For example:

Arthur C. Clarke 6/9                        ART MATRIX - LIGHTLINK           PO 880 Ithaca, NY 14851-0880
                                            (607) 277-0959      Voice
                                            (607) 277-8913      Fax
                                            (607) 277-5026      Modems

                                            07/19/07 5:57pm

     Dear Esteemed Sir,

     This is a quick summary of how I have taught the proof to various
people in the past.

     Most are open to it, some are not.

     The proof is taught in 3 phases.

     Phase 1, Objectification of Consciousness and Conscious Experience.

     Very quickly, we define an object as anything that has qualities,
and anything that has qualities is an object.

     We define a something as any object that has some qualities, and a
nothing as any object that has no qualities.

     Notice there can be only one nothing, if there were two different
nothings, their quality sets would have to be different and thus could
not be both empty.

     The quality set of an object is called its state.


     We further assert the following theorem:
     If A and B are objects, and A changes state but B does not, then A
was and is not B, i.e.  A and B were and are two *DIFFERENT* objects.

     People are very used to using their conscious experiences as
symbols for the alleged external physical universe, much as a soldier in
a tank uses an image on his TV set to see the external world.

     The soldier has an outward facing video camera mounted on his tank,
and just so the human being has outward facing eyes mounted on his head.

     Photons that bounce off objects in the alleged physical universe
hit the tank's video camera and are ultimately translated into images on
a TV set inside the tank for the soldier to see.

     Just so, new different photons reradiated from the TV set hit the
eyes and the retina, and ultimately are translated into conscious
experience images for the being to see.

     By the time the solider sees the images from the TV set in his
consciousness, the phones are GONE, so what he is seeing is not photons,
they merely carry the message to him.

     The message from the King that a war is going on, is a different
object than the King, the war that is going on or his messenger.

     The soldier is using the images on the TV as a symbol to keep track
of the referent object in the alleged external universe.
     He hopes that the TV image will dependably track the state of the
external referent properly.
     He certainly doesn't want to see a tree on the TV set when there is
no tree in the external world, nor does he want to NOT see a tree on the
TV set when indeed there is one.

     Notice that the tree in the external physical universe is an
object, and so is the image of that same tree on the TV set, BUT THEY

     The first is the referent, the second is the symbol.

     That may be a big Duh!  to many people, but most people are big
Duh!'s themselves, so it needs to said and said again until they can't
forget it.

     The symbol state (state of the symbol) is (hopefully) causally
related to the referent state so the soldier can tell things about the
referent by looking at the symbol.

     Although the referent and symbol tend to look like each other, that
is they share some geometric congruence, conformity, corresondingness,
commensurateness, or similarities with each other, they are in fact two
completely different objects.

     Insanity ensues when the two are inseparably confused with each
     When A and B are two different objects, one form of insanity is
considering that A = B.
     We can use our theorem on change of state above to prove the two
objects of tree and picture of tree are two DIFFERENT objects.
     The soldier can turn off the TV set so the symbol image on the TV
set disappears, but surely the referent tree is still there.

     B changed, but A did not, thus B is not A.

     Someone of less intelligence might claim that it doesn't
matter that A and B are not the same object.

     They are of course nuts.

     Not only are the referent and symbol two different objects in space
but also in time, because the symbol state is tracking an EARLIER
referent state by the speed of light across the distance that separates

     The speed of photons is about 1 foot per nanosecond, so if the
referent tree is 100 feet away from the video camera on the tank, the
image on the TV set will be about 100 nanoseconds late.

     Thus what the soldier is seeing on the TV set NOW is certainly not
the tree as it is NOW out in the physical universe.

     He can only see it as it might have been a while ago.

     Relativity tells us that information can not travel across space
instantaeously, so two different points in space may exist at the same
time, but a physical observer can never know it.  He has to observe one,
then the other later, 1 nanosecond in time for every light foot hey are
apart in space.
     Thus images we see now of the sun are 8 light minutes apart, if the
sun were to turn off or blow up we wouldn't know about it for 8 minutes!
     At no time is the soldier, who is looking at the symbol in the
tank, in communication with the external world as it IS NOW.

     Even with a delayed communication, the symbol for the tree on the
TV in the tank is only tracking the state of the external referent if
the causal pathway between the tree and the video camera on the outside
of the tank, and then again between the video camera and the TV set
inside his tank is working properly, that is as theorized.

     Now of course the soldier understands all this very well, but your
average sophmorish human being may not.

     For example if you point to the image of the tree on the TV set and
ask the soldier what it is and what it is made of, he will answer, "That
is a tree made of wood."

     But in fact what you pointed at was not a tree at all, but a
rendition of a tree on a TV screen made of glass and phosphors.

     This error is called collapsing symbol and referent, the observer
sees the symbol AS the referent, the symbol IS the referent for all
practical purposes in the mind of the errant observer.

     Try planting glass and phospors in the ground and see if it grows.

