-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
PERFECT CERTAINTY AND POWER
Certainty is generally considered a gradient scale going from 0 to
100.
At 100, we have a perfect certainty that something is true.
At 0, we have a perfect certainty that something is false, or that
the opposite is true.
At 50/50 we don't know whether something is true or not and we
wouldn't hazard a guess.
At less than 50/50 we would bet that something is false.
At more than 50/50 we would bet that something is true.
If a person says "I don't bet" he is hiding in self deceit.
A perfect certainty is more than a belief, for beliefs can be
wrong, as can theories.
All those 'certainties' that later turned out to be wrong were in
fact mere theories.
A perfect certainty by definition can not be wrong, as the truth
can be directly perceived.
A person should be EASILY willing to bet his AND everyone else's
eternity in hell forever on a perfect certainty.
If there is the slightest hesitation in the matter then it is not a
perfect certainty but a theory.
If a person is certain of something, then he is CERTAIN that he is
certain of it.
If a person is uncertain of something, then he is CERTAIN he is
uncertain of it.
There is no such thing as uncertain certainty, or uncertain
uncertainty.
Uncertainty can exist. To doubt this is to prove it, certainly.
Therefore certainty also exists.
The first certainty is certainty of uncertainty.
If a person doubts that he doubts, then he is mind broke hiding in
self deceit. This is a dharmically criminal condition.
The second certainty is certainty of certainty.
If a person says "Well I don't know if I am certain or uncertain"
again he is hiding in a self deceit, it is not possible to not know if
you know or don't know.
It is possible to not know if you KNEW. Memory is not a perfect
certainty. Thus if the guy is wondering if he knew at one time and has
forgotten, he is certainly uncertain in present time.
A perfect certainty is in present time, "I am certain NOW that I am
certain", or "I am certain NOW that I am uncertain."
If someone says "I am uncertain if I am certain" or "I am uncertain
if I am uncertain" they are dharmically criminal and mind broke on
either or both accounts.
Personal integrity is KNOWING what you know and KNOWING what you
don't know.
"I KNOW I know this, and I KNOW I don't know that."
There is no "I don't know" without an "I KNOW I don't know" in
front of it.
Of course your average honest person knows full well that there are
things he doesn't know, questions he hasn't asked, so he also knows that
he doesn't know how much he doesn't know.
It is thus possible to be ignorant of how much you don't know.
A question arises as to what is a perfect UNCERTAINTY.
It can have two possible definitions.
The first is anything that is 50/50. This is not acceptable
because it is almost impossible to tell if you are at 50/50 on any
matter. It's like sitting on the head of pin and asking which way are
you falling. This would make it near impossible to be perfectly certain
if you were perfectly uncertain. Thus the concept of a perfect
uncertainty is wasted.
This doesn't mean that claiming you are 50/50 on a subject is
wasted, it only means that you have a right to not claim you are
perfectly certain you are 50/50!
The second and correct answer is a perfect uncertainty is anything
you are not perfectly certain of.
This implies that when you are uncertain of anything, you ARE
perfectly certain that you ARE NOT perfectly certain of something.
So that includes anything between 0 and 100 that is not 0 or 100.
Notice that all theories are between 0 and 100 because they are
inherently not statements of truth, but statements of dependable
workability. Thus adherence to a theory is always a bet greater than 0
and less than 100 that the outcome will be as predicted. Thus theories
can always be proven wrong, and the mere fact that they haven't yet been
proven wrong, doesn't mean they are 'right.'
Rightness doesn't apply to theories anyhow, theories are models of
truth, not truth. Theories work or don't work, truth is right or wrong.
The untrained mind confuses these two concepts easily.
But a direct observation is not a theory, either you see it or you
don't, end of story. Even if what you see is a hallucination, a
misrepresentation of 'what is really out there', the hallucination is
not a hallucination, you SEE that for sure.
Our conscious experiences of things are absolute, 'what is really
out there' is always a theory because we can never see them directly.
So with this understanding we need to run the following very
dangerous process. It will release TREMENDOUS amounts of charge, enough
to harm the body if you do it with full but messy intent, so watch out.
Run round robin,
Spot NO perfect certainty. (NO means pretended no)
Spot SOME perfect certainty.
Spot NO perfect uncertainty.
Spot SOME perfect uncertainty.
E/P 1 Can handle perfect certainty and uncertainty.
E/P 2 No longer doubts he doubts, no longer wonders if he wonders.
E/P 3 No longer suffering from false 'certainties', or
'certainties' that can later turn out wrong.
E/P 4 Knows what he knows and knows what he doesn't know. May or
may not know there are things he hasn't thought of.
E/P Certain awareness that consciousness is capable of perfect
certainty on some things.
E/P 4 Certain awareness that something exists.
E/P 5 Certain awareness of self luminousness.
E/P 6 Certain awareness of personal agency.
E/P 7 Certain awareness of I AM, I WANT, I CARE, I HURT, I KNOW, I
CAUSE, I DO, and I HAVE restored.
E/P 8 Has a perfect standard of perfect certainty against which all
other certainties or uncertainties can be compared.
E/P 9 Certain Awareness of perfection.
E/P 10 Certain awareness of OT shimmer, that is awareness of OT
power in operation creating the apparency of no OT power.
POWER
Power means ability, ability means able to cause or not cause, to
start, stop and change.
In this context power and ability are synonymous.
Power does not mean controlling power over others against their
will.
Power does mean creative, controlling and destructive power, over
one's self, one's future and other's if they wish it or have agreed to
it.
Power comes in a power package.
A power package is a constellation of abilities that work together
to allow a person's present beingness to play it's games well.
Power packages can be disabilitated, made disabled, but it takes
power to do so.
The ability to be unable.
One has to be able to make oneself unable in order to make oneself
unable! And therefore one has to be able to make one's self unable in
order to UNDO such inabilities that were created, because one undoes any
creation by doing it again. Thus practice at making one's self unable
will enable one to stop making one's self unable.
Restoring the ability to be unable, restores the ability to be
able.
Power packages can be rehabilitated by auditing out the reasons for
the disabilitation.
Power packages can also be changed, decreased or increased if a new
beingness and game to play is created to suit it.
