Not sure how much you been studying Quantum Mechanics and Special
Relativity but a mature understanding of both is something along the
lines of 'This is ridiculous'.
There is a third point on that triangle and it is Perfect
Certainty.
Thus the question is can three absurdities, QM, SP and PC add up to
a non absurdity?
Perfect Cerainty forms the ground of understanding because it is
the only one of the 3 that can be directly perceived and which can not
be questioned.
Descartes said "I doubt I am, therefore I am, because a nothing
could not wonder whether it was a nothing or a something."
Occam's Razor said do not multiply factors unnecesarily, and
Occam's Shaprening Strap said "Do not suppose anything that you can
prove with certainty can never be proven."
Now the perfect certainty thing is based on the idea that learning
with certainty across a difference of two different objects is
impossible.
For example one can never learn with certainty about A by looking
at B.
If A leaves a causal imprint on B, then B might be able to surmise
things about the nature of A because of the effect that B noticed in
itself. That's called a data imprint left by A on B.
But anything B could conclude from studying the imprint in itself,
is a THEORY about A based on indirect perception of A by B, not a
perfect certainty based on direct perception of A about itself.
It is easy to understand indirect perception or observation,
it is any event of learning about something else (A), by observing
the effect it allegedly had in yourself (B).
Notice that *ALL* learning or data transfer in the physical
universe is via indirect perception.
How likely then is direct observation?
That would be A learning about itself, but not by being
a causal effect of itself!
Indirect perception is learning by being an effect.
Direct perception is learning by looking at CAUSE!
How likely is that?
Thus an object can only learn by direct perception about itself, we
call this self luminous perfect certainty, otherwise known as conscious.
Now the above is explosive because if 'learning across a
difference' can not lead to perfect certainty, then neither can learning
across a distance, nor learning between two different objects, even if
they sit right on top of each other.
Notice that actual space time distance between two objects, makes
them TWO DIFFERENT OBJECTS.
That means if God and Soul are two different objects, then neither
can ever know anything about the other with perfect certainty, including
their existence.
If God and Soul are two different objects, then God and Soul must
forever remain a theory to each other.
Secondly, since the alleged physical universe is made of space and
time dimensions, which INHERENTLY created 'two different object' at
every point in both space and time, it is clear that a machine can't be
certain of anything including its own existence.
A machine is defined as any system of parts interacting via cause
and effect across a space time distance.
Since effect does not prove cause with certainty, a machine can
that can only learn by being an effect, can never learn about the nature
of the cause, because it can never prove that cause even exists.
Thus certainty of cause (personal agency) can only be attained by A
seeing cause itself via direct perception, and even then not by being an
effect of itself and computing back from the effect to the possibility
of a cause, as that is just more indirect perception of itself by
itself.
So we have multidimensional machines that can only theorize and can
never know anything about anything with certainty, including their own
existence.
And we have zero dimensional consciousness which is self aware, and
self luminous, it can see and it can see that it sees, and it can sense
personal agency directly, thus having certainty of the fact cause within
itself exists.
I AM, I WANT, I KNOW and I DO.
How likely is that?
Worse machines run on force and mass in motion.
Consciousness runs on motivation and will.
Love and shame can not of force and mass be made.
Pain can not be reduced to force and mass.
A machine can say Ouch!
But a machine can never FEEL Ouch.
Only a consciousness can feel Ouch and give a damn.
Pain is not an IF THEN statement in computer code, it doesn't
work that way.
Further cause in the physical universe takes TIME to travel, so
even if a machine were fitted with 10 video cameras all aimed at itself
by the time the image from a video camera hit the machine's core, the
image would be of the machine microseconds before, NOT NOW.
Check mate.
Thus at best a machine can only know how it WAS, it can never
know how it IS NOW.
Since how the machine WAS is LONG GONE by the time the image gets
to its 'core', the machine can not possibly see ITSELF, because that
self no longer exists being in the past, and thus when the image finally
hits its core, the machine must be looking NOW at a symbolic image or
representation of itself as it was THEN when the image was first made.