     Now as I said the soldier understands this, he WANTS the image of
the tree on the TV set to look so perfect it's like he is seeing through
a glass window because he is more interested in what the outside
referent tree is doing than what the inside symbol tree on the TV is

     The referent object is important to know about, the
symbol object is only important to the degree it accurately
tracks the referent.

     The external referent could be an enemy tank, the symbol image on
the TV is just an image, whose only purpose is to convey through its own
state to the soldier the state of the external referent, is it pointing
its guns at him or not, is it one of his own tanks or the tank of an

     This is life and death, this melding of symbol and referent,
and the fact that the symbol is not the referent is an annoying
distraction to the soldier in the tank.

     When using symbols to learn about referents in the physical
universe, the symbol gets its existence and purpose from the referent.

     Knowing things about the symbol is considered to be waste of time.

     Who cares if you see a tree.  We only care if there IS a tree.

     Knowledge about the referent is an intrisic goal, valuable in

     Knowledge about the symbol is an instrumental goal, and then only
if knowledge about the symbol leads to knowledge about the referent.

     The process of going from knowledge about the symbol to knowledge
about the referent is called learning by indirect perception, or
learning by being an effect.
     Now let me rephrase that.

     The process of going from CERTAIN knowledge about the symbol
ascertained by direct perception of the symbol, to theoretical knowledge
of the referent is called indirect perception of the referent gleaned
via a causal map between the qualities of the symbol and the qualities
of the referent.

     One sees the symbol directly.

     One uses what one sees of the symbol to make theoretical
conclusions about the referent.

     The existence of the symbol DOES NOT necessarily imply the
existence of the referent, no matter how much they look like each other,
and thus one can not prove anything with perfect certainty about the
referent by using the nature and state of the symbol as evidence.

     The soldier doesn't care about the symbol, he only cares about the
referent, and as long as the symbol is being a proper causal slave to
the referent, he would prefer just as well that the symbol not exist at

     He would prefer to be in direct contact with the referent, but he
settles for being in indirect contact wthe referent it via the symbol as
long as the symbol state faithfully tracks the referent state properly.

     There are advantages to 'seeing' a referent via looking at a symbol
for it.

     By using the symbol he can 'see' the referent remotely.
     The symbol is ALWAYS distant from the referent in space and time,
even if by a microscopic amount, and if the soldier's conscious
renditions ARE his symbol of final authority for the referent, then the
solider can be here, and the referent way out there, and the solider can
still know about it.

     But learning about a referent by looking at a symbol is also a
compromise, as data is lost between referent and symbol, and the longer
the causal pathway is between them, the more 'hops' of cause and effect
there is between them, the more degraded a representation of the
referent the symbol becomes.
     Thus accuracy of knowledge is lost.
     He wants the tracking between symbol and referent to be so perfect
he can forget he is looking at a symbol and concentrate on the what the
alleged referent is doing.

     But he knows he is doing this, it is part of his training.

     He retains enough lucidity to realize that if the inside symbol
tree on his TV set starts to act up, turn pink or polka dot, he should
fix the TV set, and not go out side and figure out what's wrong with the
outside referent tank!

     Your human being is doing the same thing with his conscious
     His consciousness is connected to his retina and his eyes, but when
he looks at a tree he thinks he is seeing a *TREE*, not a conscious
picture (rendition) of a tree.

     Your average human being believes that his eyes are a glass window
to the external world.
     So again we invoke the above theorem, and have him close his eyes.
     The conscious picture of the tree disappears but surely the
external tree remains.

     Thus his conscious experience of the tree can not possibly be a
tree made of wood, but a conscious image of a tree made of conscious

     Many humans are walking around in a semi somnambulistic state of
believing that what they see in their consciousness is the alleged
physical universe and not a conscious rendition of it, even though it is
obvious they should know better.

     But again they are MUCH more interested in the alleged external
tree than than they are in the conscious image of it.
     This is probably because if they run into the external tree they
will get hurt, but who has ever been hurt by a conscious image?

     People want to see the tree directly, they don't want to see the
tree via looking at a symbol, the symbol could always be wrong as in
hallucination, imagination or dreaming.
     So they forget they are looking at the tree via a conscious
experience and pretend they can see the tree itself.

     They try to verify that the symbol is an accurate rendition of the
external referent by squinting harder at the symbol!
     They hope they are squinting harder at the referent, but in the end
they can only see the symbol.
     Squinting improves the focus of the photons coming off the referent
to the eyes, and this then cleans up the focus of the symbol.

     But the whole process helps to keep the illusion that they are
seeing the referent directly and that their eyes are a glass window to
the world.

     So their first reaction to being shown this material that at no
time are they seeing a tree made of wood but a self luminous conscious
experience of a tree is "So what?  "What's the difference?  Who cares?
(How dare you remind me!)"

     The soldier would never be so dull, he knows very well what the
difference is because his very life depends on being able to pretend
that symbol and referent are one, when things are working properly, but
to immediately be able to tell the difference when they aren't.