It is not possible to change one's operating power package without
also changing one's beingness and the game it is playing.
Restoring a disabilitated power package to full operating ability
does not involve changing beingness or the game it is playing other than
to remove the 'crippled' from infront of its name.
A chess player may never use his knight, say, due to some
consideration,
If you rehabilitate the player so he can use his knight and all his
other pieces to full potential, he is still a chess player playing
chess, although he may start winning more often.
However if you CHANGE the player's power package, by for example,
allowing a pawn to move like a queen, or limiting a rook to move like a
knight, then you are no longer a chess player playing chess, as both
power package, beingness and game have changed.
Power packages of all kinds come with Power Protocols, or Prime
Directives, essentially the rules by which one agrees to play even
though one might do so differently. A chess player CAN move chess
pieces in violation of the rules but is constrained by his agreements
not to do so, lest other's become unwilling to play with him or do the
same against him.
A game with random shifting rules is a bear to play.
So a chess player is constrained by the chess player's power
protocol or prime directive.
In other words, some people may have power packages wider and more
able than many of the lesser games they are presently playing, and thus
they are able to cheat or force their way to a win at the cost of
affinity with other players.
Thus not only do games have specific power use protocols, the
entire power package of a being across all games, also has a governing
power use protocol.
One will find that much power disabilitation arises from violations
of power use protocols and the regret that ensues. Thus auditing the
power use protocol directly will go a long ways towards restoration of
existing power packages, and eventually to the ability to change
packages entirely.
However if you are going to move the marble, you must ask "What
beingness, what purpose, what game?"
In other words you can't just add the ability to move the marble to
the power package called a human being.
The power package that includes being able to move the marble, kill
at a distance, form a group mind, have telepathic communications travel
faster than the speed of cause in this universe, is not called a human
being but something else.
Telepathy, telekinesis, teleportation, and telecommunion are the
Big 4.
For the purposes of this discussion a power use protocol and a
prime directive protocol are synonymous.
Thus power packages have power protocols.
You audit the protocol to audit the power package.
A power protocol is a governing list of where, when and why to use
those powers.
A power package without a reigning power protocol, results in chaos
and the pollution and destruction of all playing fields.
You will not be able to change a power package until you have
rehabilitated the power package you are in, because the ability to PUT a
new power package into play, in fine operating shape, involves being
able to put your present power package into play, in fine operating
shape.
The following will not run unless perfect certainty and
uncertainty, as run above, is flatter than a one sided pancake and OT
shimmer is in evidence.
One audits the power package and protocol rundown as follows:
Spot NO power protocol
Spot SOME power protocol
Spot NO protocol violation
Spot SOME protocol violation
Spot NO power
Spot SOME power
Spot NO power disabilitation.
Spot SOME power disabilitation.
When flat and present power package working properly, then run,
Spot a power you would like to have.
Spot something you would do with it.
Spot a consequence of doing that.
Spot how you would FEEL about that.
Spot a power you would NOT like to have.
Spot something you WOULD NOT do with it.
Spot a consequence of NOT doing that.
Spot how you would FEEL about that.
E/P able to rehabilitate existing power packages and protocols, and
able to create and put into play new ones.
E/P no longer are power and its protocol in conflict; able, eager
and willing to operate a power package within its protocol.
Homer
- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Wed Dec 23 15:51:28 EST 2009
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Jun 9 12:00:02 EDT 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore694.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help in body
=========== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===============
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning,
but not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFbG/mCURT1lqxE3HERAnPHAJ9D3dj7DaadjtoLciJMbRLw1lqVpwCfb7cU
I//fBQxEyPXX6/HABCGDKIg=
=grwu
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Sat Jun 9 15:46:04 EDT 2018
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore694.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)
iD8DBQFbHC58URT1lqxE3HERAjaaAJ0U5+bQ1xHMriJQ2Uc0ahPFuAfdeACgiO/P
8mgbegozSNWwU+gJhooVr1g=
=7tDk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Saturday, June 9, 2018
Thursday, June 7, 2018
ADORE703 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
TO DREAM OR NOT TO DREAM
Dennis,
It doesn't matter whether someone is a meatball who believes that
the physical universe is actual and he is made of it, or a dreamball who
believes the physical universe is a dream in his own consciousness.
However none of scientology, particularly the OT stuff will make
any sense to the meatball because the causations within the PU do not
allow for such powers, past lives etc.
In trying to understand Hubbard it is critical that everyone
understand that he was a dream ball, claimed to be the reincarnation of
Buddha, so he is working from a world view where consciousness makes
dreams of MEST and survives the death of the dream body.
It is fine to say that Scners are just a bunch of kooks, but this
misses just how much of kook we all really are, and you must remember
that more than half of the world's population believes the world is a
dream.
So my goal here is not get anyone to exteriorize from the dream and
wake up, but only to get them see what they are up against, so that
proper communication can take place.
Otherwise you get meatballs trying to argue with dreamballs but
thinking they are meatballs too, and that leads to an incredibility, how
could anyone believe in OT powers etc.
If meatballism is true, then OT powers do not exist.
If dreamballism is true, then everone is God in Carnation and OT
powers are a forgone conclusion, including the apparency of their
absence as the whole universe is created via OT power.
A very powerful theorem exists which the meatballs ignore, EVEN IF
MEATBALLISM IS TRUE.
THEOREM: It is impossible to prove or show conclusive evidence that
you are not dreaming at any instant of time.
In otherwords you can do anything in a dream you can do awake, and
since all anyone has ever seen of the physical universe is their own
conscious rendition of it, there is in fact no direct evidence of the
existence of the physical universe EXCEPT their rendition of it.
So, like a sleep dreamer who thinks he is awake until he wakes up,
just so are people sleep dreaming even now, until they wake up at death
or earlier through auditing. Then they go lucid, meaning they stay in
the dream but retain awareness they are dreaming.
By saying that YOU are just a human who never created anything, you
are saying that Hubbard was just a human who never created anything.
That misses the enormity of your own existence and Hubbard's, and
the enormity of what in fact Hubbard tried to create and failed. If his
intentions were evil, then the world is a world of gods up against an
evil god, not a world of humans up against an evil human.
