MAIL ME THIS POSTING!
MY E-MAIL ADDRESS:
For example: homer@lightlink.com

     THE STANDARD REFERENECE MODEL.
 
     This lecture was given on November 27th, 2005 and is entitled the
Standard Reference Model.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

     Hello.

     Today is November 27th, 2005.

     The standard reference model (SRM) is a simplifed version of how we
learn in the physical universe.  It is simple, but complete enough to
encompass all forms of learning that takes place at any physical
universe level.

     By learning of course we mean coming to know knowledge about
something.

     The standard reference model is referred to over and over again by
the proof and therefore it is important to know this thing forwards,
backwards, upside down and inside out in order to understand the proof.

     If you can understand the SRM, you can understand any form of
learning that takes place in the physical universe.

     The physical universe is considered to be the universe of matter,
energy, space and time and the changes that go on amongst that matter,
energy, space and time which we hereby collectively call mechanics.

     The word mechanics comes from the word machine, and we define a
machine as any system of parts interacting via cause and effect across a
spacetime distance (dimension).

     Parts of course are any amount of matter and energy in a space and
time.
 
     Thus the process of mechanics is the process of parts interacting,
via cause and effect, across a space time distance.

     A process is defined as a change in state in an object or
collection of objects that are in some functional arrangement.
 
     A pocket watch is a simple example of a machine, it has
constituency, arrangement, process and function.

     Constituency is what the partsof the machine are made of,
ultimately matter, energy, space time and the forces between them.

     Arrangement is the physical location of each part and its causal
relationship to each other part.

     Process is the sequence of changes that take place in the parts of
a machine due to the constituency and arrangement which results in its
final function.

     Function is the purpose the machine serves as the changes take
place.

     Processes are usually the sequence of changes that take place in a
machine accompanying the flow of energy through the arrangement of parts
resulting in the fuction of the machine, such as to tell time.

     We learned in the previous lecture on Symbols and Referents, that a
symbol is a later object or event (same thing) that is causally related
to an earlier object which is the referent.

     In that sense, the symbol is an effect and the referent is cause.

     A causal pathway is a series of events in spacetime that are
causally related to each other, one after the other, thus forming a
chain of referents and their symbols as time progresses.

     If A causes B, then A is the referent and B is the symbol.

     If B then causes C, B becomes a referent in its own right, and C is
the symbol.  C is in fact a symbol for both B and A, for C will be
imprinted with data about both B and A via the causal impingement
emmanating from A through B to C.

     In general when we learn in the physical universe, we are learning
by looking at effects, or more accurately by being an effect of a cause,
and thus computing back to what the cause must have been like,
considering what the effect was plus our current theories of the moment.

     In that sense, when we change state as a result of some causal
referent (influence) out there which we are trying to learn about, we
have become a symbol for that referent.  
 
     The event of the new changed state in ourselves is a symbol that is
causally related to the referent that caused that change in state in
ourselves.

     This symbol that we have become then, is called the symbol of final
authority, for it is the last event in the causal pathway that is being
looked at directly in order to learn about the qualities of the referent
that caused it.

     The referent as cause is being looked at indirectly via the symbol
which is being looked at directly and moment later.
 
     So you have this referent out in spacetime somewhere, and it causes
various effects which cause other effects, which cause other effects,
which eventually come down to an effect caused in ourselves as observer.

     We call this chain of cause and effects a causal pathway.

     All mechanical observation is actually receiving an effect from
some cause, and then changing state as a result of that cause.

     Thus we define mechanical observation as changing state as an
effect of some cause.

     We also call this indirect perception, because one is learning
about A out there by looking at B, namely one's self in here.

     Direct perception would be learning about A by looking directly at
A.  
 
     But this is not possible in the physical universe, as any kind of
space or time separation between observed and observer limits the
observer to observing changes in himself (B) in order to learn about A.

     If B is separated from A by a space time distance, B can never be
in direct contact with A, B can only be in indirect contact with A via a
causal pathway between them.
 
     B can only be in indirect contact with A via effects in B
propagated from A across that space time distance to B a moment later.
 
     Worse by the time that effect reaches B, A may not even exist any
more!

     In fact strictly speaking once a moment of time passes, A DOESN'T
exist any more, as the new A that remains a moment later has a different
time tag in its quality set, and thus the original A that started
the causal sequence is now gone to be replaced by a totally different
object A'.

     That means even when B is in indirect contact with A via the effect
it receives from A, the indirect contact is not with A as it is now, but
with A as it was when it emmanated the causal messenger wave.  This is
because the speed of causal propagation is finite.

     Thus at the moment that B 'sees' A via the change in state in
itself, A may in fact no longer even exist.

     Thus at no time is B seeing A directly as it is now.

     Clearly if one does not receive an effect from a cause, if one does
not change state from a cause, then one can not have learned anything
about that cause.

     Thus we assert the Fundamental Theorem of Learning:
 
     There must be a causal pathway between the learned about and the
learner, in order for the learned to be considered learning.

     Notice this inextricably ties learning to causality, for without
cause there is no learning, and where there is learning there must
always be cause.

     Notice the learned about is the referent, and the learner is the
symbol of final authority: that's how the learner learns.
  
     The Learner changes state as a result of a causal messenger wave
allegedly emmanated by the learned about and later received by the
learner.

     The knowledge learned are any observations, deductions or
hypotheses that the learner can make about the learned about because of
the particular nature of the change in state that the learner received
from the learned about.

     In other words if there is no causal pathway between learned about
and learner, then no learning can take place.
 
     The dependability of knowledge 'learned without a causal pathway'
would be randomly correct at best.
 
     So the symbol of final authority is the last effect, the last
change in state in the chain between referent and symbol or observer
that is actually used to learn from, and is actually observed by the
observer and in fact IS the new state OF the observer.

     And it is from the data gleaned from that being an effect, or
change of state, that the observer then computes back to what the nature
of the referent cause might have been.

     For example, the light coming off the sun, hits a photo electric
cell, which generates an electric current, which rings a bell.  
 