     In fact his ability to deal with an errrant symbol, due to a broken
or mis functioning causal pathway between external tank and TV, is almost as
important as being able to deal with the referent tank.

     He can smoothly collapse and uncollapse referent and symbol at
will, and then fix which ever one needs fixing.

     For example say someone plugs a video tape into his TV set and the
soldier starts to see aliens landing.
     Well if he really thought that the TV set were a pure glass window
to the outside world, he wouldn't think to check the TV set now would
     He would believe the aliens were landing.

     But continuing lucidity about how the causl pathways really work in
this instance, allows the soldier to check the TV set first for proper
functionality before believing the aliens really are landing.

     But in the end the real answer to "So What?" is science doesn't
care about the answer: if two objects are two *DIFFERENT* objects, then
pure science is interested in that fact for it's own sake.

     The average dullard might think it stupid to consider that his
consciousness of a tree is not a tree made of wood, but in fact this
position of non lucidity removes the possibility that he might start
studying his consciousness AS consciousness for its own sake.

     For example he might want to consider that just because his
conscious experience looks like a tree, does not prove that the TREE
looks like a tree!

     It could look like a video tape.

     How much do people really know about consciousness?
     I talk to Physics PhD's at Cornell about it, and they giggle
embarassingly.  "Oh that's for the psychology department to study."

     Their implication is 'We KNOW the psychologists don't know
anything, so it's ok to relegate consciousness to them so they can not
know anything about that too!"
     Consciousness is an embarassing word to many.
     "Oh god, I forgot that I am conscious, a conscious unit!"

     When you talk about it, people start feeling a bit 'unzipped'.

     You have reminded them they have forgotten they are walking around
in the zombie zone of believing they are meat.

     "No consciousness here, just proteins, fats and carbohydrates."


     People feel about having a consciousness much like they feel about
having a penis, vigina or boogs, it's something they would prefer to
cover with a fig leaf.
     And talking about a science of consciousness is like talking about
a science of UFO's, or the healing power of crystals and pyramids.

     I mean who cares about consciousness, most think it is only an
observer, a reporter of what is, it can't DO anything on its own,
everything that goes on in the mind is really happening because of
underlying physical processes that any machine can do better.

     And anythought of the the casative powers of conscious will and
motivation just mere delusion of an ego centric mind.

     A PHYSICAL MIND, made of meat and not conscoius spirit.

     Everyone knows nothing can be known about consciousness and so
therefore anyone pretending to know and talk about it is a crack pot.

     The sad result is that the only people then talking about
consciousness ARE crackpots, which means they been smoking way too much
crack and way too much pot.

     I get the same reaction from the chemists, biologists, and the
neurologists.  Trying to talk about consciousness makes them giggle and
squirm with embarassment.
     Do we see a problem with this?
     Everyone of them believes that consciousness is DEPENDENT OR EVEN
them wants to talk about how one might build something that was
conscious out of parts that are not.

     How do you build a thing which feels pain out of parts that do not?

     Those working on robots would like to know, they want to build
machines that can be tortured.

     Hey wake up stupid, if a machine can care and give a damn, it can
be tortured.
     Just torture what it cares about.

     The fact that the whole assembly of parts in a human being is
conscious is *IRRELEVANT* to these scientists of the rock, even though
there is not one conscious part in the body's constituency.

     That is actually a major miracle, flying over the heads of PhDs and
department chairs everywhere.

     Love, pain and shame can not of force and mass be made.

     They aren't just accelerations of a piece of rock, which after all
is all that force can do, accelerate a mass.

     Remember machines are made of constituency, and arrangement and the
result is process.

     Consciousness is ostensibly the valuable final process, of the
underlying (causal) constituency and arrangement.

     There is no consciousness in any of the parts.

     This leaves us with the Grand Unified Ludicrosity of all time that
mere arrangement of non conscious parts can produce consciousness!

     That mere arrangment of parts, that can not of itself be perfectly
certain of anything, can nonetheless, as a whole, produce perfect
certainty of its own existence.
     And that it cares and gives a damn.

     Talk about emergent phenomenon.


     The cry of "Emergent phenonmenon!" is the mating call of Dodos.

     Dodos that can not explain observed phenomenon from underlying
causal pathways, so claim instead that the emergent phenomenon
DOESN'T HAVE underlying causal pathways, so they just appear out
of nowhere!

     Talk about something from nothing.

     And the final walk forward of science from knowing about
why things happen to not knowing anyting about anything.

     "Tides are an emergent phenonmenon." - Gallileo


     Pain is not the result of an arrangement of force and mass in

     And when it comes to physical constituents, force and mass in
motion is all you got.

     The primary interest of the scintific crowd who are trying to
develop the Grand Unified Theory of Everything out of underlying DEAD
FORCES, is to make sure everything arises out of fundamentals (math)

     Imagine if someone came out and said that photons were
conscious and felt pain and operated out of will and motivation?

