-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
THE WRONG ROBOT
For a detailed analysis of the proof that a machine can't be
certain of anything, please see
THE PROOF (Machine Certainty Theorem)
http://www.lightlink.com/theproof
The reason why the function of perfect certainty is so important,
is because a machine can't do it. Since a conscious unit can, that
means a conscious unit is not a machine.
A machine is defined as any system of parts interacting via cause
and effect across a space time distance.
Thus not a machine, means has no parts, has no dimensions, and is
space free and time free. That's called scalar, as opposed to multi
dimensional.
No single part of the machine can be perfectly certain of the
existence or state of any other part in the machine, so the machine as a
whole can't be certain of anything, not even its own existence.
Therefore a conscious unit is not a system of parts interacting via
cause and effect across a space time distance.
That means that consciousness has no space or time.
That makes it scalar and eternal, you see?
Scalar means no dimensions, which means no space or time.
Thus perfect certainty = Eternality.
So this is a very big deal.
THE MACHINE CERTAINTY THEOREM.
The machine certainty theorem simply says a machine can't learn
anything with certainty. ANYTHING.
A machine can't be certain of anything because machines are limited
to learning by being an effect of causes, and effects to not prove
cause. Cause is always a theory to machine.
In fact even the effects in the machine are a theory to the
machine, as no state in the machine offers proof of any different prior
state, and without change in state, there is no learning.
That's because learning IS a change in state, and a machine learns
FROM changes in state in itself.
A machine can't say with certainty that it changed state thus it
can't say it has learned anything with certainty.
Worse a machine can't even be certain of its own existence.
Yes a machine can claim that it exists, which to an observer would
indicate the machine's existence, but so would the machine's claim that
it doesn't exist.
The point is that in order for the machine's CLAIM that it exists
to be valid learning, that claim has to causally arise from an
interaction between the machine and itself, and all such cause effect
interactions do not provide certainty of either cause or effect.
Now a conscious unit can be certain of some things, it's own
existence and what it sees.
This is called self luminousness, because consciousness does not
depend on anything to illuminate it, it lights itself.
Take a look around you, do you see at least two different colors?
You sure?
Would you bet your eternity in hell on it? Yes?
Would you bet everyone else's eternity in hell on it? Yes?
Well that is a perfect certainty, one that can not be wrong.
Only theories and bets can be wrong, perfect certainties have to be
right because you can see that they are right.
So a conscious unit can be perfectly certain it sees two different
colors, say red and green.
A machine can not do this. It might have signals coming into its
central processor that says its sensors are reporting two different
frequencies impinging on it, notice not colors, FREQUENCIES.
Only consciousness can have color, nothing in the physical universe
has color, only frequencies.
The correlation between color and frequency is arbitrary, it could
be any way you wanted it to be.
But the CPU in the machine has no idea if the sensors are working
right or what.
So here comes a whopper of a theorem.
Imagine a machine had 2 or more video cameras and could see into
every part of its circuitry, AND it had a correct and complete copy of
its own circuit diagrams.
Could the machine verify by looking at its self with the all seeing
video cameras and verify that its actual circuitry matched the stored
circuit diagrams?
The answer is no, any part of its circuitry could be wrong,
claiming that a match was obtained between its circuitry and the
diagrams, when in fact it wasn't.
So a machine can not verify its own functionality, using its own
functionality.
Any machine that learns by being an effect, can't even prove there
is cause, because effect does not imply cause with certainty.
In the physical universe, cause is ALWAYS a theory, a model to help
predict the effects that we receive. Models are neither right nor
wrong, they merely work or they don't.
A change in state here does not imply a cause there, and worse a
STATE here does not imply a prior different state here.
Thus a machine can never be certain of space, or time, or any
object in space or time, including itself or any part of itself.
Whatever a machine reports to be true is the result of the causal
pathways that are built into it, and only if those causal pathways are
working as expected, will the machines' report correspond to truth about
what happened.
However no machine can ever verify any causal pathway by using
other causal pathways. Since ALL a machine can do is use unverified
causal pathways to learn anything, including whether causal pathways are
working as the are expected to be, no machine can be certain of
anything, period.
The reason WHY the machine can't learn with certainty is because it
is learning by looking at effects in itself, using indirect perception
of cause, rather than direct perception of cause.
You can never learn with certainty about A by looking at B.
You can never learn with certainty about cause by looking at
effect.
It is silly to even try, but this kind of indirect perception is
ALL the physical universe can do!
The existence of space or time between any two objects that are
effecting each other, precludes either one from directly perceiving the
other.
Ultimately the issue is not space and time, the issue is being two
different objects, if A and B are two different object they are limited
to learning about each other by being an effect of each other, and thus
can not learn with certainty about each other.
Even if they are on the same point of space and time, if they
remain two different objects, they remain limited to indirect perception
of each other and thus no certainty.
Now we DEFINE a conscious unit as an entity that can learn with
certainty about itself and what it sees, red and green say.
Since a conscious unit by definition CAN learn with certainty, we
know that it is not learning by indirect perception, looking at effects
to see cause. Therefore it must be learning by direct perception,
looking at the cause directly.
Thus the conscious colors red and green are the CAUSE of our
certainty that they are two different colors. You can see their cause
if you look for it buried in the red and the greenness.
Since being two different objects precludes direct perception
between them, anything a conscious unit can be certain of, must be
itself, which means no space or time between looker and looked-at, or
see-er and seen.
That means you are what you see.
Now a machine has a problem with this, in that if it runs into an
object that claims to be a conscious unit, the machine can not see that
consciousness directly, and thus itself can never be sure the thing it
ran into is really a conscious unit or just another machine that is
lying to it, and/or to itself.
Lot's of machines like to claim they are conscious units, and lots
of conscious units like to claim they are machines.
So how can you tell?
Well a machine can never tell, and if it says it can, it is a wrong
machine that is either lying and knows it is lying or is lying to itself
too about the matter.
And a conscious unit also can not tell if SOMEONE ELSE is a
conscious unit or a machine, for the same reason, two different objects
can never be certain of each other.
But a conscious unit CAN be certain of itself.
And it has the right to say so, even though both machines and other
conscious units have the right to doubt the claim.
One could ask, if a conscious unit can be certain of itself, why
can't a machine be certain of itself.
That's because a machine is a system of parts, and each part in the
machine can't know if any other part exists. Since the machine as a
whole is a function across many different parts that can't know if the
rest exist, the machine has no certainty of anything.
A function is a process in a system of already existing parts, and
thus if the parts can't be certain of anything, neither can any function
built on those parts.
A clock for example tells time which is a function that arises
from all the parts in the clock working together. The clock couldn't
tell time if none of the parts in side the clock could 'tell time'. But
every part inside the clock is made of electrons and atoms which
inherently have 'timingness' to their nature, and which vibrate and
keep time at the atomic level all the time. All the clock does is
funnel that existing ability to keep or tell time to a macro level where
we can see it.
Thus a machine can never be more than the latent sum of it's parts.
If the parts aren't conscious, neither can anything built out of
those parts.
Thus love and shame can not of force and mass be made.
Since we have DEFINED consciousness as the process of perfect
certainty, either the parts it is made of can be conscious or perfectly
certain themselves, or else the conscious unit is just simply the
smallest fundamental part there is, and has that ability as a given, not
BECAUSE of smaller parts within that have the ability.
BUT EVERYTHING THE CONSCIOUS UNIT EXPERIENCES WITH CERTAINTY MUST
BE ONE AND THE SAME OBJECT AS THE CONSCIOUS UNIT ITSELF.
Thus consciousness can not be spread out over a space or time.
Because conscious units are not in fact a system of many different
objects separated by space and time, they must be a zero dimensional
scalar object, one object with many facets.
Now it might be conceivable that a zero dimensional object could
measure the multi (3 or more) dimensionality of a machine and thus
declare it correctly to be a machine, but it is not clear that a multi
dimensional machine could measure the existence or nature of a zero
dimensional object, and thus it is quite possible a machine could never
'know' that conscious units exist, unless the machine is told so by a
conscious unit. But the machine would never be able to verify the
claim.
Anyhow you should ask yourself a question.
Are you perfectly certain that something exists?
Are you perfectly sure you exist and that you see two different
colors? The out-thereness of the colors is an illusion, you are what
you see.
Is that perfect certainty which you have of your own existence, the
same thing as the false perfect certainty of a wrong machine who really
can't be certain of anything, or are you really and truly a conscious
unit?
If you are a conscious unit, you can be perfectly certain you are,
because your perfect certainty of your doubt in the matter IS A PERFECT
CERTAINTY!.
Certainty of doubt is the foundation of sanity in this matter.
I KNOW I doubt I am, therefore I KNOW I AM.
A nothing couldn't wonder if it was a something or a nothing.
That's Descartes.
But certainty means zero dimensional which means eternal, so we can
add
I KNOW I doubt I am, there for I KNOW I AM FOREVER.
Now a wrong robot machine could claim the same things for itself
but it would be wrong.
In general things that evolve in the physical universe, tend to
survive because they are right because the wrong ones die.
That means everything still standing after a 12 billion years of
evolution, are machines, whether biological or not, that tended to be
right more often than wrong. Thus it is very unlikely you would run
into a wrong robot machine, unless someone was making them intentionally
in present time.
So if you run into a machine and ask it if it is a conscious unit
or not, you will probably get a very diplomatic 'Hey I am a machine,
what do I know! So no, I am not a conscious unit.'
That's a right robot that has a good future ahead of it.
Science by the way is the activity of using machines to study
machines. That's why science can't know anything true for certain.
The only thing a scientist can know for sure is what he sees in his
own consciousness as a result of his experiments. In the end all
certain observations are observations of consciousness and its
experiences.
But having talked to a lot of scientists, I am not so sure some of
them have a consciousness.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Tue Feb 2 01:29:01 EST 2010
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Dec 24 12:00:03 EST 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore713.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help in body
=========== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===============
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning,
but not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFcIRCTURT1lqxE3HERAnD+AJsE7v4y5FATbfQ+wyy0Lwa0KS/rQgCfTIoJ
2rOEQiN4AtTIi0N7Gb9zBOM=
=0eXV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Monday, December 24, 2018
ADORE713 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
THE WRONG ROBOT
For a detailed analysis of the proof that a machine can't be
certain of anything, please see
THE PROOF (Machine Certainty Theorem)
http://www.lightlink.com/theproof
The reason why the function of perfect certainty is so important,
is because a machine can't do it. Since a conscious unit can, that
means a conscious unit is not a machine.
A machine is defined as any system of parts interacting via cause
and effect across a space time distance.
Thus not a machine, means has no parts, has no dimensions, and is
space free and time free. That's called scalar, as opposed to multi
dimensional.