Thus the machine is limited to knowing about itself THEN by looking
NOW at a SYMBOL of how it was THEN, and that is knowing about an earlier
A by looking at a later B, which can provide only theory, never a
perfect directly observed certainty.
Consciousness can SEE ITSELF NOW, we know this becaause it can SEE
its own color forms as they are by looking at THEM NOW, not by looking
at a symobol for them, for how they were in the past.
If consciousness were looking at its color forms as they were
THEN, it couldn't see them at all as they would no longer exist
since time has moved forward.
Don't confuse seeing ANOTHER object which exists now withi is
similar an object which existed then, and assume the object that is SEEN
NOW *IS* the object that was in the past.
One can only see with direct perception objects that are in present
time (conscious renditions) even if they are being USED to represent
theoreticaly objects out there in space and time, meaning not here now.
A machine is dark inside, as it can never see anything because its
all gone by the time the messenger wave gets to whatever might be there
to see.
At best a machine could see the symbolic messenger wave, but alas
it can't even see that, it can only change state as a result of it. And
since no state contains data that a CHANGE of state occurred, no mere
state NOW can indicate with certainty that any change of state happened
at all, and thus no certainty there even was a messenger wave.
Learing comes from a CHANGE IN STATE, if there is not
certainty of a change in state, there can be no learning with
certainty about what allegedly caused the change in state.
So from the above we can conclude the following bare minimum
certainties.
Consciousness exists and has agency.
Consciousness creates renditions of space and time and matter and
energy in its own self aware substrate, but these renditions do not
themselves take up any dimensional space or time, or else consciousness
could not see these renditions with perfect certainty, which it clearly
can.
These conscious renditions of space and time and matter and energy
which we see around us, IMPLY that external space and time etc actually
exist. How could we see space or even get the idea of space if there
were no space?
However that is causally inside out.
Surely God did not need to see a tree before he could conceive of a
tree or create one.
Thus we arrive at at least two theories.
THEORY 1
Matter, Energy, Space and Time are actual, and that consciousness
is a process in the brain. In other words consciousness arose out of
the physical universe and represents it to us through our conscious
renditions made of conscious color form controlled and directed by our
physical senses. Everything is a machine learning about itself and the
universe by being an effect of incoming causal messenger waves.
Sounds reasonable (although emotionally horrible), but misses the
one little point of perfect certainty of consciousness of itself and its
color form renditions.
That indicates that consciousness is scalar or zero dimensional.
Scalar does not mean a 3 dimensional {0x0x0} point, but a {} that
has no geometricity at all.
THEORY 2.
Scalar or zero dimensional consciousness exists and likes to
dream dreams of space, time, matter and energy.
It's a static dreaming of kinetics.
It casts APPARENT cause into the kinetics, but in fact
the static scale maintains cause at all time over the kinetics
to make it seem like the kinetics has cause over itself.
This is called virtualization of cause.
In a dream, a dream ball bounces off the dream wall, but
NOT because the dream wall has anything to do with it.
The conscious scalar static creates conscious renditions of these
things in its own substrate as Creator using direct causal agency over
itself, and then CHOOSES to forget it did so and thus becomes the
Creature dreaming a nightmare about space and time, until it wakes up at
death of the dream body it has assigned itself.
But what about others?
Well we are faced with the possibility that the Static Scalar
Creator is a multi being, a Multi I AM superconsciousness, that can and
does incarnate parts of itself as individual consciousnesses in order to
play with each other.
Thus certainty of each other's existence is not possible while
being a Creature because all learning is via the outward hallucination
of space and time which tells us squat. But from the Creator viewpoint,
each I-AM is capable of seeing its multi I-am facility, and can take full
responsibility for all of them.
We call that the HIGH US.
That's an infinite number of infinite minds.
A One *AND* a Many.
How likely is that?
The Many while dreaming think they commmunicate with each other via
the outward dream, and the many dreams are synchronized perfectly
because there IS only one outward objective universe, so of course
everyone sees the same thing, albeit from different angles.
In actuality each one of the Many has its own private rendition,
and they are synchronized via the One that connects them all above space
and time.