     No, they want a dead universe made out of dead parts, and they try
to explain away the embarassing little detail of how dead parts that
feel no pain, only force, can nonetheless arise together into a
complexity of dead parts that can feel pain and be self aware in the

     Many would prefer to defend crystal and pyramid power than admit to
the indepenent actuality of their own timeless spaceless consciousness.

     And what exactly do we mean by conscious?


     Frankly my diagnosis is that many people suffer from the belief
that consciousness is ONLY useful as a symbol for an unseeable physical
referent, and has no qualitative nature or causal consequences of it's
own, and thus has no use in explaining how anything works in this

     Consciousness is only useful as a window to observe what is going
on in the brain, but has no direct causal impingement on what happens
     Even the fact that consciousness has observed something going on
the brain is not then allowed to affect what happens next in the brain
at all.

     Consciousness has become the appendix of the universe, and most are
terrified of bringing it up lest they have a case of appendicitis and
need to have it removed.

     This is odd, no?, that a machine, the brain, which is utterly
incapable of direct perception or pefect certainty of any kind, is none
the less using consciousness as a symbol for an uncertain physical
universe, when the conscious symbol itself IS capable of direct
perception and perfect certainty of itself.

     What a waste of virtuosity.

     This is like using solid gold to represent one's wealth in brass.
     How did direct perception, an untold marvel possibly bordering on
the divine impossible, become the mundane slave of indirect perception
and the goals of mere physical survival in a cold dead, and uncaring
physical universe?
     Tell me the only use the universe could find for perfect certainty
was as a symbol for a perfect uncertainty?

     The grand unified theory of everything is all about forces and
masses, not one word about consciousness.
     All of existence is merely force and mass in motion, right?

     Pain is merely a symbol for processes going on in the brain in
force and mass, and has no causal agency of it's own, right?

     A universe of mechanical robots who felt no pain would unfold
exactly the same as a universe of conscious being who gave a damn for

     And this zombie zoner is grading MY papers?

     They assert that no causality travels THROUGH consciousness,
because consciousness is at worst a nothing, or at best merely a process
that is already going on in the brain anyhow, best explained by force
and mass alone.

     So since consciousness has no causal influence or significance of
any kind of its own, why bother to study it, it's not what is important.
The real pushers of life are mass and the 4 forces of nature.

     If consciousness and pain did not exist, the clock work universe of
force and mass in motion would continue on as it already is, with not a
change in sight.

     Except for books on consciousness which wouldn't exist in the clock
work universe of force and mass only.

     Wouldn't the world be a better place if consciousness and pain
didn't exist?
     They have no causal agency anyhow beyond the force and mass
underlying them, right?

     But then the word consciousness would never have come up.

     Or perhaps we think the system of parts made of force and mass
(brain) ran into and noticed consciousness, reported back on it.

     Did consciusness notice this moment of being noticed, and
report back too?

     Perhaps we fancy that force and mass in the brain was the EFFECT of
consciousness, and thus started talking about it.

     But what did force and mass run into that was NOT just more force
and mass that it called consciousness.

     What is the difference between a system of force and mass, and a
system of force and mass and consciousness?

     Force is causal, it causes changes.


     Force and pain may have analogous qualities, but force is not pain.

     If a panorama of falling dominoes were conscious, would they still
just fall the same as if they were not conscious?
     Would they fall because of will and pain, or would they fall
because of force and mass alone?
     Is the relationship of pain to will, the same as the relationship
of force to mass?

     Will can clearly generate force to move mass, but what moves will?
     Is pain and will JUST force and mass?

     Who needs 'God' to explain anything?  God is not force and mass in


     Some would say, love and pain are not causal.

     It's all just force and mass in motion, moving in a perfect
clockwork of mathematical inevitability tempered by some quantum
randomity and chaotic lousy measurements.


     Force and mass does it all.

     "I would found an institution where anyone can find study in any
subject." - Ezra Cornell

     Oh, except for consciousness.
     We don't talk about consciousness here.
     I went to school for this?

     Personally I find this to be a major schizophrenic rift in the
world of academentia, and what it results in is no one knows anything
about the nature of consciousness, because they are using it full time
as a symbol to learn about alleged referents made only of force and
mass, to learn that consciousness is nothing of import and the alleged
is everything of import.

     Consciousness which is capable of perfect certainty of itself is
nothing of import, but the physical universe whose existence we are
forever condemned to be uncertain about, it all of import?
     Jesus and Allah save us all.


     So this is silly, if one can euphemize total insanity as such.

     It is time to start studying consciousness AS consciousness, and
forget the world that it represents to us as out there and pretends to
be its underlying cause.
     The physical universe is the great pretender, as it pretends that
it created consciousness to perceive itself.

     Well the physical universe is in for a sad awakening because
consciousness can only see itself, it can't see the phyiscal universe at


     Perhaps consciousness created virtual realities of the
physical universe in order to get lost it and have fun finding
its way home.

     Is anyone having fun yet?

     The conscious experience (symbol) is an object in its own right,
and thus we need to make the symbol into its own referent, so we can
start learning how the SYMBOL works, not just use the symbol to study
the original referent of cold, dead and uncaring matter, energy space
and time of which we can have no certainty exists anyhow.

