-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
CB Willis (cbwillis@adore.lightlink.com) wrote:
>Nor does creation automatic lack of persistence. Persistence is relative
>anyhow, how long does it persist. No worldly thing is going to persist
>indefinitely, but when we build a building or a car, ideally we want it
>to last as long as possible rather than fall apart quickly.
You have 'falling apart' confused with destruction or vanishment.
Falling apart merely destroys the relationship between parts,
none of the parts are actually destroyed or vanished.
>> The way a God gets a creation to persist is he adds lies to it,
>>added significance that alters the purity of its original pristine
>>creation.
>Great, let's add some lies to this building as we build it, so it will
>persist longer.
Again you have creation confused with building things out of
already created parts.
>Makes NO sense at all, by ANY definition of "lies".
>The actual built building may be fractionally off here and there from the
>ideal blueprint, but it's not the part that's fractionally off that allows
>it to persist well.
Building a building is not an act of creation, it is an act of
putting together parts already created. What creation remains in the
building is in the relation of the parts not in the EXISTENCE of the
parts.
Carol after all these years you really and truely still haven't a
clue what Scn is saying.
After all the upsets you have suffered aligning with things that
later turned out to be different than you imagined, I can only say
that you seem to have an alter-is factory going in that you CHANGE
what is said into what you think you believe in such a way that you
will often be let down when the truth hits home to you.
Its almost like you WANT to agree so much that you reinterpret
other's words to mean the same as your own only later to be confused
why you are rejected.
Looking to Scn to see how it is the same as anything you have
known before is a deadly dangerous waste of your life energy.
Scn does not validate any existing prior belief set, and should
not be used to do so.
If anything, I would err on the side of saying that Scn invalidates
any and all prior existing beliefs.
Homer
Sun Aug 20 21:11:26 EDT 2006
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Feb 10 12:00:02 EST 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore371.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)
iD8DBQFafyUTURT1lqxE3HERAqERAKCcxX2E3sElN0hwZXl9W4U1DznlKACeMMCX
UpdPHS/ZdDfV1HV5ZYd7xCA=
=5xG2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Sunday, February 11, 2018
SESSION4 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
MODEL AUDITING
X. wrote:
>Let's "what if" a little. What if this really is a prison planet like some
>believe?
Recent visions indicate something on the order of this might be
true, although 'prison' sort of understates it, immortal tomb might be
more like it.
>And the process necessary to get out of the prison planet is to
>run the process called life.
I agree that 'life' is a process on the order of a CCH, 'you look
at that ..., you deal with it!'
However many people such as myself are almost 100 percent out of
valence, in the tomb so to speak.
The primary effort is to not know something so hard we no longer
know we are not knowing it. Having just lifted myself one micro
angstrom above the stone slab I call myself, I have some reality on this
at the moment. Don't know what I am not knowing, but man I sure know I
am not knowing, and I can SEE how the breaking of the tomb causes the
pain I am in.
So the problem is, in the meantime, I am not in valence, I am being
something 'else' than myself, so what I am, where I am, what I am doing,
being and wanting, is all a shab substitute for what I really am, should
be doing, wanting and being.
The life of a zombie in a grave is not the same as the life of a
living being in free space.
My whole life is so off course, I can't even remember where I was
originally going, or what I was originally capable of.
So that leaves me running a 'life' that is actually productive of
very little case gain, its mostly a grind, because its not my real life,
its a substitute.
This sham of a life has accumulated losses, engrams, oppositions,
problems, overts, withholds etc, which when audited only make me worse
because its making a false life better. The stronger I get, the more
the tomb cracks, the worse the pain, suffocation, sensitivity to fumes,
hoplessness and despair, etc.
It's like I got into auditing wanting to get out of my wooden
coffin, but now I see that I got a whole fucking pyramid on top of me.
>Auditing and processing veers off from the
>person actually doing the process "life" because there are parts of life
>that are difficult to confront. So if I am not "in PT" when I do the
>dishes, I might miss getting food off, scald myself with the hot water, or
>cut myself on the glasses. Do I need to go have someone run book and
>bottle for 25 hours? For a long time, I thought so. But no, I need to do
>what I am doing while I am doing it, I need to wash the dishes when I am
>washing the dishes, I need to do the process that is life, live it while I
>am living it.
At some level this makes sense, but if life alone were enough to
release a soul into salvation we would have all been saved a long time
ago. Only deepest apathy thinks things are fine as they are.
Life can be lived with true communication or false communication,
it is the intent and direction of auditing to get the person to stop
living the false life and start living the true life.
Just like trying to not know so hard we don't know we are doing it
any more, we can live a dead life and not know it any more, cuz we are
dead but still moving.
A guy gets up in the morning, walks out into the sunshine,
stretches his arms, smells the roses, and feels "Ah what a wonderful
day" and he thinks he is alive. No, he is dead, perhaps having a near
life experience.
He is living the dead life and thinking it is the alive life,
certainly the only life there is or could be for him.
If a person is being careful and watching themselves while they
cook, this is a good thing, but if they are doing it while sustaining a
false life, in the end the ship is sinking anyhow, and whatever gain
they get from running the CCH's of cooking diligently will be washed
away in the torrent when the ship goes under.
It's like I get up in the morning, I answer all the phone calls,
get people on line, take care of my machines and services, follow my
duties religiously, make a lot of money, expand with more business than
I can handle, and you know what, every single night when I go to bed I
am more empty than empty can be.
I wake up in the morning, and I feel a despair like "Oh my God I am
on death row, and my scheduled execution is next week."
Why is this? Lack of Jesus? Undoutedly. But more to the point:
"I AM NOT AN INTERNET SERVICE PRODIVER!"
You see, I am trying to wake up as a square peg in a round hole.
It takes 3 hours *EVERY SINGLE MORNING* before I can release the
despair and nausea and suffocation of sleep before I can feel "Oh whew,
I am just in prison, and my parole is in 40 years, and I got the best
prison job on the planet, let's get to it!"
Well how come I am so damn good at being an ISP then?
Because I run the CCH's of life on what I got, but its cooking in
the tomb in the end, its not getting out of the tomb.
I got the best prison job on the planet, making lots of money,
people love me, they call me 'God' to my face, I got all the free time
in the world to audit and get auditing, I can work when I want and not
work when I want, I work at home, never have to go anywhere or answer to
anybody, I got people falling over themselves to work for me.
But no I am not going to die a happy man, I am going to die
starving to death, in every conceivable meaning of the word.
And I hate every god damn second of it.
But its all I am, its everything I have, I AM this thing, and its
false. So auditing this thing is a waste of time except to the end of
cleaning up the problems I might have making it harder than it needs to
be.
Then we gotta get down to brass tacks and start auditing the being
still lying in its mausoleum. But that being is *DEAD* and doesn't even
know it!
That being will make you dinner, dance with you, screw with you,
pay you for auditing, be charming, witty, even show some shallow head
talk understanding of what condition it is in, it certainly isn't going
to help you, it has no effort of its own to help with, except to
dramatize overwhelming itself into total not know about overwhelming
itself, and being charming and civilized in the process.
So how you going to audit it? Run 'you look at that wall!'? The
wall that it needs to look at is not the tomb wall it can see, because
it can't see the real tomb wall any more, its a 'no tomb' case.
It knows there is a wall, but ITS GOT NO CLUE, you tell it to look
at the tomb wall, and it just won't look at the wall that needs to be
looked at BECAUSE IT CAN'T.
And as for whether Homer wants to be helped or not, just ask Enid.
You are right I don't want to be saved by those that are not
themselves saved but who think they are. I don't want to be helped to
be more able to wash the walls of the tomb.
Having seen (finally) the unbelievable enormity of the undertaking
I have started out on, I am willing to accept all the help I can get.
However self complacent fools need not apply.
As for earlier similars, there are earlier BIGGERS. Going back
life after life after life of the same old same old might work, and it
might not, probably won't unless it gets into the BIGGERS.
But the charge on birth *DEFINITELY* inter tangles with charge on
mortal death, which *DEFINITELY* inter tangles with the charge on
IMMORTAL death, which *DEFINITELY inter tangles with something even
bigger and badder that is *UTTERLY* beyond me and which I do not have
*PERMISSION* to run yet.
Auditing Permission / No permission is quite productive.
But in the end its all now, and the bigger it gets, the less
*earlier* it becomes, so one eventually has to outgrow the model, and
get down to running the charge because once the mind is gone, there *IS*
no model, all there is, is a free being mocking up stupid models to
entomb itself with.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Feb 9 12:00:03 EST 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/session4.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)
iD8DBQFafdOTURT1lqxE3HERAmhzAKCXXgQhWO8PEf3fNtPXIOYGT+ezMgCfQaSO
A94rS/PE4bVSd1A+WBfmUjA=
=BXkT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
MODEL AUDITING
X. wrote:
>Let's "what if" a little. What if this really is a prison planet like some
>believe?
Recent visions indicate something on the order of this might be
true, although 'prison' sort of understates it, immortal tomb might be
more like it.
>And the process necessary to get out of the prison planet is to
>run the process called life.
I agree that 'life' is a process on the order of a CCH, 'you look
at that ..., you deal with it!'
However many people such as myself are almost 100 percent out of
valence, in the tomb so to speak.
The primary effort is to not know something so hard we no longer
know we are not knowing it. Having just lifted myself one micro
angstrom above the stone slab I call myself, I have some reality on this
at the moment. Don't know what I am not knowing, but man I sure know I
am not knowing, and I can SEE how the breaking of the tomb causes the
pain I am in.
So the problem is, in the meantime, I am not in valence, I am being
something 'else' than myself, so what I am, where I am, what I am doing,
being and wanting, is all a shab substitute for what I really am, should
be doing, wanting and being.
The life of a zombie in a grave is not the same as the life of a
living being in free space.
My whole life is so off course, I can't even remember where I was
originally going, or what I was originally capable of.
So that leaves me running a 'life' that is actually productive of
very little case gain, its mostly a grind, because its not my real life,
its a substitute.
This sham of a life has accumulated losses, engrams, oppositions,
problems, overts, withholds etc, which when audited only make me worse
because its making a false life better. The stronger I get, the more
the tomb cracks, the worse the pain, suffocation, sensitivity to fumes,
hoplessness and despair, etc.
It's like I got into auditing wanting to get out of my wooden
coffin, but now I see that I got a whole fucking pyramid on top of me.
>Auditing and processing veers off from the
>person actually doing the process "life" because there are parts of life
>that are difficult to confront. So if I am not "in PT" when I do the
>dishes, I might miss getting food off, scald myself with the hot water, or
>cut myself on the glasses. Do I need to go have someone run book and
>bottle for 25 hours? For a long time, I thought so. But no, I need to do
>what I am doing while I am doing it, I need to wash the dishes when I am
>washing the dishes, I need to do the process that is life, live it while I
>am living it.