As for Scners, most of them have an inner sense that OT powers are
real, cuz they are and they been there done that and bought the body,
but they are still asleep, they too believe in the apparencies of the
phyiscal universe, just like any meatball, and they have not yet
realized they will have to give up that apparency in order to attain
those powers.
That's like the sleep dreamer who is just aware enough to say "Hey
you know this isn't where I live", but not aware enough to then say "Oh
whaddya know this is a dream!"
So he gets into a fight with a meatball in the dream who says 'Yes
this is the place you live, there is no other place', "No it isn't, I am
just sure I live somewhere else", "You are nuts!", "I am not!" rather
than realizing he is in a dream and responding to the meatball "YOU ARE
A BT! What are you? Who are you? How many are you?" and going on
about his dream now knowing it is a dream and even remembering some of
what the world looks like when he does wake up.
But that's just another dream, until he reaches the top which is
static snooze.
Not asking for agreement, but do you understand Dennis?
Homer
Tue Jan 26 20:18:47 EST 2010
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Jun 7 12:00:02 EDT 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore703.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help in body
=========== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===============
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning,
but not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFbGVaDURT1lqxE3HERAqVLAJ9iXsWUEljIW4wM4Eicx7VmHPSdxgCcCO7D
HxzdtOZfXUa+eoNtTDBF+U8=
=J4TY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
TO DREAM OR NOT TO DREAM
Dennis,
It doesn't matter whether someone is a meatball who believes that
the physical universe is actual and he is made of it, or a dreamball who
believes the physical universe is a dream in his own consciousness.
However none of scientology, particularly the OT stuff will make
any sense to the meatball because the causations within the PU do not
allow for such powers, past lives etc.
In trying to understand Hubbard it is critical that everyone
understand that he was a dream ball, claimed to be the reincarnation of
Buddha, so he is working from a world view where consciousness makes
dreams of MEST and survives the death of the dream body.
It is fine to say that Scners are just a bunch of kooks, but this
misses just how much of kook we all really are, and you must remember
that more than half of the world's population believes the world is a
dream.
So my goal here is not get anyone to exteriorize from the dream and
wake up, but only to get them see what they are up against, so that
proper communication can take place.
Otherwise you get meatballs trying to argue with dreamballs but
thinking they are meatballs too, and that leads to an incredibility, how
could anyone believe in OT powers etc.
If meatballism is true, then OT powers do not exist.
If dreamballism is true, then everone is God in Carnation and OT
powers are a forgone conclusion, including the apparency of their
absence as the whole universe is created via OT power.
A very powerful theorem exists which the meatballs ignore, EVEN IF
MEATBALLISM IS TRUE.
THEOREM: It is impossible to prove or show conclusive evidence that
you are not dreaming at any instant of time.
In otherwords you can do anything in a dream you can do awake, and
since all anyone has ever seen of the physical universe is their own
conscious rendition of it, there is in fact no direct evidence of the
existence of the physical universe EXCEPT their rendition of it.
So, like a sleep dreamer who thinks he is awake until he wakes up,
just so are people sleep dreaming even now, until they wake up at death
or earlier through auditing. Then they go lucid, meaning they stay in
the dream but retain awareness they are dreaming.
By saying that YOU are just a human who never created anything, you
are saying that Hubbard was just a human who never created anything.
That misses the enormity of your own existence and Hubbard's, and
the enormity of what in fact Hubbard tried to create and failed. If his
intentions were evil, then the world is a world of gods up against an
evil god, not a world of humans up against an evil human.
As for Scners, most of them have an inner sense that OT powers are
real, cuz they are and they been there done that and bought the body,
but they are still asleep, they too believe in the apparencies of the
phyiscal universe, just like any meatball, and they have not yet
realized they will have to give up that apparency in order to attain
those powers.
That's like the sleep dreamer who is just aware enough to say "Hey
you know this isn't where I live", but not aware enough to then say "Oh
whaddya know this is a dream!"
So he gets into a fight with a meatball in the dream who says 'Yes
this is the place you live, there is no other place', "No it isn't, I am
just sure I live somewhere else", "You are nuts!", "I am not!" rather
than realizing he is in a dream and responding to the meatball "YOU ARE
A BT! What are you? Who are you? How many are you?" and going on
about his dream now knowing it is a dream and even remembering some of
what the world looks like when he does wake up.
But that's just another dream, until he reaches the top which is
static snooze.
Not asking for agreement, but do you understand Dennis?
Homer
Tue Jan 26 20:18:47 EST 2010
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Jun 7 12:00:02 EDT 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore703.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help in body
=========== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===============
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning,
but not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFbGVaDURT1lqxE3HERAqVLAJ9iXsWUEljIW4wM4Eicx7VmHPSdxgCcCO7D
HxzdtOZfXUa+eoNtTDBF+U8=
=J4TY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Wednesday, June 6, 2018
LOGIC22 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
LOGIC IS KING, THE BASIS OF LOGIC
The basis of logic is
IS means IS.
IS does not mean IS NOT.
Always IS or IS NOT.
Never IS and IS NOT.
An IS statement is any statement that uses the word IS, IS NOT,
or their English variants.
IS statements assign qualities to objects, objects to classes,
and classes to other classes.
Joey IS black.
Joey IS a dog.
All dogs ARE animals.
The basis of logic is not an arbitrary set of rules about IS, but
is a description of *SELF EVIDENT AND OBSERVABLE QUALITIES* of IS and
IS NOT.
"Logic IS King" means that any IS statement or group of IS
statements must be consistent with the basis of logic and the observed
nature of IS and IS NOT if they are to be considered meaningful
descriptions of actuality.
To say that "Logic IS NOT King" is to USE the basis of logic to
assert that Logic IS NOT King, thus "Logic IS NOT King" is self
denying and therefore without meaning or merit.
A self denying statement is a statement that denies its own
truth.
"All generalizations are false." (This is a generalization).
"All truth is relative." (Stated as an absolute truth).
"IS is the same as IS NOT." (Thus IS is not the same as IS NOT.)
Self denying statements are for broken minds, do not build a
philosophy around them.