Thus the entire universe display in each consciousness is
synchronized instantly across the entire universe, but not by any cause
traveling THROUGH the dream universe.
How likely is that?
But then how likely is the existence of perfect certainty?
Since one can never learn with certainty about A by looking at B,
it is clear one can never learn with certainty about the alleged
external physical universe by looking at our own conscious renditions
(hallucinations) of them.
Thus *IF* the external objective physical universe actually exists,
we can never prove this with certainty because all we can ever see is
our own conscious self luminous rendition of it.
Thus Occam's Sharpening strap says we shouldn't even bother
assuming the external universe is there, because even if it were, we
could never prove it with certainty.
Thus it bears upon us to study Theory 2 at least as much
as Theory 1.
We are not talking about Faith here, Faith is a waste of time,
unless it is faith in one's self to be able to deal with an Eternal
future.
There is no super God watching over us, as WE ARE THAT GOD in
carnation.
All life is God in carnation, both heaven and hell are empty,
because everyone of this small chunck of the HIGH US is HERE NOW.
All physical universe forms are avatars for the conscious unit that
controls it, from bodies down to individual quarks.
And there is nothing wrong with science per se, the scientific
method works for both the virtual reality called the physical universe
using dream tools to measure dream quarks, but it also works in the
realm of perfect certainty, where in outwardly we can only know
ourselves, but inwardly we might be able to know everyone else also.
One full exteriorization where you can read the number taped to the
back of your head changes everything.
You don't even have to have done this yourself, just ASSUME it has
been done from all the reports of crazy people, and then try to build a
causal world view in which such a thing could happen.
One ends with Theory2 in spades.
And possibilbly even a prediction about how to attain a full
exteriorzation yourself and why it has been so hard and hidden.
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: Thu Apr 2 20:28:29 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore968.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)
iD8DBQFVHd6uURT1lqxE3HERAlugAJ4rALGdMKX3kl7JQ0BtRG5kx2XaTACfTsWM
G5ldlZZk6VCUtf3vtYTV1Us=
=xDmD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
QUANTUM MECHANICS, SPECIAL RELATIVITY and PERFECT CERTAINTY
One day God was playing dice with the Devil in the dark of the
void, and He invented the universe.
The devil looked at it and said 'It needs something more', and
threw in special relativity.
Not sure how much you been studying Quantum Mechanics and Special
Relativity but a mature understanding of both is something along the
lines of 'This is ridiculous'.
There is a third point on that triangle and it is Perfect
Certainty.
Thus the question is can three absurdities, QM, SP and PC add up to
a non absurdity?
Perfect Cerainty forms the ground of understanding because it is
the only one of the 3 that can be directly perceived and which can not
be questioned.
Descartes said "I doubt I am, therefore I am, because a nothing
could not wonder whether it was a nothing or a something."
Occam's Razor said do not multiply factors unnecesarily, and
Occam's Shaprening Strap said "Do not suppose anything that you can
prove with certainty can never be proven."
Now the perfect certainty thing is based on the idea that learning
with certainty across a difference of two different objects is
impossible.
For example one can never learn with certainty about A by looking
at B.
If A leaves a causal imprint on B, then B might be able to surmise
things about the nature of A because of the effect that B noticed in
itself. That's called a data imprint left by A on B.
But anything B could conclude from studying the imprint in itself,
is a THEORY about A based on indirect perception of A by B, not a
perfect certainty based on direct perception of A about itself.
It is easy to understand indirect perception or observation,
it is any event of learning about something else (A), by observing
the effect it allegedly had in yourself (B).
Notice that *ALL* learning or data transfer in the physical
universe is via indirect perception.
How likely then is direct observation?
That would be A learning about itself, but not by being
a causal effect of itself!
Indirect perception is learning by being an effect.
Direct perception is learning by looking at CAUSE!
How likely is that?
Thus an object can only learn by direct perception about itself, we
call this self luminous perfect certainty, otherwise known as conscious.
Now the above is explosive because if 'learning across a
difference' can not lead to perfect certainty, then neither can learning
across a distance, nor learning between two different objects, even if
they sit right on top of each other.
