TO RUN

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


TO RUN

I am asked below to define what TO RUN means.

First we need to word clear the standard term

TO PROCESS and
A PROCESS

Scientifically a process is a change of state or a series
of changes of state, such as the process of energy escaping from
the main spring of a clock as it winds down.

To process is to put something through a process, or a series
of changes of state. To process food for example, by homogenizing it,
chopping it up, exposing to ultra violet etc. The end result is more
desirable than the original raw state.

To process a human case, as in a preclear, we get the preclear
to engage in a series of actions, either physical or mental,
that cause charge to come to the surface for inspection, reevaluation
and thus erasure.

Any particular series of actions that a preclear is requested
to perform towards this goal is called 'a process', as it puts
the preclear though changes in state toward a better end.

To 'run' a process comes from the term to run a program on
a computer. Again a computer program is a series of instructions
causing the computer to engage in various actions like adding numbers,
putting them here and there, printing them out etc.

A program for a computer is very much like a program for a preclear,
a series of actions the computer or preclear are requested to do in
order to change their own state or the state of something else.

Thus we 'run a program' on a computer, or we 'run a process on a
preclear', or the preclear runs a process on charge in his bank. We are
processing the preclear or the preclear's bank, by engaging in a series
of actions which bring about a series of changes in the preclear or his
bank (of charge) to a better end, which is the E/P or End Phenomenon of
the process.

When we say run a process, or run an incident, or run the preclear
on an incident, or simply to run 'an item', we are talking about
applying the appropriate process in the appropriate way to the situation
in order to produce case gain.

An item is any idea, person, place or thing that a preclear might
have charge on.

Mother is an item, so is anger, fear, sorrow or apathy.

Goals are items, to be worthwhile, for example.

An item is just about ANYTHING that might have charge on it, or
lead into an area of charge.

An incident is a period of time when charge was built up with
various items in the incident.

A terminal is a PERSON in the incident or the preclear's life.

Thus the term 'run X' is very broadly used, and generally means 'to
do what is right' to handle X.

One runs a process in until no more change comes from it, or the
preclear has a significant cognition about the item or area being
processed, and is feeling better.

The most basic process is simple to spot the item over and over.

"Spot how you feel about your eternal future."

Or to get the idea of:

"Get the idea of being mortal. Get the idea of being immortal.

For those who are heavily into not-isness, making nothing of charge
via force, denial, and blackness, an item might seem to have no charge
on it or be unapproachable.

So then we add NO AND SOME to the item being run in order to get
the preclear to run out the NOT ISING of the item, then run some of the
item, then the not ising of the item, then some of the item, back and
forth.

"Spot NO sorrow over mother's death."
"Spot SOME sorrow over mother's death."

If the preclear is suffering to death on an item, we add in AND to
really get at what the preclear is doing to drive himself crazy.

"Get the idea of wanting to die forever AND wanting to live forever
at the same time."

Some preclear's may need NO and SOME added into AND!

"Get the idea of NO wanting to die AND wanting to live forever at
the same time"

"Get the idea of SOME wanting to die AND wanting to live forever at
the same time."

Serious charge in the bank has 'tricks' of unavailability to the
preclear's attempt to audit it, and this results in the apparency of
unauditability.

The preclear is a 'nothing there' case.

"Get the idea there is nothing there."
"Get the idea there is something there."

If he is really crazy he is running NOTHING AND SOMETHING,
you gotta run the same thing.

'Get the idea there is nothing there AND something there at the
same time forever.'

Running NO and SOME and AND on the unauditable item is usually
enough to break it open.

He wants to live and die at the same time, but he has not-ised that
to a point where if you say 'Tell me an AND', he will say "What AND?"

So you run,

"Get the idea of NO AND."
"Get the idea of SOME AND."

Assuming he knows what an AND is, 20 minutes of that will pop the
next AND into his face and make it ready to run.

Remember an AND is not an indecision, should I go left,
should I go right. That's an OR, and even though it may never
stop, it doesn't use up all his energy, just all his time :)

An AND is a decision to go BOTH LEFT AND RIGHT, and he puts his
full OT power into doing both and thus goes nowhere while burning his
thetan jets bright white.

If he is running and AND on to look or not look, he will be pushing
infinitely hard to not see, and pulling infinitely hard to see.

This forms a mucky clay in front of his face which eventually
shows up as an impenetrable 'nothing there'.
He can't put his attention in it, on it or around it.

HE DOESN'T HAVE ANY ATTENTION LEFT, its all eaten up by the total
effort to push and pull at the same time.

Or to push left and push right at the same time.

Or whatever, ANDS always involve full power, and FORCE AND EFFORT
against each other to produce no motion and no change.

Fully running out the operating AND's on the case will produce
permanent relief beyond one's wildest imagination. But there are a lot
of them, and they are DEADLY, each and every one, and he has about 20 of
them or more that need to be spotted and run to relief.

He is basically trying to GO AND NOT GO in everything in his life.

Running out ALL ANDS from a case produces a being who is no longer
crazy (by definition), and who can feel and operate smoothly again or
not depending on the color of sunset or the mood of the moment which HE
paints on things, not his craziness.