People who speak in illogical IS statements are more interested in
the poetry of the sounds than the meaning of the words.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth and Peace. Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Jun 6 12:00:01 EDT 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/logic22.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help in body
=========== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===============
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning,
but not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFbGAUCURT1lqxE3HERAgMCAKCa3zAA/mJXAp1OMnTS8vaxB/UqQwCeN3OY
pmhGIiaesPpQB0zhodWgU3w=
=zDPh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
LOGIC IS KING, THE BASIS OF LOGIC
The basis of logic is
IS means IS.
IS does not mean IS NOT.
Always IS or IS NOT.
Never IS and IS NOT.
An IS statement is any statement that uses the word IS, IS NOT,
or their English variants.
IS statements assign qualities to objects, objects to classes,
and classes to other classes.
Joey IS black.
Joey IS a dog.
All dogs ARE animals.
The basis of logic is not an arbitrary set of rules about IS, but
is a description of *SELF EVIDENT AND OBSERVABLE QUALITIES* of IS and
IS NOT.
"Logic IS King" means that any IS statement or group of IS
statements must be consistent with the basis of logic and the observed
nature of IS and IS NOT if they are to be considered meaningful
descriptions of actuality.
To say that "Logic IS NOT King" is to USE the basis of logic to
assert that Logic IS NOT King, thus "Logic IS NOT King" is self
denying and therefore without meaning or merit.
A self denying statement is a statement that denies its own
truth.
"All generalizations are false." (This is a generalization).
"All truth is relative." (Stated as an absolute truth).
"IS is the same as IS NOT." (Thus IS is not the same as IS NOT.)
Self denying statements are for broken minds, do not build a
philosophy around them.
People who speak in illogical IS statements are more interested in
the poetry of the sounds than the meaning of the words.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth and Peace. Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Jun 6 12:00:01 EDT 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/logic22.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help in body
=========== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===============
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning,
but not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFbGAUCURT1lqxE3HERAgMCAKCa3zAA/mJXAp1OMnTS8vaxB/UqQwCeN3OY
pmhGIiaesPpQB0zhodWgU3w=
=zDPh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
ador1029.memo (fwd)
UNLIMITED POWER
We do not give the government unlimited power.
Why then do they suppose we should give the goverment
unlimited privacy?
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
Sun Oct 23 01:44:24 EDT 2016
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Jun 6 00:06:02 EDT 2018
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/ador1029.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.
_______________________________________________
Clear-L mailing list
Clear-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/clear-l
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
We do not give the government unlimited power.
Why then do they suppose we should give the goverment
unlimited privacy?
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
Sun Oct 23 01:44:24 EDT 2016
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Jun 6 00:06:02 EDT 2018
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/ador1029.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.
_______________________________________________
Clear-L mailing list
Clear-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/clear-l
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Tuesday, June 5, 2018
ADORE470 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
03/18/07 Sunday 7:17pm EST
THE PROCESS OF LOGIC
The process of logic can be diagrammed as follows read from
left to right.
UNCERTAIN THEORY
MODEL or
GENERALIZATION
Inductive / \ Deductive
Inference / \ Inference
/ \
/ \
Certain Certain
Observation Observation
One starts at the bottom left with certain observations.
These then lead through inductive inference (logic) to an
uncertain theory, model or generalization (all the same thing) at the
top of the diagram.
The theory then leads through deductive inference (logic) to
certain predictions (if the theory is true) which are then either
certainly observed or not.
Observation takes rank over theory because one observation to the
contrary can disprove a theory.
However observations can take rank over other observations,
particularly when they contradict each other.
This does not mean that the outranked observations were uncertain
or even untrue, but that one's theoretical interpretation of how they
came about is incorrect.
Thus it is certainly true that the moon looks bigger on the
horizon, but the interpretations (theory) that this is so because the
moon IS bigger, or that the atmosphere is distorting the shape, or
that the mind is producing an illusion may be false.
Only theories can be false, observations can only be true.
That's a big statement and involves uncollapsing the conscious
observation from the implied theoretical referent.
We see a moon, that's for sure.
That there IS a moon is theory, and that it is bigger when on the
horizon is yet another theory, either or both of which can be false.
A theory can never be true, but can always be false.
An observation can never be false and must always be true.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Sun Mar 18 19:18:08 EST 2007
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Jun 5 12:00:03 EDT 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore470.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help in body
=========== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===============
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning,
but not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFbFrODURT1lqxE3HERAqs0AKDObCKZW37RzN8ZhmWRpQPvOJVxagCgzglF
RnOD0tZ7+aJitqHx9Jf6suk=
=VVMM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
03/18/07 Sunday 7:17pm EST
THE PROCESS OF LOGIC
The process of logic can be diagrammed as follows read from
left to right.
UNCERTAIN THEORY
MODEL or
GENERALIZATION
Inductive / \ Deductive
Inference / \ Inference
/ \
/ \
Certain Certain
Observation Observation
One starts at the bottom left with certain observations.
These then lead through inductive inference (logic) to an
uncertain theory, model or generalization (all the same thing) at the
top of the diagram.
The theory then leads through deductive inference (logic) to
certain predictions (if the theory is true) which are then either
certainly observed or not.
Observation takes rank over theory because one observation to the
contrary can disprove a theory.
However observations can take rank over other observations,
particularly when they contradict each other.
This does not mean that the outranked observations were uncertain
or even untrue, but that one's theoretical interpretation of how they
came about is incorrect.
Thus it is certainly true that the moon looks bigger on the
horizon, but the interpretations (theory) that this is so because the
moon IS bigger, or that the atmosphere is distorting the shape, or
that the mind is producing an illusion may be false.
Only theories can be false, observations can only be true.
That's a big statement and involves uncollapsing the conscious
observation from the implied theoretical referent.
We see a moon, that's for sure.
That there IS a moon is theory, and that it is bigger when on the
horizon is yet another theory, either or both of which can be false.
A theory can never be true, but can always be false.