     The symbol can do something the physical referent can't anyhow,
it's called perfect certainty of itself, via direct perception of itself
and its own causal agency, and self symbolizing, self aware self
luminosity, lit by nothing other.

     What a waste of virtuosity to relegate something that can see its
spaceless timeless self to the slavery of pretendingg it can see
something else out in PROVABLY UNPROVABLE space and time.

     Remember Occam's sharpening strap?

     Don't even postulate something that is provably unprovable.


     Red is causal, it causes you to know it is red and not green.
How do you think you come to know or experience red?

     Red is self luminous, it is self causal, you LEARN about it
via a direct causal connection to it as cause, not its effects.

     If red had no cause, you wouldn't be able to see or learn about it.
     Pain is also causal.

     And YOU as will powered by motivation are also clearly causal,
that's called direct perception of personal agency

     You are the agent one.

     Consciousness has causality, that's a perfect certainty, so we
assume that the phyiscal universe has causality.

     But insanity is: If the symbol has a quality the referent must have
the same quality too.

     And we seek the original first cause.

     Teleology.  What a joke.

     If the conscious symbol has qualities, abilities and facilities
that the referent doesn't, why bother?  What use could they be?

     Surely knowing about the physical universe aids in the survival of
consciousness, no?

     So any darwinian will tell you that knowing about the referent is

     But how does knowing about CONSCIOUSNESS aid in the survival of

     And what the hell good is this self luminous nonsense and
perfect certainty, let alone perfect certainty of cause?

     Don't you think we should get with the program already before the
physical universe wipes out consciousness due to our lack of knowledge

     Not only can't you build a machine that can prove cause exists, you
certainly can never build a machine that gives a damn.

     We need to start studying the TV set inside the tank as its own
object, rather than just use it to study things out side the tank.

     As it will turn out the symbol, the conscious image, always was
more important than the alleged referent in the alleged physical

     The nature of consciousness, what it is, where it comes from, what

     Now it is true that the symbols seen both by the soldier in the
tank, and the conscious being, are very similar to the referents they
represent, however they are in fact two different objects and thus MUST
have two different quality sets.

     In other words only SOME of the qualities of the symbol TV image
tree are similar to the referent tree while other qualites are very
different from each other indeed.

     For the soldier, the referent tree is made of wood and the symbol
tree is made of glass and phosphors.

     For the conscious being the referent tree is also made of wood,
however the conscious image of the tree is, well certainly not made of

     So what is it made of then?

     Consciousness is NOT just a process in something else that is not

     Consciousness is its own thing, consciousness is SOMETHING and not
a NOTHING, and as such it is MADE OF SOMETHING.

     And it is not made of force and mass in motion, as consciousness
has no space or time to move or be made in!

     Ah, science takes its first step in studying consciousness as
consciousness, rather than as what we have been using it to refer to,
for all all these thousands of years of evolution, the alleged physical

     At the point that the being sees that his consciousness is not a
nothing, but a something which is its own thing, which he is USING as a
symbol to track alleged referents in the alleged physical universe, then
he has uncollapsed symbol and referent, possibly for the first time in
his life, and he has OBJECTIVIZED CONSCIOUSNESS, recognizing it as an
object with qualities of its own.

     Consciousness becomes the ORIGINAL REFERENT and not just
a symbol for other original referents not itself.

     Now consciousness becomes the referent to be learned about, not a
mere symbol for learning about the unconcious physical univese of force
and mass in motion.
     At this point when you point to something and ask the soldier what
it is, he will say with a smile, "That is not a tree made of wood, that
is a tree made of self luminous glow in the dark lit by nothing else,
conscious experience."

     A conscious RENDITION become self sybolizing referent.

     Then you have a Phase 1 completion.

     The being has attained objectification of himself and his
conscious, as a something, not a nothing, and possibly not made of
something else that is not conscious, as consciousness can not be
made of the non conscious.

     Conscious renditions of virtual space and time and the objects in
them (dreamtime) are emergent phenomenon from consciousness!

     OK, let's take a break.  Thanks for staying with me this long.

     Phase 2.  Restoration of Personal Integrity.

     We *DEFINE* personal integrity as knowing what you know and knowing
what you don't know.  If you don't know something, you should know that
you don't know it.

     Out integrity, then, would be not knowing what you know, or not
knowing what you don't know, thinking you know when you don't.

     There are 5 buckets that all knowledge can be divided into.

     1.) Those things you are perfectly certain are true.
     2.) Those things you would bet are probably true.
     3.) Those things you would toss a coin about, perfect 50/50 no clue.
     4.) Those things you would bet are probably false.
     5.) Those things you are perfectly certain are false.

     Notice the bottom two buckets are redundant, because anything in
them can be put in the top two buckets simply by negating the sense of
the statement.

     If you would bet it is false that ostriches can fly, you would also
bet it is true that ostriches can NOT fly.

     If you are certain it is false that you do not exist, then you are
certain it is true that you do exist.