At some level this makes sense, but if life alone were enough to
release a soul into salvation we would have all been saved a long time
ago. Only deepest apathy thinks things are fine as they are.
Life can be lived with true communication or false communication,
it is the intent and direction of auditing to get the person to stop
living the false life and start living the true life.
Just like trying to not know so hard we don't know we are doing it
any more, we can live a dead life and not know it any more, cuz we are
dead but still moving.
A guy gets up in the morning, walks out into the sunshine,
stretches his arms, smells the roses, and feels "Ah what a wonderful
day" and he thinks he is alive. No, he is dead, perhaps having a near
life experience.
He is living the dead life and thinking it is the alive life,
certainly the only life there is or could be for him.
If a person is being careful and watching themselves while they
cook, this is a good thing, but if they are doing it while sustaining a
false life, in the end the ship is sinking anyhow, and whatever gain
they get from running the CCH's of cooking diligently will be washed
away in the torrent when the ship goes under.
It's like I get up in the morning, I answer all the phone calls,
get people on line, take care of my machines and services, follow my
duties religiously, make a lot of money, expand with more business than
I can handle, and you know what, every single night when I go to bed I
am more empty than empty can be.
I wake up in the morning, and I feel a despair like "Oh my God I am
on death row, and my scheduled execution is next week."
Why is this? Lack of Jesus? Undoutedly. But more to the point:
"I AM NOT AN INTERNET SERVICE PRODIVER!"
You see, I am trying to wake up as a square peg in a round hole.
It takes 3 hours *EVERY SINGLE MORNING* before I can release the
despair and nausea and suffocation of sleep before I can feel "Oh whew,
I am just in prison, and my parole is in 40 years, and I got the best
prison job on the planet, let's get to it!"
Well how come I am so damn good at being an ISP then?
Because I run the CCH's of life on what I got, but its cooking in
the tomb in the end, its not getting out of the tomb.
I got the best prison job on the planet, making lots of money,
people love me, they call me 'God' to my face, I got all the free time
in the world to audit and get auditing, I can work when I want and not
work when I want, I work at home, never have to go anywhere or answer to
anybody, I got people falling over themselves to work for me.
But no I am not going to die a happy man, I am going to die
starving to death, in every conceivable meaning of the word.
And I hate every god damn second of it.
But its all I am, its everything I have, I AM this thing, and its
false. So auditing this thing is a waste of time except to the end of
cleaning up the problems I might have making it harder than it needs to
be.
Then we gotta get down to brass tacks and start auditing the being
still lying in its mausoleum. But that being is *DEAD* and doesn't even
know it!
That being will make you dinner, dance with you, screw with you,
pay you for auditing, be charming, witty, even show some shallow head
talk understanding of what condition it is in, it certainly isn't going
to help you, it has no effort of its own to help with, except to
dramatize overwhelming itself into total not know about overwhelming
itself, and being charming and civilized in the process.
So how you going to audit it? Run 'you look at that wall!'? The
wall that it needs to look at is not the tomb wall it can see, because
it can't see the real tomb wall any more, its a 'no tomb' case.
It knows there is a wall, but ITS GOT NO CLUE, you tell it to look
at the tomb wall, and it just won't look at the wall that needs to be
looked at BECAUSE IT CAN'T.
And as for whether Homer wants to be helped or not, just ask Enid.
You are right I don't want to be saved by those that are not
themselves saved but who think they are. I don't want to be helped to
be more able to wash the walls of the tomb.
Having seen (finally) the unbelievable enormity of the undertaking
I have started out on, I am willing to accept all the help I can get.
However self complacent fools need not apply.
As for earlier similars, there are earlier BIGGERS. Going back
life after life after life of the same old same old might work, and it
might not, probably won't unless it gets into the BIGGERS.
But the charge on birth *DEFINITELY* inter tangles with charge on
mortal death, which *DEFINITELY* inter tangles with the charge on
IMMORTAL death, which *DEFINITELY inter tangles with something even
bigger and badder that is *UTTERLY* beyond me and which I do not have
*PERMISSION* to run yet.
Auditing Permission / No permission is quite productive.
But in the end its all now, and the bigger it gets, the less
*earlier* it becomes, so one eventually has to outgrow the model, and
get down to running the charge because once the mind is gone, there *IS*
no model, all there is, is a free being mocking up stupid models to
entomb itself with.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Feb 9 12:00:03 EST 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/session4.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)
iD8DBQFafdOTURT1lqxE3HERAmhzAKCXXgQhWO8PEf3fNtPXIOYGT+ezMgCfQaSO
A94rS/PE4bVSd1A+WBfmUjA=
=BXkT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
PROOF0 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
In article <TCPSMTP.17.8.7.1.2.40.3049247713.3118113@mpc.metrobbs.com> you wrote:
>Hmm, I tried to post something to clear-l yesterday, but I don't think
>it made it. Here's most of what I sent:
>Thanks to all who responded to my message. Hi Christine :)
>Ok, Homer, I went back and read through your mct files more carefully,
>and I have some thoughts and questions for you.
>First of all, I don't see that I have certainty that I am able to cause
>something. The only thing I have 100% certainty of is that I am
>experiencing (feeling, seeing, hearing, whatever). I seem to be able to
>cause things, but I am not 100% certain that I really am causing them.
>You made some statements to the effect that... if I am seeing the color
>blue (visualizing it, for example, so we don't have to worry about
>photons. although I myself can't really visualize), then the color
>which I created is causing me to see it, or to know that I am seeing it,
>or some such thing. Frankly, I didn't find this statement to make much
>sense. I know that I am experiencing the color blue, but I am not
>certain what is causing this experience. I'm not even sure what an
>experience really is. I certaintly don't see that some portion of what
>I am experiencing is causing anything. Maybe this should be obvious to
>me but I'm just not getting it, for some reason. Could you explain this
>to me a bit better?
>Stark@Masterpiece.com
The proof admits to 2 flows of cause as the only cause that a
unit can be certain of.
The first is an outflow, the second is an inflow.
The outflow is one of personal agency, personal responsibility.
This the outward creative cause between the spirit, his desire,
and the creation of what he desires.
Desire to move your arm. Move it. Notice the causal connection
between you, your desire and the movement of your arm.
Desire to make a mockup. Make the mockup. Notice the causal
connection between you, your desire and the mockup.
Self -> Desire -> Mockup
There is a lot of mass in the way of perceiving the cause of
personal agency, so don't just try it a few times and get fuzzed out.
Do it until you get perfect certainty of personal agency.
The second flow of cause is the inflow of perception of the
desired mockup.
The inflow cause allows you to check out that you really did
create what you wanted to. Without cause and effect there can not be
any learning. The only way to learn if a mockup is what you wanted it
to be, is to look at it and be the effect of its cause on you. The
ONLY cause it has on you is to cause you to perceive its color, shape
and form. This is the self luminousness of conscious pictures.
So there are two flows.
The first is the creative outward flow that creates a conscious
pictures the second is the inward "checking out" flow that allows us
to check out that what we wanted to create was actually created.
You should operate and practice as an auditing action, both
flows.
Desire to make a mockup, determine what it will be, make it, and
then check out that what appeared is or is not as you wanted it. You
can do this even if you 'can't make mockups' because you can verify
that it DIDN'T turn out as you wanted it to be. You can also use more
gross mockups like moving your arm or saying words, things you can do.
As you do this process, want - make - verify, want - make -
verify pay special attention to the direct exerience of the two flows
of cause.
As you desire and make a mockup ask, "Why did this mockup appear?
Is its appearance related to my desire, or is it a happenstance that
it happened to appear just as I wanted it to."
Then after the mockup appears, look at the process of verifying
that what appeared is what you wanted. Look at HOW YOU KNOW, notice
that there is cause in the process of perception, the perceived is
causing you to perceive: without cause in the mockup causing you to
perceive, you would never perceive the mockup or be able to verify it.
The ONLY cause a mockup has is the ability to cause a self to
perceive them.
Get this process moving fast, want - make - verify, and notice
the flow of cause out and in, out and in, until the power starts to
break open on you. You will know when it hits. All the bullshit will
fall away, and you will have perfect certainty of the two causes
again.
Then, and only then, will you know you are not a machine.
All learning needs cause and effect to function, without cause,
there is no learning, you can't learn about what doesn't cause
anything in you.
If something has NO effect on you, you can not learn anything
about it whatsoever.
This is the first statement of The Proof.
You HAVE to have cause and effect for any learning to take place,
there has to be agency for a transfer of knowledge to take place.
Machines however learn by looking at the effects, they can not
look at causes.
Conscious units can also look at cause directly, namely the two
causes described above, personal agency and verification of result via
perception.
The way you know you are looking at cause is you can see the
cause there, you can ask "Is there cause here in this process or
merely convenient dependable followingness?"
A conscious unit can see the cause between desire and mockup, and
between the mockup and his certainty it is as he wanted it, a machine
can only see effects, it has no idea if there is cause.
This is a non trivial exercise, it is beyond most Earthlings at
this time.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Feb 8 12:00:03 EST 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/proof0.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)
iD8DBQFafIITURT1lqxE3HERAmUTAJ4qJO6ZJ3BBC6YSE7S4Cw3F7YwFPQCgzECm
kbcZqVUYW5XUCPPlcWrbJX0=
=CYg4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
In article <TCPSMTP.17.8.7.1.2.40.3049247713.3118113@mpc.metrobbs.com> you wrote:
>Hmm, I tried to post something to clear-l yesterday, but I don't think
>it made it. Here's most of what I sent:
>Thanks to all who responded to my message. Hi Christine :)
>Ok, Homer, I went back and read through your mct files more carefully,
>and I have some thoughts and questions for you.
>First of all, I don't see that I have certainty that I am able to cause
>something. The only thing I have 100% certainty of is that I am
>experiencing (feeling, seeing, hearing, whatever). I seem to be able to
>cause things, but I am not 100% certain that I really am causing them.
>You made some statements to the effect that... if I am seeing the color
>blue (visualizing it, for example, so we don't have to worry about
>photons. although I myself can't really visualize), then the color
>which I created is causing me to see it, or to know that I am seeing it,
>or some such thing. Frankly, I didn't find this statement to make much
>sense. I know that I am experiencing the color blue, but I am not
>certain what is causing this experience. I'm not even sure what an
>experience really is. I certaintly don't see that some portion of what
>I am experiencing is causing anything. Maybe this should be obvious to
>me but I'm just not getting it, for some reason. Could you explain this
>to me a bit better?
>Stark@Masterpiece.com
The proof admits to 2 flows of cause as the only cause that a
unit can be certain of.
The first is an outflow, the second is an inflow.