A being filled with ANDS, is always going AND not going, going AND
not going, 24 hours a day, awake or asleep.

He may be going 51 percent and not going 49 percent, so it might
seem he is moving forward, but he is driving with the brakes on, both
pedals to the metal.

And he's always asking a whole mess of questions he is terrified of
knowing the answers to, TO KNOW AND NOT KNOW, TO LEARN AND NOT LEARN, TO
REMEMBER AND NOT REMEMBER, its just on and on, one creates and lives in
one's own hell by being and doing this way.

You can always tell such a preclear by the smell of smoking brakes
and exhaust that pervades his thetan space :)

Outwardly he will tell you he is a black V, inwardly he is white
hot from self generated friction.

Homer

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth, and Peace, Internet, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com

> Homer,
>
> I read the article on "Unauditabilty" and wondered if you could explain the
> term "run" a little more. I have read this word in your previous articles
> and still do not completely understand what we are doing when we run a
> situation. I get the process of "some" and "none" in a run but what is the
> ultimate goal of the "some" and "none" in the audit? Is the run the
> attempt to alleviate the charge from whatever is being run?

======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Mon Nov 26 20:38:53 EST 2012
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore921.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 v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFQtBmuURT1lqxE3HERAirkAJ9hugCtdwxZ9fBmMaJlYZ1p9fyHOQCgyZCl
BsVxzQ06E1SbxfrherAF+eg=
=gMbX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

UNAUDITABILITY

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

UNAUDITABILITY

This was written on 8/03/1999 but got lost in the system.

The below is complicated, probably more so than it needs to be.

Presently I would run ANDS instead.

MUST NOT KNOW *AND* MUST KNOW at the same time forever.

Homer

> So there are 2 ways - steadily improve your average tone, without worrying
> about
> the small things as they will drop out by themselves. Or have some
> solo tech to apply during the low tone. Do you know any?
> Nothing solo works for me in low tone. This is like cold - you
> have to wait some time before it vanishes by itself. During
> this time you sneeze here and there inevitably. How to
> control low toned condition?

There may be central cores to our cases that are 'unauditable', one
has to wait through them. Try to run 'unauditability' as an item. Also
waiting and enduring.

Remember every item of importance has an anti item.

Future - Anti Future

Get the idea of a future.
Get the idea of an anti future.

etc.

Sometimes the anti items are totally non obvious, but running
them produces *MARKED* results anyhow.

Sovereignty - Anti Sovereignty
Adoration - Anti Adoration
Operation - Anti Operation
Class - Anti Class
Majesty - Anti Majesty
Pride - Anti Pride
Magnificence - Anti Magnificence
Glory - Anti Glory
Source - Anti Source
Respect - Anti Respect
Tragedy - Anti Tragedy
Travesty - Anti Travesty
Ludicrous - Anti Ludicrous
Demise - Anti Demise
Agony - Anti Agony
Ecstasy - Anti Ecstasy
Golden Temper - Anti Golden Temper
Romance - Anti Romance
Thrill - Anti Thrill
Sin Song - Anti Sin Song
Joke - Anti Joke
Imp Soul - Anti Imp Soul
Humor - Anti Humor
Halcyon - Anti Halcyon
High Cool - High Anti Cool
High Friend - High Anti Friend
Miracle - Anti Miracle
King - Anti King

Get used to swinging wide on both sides of the dicoms
that you run into.

If you have an ascension experience, run the descension
experience! If you have a descension experience, run the
ascension experience! They come in pairs.

Don't use opposites like good and bad, use the anti form

Ascension - Anti Ascension
Descension - Anti Descension

Good - Anti Good
Bad - Anti Bad

This isn't a solo process so much as a way to live life and
field the curve balls it is throwing you.

Life - Anti Life

Don't let an important concept go by without running both sides of it,
*DEEPLY* and beyond when you might think it is flat.

Important - Anti Important
Unimportant - Anti Unimportant

Also remember there is not-isness producing a 'No' Item.

No can mean truly not there, but it usually means No at
the bottom of the CDEINR scale. Pretended not there.

No Importance - No Anti Importance

The basic form is

Postulate - Anti Postulate
No Postulate - No Anti Postulate

Take any subject.

Pretty girls.

"Is there a postulate on pretty girls?"
"Is there an anti postulate on pretty girls?"
"is there a no postulate on pretty girls?"
"Is there a no anti postulate on pretty girls?"

You don't have to get *WHAT* the postulate is, you want the FORCE on
both sides of the postulates. The actual what may or may not come to you.
It's the force that you are killing yourself with, particularly the 'no'
part of the force.

Its one thing to be operating postulates and anti postulates and know
it, and quite another to be operating no postulates and no anti postulates
and not know it! Something else is creating the world and our condition
in it right?

Anti postulates are necessary to produce an ongoing space time
game stream, so trying to get rid of anti postulates is fool hardy,
but running them and reoptimzing their balance against the postulates
can work miracles.

You want to get to your car, that's a postulate. But you can't just
get there by wanting it, desire isn't sovereign for a while, you have to
*WALK* to your car. That's an anti postulate.