An observation can never be false and must always be true.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Sun Mar 18 19:18:08 EST 2007
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Jun 5 12:00:03 EDT 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore470.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help in body
=========== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===============
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning,
but not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFbFrODURT1lqxE3HERAqs0AKDObCKZW37RzN8ZhmWRpQPvOJVxagCgzglF
RnOD0tZ7+aJitqHx9Jf6suk=
=VVMM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Sunday, June 3, 2018
KP (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
CB Willis (cbwillis@adore.lightlink.com) wrote:
>And one doesn't need to be ex-Go, ex-OSA to run those ops, but it does
>"help". They either don't know what they're doing, or they do, hard to say
>which is worse, but I'd say the 2nd is worse.
Well when someone can't afford to let someone else be right and
admit they are wrong themselves, they will pick a fight at every turn.
No matter WHAT you say, they will find something to counter it,
even if they have to fabricate to do so. It becomes pretty obvious.
Also when they turn to ad hominem, like 'known drug pusher' as if
that somehow throws doubt on your statement that 2+2=4. Even a drug
pusher can be right. It also implies that the accuser has NEVER been a
drug pusher himself, ever ever ever, etc, so we see how far their reach
and willingness to have been are.
KP for example revisits old false rebuttals all the time, like the
one that I believe he doesn't exist.
FIRST he avoids answering the point by SIDETRACKING the argument
into something that is irrelevant. Whether I believe he exists or not,
has nothing to do with the fact that I am CLEARLY assuming he exists for
the purposes of the debate.
He knows this. He is grateful for the out from having to actually
take up the point
But worse, the idea that I think he doesn't exist is his
misduplication. Again, needing to find a reason to fight, he isn't
listening to me clearly enough to see that there is no reason to fight.
And the last time he brought it up, I explained very clearly to him
what the real situation was, and he even acked it, saying ok, now he
understand etc. Yet here he is again, using it all over again.
He also likes to use the term "irrelevant".
Irrelevant to what? Clearing? Getting better? Tech?
Understanding the nature of the AllThatIs?
Anyone who thinks my material is irrelevant to the well being of
their future is gone.
That's like me saying UCP is irrelevant!
He also uses the world hallucination a lot, but seems to
demonstrate a lack of understanding about what a hallucination actually
is.
If one believes in external actualities for which one's experiences
are merely symbols pointing to the actual referent, then having an
experience that implies a referent that does not exist would be a
hallucination, particular if one didn't know the experience was in
error.
But if one believes that experience is all the actuality there is,
beyond the experiencer of course and the underlying actuality that
connects us, then calling any experience a hallucination is absurd.
There is a deeper level of hallucination which is to assign
significances to experiences. One feels a mental mass in the way of
one's mocked up thetan hand moving through one's body.
OK, so that's an experience we call a mental mass. To say the
being is hallucinating is again out of line. He experiences what he
experiences.
Same thing for disincarnate beings. If I have a good session with
a being in a sleep dream, who am I to say the being was not actual?
If I have a fight with a demonic entity in a sleep dream, and it
wins and I lose, who is to say the being was not actual?
KP declares as hallucination a whole slew of things that he just
has no possible hope in hell of knowing are hallucinations or not.
He is 'certain' of things that he CAN'T be certain of, and thus
unable to be certain of things he can be certain of. Until the false
certainties are cleared, the true certainties will never become
apparent.
Anyhow, you can tell them by how they 'pick fights'. You have
known people out looking to pick a physical fight with someone, anyone,
no matter whether they did something or not, and the need to mock up
that they did something even if they didn't do it.
Well Koos, KP and others do the same thing.
It's OBVIOUS.
But pointing it out, won't change it. The need inside them to pick
the fight is overwhelming and absolute. Only the impingement of life
that shows them their safe solution is more dangerous than being
forthright will bring about change.
Homer
>- CBW
- - --
- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 ====================
Sun Jun 3 12:00:02 EDT 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/kp
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help in body
=========== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===============
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning,
but not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFbFBCDURT1lqxE3HERAkSSAKCoBFXwVXr9K/m+LRe03FnMlJREQwCgpR+d
UGzJtJTqaULBRMPBRwI53wM=
=sQ7V
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Sun Jun 3 17:52:14 EDT 2018
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/kp.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)
iD8DBQFbFGMPURT1lqxE3HERAqYZAKCpVtKUZ6fx95AdWgWSGH5jqq5GZwCfeq9o
CLz5pSrHWPZYxO0i1CTFlPc=
=38yu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
CB Willis (cbwillis@adore.lightlink.com) wrote:
>And one doesn't need to be ex-Go, ex-OSA to run those ops, but it does
>"help". They either don't know what they're doing, or they do, hard to say
>which is worse, but I'd say the 2nd is worse.
Well when someone can't afford to let someone else be right and
admit they are wrong themselves, they will pick a fight at every turn.
No matter WHAT you say, they will find something to counter it,
even if they have to fabricate to do so. It becomes pretty obvious.
Also when they turn to ad hominem, like 'known drug pusher' as if
that somehow throws doubt on your statement that 2+2=4. Even a drug
pusher can be right. It also implies that the accuser has NEVER been a
drug pusher himself, ever ever ever, etc, so we see how far their reach
and willingness to have been are.
KP for example revisits old false rebuttals all the time, like the
one that I believe he doesn't exist.
FIRST he avoids answering the point by SIDETRACKING the argument
into something that is irrelevant. Whether I believe he exists or not,
has nothing to do with the fact that I am CLEARLY assuming he exists for
the purposes of the debate.
He knows this. He is grateful for the out from having to actually
take up the point
But worse, the idea that I think he doesn't exist is his
misduplication. Again, needing to find a reason to fight, he isn't
listening to me clearly enough to see that there is no reason to fight.
And the last time he brought it up, I explained very clearly to him
what the real situation was, and he even acked it, saying ok, now he
understand etc. Yet here he is again, using it all over again.
He also likes to use the term "irrelevant".
Irrelevant to what? Clearing? Getting better? Tech?
Understanding the nature of the AllThatIs?
Anyone who thinks my material is irrelevant to the well being of
their future is gone.
That's like me saying UCP is irrelevant!
He also uses the world hallucination a lot, but seems to
demonstrate a lack of understanding about what a hallucination actually
is.
If one believes in external actualities for which one's experiences
are merely symbols pointing to the actual referent, then having an
experience that implies a referent that does not exist would be a
hallucination, particular if one didn't know the experience was in
error.