The outflow is one of personal agency, personal responsibility.
This the outward creative cause between the spirit, his desire,
and the creation of what he desires.
Desire to move your arm. Move it. Notice the causal connection
between you, your desire and the movement of your arm.
Desire to make a mockup. Make the mockup. Notice the causal
connection between you, your desire and the mockup.
Self -> Desire -> Mockup
There is a lot of mass in the way of perceiving the cause of
personal agency, so don't just try it a few times and get fuzzed out.
Do it until you get perfect certainty of personal agency.
The second flow of cause is the inflow of perception of the
desired mockup.
The inflow cause allows you to check out that you really did
create what you wanted to. Without cause and effect there can not be
any learning. The only way to learn if a mockup is what you wanted it
to be, is to look at it and be the effect of its cause on you. The
ONLY cause it has on you is to cause you to perceive its color, shape
and form. This is the self luminousness of conscious pictures.
So there are two flows.
The first is the creative outward flow that creates a conscious
pictures the second is the inward "checking out" flow that allows us
to check out that what we wanted to create was actually created.
You should operate and practice as an auditing action, both
flows.
Desire to make a mockup, determine what it will be, make it, and
then check out that what appeared is or is not as you wanted it. You
can do this even if you 'can't make mockups' because you can verify
that it DIDN'T turn out as you wanted it to be. You can also use more
gross mockups like moving your arm or saying words, things you can do.
As you do this process, want - make - verify, want - make -
verify pay special attention to the direct exerience of the two flows
of cause.
As you desire and make a mockup ask, "Why did this mockup appear?
Is its appearance related to my desire, or is it a happenstance that
it happened to appear just as I wanted it to."
Then after the mockup appears, look at the process of verifying
that what appeared is what you wanted. Look at HOW YOU KNOW, notice
that there is cause in the process of perception, the perceived is
causing you to perceive: without cause in the mockup causing you to
perceive, you would never perceive the mockup or be able to verify it.
The ONLY cause a mockup has is the ability to cause a self to
perceive them.
Get this process moving fast, want - make - verify, and notice
the flow of cause out and in, out and in, until the power starts to
break open on you. You will know when it hits. All the bullshit will
fall away, and you will have perfect certainty of the two causes
again.
Then, and only then, will you know you are not a machine.
All learning needs cause and effect to function, without cause,
there is no learning, you can't learn about what doesn't cause
anything in you.
If something has NO effect on you, you can not learn anything
about it whatsoever.
This is the first statement of The Proof.
You HAVE to have cause and effect for any learning to take place,
there has to be agency for a transfer of knowledge to take place.
Machines however learn by looking at the effects, they can not
look at causes.
Conscious units can also look at cause directly, namely the two
causes described above, personal agency and verification of result via
perception.
The way you know you are looking at cause is you can see the
cause there, you can ask "Is there cause here in this process or
merely convenient dependable followingness?"
A conscious unit can see the cause between desire and mockup, and
between the mockup and his certainty it is as he wanted it, a machine
can only see effects, it has no idea if there is cause.
This is a non trivial exercise, it is beyond most Earthlings at
this time.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Feb 8 12:00:03 EST 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/proof0.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)
iD8DBQFafIITURT1lqxE3HERAmUTAJ4qJO6ZJ3BBC6YSE7S4Cw3F7YwFPQCgzECm
kbcZqVUYW5XUCPPlcWrbJX0=
=CYg4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Tuesday, February 6, 2018
ECO19
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
INVESTMENT, ROI AND CHARITY
There is nothing wrong with investing in people.
Every parent does it to their child as long as there is an
expectation of return on investment (ROI), which means the child we
invest in, will invest in others when their time comes.
The child pays the debt forward by investing in the next
generation.
And there is nothing wrong with charity as a last resort if the
person we need to invest in is crippled beyond the ability to produce a
positive return investment.
However SOMEONE has to produce.
And we have a moral mandate to try and not produce physically,
emotionally, mentally or spiritually crippled children.
Or worse take a perfectly fine child and ruin them.
If we give free housing, food, education and healthcare to
everyone, who will produce the goods we are giving away?
The left is polluted with people who want a handout, who want to be
taken care of, at least a safety net.
The right is filled people who want a JOB and to support themselves
and depend only on themselves, and take care of others if they can.
This is the basic tension in society.
Its the tension between the left acting as a union for the
employees, and the right acting as a union for the employers.
The employees on average want to own the employer and suck them
dry.
The employers on average want to own the employee and suck them dry
in return.
So the two unions are necessary to protect each from the other.
Charity also is good, but one doesn't first hand out principal
capital or even profit to first in liners, one vets those lining up for
a handout for those that will produce a maximum return on investment.
If the rich were to give all their money and possessions to the
poor, everyone would become poor quickly because the poor in general are
lacking production skills and would waste the gift from the rich
forthwith by consuming it and producing less than they consume.
So the LAST thing anyone wants to do is redistribute all wealth
equally lest we all end up starving to death equally.
Thus if you are going to give a free ride to anyone, it should be
to business or trade school and then a free job.
For a society to flourish, everyone in it, except for the true
charity cases, MUST produce more than they consume, reap more than they
sow, or else the whole society dies.
And that is harsh darwinian survival at its most extreme.
Reaping more than you sow is trivial, as any corn seed once sown
will grow into a stalk with 20 ears of corn with 6000 seeds on them.
That's called profit, and it comes from the sun and the sow and
reap cycle.
What's so hard?
Need does not bestow right.
One is not entitled to a life just because one breathes or was
born.
Our founding fathers said that each person has the right to the
PURSUIT of happiness and survival, not a right to guaranteed happiness
and survival.
If those who can sow and reap with a good profit at the end of the
harvest, care to invest in newcomers, or give charity to those who can't
work at all, that's fine, but taken to an extreme and forcing producers
to give production results to others at the point of a gun will result
in a revolution with guns pointed the other way.
Which is why producers shouldn't give up their guns lest the low
producers come with the cops pointing their guns at us to take our
production for them to consume.
That is the DEFINITION of criminal theft and violation of fair
chosen fair trade.
This is what we CREATED government to protect us from, criminally
enforced unfair and unwilling transactions at the behest of criminals
who would take other's production rather than produce themselves.
When the government becomes criminal itself or in the pay of
criminals, its time to put the government to sleep.
We shoot rabid dogs don't we?
It is much easier for a population to produce unfit low producing
stupid people than very fit high producing smart people.
It takes careful breeding to safely and dependably maintain a pool
of talented producers and thinkers and a lot of upbringing to turn that
talent into a highly honed skill that will benefit millions.
Without Darwinian pressures to cull the high consuming low
producing people, society becomes clogged with low or negative producing
people, who like plants, expect the sun or someone to push them into
existence or give them a guaraneed free life even if they have to take
it by force and deceit from the producers.
Since the food and resources consumed by a low producing high
consuming person must come from their counterparts, the high producing
low consuming peoeple, the producers get more and more strained in their
ability to produce because they have to keep giving it away for no or
negative return on investment.
Might as well flush one's capital down the toilet than invest it in
a toxic waste dump of non return.
Eventually producers start demanding a licence to breed, and state
training to have children to make sure that low producers or negative
worth criminals, and psychopaths are not added to society.
And that path of breeding oversight is a really bad road to walk
down because eventually the non producers will take over the licensing
bureaus and society will start turning out cadillac quality non
producers as far as the eye can see. That will be the end of that
economic engine.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Tue Feb 6 23:44:18 EST 2018
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/eco19.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)
iD8DBQFaeoQiURT1lqxE3HERAknkAKCU67aFO8VBBZIJU1DoTObEOUxbEgCgnsRD
+1+xy9XwTXS4YPN4r/l4xmw=
=ueU6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
INVESTMENT, ROI AND CHARITY
There is nothing wrong with investing in people.
Every parent does it to their child as long as there is an
expectation of return on investment (ROI), which means the child we
invest in, will invest in others when their time comes.
The child pays the debt forward by investing in the next
generation.
And there is nothing wrong with charity as a last resort if the
person we need to invest in is crippled beyond the ability to produce a
positive return investment.
However SOMEONE has to produce.
And we have a moral mandate to try and not produce physically,
emotionally, mentally or spiritually crippled children.
Or worse take a perfectly fine child and ruin them.
If we give free housing, food, education and healthcare to
everyone, who will produce the goods we are giving away?
The left is polluted with people who want a handout, who want to be
taken care of, at least a safety net.
The right is filled people who want a JOB and to support themselves
and depend only on themselves, and take care of others if they can.
This is the basic tension in society.
Its the tension between the left acting as a union for the
employees, and the right acting as a union for the employers.
The employees on average want to own the employer and suck them
dry.
The employers on average want to own the employee and suck them dry
in return.
So the two unions are necessary to protect each from the other.
Charity also is good, but one doesn't first hand out principal
capital or even profit to first in liners, one vets those lining up for
a handout for those that will produce a maximum return on investment.
If the rich were to give all their money and possessions to the
poor, everyone would become poor quickly because the poor in general are
lacking production skills and would waste the gift from the rich
forthwith by consuming it and producing less than they consume.
So the LAST thing anyone wants to do is redistribute all wealth
equally lest we all end up starving to death equally.
Thus if you are going to give a free ride to anyone, it should be
to business or trade school and then a free job.
For a society to flourish, everyone in it, except for the true
charity cases, MUST produce more than they consume, reap more than they
sow, or else the whole society dies.
And that is harsh darwinian survival at its most extreme.
Reaping more than you sow is trivial, as any corn seed once sown
will grow into a stalk with 20 ears of corn with 6000 seeds on them.
That's called profit, and it comes from the sun and the sow and
reap cycle.
What's so hard?
Need does not bestow right.
One is not entitled to a life just because one breathes or was
born.
Our founding fathers said that each person has the right to the
PURSUIT of happiness and survival, not a right to guaranteed happiness
and survival.
If those who can sow and reap with a good profit at the end of the
harvest, care to invest in newcomers, or give charity to those who can't
work at all, that's fine, but taken to an extreme and forcing producers
to give production results to others at the point of a gun will result
in a revolution with guns pointed the other way.
Which is why producers shouldn't give up their guns lest the low
producers come with the cops pointing their guns at us to take our
production for them to consume.
That is the DEFINITION of criminal theft and violation of fair
chosen fair trade.
This is what we CREATED government to protect us from, criminally
enforced unfair and unwilling transactions at the behest of criminals
who would take other's production rather than produce themselves.
When the government becomes criminal itself or in the pay of
criminals, its time to put the government to sleep.
We shoot rabid dogs don't we?
It is much easier for a population to produce unfit low producing
stupid people than very fit high producing smart people.
It takes careful breeding to safely and dependably maintain a pool
of talented producers and thinkers and a lot of upbringing to turn that
talent into a highly honed skill that will benefit millions.