Most people are unaware of postulates and anti postulates, so they
need to run No Postulate - No Anti Postulate first, until the come up to
recognizing that postulates and anti postulates are all that exist and
cause anything. It's not a head cognition, they *SEE* it all of a sudden,
and they see they are operating both sides of operation and anti operation
and they been anti operating THAT for a long time too!

Try

Source - Anti Source
Sovereign Source - Anti Sovereign Source
Sovereign Anti Source - Anti Sovereign Anti Source

Don't ask 'What the !@#@#% does that mean?'

Run the item, let existence show you what it means. Don't presume to
know. Existence is *WAY BIG*, it has more to offer us than we can know
until we get it. Knowing what there is to know is a covert way of not
knowing what there is to know and how much we don't know.

Also remember Adore defines a Miracle as

The *UNDREAMED* dream come true.

If you know what you want, it ain't no miracle if you get it,
no matter what it is.

What there is to have and get is *WAY* beyond our comprehension in the
not have state, let existence give it to you without knowing what it is
before you have it. That produces havingness that is just out of this
world. It's the undreamed dream come true that results in Joy in Eternal
Miracles.

Miracle - Anti Miracle
No Miracle - No Anti Miracle

JOY is Joke's On You.

Homer

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Nov 26 03:06:02 EST 2012
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore667.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)

iD8DBQFQsyLqURT1lqxE3HERArATAJ0fk5/LeUBwY6cUzHvbw/N5okURdQCeL03h
CUDn9tuDU26YK4P/KQZRohE=
=jQ84
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

OF CESSPOOLS AND COW PIES

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


OF CESSPOOLS AND COW PIES

This is for the true Scners that read a.r.s list in awe of its vile
underbelly.

Some of that vileness comes from truly malignant meatballs, live
once, die once, that its bud.

They are still trying to die forever by pretending they WILL die at
the end of this body's life.

Many meatballs however are intelligent, they WANT to live forever,
but just don't believe it and for good reason if you understand the
structure of the tone scale and its decent, and the many lies of
duality marbled through many religions on this Earth at this time.

But I suspect the vast majority of vileness pretending to be
intelligent skepticism comes from the raging insane Christian asshole.

They can be known by their creed, but you probably have missed it
on many of the posters here on a.r.s. So you think you are talking to a
reasonable skeptic, but in fact are talking to a Devil's demon, fiddling
the Devil's Tune.

Their creed, the Devil's Tune, is pretty simple,

1.) God made us without our consent, and God can destroy us without
their consent.

2.) God then dumped those he made into a meat grinder called the
physical universe, and judges those by how they behave, regardless of
how the good are hammered by the bad.

3.) God only loves those that obey him, and suck up to his Cult of
Personality, Jesus.

4.) Someone else can pay your ticket for you.

5.) Those that God doesn't like or admire, he judges and then sends
to hell to suffer, either forever, or for a while after which he
destroys the whole seething mess.

6.) The sins of 4 score years are worthy of suffering or being
destroyed forever. This God can't or won't figure out how to save
everyone.

7.) All of life is NOT God itself in carnation.

8.) God and Soul are two different objects.

9.) Their Holy Book superceeds direct scientific evidence. They
have a strong tendency to write the Book first, and do the science
second, and then reject the science that disagrees with their Book.

10.) They walk around with a HORRENDOUS case of amnesia,
and claim that because THEY can't remember their past, it
didn't happen, and if YOU remember your past, you are deluded by
the Devil.

11.) You never feel good around these people, because they can not
bond with those they are SURE are going to hell forever. Nor can
they bond with those they think MIGHT go to hell forever, which is
everyone, for there is no way to know if you are saved until
after you die.

12.) So they pray hard, repent hard, sin hard, and go spinning down
the toilet of total irresponsibility for condition.

13.) Their greatest fear of admitting they have lived before,
is their fear they will come back in their next life as a Jew or Muslim.

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 Nov 8 22:49:52 EST 2011

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Nov 23 03:06:02 EST 2012
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore881.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)

iD8DBQFQry5qURT1lqxE3HERAi+QAJ422z7XBMRQhIHVM8LUX7p70hpUogCfZwHm
3EDNNViPOVk8pUD0QZAdNuw=
=uhxx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

DREAM ONE

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


DREAM ONE

I was at someone's house somewhere, somewhen, this wasn't my life,
and we are having a good time.

Suddenly I feel something crawling over my right shoulder and out
of the corner of my right eye I see its legs, it looked like a spider
about the size of a crab.

I looked back at my friend who saw it too, and I said 'These things
don't bite do they?'

I then turned around so I could see my back in a mirror, and the
spider turned out to be a huge beetle with the oversized pincers up
front, and there were hundreds of them of all sizes crawling out from
under my skin on my back and making their way towards my legs and arms.

Pretty soon I am covered with them.

Suddenly a minor flinch or shudder goes through my body, and in
reaction ALL of the beetles bite down hard on my body all over. Total
crushing force everywhere, particularly on my hands and legs.

It was like a massive convulsion of pain.

This lasted about 2 seconds until I consciously released the
flinch, and the beetles let go and went their merry way.