No single part of the machine can be perfectly certain of the
existence or state of any other part in the machine, so the machine as a
whole can't be certain of anything, not even its own existence.
Therefore a conscious unit is not a system of parts interacting via
cause and effect across a space time distance.
That means that consciousness has no space or time.
That makes it scalar and eternal, you see?
Scalar means no dimensions, which means no space or time.
Thus perfect certainty = Eternality.
So this is a very big deal.
THE MACHINE CERTAINTY THEOREM.
The machine certainty theorem simply says a machine can't learn
anything with certainty. ANYTHING.
A machine can't be certain of anything because machines are limited
to learning by being an effect of causes, and effects to not prove
cause. Cause is always a theory to machine.
In fact even the effects in the machine are a theory to the
machine, as no state in the machine offers proof of any different prior
state, and without change in state, there is no learning.
That's because learning IS a change in state, and a machine learns
FROM changes in state in itself.
A machine can't say with certainty that it changed state thus it
can't say it has learned anything with certainty.
Worse a machine can't even be certain of its own existence.
Yes a machine can claim that it exists, which to an observer would
indicate the machine's existence, but so would the machine's claim that
it doesn't exist.
The point is that in order for the machine's CLAIM that it exists
to be valid learning, that claim has to causally arise from an
interaction between the machine and itself, and all such cause effect
interactions do not provide certainty of either cause or effect.
Now a conscious unit can be certain of some things, it's own
existence and what it sees.
This is called self luminousness, because consciousness does not
depend on anything to illuminate it, it lights itself.
Take a look around you, do you see at least two different colors?
You sure?
Would you bet your eternity in hell on it? Yes?
Would you bet everyone else's eternity in hell on it? Yes?
Well that is a perfect certainty, one that can not be wrong.
Only theories and bets can be wrong, perfect certainties have to be
right because you can see that they are right.
So a conscious unit can be perfectly certain it sees two different
colors, say red and green.
A machine can not do this. It might have signals coming into its
central processor that says its sensors are reporting two different
frequencies impinging on it, notice not colors, FREQUENCIES.
Only consciousness can have color, nothing in the physical universe
has color, only frequencies.
The correlation between color and frequency is arbitrary, it could
be any way you wanted it to be.
But the CPU in the machine has no idea if the sensors are working
right or what.
So here comes a whopper of a theorem.
Imagine a machine had 2 or more video cameras and could see into
every part of its circuitry, AND it had a correct and complete copy of
its own circuit diagrams.
Could the machine verify by looking at its self with the all seeing
video cameras and verify that its actual circuitry matched the stored
circuit diagrams?
The answer is no, any part of its circuitry could be wrong,
claiming that a match was obtained between its circuitry and the
diagrams, when in fact it wasn't.
So a machine can not verify its own functionality, using its own
functionality.
Any machine that learns by being an effect, can't even prove there
is cause, because effect does not imply cause with certainty.
In the physical universe, cause is ALWAYS a theory, a model to help
predict the effects that we receive. Models are neither right nor
wrong, they merely work or they don't.
A change in state here does not imply a cause there, and worse a
STATE here does not imply a prior different state here.
Thus a machine can never be certain of space, or time, or any
object in space or time, including itself or any part of itself.
Whatever a machine reports to be true is the result of the causal
pathways that are built into it, and only if those causal pathways are
working as expected, will the machines' report correspond to truth about
what happened.
However no machine can ever verify any causal pathway by using
other causal pathways. Since ALL a machine can do is use unverified
causal pathways to learn anything, including whether causal pathways are
working as the are expected to be, no machine can be certain of
anything, period.
The reason WHY the machine can't learn with certainty is because it
is learning by looking at effects in itself, using indirect perception
of cause, rather than direct perception of cause.
You can never learn with certainty about A by looking at B.
You can never learn with certainty about cause by looking at
effect.
It is silly to even try, but this kind of indirect perception is
ALL the physical universe can do!
The existence of space or time between any two objects that are
effecting each other, precludes either one from directly perceiving the
other.
Ultimately the issue is not space and time, the issue is being two
different objects, if A and B are two different object they are limited
to learning about each other by being an effect of each other, and thus
can not learn with certainty about each other.
Even if they are on the same point of space and time, if they
remain two different objects, they remain limited to indirect perception
of each other and thus no certainty.
Now we DEFINE a conscious unit as an entity that can learn with
certainty about itself and what it sees, red and green say.
Since a conscious unit by definition CAN learn with certainty, we
know that it is not learning by indirect perception, looking at effects
to see cause. Therefore it must be learning by direct perception,
looking at the cause directly.
Thus the conscious colors red and green are the CAUSE of our
certainty that they are two different colors. You can see their cause
if you look for it buried in the red and the greenness.
Since being two different objects precludes direct perception
between them, anything a conscious unit can be certain of, must be
itself, which means no space or time between looker and looked-at, or
see-er and seen.
That means you are what you see.
Now a machine has a problem with this, in that if it runs into an
object that claims to be a conscious unit, the machine can not see that
consciousness directly, and thus itself can never be sure the thing it
ran into is really a conscious unit or just another machine that is
lying to it, and/or to itself.
Lot's of machines like to claim they are conscious units, and lots
of conscious units like to claim they are machines.
So how can you tell?
Well a machine can never tell, and if it says it can, it is a wrong
machine that is either lying and knows it is lying or is lying to itself
too about the matter.
And a conscious unit also can not tell if SOMEONE ELSE is a
conscious unit or a machine, for the same reason, two different objects
can never be certain of each other.
But a conscious unit CAN be certain of itself.
And it has the right to say so, even though both machines and other
conscious units have the right to doubt the claim.
One could ask, if a conscious unit can be certain of itself, why
can't a machine be certain of itself.
That's because a machine is a system of parts, and each part in the
machine can't know if any other part exists. Since the machine as a
whole is a function across many different parts that can't know if the
rest exist, the machine has no certainty of anything.
A function is a process in a system of already existing parts, and
thus if the parts can't be certain of anything, neither can any function
built on those parts.
A clock for example tells time which is a function that arises
from all the parts in the clock working together. The clock couldn't
tell time if none of the parts in side the clock could 'tell time'. But
every part inside the clock is made of electrons and atoms which
inherently have 'timingness' to their nature, and which vibrate and
keep time at the atomic level all the time. All the clock does is
funnel that existing ability to keep or tell time to a macro level where
we can see it.
Thus a machine can never be more than the latent sum of it's parts.
If the parts aren't conscious, neither can anything built out of
those parts.
Thus love and shame can not of force and mass be made.
Since we have DEFINED consciousness as the process of perfect
certainty, either the parts it is made of can be conscious or perfectly
certain themselves, or else the conscious unit is just simply the
smallest fundamental part there is, and has that ability as a given, not
BECAUSE of smaller parts within that have the ability.
BUT EVERYTHING THE CONSCIOUS UNIT EXPERIENCES WITH CERTAINTY MUST
BE ONE AND THE SAME OBJECT AS THE CONSCIOUS UNIT ITSELF.
Thus consciousness can not be spread out over a space or time.
Because conscious units are not in fact a system of many different
objects separated by space and time, they must be a zero dimensional
scalar object, one object with many facets.
Now it might be conceivable that a zero dimensional object could
measure the multi (3 or more) dimensionality of a machine and thus
declare it correctly to be a machine, but it is not clear that a multi
dimensional machine could measure the existence or nature of a zero
dimensional object, and thus it is quite possible a machine could never
'know' that conscious units exist, unless the machine is told so by a
conscious unit. But the machine would never be able to verify the
claim.
Anyhow you should ask yourself a question.
Are you perfectly certain that something exists?
Are you perfectly sure you exist and that you see two different
colors? The out-thereness of the colors is an illusion, you are what
you see.
Is that perfect certainty which you have of your own existence, the
same thing as the false perfect certainty of a wrong machine who really
can't be certain of anything, or are you really and truly a conscious
unit?
If you are a conscious unit, you can be perfectly certain you are,
because your perfect certainty of your doubt in the matter IS A PERFECT
CERTAINTY!.
Certainty of doubt is the foundation of sanity in this matter.
I KNOW I doubt I am, therefore I KNOW I AM.
A nothing couldn't wonder if it was a something or a nothing.
That's Descartes.
But certainty means zero dimensional which means eternal, so we can
add
I KNOW I doubt I am, there for I KNOW I AM FOREVER.
Now a wrong robot machine could claim the same things for itself
but it would be wrong.
In general things that evolve in the physical universe, tend to
survive because they are right because the wrong ones die.
That means everything still standing after a 12 billion years of
evolution, are machines, whether biological or not, that tended to be
right more often than wrong. Thus it is very unlikely you would run
into a wrong robot machine, unless someone was making them intentionally
in present time.
So if you run into a machine and ask it if it is a conscious unit
or not, you will probably get a very diplomatic 'Hey I am a machine,
what do I know! So no, I am not a conscious unit.'
That's a right robot that has a good future ahead of it.
Science by the way is the activity of using machines to study
machines. That's why science can't know anything true for certain.
The only thing a scientist can know for sure is what he sees in his
own consciousness as a result of his experiments. In the end all
certain observations are observations of consciousness and its
experiences.
But having talked to a lot of scientists, I am not so sure some of
them have a consciousness.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Tue Feb 2 01:29:01 EST 2010
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Dec 24 12:00:03 EST 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore713.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help in body
=========== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===============
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning,
but not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFcIRCTURT1lqxE3HERAnD+AJsE7v4y5FATbfQ+wyy0Lwa0KS/rQgCfTIoJ
2rOEQiN4AtTIi0N7Gb9zBOM=
=0eXV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
THE WRONG ROBOT
For a detailed analysis of the proof that a machine can't be
certain of anything, please see
THE PROOF (Machine Certainty Theorem)
http://www.lightlink.com/theproof
The reason why the function of perfect certainty is so important,
is because a machine can't do it. Since a conscious unit can, that
means a conscious unit is not a machine.
A machine is defined as any system of parts interacting via cause
and effect across a space time distance.
Thus not a machine, means has no parts, has no dimensions, and is
space free and time free. That's called scalar, as opposed to multi
dimensional.
No single part of the machine can be perfectly certain of the
existence or state of any other part in the machine, so the machine as a
whole can't be certain of anything, not even its own existence.
Therefore a conscious unit is not a system of parts interacting via
cause and effect across a space time distance.
That means that consciousness has no space or time.
That makes it scalar and eternal, you see?
Scalar means no dimensions, which means no space or time.
Thus perfect certainty = Eternality.
So this is a very big deal.
THE MACHINE CERTAINTY THEOREM.
The machine certainty theorem simply says a machine can't learn
anything with certainty. ANYTHING.