Without Darwinian pressures to cull the high consuming low
producing people, society becomes clogged with low or negative producing
people, who like plants, expect the sun or someone to push them into
existence or give them a guaraneed free life even if they have to take
it by force and deceit from the producers.
Since the food and resources consumed by a low producing high
consuming person must come from their counterparts, the high producing
low consuming peoeple, the producers get more and more strained in their
ability to produce because they have to keep giving it away for no or
negative return on investment.
Might as well flush one's capital down the toilet than invest it in
a toxic waste dump of non return.
Eventually producers start demanding a licence to breed, and state
training to have children to make sure that low producers or negative
worth criminals, and psychopaths are not added to society.
And that path of breeding oversight is a really bad road to walk
down because eventually the non producers will take over the licensing
bureaus and society will start turning out cadillac quality non
producers as far as the eye can see. That will be the end of that
economic engine.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Tue Feb 6 23:44:18 EST 2018
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/eco19.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)
iD8DBQFaeoQiURT1lqxE3HERAknkAKCU67aFO8VBBZIJU1DoTObEOUxbEgCgnsRD
+1+xy9XwTXS4YPN4r/l4xmw=
=ueU6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
ECO19 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
INVESTMENT, ROI AND CHARITY
There is nothing wrong with investing in people.
Every parent does it to their child as long as there is an
expectation of return on investment, which means the child we invest in,
will invest in others when their time comes.
The child pays the debt forward by investing in the next
generation.
And there is nothing wrong with charity as a last resort if the
person we need to invest in is crippled beyond the ability to produce a
positive return investment.
However SOMEONE has to produce.
And we have a moral mandate to try and not produce physically,
emotionally, mentally or spiritually crippled children.
Or worse take a perfectly find child and ruin them.
If we give free housing, food, education and healthcare to
everyone, who will produce the goods we are giving away?
The left is polluted with people who want a handout, who want to be
taken care of, at least a safety net.
The right is filled people who want a JOB and to support themselves
and depend only on themselves, and take care of others if they can.
This is the basic tension in society.
Its the tension between the left acting as a union for the
employees, and the right acting as a union for the employers.
The employees on average want to own the employer and suck them
dry.
The employers on average want to own the employee and suck them dry
in return.
So the two unions are necessary to protect each from the other.
Charity also is good, but one doesn't first hand out principal
capital or even profit to first in liners, one vets those lining up for
a handout for those that will produce a maximum return on investment.
If the rich were to give all their money and possessions to the
poor, everyone would become poor quickly because the poor in general are
lacking production skills and would waste the gift from the rich
forthwith by consuming it and producing less than they consume.
So the LAST thing anyone wants to do is redistribute all wealth
equally lest we all end up starving to death equally.
Thus if you are going to give a free ride to anyone, it should be
to business or trade school and then a free job.
For a society to flourish, everyone in it, except for the true
charity cases, MUST produce more than they consume, reap more than they
sow, or else the whole society dies.
And that is harsh darwinian survival at its most extreme.
Reaping more than you sow is trivial, as any corn seed once sown
will grow into 20 years of corn with 6000 seeds on them.
That's called profit, and it comes from the sun and the sow and
reap cycle.
What's so hard?
Need does not bestow right.
One is not entitled to a life just because one breathes or was
born.
Our founding fathers said that each person has the right to the
PURSUIT of happiness and survival, not a right to guaranteed happiness
and survival.
If those who can sow and reap with a good profit at the end of the
harvest, care to invest in newcomers, or give charity to those who can't
work at all, that's fine, but taken to an extreme and forcing producers
to give production results to others at the point of a gun will result
in a revolution with guns pointed the other way.
Which is why producers shouldn't give up their guns lest the low
producers come with the cops pointing their guns at us to take our
production for them to consume.
That is the DEFINITION of criminal theft and violation of fair
chosen fair trade.
This is what we CREATED government to protect us from, criminally
enforced unfair and unwilling transactions at the behest of criminals
who would take other's production rather than produce themselves.
When the government becomes criminal itself or in the pay of
criminals, its time to put the government to sleep.
We shoot rabid dogs don't we?
It is much easier for a population to produce unfit low producing
stupid people than very fit high producing smart people.
It takes careful breeding to safely and dependably maintain a pool
of talented producers and thinkers and a lot of upbringing to turn that
talent into a highly honed skill that will benefit millions.
Without Darwinian pressures to cull the high consuming low
producing people, society becomes clogged with low or negative producing
people, who like plants, expect the sun or someone to push them into
existence or give them a guaraneed free life even if they have to take
it by force and deceit from the produceres.
Since the food and resources consumed by a low producing high
consuming person must come from their counterparts, the high producing
low consuming peoeple, the producers get more and more strained in their
ability to produce because they have to keep giving it away for no or
negative return on investment.
Might as well flush ones capital down the toilet than invest it in
a toxic waste dump of non return.
Eventually producers start demanding a licence to breed, and state
training to have children to make sure that low producers or negative
worth criminals, and psychopaths are not added to society.
And that path of breeding oversight is a really bad road to walk
down because eventually the non producers will take over the licensing
bureaus and society will start turning out cadillac quality non
producers as far as the eye can see. That will be the end of that
economic engine.
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
Wed Mar 16 20:05:30 EDT 2016
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Feb 6 12:00:02 EST 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/eco19.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)
iD4DBQFaed8SURT1lqxE3HERAvT/AJUSHWkkv2Sx5zK+atG1vqHungBWAJ4kNlKx
msG8vhaPmkupFU0D/fPKWQ==
=EdLd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
INVESTMENT, ROI AND CHARITY
There is nothing wrong with investing in people.
Every parent does it to their child as long as there is an
expectation of return on investment, which means the child we invest in,
will invest in others when their time comes.
The child pays the debt forward by investing in the next
generation.
And there is nothing wrong with charity as a last resort if the
person we need to invest in is crippled beyond the ability to produce a
positive return investment.
However SOMEONE has to produce.
And we have a moral mandate to try and not produce physically,
emotionally, mentally or spiritually crippled children.
Or worse take a perfectly find child and ruin them.
If we give free housing, food, education and healthcare to
everyone, who will produce the goods we are giving away?
The left is polluted with people who want a handout, who want to be
taken care of, at least a safety net.
The right is filled people who want a JOB and to support themselves
and depend only on themselves, and take care of others if they can.
This is the basic tension in society.
Its the tension between the left acting as a union for the
employees, and the right acting as a union for the employers.
The employees on average want to own the employer and suck them
dry.
The employers on average want to own the employee and suck them dry
in return.
So the two unions are necessary to protect each from the other.
Charity also is good, but one doesn't first hand out principal
capital or even profit to first in liners, one vets those lining up for
a handout for those that will produce a maximum return on investment.
If the rich were to give all their money and possessions to the
poor, everyone would become poor quickly because the poor in general are
lacking production skills and would waste the gift from the rich
forthwith by consuming it and producing less than they consume.
So the LAST thing anyone wants to do is redistribute all wealth
equally lest we all end up starving to death equally.
Thus if you are going to give a free ride to anyone, it should be
to business or trade school and then a free job.
For a society to flourish, everyone in it, except for the true
charity cases, MUST produce more than they consume, reap more than they
sow, or else the whole society dies.
And that is harsh darwinian survival at its most extreme.
Reaping more than you sow is trivial, as any corn seed once sown
will grow into 20 years of corn with 6000 seeds on them.
That's called profit, and it comes from the sun and the sow and
reap cycle.
What's so hard?
Need does not bestow right.
One is not entitled to a life just because one breathes or was
born.
Our founding fathers said that each person has the right to the
PURSUIT of happiness and survival, not a right to guaranteed happiness
and survival.
If those who can sow and reap with a good profit at the end of the
harvest, care to invest in newcomers, or give charity to those who can't
work at all, that's fine, but taken to an extreme and forcing producers
to give production results to others at the point of a gun will result
in a revolution with guns pointed the other way.
Which is why producers shouldn't give up their guns lest the low
producers come with the cops pointing their guns at us to take our
production for them to consume.
That is the DEFINITION of criminal theft and violation of fair
chosen fair trade.
This is what we CREATED government to protect us from, criminally
enforced unfair and unwilling transactions at the behest of criminals
who would take other's production rather than produce themselves.
When the government becomes criminal itself or in the pay of
criminals, its time to put the government to sleep.
We shoot rabid dogs don't we?
It is much easier for a population to produce unfit low producing
stupid people than very fit high producing smart people.
It takes careful breeding to safely and dependably maintain a pool
of talented producers and thinkers and a lot of upbringing to turn that
talent into a highly honed skill that will benefit millions.
Without Darwinian pressures to cull the high consuming low
producing people, society becomes clogged with low or negative producing
people, who like plants, expect the sun or someone to push them into
existence or give them a guaraneed free life even if they have to take
it by force and deceit from the produceres.
Since the food and resources consumed by a low producing high
consuming person must come from their counterparts, the high producing
low consuming peoeple, the producers get more and more strained in their
ability to produce because they have to keep giving it away for no or
negative return on investment.
Might as well flush ones capital down the toilet than invest it in
a toxic waste dump of non return.
Eventually producers start demanding a licence to breed, and state
training to have children to make sure that low producers or negative
worth criminals, and psychopaths are not added to society.
And that path of breeding oversight is a really bad road to walk
down because eventually the non producers will take over the licensing
bureaus and society will start turning out cadillac quality non
producers as far as the eye can see. That will be the end of that
economic engine.
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
Wed Mar 16 20:05:30 EDT 2016
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Feb 6 12:00:02 EST 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/eco19.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)
iD4DBQFaed8SURT1lqxE3HERAvT/AJUSHWkkv2Sx5zK+atG1vqHungBWAJ4kNlKx
msG8vhaPmkupFU0D/fPKWQ==
=EdLd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Monday, February 5, 2018
ADORE754 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
CRITTERS
The meatball class GodCritter is an interesting being.
Gods can really make themselves ugly relative to an actual truth,
it can be hard to behold.
A God side being can out ugly any mere Soul side being he might
create himself as.
These people talk about science as if they know any, they make
assertions of things they can't possibly know, and they generally act
like a rude interruption at a serious affair.
Just stick anyone of these clowns in a scientific symposium, and
let them present their position.
"No one has demonstrated proof of God, therefore God does not
exist!"
Given it enough time we have, I suppose.
These forlorn creatures, with big vocal cords, and born to live
once and then never love again, have two basic problems.
OUT THERE NESS
Their first problem is they believe in OUT THERE. They believe
there IS an out there, and they believe that the source of causation is
out there.
In the out there world, certain rules of discernment apply, we call
this the scientific method with its various verifiabilities and
falsifiabilities.