These beetles were big from 1 to 4 inches, and were not poisonous,
like the spiders usually are or the bees, worms and snakes from other
dreams.

As for the flinch it was very tempting to say they bit me first and
I flinched second, there was only a 1/4 second between the two events,
but I could see clearly it was the other way around, I flinched first
and they bit second. Problem was I also saw the flinch was involuntary,
usually I can control the flinch when the bees are walking around in my
ears, but not this time.


DREAM TWO

I am driving down a highway and I notice volcanic fumaroles
starting to blow steam along the sides of the road. As I go along these
are getting greater in number and more insistent.

I finally decide to confront the volcano and take a right hand turn
up a steep hill. We drive up that road for a long time, sparks and foul
smelling gas blowing up all around the car and black char starting to
form on trees and vegetation.

Finally I get to the top, the ground is rumbling and jets are
shooting up everywhere. I walk to the very brim of the volcano and
stand on small ledge on the other side facing the caldera about 2 miles
down.

The caldera is filled with boiling water, with ungodly things
swimming around in it. I thought, you know screw this, I should just
jump in, but I can't stand water I can't see into, flinch is too strong,
I know I would get eaten. Fish with 1000 teeth are worse than beetles.

So I am standing there on this little tiny ledge inside the lip of
the volcano, about 9 feet down from the rim, and the ground starts to
shake and I have NOTHING to hold onto. The ledge is no bigger than my
two feet, all I can do is hold my balance and stand back to the wall,
hoping the volcano doesn't shake me free.

Then the wall and the rock around me starts to grow warm to the
touch and pretty soon I can barely lean back against it, let me tell
you, if you have ever stood on the edge of a building and been afraid of
just falling over for no reason, this was it.

Then a loud voice came out of nowhere and said "It's time to drop
the beings", and I thought to myself, OH God here we go this is OT III!
So I am waiting for them to come out of the sky and dump the beings,
looking forward to the H bomb explosion, anything but the creepy crawly
things, but instead this huge sliding door, it must have been 3 miles
long, opens at the base of the caldera, on the opposite side from me,
just above the level of the water and more ungodly creepy crawly things
are dumped into the steaming water.

I waited and waited, but no beings and no H bomb.

Disappointed I decided I had had enough, and I turned around and
started to make my way back up to the rim of the volcano to the other
side. Although the walls were hot, I knew this was a dream, and I could
stick my hands into the solid rock like it was soft clay, merely by not
flinching about its hardness. I had learned that trick ages ago. I
also commanded the rim to come down a bit to make it more accessible
to me, another trick mastered in my long ago.

When I was out of danger I walked down a little path to a house
where others were waiting, living out their last minutes before the
volcano exploded and I sat down there with them.

It never exploded though and I woke up drenched in giddiness from
the height and fear of falling.

DREAM THREE

I am at some kind of summer camp for grown people, and I notice I
have the ability to move things with my mind.

Usually in these dreams I just get the idea 'Everyone will now take
off their shirts', but this was an all guys camp, so I didn't bother.

I also know I am not supposed to demonstrate these powers, but I
also knew this was a dream so what the hell.

So I start pushing things around, there is a plane in the sky that
is flying along, and I wave at it and it starts to go out of control
coming right for us. My usual joy is to have the plane crash right into
me, but since my revelation that other's might be conscious in my dreams
too, I tend to try and land them properly which I did this time to
everyone's amazement.

Now normally in dreams I can't impress anyone with anything, they
are all dead as, well Jommy Cross, but this time, EVERYONE took notice.

Very serious notice.

Pretty soon there were black helicopters coming out of the sky to
get me, and as one got close I put out my hand causing it to flip and
crash and explode.

As this point I started to understand my life was over, I could
take out one helicopter but not ten or a hundred, and people would be
hounding me and my friends for the rest of my days.

I spent some time trying to figure out how to make it all seem like
a joke so people would forget it, but I realized the jig was up.

I had done it, and they had seen it, and never was it to be
forgotten as some stupid pretense.

As people were crowding in around me, one person was telling me how
foolish I had been to show off my powers, and he asked me what I was
going to do about it?

As thoughts were racing around in my head, I woke up.

By the way over the course of days that these dreams happened they
were interspersed with wonderful dreams about beauty and warm friendship
and the love and joy of holding a child, and way too much sex with way
to young girls.

Zero flinch and zero need to flinch.

Anyhow no need to go into those dreams in detail, wouldn't want to
give the thought police a hard on.

DREAM FOUR

Last night, this was probably the most powerful dream of my life.

I am in an amazing alien city, buildings were massive mile high
edifices stretching to the horizon, made out of silver and stone that
would last forever. I was on a social concourse about half a mile wide
between the left and right hand sides of the street. There was no one
there, no sign of life, it was like the place had just been built.

I am walking down the boulevard, crying my eyes out at how
beautiful and overwhelming the architecture was, and suddenly I notice
that the street is getting warm.

Cracks start to develop, smoke is rising from them, and some of the
stones in the street are glowing red.

I think to myself, Ok, this is it, this whole place is going to go
volcanic any minute. I find myself in bare feet, jumping among the
cooler stones as each one gets hot.

I know I am going to have to confront this one and it is going to
be hard.