Notice that actual space time distance between two objects, makes
them TWO DIFFERENT OBJECTS.
That means if God and Soul are two different objects, then neither
can ever know anything about the other with perfect certainty, including
their existence.
If God and Soul are two different objects, then God and Soul must
forever remain a theory to each other.
Secondly, since the alleged physical universe is made of space and
time dimensions, which INHERENTLY created 'two different object' at
every point in both space and time, it is clear that a machine can't be
certain of anything including its own existence.
A machine is defined as any system of parts interacting via cause
and effect across a space time distance.
Since effect does not prove cause with certainty, a machine can
that can only learn by being an effect, can never learn about the nature
of the cause, because it can never prove that cause even exists.
Thus certainty of cause (personal agency) can only be attained by A
seeing cause itself via direct perception, and even then not by being an
effect of itself and computing back from the effect to the possibility
of a cause, as that is just more indirect perception of itself by
itself.
So we have multidimensional machines that can only theorize and can
never know anything about anything with certainty, including their own
existence.
And we have zero dimensional consciousness which is self aware, and
self luminous, it can see and it can see that it sees, and it can sense
personal agency directly, thus having certainty of the fact cause within
itself exists.
I AM, I WANT, I KNOW and I DO.
How likely is that?
Worse machines run on force and mass in motion.
Consciousness runs on motivation and will.
Love and shame can not of force and mass be made.
Pain can not be reduced to force and mass.
A machine can say Ouch!
But a machine can never FEEL Ouch.
Only a consciousness can feel Ouch and give a damn.
Pain is not an IF THEN statement in computer code, it doesn't
work that way.
Further cause in the physical universe takes TIME to travel, so
even if a machine were fitted with 10 video cameras all aimed at itself
by the time the image from a video camera hit the machine's core, the
image would be of the machine microseconds before, NOT NOW.
Check mate.
Thus at best a machine can only know how it WAS, it can never
know how it IS NOW.
Since how the machine WAS is LONG GONE by the time the image gets
to its 'core', the machine can not possibly see ITSELF, because that
self no longer exists being in the past, and thus when the image finally
hits its core, the machine must be looking NOW at a symbolic image or
representation of itself as it was THEN when the image was first made.
Thus the machine is limited to knowing about itself THEN by looking
NOW at a SYMBOL of how it was THEN, and that is knowing about an earlier
A by looking at a later B, which can provide only theory, never a
perfect directly observed certainty.
Consciousness can SEE ITSELF NOW, we know this becaause it can SEE
its own color forms as they are by looking at THEM NOW, not by looking
at a symobol for them, for how they were in the past.
If consciousness were looking at its color forms as they were
THEN, it couldn't see them at all as they would no longer exist
since time has moved forward.
Don't confuse seeing ANOTHER object which exists now withi is
similar an object which existed then, and assume the object that is SEEN
NOW *IS* the object that was in the past.
One can only see with direct perception objects that are in present
time (conscious renditions) even if they are being USED to represent
theoreticaly objects out there in space and time, meaning not here now.
A machine is dark inside, as it can never see anything because its
all gone by the time the messenger wave gets to whatever might be there
to see.
At best a machine could see the symbolic messenger wave, but alas
it can't even see that, it can only change state as a result of it. And
since no state contains data that a CHANGE of state occurred, no mere
state NOW can indicate with certainty that any change of state happened
at all, and thus no certainty there even was a messenger wave.
Learing comes from a CHANGE IN STATE, if there is not
certainty of a change in state, there can be no learning with
certainty about what allegedly caused the change in state.
So from the above we can conclude the following bare minimum
certainties.
Consciousness exists and has agency.
Consciousness creates renditions of space and time and matter and
energy in its own self aware substrate, but these renditions do not
themselves take up any dimensional space or time, or else consciousness
could not see these renditions with perfect certainty, which it clearly
can.
These conscious renditions of space and time and matter and energy
which we see around us, IMPLY that external space and time etc actually
exist. How could we see space or even get the idea of space if there
were no space?