And yes, the rules of discernment like to see peer review, but for
one the absence of peer review doesn't make something wrong, nor does
its presence make something right.
Some of the greatest scientific work was done by lone individuals
hundreds of years before the rest of the world stopped laughing at them.
Usually however it is a matter of probabilities, and work that is
peer reviewed, in general, follows the opinion of the majority report,
which we instinctively take to be more dependable than the minority
report.
That the very existence of peers is itself unpeer reviewed, is
ignored.
How can you use a peer to review the existence of peers, if you
haven't proven a peer exists yet?
Who will peer review the existence of the first peer?
Ultimately you are alone with your truth.
And with the ultimate truths, you will have no peers to review.
The main problem then is this idea that everything of import comes
from out there, and thus the out there model of discernment applies. If
they would only learn that model well and stop confusing supporting
evidence with proof, they might do better even in their own fields of
scientific inquiry.
Alas, the dictionary defines proof as supporting evidence, and also
defines proof as perfect certainty, so the confusers love to declare
that supporting evidence equals perfect certainty.
Or they will tell you with perfect certainty that perfect certainty
does not exist.
Any fool knows that for *SURE* :)
In any case they are all mind broke.
Remember that most of the nitwits posturing 'science' on a.r.s.
are bigoted degrades, who probably have little or nothing to do with
actual science. And if they do, we are all in very serious trouble.
The problem comes in when they seek for the existence of God.
Because everything of causal import is OUT THERE, so must God be.
They miss the illogic of thinking that God made space and time, and
yet that same God is somehow to be found out there in space and time.
They want God to show some evidence for his existence, and they look out
there, into space/time in vain for evidence.
When you find yourself looking up to the Heavens when you are
talking to God, know you are lost.
You have to remember that the rules for discernment for learning
about anything in the out there world demand that one can never see the
thing directly but can only theorize about its nature based on its
causal effects in YOU.
Call that the Machine Uncertainty Principle if you will.
The poor mortal meatball is trying to learn about the dog by
looking at the dog poop on his shoe.
That is never going to give proof of the dog, and neither will it
ever give proof of God.
In other words you can never learn about God by studying humanity,
the physical universe, or anything you think God created.
At least not with perfect certainty, no matter how much
'supporting' evidence you are drowning in.
At best you can form a bet and act on it.
Anyhow we are all dreaming, and out there simply just does not
exist, any more than it exists in a sleep dream.
Things LOOK like they are out there, but they ain't.
How can they be, they are all you. Out there is what
YOU look like in the mirror of your consciousness, you have never
seen anything but yourself.
Interesting clothing, wearing a town on you.
Well what is it that is dreaming you say? You are, not your brain,
when you wake up enough levels, your brain vanishes with the last dream
you woke up from, leaving only you to be with your experience.
The physical universe is an exquisite theory brought asunder by one
ugly fact, consciousness.
The meatball will say that their consciousness is just a process in
a mechanical medium, the brain, and that their emotional heart is the
tick tock of electronic chemical or metal wheels.
Because the meatball thinks that everything is made of parts, the
more he tries to trace the cause of his own consciousness inside his
brain, the more he runs into parts with space between them, and each
part is more parts with space between them, until he gets to a
fundamental part that doesn't have any parts within parts any more.
In present *THEORY* those would be the quarks and the leptons like
the electron.
Physicists conceive those as point sources of cause, there just
aren't any more particles within particles once you get to that level,
they surmise.
But if you get enough quarks and leptons together you can build
just about anything including a meat brain.
As the being starts to zoom in on the center of his consciousness,
the space he is considering that his consciousness takes up inside his
brain gets smaller and smaller, until there just isn't enough brain
inside that space to account for what he sees going on in his mind and
conscious life.
But by the time your meatball has gotten down to a fundamental part
inside his brain he has bypassed his consciousness entirely, because he
thinks his consciousness is a PROCESS AMONG MANY PARTS of the brain.
In other words he considers that his consciousness itself is not a
fundamental part, but is instead a non zero size, spatial arrangement of
parts interacting with each other via cause and effect. A machine or
sub machine in other words.
He has to expand out from the dead center of his brain big enough
to encompass enough parts within the brain to be able to account for the
functional complexity of his conscious life.
How much of his brain does he have to encompass to account for the
full functioning of his consciousness and everything in it and what can
do?
And is it enough?
Can there BE enough brain to explain YOU?
So this leads us to the second major problem of the poor fellow
meatball, he is under the spell of the complexity of function and
structure theorem.
That theorem says that complexity of function must causally rest on
complexity of structure.
That's a complex way of saying that if something can DO something
complex, it must BE complex, made of lots of parts, interacting with
others parts via cause and effect across a space time distance.
In other words the more a machine can do on the outside, the more
complex the machine must be on the inside.
This is pretty easy to see, take an electron, it has spin, charge,
mass, position, velocity and quantum state. But that's it.
Certainly no consciousness, self awrareness, love, pain, shame
blame, regret, memory, will, intent, volition, purpose or sense of
personal agency.
An electron is very simple, not utterly simple, but basically
simple, it can only do a few things.
So one day if an electron were suddenly to sit up and whistle dixie
in 4 part harmony, scientists and meatballs alike would take serious
notice. That's just too much complexity of function being displayed and
not enough complexity of structure to explain it.
Another example that really bothers the meat and cheese crowd is
the red box that exists for an infinite time, and then one day in the
middle of infinite time, it changes state to green.
If the 'box' is just a patch of red, and it changes state to green,
there HAS to be a reason this happened.
That reason is either going to be an internal reason, something
inside the box suddenly changed state, and we are going to have to trace
THAT down too, or something impinged upon the box from the outside
causing it to change state.
Since the box has been red for an INFINITE amount of time, and the
turns green for the rest of INFINITE time, you can't even claim there
was some clock inside the box, because there is nothing to discriminate
one moment infinitely far way from the past from another moment also
infinitely far away from the past.
So the cause of the change from red to green can't be "well its
time came up for the change," like some timer was counting down and when
it got to zero the red changed to green.
Nor can it be a random process because if there is a finite non
zero probability that a change could take place at any moment of time,
it would have taken place long before an infinite amount of time would
have passed.
But that change in state can't come from nothing, because nothing
is not enough complexity of structure to account for the complexity of
function of changing from red to green.
Something can't come from nothing. Therefore if something exists,
something must have always existed.
Now each person has an idea of how complex or not they think they
are as a conscious being, some people think they are pretty simple as
far as their consciousness and its abilities go, and others think they
are very complex.
We all know the brain is complex, but is it complex enough to
account for the complexity of our conscious beingness AND take care of
the physical body at the same time?
Or maybe he has a conscious experience that he sees very clearly
can't be explained by a machine, by a space time gizmo, at all.
He gets the idea that love and shame can not of force and mass be
made.
Force and mass don't give a damn, he does. Since you can't make
something out of nothing, you can't make something that cares, out of
parts that don't.
This might violate a lot of new age crystal gazer nonsense that the
whole can be bigger than the sum of its parts, but actually when it
comes to machines, the whole can't do anything that at least one of its
parts can't do also in some uncorralled fashion.
Take a simple pocket watch for example, it keeps time because of
the causal pathways inside it from wound up spring, energy source,
through an oscillating escapement mechanism, the balance wheel, ending
at the hands on the dial face indicating how much time has gone by.
The truth is though if you take the watch apart, some of its parts
also have the quality of timingness. Every part is made of parts which
are made of atoms, which are made of electrons which are vibrating back
and forth KEEPING TIME.
The fundamental forces that drive a spring back and forth when you
pull or push on it and then let go is a way of keeping time.
All a pocket watch has done is corralled or harnessed the already
existing function of timingness of the parts inside it, to make it a
macro level event useful to humans rather than a micro level event
useful to no one.
Thus we get a simple theorem out of this, the sole purpose of a
complexity of parts is to instantiate one or more of the functions of
the parts themselves at a more macro level.
Same thing for the biggest meanest super computer ever built, it
can add because the simplest of electrical forces can add. The job of
the complexity builder then is to translate the abilities of the parts
into the abilities of the whole in a more useful way.
But how are you going to make pain out of force and mass in motion?
There is a difference between mass and will, and between force and
motivation.
Will can be forced, but it can also be motivated, those are
two discernably orthoganal things.
Orthoganal means one can't be made of the other.
Electrons may repel each other in close proximity, but they don't
CARE, they don't HURT.
If none of the particles in a machine can feel pain, then the
machine as a whole can't feel pain.
A machine can be programmed to ACT like it feels pain, to say OW!
every time the O key is hit on the keyboard, but is anything there
actually feeling pain?
So at some point the being has an epiphany out of all this and he
sees that the mechanics of OUTHERENESS are not all there is to his
world, as he has a conscious life too.
He also sees that mechanics and consciousness are dicoms.
Machines are dead, blind, live in the dark and can never be certain
of anything including their own existence, and can only act like it
gives a damn if programmed to do so.
Consciousness is alive and self luminous, perfectly certain of its
own existence, and gives a damn, has no choice about it, knows it, and
likes it that way.
Machines have no idea if cause exists, unless they are told it
does. And they could never discover for themselves if cause existed,
and couldn't even come up with the idea because machines can't SEE
cause.
Weirdly enough machines can't even see themselves being an effect,
they simply ARE an effect.
And that's something the conscious unit sees about the
machine, never something the machine can see about itself.
Running on cause and effect is insufficient to witnessing cause and
effect.
At best a machine can record and note a correlation between events,
but correlation, even perfect correlation is not perfect certainty of
causation except to massively bogus minds.
Consciousness has perfect certainty that personal agency exists.
There couldn't BE perfect certainty of color and self without
causation going on between perceiver and perceived. That causation can
be seen directly, not by looking at effects supposedly correlated to
theoretical causes, but by looking at cause directly.
Machines learn by indirect perception, they learn about
A by looking at B, namely A's affects in themselves.
Relative to B, A is a THEORY and B is some 'supporting evidence.'
Since the machine can't see A, nor the cause between A and B,
the machine can never have certainty that B was actually caused
by A, not that A is really out there.
Consciousness can see causations within itself by direct
perception of the causal agent, not by indirect perception of
alleged effects of the causal agent.
That's a big statement, meatballs will just go on by it.
Failing such an epiphany the meatball will consider that there is
NOTHING in his mere conscious experience that would teach him anything
OF IMPORT about the nature of the ALLTHATIS, because everything of
import comes from OUT THERE which includes his brain, which relative to
the center of his consciousness, is also OUT THERE.
So when you try to approach the subject of God with this guy, you
have a problem. He looks out there for God, sees nothing and says
"Whew! had me worried there for a moment you did" and goes on believing
God doesn't exist.