Finally there are no more cool stones and I am forced to jump onto
a red hot one. My feet start to burn and I fall to the ground.

The last scene I see my black charred left hand in front of my
face, I know the rest of my body is burned and I am about to go
exterior. My body is now floating on top of a molten street that is
slowly flowing in the direction I had come from, and the huge monolithic
buildings are crumbling all around me.

I woke up.

Homer

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Fri Feb 26 18:17:18 EST 2010

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Nov 22 03:06:02 EST 2012
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore725.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)

iD8DBQFQrdzqURT1lqxE3HERAk+XAJ40jCJi0A1fWebjeaUTGgkKMSPerACeKnen
cI+p0MbBLcFCElOIFv9XSZc=
=4Jns
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

LOGIC OF CLASSES

LOGIC OF CLASSES

The following discussion of logic assumes 3 classes of objects,
Animals, Dogs, and Spaniels.

This can be represented visually by a large circle encompassing all
Animals.

Entirely inside that circle is another smaller circle encompassing
all Dogs.

Entirely inside the circle of Dogs, is yet another smaller circle
encompassing all Spaniels.

Thus all Spaniels are Dogs, and All Dogs are Animals.

This then lays out the rules of logic, for if you say

All Spaniels are Dogs, and all Dogs are Animals, but some Spaniels
are not Animals, what have you said?

Logic thus is the ethics of language.

English has many ways of stating these relationships, the below are
the most used in formal scientific debate.

The words common and unique come from the technical defintion of a
class:

"A class is defined by its pertinent quality set, which is the set
of all qualities that are common and unique (as a group) to the objects
in the class."

Most bad logic comes from misunderstanding and misuse of the unique
column.

COMMON UNIQUE

Dog is common to Spaniels Spaniel is unique to Dogs
All Spaniels are Dogs Only Dogs are Spaniels
Dog is necessary to Spaniel Spaniel is sufficient to Dog
Spaniel implies Dog Not Dog implies not Spaniel
If Spaniel then Dog Only if Dog, then Spaniel
Dog if Spaniel Spaniel only if Dog

Dog is common to Dogs Dog is unique to Dogs
All Dogs are Dogs Only Dogs are Dogs
Dog is necessary to Dog Dog is sufficient to Dog
Dog implies Dog Not Dog implies not Dog
If Dog then Dog Only if Dog, then Dog
Dog if Dog Dog only if Dog

Animal is common to Dogs Dog is unique to Animals
All Dogs are Animals Only Animals are Dogs
Animal is necessary to Dog Dog is sufficient to Animal
Dog implies Animal Not Animal implies not Dog
If Dog then Animal Only if Animal, then Dog
Animal if Dog Dog only if Animal

Homer

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth, and Peace, Internet, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com

SYMBOL AND REFERENT

SYMBOL AND REFERENT

The relation between symbols and referents is important.

A symbol is an object that is used to refer to a referent.

A referent is an object that is refered to by a symbol.

Words, pictures, sounds, anything that is itself an actual object
which is then used to refer to another object is being used as a symbol.

For example there are a new class of airplanes that don't have any
windows for the pilots to see out of them, instead data from the outside
is taken in through cameras and converted to high resolution surround
sound plasma displays in the cockpit.

Thus as the plane flys over a city, the pilot doesn't see the city,
he sees a picture of the city on the plasma display.

The picture of the city is a symbol for the actual city, it carries
data, information and signficance of importance to the pilot about the
actual city below.

Once the pilot gets used to this arrangement he can become very
comfortable considering that the display on the plasma screen IS the
city.

If the display is very good, the illusion that the pilot is looking
through clear glass can be very powerful.

He will point at the display and say "Oh there is the Empire State
Building!"

In his mind the symbol has BECOME the referent.

That is called collapsing symbol and referent.

He forgets he is seeing a symbol for the Empire State Building
rather than the building itself.

Facility with this illusion allows the pilot to concentrate on
flying the plane and not spend mental time translating the symbols he
sees into what is actually on the ground.

However the pilot at no time actually BELIEVES that the display he
sees is in fact the actual city, he knows it is a good illusion born of
making the symbols match the referent with hi fidelity.

In fact the symbols themselves will have qualities and artifacts
that clearly do not belong to the actual city, so once in a while the
pilot will be annoyed by 'flicker' in the picture, which clearly is a
quality of the symbol display and not the city itself.

After a while the pilot can 'filter out' these differences between
symbol and referent and go back to a smooth operating illusion that the
symbol IS the referent.

The fact that the symbols have qualities that the referent does not
is in fact PROOF that the symbol and the referent are two different
objects. Should anyone have any doubt that is. :)

"If A and B are two objects, and A changes but B doesn't, then A
and B are two DIFFERENT objects" - Adorian catechism

Now say someone were to look through the symbol display and become
completely convinced that they were looking through clear glass at the
actual city. Their belief would of course be false, no two ways about
it. Their REALITY is they are looking at the city, the ACTUALITY is
they are looking at a symbol of the city.

Such a person would have fallen into delusion about the illusion,
he no longer believed it WAS an illusion made in symbols, and that then
is his delusion.