A machine can't be certain of anything because machines are limited
to learning by being an effect of causes, and effects to not prove
cause. Cause is always a theory to machine.
In fact even the effects in the machine are a theory to the
machine, as no state in the machine offers proof of any different prior
state, and without change in state, there is no learning.
That's because learning IS a change in state, and a machine learns
FROM changes in state in itself.
A machine can't say with certainty that it changed state thus it
can't say it has learned anything with certainty.
Worse a machine can't even be certain of its own existence.
Yes a machine can claim that it exists, which to an observer would
indicate the machine's existence, but so would the machine's claim that
it doesn't exist.
The point is that in order for the machine's CLAIM that it exists
to be valid learning, that claim has to causally arise from an
interaction between the machine and itself, and all such cause effect
interactions do not provide certainty of either cause or effect.
Now a conscious unit can be certain of some things, it's own
existence and what it sees.
This is called self luminousness, because consciousness does not
depend on anything to illuminate it, it lights itself.
Take a look around you, do you see at least two different colors?
You sure?
Would you bet your eternity in hell on it? Yes?
Would you bet everyone else's eternity in hell on it? Yes?
Well that is a perfect certainty, one that can not be wrong.
Only theories and bets can be wrong, perfect certainties have to be
right because you can see that they are right.
So a conscious unit can be perfectly certain it sees two different
colors, say red and green.
A machine can not do this. It might have signals coming into its
central processor that says its sensors are reporting two different
frequencies impinging on it, notice not colors, FREQUENCIES.
Only consciousness can have color, nothing in the physical universe
has color, only frequencies.
The correlation between color and frequency is arbitrary, it could
be any way you wanted it to be.
But the CPU in the machine has no idea if the sensors are working
right or what.
So here comes a whopper of a theorem.
Imagine a machine had 2 or more video cameras and could see into
every part of its circuitry, AND it had a correct and complete copy of
its own circuit diagrams.
Could the machine verify by looking at its self with the all seeing
video cameras and verify that its actual circuitry matched the stored
circuit diagrams?
The answer is no, any part of its circuitry could be wrong,
claiming that a match was obtained between its circuitry and the
diagrams, when in fact it wasn't.
So a machine can not verify its own functionality, using its own
functionality.
Any machine that learns by being an effect, can't even prove there
is cause, because effect does not imply cause with certainty.
In the physical universe, cause is ALWAYS a theory, a model to help
predict the effects that we receive. Models are neither right nor
wrong, they merely work or they don't.
A change in state here does not imply a cause there, and worse a
STATE here does not imply a prior different state here.
Thus a machine can never be certain of space, or time, or any
object in space or time, including itself or any part of itself.
Whatever a machine reports to be true is the result of the causal
pathways that are built into it, and only if those causal pathways are
working as expected, will the machines' report correspond to truth about
what happened.
However no machine can ever verify any causal pathway by using
other causal pathways. Since ALL a machine can do is use unverified
causal pathways to learn anything, including whether causal pathways are
working as the are expected to be, no machine can be certain of
anything, period.
The reason WHY the machine can't learn with certainty is because it
is learning by looking at effects in itself, using indirect perception
of cause, rather than direct perception of cause.
You can never learn with certainty about A by looking at B.
You can never learn with certainty about cause by looking at
effect.
It is silly to even try, but this kind of indirect perception is
ALL the physical universe can do!
The existence of space or time between any two objects that are
effecting each other, precludes either one from directly perceiving the
other.
Ultimately the issue is not space and time, the issue is being two
different objects, if A and B are two different object they are limited
to learning about each other by being an effect of each other, and thus
can not learn with certainty about each other.
Even if they are on the same point of space and time, if they
remain two different objects, they remain limited to indirect perception
of each other and thus no certainty.
Now we DEFINE a conscious unit as an entity that can learn with
certainty about itself and what it sees, red and green say.
Since a conscious unit by definition CAN learn with certainty, we
know that it is not learning by indirect perception, looking at effects
to see cause. Therefore it must be learning by direct perception,
looking at the cause directly.
Thus the conscious colors red and green are the CAUSE of our
certainty that they are two different colors. You can see their cause
if you look for it buried in the red and the greenness.
Since being two different objects precludes direct perception
between them, anything a conscious unit can be certain of, must be
itself, which means no space or time between looker and looked-at, or
see-er and seen.
That means you are what you see.
Now a machine has a problem with this, in that if it runs into an
object that claims to be a conscious unit, the machine can not see that
consciousness directly, and thus itself can never be sure the thing it
ran into is really a conscious unit or just another machine that is
lying to it, and/or to itself.
Lot's of machines like to claim they are conscious units, and lots
of conscious units like to claim they are machines.
So how can you tell?
Well a machine can never tell, and if it says it can, it is a wrong
machine that is either lying and knows it is lying or is lying to itself
too about the matter.
And a conscious unit also can not tell if SOMEONE ELSE is a
conscious unit or a machine, for the same reason, two different objects
can never be certain of each other.
But a conscious unit CAN be certain of itself.
And it has the right to say so, even though both machines and other
conscious units have the right to doubt the claim.
One could ask, if a conscious unit can be certain of itself, why
can't a machine be certain of itself.
That's because a machine is a system of parts, and each part in the
machine can't know if any other part exists. Since the machine as a
whole is a function across many different parts that can't know if the
rest exist, the machine has no certainty of anything.
A function is a process in a system of already existing parts, and
thus if the parts can't be certain of anything, neither can any function
built on those parts.
A clock for example tells time which is a function that arises
from all the parts in the clock working together. The clock couldn't
tell time if none of the parts in side the clock could 'tell time'. But
every part inside the clock is made of electrons and atoms which
inherently have 'timingness' to their nature, and which vibrate and
keep time at the atomic level all the time. All the clock does is
funnel that existing ability to keep or tell time to a macro level where
we can see it.
Thus a machine can never be more than the latent sum of it's parts.
If the parts aren't conscious, neither can anything built out of
those parts.
Thus love and shame can not of force and mass be made.
Since we have DEFINED consciousness as the process of perfect
certainty, either the parts it is made of can be conscious or perfectly
certain themselves, or else the conscious unit is just simply the
smallest fundamental part there is, and has that ability as a given, not
BECAUSE of smaller parts within that have the ability.
BUT EVERYTHING THE CONSCIOUS UNIT EXPERIENCES WITH CERTAINTY MUST
BE ONE AND THE SAME OBJECT AS THE CONSCIOUS UNIT ITSELF.
Thus consciousness can not be spread out over a space or time.
Because conscious units are not in fact a system of many different
objects separated by space and time, they must be a zero dimensional
scalar object, one object with many facets.
Now it might be conceivable that a zero dimensional object could
measure the multi (3 or more) dimensionality of a machine and thus
declare it correctly to be a machine, but it is not clear that a multi
dimensional machine could measure the existence or nature of a zero
dimensional object, and thus it is quite possible a machine could never
'know' that conscious units exist, unless the machine is told so by a
conscious unit. But the machine would never be able to verify the
claim.
Anyhow you should ask yourself a question.
Are you perfectly certain that something exists?
Are you perfectly sure you exist and that you see two different
colors? The out-thereness of the colors is an illusion, you are what
you see.
Is that perfect certainty which you have of your own existence, the
same thing as the false perfect certainty of a wrong machine who really
can't be certain of anything, or are you really and truly a conscious
unit?
If you are a conscious unit, you can be perfectly certain you are,
because your perfect certainty of your doubt in the matter IS A PERFECT
CERTAINTY!.
Certainty of doubt is the foundation of sanity in this matter.
I KNOW I doubt I am, therefore I KNOW I AM.
A nothing couldn't wonder if it was a something or a nothing.
That's Descartes.
But certainty means zero dimensional which means eternal, so we can
add
I KNOW I doubt I am, there for I KNOW I AM FOREVER.
Now a wrong robot machine could claim the same things for itself
but it would be wrong.
In general things that evolve in the physical universe, tend to
survive because they are right because the wrong ones die.
That means everything still standing after a 12 billion years of
evolution, are machines, whether biological or not, that tended to be
right more often than wrong. Thus it is very unlikely you would run
into a wrong robot machine, unless someone was making them intentionally
in present time.
So if you run into a machine and ask it if it is a conscious unit
or not, you will probably get a very diplomatic 'Hey I am a machine,
what do I know! So no, I am not a conscious unit.'
That's a right robot that has a good future ahead of it.
Science by the way is the activity of using machines to study
machines. That's why science can't know anything true for certain.
The only thing a scientist can know for sure is what he sees in his
own consciousness as a result of his experiments. In the end all
certain observations are observations of consciousness and its
experiences.
But having talked to a lot of scientists, I am not so sure some of
them have a consciousness.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Tue Feb 2 01:29:01 EST 2010
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Dec 24 12:00:03 EST 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore713.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help in body
=========== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===============
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning,
but not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFcIRCTURT1lqxE3HERAnD+AJsE7v4y5FATbfQ+wyy0Lwa0KS/rQgCfTIoJ
2rOEQiN4AtTIi0N7Gb9zBOM=
=0eXV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Monday, December 17, 2018
ADORE736 (fwd)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2018 12:00:05 -0500 (EST)
From: homer@lightlink.com
To: homer@lightlink.com
Subject: ADORE736
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
FOUNDATION AND IMPIRE
In article <mailman.180.1269754479.2586.clear-l@mailman.lightlink.com> you wrote:
> I have another question. From your viewpoint can focussing intensely on
> the source of being for long or frequent intervals while fiercly
> ignoring the cacophonies of the mind be considered high action or is
> that what you would call the long hard route?
Meditation turns the mind to steel and tar.
Its an effort to stop something that is going.
First you say it is going, then you say I gotta stop it.
Which wins?
The cacophony is the background resonance of trillions of years of
go/nogo on goals that are in a state of limbo, mexican standoff, you
know this.
Chasing inner peace is a waste of time.
It is the goal to have no goals.
The answer is to rehabilitate a game bigger than any ever played
before, a dangerous game, one that gives meaning to the purpose of life
is kamikaze (or suicide mission), and you will find your peace when you
are closest to death.
The rest is just running away from a trillion years of stalled
desire and singing the mexicali blues.
Or would that be one of
> those dualities that gets you where you don't want to go, because you
> really did? I am not being facetious, for those who may not get the
> difficulty of these concepts. I think the answer is that meditation can
> be all of the above. If an EP of clearing is, as seems obvious, a state
> of very high action or ableness then perhaps one simply and naturally
> awakens at some point. I don't rule that out. Perhaps there will be an
> enlightenment rundown.
The being does not want to become enlightened, he wants to have a
good rip roaring dream.
That comes first, the first desire is not be in native state, but
to be in action. The desire to be in native state comes second and
results from failed action.