Now of course he has God conceived of as a conscious being separate
from himself who made him against his will and who is mostly concerned
with good and bad behavior.
"Love me you little piece of shit or I will send you to hell
forever."
What kind of God is this?
Good news is, being a separate being from the soul, such a God
remains forever a theory, and a false one at that.
Two different objects can never be certain of each other.
Bad news is, the soul IS God, and thus we have a problem with the
external rules of discernment.
How can you use EXTERNAL rules of discernment when the observer is
trying to learn about itself!
Looking out there won't find you anything, and once you find
something, IT WILL BE YOU.
But what are you going to do about those that insist on peer
review?
You say "I have seen the truth, we are all God in carnation."
They say "Prove it, he who makes the extraordinary claim has the
burden of proof, put up or shut up!" Like Occam's razor, that's a lot of
nonsense, but its touted religiously, I mean scientifically, by those
who are terrified you might be right.
You say, I can't prove it, you have to see it for yourself.
They say "You are hallucinating and brainwashed."
We will leave it up to the reader as a home work assignment to work
out who bears the burden of proving you are brainwashed or who is
hallucinating.
Now to a meatball, it is absolutely inconceivable to them that
there might be something to know about in you that could possibly be of
import to anyone including you.
In other words if you didn't find it by looking for it out there,
then it is either false, or utterly unimportant.
At first they said it wasn't true.
Then they said it wasn't important.
Then they said they knew it all along.
That's the journey from incipient carrion to God in carnation.
There are those that would go so far as to say that consciousness
is a mere epiphenomenon of the brain, that causation travels through the
brain and not consciousness, and that consciousness can't actually
affect anything because it merely displays what is going on.
Of course the mere fact that we are TALKING about consciousness,
implies that consciousness has seen itself and decided to talk about it
THROUGH THE BRAIN.
That happened without cause and effect?
GOD, GOD IS STUPID.
And if one argues that consciousness did not see itself, but that
the brain machinery saw it and started talking about it, well the brain
machine HAD to learn about the consciousness by being an effect of it,
so of course consciousness HAS CAUSE, including cause over matter,
energy, space and time, namely in the brain.
To know about consciousness is to be the effect of consciousness,
and if you are the effect of it, IT IS CAUSE over you at the moment of
that learning.
But once you spot your I AM, I CARE, I AM AGENT and I GIVE A DAMN,
and I hate meatballs to pieces, you will get over the idea that
consciousness isn't agent instantly.
So clearly we are not just dominos pushing others as we were
pushed.
A conscious domino can ORIGINATE a push without itself being pushed.
A conscious being can act independently of any prior events in
matter, energy, space/time and force, that might or might not have
impinged upon him first.
Thus we have a will that CAN be free of determination by the
physical universe. It is never however free of its own nature.
Thus we had better pray for that nature off consciousness, for
there are many more ways to harm than to help.
So one has to ask, if there is something that created space and
time, where are we going to look for it?
You would think that if you were God in carnation, that there would
be some shred of evidence left behind that you were.
Exercising paranormal powers won't prove anything, and they won't
come until you contact your own fountainhead of source anyhow.
But the thing you would long for most would be something that was
spaceless and timeless and was you all rolled into one.
Eternal, immutable, indestructible and at absolute peace.
Oh yes, and beyond thank you or endless gratitude, which ain't
peace.
Gratefulness is a kind of hysteria born of irresponsibility for
doing well.
Absolute peace is absolute smug.
So how much weller can you do than eternality with the ability to
wake up and get lost in a dream with others any time you want, with a
hundred trillion heavens and hells alternating along the way.
That's what you want, and that's what meatballs want, but they
can't admit it, too lost in the sour grapes of thinking they can't have
it.
It's painful to a meatball to even think of what he really wants,
if he ever gets momentarily really real about.
But once you had that experience of eternality within yourself, and
you are once again in contact with the CHOICE you made to manifest
yourself in space and time, that the ocean flows because of you, and
everyone else who chose to be here, you would KNOW something that can't
be proven to any one else without them also having the same experience.
Basically the only way to prove to another that you are not
brainwashed is to prove to them that they are, namely brainwashed to
believed they were meat, and made of out there!
What's more insane, a human that thinks it is God, or a God that
thinks it is human?
But you know the very self luminousness of your present time
consciousness is evidence enough of a spaceless timeless process
creating and maintaining your space time (dreamtime) existence.
The whole physical universe is a light picture burning off the face
of God.
But its a bit hard to see, and you would have to study the proof
long and hard. You would have to come to understand what a self
symbolizing event is and how it leads to self lumination, and I have
kind of given up on getting people to do that so we won't go there.
http://www.lightlink.com/theproof
But that is what you would have to do, observe a spaceless timeless
part of your own consciousness, and you would have all the evidence you
will ever need that 1.) we are all God incarnation, and 2.) you are an
eternal being lost in illusions of temporality, immortality, mortality
and out thereness.
And once you have done that, you can start rebuilding your power
packages again, and start playing around with the various magics of
outthereness, and practice with others of your own level with good
security.
But you see the problem is when you are dealing with others, they
are God too. And they don't want to know they are God, and that is why
they don't. And frankly its not just a friendly little game of let's
pretend we are not God for while and have a good time. No, this time it
was forever, they don't want to know about it FOR GOOD.
That's a serious forever in there.
So some piece of meat comes up to you and says 'Prove it!', you
might as well give it up right there, because he doesn't want to know,
and he doesn't know that he doesn't want to know.
If he did want to know, merely reminding him the world was a dream
would be enough to return some measure of clarity, lucidity, and
enlightenment.
Only the scientist needs the proof.
He is protecting a death directed state like you wouldn't believe,
until YOU finally come up to realizing you don't want to know either.
There are lots of happy high tone people running around all
claiming the glories of God and eternal life, and all the more power to
them, but most of it is 100 percent superficial.
THEY ARE BELOW THE MEATBALLS.
When they get a little deeper into the truth they have discovered,
they begin to realize to their infinite horror that they are a God in
hell, and they gave up long ago ever getting out.
(They have eternality and immortality confused.)
A few life times later you find them alone in a dark alley with
only an empty bottle to their name. You say 'Hey I thought we were all
God in carnation!" They will say, "Yeah I know, go away, that's the
problem."
So much for proving this to people, the science of religion can get
very beaten down by the very nature of a God being in trouble, seeking
death through illusions of mortality, by becoming what he made and
claiming it made him, then dying as it, as death comes to all compound
things, made of constituency, arrangement and process.
NOTHING made of parts interacting via cause and effect across a
space time distance stays together forever.
Thus "death is inherent in all compound things, seeking ye
diligently then for thy salvation." - Lord Buddha
If consciousness is a process in space time, then consciousness is
on death row.
However the truth is consciousness is a non process that is
conscious OF dreams of constituency, arrangement and process in space
time.
Dreams of machines, space time gizmos.
Consciousness is not made of anything it is conscious of, and
consciousness is not an arrangement of parts, as where consciousness
comes from, there is no space time to have parts in.
But that is what you are trying to do, build a bridge between
religion and science. The Gods in trouble hope you never do, but *REAL*
science is the only thing that will finally figure out the correct
religion, how we did it and why.
But don't look to the science found in the halls of academentia and
lower learning.
Two thousand years ago, both science and religion were failed
barbarisms.
Today science has grown up and has become a very successful
barbarism.
That may seem rough, but take a look at what physics has given us.
Atom bombs and cell phones.
Oh OK, physicists aren't all bad.
They gave us the cell phone so when the bombs drop, we can call up
our loved ones and kiss our sorry asses goodbye together.
But if science has evolved into a monstrosity, religion remains an
abomination.
It may be science that gave us the ability to terminate the world,
but it is religion that wants to destroy it.
So between the two headed Goliath of religion and science, goes
you.
You need to understand science cold, so you can understand religion
from the center of your GodSoul to the outer reaches of the AllThatIS.
None of which is OUT THERE.
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 Apr 30 23:07:58 EDT 2010
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Feb 5 12:00:02 EST 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore754.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)
iD8DBQFaeI2TURT1lqxE3HERAv0EAKCJG/oftp9zbp8ZDsc9tl34d8zS8wCgzLU4
uytUM63XyqnizgtHa5Qkrs4=
=Yx7k
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
CRITTERS
The meatball class GodCritter is an interesting being.
Gods can really make themselves ugly relative to an actual truth,
it can be hard to behold.
A God side being can out ugly any mere Soul side being he might
create himself as.
These people talk about science as if they know any, they make
assertions of things they can't possibly know, and they generally act
like a rude interruption at a serious affair.
Just stick anyone of these clowns in a scientific symposium, and
let them present their position.
"No one has demonstrated proof of God, therefore God does not
exist!"
Given it enough time we have, I suppose.
These forlorn creatures, with big vocal cords, and born to live
once and then never love again, have two basic problems.
OUT THERE NESS
Their first problem is they believe in OUT THERE. They believe
there IS an out there, and they believe that the source of causation is
out there.
In the out there world, certain rules of discernment apply, we call
this the scientific method with its various verifiabilities and
falsifiabilities.
And yes, the rules of discernment like to see peer review, but for
one the absence of peer review doesn't make something wrong, nor does
its presence make something right.
Some of the greatest scientific work was done by lone individuals
hundreds of years before the rest of the world stopped laughing at them.
Usually however it is a matter of probabilities, and work that is
peer reviewed, in general, follows the opinion of the majority report,
which we instinctively take to be more dependable than the minority
report.
That the very existence of peers is itself unpeer reviewed, is
ignored.
How can you use a peer to review the existence of peers, if you
haven't proven a peer exists yet?
Who will peer review the existence of the first peer?
Ultimately you are alone with your truth.
And with the ultimate truths, you will have no peers to review.
The main problem then is this idea that everything of import comes
from out there, and thus the out there model of discernment applies. If
they would only learn that model well and stop confusing supporting
evidence with proof, they might do better even in their own fields of
scientific inquiry.
Alas, the dictionary defines proof as supporting evidence, and also
defines proof as perfect certainty, so the confusers love to declare
that supporting evidence equals perfect certainty.
Or they will tell you with perfect certainty that perfect certainty
does not exist.
Any fool knows that for *SURE* :)
In any case they are all mind broke.
Remember that most of the nitwits posturing 'science' on a.r.s.
are bigoted degrades, who probably have little or nothing to do with
actual science. And if they do, we are all in very serious trouble.
The problem comes in when they seek for the existence of God.
Because everything of causal import is OUT THERE, so must God be.
They miss the illogic of thinking that God made space and time, and
yet that same God is somehow to be found out there in space and time.
They want God to show some evidence for his existence, and they look out
there, into space/time in vain for evidence.
When you find yourself looking up to the Heavens when you are
talking to God, know you are lost.