When a person believes with complete false conviction that the
symbol is the referent, then we say he is lost in delusion about
illusion.

Notice conviction is not a perfect certainty, conviction is a
theory that one convinces one's self is a perfect certainty for reasons
of vanity.

Now one of the advantages to these cockpits, is pilots can be
trained in similar models on the ground. Again they are surrounded by
high resolution plasma displays, but this time, rather than being
connected by causality to real time cameras bringing in data about the
scenery in the physical universe via photons, they are connected to
video recordings made earlier.

Thus the pilot can practice landing at Kennedy Aiport in New York,
without ever leaving Ottowa Training School.

The cool thing about this arrangement is that the pilot in training
can view the exact same scenery as the actual pilot in the same plane.
Each will say "Oh look at the Empire State building!".

In the actual plane case the symbol on the display screen is
connected in real time to the referent down below, but in the training
case, the symbols are connected to a recording or even a computer
artist's photographic rendition.

It is interesting to note that if the symbol display is really
good, neither pilot can tell if they are in the actual plane or the
trainer! At that point all they have is the symbol display, which looks
identical to both of them as they come in for a landing, and whether the
referent exists or not is irrelevant BECAUSE THERE IS NO WAY FOR THEM TO
FIND OUT!

Now the dim witted can argue, yes but if they crash in the trainer
nothing will happen, but if they crash in the actual plane the
consequences will be dire.

This posting has gone over their heads.

The trainer can be built to explode when crashing.

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

INTRO TO LOGIC corrected

INTRO TO LOGIC

Here follows the first broad public issue of the Machine Certainty
Theorem (MCT).

There are two fundamental aspects to any theorem or proof, the
LOGICAL FORM, and the CONTENT.

The logical form can be expressed with out the content by replacing
the various words and phrases in the proof with variables that have no
meaning. This allows the logical form of the proof to be studied
independent of its actual application.

Once the logical form is verified, then the variables can be
replaced by the meanings they stand for, and application of the proof
with its content can be studied independent of its logical form.

Any proof has at least three parts. The ASSUMPTIONS, the LOGIC,
and the CONCLUSION.

The logical form of the proof consists of all three parts in
abstract variable form, as described above. The content of the proof
also consists of all three parts in the concrete form where all
variables are replaced by their intended meanings.

The Machine Certainty Theorem states that a space-time machine
can't be certain of anything, yet a Conscious Unit can, therefore a
Conscious Unit is not a space-time machine.

Before I get on with the formal presentation of the Machine
Certainty Theory, I would like to provide a small sample proof to
explain the various parts of what you are about to see to those who have
little training in formal logic.

In this case I will work backwards from an actual argument in
concrete CONTENT FORM, to its abstract LOGICAL FORM so that you can see
how the process will be reversed when we get to the actual proof.

Consider the following argument.

1. Joe is a Christian.
2. All Christians believe in Hell.
3. Therefore, Joe believes in Hell.
Q.E.D.

Q.E.D is Latin for Quite Easily Done this is placed at the end of
the proof to demark where the proof ends and that the conclusion has
been proved. (Actually QED stands for Quod Erat Demonstrandum, 'that
which was to be demonstrated'.)

All proofs contain three parts, the ASSUMPTIONS, the LOGIC and the
CONCLUSION. The conclusion is true if and only if the assumptions are
true AND the logic is valid. If either the assumptions are false or the
logic is invalid, then the conclusion may be false (it could still be
true though, you don't know.)

For example, it is clear from the argument above, that if Joe is
not a Christian, or if some Christians don't believe in Hell, then the
conclusion that Joe necessarily believes in Hell becomes indeterminate,
he may or may not.

A properly presented proof would show all three parts, assumptions,
logic, and conclusion, clearly marked so that no confusion could result.

The purpose of first presenting the proof in logic form devoid of
meaningful content is to verify or validate the LOGIC part of the proof.

Once that is accomplished, then the proof must be presented for a
second time in CONTENT form, so that the assumptions and conclusion can
first be UNDERSTOOD and then their truth verified or argued. One first
verifies each of the assumptions in turn. If all of the assumptions
check out to be true, then the conclusion must be true if the logic is
also valid.

One then looks to see if the conclusion actually fits with
actuality. If it does you are finished for the moment. If it turns out
the conclusion is observably false, then either the logic was invalid or
one or more of the assumptions was false.

In the above example, there are two assumptions.

1. Joe is a Christian.
2. All Christians believe in Hell.

There is one conclusion,

3. Joe believes in Hell.

Normally in a more complex proof there would be more statements
in between 2 and 3 which would be partial conclusions on the way to the
final conclusion, but in this case the logic is so simple we go directly
from lines 1 and 2 to line 3 with a logical form called Modus Ponens.

Modus Ponens is a fancy Latin phrase meaning 'If A implies B, and A
is true, then B is true too.' (Actually Modus Ponens means 'Mode that
affirms')

For example, 'If being a dog implies being an animal, and Joey is a
Dog, then Joey is an animal.

Modus Ponens can be compared to Modus Tolens, another fancy Latin
phrase meaning 'If A implies B and B is false, then A is false.'
(Actually Modus Tolens means 'mode that denies'.)