     By the time the bell is rung, the photon that came from the sun
that hit the photo electric cell is long gone.
 
     And in fact by the time the bell rings, the little impluse that
came from the electric cell that triggered the bell is also gone.

     So when we observe the bell ringing, we haven't observed the
electric impluse that started the bell ringing, and we certainly haven't
observed any of the photons hitting the photo electric cell.

     So the bell ringing is the symbol of final authority, and we are
going to learn from that whether or not the sun is there.

     But in fact it is worse than this, because the bell ringing is of
no use unless it produces air waves that hit our ears, enters our brain,
and reaches our consciousness, where our HEARING the bell ring is in
fact the final final symbol of authority in the chain.  
 
     A deaf person would have learned nothing from the bell ringing
because he wouldn't have received the effect, he wouldn't have changed
state when the bell rang.

     THE STANDARD REFERENCE MODEL

     The standard reference model replicates this process of learning by
being an effect four times, in four different ways.  
 
     The purpose of this is to show us that although implemented in many
different ways, the underlying learning process is always the same,
receive an effect and from that theorizing about the nature of the
cause.

     MODEL, THEORY and EVIDENCE

     Knowledge then learned in this way consists of theory only, never
ever perfect certainty.
 
     More accurately, such knowledge of a cause causing an effect
consists of model, theory and evidence.

     The referent is the model, the theory is the 'causal story' or
pathway between the referent and the symbol, and the symbol is evidence
for the theory.

     As we shall see no where is truth or perfect certainty to be found
in this process.

     By the time one understands the standard reference model well one
should understand that learning can take place in many different ways,
but its always the same fundmental process: you are being or observing a
symbol, in order to make a conclusion about a referent that is a
different object.

     You are looking at B to learn about A.

     You are learning about A by looking at B.

     Both are the same thing and are indirect perception.
 
     Until we get to the 4th stage at which point something new and
startling happens.

     CONSCIOUS EXPERIENCE

     The SRM does something relatively odd in that it considers
consciousness and the being who is conscious, and what he is conscious
of, to be the fourth stage of learning and to be distinct from all the
other stages of the learning process.

     It asserts that the conscious experience and the being who is
having the conscious experience are fundamentally different and distinct
stuff from any of the other preceeding stages and should not be confused
with them.

     In otherwords, consciousness is its own thing and needs to be
studied as its own thing on its own terms.
 
     It is fine to ASSERT that consciousness and conscious experiences
like red and green are only brain chemistry bubbling away at 98.6
degrees farenheit, but assertions are not truth, but get in the way of
seeing the truth if they are in fact wrong.

     If we assume that conscious experiences are nothing but FDA
approved grade A Beuf (your brain), and then show that consciousness can
do things that meat can't, then we have pretty well disproven the
assumption that consiousness is merely brain function.

     Although the data it displays to the conscious viewer depends on
prior MECHANICAL causal pathways, the process of consciousness itself is
not merely a process in those causal precursors but is qualitatively and
fundamentally different from them.

     In particular a learning process within consciousness about itself
should not be considered a learning process in the brain, nor a
mechanical learning process in any space time medium of any sort.

     This assertion may be considered purely arbitrary, and to stand
only until proven wrong, but its done because as will be shown later,
there are qualities in consciousness that are qualities OF consciousness
and are not qualities of anything involved in the prior stages of
learning in the brain.

     As an example, say you are aiming your eyes at a physical brick out
on a table in front of you.

     You have a physical brick out there on the table and then you have
your conscious picture of the brick displayed in your conscious mind.

     When you close your eyes, the conscious picture of the brick
disappears, but the physical brick doesn't.  
 
     Thus clearly the brick and the conscious picture of the brick are
two different objects.
 
     Remembering what we learned from the A's and the B's, if A and B
are objects, and B changes state and A doesn't, then A and B are two
DIFFERENT objects, each with their own existence.

     Thus since B changes state, B must exist.  B is your conscious
experience of the brick which disappears when you close your eyes.

     Since A, in this case, is a physical brick on a table out there, we
will assume that A is not a nothing either, and thus A also exists.
 
     Thus both A and B exist and are two different objects.

     The brick has qualities, location, weight and temperature, and your
conscious picture of the brick has qualities, which are different from
the physical brick's qualities, we will get into these later.
 
     Your consciousness is clearly being the effect of the brick via
your brain and eyes, so your conscious picture is acting as a symbol for
the brick.
 
     Your consciousness tries to represent the referent brick out on the
table to you via the symbol which is your conscious picture of the
brick.

     The conscious picture of the brick is a RENDITION or conscious
RENDERING of the brick in the RENDITION ZONE of yuor conscous mind.
 
     From this conscious rendition you draw your INTERPRETATION of that
symbol in order to conclude what the brick on the table must be like.
 
     YOU NEVER SEE THE BRICK, you see only the conscious rendition of the brick.

     Seeing is an act of consciousness, not of brain mechanics.

     There may be brain mechanics that preceed (precurse) the
conscious seeing, but brain mechanics and conscious seeing are
two different events.

     The brick on the able is THEORY, the consccous rendition of the
brick is a FACT.

     Your conscious experience is a rendition, a rendering if you will,
of the physical universe in a symbolic medium, namely conscious color
forms, red, green, blue, experiences of cold and hot, hard and soft etc.

     What you believe about the physical universe is an interpretation
you make of the color symbol panoply rendered in your consciousness.

to each other via cause and effect.

     All objects are REFERENTS.

     A SYMBOL is any object related to a referent by cuase and effect.
 
     A PANOPLY is a collection of referents or symbols related.

     A referent panoply is a collection of referents related to
a particular subject area of study.

     A symbol panoply is the collection of all objects that are
causally related to the objects in the referent panoply.

     You conscious experiences are also referents but they are USED as
symbols related to the physical universe, and are called in toto your
conscious symbol panoply or simply your consious panoply.

     The physical universe is the referent.

     Consciousness is used as the symbol.