The being that wants out because he can't stand coming in,
and doesn't plan to come back, can never get out.
The guy comes in, and then says holy shit, I wouldn't, shouldn't,
couldn't have ever chosen to be here, help get me out of here, that is
how he closes the lock and scrambles the combination.
I had a dream a few nights ago, I standing on land that was
turning volcanic, melting all around me as I watched. I saw
a big funnel hole in the ground with bright red heat coming out of
it. I knew this was a dream, so I said OK, lets go over to the
edge of this hole and see how hot it really is.
Man was it hot, I could only approach a little bit, then I had to
back off. Why? Because I was approaching with caution, the postulate
was 'MAYBE' I can confront this, so of course maybe I couldn't.
Couldn't won that time and I backed down. I should have just taken a
running leap in.
I got a D minus on that dream.
Out IS the desire to come in, so you can only get out if you wish
to come back in with a righteous vengence and do it right this time.
Of course you will never do it right, but that too is on purpose.
Gotta mess it up to stay here for long.
Too much responsibility, no fear, no mystery, and who the
fuck cares about that dream?
No its the ones that catch your imagination with morbid curiosity
that sell for the hightest bids.
Seriousness is the make break point about sanity, and the moment
the guy becomes serious about escaping seriousness, he is done for, for
that is insanity squared.
Rehab the action, and the being is then operating FROM native state
as he should be, and on the rare chance that he takes a rest from his
action for a moment, in native state he will be.
"FOUNDATION AND IMPIRE
JEM means Joy of Eternal Miracles.
JEST means Jokes of Eternal Self Treason.
JEST means Justice of Eternal Self Truth.
JOKE means Justice of Kindship Excaliper. (worth without measure)
Justice of Caliber is Kindship Excaliper.
Time Stone is the ball floor of hell.
Joke Stone is the ball floor of heaven.
Jem Stone are the stairs that lead home.
Pride Stone is the Master's Throne.
Stone of Admiral is Home.
Source is Stone of Excaliper and Magnificent Respect.
One rolls on the floor in a GONE, in hell (AGONY).
One rolls on the floor in a MUSE, in heaven (AMUSEMENT).
Muses muse gones.
A gone is an agonizing wrong. Fargone into agony.
For every agony there is a gone.
For every gone there is a muse and a wrong.
The search for justice in time stone, is
The search for jestice in joke stone, is
The search for fancy free majesty in jem stone, is
The search for unformed magnificence in pride stone, is
The search for live high beauty in home stone, is
The search for eternal omni awesome peace in source.
Time stone is high romance and daring do.
Joke stone is high halcyon and high appreciation for ludicrous
demise, bemused relief on the verge of time.
Jem stone is high thrill and fantasy in the wild beyond.
Thrill is always the effort to get lost, romance is always the
effort to get home.
Pride stone is unformed magnificence.
Home stone is admiral, live high beauty.
Foundation is stone of Excaliper. (Warm fire of peace.)
Worship time stone.
Smoke joke stone.
Generate and value jem stone.
Magnify and make manifest pride stone.
Admire (stay) home stoned.
Idol stone of Excaliper."- Adore on a more playful day.
> just went in the direction he felt was right. I on the other hand
> didn't want to get more lost so I backtracked to JC Penney's and
> reconstructed step by step the way back (the way out is the way in)
> until I reached familiar territory. I knew my way would work. He
> operated as a free spirit and wanted me to trust his judgement. I
> thought he was being a stubborn idiot while I was being scientific. He
> claimed he beat me home and he probably did. The moral of the story?
> Everyone has their own path? Carry a map?
Both were right. Who knows who beat who.
Homer
Sun Mar 28 03:09:04 EDT 2010
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Dec 15 12:00:04 EST 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore736.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help in body
=========== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===============
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning,
but not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFcFTMVURT1lqxE3HERAhw5AJ48kNPf7izqzCWlY6Vx2CA2Jgg1/gCfbgPm
zVGUvPjt0Gw6idqRFjQQyGI=
=jfAW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2018 12:00:05 -0500 (EST)
From: homer@lightlink.com
To: homer@lightlink.com
Subject: ADORE736
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
FOUNDATION AND IMPIRE
In article <mailman.180.1269754479.2586.clear-l@mailman.lightlink.com> you wrote:
> I have another question. From your viewpoint can focussing intensely on
> the source of being for long or frequent intervals while fiercly
> ignoring the cacophonies of the mind be considered high action or is
> that what you would call the long hard route?
Meditation turns the mind to steel and tar.
Its an effort to stop something that is going.
First you say it is going, then you say I gotta stop it.
Which wins?
The cacophony is the background resonance of trillions of years of
go/nogo on goals that are in a state of limbo, mexican standoff, you
know this.
Chasing inner peace is a waste of time.
It is the goal to have no goals.
The answer is to rehabilitate a game bigger than any ever played
before, a dangerous game, one that gives meaning to the purpose of life
is kamikaze (or suicide mission), and you will find your peace when you
are closest to death.
The rest is just running away from a trillion years of stalled
desire and singing the mexicali blues.
Or would that be one of
> those dualities that gets you where you don't want to go, because you
> really did? I am not being facetious, for those who may not get the
> difficulty of these concepts. I think the answer is that meditation can
> be all of the above. If an EP of clearing is, as seems obvious, a state
> of very high action or ableness then perhaps one simply and naturally
> awakens at some point. I don't rule that out. Perhaps there will be an
> enlightenment rundown.
The being does not want to become enlightened, he wants to have a
good rip roaring dream.
That comes first, the first desire is not be in native state, but
to be in action. The desire to be in native state comes second and
results from failed action.
The being that wants out because he can't stand coming in,
and doesn't plan to come back, can never get out.
The guy comes in, and then says holy shit, I wouldn't, shouldn't,
couldn't have ever chosen to be here, help get me out of here, that is
how he closes the lock and scrambles the combination.
I had a dream a few nights ago, I standing on land that was
turning volcanic, melting all around me as I watched. I saw
a big funnel hole in the ground with bright red heat coming out of
it. I knew this was a dream, so I said OK, lets go over to the
edge of this hole and see how hot it really is.
Man was it hot, I could only approach a little bit, then I had to
back off. Why? Because I was approaching with caution, the postulate
was 'MAYBE' I can confront this, so of course maybe I couldn't.
Couldn't won that time and I backed down. I should have just taken a
running leap in.
I got a D minus on that dream.
Out IS the desire to come in, so you can only get out if you wish
to come back in with a righteous vengence and do it right this time.
Of course you will never do it right, but that too is on purpose.
Gotta mess it up to stay here for long.
Too much responsibility, no fear, no mystery, and who the
fuck cares about that dream?
No its the ones that catch your imagination with morbid curiosity
that sell for the hightest bids.
Seriousness is the make break point about sanity, and the moment
the guy becomes serious about escaping seriousness, he is done for, for
that is insanity squared.
Rehab the action, and the being is then operating FROM native state
as he should be, and on the rare chance that he takes a rest from his
action for a moment, in native state he will be.
"FOUNDATION AND IMPIRE
JEM means Joy of Eternal Miracles.
JEST means Jokes of Eternal Self Treason.
JEST means Justice of Eternal Self Truth.
JOKE means Justice of Kindship Excaliper. (worth without measure)
Justice of Caliber is Kindship Excaliper.
Time Stone is the ball floor of hell.
Joke Stone is the ball floor of heaven.
Jem Stone are the stairs that lead home.
Pride Stone is the Master's Throne.
Stone of Admiral is Home.
Source is Stone of Excaliper and Magnificent Respect.
One rolls on the floor in a GONE, in hell (AGONY).
One rolls on the floor in a MUSE, in heaven (AMUSEMENT).
Muses muse gones.
A gone is an agonizing wrong. Fargone into agony.
For every agony there is a gone.
For every gone there is a muse and a wrong.
The search for justice in time stone, is
The search for jestice in joke stone, is
The search for fancy free majesty in jem stone, is
The search for unformed magnificence in pride stone, is
The search for live high beauty in home stone, is
The search for eternal omni awesome peace in source.
Time stone is high romance and daring do.
Joke stone is high halcyon and high appreciation for ludicrous
demise, bemused relief on the verge of time.
Jem stone is high thrill and fantasy in the wild beyond.
Thrill is always the effort to get lost, romance is always the
effort to get home.
Pride stone is unformed magnificence.
Home stone is admiral, live high beauty.
Foundation is stone of Excaliper. (Warm fire of peace.)
Worship time stone.
Smoke joke stone.
Generate and value jem stone.
Magnify and make manifest pride stone.
Admire (stay) home stoned.
Idol stone of Excaliper."- Adore on a more playful day.
> just went in the direction he felt was right. I on the other hand
> didn't want to get more lost so I backtracked to JC Penney's and
> reconstructed step by step the way back (the way out is the way in)
> until I reached familiar territory. I knew my way would work. He
> operated as a free spirit and wanted me to trust his judgement. I
> thought he was being a stubborn idiot while I was being scientific. He
> claimed he beat me home and he probably did. The moral of the story?
> Everyone has their own path? Carry a map?
Both were right. Who knows who beat who.
Homer
Sun Mar 28 03:09:04 EDT 2010
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Dec 15 12:00:04 EST 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore736.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help in body
=========== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===============
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning,
but not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFcFTMVURT1lqxE3HERAhw5AJ48kNPf7izqzCWlY6Vx2CA2Jgg1/gCfbgPm
zVGUvPjt0Gw6idqRFjQQyGI=
=jfAW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Wednesday, December 12, 2018
ADORE692 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
PRETENDER
> Good, very good. I no longer doubt your pan-determinism.
> You make me look like a pretender. Very good.
Well I am at least a good pretender.
Meatballs are one of my most detested oppterms, even though I was
one.
But I was a reasonable meatball, I WANTED the dreamball theory to
be true from very early on, and in fact I knew I didn't know which was
true and didn't know how to prove it. I knew that IF the meatball
theory was true we could never know, and I assumed that IF the dreamball
theory was true there should be a proof of it somewhere, not just an
exteriorization, but something deeper.
But I couldn't bring myself to just have faith in the dreamball
theory, because I was missing many parts of it, and the world is just
too miserable a place (for me) for my immature dreamball theories to
account for all the pain we are going through.
Eventually I grew up and the theory matured, and the proof came
alone, which doesn't prove the world is a dream, but it does prove that
consciousness is 0D (zero dimensional) and thus has no space or time to
its underlying structure, and thus MUST be eternal in nature.
How one would then interface a 0D consciousness with a 3D brain
then becomes an interesting problem in physics and philosophy.
That seriously upped the stakes in the contest between meatball and
dreamball.