You have to remember that the rules for discernment for learning
about anything in the out there world demand that one can never see the
thing directly but can only theorize about its nature based on its
causal effects in YOU.
Call that the Machine Uncertainty Principle if you will.
The poor mortal meatball is trying to learn about the dog by
looking at the dog poop on his shoe.
That is never going to give proof of the dog, and neither will it
ever give proof of God.
In other words you can never learn about God by studying humanity,
the physical universe, or anything you think God created.
At least not with perfect certainty, no matter how much
'supporting' evidence you are drowning in.
At best you can form a bet and act on it.
Anyhow we are all dreaming, and out there simply just does not
exist, any more than it exists in a sleep dream.
Things LOOK like they are out there, but they ain't.
How can they be, they are all you. Out there is what
YOU look like in the mirror of your consciousness, you have never
seen anything but yourself.
Interesting clothing, wearing a town on you.
Well what is it that is dreaming you say? You are, not your brain,
when you wake up enough levels, your brain vanishes with the last dream
you woke up from, leaving only you to be with your experience.
The physical universe is an exquisite theory brought asunder by one
ugly fact, consciousness.
The meatball will say that their consciousness is just a process in
a mechanical medium, the brain, and that their emotional heart is the
tick tock of electronic chemical or metal wheels.
Because the meatball thinks that everything is made of parts, the
more he tries to trace the cause of his own consciousness inside his
brain, the more he runs into parts with space between them, and each
part is more parts with space between them, until he gets to a
fundamental part that doesn't have any parts within parts any more.
In present *THEORY* those would be the quarks and the leptons like
the electron.
Physicists conceive those as point sources of cause, there just
aren't any more particles within particles once you get to that level,
they surmise.
But if you get enough quarks and leptons together you can build
just about anything including a meat brain.
As the being starts to zoom in on the center of his consciousness,
the space he is considering that his consciousness takes up inside his
brain gets smaller and smaller, until there just isn't enough brain
inside that space to account for what he sees going on in his mind and
conscious life.
But by the time your meatball has gotten down to a fundamental part
inside his brain he has bypassed his consciousness entirely, because he
thinks his consciousness is a PROCESS AMONG MANY PARTS of the brain.
In other words he considers that his consciousness itself is not a
fundamental part, but is instead a non zero size, spatial arrangement of
parts interacting with each other via cause and effect. A machine or
sub machine in other words.
He has to expand out from the dead center of his brain big enough
to encompass enough parts within the brain to be able to account for the
functional complexity of his conscious life.
How much of his brain does he have to encompass to account for the
full functioning of his consciousness and everything in it and what can
do?
And is it enough?
Can there BE enough brain to explain YOU?
So this leads us to the second major problem of the poor fellow
meatball, he is under the spell of the complexity of function and
structure theorem.
That theorem says that complexity of function must causally rest on
complexity of structure.
That's a complex way of saying that if something can DO something
complex, it must BE complex, made of lots of parts, interacting with
others parts via cause and effect across a space time distance.
In other words the more a machine can do on the outside, the more
complex the machine must be on the inside.
This is pretty easy to see, take an electron, it has spin, charge,
mass, position, velocity and quantum state. But that's it.
Certainly no consciousness, self awrareness, love, pain, shame
blame, regret, memory, will, intent, volition, purpose or sense of
personal agency.
An electron is very simple, not utterly simple, but basically
simple, it can only do a few things.
So one day if an electron were suddenly to sit up and whistle dixie
in 4 part harmony, scientists and meatballs alike would take serious
notice. That's just too much complexity of function being displayed and
not enough complexity of structure to explain it.
Another example that really bothers the meat and cheese crowd is
the red box that exists for an infinite time, and then one day in the
middle of infinite time, it changes state to green.
If the 'box' is just a patch of red, and it changes state to green,
there HAS to be a reason this happened.
That reason is either going to be an internal reason, something
inside the box suddenly changed state, and we are going to have to trace
THAT down too, or something impinged upon the box from the outside
causing it to change state.
Since the box has been red for an INFINITE amount of time, and the
turns green for the rest of INFINITE time, you can't even claim there
was some clock inside the box, because there is nothing to discriminate
one moment infinitely far way from the past from another moment also
infinitely far away from the past.
So the cause of the change from red to green can't be "well its
time came up for the change," like some timer was counting down and when
it got to zero the red changed to green.
Nor can it be a random process because if there is a finite non
zero probability that a change could take place at any moment of time,
it would have taken place long before an infinite amount of time would
have passed.
But that change in state can't come from nothing, because nothing
is not enough complexity of structure to account for the complexity of
function of changing from red to green.
Something can't come from nothing. Therefore if something exists,
something must have always existed.
Now each person has an idea of how complex or not they think they
are as a conscious being, some people think they are pretty simple as
far as their consciousness and its abilities go, and others think they
are very complex.
We all know the brain is complex, but is it complex enough to
account for the complexity of our conscious beingness AND take care of
the physical body at the same time?
Or maybe he has a conscious experience that he sees very clearly
can't be explained by a machine, by a space time gizmo, at all.
He gets the idea that love and shame can not of force and mass be
made.
Force and mass don't give a damn, he does. Since you can't make
something out of nothing, you can't make something that cares, out of
parts that don't.
This might violate a lot of new age crystal gazer nonsense that the
whole can be bigger than the sum of its parts, but actually when it
comes to machines, the whole can't do anything that at least one of its
parts can't do also in some uncorralled fashion.
Take a simple pocket watch for example, it keeps time because of
the causal pathways inside it from wound up spring, energy source,
through an oscillating escapement mechanism, the balance wheel, ending
at the hands on the dial face indicating how much time has gone by.
The truth is though if you take the watch apart, some of its parts
also have the quality of timingness. Every part is made of parts which
are made of atoms, which are made of electrons which are vibrating back
and forth KEEPING TIME.
The fundamental forces that drive a spring back and forth when you
pull or push on it and then let go is a way of keeping time.
All a pocket watch has done is corralled or harnessed the already
existing function of timingness of the parts inside it, to make it a
macro level event useful to humans rather than a micro level event
useful to no one.
Thus we get a simple theorem out of this, the sole purpose of a
complexity of parts is to instantiate one or more of the functions of
the parts themselves at a more macro level.
Same thing for the biggest meanest super computer ever built, it
can add because the simplest of electrical forces can add. The job of
the complexity builder then is to translate the abilities of the parts
into the abilities of the whole in a more useful way.
But how are you going to make pain out of force and mass in motion?
There is a difference between mass and will, and between force and
motivation.
Will can be forced, but it can also be motivated, those are
two discernably orthoganal things.
Orthoganal means one can't be made of the other.
Electrons may repel each other in close proximity, but they don't
CARE, they don't HURT.
If none of the particles in a machine can feel pain, then the
machine as a whole can't feel pain.
A machine can be programmed to ACT like it feels pain, to say OW!
every time the O key is hit on the keyboard, but is anything there
actually feeling pain?
So at some point the being has an epiphany out of all this and he
sees that the mechanics of OUTHERENESS are not all there is to his
world, as he has a conscious life too.
He also sees that mechanics and consciousness are dicoms.
Machines are dead, blind, live in the dark and can never be certain
of anything including their own existence, and can only act like it
gives a damn if programmed to do so.
Consciousness is alive and self luminous, perfectly certain of its
own existence, and gives a damn, has no choice about it, knows it, and
likes it that way.
Machines have no idea if cause exists, unless they are told it
does. And they could never discover for themselves if cause existed,
and couldn't even come up with the idea because machines can't SEE
cause.
Weirdly enough machines can't even see themselves being an effect,
they simply ARE an effect.
And that's something the conscious unit sees about the
machine, never something the machine can see about itself.
Running on cause and effect is insufficient to witnessing cause and
effect.
At best a machine can record and note a correlation between events,
but correlation, even perfect correlation is not perfect certainty of
causation except to massively bogus minds.
Consciousness has perfect certainty that personal agency exists.
There couldn't BE perfect certainty of color and self without
causation going on between perceiver and perceived. That causation can
be seen directly, not by looking at effects supposedly correlated to
theoretical causes, but by looking at cause directly.
Machines learn by indirect perception, they learn about
A by looking at B, namely A's affects in themselves.
Relative to B, A is a THEORY and B is some 'supporting evidence.'
Since the machine can't see A, nor the cause between A and B,
the machine can never have certainty that B was actually caused
by A, not that A is really out there.
Consciousness can see causations within itself by direct
perception of the causal agent, not by indirect perception of
alleged effects of the causal agent.
That's a big statement, meatballs will just go on by it.
Failing such an epiphany the meatball will consider that there is
NOTHING in his mere conscious experience that would teach him anything
OF IMPORT about the nature of the ALLTHATIS, because everything of
import comes from OUT THERE which includes his brain, which relative to
the center of his consciousness, is also OUT THERE.
So when you try to approach the subject of God with this guy, you
have a problem. He looks out there for God, sees nothing and says
"Whew! had me worried there for a moment you did" and goes on believing
God doesn't exist.
Now of course he has God conceived of as a conscious being separate
from himself who made him against his will and who is mostly concerned
with good and bad behavior.
"Love me you little piece of shit or I will send you to hell
forever."
What kind of God is this?
Good news is, being a separate being from the soul, such a God
remains forever a theory, and a false one at that.
Two different objects can never be certain of each other.
Bad news is, the soul IS God, and thus we have a problem with the
external rules of discernment.
How can you use EXTERNAL rules of discernment when the observer is
trying to learn about itself!
Looking out there won't find you anything, and once you find
something, IT WILL BE YOU.
But what are you going to do about those that insist on peer
review?
You say "I have seen the truth, we are all God in carnation."
They say "Prove it, he who makes the extraordinary claim has the
burden of proof, put up or shut up!" Like Occam's razor, that's a lot of
nonsense, but its touted religiously, I mean scientifically, by those
who are terrified you might be right.
You say, I can't prove it, you have to see it for yourself.
They say "You are hallucinating and brainwashed."
We will leave it up to the reader as a home work assignment to work
out who bears the burden of proving you are brainwashed or who is
hallucinating.
Now to a meatball, it is absolutely inconceivable to them that
there might be something to know about in you that could possibly be of
import to anyone including you.
In other words if you didn't find it by looking for it out there,
then it is either false, or utterly unimportant.
At first they said it wasn't true.
Then they said it wasn't important.
Then they said they knew it all along.
That's the journey from incipient carrion to God in carnation.
There are those that would go so far as to say that consciousness
is a mere epiphenomenon of the brain, that causation travels through the
brain and not consciousness, and that consciousness can't actually
affect anything because it merely displays what is going on.
Of course the mere fact that we are TALKING about consciousness,
implies that consciousness has seen itself and decided to talk about it
THROUGH THE BRAIN.