     Consciousness is the rendering.

     The physical universe is the interpretation.

     The physical universe is a THEORY based on our interpretation of
the observed renderings in our consciousness.
 
     Put simply, in our observation of the brick on the table, what we
end up observing is our conscious picture of the brick, not the physical
brick itself directly.
 
     Learning about the brick on the table (which exists whether or not
we are conscious of it,) by looking at our conscious experiences of it
is called indireat perception.

     Learning about our conscious experiences of the brick by looking at
the conscious experience itself is call direct perception.

     Learning about the referent by looking at the symbol later in time
is called indirect perception.

     Learning about the symbol by looking at the symbol NOW in our
consciousness is called direct perception.

     Indirect perception results in THEORY.

     Direct perception results in PERFECT CERTAINTY.

     Since we can not SEE into the past, anything we see must be in the
present.

     Thus a machine that can only learn by indirect perception can only
surmis how it WAS.

     A consiousness unit can only learn by direct perception and
thus can know with perfect certainty how it IS.

     Since without cause there is no learning, the direct perception of
red implies direct perception of CAUSE.  
 
     Can you see how any area of redness is causing you to see red?

     Because the conscious picture of the brick has qualities that the
physical brick doesn't have, and because the brick has qualities that
the conscious picture of the brick doesn't have, we therefore must
consider them two different objects, and thus the standard reference
model treats them as two separate objects, with a possible causal
pathway between them as referent and symbol.

     We will prove these wild assertions with perfect certainty as we go
along with our description of the standard reference model.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
     SO WHAT IS THE STANDARD REFERENCE MODEL.

     When you are talking about the process of learning, of coming to
know knowledge about, you are always talking about a causal pathway that
goes from the original referent (the thing learned about) to the symbol
of final authority (rendition of the learned about from which we learn.)

     As was described in the previous lecture on Symbols and Referents,
the symbol is a separate object from the original referent.
 
     The symbol is in a different space and time, certainly in a
different time because its later, and being a different object from the
referent, it has qualities that are different from the original
referent.

     Presumably there is enough mapping from the qualities of the final
symbol to the qualities of the original referent that one can draw
possible conclusions about the original referent from looking at the
final symbol.

     The qualities that arise in the symbol from the causal influence of
the rerent is called a CAUSAL IMPRINT.

     Any causal imprint in a symbol is the only evidence there is that
there was a referent that had cause over it.

     We also call the causal imprint left by the referent on the symbol
a DATA IMPRINT, it contains data about the possible nature of the
referent.

     The data imprint is the only way data travels around the universe
from referent to next symbol in line via cause and effect.

     And it is this process that we want to lay out in great detail with
what we call the standard reference model.

     PART 1 THE RUBIC'S CUBE
 
     So the standard reference model starts with an original referent,
in this case let us consider the lowly Rubic's cube.  
 
     Rememeber the Rubic's cube?
 
     I used to play with these things for hours.  
 
     I used to feel that if I could figure out how to solve one of these
things, after it was scrambled, I would understand the mystery of the
universe.

     It was quite a disappointment when I finally learned how to
solve them, there was nothing there.  
 
     It was a total let down.

     Little did I know how big a role the Rubic's cube would play in my
final understanding of the universe.

     CAUSAL PATHWAYS

     In the physical universe learning takes place via causal pathways.

     Causal pathways are traveled by causal messenger waves from
referent to symbol.

     Causal pathways are also called THEORY BRIDGES.

     A causal pathway is a series of changes in state in spacetime
objects that are related to each other via alleged causation.
 
     They had better be so related, because without causation, there is
no learning.

     Now the first thing to understand about the standard reference
model, is that it is not meant to be an assertion that it is right or
all encompassing.
 
     The standard reference model is merely a way of looking at
processes of learning in the physical universe which is easy to
understand, generally accepted, and fits in with most of mainstream
science.

     We are in fact, trying to prove this model wrong when it comes to
how we see our own consciousness and its color form pictures.

     (Remember for the moment that SEEING is defined as a conscious
phenomenon, unparalleled in the physical universe of mechanics.

     We might say that activities in the physical universe might
provide amalogues of see, but nothing in the physical unniverse
actually SEES anything until if and when it becomes displayed in
a conscious symbol panoply.

     Then it is the conscious symbol in the panoply that is SEEN and not
anything in the mechanical panoply of matter, energy, space time and
force.

     Yes, Goober, Love and Pain can not of force and mass be made.)

     But in the physical universe the standard reference model is the
generally accepted state of the art theory as to how physical universe
learning takes place.

     You would be hard pressed to find any process in the physical
universe that carries learning, knowledge and data from place to place
that does NOT follow the standard reference model.

     THE GUY IN THE TANK
 
     OK, so the standard reference model describes the experience of a
guy in an army tank whose only vision of the world is through a TV set
that is connected to a video camera outside the tank.

     The video camera is aimed at the Rubic's cube sitting outside the
tank on a table in the sunlight.  
 
     The Rubic's cube will be considered our original referent.
 
     The Rubic's cube is what we and the guy in the tank are trying to
learn about, including whether or not it exists.

     The Rubic's cube is lit by the sun light.  
 
     So here we have the sun and its rays come down onto the Rubic's
cube, and those rays bounce off the Rubic's cube and hit a lens that
goes to a video camera.

     In the back of the video camera is a Charge Coupled Device (CCD),
which receives a focused image of the Rubic's cube on its surface.

     We assume that the video camera has only one lens, so that the
image on the CCD is upside down relative to the original referent, a
result which is a standard property of simple lenses.

     DIFFERENT KINDS OF QUALITIES

     Now we know from earlier discussion, an object can have different
kinds of qualities, it can have qualities of being, namely those
qualities it has by virtue of being alone, and it can have qualities of
relation, which are those qualities it has by virtue of being in
relation with other objects.

     There are a number of different kinds of qualities of relation,
among them there are spacial, temporal, material, energetic and causal.

     For example spacial relations would be above and below, next to, on
top of etc.