The meatballs that piss me off, are those that resist the dreamball
theory completely, insist they want to die and that's it bud, and do not
take the time to help themselves to the ample evidence that maybe the
dreamball theory is possibly correct.
It's their own hope they can't stand, but in the end they exceed my
own credibility and willingness to confront, let alone create. I try,
but I still go into drooling convulsions of hate :)
Spot NO meatball.
Spot SOME meatball.
I try to slice them and dice them with my sword of sarcasm, but I
find they just dent and dull my sword to no effect whatsoever on
themselves.
As Electra said, 'only BT's bash'.
"I have had time enough for love" cases drive me crazy.
PTSness results from trying to prove the suppressive wrong.
PTS means potential trouble source and is the phenomenon of
rollercoastering heavily in life.
Homer
>
> On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 23:22:52 -0500 (EST), homer@lightlink.com wrote:
>
>>
>> PROVE IT CASE REVEALED
>>
>> So you put your prove it case in session and you run the following
>> process on him.
>>
>> Auditor: "Why do you believe that OT powers do not exist?"
>>
>> PC: Prove it! Move the marble on the table and I will believe you
>> have OT powers.
>>
>> Auditor: Sorry I don't have any OT powers, I will repeat the
>> auditing question.
>>
>> Why do you believe OT powers do not exist?
>>
>> PC: Do YOU believe in OT powers?
>>
>> Auditor: Sorry, I have no idea one way or the other, I will repeat
>> the auditing question.
>>
>> Why do you believe OT powers do not exist?
>>
>> PC: Well that's easy because no one has ever demonstrated that they
>> exist.
>>
>> Auditor: OK, thank you I got that.
>>
>> (Ok, in the first place the pc doesn't know that, he has asserted the
>> unassertable. All he knows is no one has ever demomstrated OT powers TO
>> HIM. Such an interpolated generalization would be considered dharma
>> treason and get him kicked out of any true scientific debate in history.
>>
>> That's like saying in 1770 that flying was impossible because no one
>> had built an airplane yet. Just because no one can do OT powers, doesn't
>> mean they do not exist and aren't there for the taking.
>>
>> His assertion is also based on the idea that if scientific proof of
>> such powers existed, they would immediately be rushed to publication in
>> Nature, and the whole world would know about it by now.
>>
>> That's like saying if there were evidence of aliens coming to
>> attack us, we would have read it in the newspapers by now.
>>
>> Or if the CIA found a reliable way to do remote viewing the whole
>> process would be published in the Pentagon Review.
>>
>> He will say, "sure but someone would have leaked it by now."
>>
>> Maybe, maybe not, but the point is the absence of demonstration
>> doesn't mean OT powers have not been or are not available. Maybe no one
>> has any OT powers in present time. Maybe they just have demonstrated
>> them to HIM.
>>
>> Maybe a lot of things, but in any case it just isn't true that the
>> reason he believes that OT powers don't exist is because 'no one has
>> ever demonstrated OT powers.'
>>
>> That is not why he doesn't believe.
>>
>> So like any good auditing process, you continue with the process
>> and ask the question again until you get the right answer.)
>>
>> Auditor: Why do you believe OT powers do not exist?
>>
>> PC: Well because they are impossible!
>>
>> (The anatomy of an incredibility is a certainty that something is
>> true and a certainty that something is impossible. The mind can not
>> think beyond an incredibility or a threatened incredibility.
>>
>> Thus the mere assertion that OT powers exist throws his entire
>> reality into an incredibility, and stops him cold in his tracks.
>>
>> He's gotta know right now!
>>
>> His need to know if they exist, assuming they do, override any need
>> for secrecy or discretion on the part of the people who have those
>> powers. And if given the chance he would sacrifice those very same
>> people if only he could get them to demonstrate a power that was
>> convincing enough. His attitude is to hell with the person who had the
>> power, now I can get on with my life knowing they exist.
>>
>> edit
>>
>> If we could just get the preclear to not know if OT powers are
>> POSSIBLE or not, then we could get him to not know if they EXISTED or
>> not, rather than be adamantly firm that they don't.)
>>
>> Auditor: Thank you, why do you believe that OT powers do not exist?
>>
>> PC: Well you see it is like this. There is this great big universe
>> of space and time and matter and energy out there that existed long
>> before any human beings came along to have OT powers. From all those
>> parts flying around in space, planets were made, and seas were formed,
>> and amino acids came to be, and then DNA, then cells and finally bodies
>> with brains except for Churchies who skipped the brain stage, etc.
>>
>> Eventually consciousness and self awareness formed as a process in
>> the brain and we finally have human beings.
>>
>> Now the problem is that because consciousness is a process in the
>> brain, consciousness can only do what the brain can do, because
>> consciousness IS only some part of the brain in action.
>>
>> First since the universe existed prior to the existence of brains,
>> it must have existed prior to the existence of consciousness too, and
>> thus any claims that consciousness had anything to do with the creation
>> of the universe, have cause and effect backwards.
>>
>> The universe created brains and consciousness, and therefore it
>> can't be true that consciousness created the universe and brains.
>>
>> Unless of course you have a universe with circular time where
>> something later can, later on, end up causing something earlier.
>>
>> Godel said that General Relativity threw doubts on our sense of
>> causation, because such universes where time loops back on itself
>> perfectly, are possible.
>>
>> Whatever the nature of cause would be in a time looped back on
>> itself universe would also have to be true of our universe, so he said
>> the ideas of linear time and linear cause are in doubt in all universes.
>>
>> Godel also said that if Special Relativity is true, that our
>> concept of time itself is completely wrong. It is usually considered
>> that NOW is all the points in space time that actually exist right now,
>> and everything else no longer exists because it is in the past or
>> doesn't exist yet because it is in the future.
>>
>> The problem is that moving observers will report different points
>> in space and time that are in the set of NOW points. And Godel said it
>> is no problem if measurements of time are relative, but it wasn't ok if
>> EXISTENCE was relative.
>>
>> Also I know that the quantum boys believe that nothing exists
>> except as a wave form of probabilties until something or someone
>> actually observes it, and thus it might take a conscious observer to
>> make the universe precipitate into existence in the first place, but
>> they are confused.
>>
>> So I know there are problems with our concepts of space and time,
>> but certain things are inexorable, like the conservation of energy and
>> the speed of light.
>>
>> Take telepathy for example. Where's the energy wave that carries
>> thoughts from person to person across space time? Why can't the
>> scientists measure that energy transfer from brain to brain?
>>
>> Telepathy is also supposed to travel infinitely fast, but that
>> violates the limitations imposed by the speed of light.
>>
>> The speed of light is not just the speed of light it is the speed
>> of CAUSATION as it moves through the universe. For example if there is
>> a war on Earth, those on Alpha Centauri can not possibly know about it
>> until 4 years later.
>>
>> But if someone on earth could relay to his brother on Alpha
>> Centauri via telepathy when the war was started, his brother could know
>> ahead of time that the war was on and invest in the market accordingly.
>>
>> Now I don't care about that, but it becomes infinitely problematic
>> when data and thus causation can get from A to B faster than the speed
>> of light, because according to the equations of time, time could be made
>> to run backwards, thus messing up the linear straightforward motion of
>> causation.
>>
>> As for telekinesis, again its a matter of energy. If you are going
>> to move the marble on the table that would take a very determinable
>> amount of ergs of energy that would have to emmanate from your brain
>> processes, go through your forehead and hit the marble.
>>
>> But that level of energy would make your brain explode, and anyhow
>> there is nothing in the brain that could possibly generate that much
>> energy, so there is no way telekinesis could work.
>>
>> As for exteriorization, the brain can't leave the brain, so there
>> is no way it could possibly leave the body to see the world remotely.
>> Further the brain needs a lens to focus the image, if something were
>> outside the body, even if it could pick up photons, it would have to
>> have a lens to focus the image to see what was emitting the photons.
>>
>> Where is the lens?
>>
>> As for life after death, the whole thing is an oxymoron, once the
>> brain dies, all its processes die, you can guarantee that through
>> cremation, so how could consciousness, which is a process in the brain,
>> continue on?
>>
>> As for past life memories, if the consciousness can't survive brain
>> death, how could it have lived before to have any memories, it just
>> doesn't make sense.
>>
>> Auditor: OK, thanks for all that, I got it.
>>
>> Auditor: Your needle is floating, this is end of session.
>>
>> 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 Dec 3 23:48:00 EST 2009
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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: Tue Dec 8 23:22:52 EST 2009
>> ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore677.memo
>> Send mail to archive.com saying help
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Clear-l mailing list
>> Clear-l@mailman.lightlink.com
>> http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/clear-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> Clear-L mailing list
> Clear-L@mailman.lightlink.com
> http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/clear-l
>
_______________________________________________
Clear-L mailing list
Clear-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/clear-l
Tue Dec 22 17:00:49 EST 2009
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Dec 12 12:00:02 EST 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore692.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)
iD8DBQFcET6TURT1lqxE3HERAlxBAKDHMBjwgSIZfrPnJ2GuUOgtWVtfSwCgg7+d
IZaGgErzul1M3G0Yg+7i4MA=
=Sy7F
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
PRETENDER
> Good, very good. I no longer doubt your pan-determinism.
> You make me look like a pretender. Very good.
Well I am at least a good pretender.
Meatballs are one of my most detested oppterms, even though I was
one.
But I was a reasonable meatball, I WANTED the dreamball theory to
be true from very early on, and in fact I knew I didn't know which was
true and didn't know how to prove it. I knew that IF the meatball
theory was true we could never know, and I assumed that IF the dreamball
theory was true there should be a proof of it somewhere, not just an
exteriorization, but something deeper.
But I couldn't bring myself to just have faith in the dreamball
theory, because I was missing many parts of it, and the world is just
too miserable a place (for me) for my immature dreamball theories to
account for all the pain we are going through.
Eventually I grew up and the theory matured, and the proof came
alone, which doesn't prove the world is a dream, but it does prove that
consciousness is 0D (zero dimensional) and thus has no space or time to
its underlying structure, and thus MUST be eternal in nature.
How one would then interface a 0D consciousness with a 3D brain
then becomes an interesting problem in physics and philosophy.
That seriously upped the stakes in the contest between meatball and
dreamball.
The meatballs that piss me off, are those that resist the dreamball
theory completely, insist they want to die and that's it bud, and do not
take the time to help themselves to the ample evidence that maybe the
dreamball theory is possibly correct.
It's their own hope they can't stand, but in the end they exceed my
own credibility and willingness to confront, let alone create. I try,
but I still go into drooling convulsions of hate :)
Spot NO meatball.
Spot SOME meatball.
I try to slice them and dice them with my sword of sarcasm, but I
find they just dent and dull my sword to no effect whatsoever on
themselves.