However that is causally inside out.
Surely God did not need to see a tree before he could conceive of a
tree or create one.
Thus we arrive at at least two theories.
THEORY 1
Matter, Energy, Space and Time are actual, and that consciousness
is a process in the brain. In other words consciousness arose out of
the physical universe and represents it to us through our conscious
renditions made of conscious color form controlled and directed by our
physical senses. Everything is a machine learning about itself and the
universe by being an effect of incoming causal messenger waves.
Sounds reasonable (although emotionally horrible), but misses the
one little point of perfect certainty of consciousness of itself and its
color form renditions.
That indicates that consciousness is scalar or zero dimensional.
Scalar does not mean a 3 dimensional {0x0x0} point, but a {} that
has no geometricity at all.
THEORY 2.
Scalar or zero dimensional consciousness exists and likes to
dream dreams of space, time, matter and energy.
It's a static dreaming of kinetics.
It casts APPARENT cause into the kinetics, but in fact
the static scale maintains cause at all time over the kinetics
to make it seem like the kinetics has cause over itself.
This is called virtualization of cause.
In a dream, a dream ball bounces off the dream wall, but
NOT because the dream wall has anything to do with it.
The conscious scalar static creates conscious renditions of these
things in its own substrate as Creator using direct causal agency over
itself, and then CHOOSES to forget it did so and thus becomes the
Creature dreaming a nightmare about space and time, until it wakes up at
death of the dream body it has assigned itself.
But what about others?
Well we are faced with the possibility that the Static Scalar
Creator is a multi being, a Multi I AM superconsciousness, that can and
does incarnate parts of itself as individual consciousnesses in order to
play with each other.
Thus certainty of each other's existence is not possible while
being a Creature because all learning is via the outward hallucination
of space and time which tells us squat. But from the Creator viewpoint,
each I-AM is capable of seeing its multi I-am facility, and can take full
responsibility for all of them.
We call that the HIGH US.
That's an infinite number of infinite minds.
A One *AND* a Many.
How likely is that?
The Many while dreaming think they commmunicate with each other via
the outward dream, and the many dreams are synchronized perfectly
because there IS only one outward objective universe, so of course
everyone sees the same thing, albeit from different angles.
In actuality each one of the Many has its own private rendition,
and they are synchronized via the One that connects them all above space
and time.
Thus the entire universe display in each consciousness is
synchronized instantly across the entire universe, but not by any cause
traveling THROUGH the dream universe.
How likely is that?
But then how likely is the existence of perfect certainty?
Since one can never learn with certainty about A by looking at B,
it is clear one can never learn with certainty about the alleged
external physical universe by looking at our own conscious renditions
(hallucinations) of them.
Thus *IF* the external objective physical universe actually exists,
we can never prove this with certainty because all we can ever see is
our own conscious self luminous rendition of it.
Thus Occam's Sharpening strap says we shouldn't even bother
assuming the external universe is there, because even if it were, we
could never prove it with certainty.
Thus it bears upon us to study Theory 2 at least as much
as Theory 1.
We are not talking about Faith here, Faith is a waste of time,
unless it is faith in one's self to be able to deal with an Eternal
future.
There is no super God watching over us, as WE ARE THAT GOD in
carnation.
All life is God in carnation, both heaven and hell are empty,
because everyone of this small chunck of the HIGH US is HERE NOW.
All physical universe forms are avatars for the conscious unit that
controls it, from bodies down to individual quarks.
And there is nothing wrong with science per se, the scientific
method works for both the virtual reality called the physical universe
using dream tools to measure dream quarks, but it also works in the
realm of perfect certainty, where in outwardly we can only know
ourselves, but inwardly we might be able to know everyone else also.
One full exteriorization where you can read the number taped to the
back of your head changes everything.
You don't even have to have done this yourself, just ASSUME it has
been done from all the reports of crazy people, and then try to build a
causal world view in which such a thing could happen.
One ends with Theory2 in spades.
And possibilbly even a prediction about how to attain a full
exteriorzation yourself and why it has been so hard and hidden.