     Temporal relations would be before and after, etc.

     Material relations might be heavier or lighter than.

     Energetic relations might be faster or slower than.

     And lastly and most importantly, causal relations would be things
like is cause of or is affected by.

     One of the qualities of the Rubic's cube is a causal quality of
relation, namely that it affects photons.  
 
     It absorbs photons of some frequencies, and reflects photons of
other frequencies.

     So what happens here at this interface where the photons from the
sun hit the Rubic's cube is an imprinting of data about the nature of
the Rubic's cube on the stream of photon's leaving the surface of the
Rubic's cube after absorbtion and reflection have taken place.

     The photon's have 'learned something' about the cube and that
learning is now imprinted on the outgoing photon stream headed for the
video camera.
 
     The photon's coming in from the sun are kind of a clean slate,
unimprinted with any data on them except maybe data about the sun!
 
     Then you get these photons colliding with the Rubic's cube, and the
photon's coming out of that interaction are very specifically affected
by the nature of the Rubic's cube.

     Remember the Rubic's cube has 6 different faces with 6 different
colors, red, orange, yellow, green, blue, and white.

     However only 3 faces at a time are facing the video camera, no
matter which way the cube is oriented.  
 
     Thus the pattern of photons coming off the cube towards the video
camera have imprinted in them a very complex data set about exactly
which faces are facing the camera, at what angles, and what their colors
are.
 
     Also if you were foolish enough to play with the cube before the
experiment, whether it is scrambled or not!

     That's a lot of data to be carried by one small stream of photons.
 
     Alright, so the photon's come into the lens of the video camera,
and they get bent and refocused right there on the surface of the CCD,
which is the 'retina' of the video camera if you will.
 
     If you look into the device in a dark room, you can see a nice
focused but upside down image of the Rubic's cube right there on the
surface of the CCD.

     GEOMETRIC CONGRUENCY

     So now we have to take up something that is very important, for
without this, most people will probably miss the whole point of this
discussion.

     Two objects are geometrically congruent to each other when they
have the same spacetime shape as each other.  Technically two objects
are congruent when their geometries are identical to each other, but we
are going to call two objects congruent when they are merely
recognizably similar to each other.

     For example, if we have a small cube and a big cube, technically
they are geometrically similar but not congruent.  Only if we have two
cubes of the same size and color would they be considered congruent.

     But for our purposes, we going to say the smaller cube is
geometrically congruent with the bigger one, and we are going to go even
further and say a 2 dimensional PICTURE of one of these cubes is also
geometrically congruent to the 3 dimensional original.

     Thus we DEFINE geometical congruency not to mean geometric
identicality, but geometrically recognizably similar, both in form,
color, and materiality.

     Thus if it is a cube or it looks like a cube, then it is
geometically congruent to a cube.

     THE REFERENT AS SYMBOL FOR ITSELF

     Now if we consider that the original cube can be considered a
symbol for itself, then referent and symbol are clearly perfectly
geometrically congruent in the technical sense, because any object is
geometrically congruent to itself.
 
     But then as the stream of photons bounce off the cube, they begin
to disperse in space and lose that congruency.  They remain a symbol for
the original cube as they travel away from the cube, because they are in
the direct causal path of the cube, but they no longer look like a cube!

     We call this process defocusing, namely the geometrical congruency
of the symbol becomes more defocused as it moves away from the original
referent.
 
     The symbol becomes more and more less like a cube in shape and
form.

     In fact if you put a piece of paper between the cube and the video
camera lens, you will not see a picture of the cube at all even though
many of the photons that are leaving the cube are hitting the paper.
The image on the paper of the cube is completely defocused.

     But all the data about the cube is still there!

     Then as the stream of photons carrying the data about the cube hits
the lens, they are forced to converge again in the direction of the CCD
screen at the back of the video camera.

     As soon as the photons start to pass through the lens they begin to
refocus again, until they become completely focused again at the exact
moment they hit the CCD screen.

     Thus we have the following diagram which is crucial to our
understanding of the standard reference model.  The down direction
shows the progress of cause from the original referent to the image
on the CCD screen.

     Cube                Referent   Focused      High   Geo Congruency
     Photons before lens Symbol     Defocusing   Lower  Geo congruency
     Photons at lens     Symbol     Defocused    Lowest Goe congruency
     Photons after lens  Symbol     Focusing     Higher Geo Congruency
     CCD screen          Symbol     Focused      High   Geo Congruency

     The fact that the symbol at the CCD screen is focused and is
geometrically congruent to the referent means that at least some data
has been conserved about the cube during the causal transit from
referent to final symbol on the CCD screen.

     We are going to replicate the above on each stage of this journey
to help us keep a clear eye on what is being described here.
 
     Then you have some electronics, a couple of circuits in there that
convert the image on the CCD screen into a serialized bit stream, 1's
and 0's.  
 
     The 1's and 0's are now going to go to a standard Cathode
Ray TV set, with a little electron gun.  
 
     The TV set has a screen, and the electrons scan the screen back and
forth and up and down, and replicate the image one more time on the TV
screen, only this time it's right side up again.

     Now this TV set exists inside of an Army Tank, and we use that
because this is an actual application, this happens all the time, tanks
no longer have windows to see through, they only have video monitors to
give a detailed view of the outside world.

     In the tank there is a guy sitting in a chair, and he's looking at
the TV set, and he can't see anything else about the outside world but
what is on the TV set.

     This is very important, because all he has is the TV set to look at
about the outside world.  
 
     If he were born in the tank, we might consider that he has never
seen the outside world directly only indirectly.

     So new light rays are generated on the surface of the TV screen and
they leave the TV set and head for the guy's eyes which act in analogue
fashion to the lens and CCD in the video camera, that picked up the
image in the first place.

     Now we are going to do a blow up of the guys' eye over here into a
much bigger box and what we have is an eye ball, and we have a retina,
and we have some neurological circuitry called the optic nerve and optic
chiasm where they cross.