But if one believes that experience is all the actuality there is,
beyond the experiencer of course and the underlying actuality that
connects us, then calling any experience a hallucination is absurd.
There is a deeper level of hallucination which is to assign
significances to experiences. One feels a mental mass in the way of
one's mocked up thetan hand moving through one's body.
OK, so that's an experience we call a mental mass. To say the
being is hallucinating is again out of line. He experiences what he
experiences.
Same thing for disincarnate beings. If I have a good session with
a being in a sleep dream, who am I to say the being was not actual?
If I have a fight with a demonic entity in a sleep dream, and it
wins and I lose, who is to say the being was not actual?
KP declares as hallucination a whole slew of things that he just
has no possible hope in hell of knowing are hallucinations or not.
He is 'certain' of things that he CAN'T be certain of, and thus
unable to be certain of things he can be certain of. Until the false
certainties are cleared, the true certainties will never become
apparent.
Anyhow, you can tell them by how they 'pick fights'. You have
known people out looking to pick a physical fight with someone, anyone,
no matter whether they did something or not, and the need to mock up
that they did something even if they didn't do it.
Well Koos, KP and others do the same thing.
It's OBVIOUS.
But pointing it out, won't change it. The need inside them to pick
the fight is overwhelming and absolute. Only the impingement of life
that shows them their safe solution is more dangerous than being
forthright will bring about change.
Homer
>- CBW
- - --
- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 ====================
Sun Jun 3 12:00:02 EDT 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/kp
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help in body
=========== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===============
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning,
but not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFbFBCDURT1lqxE3HERAkSSAKCoBFXwVXr9K/m+LRe03FnMlJREQwCgpR+d
UGzJtJTqaULBRMPBRwI53wM=
=sQ7V
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Sun Jun 3 17:52:14 EDT 2018
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/kp.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)
iD8DBQFbFGMPURT1lqxE3HERAqYZAKCpVtKUZ6fx95AdWgWSGH5jqq5GZwCfeq9o
CLz5pSrHWPZYxO0i1CTFlPc=
=38yu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Friday, June 1, 2018
ADORE436 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
WHAT IS CONSCIOUSNESS
Consciousness is a constellation of functions belonging to the
conscious unit, the self aware agent being who is aware of the 4
fundamental qualities of himself.
I AM
I WANT
I KNOW/PERCEIVE
I DO
The constellation of functions are
The LOOKER
The LOOKED THROUGH
The LOOKED AT
The looker is the self aware agent I-AM of the conscious unit.
This is the same I as the I AM, I WANT, I KNOW and I DO.
The I-AM is God in carnation.
God is the AllThatIS and is a multi I-AM being.
The looked through is the illusion of space and time that
separates the looker from the looked at.
The looked at is the panoply of conscious experiences,
color-forms, that surround the being. Looked ats include any
conscious experience at all, not just visual, including, sound, taste,
smell, feeling, emotion, thought, ideas etc.
The term 'color-form' applies to any conscious experience, not
just visual. A color-form is any space time arrangement of conscious
experiences or looked ats.
Anything the being is conscious of, anything at all, is a looked
at, a color form, and a conscious experience. All three terms mean
exactly the same thing.
The dictionary has many definitions of consciousness, we are only
interested in the first one,
Consiousness: 1.) The state or condition of being conscious.
Conscious: 1.) Having an awareness of one's own existence,
sensations, thoughts and one's environment.
All consciousness is consciousness-of.
Aware: 1.) Conscious
Sentient: 1.) Conscious
Sentient howver comes from 'sense', and is used to refer to sense
perceptions.
For example we don't usually consider a rock sentient, in that it
has little in the way of ability to sense impingements and respond to
them.
Some plants however, such as the mimosa will fold up instantly
upon being touched, and the morning glory will bloom only during the
early sun.
Surely they are 'sensitive' and can sense their environment, but
are they sentient?
Do we care if the enemy robot army is 'aware' of us?
A machine will surely record a symbol in its memory bank
representing that it has sensed your existence, but is this sentience?
A machine trying to be aware of itself, will only produce an
endless stream of symbols representing the existence of prior symbols,
none of which are sure. Thus whatever sentience a machine has, it
isn't certainty.
Consciousness however has a sentience that includes certainty of
sentience.
When you see red, you KNOW you see red, no question about it.
A machine can be impinged upon and record that impingement, but
it can never see what it is that impinged upon it. The original
source of the impingement is long gone in space and time by the time
the causal messenger wave crosses that space and time and hits the
machine.
This is why when you look up at the sky, the stars you see are
many millions of years old, and what you see is long gone and no more.
The 'star' may still be there, but not the star you are seeing,
and in many cases the star in toto is long gone and doesn't exist any
more at all, even though there it is shining in the sky.
This is because the causal messenger wave, light, takes time to
travel from the edge of the universe to where you are, sometimes
across billions of years.
By the time the message gets to you, your lover is long dead.
In fact just because you see the star now doesn't mean the star
ever existed at all, because God could easily have created the entire
universe 6000 years ago as if it had been here for billions of years.
Thus the universe may have been created with that star light already
in transit, never having been emitted by an actual star.
Not only is any universe creator quite capable of doing this, 50
percent of the American population believes just this, the Earth and
the universe it is in is 6000 years old, created to appear 15 billion.
Ok, so this is the problem with machine sentience, machine
learning, a machine can only receive an impingement from a causal
messenger wave traveling at a finite speed across space and time.
Further the idea that the resulting impingement was sourced by a
*STAR* is an enormous tortuous trail of theory and speculation, and
deductive logic, no certainty there, only tests of time etc.
This is all very different than a conscious unit looking at a red
conscious experience and knowing it is seeing red.
The red conscious experience, as a looked at, is not lit by
anything except itself, and does not emit anything across the looked
through to the looker.
No photons, no causal messenger wave, yes there is an impingement
on the looker from the red, but the looker can see what impinged on
him by looking AT THE RED DIRECTLY.
You see a machine can't do that.
A machine can never look at nor know for sure the source of any
impingement at all.
A conscious unit can.