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: Thu Apr 2 20:28:29 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore968.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)
iD8DBQFVHd6uURT1lqxE3HERAlugAJ4rALGdMKX3kl7JQ0BtRG5kx2XaTACfTsWM
G5ldlZZk6VCUtf3vtYTV1Us=
=xDmD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Wednesday, April 1, 2015
ADORE262 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
THE NON COGNITIVE CASE
One problem with the noncognitive case is he doesn't understand the
difference between 'real' and 'actual'. He takes reality for actuality
and thus ends up in the soup.
Reality is what seems true, actuality is what is true.
Specifically they try to fit the ideas of Scientology into a model
of the world made of space, time, and ball bearings, where they can not
possibly fit.
You see if consciousness is MERELY a process in the brain, then
when the brain dies, that process dies and thus so does consciousness.
If you can at least get them to see that they may be dreaming, and
the brain exists only in reality but not in actuality, then they have a
hope of cogniting.
People think consciousness arose out of the universe, when in fact
the universe arose out of consciousness.
Of course some will say 'Prove it!' when you ask them to consider
the possibility that the world is a dream, but they are unable to prove
it isn't.
By a dream we mean symbol without referent, consciousness of space
and time, with no actual space and time.
Sometimes you dream alone, sometimes you don't. Both are dreams.
This is like the computer game writer who has jumped into his own
arcade game, residing below 'apparencies are actuality' at 26.0 on the
tone scale, demanding proof that its only an arcade game of his own
creation. The objects look real while in the game, but are not actual.
Their hysteria is their Nemesis One stirring again after how long?
Amnesia of entrance doesn't help, but is intentional.
Run, "Get the idea of choosing to not know a choice."
E/P can forget choices at will :)
Anyone with an honest intelligence will tell you they don't know if
they are dreaming or not, and may not ever be able to know. They will
be open to cognitions.
Those who are still "certain" of false "certainties," have squashed
symbol and referent so hard together they can't even look at their own
consciousness of a bottle without considering GLASS.
If they try to look at their consciousness of the bottle as
consciousness, they can't see it, it tends to disappear on them, but if
they try to look at the BOTTLE, they will see their consciousness of the
bottle as long as they consider it the BOTTLE MADE OF GLASS rather than
a rendition in their consciousness made of their consciousness!
They can grok GLASS even though it doesn't exist, and but can't
grok consciousness of glass, even though that's all that does exist.
That's a nice trick meatballs have of making sure they haven't a
clue what you are talking about.
Glass does not exist, never has, never will. All things are made
of the same thing, consciousness.
But consciousness can LOOK like its made of glass, and if you
arrange the dream time properly you can pretend all of existing physics
is true down to the last quark.
Scientific dream tools can measure any scientific dream rule you
wish. Science is the study of the rules operating in the virtual
realities of space and time game streams (dreams).
They will then ask "But why? Why bother virtualizing all this
stuff if its just a dream? Where's the point, the meaning, the
purpose?"
Ah, the intent of Gods is not that of Humans.
Humans are the Gods that did it though, so the subject is
auditable.
Your pc had prior choice to any existing condition he finds himself
in.
Knowing willing choice with full awareness of the consequences in
general if not in specific.
"Indeed, since he has existed prior to any existing situation, he
had the free choice to do something about it and thus had free choice
about any existing situation." - LRH APA pg 59.
Every created thing persists because someone PUT IT THERE, and then
denied doing so.
They put it there, then they put it there that they didn't put
it there, get it?
This one idea alone is the primary non acceptance of Hubbard you
will find in anyone.
Thus bashers will do anything to lessen Hubbard because they can't
lessen him on that one.
Once they come up to admitting that the dream theory is more
desirable than the "you live once and die bud and that's it" theory,
then you have someone you can talk to. Until then they are only selling
death.
Evidence for the physical universe (space and time) as actuality is
non existent, evidence of conscious renditions of space and time as
reality is everywhere present.