     Out integrity, then, is having various beliefs in the wrong
buckets, not because you are honestly wrong, but because of well,
goofballism in one's approach to truth.

     Thus every belief and every certainty needs to be re certified to
belong in the bucket they are assigned, and if they don't belong in the
bucket they are in, we move them to the bucket they belong in.

     Alot of people for example are 'certain' that God exists, when in
truth they are terrified that admitting they have doubts will land them
in hell forever if in fact He does.

     They are ORDERED to BELIEVE the bible after all, and any refusal to
believe based on God's orders would be insubordination of the worst

     Observation and logical conclusion are sins.
     And purpose of science is to test your faith.

     God is a God of TRUTH you see, but not truth based on evidence, and
not truth based on certainty, but truth based on the Bible's say so.

     Thus they are incapable of being honest with themselves about those
doubts lest God punish them for heresy or disobedience in the end.

     This does not aid the cause of clear thinking.

     This also does not bode well for their immortal ((eternal)) souls,
for if God does exist, then surely God is a God of Truth, and He will
take them to task for NOT admitting those doubts in great detail, and
not putting the 'God exists' idea in the second or third buckets where
it may belong until such certainty is obtained through DIRECT

     You remember that little ditty that goes 'the pure in heart shall
SEE God?' So the guy says "Heh well my heart isn't pure, but I BELIEVE
in God anyhow!  God will FORGIVE me for not seeing Him directly."

     No he won't.  Until you can see God directly, you are lost veal.

     A God of truth would detest false belief and false faith.

     People get the brownie point for honesty at the Pearly Gates, not
for enforced beliefs based on hubris, arrogance, vanity and conceit,
even if they are right in the end.
     *RIGHTNESS* by chance, trust, faith and theory from indirect
perception is not as valuable as rightness by direct perception.
     It is a sad statement on humanity that people consider God in such
low esteem that they have to warp their personal integrity in order to
remain in His good standing.

     If there is a God, boy are they in for a surprise.

     "Hmm, you believed in me because the Bible and the National
Enquirer said so?  Hell is this way son."

     The progress of both religion and science on this planet has been
repeatedly damaged by people with "out integrity", especially those who
like to write The Book first and do the research second.

     Out integrity is the opposite of IN integrity.  A person's
integrity can be said to be IN when all his knowledge is properly sorted
according to their appropriate bucket without corruption, temptation and
seduction to place some tidbit in a bucket where it does not belong.
     Now there are only two kinds of knowledge, knowledge learned by
direct perception and knowledge learned by indirect perception.


     Indirect perception means learning about A by looking at B in the
hopes of finding a causal imprint on B indicating the possible nature of

     In this case, B is evidence, A is model and the causal connection
between them is theory.  


     Thus we can call knowledge gleaned by indirect perception
theoretical knowledge.

     And here I am going to say something pretty strange and perhaps
hard to swallow and certainly many academentians will Harumph!  their
way around it.

     Theoretical knowledge about causation can never be either true or
false, only dependably workable or not.

     That's a major statement, please do not gloss over it.

     Models are descriptions of things, a listing of their quality sets.

     Since dimensionality precludes direct perception of an object other
than yourself, one can never verify the 'true' quality set of any object
other than oneself.

     At best one can only offer that one's theoretical model of an
object's quality set has stood the test of time.
     This does not prove correctness and in fact does not even increase
the probability of correctness.

     I know one guy who thinks the sun comes up because the
rooster crows.

     Is Einstein more probably right about how gravity works than
     His model tests out better, but in the end so what?
     Perhaps gravity is caused by every breath of God moving the
universe forward in such a way that it looks like there is force or
curved space or 11 dimensional Spaghetti-O's making the world go round.

     Models are models, they can never get at the true nature of cause.

     Worse models may lay out very detailed descriptions of the quality
sets of A and B, and even say that one of the qualities of A is that it
can CAUSE changes in B's quality set.

     But the model will NEVER tell you how or why A can do this.


     How does the model know there isn't a third party causing both A
and B in such a way that it looks like A is causing B?

     It can't.

     Certainty of cause between A and B is nonsense.

     That's called the Third Party Law by the way.

     Thus certainty, which applies to truth and not mere dependable
workability, can never apply to theoretical knoweldge.

     Thus claiming certainty of theoretical knowledge gleaned from
indirect observation is a oxymoron, similar to asking what the square
root of a dog is.
     Square roots do not apply to dogs, and neither does truth apply to
theory, and so neither does certainty.

     We like to think our theories are RIGHT.  It's a deadly form of
     We loosely talk about proving a theory false with one counter
example, thus leading to the idea that the theory might have been true
in the first place.

     The truth is theories can only be proven unworkable.  They fail the
test of time to predict outcomes properly, but that only means the
theory is unworkable and thus in some sense wrong or false.

     But the opposite of unworkable is workable, the opposite
of false is true.

     Thus conflating unwarkable with false, allows to try and
get away with conflating workable and true.