     This neurological circuitry comes into the brain and makes its way
to the visual cortex in the back of the brain.

     So here are the eye and the lens, and the light waves come into the
eye and they get focused on the retina, and once again on the back of
the retina you have your little Rubic's cube showing up again as a very
clear focused image, you can see it, if you cut the eye open, its right
there, very recognizable.  
 
     Its up side down again just as the image
on the CCD screen was upside down and for exactly the same reason.

     Inverting images is what simple lens do to incoming data.
 
     Now here is where the standard reference model separates from
science, from the science of today, you won't read about this in your
physics books.  
 
     But as I said in the beginning of this lecture there is reason for
doing this, if only for the purpose of offering the possibility of it,
so if we want to prove it wrong we can, but if it isn't stated you can't
prove it wrong.
 
     So we are going to state it.

     Just as we drew a bigger circle to represent the guy's head and
eyes, we are going to draw another circle representing the conscious
unit of the soldier, with a little star in the middle representing the
conscious viewer himself.

     The conscious viewer at the very center of the circle is looking at
and seeing his conscious panoply, a conscious display of color forms on
the inside of the circle that encompases the viewer.
 
     He is locked inside his consciousness and can never directly see
outside of it, except through symbolic displays in his conscious screen.
to help him indirectly see the alleged world outside of his conscious
display.

     So here therre is the last part of the standard reference model,
which is that you have the consciousness of the guy, with the little guy
here in the middle, a little ghost, the little 'I AM!', the looker, the
being who is aware of being aware, the guy you gives a damn, and his
consciousness is the whole color picture he sees around him.
 
     Even though most of us only see the color picture in front of us,
it goes all the way around spherically, 360 degrees, as you know if you
have ever had a 360 degree dream or out of body experience, and it
includes sound, touch, taste, smell and a whole litany of other
conscious sense forms that give us data about the alleged world around
us.

     360 degree surround sound consciousness is the native state of a
conscious being.

     Our consciousness is just like the TV screen in the tank, it
displays conscious color forms for our viewing pleasure.

     The data coming from the eye, through the optic nerve and then the
visual cortex, one way or another gets displayed onto the conscious
color screen we call our conscious picture of the world, which is
everything you see around you.

     And then lo and behold in the conscious panoply you have your
little rubic's cube all over again, for the last time, only this time it
is right side up again!

     So notice just for yuks, at the referent, the cube is right side
up.
 
     At the CCD screen the symbol is upside down.
 
     At the TV Screen the symbol is right side up again.
 
     At the retina the symbol is upside down again,
 
     And at the conscious color form display, it is finally right side
up again.

     BUT IT STILL LOOKS LIKE A CUBE!
 
     So through all the defocusing and refocusing, from referent cube
out on the table to symbol of final authority the, conscious display,
the data in the causal pathway has been conserved, and is finally
reconstructed in the concious display with very high geometric
congruency indeed.

     In fact we believe that the original referent is a cube BECAUSE
that is the way it looks in the conscious display!  
 
     We believe the qualities of the final symbol ARE the qualities of
the original referent.

     OK, so this diagram can be broken up into four sections.

     It can be broken up into the original referent, which is section
zero.

     It can be broken up into the CCD which is section one.

     It can be broken up into the TV set which is section two.

     It can be broken up into the eye retina, which is section three.

     And it can be broken up into the conscious picture is which is
section four.

     DATA CONTENT and PICTURE FORM

     Now there are a couple of things I want you to notice here.

     In the lecture on symbols and referents we talked about how a
symbol can have data content and it can have picture form.

     Picture form is just what it sounds like, it is a 1 to 1
correspondance in space and time, between the geometric shape and form
of the symbol and the shape and form of the referent.

     Picture form is exactly what we mean by high geometric congruency,
that is space time relationships between referent and symbol have a 1 to
1 correspondance, and recognizably look like each other.

     For example, the image on the surface of the CCD, even though it
shows up as a two dimensional projection, is very obviously and
recognizably a Rubic's cube, complete with color and perspective.

     We refer to this picture form recognizability between symbol and
referent as geometric congruency.  
 
     Strictly speaking true congruency would mean an exact match in
shape, size and dimensionality, between symbol and referent, so in this
case we really only have geometric similarity, but we will continue to
use the term geometric congruency none the less to refer to symbols that
have a high picture form content relative to their referents.

     The fact that symbol and referent are not absolutely congruent
merely indicates that they are two different objects because they have
different qualities.  
 
     This is VERY important, because the Fundamental Theorem of
Identicality says that if two objects have any different qualities at
all, they must be two different distinct separate objects with their own
separate existence and equal ontological status.
 
     Both referent and symbol ARE, and both EQUALLY ARE.

     There is no relativity to existence, there is no "I am more ARE
than you."

     The symbol merely comes AFTER the referent, this does not in any
diminish the equal actuality of either.

     On the other hand, let's look at the the light waves coming
directly off the Rubic's cube.  If you were to put a piece of paper at a
point half way between the cube and lens of the video camera, you
wouldn't be able to see a Rubic's cube.

     That's because the symbol has become defocused, meaning it has lost
its high picture form, lost its geometric congruency to the original
referent.

     The data imprinted in the light waves is all there however.  
 
     So the data content remains high, while the picture content becomes
low.
 
     We strive to conserve data content even while picture content comes
and goes.
 
     DATA CONTENT IS WHAT IS LEARNED

     Notice however that because the data content is at least in part
ABOUT the geometricity of the original referent, the picture form should
always be recoverable at a later stage.  If not, then the data content
relating to geometricity is truly gone.
 
     So you have the following situation.

     You have something coming in from the sun which contains no data
and no picture, which hits the original referent namely the Rubic's cube
and is imprinted with data about the cube.

     The Rubic's cube itself is a picture, it has a space time
arrangement, but the photon's coming off it immediately lose their
picturness as they get away from it, because each point on the cube
radiates reflected light in all directions, but they don't lose their
data content.