This is because with the machine there is space and time imposed
between machine and source, thus rendering them two different objects.
The machine learns about the source (A) by looking at itself (B).
You can never have certainty about A by looking at B.
This is the necessary fate of any two different objects, neither
will ever see the other directly, they can only see each other
indirectly via looking at each other's impingements in themselves.
In a machine the looker knows about the looked at only by looking
at the looker and deducing back to a possible looked at.
Causation remains forever a theory to a machine.
A conscious unit however can see the red directly, the source of
its impingement. In a conscious unit, the looker knows about the
looked at by looking directly at the looked at.
This produces perfect certainty that not only does the looked at
exist, but also cerrtainty of its nature (red) and the fact that is
was the source of the felt impingement! Certainty of causation is a
miracle found only in conscious units.
This can happen because in a conscious unit, looker and looked at
are not separated by a space time distance and thus are not two
different objects.
The seeer and the seen are one and the same.
The looker and the looked at are one and the same object and
event.
There is no time between the arising of the seen and the seeing
of it, because the seen IS the seeing of it.
That means the I-AM is whatever it sees. Hubbard said you can be
what you see. Truth is you are what you see, but the illusion of
separation, the looked through, divides the I-AM looker from the red
looked at. The I-AM is here, and the red is out there.
Here and there are illusions.
As are now and then.
Delusion, which is rock solid belief in the illusion, leads to
the dwindling spiral of consciousness.
Where else would you expect a belief in non existent separation
to get you?
There is no space time distance between I-AM's either.
Operating as a machine the consciousness has located itself in a
'body' with 'sense organs' that pick up impingements from the alleged
physical universe.
Thus consciousness has fallen down to assigning its conscious
experiences, of which it can be certain, to events in the physical
universe of which is can not be certain.
The conscious experience is relegated to a mere symbol for the
alleged actual physical universe referent.
Worse the conscious unit has collapsed symbol and referent and
habitually thinks there is only the referent. The conscious unit has
forgotten that it is seeing the physical universe through a TV screen,
namely itself, and thinks it sees the physical universe directly.
The conscious unit thinks the TV screen is a clear glass window,
into the physical world.
Thus the conscious unit will say things like photon's have color,
like redness.
Photons, even if they did exist, which they don't, except as
dream machines, have numerous qualities, speed, frequency, energy,
momentum, but they don't have redness or color as part of their
quality set.
Any physicist will tell you this, then quickly skip over the
question of what then does have the quality of redness?
Conscious experiences however, being perceived directly in the
spaceless timeless dimensionless medium of consciousness itself, do
not have speed, frequency, energy or momentum, but guess what, they
have color, redness, for example.
This is very hard to discuss with a meatball, they just won't
have it. They can't uncollapse the certain symbol from the uncertain
referent.
They need to be certain of the referent, so they usurp the
certainty of their own conscious symbol and assign it to the referent.
That's like a living conscious unit looking at a rock and saying
'You are alive and I am not'.
What do you expect to happen to a being who assigns away his
certainty of his own existence to things of which he can't possibly be
certain?
In collapsing their color form experience with the alleged
physical universe, they have assigned their certainty of the symbol to
the referent!
Thus they are certain the physical universe exists, but think
consciousness is merely a process in the brain.
This produces an inverted being, he is 'certain' of what he can't
be certain of, and not certain of what he can be certain of.
Collapsing symbol and referent and assigning the qualities of the
symbol to the referent has its uses in game play, but when it becomes
an irreversible stance of the mind, the being can be considered to be
insane.
What is more insane, a man that thinks it is a God, or a God that
thinks it is a man?
What is more insane, a dimensionality that thinks it is non
dimensional, or a non dimensionality that thinks it is dimensional?
What is more insane, a machine that thinks it is a conscious
unit, or a conscious unit that thinks it is a machine?
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
Thu Feb 8 01:50:06 EST 2007
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Jun 1 12:00:02 EDT 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore436.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help in body
=========== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===============
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning,
but not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFbEW2CURT1lqxE3HERAjjNAJ0ZuEcIAvFs5kBzgAyMSkbp1yTPKACgxYFQ
sqzcYGpP4JSqROljPTQT5gE=
=0HL5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
WHAT IS CONSCIOUSNESS
Consciousness is a constellation of functions belonging to the
conscious unit, the self aware agent being who is aware of the 4
fundamental qualities of himself.
I AM
I WANT
I KNOW/PERCEIVE
I DO
The constellation of functions are
The LOOKER
The LOOKED THROUGH
The LOOKED AT
The looker is the self aware agent I-AM of the conscious unit.
This is the same I as the I AM, I WANT, I KNOW and I DO.
The I-AM is God in carnation.
God is the AllThatIS and is a multi I-AM being.
The looked through is the illusion of space and time that
separates the looker from the looked at.
The looked at is the panoply of conscious experiences,
color-forms, that surround the being. Looked ats include any
conscious experience at all, not just visual, including, sound, taste,
smell, feeling, emotion, thought, ideas etc.
The term 'color-form' applies to any conscious experience, not
just visual. A color-form is any space time arrangement of conscious
experiences or looked ats.
Anything the being is conscious of, anything at all, is a looked
at, a color form, and a conscious experience. All three terms mean
exactly the same thing.
The dictionary has many definitions of consciousness, we are only
interested in the first one,
Consiousness: 1.) The state or condition of being conscious.
Conscious: 1.) Having an awareness of one's own existence,
sensations, thoughts and one's environment.
All consciousness is consciousness-of.
Aware: 1.) Conscious
Sentient: 1.) Conscious
Sentient howver comes from 'sense', and is used to refer to sense
perceptions.
For example we don't usually consider a rock sentient, in that it
has little in the way of ability to sense impingements and respond to
them.
Some plants however, such as the mimosa will fold up instantly
upon being touched, and the morning glory will bloom only during the
early sun.
Surely they are 'sensitive' and can sense their environment, but
are they sentient?
Do we care if the enemy robot army is 'aware' of us?
A machine will surely record a symbol in its memory bank
representing that it has sensed your existence, but is this sentience?