     Theories can in fact be workable and have absolutely nothing
to do with truth or the actual underlying causation of the phenomenon
in question.

     If a theory hasn't failed the test of time, well there is always
more time...

     One might say that if a theory is unworkable then it is surely
false too.  But I wouldn't go down that road, as its opposite, that the
theory is true, is an undefined usage of the word true.

     Theories are not in the domain of objects that can be true or
     They are merely models that are either workable or unworkable.

     What indirect perception perceives in the end might have absolutely
nothing to do with what is there.

     One can rightly claim that "I am certain I have never seen any
instance of this theory proving to be unworkable", but to then claim
"And I am certain I never will" would be brazen and shameless out
integrity, worthy of at lest a short stint in Hell forever.

     This kind of out integrity is a kind of scientific illness.
     Oxymorons in one's belief sets are a form of out personal

     Thus the first thing that needs to be done is to clean out of the
bucket of truths that are perfectly certain, any theoretical knowledge
gleaned by indirect observation.

     There is nothing wrong with theoretical knowledge, the entirety of
our well being in the phyiscal universe depends on it, but not one
single iota of it belongs in the 'perfectly certain' bucket of
     Most of it however might be put in the 'its a good bet to be
workable' bucket.

     But then people have been walking around their whole lives with
false beliefs and ideas in the wrong buckets.
     Every time an idea is put in the wrong bucket, that paves the way
for more ideas to be put in the wrong buckets.

     For example we have gone over the 5 great lies.

     1.) Earth is flat.  Well, that idea put in the probably true
bucket, prevented people for eons from exploring the seas lest they fall
off the edge of the Earth and never return.

     Too bad, the Earth would have been better off without them.

     2.) Earth is the center of the universe.  People ignored FOREVER
the data that the Earth was not the center of the universe, little
things that weren't too important to them at the time compared to their
need to believe that the Earth was the center.

     For example, these clowns never went to the moon, nor even looked
into Gallileo's telescope at jupiter's moons.

     These assholes even had the hubris to refuse to look in the scope,
saying they knew what they were going to see and so didn't need to see
it, as it wouldn't change their mind.

     It is unfortunate that we can not tell the story of a life as great
as Gallileo's, without having to mention all the UnLordly dark mental
scum that surrounded him.

     So one misplacement of an idea in the wrong bucket for financial or
political purposes allows other ideas to be ignored or misrelegated and
progress is stopped cold.

     Even Copernicus saw the truth but wanted everything to move in
circles around the Sun.
     Tyco Brahe had the data that said things did move around the Sun,
but didn't move in circles, and Kepler kept wishing he could just throw
out certain points from Tyco's data sets to make things move in circles.
     Fixed wrong ideas lead to disaster in the scientific quest.

     Kepler finally realized that things moved in ellipses, and that
opened the door for Newton to come in and change everything.

     3.) Earth is the only planet with life on it.  Well so how do they
know?  The Book says so?  How much research did they do BEFORE they
wrote up the results in the The Book?  The God of Truth is going to be
VERY displeased with some people even if they turn out to be right in
the end.

     The greatest sin to a God of Truth is to write The Book first and
do the research later to fit the book.

     Blind faith is not pretty in the sight of a God of Truth even if it
turns out right.

     4.) This universe is the only universe there is.  Oy Lord, how
small is thy God now?

     5.) Consciousness arose out of the physical universe, consciousness
is mass in motion, chemistry bubbling away at 98.6.

     Ah well now we have stepped in it, haven't we?
     We have been using consciousness for so long to learn about the
alleged physical universe, we forget that we may not have all the
evidence we thought we did that the alleged physical universe exists at

     The mystics have been saying forever that the world is a dream, but
"they can barely feed themselves and lice live in their clothing" (LRH),
so who cares about them?

     If they are so smart, how come they aren't rich?

     Surely if the world were a dream made of consciousness, there would
be SOME evidence for it right?

     But not one iota in sight.  So how come?

     Well maybe people's minds are just too mucked up from false
certainties (physical universe exists) and oxymorons (my theory is
true!), and all the remainder of various ideas being in the wrong
buckets, that their mind just isn't free any more to perceive the very
special things necessary to know "Who or what is cause around here?"

     God or mammon?
     Consciousness or matter, energy, space, time and force?

     So from all this we assert another theorem which says:

     If a perfect certainty has been doubted or denied, or an
uncertainty has been asserted to be a certainty, the mind will no longer
be open enough to perceive true certainty and/or uncertainty as it
really is.

     That means just one mistake in one's allocation of ideas to buckets
and the whole process of finding truth stops.

     It's amazing the Earth still turns, eh?
     But ever notice how many of the people on Earth are dead, or trying
to make each other dead?

     Now again we need to be real careful about this.
     We are not saying that being honestly wrong will stop progress.

     It is quite OK to hold that the Earth is possibly or even probably
the only planet with life on it, it is not OK at all to hold that it is
CERTAINLY the only planet with life on it, because theoretical knowledge
can't be certain anyhow.