     We know this because the entirety of the Rubic's cube can be
recreated from it using a lens.  The reason that a piece of paper placed
between the cube and the lens does not show a picture form of the cube
is because each point on the paper is being illuminated by EVERY point
on the cube at the same time.

     As the photons hit the paper, they are coming from different
directions, but once they hit the paper and are rescattered back to an
observer, their original direction of travel is lost, and thus the data
content of the photon stream is also lost never to be recovered.

     You can't look at the paper with a lens and see the cube, you will
only see the paper!

     On the other hand by allowing the photon stream to go through a
lens, the various photons that came off a single point on the cube are
redirected back to a single point on the focusing surface, namely the
CCD screen, thus not only is data content conserved along the entire
pathway, the symbol at the CCD interface is in a state of high picture
form again, high geometric congruency.

     Thus the causal pathway starts at the Rubic's cube with high data
content and high picture form as the cube itself, then travels with high
data content and lowering picture form until it hits the lens with high
data content and almost no picture form at all.

     From the lens the causal pathway continues with high data content
and increasing picture form until it hits the CCD screen as a highly
focused image, namely high data content and high picture form.

     So at the point of the original referent, we have high data and
high picture.
 
     In this sense the original referent is a symbol for itself and
therefore the data content and pictureness are both 100 percent perfect.

     But then as soon as the light waves come off of the referent, we
are now looking at something with high data and low picture.

     Then it hits the lens which refocuses the image on the CCD screen
where we get high data and high picture form on the screen once again.

     But notice that the data content at the CCD is somewhat less than
the original referent.  
 
     The whole cube is not represented there, only certain faces of it
are visible, there is a certain amount of loss of clarity and perfection
of rendition, data is lost.
 
     Probably if there were some very fine print on the side of the
Rubic's cube you would not see it at the CCD screen if the print were
small enough.

     So its not a perfect replication.  
 
     There are a lot of differences between the picture form symbol on
the CCD screen and the original referent, not the least of which is that
the original referent is a 3D object, and the symbol on the CCD screen
is a 2D projection of it.

     The image on the CCD screen is nonetheless a symbol for the
original referent, a symbol which is has high but not perfect data
content, and high but not perfect picture form.

     And also notice with two video cameras looking at the cube from
slightly different angles, the full 3D data content of the original
referent could be reconstructed from the two slightly different 2D
projections.

     Notice that the light waves going through the lens is also a symbol
of the cube, but it has low picture form so its not geometrically
recognizable as such.

     The electronic circuitry that scans the CCD, converts the image
symbol on its surface to a series of 1's and 0's.

     And if you were to actually take a look at a printout of those
one's and zero's you would not see a clear Rubic's cube.  
 
     Maybe if you printed out the 1's and 0's just right, you might see
a faint image of the cube in the background of a bigger mess.
 
     The data stream however could be encrypted, in which case the data
stream would be completely unrecognizeable.

     This stripping the data off the CCD screen and encrypting it is a
form of defocusing, the data is still there, but the picture form is
not.

     So at the point between the CCD and the TV set we have another
symbol which is this data stream, and it has low picture form but still
all the data is there.  
 
     But again there is slightly less data than in the previous symbol.
 
     Data content is decaying with causal hop distance along the causal
pathway.

     Every step we go along a causal chain we lose a little bit of data.

     Thus we say that data is conserved to the degree that the causl
pathway is short, or is 100 percent digital.

     Now the serial data stream from the CCD hits the circuitry inside
the TV, and the electron beam starts to scan on that phosphor screen,
and we get a recognizable Rubic's cube on that phospor screen.
 
     So again we have another symbol, and this one has high picture
content and high data content.

     But again the light coming off the TV screen goes off in all
directions, just like the light from the original referent went off in
all directions, and so if you put a piece of paper between the TV screen
and the guy's eyes, you get another symbol, which is this dispersal of
light traveling between them, that has high data content but no picture
content.

     So I think we see a pattern here.

     We have high picture content, low picture content, high picture
content, low picture content etc.

     Original cube        High picture content Right side up
     Lens                 Low  picture content
     CCD                  High picture content Up side down
     TV circuity          Low  picture content
     TV screen            High picture content Right side up
     Lens of eye          Low  picture content
     Retina of eye        High picture content Up side down
     Brain/Visual Cortex  Low  picture content
     Conscious picture    High picture content Right side up
 
     And this pattern continues on in the same way into the eye.  We get
into the eye ball, the symbol gets recreated on the retina as yet
another symbol in the chain of symbols, and this symbol is high picture
form again, although upside down and high data.

     And this thing gets into the brain, and whatever is going on here
in the visual cortex is low picture, but again the data is conserved,
the data is very well intact.

     We say the data in the visual cortex is low picture content,
because if you cut open the brain while it is viewing a cube, no where
AT ALL in the brain anywhere, is there an electrical or energy pattern
that geometrically resembles a cube!

     You just can't tell trivially what the guy is looking at by looking
at the activity in the brain.

     And then the data stream gets to the conscious unit, and lo and
behold we have a final last symbol, which is what the guy as a conscious
unit is looking at, and this last symbol is high picture and high data,
and all right side up as it should be.

     This is the last symbol on the chain in the conscious picture, that
started from the first symbol on the chain which was the original
referent.

     This picture in his consciousness therefore, is the Symbol of Final
Authority for this observer.

     That means that everything this guy is going to learn about the
original refeerent is going to come from this last symbol in his
conscious picture.

     He no longer has contact with the photons that came in to the video
camera, because they got absorbed by the CCD.  
 
     He can't see them, because they are long gone.
 
     He can't see any of the data stream connecting the CCD to the TV
set because it too is long gone.

     He can't see any of the photons coming off the TV set because they
were absorbed by his retina and are long gone by the time the image gets
to his brain and visual cortex.

     So if this guy is going to learn anything about the original
referent, all he has to study is his symbol of final authority, namely
the conscious picture that forms in his consciousness.

     Now this is not the place in this lecture for me to get into this,
but I am going to get into it anyhow.