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 ========================
Posted: Wed Apr 1 14:54:28 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore262.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)
iD8DBQFVHD7kURT1lqxE3HERAnsPAKCrxzLXLjCaRn+gP9pLOaNl/prmugCfczkY
0OD96urmM7vD89ls/UYX3c0=
=krwJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
THE NON COGNITIVE CASE
One problem with the noncognitive case is he doesn't understand the
difference between 'real' and 'actual'. He takes reality for actuality
and thus ends up in the soup.
Reality is what seems true, actuality is what is true.
Specifically they try to fit the ideas of Scientology into a model
of the world made of space, time, and ball bearings, where they can not
possibly fit.
You see if consciousness is MERELY a process in the brain, then
when the brain dies, that process dies and thus so does consciousness.
If you can at least get them to see that they may be dreaming, and
the brain exists only in reality but not in actuality, then they have a
hope of cogniting.
People think consciousness arose out of the universe, when in fact
the universe arose out of consciousness.
Of course some will say 'Prove it!' when you ask them to consider
the possibility that the world is a dream, but they are unable to prove
it isn't.
By a dream we mean symbol without referent, consciousness of space
and time, with no actual space and time.
Sometimes you dream alone, sometimes you don't. Both are dreams.
This is like the computer game writer who has jumped into his own
arcade game, residing below 'apparencies are actuality' at 26.0 on the
tone scale, demanding proof that its only an arcade game of his own
creation. The objects look real while in the game, but are not actual.
Their hysteria is their Nemesis One stirring again after how long?
Amnesia of entrance doesn't help, but is intentional.
Run, "Get the idea of choosing to not know a choice."
E/P can forget choices at will :)
Anyone with an honest intelligence will tell you they don't know if
they are dreaming or not, and may not ever be able to know. They will
be open to cognitions.
Those who are still "certain" of false "certainties," have squashed
symbol and referent so hard together they can't even look at their own
consciousness of a bottle without considering GLASS.
If they try to look at their consciousness of the bottle as
consciousness, they can't see it, it tends to disappear on them, but if
they try to look at the BOTTLE, they will see their consciousness of the
bottle as long as they consider it the BOTTLE MADE OF GLASS rather than
a rendition in their consciousness made of their consciousness!
They can grok GLASS even though it doesn't exist, and but can't
grok consciousness of glass, even though that's all that does exist.
That's a nice trick meatballs have of making sure they haven't a
clue what you are talking about.
Glass does not exist, never has, never will. All things are made
of the same thing, consciousness.
But consciousness can LOOK like its made of glass, and if you
arrange the dream time properly you can pretend all of existing physics
is true down to the last quark.
Scientific dream tools can measure any scientific dream rule you
wish. Science is the study of the rules operating in the virtual
realities of space and time game streams (dreams).
They will then ask "But why? Why bother virtualizing all this
stuff if its just a dream? Where's the point, the meaning, the
purpose?"
Ah, the intent of Gods is not that of Humans.
Humans are the Gods that did it though, so the subject is
auditable.
Your pc had prior choice to any existing condition he finds himself
in.
Knowing willing choice with full awareness of the consequences in
general if not in specific.
"Indeed, since he has existed prior to any existing situation, he
had the free choice to do something about it and thus had free choice
about any existing situation." - LRH APA pg 59.
Every created thing persists because someone PUT IT THERE, and then
denied doing so.
They put it there, then they put it there that they didn't put
it there, get it?
This one idea alone is the primary non acceptance of Hubbard you
will find in anyone.
Thus bashers will do anything to lessen Hubbard because they can't
lessen him on that one.
Once they come up to admitting that the dream theory is more
desirable than the "you live once and die bud and that's it" theory,
then you have someone you can talk to. Until then they are only selling
death.
Evidence for the physical universe (space and time) as actuality is
non existent, evidence of conscious renditions of space and time as
reality is everywhere present.
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 ========================
Posted: Wed Apr 1 14:54:28 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore262.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)
iD8DBQFVHD7kURT1lqxE3HERAnsPAKCrxzLXLjCaRn+gP9pLOaNl/prmugCfczkY
0OD96urmM7vD89ls/UYX3c0=
=krwJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)