That happened without cause and effect?
GOD, GOD IS STUPID.
And if one argues that consciousness did not see itself, but that
the brain machinery saw it and started talking about it, well the brain
machine HAD to learn about the consciousness by being an effect of it,
so of course consciousness HAS CAUSE, including cause over matter,
energy, space and time, namely in the brain.
To know about consciousness is to be the effect of consciousness,
and if you are the effect of it, IT IS CAUSE over you at the moment of
that learning.
But once you spot your I AM, I CARE, I AM AGENT and I GIVE A DAMN,
and I hate meatballs to pieces, you will get over the idea that
consciousness isn't agent instantly.
So clearly we are not just dominos pushing others as we were
pushed.
A conscious domino can ORIGINATE a push without itself being pushed.
A conscious being can act independently of any prior events in
matter, energy, space/time and force, that might or might not have
impinged upon him first.
Thus we have a will that CAN be free of determination by the
physical universe. It is never however free of its own nature.
Thus we had better pray for that nature off consciousness, for
there are many more ways to harm than to help.
So one has to ask, if there is something that created space and
time, where are we going to look for it?
You would think that if you were God in carnation, that there would
be some shred of evidence left behind that you were.
Exercising paranormal powers won't prove anything, and they won't
come until you contact your own fountainhead of source anyhow.
But the thing you would long for most would be something that was
spaceless and timeless and was you all rolled into one.
Eternal, immutable, indestructible and at absolute peace.
Oh yes, and beyond thank you or endless gratitude, which ain't
peace.
Gratefulness is a kind of hysteria born of irresponsibility for
doing well.
Absolute peace is absolute smug.
So how much weller can you do than eternality with the ability to
wake up and get lost in a dream with others any time you want, with a
hundred trillion heavens and hells alternating along the way.
That's what you want, and that's what meatballs want, but they
can't admit it, too lost in the sour grapes of thinking they can't have
it.
It's painful to a meatball to even think of what he really wants,
if he ever gets momentarily really real about.
But once you had that experience of eternality within yourself, and
you are once again in contact with the CHOICE you made to manifest
yourself in space and time, that the ocean flows because of you, and
everyone else who chose to be here, you would KNOW something that can't
be proven to any one else without them also having the same experience.
Basically the only way to prove to another that you are not
brainwashed is to prove to them that they are, namely brainwashed to
believed they were meat, and made of out there!
What's more insane, a human that thinks it is God, or a God that
thinks it is human?
But you know the very self luminousness of your present time
consciousness is evidence enough of a spaceless timeless process
creating and maintaining your space time (dreamtime) existence.
The whole physical universe is a light picture burning off the face
of God.
But its a bit hard to see, and you would have to study the proof
long and hard. You would have to come to understand what a self
symbolizing event is and how it leads to self lumination, and I have
kind of given up on getting people to do that so we won't go there.
http://www.lightlink.com/theproof
But that is what you would have to do, observe a spaceless timeless
part of your own consciousness, and you would have all the evidence you
will ever need that 1.) we are all God incarnation, and 2.) you are an
eternal being lost in illusions of temporality, immortality, mortality
and out thereness.
And once you have done that, you can start rebuilding your power
packages again, and start playing around with the various magics of
outthereness, and practice with others of your own level with good
security.
But you see the problem is when you are dealing with others, they
are God too. And they don't want to know they are God, and that is why
they don't. And frankly its not just a friendly little game of let's
pretend we are not God for while and have a good time. No, this time it
was forever, they don't want to know about it FOR GOOD.
That's a serious forever in there.
So some piece of meat comes up to you and says 'Prove it!', you
might as well give it up right there, because he doesn't want to know,
and he doesn't know that he doesn't want to know.
If he did want to know, merely reminding him the world was a dream
would be enough to return some measure of clarity, lucidity, and
enlightenment.
Only the scientist needs the proof.
He is protecting a death directed state like you wouldn't believe,
until YOU finally come up to realizing you don't want to know either.
There are lots of happy high tone people running around all
claiming the glories of God and eternal life, and all the more power to
them, but most of it is 100 percent superficial.
THEY ARE BELOW THE MEATBALLS.
When they get a little deeper into the truth they have discovered,
they begin to realize to their infinite horror that they are a God in
hell, and they gave up long ago ever getting out.
(They have eternality and immortality confused.)
A few life times later you find them alone in a dark alley with
only an empty bottle to their name. You say 'Hey I thought we were all
God in carnation!" They will say, "Yeah I know, go away, that's the
problem."
So much for proving this to people, the science of religion can get
very beaten down by the very nature of a God being in trouble, seeking
death through illusions of mortality, by becoming what he made and
claiming it made him, then dying as it, as death comes to all compound
things, made of constituency, arrangement and process.
NOTHING made of parts interacting via cause and effect across a
space time distance stays together forever.
Thus "death is inherent in all compound things, seeking ye
diligently then for thy salvation." - Lord Buddha
If consciousness is a process in space time, then consciousness is
on death row.
However the truth is consciousness is a non process that is
conscious OF dreams of constituency, arrangement and process in space
time.
Dreams of machines, space time gizmos.
Consciousness is not made of anything it is conscious of, and
consciousness is not an arrangement of parts, as where consciousness
comes from, there is no space time to have parts in.
But that is what you are trying to do, build a bridge between
religion and science. The Gods in trouble hope you never do, but *REAL*
science is the only thing that will finally figure out the correct
religion, how we did it and why.
But don't look to the science found in the halls of academentia and
lower learning.
Two thousand years ago, both science and religion were failed
barbarisms.
Today science has grown up and has become a very successful
barbarism.
That may seem rough, but take a look at what physics has given us.
Atom bombs and cell phones.
Oh OK, physicists aren't all bad.
They gave us the cell phone so when the bombs drop, we can call up
our loved ones and kiss our sorry asses goodbye together.
But if science has evolved into a monstrosity, religion remains an
abomination.
It may be science that gave us the ability to terminate the world,
but it is religion that wants to destroy it.
So between the two headed Goliath of religion and science, goes
you.
You need to understand science cold, so you can understand religion
from the center of your GodSoul to the outer reaches of the AllThatIS.
None of which is OUT THERE.
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 Apr 30 23:07:58 EDT 2010
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Feb 5 12:00:02 EST 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore754.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)
iD8DBQFaeI2TURT1lqxE3HERAv0EAKCJG/oftp9zbp8ZDsc9tl34d8zS8wCgzLU4
uytUM63XyqnizgtHa5Qkrs4=
=Yx7k
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Friday, January 26, 2018
MEN AND WOMEN
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
MEN AND WOMEN
A man's interest in women is basically the same as a baby's
interest in a mother.
Once the man grows up, he has about as much need for a woman, as an
ax through the head.
He is better off leaving the woman upside down in a trash can to be
carried away where she belongs.
As for men and women being friends to each other, that isn't going
to happen because down in the deepest part of her heart, the woman is in
seething hatred for the man, born of jealousy.
Whatever a woman complains about in a man, she is jealous of, no
matter how egretious.
She is jealous that she too can't be that egregious and get away
with it.
You think women are so sweet and light, but while men destroy with
overt violence, women destroy with covert violence.
Any woman who claims she isn't jealous of men is happy living the
protected life of a rip off artist taken care of by men and the
civilization they have built around her, all the while allowed to
continously bitch about how she can do anything a man can do, only
better.
Bitching yes, maybe, anything else no.
Men grow up from being a fetus THROUGH being a female, and then
onto being a man.
Because of the broken Y chomosome, women think of men as gentically
damaged women.
Men think of women as children.
Children who will never grow up, because they CAN never grow up.
And men hate women for their second rate state of existence, born
of the man's unconfrontable sorrow and sympathy for women for having
been created second rate out of the gate.
Men look at women in horror as eternally crippled.
And you know, women KNOW THIS, oh boy do they know this, they smile
at you with that warm come hither look, but all they want is to be
serviced, to have their pussies filled, and a safe garage to live in,
one she couldn't build herself and couldn't possibly figure out or
discover for herself how it worked if her life depended on it.
And I will let you in on a little secret, any man who abuses a
woman, hates his mother.
I do wonder why.
It is the man's effort to destroy his mother, that makes him
destroy the planet instead, with atomic war.
He can't kill her, so he will kill everyone else instead.
His greatest fear?
His mother will be the last one left standing.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth, and Peace, Internet, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Fri Jan 26 00:32:59 EST 2018
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/ador1044.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)
iD8DBQFaar2LURT1lqxE3HERAteDAJ4zFEYEc/68isD7UMCKLQ5bOCzBUQCdE+ps
3heAcRX0O9auu+jz+VlGgzw=
=FRZu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
MEN AND WOMEN
A man's interest in women is basically the same as a baby's
interest in a mother.
Once the man grows up, he has about as much need for a woman, as an
ax through the head.
He is better off leaving the woman upside down in a trash can to be
carried away where she belongs.
As for men and women being friends to each other, that isn't going
to happen because down in the deepest part of her heart, the woman is in
seething hatred for the man, born of jealousy.
Whatever a woman complains about in a man, she is jealous of, no
matter how egretious.
She is jealous that she too can't be that egregious and get away
with it.
You think women are so sweet and light, but while men destroy with
overt violence, women destroy with covert violence.
Any woman who claims she isn't jealous of men is happy living the
protected life of a rip off artist taken care of by men and the
civilization they have built around her, all the while allowed to
continously bitch about how she can do anything a man can do, only
better.
Bitching yes, maybe, anything else no.
Men grow up from being a fetus THROUGH being a female, and then
onto being a man.
Because of the broken Y chomosome, women think of men as gentically
damaged women.
Men think of women as children.
Children who will never grow up, because they CAN never grow up.
And men hate women for their second rate state of existence, born
of the man's unconfrontable sorrow and sympathy for women for having
been created second rate out of the gate.
Men look at women in horror as eternally crippled.
And you know, women KNOW THIS, oh boy do they know this, they smile
at you with that warm come hither look, but all they want is to be
serviced, to have their pussies filled, and a safe garage to live in,
one she couldn't build herself and couldn't possibly figure out or
discover for herself how it worked if her life depended on it.
And I will let you in on a little secret, any man who abuses a
woman, hates his mother.
I do wonder why.
It is the man's effort to destroy his mother, that makes him
destroy the planet instead, with atomic war.
He can't kill her, so he will kill everyone else instead.
His greatest fear?
His mother will be the last one left standing.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth, and Peace, Internet, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Fri Jan 26 00:32:59 EST 2018
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/ador1044.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)
iD8DBQFaar2LURT1lqxE3HERAteDAJ4zFEYEc/68isD7UMCKLQ5bOCzBUQCdE+ps
3heAcRX0O9auu+jz+VlGgzw=
=FRZu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)