     Just to take a look at why do we separate off consciousness and its
pictures as a separate fundamental thing separate from the brain and the
visual cortex.

     And that is because if you cut the brain open and you LOOK no where
will you find a cube.
 
     The LAST place a cube exists in the human body is on the surface of
the retina.

     You will see the data of a cube encoded in the visual cortex,
however it is encoded, but no where will there be a picture.  
 
     Yet what we see in our consciousness is a picture which is in fact
very geometrically congruent to the original referent, the cube out in
the sun's light.

     (Notice the geometric shape and form of the conscious object is
ASSIGNED to the original referent, thus of course the two agree!)

     Therefore this picture in consciousness is actual, and therefore
the symbol panoply which displays the picture is actual, and
consciousness is therefore defined as the symbol of final authority.
 
     Whatever consciousness is, whatever it is made of, however it
works, it is picture form, it is high picture form and high data form,
and no where in the brain is anything anywhere near high picture form.

     Also note that the guy can't see the original cube, nor the picture
on the CCD, nor the picture on the TV set, nor even the picture on his
retina, because as a conscious viewer he is a different object than all
these things.

     He can only see his conscious picture because in fact he and his
conscious picture are one and the same object, even though there is the
illusion of space and separation between the viewer and viewed.

     Close one eye, that's more the truth.

     The way you know that the conscious picture is not a mechanical
object or process is because you can SEE the object you are looking at!

     If it were a different object than you, you would never be able to
see it, only its effects in yourself.

     OK, this is something else that doesn't really belong here, but we
are going to go into it quickly, just to get it down.

     We know from previous lectures that objects have qualities.
 
     Further more, at any given time, over time, an object can change
its quality set.
 
     The very movement in time itself is a change in the quality set of
that object because it now has a quality that it is at say 2 minutes
after midnight rather than at 2 minutes before midnight.

     That is a quality of relation, but a quality of the object's
quality set none the less.

     Another example take two identical cubes, and place one to the
right of Goober, and the other to left of him.
 
     Thus the quality sets of each cube are not identical because one is
to the left and one to the right of Goober's.

     Same thing with qualities of space or time.
 
     We consider that now the cube is here, and a few seconds later it
is there.
 
     We make the convenient mistake of thinking it is the same cube that
has just moved around a bit in space and time.
 
     But just as a candle flame in a windless room might look identical
from moment to moment, it is in fact a totally new flame in each
instant.

     Thus moving through time alone continuously creates new objects of
any object in existence.

     A process is a change in state in an object, a change in an
object's quality set.

     The standard reference model depends very much on the concept of
two different objects.

     Meaning that the world isn't all just one object all mushed
together (although it can be considered as such if you wish.)
 
     The world is generally considered to be a whole slew of different
objects, a whole series of space time events, each one being an object,
and that what is going on here in the brain, is not what is going on
over here on the CCD, but they do have analogous qualities between them
and perhaps a casual pathway between them.

     Having analogous qualities doesn't mean that two different objects
are the same one object, it means they are two different objects with
similar but different qualities.

     Thus a video camera may work similar to an eye, but a video camera
is not an eye.

     Like wise a TV screen may work similar to a conscious display, but
a TV is not a conscious unit.

     Lastly and most importantly, just because the final image in the
conscious display looks like a cube, doesn't mean it IS a cube.  
 
     The original referent cube is 4 stages of casuation and learning
away from the symbol conscious image in the mind's eye, and therefore
they are two different objects each with their own unique onotological
right to claim they exist and are actual.

     There are no degrees of existence, thus the original cube, and the
conscious picture of the cube both exist, period, and thus both need
careful and equal study.

     By studying the standard reference model from beginning to end and
all the parts inbetween, we should be able to tell the causal pathway
that takes place between original referent and the symbol of final
authority at the end of the chain.

     The photons bouncing off the original referent is one process.

     The photons traveling across space to the lens is another process.

     The photons being focused by the lens is another process.

     The photons traveling between the lens and the CCD screen is
another process.

     The photons hitting the CCD screen is another process.

     And the data from the CCD being converted into a serial stream is
another process etc.

     And each one involves a different object changing state.

     The CDD does not change state until the photon hits it, or so we
hope.

     And the photon doesn't hit the CCD until it has first hit the cube
and changes state there.

     Now this is really important, so I am going to bring it up at this
point.

     At the TV screen, let's take a look at the TV screen, its very
important.  
 
     The TV screen is basically made of glass, and the glass has
phosphors on it, and there are electrons coming in from the electron gun
that are scanning the TV screen that hit the phosphors.

     When an electron hits a phosphor it causes ANOTHER DIFFERENT
electron in the phosphor atom to kick up into a higher energy level.
 
     The original electron is then drained off to the side to be
recycled later.

     The phosphor's electron then later falls back down a level and
emits another DIFFERENT photon of a particular frequency.

     And so you have electrons coming in, and you have photons going
out.

     One of the things we want to point out here is that this is not all
just one process.

     A process is a change in state in an object, and there are at least
3 separate objects here.

     The first object is the stream of electrons coming into the glass
from the electron gun.  
 
     That's a process, they are changing position in space, they are
coming into the glass,

     When they hit the glass, they kick the electron's up a level in the
atoms of the phosphors on the glass, and that's a process in the atom's
of the phospors.

     The atom's of phosphor on the glass are not the same object as the
electrons coming into to hit them.  
 
     Two separate objects, two completely separate processes, however
they are causally related in that the electrons coming into the glass
are a causal precursor to the phosphors changing energy states.

     It is very important to not take two processes that are causally
related and then claim that they are one and the same process.

     That would be like saying that the conscious picture of the cube is
merely a process in the brain.
 
     The conscious picture of the cube MAY BE CONNECTED TO AND RESULT
FROM a casual precursor process in the brain, but processes in the brain
are different objects than processes in consciousness.

     And by the time the picture ends up in consciousness, the precursor
causal process in the brain is long gone.

     Proof?  
 
     There are no cubes in the brain, nor any process that looks
like a cube in the brain.