For example, "If being a dog implies being an animal, and Jane is
not an animal, then Jane is not a dog."

Notice that if Jane IS an animal, one cannot tell if Jane is a dog
or not, because it is NOT true that if A implies B, then B implies A!

1. "Joe is a Christian" can be symbolized as "J -> C" which says
"If it's Joe, then it's a Christian", or "Being Joe implies being a
Christian", or more simply, "Joe implies Christian".

2. "All Christians believe in Hell" can be symbolized as "C -> H"
which says, "If it's a Christian then it believes in Hell", or "Being a
Christian implies Believing in Hell", or just "Christian implies Hell".

3. "Joe believes in Hell" can be symbolized as "J -> H" which
says, "If it's Joe, then it believes in Hell" or "Being Joe implies
Believing in Hell", or "Joe implies Hell".

We can thus symbolize the entire argument as follows, and this is
its logical form.

We explain each part in the section below the proof.

************************************************************************

LOGICAL FORM OF THE PROOF

1. J -> C (Being Joe implies being Christian)
2. C -> H (Being Christian implies Believing in Hell)

(1,2)[A] 3. J -> H (Being Joe implies Believing in Hell)

Q.E.D

(M.P.) A. (A -> B) and (B -> C)) -> (A -> C)

************************************************************************

In the above example there are two assumptions, lines 1 and 2, and
one conclusion, line 3.

The '(1,2)[A]' to the left of line 3 denotes that line 3 was
derived from lines 1 and 2 using Logical Form A which is shown at the
bottom of the proof below the Q.E.D. The particular Logical Form in
this case is Modus Ponens, which is denoted by (M.P.) to the left of the
same line.

Not all logical forms have formal names, and if not, the name or
its abbreviation is left out.

So how does one go about checking this proof out?

1.) Well the first thing that needs to be done is to check out and
verify all the Logical Forms shown below the Q.E.D, as these are the
extracted GENERALIZED statements of the LOGIC part of the proof that
gets you from the assumptions to the conclusion.

2.) The next thing to do is to familiarize yourself with the
assumptions and the conclusion.

3.) The next thing to do is to verify each step between the
assumptions and the conclusion to see that indeed the GENERAL Logical
Forms stated below Q.E.D are used correctly in their SPECIFIC
application to each step of the proof between the assumptions and the
conclusion.

The GENERAL Logical Forms will usually be stated in generic
variables like A, B and C which have nothing to do with the proof.

The assumptions and the conclusion and the SPECIFIC USES of the
General Logical Forms will usually be stated in letters that relate to
their content, such as J, C and H (Joe, Christian and Hell).

Thus one needs to be able to see that the SPECIFIC use of a
particular Logical Form parallels the GENERAL use of the same form to
know that the general form has been used correctly.

For example,

GENERAL ((A -> B) and (B -> C)) -> (A -> C)
SPECIFIC ((J -> C) and (C -> H)) -> (J -> H)

Where ever there is an A in the general form there had better be a
J in the specific form. Where ever there is a B in the general form
there had better be an C in the specific form. And where ever there is
a C in the general form there had better be an H in the specific form.

Don't get the C in the GENERAL form confused with the C in the
SPECIFIC form. They are unrelated and are the same letter only by
coincidence. In the general form the C doesn't stand for anything, it
is merely a place holder. In the specific form the C stands for
Christian and corresponds to the PLACE HOLDER B in the general form!

Now at this point it should be possible to say with perfect
certainty that the proof is either logically valid or not.

There is no such thing as an uncertain proof. Either it is valid
or it is not valid. This can be determined with perfect certainty
before anything else is known about the meaning of the variables in the
proof.

Remember though that just because a proof has been prooven valid,
this does not mean that the conclusion is necessarily true. This would
also depend on the assumptions being true, and determining the truth of
the assumptions, not the validity of the logic, comprises the main body
of work in verifying the conclusion of a proof.

Verifying the validity of the logic of the proof is the first and
easiest step and by this time in the analysis should be satisfactorily
completed.

So that was a lot of work, no? But, as I said, we are not done
yet.

Once the logic form of the proof has been verified completely as we
have just done, you next need to verify the CONTENT form of the proof.

This is done by replacing each specific variable in the proof with
its English equivalent so that you can see what each of the assumptions
and the conclusion actually say.

This is done first by providing a little table that shows what
each variable means, like so.

J = Joe
C = Christian
H = Hell

Then you plug them in and you get the following.

************************************************************************

CONTENT FORM OF THE PROOF

J = Joe
C = Christian
H = Hell

1. Joe -> Christian
2. Christian -> Hell

(1,2)[A] 3. Joe -> Hell

Q.E.D

(M.P.) A. ((A -> B) and (B -> C)) -> (A -> C)

************************************************************************

This provides a rather sparse and pared down version of what the
proof is about, but it serves to convey the meaning of each of the
lines.

The last step would be to take up each line of the proof and expand
it into a grammatically correct full English sentence and discuss it at
length.

Discussion of the assumptions would involve not only their
meaning, but also evidence that they are true.

In general there are 4 kinds of assumptions.