As Electra said, 'only BT's bash'.
"I have had time enough for love" cases drive me crazy.
PTSness results from trying to prove the suppressive wrong.
PTS means potential trouble source and is the phenomenon of
rollercoastering heavily in life.
Homer
>
> On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 23:22:52 -0500 (EST), homer@lightlink.com wrote:
>
>>
>> PROVE IT CASE REVEALED
>>
>> So you put your prove it case in session and you run the following
>> process on him.
>>
>> Auditor: "Why do you believe that OT powers do not exist?"
>>
>> PC: Prove it! Move the marble on the table and I will believe you
>> have OT powers.
>>
>> Auditor: Sorry I don't have any OT powers, I will repeat the
>> auditing question.
>>
>> Why do you believe OT powers do not exist?
>>
>> PC: Do YOU believe in OT powers?
>>
>> Auditor: Sorry, I have no idea one way or the other, I will repeat
>> the auditing question.
>>
>> Why do you believe OT powers do not exist?
>>
>> PC: Well that's easy because no one has ever demonstrated that they
>> exist.
>>
>> Auditor: OK, thank you I got that.
>>
>> (Ok, in the first place the pc doesn't know that, he has asserted the
>> unassertable. All he knows is no one has ever demomstrated OT powers TO
>> HIM. Such an interpolated generalization would be considered dharma
>> treason and get him kicked out of any true scientific debate in history.
>>
>> That's like saying in 1770 that flying was impossible because no one
>> had built an airplane yet. Just because no one can do OT powers, doesn't
>> mean they do not exist and aren't there for the taking.
>>
>> His assertion is also based on the idea that if scientific proof of
>> such powers existed, they would immediately be rushed to publication in
>> Nature, and the whole world would know about it by now.
>>
>> That's like saying if there were evidence of aliens coming to
>> attack us, we would have read it in the newspapers by now.
>>
>> Or if the CIA found a reliable way to do remote viewing the whole
>> process would be published in the Pentagon Review.
>>
>> He will say, "sure but someone would have leaked it by now."
>>
>> Maybe, maybe not, but the point is the absence of demonstration
>> doesn't mean OT powers have not been or are not available. Maybe no one
>> has any OT powers in present time. Maybe they just have demonstrated
>> them to HIM.
>>
>> Maybe a lot of things, but in any case it just isn't true that the
>> reason he believes that OT powers don't exist is because 'no one has
>> ever demonstrated OT powers.'
>>
>> That is not why he doesn't believe.
>>
>> So like any good auditing process, you continue with the process
>> and ask the question again until you get the right answer.)
>>
>> Auditor: Why do you believe OT powers do not exist?
>>
>> PC: Well because they are impossible!
>>
>> (The anatomy of an incredibility is a certainty that something is
>> true and a certainty that something is impossible. The mind can not
>> think beyond an incredibility or a threatened incredibility.
>>
>> Thus the mere assertion that OT powers exist throws his entire
>> reality into an incredibility, and stops him cold in his tracks.
>>
>> He's gotta know right now!
>>
>> His need to know if they exist, assuming they do, override any need
>> for secrecy or discretion on the part of the people who have those
>> powers. And if given the chance he would sacrifice those very same
>> people if only he could get them to demonstrate a power that was
>> convincing enough. His attitude is to hell with the person who had the
>> power, now I can get on with my life knowing they exist.
>>
>> edit
>>
>> If we could just get the preclear to not know if OT powers are
>> POSSIBLE or not, then we could get him to not know if they EXISTED or
>> not, rather than be adamantly firm that they don't.)
>>
>> Auditor: Thank you, why do you believe that OT powers do not exist?
>>
>> PC: Well you see it is like this. There is this great big universe
>> of space and time and matter and energy out there that existed long
>> before any human beings came along to have OT powers. From all those
>> parts flying around in space, planets were made, and seas were formed,
>> and amino acids came to be, and then DNA, then cells and finally bodies
>> with brains except for Churchies who skipped the brain stage, etc.
>>
>> Eventually consciousness and self awareness formed as a process in
>> the brain and we finally have human beings.
>>
>> Now the problem is that because consciousness is a process in the
>> brain, consciousness can only do what the brain can do, because
>> consciousness IS only some part of the brain in action.
>>
>> First since the universe existed prior to the existence of brains,
>> it must have existed prior to the existence of consciousness too, and
>> thus any claims that consciousness had anything to do with the creation
>> of the universe, have cause and effect backwards.
>>
>> The universe created brains and consciousness, and therefore it
>> can't be true that consciousness created the universe and brains.
>>
>> Unless of course you have a universe with circular time where
>> something later can, later on, end up causing something earlier.
>>
>> Godel said that General Relativity threw doubts on our sense of
>> causation, because such universes where time loops back on itself
>> perfectly, are possible.
>>
>> Whatever the nature of cause would be in a time looped back on
>> itself universe would also have to be true of our universe, so he said
>> the ideas of linear time and linear cause are in doubt in all universes.
>>
>> Godel also said that if Special Relativity is true, that our
>> concept of time itself is completely wrong. It is usually considered
>> that NOW is all the points in space time that actually exist right now,
>> and everything else no longer exists because it is in the past or
>> doesn't exist yet because it is in the future.
>>
>> The problem is that moving observers will report different points
>> in space and time that are in the set of NOW points. And Godel said it
>> is no problem if measurements of time are relative, but it wasn't ok if
>> EXISTENCE was relative.
>>
>> Also I know that the quantum boys believe that nothing exists
>> except as a wave form of probabilties until something or someone
>> actually observes it, and thus it might take a conscious observer to
>> make the universe precipitate into existence in the first place, but
>> they are confused.
>>
>> So I know there are problems with our concepts of space and time,
>> but certain things are inexorable, like the conservation of energy and
>> the speed of light.
>>
>> Take telepathy for example. Where's the energy wave that carries
>> thoughts from person to person across space time? Why can't the
>> scientists measure that energy transfer from brain to brain?
>>
>> Telepathy is also supposed to travel infinitely fast, but that
>> violates the limitations imposed by the speed of light.
>>
>> The speed of light is not just the speed of light it is the speed
>> of CAUSATION as it moves through the universe. For example if there is
>> a war on Earth, those on Alpha Centauri can not possibly know about it
>> until 4 years later.
>>
>> But if someone on earth could relay to his brother on Alpha
>> Centauri via telepathy when the war was started, his brother could know
>> ahead of time that the war was on and invest in the market accordingly.
>>
>> Now I don't care about that, but it becomes infinitely problematic
>> when data and thus causation can get from A to B faster than the speed
>> of light, because according to the equations of time, time could be made
>> to run backwards, thus messing up the linear straightforward motion of
>> causation.
>>
>> As for telekinesis, again its a matter of energy. If you are going
>> to move the marble on the table that would take a very determinable
>> amount of ergs of energy that would have to emmanate from your brain
>> processes, go through your forehead and hit the marble.
>>
>> But that level of energy would make your brain explode, and anyhow
>> there is nothing in the brain that could possibly generate that much
>> energy, so there is no way telekinesis could work.
>>
>> As for exteriorization, the brain can't leave the brain, so there
>> is no way it could possibly leave the body to see the world remotely.
>> Further the brain needs a lens to focus the image, if something were
>> outside the body, even if it could pick up photons, it would have to
>> have a lens to focus the image to see what was emitting the photons.
>>
>> Where is the lens?
>>
>> As for life after death, the whole thing is an oxymoron, once the
>> brain dies, all its processes die, you can guarantee that through
>> cremation, so how could consciousness, which is a process in the brain,
>> continue on?
>>
>> As for past life memories, if the consciousness can't survive brain
>> death, how could it have lived before to have any memories, it just
>> doesn't make sense.
>>
>> Auditor: OK, thanks for all that, I got it.
>>
>> Auditor: Your needle is floating, this is end of session.
>>
>> 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 Dec 3 23:48:00 EST 2009
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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: Tue Dec 8 23:22:52 EST 2009
>> ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore677.memo
>> Send mail to archive.com saying help
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Clear-l mailing list
>> Clear-l@mailman.lightlink.com
>> http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/clear-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> Clear-L mailing list
> Clear-L@mailman.lightlink.com
> http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/clear-l
>
_______________________________________________
Clear-L mailing list
Clear-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/clear-l
Tue Dec 22 17:00:49 EST 2009
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Dec 12 12:00:02 EST 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore692.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)
iD8DBQFcET6TURT1lqxE3HERAlxBAKDHMBjwgSIZfrPnJ2GuUOgtWVtfSwCgg7+d
IZaGgErzul1M3G0Yg+7i4MA=
=Sy7F
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Sunday, December 9, 2018
LOGIC5 (fwd)
repost homer miracat logic5
PRETENSES OF LOGIC
>"Logic is the beginning of wisdom" - Spock,Star Trek VI
I wish to make clear that I admit to the possibility of higher
realms of wisdom that logic may not apply to, that IS and IS NOT can not
describe, although statement alone is probably self contradictory.
What I take extreme exception to is the pretense to wisdom by
couching various propositions in logical terms, ie IS statements, to
give them the 'credence' of logic, while covertly eschewing logic and
failing to meet the demands of consistency that logic demands.
The definitions of IS and IS NOT are very clear and are not to be
subverted to the causes of sophistry.
It's a matter of professional ethics and common sense.
Homer
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
PRETENSES OF LOGIC
>"Logic is the beginning of wisdom" - Spock,Star Trek VI
I wish to make clear that I admit to the possibility of higher
realms of wisdom that logic may not apply to, that IS and IS NOT can not
describe, although statement alone is probably self contradictory.
What I take extreme exception to is the pretense to wisdom by
couching various propositions in logical terms, ie IS statements, to
give them the 'credence' of logic, while covertly eschewing logic and
failing to meet the demands of consistency that logic demands.
The definitions of IS and IS NOT are very clear and are not to be
subverted to the causes of sophistry.
It's a matter of professional ethics and common sense.
Homer
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Tuesday, December 4, 2018
ADORE922 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
COPYRIGHTS AGAIN
The below posting is forceful but not entirely clear.
There is only one set of communication lines, but they are used for
two different purposes.
The first is the body politic use of designing the markets, which
includes political discussion and voting etc.
The second is the operation of the markets as designed, fair trade
of products produced.
Neither politics or markets exist without communication lines to
operate over.
But both use the same communication lines.
The political use requires absolute encryption, anonymity,
unmoderatability, and untrackability, otherwise the various political
groups will try to wipe each other out.
Thus any market use of the same communication lines MUST fall
within the constraints set by the existence of encryption, anonymity,
unmoderatability and untrackability.