     And the brain, being a multidimensional entity, couldn't see what
it is looking at anyhow, as everything is separated by space and time.

     Remember the fact that a conscious unit can see its own conscious
pictures with perfect certainty, means that the conscious picture and
conscious viewer must be one and the same object, thus consciousness
must be zero dimensional.  
 
     Since the brain is multidimensional, the brain can not be the
consciousness.

     Then as the electrons fall back down in the phosphor atoms, they
emit photons and start to move through space towards the guy's eyes.

     And so now we have a third object, because the photons are not a
phosphor atom, they are not an electron orbiting around a phosphor atom,
and they are not the original electrons coming in, hitting the glass.

     So you have a third object, and because these photons are moving
through space, this object is also undergoing a process, namely change
in space and time.

     The point here is that we have three separate objects undergoing
three separate processes, and it is scientifically incorrect to collapse
them all into one process.

     For example if someone were to say to you that the photon leaving
the glass is the SAME THING, the same process as the electrons coming
into the glass, they would be wrong.

     Collapsing multiple parts of a causal pathway into one part causes
a failure to distinguish the various parts going on within the collapsed
part.
 
     It would also be very wrong to claim that the photons traveling
across space after leaving the phosphors were merely the same process AS
the phosphors absorbing and emitting energy.

     Confusing two different processes that are causally related as one
single process again results in a failure to discriminate properly the
various different processes going on.

     We belabor the point because people make these mistakes all the
time when considering where in the causal pathway their own
consciousness lies.

     So over here in stage four of the standard reference model, we have
a diagram of a brain, and we have a diagram of a conscious unit with
little conscious being inside it, looking at his conscious experience,
his conscious TV set if you will, a 360 degree surround sound movie
house, filled with the color forms he sees around him.

     We are claiming that the brain and the conscious unit are two
different events, two different processes, and two different objects.

     It is very tempting for people to say that their consciousness IS
merely a process going on in the brain or visual cortex.

     Now we know there are lots of processes going on in the brain, and
we know that we are not conscious of many of them, so what they are
claiming is that there is a subset of processes in the brain which ARE
in fact their consciousness.

     They claim there is no separate object called a conscious unit
undergoing a separate independent process from those going on in the
brain.

     Some might claim that if you took away all of the brain, there
would be no more conscious unit, but they have in fact never done this,
so their claim is asserted without merit.  
 
     And many have in fact died, flatlined, no brain, and came back and
reported being very much alive outside the body while the brain was
dead.
 
     Maybe the brain was not so dead after all, maybe not.

     All of which is anecdotal evidence to cause us to study the matter
further.

     Notice that even if processes in the brain are necessary causal
precursors to processes going on in consciousness, this does not in any
way lessen the distinction between the two different objects, namely the
brain and its processes and the consciousness and its processes.

     Remember there is no geometrically congruent cube in the brain, and
yet there most certainly is a geometrically contruent cube in the
consciousness.
 
     That alone is damning.

     But the consciousness can see with perfect certainty what it is
looking at, the brain, being a machine, can't.
 
     Notice also that just because there may necessarily be a causal
pathway between the brain and the conscious unit SO THAT DATA MAY PASS
FROM THE BRAIN TO THE CONSCIOUS BEING, this alone does not prove that
the conscious unit depends upon the existence of the brain for its own
existence.

     It might very well be that if the brain dies, the conscious unit
might have nothing of interest to display, but self consciousness would
always remain, like a TV set that was on with no show to play on it.

     A lot of people are walking around in this state, a lot of snow in
their face.

     So the standard reference model asserts with malice aforethought
that there are two separate objects between brain and conscious unit,
and thus two separate processes going on, with a data bridge between
them.

     The first hint that this may be valid is that the symbol of final
authority in the conscious unit is in fact a picture of a cube.  
 
     The data content is there, but so is the picture form.

     There is no picture form in the visual cortex or any other part of
the brain goin all the way back to the retina.

     You cut open the brain and look at the patterns of what is going on
there, and no where is there a picture.

     If object A and object B have different qualities, then A and B are
two different objects.

     If A has qualities that B doesn't, or B has qualities that A
doesn't, then they can't be one and the same object and under no
circumstances can it be meaningful to say they are.

     So since consciousness has highly geometrically congruent picture
forms in it, but the brain and visual cortex do not, there is no way
that consciousness can be MERELY THE SAME THING AS a process in the
brain or visual cortex.

     Notice we are not denying that some processes in consciousness may
be causally related to processes in the brain, but causal relation
between two different objects does not imply that the two objects are
one and the same object.

     IN SUMMARY
     -----------------------------------------------------------------
              Data   Pict  Orien-              Refle Made
              Form   From  tation Focus Facing ction Of
     -----------------------------------------------------------------

     Cube     100%   100%  up     high  left   right plastic
     Lens     high   low          low                glass
     CCD      high   high  down   high  right  left  silicon
     Circuit  high   low          low                metal
     TV       high   high  up     high  left   right glass
     Eye lens high   low          low                cells
     Retina   high   high  down   high  right  left  cells
     Brain    high   low          low                neurons
     CU       high   high  up     high  left   right consciousness

     Notice that there is yellow light coming off the Cube, but no
yellow light coming off the TV set, instead the TV set is emitting red
and green to fake yellow. So they gotta be two different objects.

     Notice nothing is lighting the conscious picture of the cube,
consciousness is lighting itself, consciousness is self luminous.
There are no photons in a dream or in the imagination, but both
can be seen clearly in the consciousness.

     Notice the blockage between the symbol and referent destroys the
symbol.  Paper between the Cube and the lens destroys the cube on the
CCD screen.  Cutting the circuitry between the CCD and the TV screen
destroys the image on the TV screen.  Paper between the TV screen and
the eye destroys the image on the retina.  Cutting the optic nerve
between the retina and the conscious unit, destroys the image in the
conscious unit.

     OK, so this is the end of the lecture on the Standard Reference
Model given on November 27th 2005.

    Homer