1.) Logical Tautologies.
2.) Definitions
3.) Observations
4.) Intuitions

LOGICAL TAUTOLOGIES are always true because of their inherent
logical structure. An example of a logical tautology would be,

1.) Christian or not Christian

A full english expansion of this might be,

1.) Joe is either a Christian or not a Christian.

You have to be careful when presenting such tautologies to make
sure that your words are defined in such a way that the tautology is
true. If someone has a sloppy or fuzzy definition of what it means to
be a Christian, then it might be possible to be both a Christian and not
a Christian! But really he would be changing meanings in mid sentence,
so its a good idea to set rigorous definitions of your words that
everyone can agree on before you start an argument or proof like this
one.

DEFINITIONS are statements that are true by definition.

An example might be,

1. All Christians believe in Christ, if they don't believe in
Christ then they are not real Christians.

Such a statement is true only because we say it is true, it has no
other basis. There may be other people who don't believe in Christ who
none the less wish to be called Christians. This is not a problem, you
have the right to define your words how ever you wish, just remember
that what you are calling a Christian may not include others who call
themselves Christians. They will no doubt complain, but their
complaints will be irrelevant to your proof.

If you wish to define your words in some other way, that is fine,
just make sure that everyone knows what YOUR definitions are before you
proceed.

OBSERVATIONS are statements that are true by observation.

1. Some Christians go to Church on Sunday.

It's true because it's true, go out and LOOK for yourself. It's
not true by LOGICAL TAUTOLOGY, and it's not true by definition, it's
true because someone went out and measured the phenomenon and reported
back what he found.

The certainty level of a observation is dependent on how many vias
you use to make that observation, how many levels of symbols refering
to referents before you come to the actual thing being observed. A
person who is using radio telescope data to determine the temperature of
some planet circling a sun 4 galaxies away, is on far less certain
grounds, than someone looking at a thermometer in his back yard.
Someone who goes out and just feels that it is hot outside is in even
more direct contact.

Observations of the external physical universe however can never be
perfectly certain because all observers are using effects in themselves
to make conclusions about what must be out there.

In this sense, 'making an observation' means 'to be the effect of
an external cause' and THEN to logically compute back in time to what
that cause might be like in order to have had the effect that one
received.

That one received an effect might be a certainty, but the nature of
what caused that effect can not be determined from the nature of the
effect alone.

This 'computing back from later effects to earlier causes' is
always an uncertain process, because effects 'here' do not prove
anything about cause 'there'. One can merely create a 'causal model'
and hope for a dependable but uncertain world view.

Observations of one's own conscious color forms, though, CAN be
perfectly certain. If you see a color form mockup of red and green in
front of you, there can be no denying that you see it. Anything it
might be USED TO REPRESENT to you in the external universe might be
uncertain, but the existence of the color form itself is certain.

INTUITIONS are statements which one feels to be true because it
violates some inner sense of propriety to think they aren't. This of
course doesn't mean that they are true, but it does mean that if you can
get agreement among a number of people who have the same sense of
intuition, then you can proceed with your proof as if your intuitions
were true, recognizing that the truth of the conclusion is only as as
certain as the truth of your intuition.

Even if you can't get agreement among others about intuitions, you
can still have your proof to yourself and be satisfied with it as far as
it goes.

As an example of an intuition,

Something can't come from nothing.

Any given proof will have assumptions that consist of mixtures of
the above 4 kinds of 'truths'. It is often enlightening to actually
state next to each assumption which kind of truth it is.

For example,

A something is an object with a non empty quality set. DEFINITION
An nothing is an object with an empty quality set. DEFINITION

0.) An object is either a something or a nothing LOGICAL
1.) Something can't come from nothing INTUITION
2.) Something exists now. OBSERVATION

Q.E.D. 3.) Something must have always existed. (conclusion)

In closing I would like to add that it is not clear that every
argument can be put into such simple terms as I have laid out here, or
that every assumption can be divided into the above 4 categories.
Sometimes its takes an enormous reworking of the WORDING of an argument
to make it conform to the simpler rules of logic. The English language
is very complex and the simple Logical Form is often lost in more poetic
forms of argument.

People in fact will often try to hide bad logic in the complex
nuances of the language, which is why it is important to break arguments
down into raw logical form.

However for the purposes of the Machine Certainty Theorem, the
above discussion is relatively complete and satisfactory.

The Machine Certainty Theory is VERY SIMPLE, so simple in fact that
once you get it, it will be a BIG DOWN, because you will have been
expecting all these fireworks to go off in your brain once you realize
this 'Great Eternal Truth' of the ages.

Your actual reaction will be more like, 'Duh, so what else is new.'

However it is the application of the MCT to consciousness that will
give you something to think about.

Machines can't be certain of anything, consciousness can.

Finally, I would like to remind you of a wise old saying.

"At first they said it wasn't true.
Then they said it wasn't important.
Then they said they knew it all along.
Which was true."

Well, the guy who said that, was talking about the Machine
Certainty Theorem, which is the grand daddy of all truths that people
argue about with you until they convince themselves they showed it to
YOU in the first place!

At that point you know they got it.

Homer

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth, and Peace, Internet, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com