Without the above rule in place, market forces will ALWAYS lead
inevitable to a police state, where every communication is trackable,
moderatable, non anonymous, and not encrypted. Those with the power
that WE gave them to protect us in the markets will use that power to
enslave us to their own ends. There is no other possible result.
Encryption allows people to talk to who they want and not others.
Anonymity allows people to talk to everyone without being harrassed
out of existence or silenced by opposing groups.
Encryption is the freedom to PRIVATE congregation.
Anonymity is the freedom to safe PUBLIC congregation.
Homer
homer@lightlink.com wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> Ralph Hilton (ralph@hilton.org) wrote:
>> I can't agree. There are times when people spend a lot of their time
>> creating something useful to others. Surely they deserve an exchange. I
>
> Deserve? Deserve is a sarcasm.
>
> The world is a free market, people don't deserve anything, they get
> what they can take, and they get what they can negotiate for. Once you
> have negotiated a duty/right pair, and you deliver, then you deserve
> your return etc.
>
>> spent a long time writing the software for the C-meter and
>> anyone who wants it pays for it. Is that fair or should people be
>> allowed to rip it off for free?
>
> Fair? You are free to keep your work to yourself. It is admitedly
> problematic to any creator when they create something easily duplicated
> by another and given away by them for free. Anything even resembling
> information these days comes under this heading as the world is moving
> towards instantaneous duplication and transmission of information
> approaching 'for free'.
>
> This is why I have said that information owners are already extinct
> but don't know it.
>
> People however do not 'deserve' a living just because they breath,
> and people do not 'deserve' to have their work 'protected' just because
> they created it. In fact people don't 'deserve' anything unless they
> have negotiated for it with others.
>
> People have no in born or God given duties or rights to anything
> and those that preach we do should be nailed to a cross quickly for THEY
> will be the ones to bring on the super controlled police state, that
> will nail *EVERYONE* to a cross and charge you for the bill.
>
> Basically copyright is a control effort, quite natural in the face
> of the artist wishing to control the ownership and distribution of their
> work. Well they can negotiate for those rights, and probably they can
> even talk others into allowing a certain amount of police force to be
> created in order to provide that enforcement. But it is none the less a
> control operation specifically designed to NOT allow anyone to
> communicate freely with anyone on any subject.
>
> Now I as an artist may be willing to tolerate some police control
> created by others to protect their works, in return for being able to
> use that same police control over others to protect my works.
>
> That way your C-meter software is protected, and my "Mathematics
> for Lovers" video is protected.
>
> Notice this is a *NEGOTIATED* thing, *WE* agree with *EACH OTHER*
> to suffer each others surveillence, control and punishment.
>
> Such policement is not a God given right, we all AGREE to be bound
> ourselves by rules that protect others if we can see how they protect us
> too. Its a sensitive give and take, all the more so because it involves
> limitation on communication and putting *FORCE* into the hands of a
> central elite to enforce those rules.
>
> But Corruption, Temptation and Seduction attacks any central elite
> with too much power, so ultimately the people must retain more power
> over their government, than the government retains over them.
>
> Only those who are very weak, incompetent and afraid want an
> overruling government that can control and monitor and punish everyone.
> Eventually the government begins to benefit from this power and the
> people merely become its slaves.
>
> There is something worse than drugs, child pornography and rampant
> copyright violations, and that is a police state.
>
> A police state is where every action, every thought, evey
> communication is traceable, moderateable and punishable.
>
> *THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT PUBLISHERS AND COPYRIGHT HOLDERS WANT*
>
> If the world were ruled by the artist elite, would the world be a
> better place?
>
> Well the copyright holders wish to have the absolute rule of law,
> wish a policeman in every room, wish every communication to the
> traceable, moderateable and punishable.
>
> This is not a free society.
>
> Everyone wishses that their ownership of things be protected from
> those that would take it by force, so we give just enough force to the
> government to enforce justice for the rest of us, so we don't have to
> enforce justice ourselves and have rampant mob rule.
>
> Justice is basically being free to engage in fair trade, and not
> being forced to engage in a trade we don't wish to trade in. It is the
> freedom to choose who we communicate with (trade with).
>
> The problem comes in when A wants to communicate with B and C, but
> doesn't want B or C to communicate with either D, E, or F.
>
> The problem is when everyone can take everything from anyone, then
> the police state needs to grow to omnipresent infinity in order to
> control the theft. At that point in society it is better to do away
> with the police force and admit that enforceable ownership is no longer
> feasible for that particular commodity. If the artists wants to 'own'
> his work, he needs to keep it to himself. Or live on shareware fees
> etc.
>
> Technological solutions to the copyright problem will only lead to
> closed proprietary formats for data, built in identification on all
> machines, and super monopolistic control entities to manage it all like
> Microsoft. Good for the artist perhaps but *SUICIDE* for the body
> politic of freedom.
>
> Remember always the world is a poltical world first and an artistic
> world second. Our *FREEDOM* of thought, philosophy, religion, belief
> etc is always more important than the MARKET.
>
> When the needs of the artist or any marketeer conflicts with the
> needs of the politic, then the artist or other marketeer must *ALWAYS*
> lose, anything less is a sin against mankind.
>
> One can validly ask "But what's the point of having a society if
> you can't market?" It's a good question, and best answered by
> experienceing what it is like when the market rules and there is no
> political freedom left any more.
>
> CREATION is primary, *EXCHANGE* is secondary.
>
> The body politic first, the market second.
>
> The world is full of scam artists trying to reverse that order of
> importance.
>
> The point is that SOME marketing protections demand an absolute
> police state, wiping out drugs, guns, child porn, vice of any kind, etc,
> and copyright theft is one of them. Anything where it is easier to
> commit the crime than it is to track it and prevent it falls into this
> criteria.
>
> There are quite a number of people who would LOVE to have a total
> police state and make everyone accountable for everything, but no one
> benefits from this but the criminals who would bubble up into positions
> of authority in the police state.
>
> "When lawmakers outlaw criminals, criminals become lawmakers."
>
> Only the stupid and evil will ignore that one, and the evil know it
> is true and will use it to their benefit.
>
> It is time for artists to grow up and to recognize that a police
> state backed copyright law is hideous beyond redemption, that copyright
> was invented by *PUBLISHERS* to protect themselves and the King, and to
> maintain the politically correct thought of the times, and the artists
> that fall for how it benefits them are just too stupid and dangerous to
> consider human.
>
> The world would be a far better place if there were no copyright at
> all.
>
> Yes some blood suckers would have a hard time making a living, but
> too bad, life's rough, people don't deserve to live simply by virtue of
> being alive.
>
> Just say NO! to *ANYONE* who tries to negotiate a totally
> trackable, moderateable and punishable communication line for all of
> society. There are more important things in life than ending child
> porn, protecting artists, or dealing with terrorists.
>
> Only the fearful would disagree.
>
> Homer
>
> - --
> - ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
> (607) 277-0959 A Green Earth and Peace. Internet Access, Ithaca NY
> homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
>
> ================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
> Sun Jan 6 03:06:03 EST 2013
> ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/copyrig0.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 v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFQ6TBrURT1lqxE3HERAhyQAKCUNCVUQtsP5IApNMukwb4CdcTOrwCgok5u
> fnbt8SYGJ2ruAePhKcy1jdw=
> =G4tM
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> HomerWSmith-L mailing list
> HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
> http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Fri Jan 11 08:57:23 EST 2013
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Dec 4 12:00:02 EST 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore922.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)
iD8DBQFcBrKTURT1lqxE3HERAi1nAKCx7d/QUOhiDGhqANl8h6ZPZYglVQCdHy6T
lIDILcidi3rBRYN6l/WJBm0=
=t3Qt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
COPYRIGHTS AGAIN
The below posting is forceful but not entirely clear.
There is only one set of communication lines, but they are used for
two different purposes.
The first is the body politic use of designing the markets, which
includes political discussion and voting etc.
The second is the operation of the markets as designed, fair trade
of products produced.
Neither politics or markets exist without communication lines to
operate over.
But both use the same communication lines.
The political use requires absolute encryption, anonymity,
unmoderatability, and untrackability, otherwise the various political
groups will try to wipe each other out.
Thus any market use of the same communication lines MUST fall
within the constraints set by the existence of encryption, anonymity,
unmoderatability and untrackability.
Without the above rule in place, market forces will ALWAYS lead
inevitable to a police state, where every communication is trackable,
moderatable, non anonymous, and not encrypted. Those with the power
that WE gave them to protect us in the markets will use that power to
enslave us to their own ends. There is no other possible result.
Encryption allows people to talk to who they want and not others.
Anonymity allows people to talk to everyone without being harrassed
out of existence or silenced by opposing groups.
Encryption is the freedom to PRIVATE congregation.
Anonymity is the freedom to safe PUBLIC congregation.
Homer
homer@lightlink.com wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> Ralph Hilton (ralph@hilton.org) wrote:
>> I can't agree. There are times when people spend a lot of their time
>> creating something useful to others. Surely they deserve an exchange. I
>
> Deserve? Deserve is a sarcasm.
>
> The world is a free market, people don't deserve anything, they get
> what they can take, and they get what they can negotiate for. Once you
> have negotiated a duty/right pair, and you deliver, then you deserve
> your return etc.
>
>> spent a long time writing the software for the C-meter and
>> anyone who wants it pays for it. Is that fair or should people be
>> allowed to rip it off for free?
>
> Fair? You are free to keep your work to yourself. It is admitedly
> problematic to any creator when they create something easily duplicated
> by another and given away by them for free. Anything even resembling
> information these days comes under this heading as the world is moving
> towards instantaneous duplication and transmission of information
> approaching 'for free'.
>
> This is why I have said that information owners are already extinct
> but don't know it.
>
> People however do not 'deserve' a living just because they breath,
> and people do not 'deserve' to have their work 'protected' just because
> they created it. In fact people don't 'deserve' anything unless they
> have negotiated for it with others.
>
> People have no in born or God given duties or rights to anything
> and those that preach we do should be nailed to a cross quickly for THEY
> will be the ones to bring on the super controlled police state, that
> will nail *EVERYONE* to a cross and charge you for the bill.
>
> Basically copyright is a control effort, quite natural in the face
> of the artist wishing to control the ownership and distribution of their
> work. Well they can negotiate for those rights, and probably they can
> even talk others into allowing a certain amount of police force to be
> created in order to provide that enforcement. But it is none the less a
> control operation specifically designed to NOT allow anyone to
> communicate freely with anyone on any subject.
>
> Now I as an artist may be willing to tolerate some police control
> created by others to protect their works, in return for being able to
> use that same police control over others to protect my works.
>
> That way your C-meter software is protected, and my "Mathematics
> for Lovers" video is protected.
>
> Notice this is a *NEGOTIATED* thing, *WE* agree with *EACH OTHER*
> to suffer each others surveillence, control and punishment.