A machine trying to be aware of itself, will only produce an
endless stream of symbols representing the existence of prior symbols,
none of which are sure. Thus whatever sentience a machine has, it
isn't certainty.
Consciousness however has a sentience that includes certainty of
sentience.
When you see red, you KNOW you see red, no question about it.
A machine can be impinged upon and record that impingement, but
it can never see what it is that impinged upon it. The original
source of the impingement is long gone in space and time by the time
the causal messenger wave crosses that space and time and hits the
machine.
This is why when you look up at the sky, the stars you see are
many millions of years old, and what you see is long gone and no more.
The 'star' may still be there, but not the star you are seeing,
and in many cases the star in toto is long gone and doesn't exist any
more at all, even though there it is shining in the sky.
This is because the causal messenger wave, light, takes time to
travel from the edge of the universe to where you are, sometimes
across billions of years.
By the time the message gets to you, your lover is long dead.
In fact just because you see the star now doesn't mean the star
ever existed at all, because God could easily have created the entire
universe 6000 years ago as if it had been here for billions of years.
Thus the universe may have been created with that star light already
in transit, never having been emitted by an actual star.
Not only is any universe creator quite capable of doing this, 50
percent of the American population believes just this, the Earth and
the universe it is in is 6000 years old, created to appear 15 billion.
Ok, so this is the problem with machine sentience, machine
learning, a machine can only receive an impingement from a causal
messenger wave traveling at a finite speed across space and time.
Further the idea that the resulting impingement was sourced by a
*STAR* is an enormous tortuous trail of theory and speculation, and
deductive logic, no certainty there, only tests of time etc.
This is all very different than a conscious unit looking at a red
conscious experience and knowing it is seeing red.
The red conscious experience, as a looked at, is not lit by
anything except itself, and does not emit anything across the looked
through to the looker.
No photons, no causal messenger wave, yes there is an impingement
on the looker from the red, but the looker can see what impinged on
him by looking AT THE RED DIRECTLY.
You see a machine can't do that.
A machine can never look at nor know for sure the source of any
impingement at all.
A conscious unit can.
This is because with the machine there is space and time imposed
between machine and source, thus rendering them two different objects.
The machine learns about the source (A) by looking at itself (B).
You can never have certainty about A by looking at B.
This is the necessary fate of any two different objects, neither
will ever see the other directly, they can only see each other
indirectly via looking at each other's impingements in themselves.
In a machine the looker knows about the looked at only by looking
at the looker and deducing back to a possible looked at.
Causation remains forever a theory to a machine.
A conscious unit however can see the red directly, the source of
its impingement. In a conscious unit, the looker knows about the
looked at by looking directly at the looked at.
This produces perfect certainty that not only does the looked at
exist, but also cerrtainty of its nature (red) and the fact that is
was the source of the felt impingement! Certainty of causation is a
miracle found only in conscious units.
This can happen because in a conscious unit, looker and looked at
are not separated by a space time distance and thus are not two
different objects.
The seeer and the seen are one and the same.
The looker and the looked at are one and the same object and
event.
There is no time between the arising of the seen and the seeing
of it, because the seen IS the seeing of it.
That means the I-AM is whatever it sees. Hubbard said you can be
what you see. Truth is you are what you see, but the illusion of
separation, the looked through, divides the I-AM looker from the red
looked at. The I-AM is here, and the red is out there.
Here and there are illusions.
As are now and then.
Delusion, which is rock solid belief in the illusion, leads to
the dwindling spiral of consciousness.
Where else would you expect a belief in non existent separation
to get you?
There is no space time distance between I-AM's either.
Operating as a machine the consciousness has located itself in a
'body' with 'sense organs' that pick up impingements from the alleged
physical universe.
Thus consciousness has fallen down to assigning its conscious
experiences, of which it can be certain, to events in the physical
universe of which is can not be certain.
The conscious experience is relegated to a mere symbol for the
alleged actual physical universe referent.
Worse the conscious unit has collapsed symbol and referent and
habitually thinks there is only the referent. The conscious unit has
forgotten that it is seeing the physical universe through a TV screen,
namely itself, and thinks it sees the physical universe directly.
The conscious unit thinks the TV screen is a clear glass window,
into the physical world.
Thus the conscious unit will say things like photon's have color,
like redness.
Photons, even if they did exist, which they don't, except as
dream machines, have numerous qualities, speed, frequency, energy,
momentum, but they don't have redness or color as part of their
quality set.
Any physicist will tell you this, then quickly skip over the
question of what then does have the quality of redness?
Conscious experiences however, being perceived directly in the
spaceless timeless dimensionless medium of consciousness itself, do
not have speed, frequency, energy or momentum, but guess what, they
have color, redness, for example.
This is very hard to discuss with a meatball, they just won't
have it. They can't uncollapse the certain symbol from the uncertain
referent.
They need to be certain of the referent, so they usurp the
certainty of their own conscious symbol and assign it to the referent.
That's like a living conscious unit looking at a rock and saying
'You are alive and I am not'.
What do you expect to happen to a being who assigns away his
certainty of his own existence to things of which he can't possibly be
certain?
In collapsing their color form experience with the alleged
physical universe, they have assigned their certainty of the symbol to
the referent!
Thus they are certain the physical universe exists, but think
consciousness is merely a process in the brain.
This produces an inverted being, he is 'certain' of what he can't
be certain of, and not certain of what he can be certain of.
Collapsing symbol and referent and assigning the qualities of the
symbol to the referent has its uses in game play, but when it becomes
an irreversible stance of the mind, the being can be considered to be
insane.
What is more insane, a man that thinks it is a God, or a God that
thinks it is a man?
What is more insane, a dimensionality that thinks it is non
dimensional, or a non dimensionality that thinks it is dimensional?
What is more insane, a machine that thinks it is a conscious
unit, or a conscious unit that thinks it is a machine?
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
Thu Feb 8 01:50:06 EST 2007
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Jun 1 12:00:02 EDT 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore436.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help in body
=========== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===============
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning,
but not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFbEW2CURT1lqxE3HERAjjNAJ0ZuEcIAvFs5kBzgAyMSkbp1yTPKACgxYFQ
sqzcYGpP4JSqROljPTQT5gE=
=0HL5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)