     And it is a carnal sin to claim only one planet has life on it
because my Book says so.
     So anything in the certainty bins that really belongs in the maybe
bins is a killer.

     Likewise anything in the maybe bins that OF NECESSITY belong in the
certainty bins is also a killer.

     People walking around thinking that maybe they don't exist, who
doubt that they doubt, that maybe they are someone else's hallucination,
and who are certain they can't be certain of anything belong in Godel

     Godel Jail is where people go when they commit either of the two
sins against truth of doubting a perfect certainty, or asserting an
uncertainty as truth.

     Formally they are charged with asserting a perfect certainty into
an uncertainty or worse a falsity, or asserting an uncertainty into a
perfect certainty.

     The end result is a kind of insanity where they begin to babble
self denying statements like all generalizations are false, and there
are no absolutes.

     Wind between the ears.

     Thus it is not an impossible goal to clean up any person's personal
integrity as long as they are willing to do so.

     Perfect certainties are obvious, and so are uncertainties,
theoretical knowledge.

     But one has to repent of the doubts asserted as truth lest one be
punished for honest doubt.

     And one has to repent of the perfect certainties asserted as doubts
because the light of perfect certainty was too glorifying or horrifying.

     A LOT of people deny the existence of perfect certainty simply
because it gives them the willies, the Cosmic Qualms or a bad case of
philosophical vertigo.

     Ooohhhh yeah!

     Once the bins are all straightened out and personal integrity is
restored in its entirety, then and only then can the mind be open enough
to have the visionary experiences necessary to see what the true nature
of consciousness and existence might be.

     There is more truth worth knowing inside of us than outside of us
in the alleged physical universe.

     In fact I will assert in all good faith that when a beginner's
personal integrity is completely clean again for the first time, one
will have no idea whether the alleged physical universe exists or not.

     Thus that particular idea will be in bin 3, 50/50 no clue.

     The 50/50 mark of not knowing whether the world is a dream or not
is the hot edged fence that keeps one awake and aware looking for any
slightest hint either way.

     For if the world is not a dream, the conscious unit is mortal and
will surely die one day, and no one has had time enough for love, and
never will.

     If the world is a dream, the conscious unit is immortal ((eternal))
and will live forever outside of time, and be able to engage in time as
it will, forever for free.

     "I doubt I am, therefore I am, for a nothing could not wonder if it
was a nothing or a something." - Descartes.

     "I know I am with perfect certainty, therefore I am forever."

     Descartes wrote that last in a secret notebook that no one has
found yet.

     Attaining the 50/50 state of not knowing whether the world is a
dream or not, the being has attained a Phase 2 completion.  He won't be
happy, but he will be a lot saner than those around him who haven't
gotten there yet.
     3.) The Proof Proper.

     With the being yearning for new data to finally end his torment on
the fence of 50/50, we introduce the ideas of perfect certainty,
distance and learning by being an effect.

     Very simply, if two objects are separated by a distance, the only
way they can learn about each other is by learning by being an effect of
each other.

     Since effect does not prove cause, learning by being an effect can
not produce learning with certainty of any kind about the source of
those effects.

     If A affects B, B can never see A, B can only see the effects in
HIMSELF allegedly caused by A.

     Since consciousness CAN learn with certainty about its own color
forms and self, there can be no distance between learner and learned

     Thus if you can see with perfect certainty two different colors out
there, they can't be out there because if they were out there you
couldn't see them.

     If A and B are separated by an actual distance, then the only way B
can learn about A is to be the effect of A and from those changes IN
ITSELF, B can begin to surmise theories about the suspected nature of A.

     At no time can B see A at all, because B is not A.

     Distance between two objects precludes direct perception and thus
precludes the self luminous light of perfect certainty.

     You can SEE red and green, thus there can be no distance between
you and what you see.  That is the conscious light of perfect certainty.

     It sounds mystical BECAUSE IT IS.

     Distance between two objects mandates indirect perception and thus
mandates the darkness of theory and model.

     That which is directly seen is therefore not separated from one.


     Thus consciousness has no distance in that part of its nature which
can see itself with perfect certainty, and thus is non dimensional in
that nature.

     Once that is perceived, the rest follows in due time, the being is
well on their way to a new and wonderful adventure of consciousness is
something, and the alleged physical universe is, well, who the hell
cares as there is NO evidence for it at all.

     Actuality virtualizes Reality, and there CAN BE NO EVIDENCE that
the Reality is Actual at all.

     Reality is a pretense that the being knowingly and willingly
engages in with full awareness of the consequences.

     Actuality is I AM.

     Reality is something exists too.

     Amnesia of that choice to engage in amnesia is just another

     That amnesia of choice is the proper and ONLY address of spiritual
auditing (therapy).

     Your faithful servant,

     Homer Wilson Smith

Homer Wilson Smith     The Paths of Lovers    Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF        Cross            Internet Access, Ithaca NY    In the Line of Duty

Mon Aug 13 22:52:44 EDT 2007