>
> Such policement is not a God given right, we all AGREE to be bound
> ourselves by rules that protect others if we can see how they protect us
> too. Its a sensitive give and take, all the more so because it involves
> limitation on communication and putting *FORCE* into the hands of a
> central elite to enforce those rules.
>
> But Corruption, Temptation and Seduction attacks any central elite
> with too much power, so ultimately the people must retain more power
> over their government, than the government retains over them.
>
> Only those who are very weak, incompetent and afraid want an
> overruling government that can control and monitor and punish everyone.
> Eventually the government begins to benefit from this power and the
> people merely become its slaves.
>
> There is something worse than drugs, child pornography and rampant
> copyright violations, and that is a police state.
>
> A police state is where every action, every thought, evey
> communication is traceable, moderateable and punishable.
>
> *THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT PUBLISHERS AND COPYRIGHT HOLDERS WANT*
>
> If the world were ruled by the artist elite, would the world be a
> better place?
>
> Well the copyright holders wish to have the absolute rule of law,
> wish a policeman in every room, wish every communication to the
> traceable, moderateable and punishable.
>
> This is not a free society.
>
> Everyone wishses that their ownership of things be protected from
> those that would take it by force, so we give just enough force to the
> government to enforce justice for the rest of us, so we don't have to
> enforce justice ourselves and have rampant mob rule.
>
> Justice is basically being free to engage in fair trade, and not
> being forced to engage in a trade we don't wish to trade in. It is the
> freedom to choose who we communicate with (trade with).
>
> The problem comes in when A wants to communicate with B and C, but
> doesn't want B or C to communicate with either D, E, or F.
>
> The problem is when everyone can take everything from anyone, then
> the police state needs to grow to omnipresent infinity in order to
> control the theft. At that point in society it is better to do away
> with the police force and admit that enforceable ownership is no longer
> feasible for that particular commodity. If the artists wants to 'own'
> his work, he needs to keep it to himself. Or live on shareware fees
> etc.
>
> Technological solutions to the copyright problem will only lead to
> closed proprietary formats for data, built in identification on all
> machines, and super monopolistic control entities to manage it all like
> Microsoft. Good for the artist perhaps but *SUICIDE* for the body
> politic of freedom.
>
> Remember always the world is a poltical world first and an artistic
> world second. Our *FREEDOM* of thought, philosophy, religion, belief
> etc is always more important than the MARKET.
>
> When the needs of the artist or any marketeer conflicts with the
> needs of the politic, then the artist or other marketeer must *ALWAYS*
> lose, anything less is a sin against mankind.
>
> One can validly ask "But what's the point of having a society if
> you can't market?" It's a good question, and best answered by
> experienceing what it is like when the market rules and there is no
> political freedom left any more.
>
> CREATION is primary, *EXCHANGE* is secondary.
>
> The body politic first, the market second.
>
> The world is full of scam artists trying to reverse that order of
> importance.
>
> The point is that SOME marketing protections demand an absolute
> police state, wiping out drugs, guns, child porn, vice of any kind, etc,
> and copyright theft is one of them. Anything where it is easier to
> commit the crime than it is to track it and prevent it falls into this
> criteria.
>
> There are quite a number of people who would LOVE to have a total
> police state and make everyone accountable for everything, but no one
> benefits from this but the criminals who would bubble up into positions
> of authority in the police state.
>
> "When lawmakers outlaw criminals, criminals become lawmakers."
>
> Only the stupid and evil will ignore that one, and the evil know it
> is true and will use it to their benefit.
>
> It is time for artists to grow up and to recognize that a police
> state backed copyright law is hideous beyond redemption, that copyright
> was invented by *PUBLISHERS* to protect themselves and the King, and to
> maintain the politically correct thought of the times, and the artists
> that fall for how it benefits them are just too stupid and dangerous to
> consider human.
>
> The world would be a far better place if there were no copyright at
> all.
>
> Yes some blood suckers would have a hard time making a living, but
> too bad, life's rough, people don't deserve to live simply by virtue of
> being alive.
>
> Just say NO! to *ANYONE* who tries to negotiate a totally
> trackable, moderateable and punishable communication line for all of
> society. There are more important things in life than ending child
> porn, protecting artists, or dealing with terrorists.
>
> Only the fearful would disagree.
>
> Homer
>
> - --
> - ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
> (607) 277-0959 A Green Earth and Peace. Internet Access, Ithaca NY
> homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
>
> ================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
> Sun Jan 6 03:06:03 EST 2013
> ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/copyrig0.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 v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFQ6TBrURT1lqxE3HERAhyQAKCUNCVUQtsP5IApNMukwb4CdcTOrwCgok5u
> fnbt8SYGJ2ruAePhKcy1jdw=
> =G4tM
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> HomerWSmith-L mailing list
> HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
> http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Fri Jan 11 08:57:23 EST 2013
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Dec 4 12:00:02 EST 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore922.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)
iD8DBQFcBrKTURT1lqxE3HERAi1nAKCx7d/QUOhiDGhqANl8h6ZPZYglVQCdHy6T
lIDILcidi3rBRYN6l/WJBm0=
=t3Qt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Saturday, December 1, 2018
ADORE354 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
ACTUAL AND REAL
In the english language actual and real pretty much mean the same
thing, they are listed as synonyms in the dictionary.
Hubbard first started to use 'real' to mean what was real to the
pc, meaning what the pc thought was real, and could relate to. For
example in early times pagan Gods were very real to the person, but may
have had no existence in truth, actuality.
Things could also be very UNreal to a pc, charge, engrams, past
lives etc, and with little relation to actual truths of the matter.
He also used reality to mean coalesced existence in the form of
MEST which became real (existent) by virtue of agreements.
Because Scn holds that persistence in time, and thus reality, is
based on an original AS-IS-NESS altered by lies to form a persisting
IS-NESS, reality then became tainted as it was an alter-is from the
original AS-IS. The orginal AS-IS and the native state before it then
became to be considered untainted and called ACTUAL, or ACTUALITY.
Basic Truth in other words.
Thus came the distinction between actuality and reality.
Both words in English mean what truely exists.
But in Scn, MEST is illusory and doesn't in fact truely exist at
all, except as a misconceived mockup. This view is also true in other
religions as well.
The conscious experience of MEST is actual, but the implied
external objective physical universe is not, it is used as a virtual
reality by the beings playing the arcade game in it.
Thus TRUTH is not MEST but the source of MEST, namely Source and
conscious units and their conscious experiences of MEST, everything else
is illusion.
But this illusion is very real to most people, so real in fact that
they consider it actual. They bang their fists on tables thus proving
that it is not a dream. That they can do the same in dreams escapes
them.
In Scn reality is an experience, something can be more or less real
to a person, but this does not affect the truth of it, its actuality.
Thus actuality refers to the original ACT of creation, which is the
as-isness, and reality, which is tainted by the lies of time and
persistence, refers to the pc's experience of actuality, namely what he
considers is actual whether it is or not.
If you come from a philosophical background where things actually
are pretty much as they seem to be, then reality and actuality are going
to be the same for you.
But if you come from a background where things are very different
than they seem to be, then reality and actuality are miles apart,
sometimes 180 degrees opposed to each other.
This is the view of Scn, of clearing practitioners in general,
and of my postings to this forum.
Homer
- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Sat Jul 22 00:35:41 EDT 2006
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Dec 1 12:00:02 EST 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore354.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)
iD8DBQFcAr4TURT1lqxE3HERAnHIAKDGcrJCVqW0zMeNxTm5CsNU9M+BEQCgoEnY
j6yMCFxHQoIkG2PxGww9kcM=
=QnzO
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Sat Dec 1 16:04:55 EST 2018
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore354.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)
iD8DBQFcAvd4URT1lqxE3HERAgJ8AKCKqDAbD/WBENT2Cr5SJ1EJH9jgCwCeOnOA
VLmuNxHIzDsWvbCW4/8vrIw=
=sbTh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
ACTUAL AND REAL
In the english language actual and real pretty much mean the same
thing, they are listed as synonyms in the dictionary.
Hubbard first started to use 'real' to mean what was real to the
pc, meaning what the pc thought was real, and could relate to. For
example in early times pagan Gods were very real to the person, but may
have had no existence in truth, actuality.
Things could also be very UNreal to a pc, charge, engrams, past
lives etc, and with little relation to actual truths of the matter.
He also used reality to mean coalesced existence in the form of
MEST which became real (existent) by virtue of agreements.
Because Scn holds that persistence in time, and thus reality, is
based on an original AS-IS-NESS altered by lies to form a persisting
IS-NESS, reality then became tainted as it was an alter-is from the
original AS-IS. The orginal AS-IS and the native state before it then
became to be considered untainted and called ACTUAL, or ACTUALITY.
Basic Truth in other words.
Thus came the distinction between actuality and reality.
Both words in English mean what truely exists.
But in Scn, MEST is illusory and doesn't in fact truely exist at
all, except as a misconceived mockup. This view is also true in other
religions as well.
The conscious experience of MEST is actual, but the implied
external objective physical universe is not, it is used as a virtual
reality by the beings playing the arcade game in it.
Thus TRUTH is not MEST but the source of MEST, namely Source and
conscious units and their conscious experiences of MEST, everything else
is illusion.
But this illusion is very real to most people, so real in fact that
they consider it actual. They bang their fists on tables thus proving
that it is not a dream. That they can do the same in dreams escapes
them.
In Scn reality is an experience, something can be more or less real
to a person, but this does not affect the truth of it, its actuality.
Thus actuality refers to the original ACT of creation, which is the
as-isness, and reality, which is tainted by the lies of time and
persistence, refers to the pc's experience of actuality, namely what he
considers is actual whether it is or not.
If you come from a philosophical background where things actually
are pretty much as they seem to be, then reality and actuality are going
to be the same for you.
But if you come from a background where things are very different
than they seem to be, then reality and actuality are miles apart,
sometimes 180 degrees opposed to each other.
This is the view of Scn, of clearing practitioners in general,
and of my postings to this forum.
Homer
- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Sat Jul 22 00:35:41 EDT 2006
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Dec 1 12:00:02 EST 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore354.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)
iD8DBQFcAr4TURT1lqxE3HERAnHIAKDGcrJCVqW0zMeNxTm5CsNU9M+BEQCgoEnY
j6yMCFxHQoIkG2PxGww9kcM=
=QnzO
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Sat Dec 1 16:04:55 EST 2018
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore354.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)
iD8DBQFcAvd4URT1lqxE3HERAgJ8AKCKqDAbD/WBENT2Cr5SJ1EJH9jgCwCeOnOA
VLmuNxHIzDsWvbCW4/8vrIw=
=sbTh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)