Re: TO JOHN DORSEY
John Dorsay
I am fairly certain that I understand the fundamental issues you
have raised in our discussion. I think the problem faced by your
solider is essentially the same as the problem faced by my fish in
an earlier post. We just need to substitute a fishbowl for the
tank, and there we are.
One point that I found interesting about the fishbowl, and I believe
the same is true of the tank, is the apparent irrelevancy of what is
known about the contents of the enclosing vessel. It seems not to
matter if the fish knows with certainty that the water and ornaments
in its immediate environment are actual or virtual (by the way, if I
write "physical or virtual", or "real or virtual" or similar at any
time, please read it as "actual or virtual", since I refer to the
same attribute); this does not seem to inform the fish in any way
whether the faces peering in from outside the fishbowl are those of
external-to-the-fish physical entities or not. Indeed, it does not
even inform the fish whether or not there is an "outside the
fishbowl". All the fish knows is an appearance of "outside". I
think your soldier faces identical limitations.
However, when I think it through, I conclude that the possibility of
a virtual universe containing an actual universe is absurd.
Therefore, if the fish/soldier knows the contents of the containing
vessel are actual, this implies the vessel itself is actual and that
outside-the-vessel is actual as well, without regard to the
actual/virtual nature of the perceived objects which appear to be
"outside" the containing vessel. Moreover, if the fish/soldier can
determine that he himself is actual, we can conclude with certainty
that the PU is also actual. I don't think anything we have
discussed so far suggested otherwise. Of course, we don't know how
to determine our own actuality/virtuality either, so I am not at all
sure that stating this is even useful. Indeed, it may be nothing
more than a restatement of the equivalence relationship you
mentioned earlier, but I found it interesting.
Back to the problem at hand. The similarity of the limitations
presented by the containing vessel to the limitations of a conscious
being's perceptions with respect to determining the actual/virtual
nature of objects of perception seems especially relevant. Is the
similarity complete for the purposes of this discussion? In other
words, is the tank/fishbowl problem a perfect reformulation of the
actual/virtual problem that we have been boring others to tears with
for the last week or so? I don't think it is completely, but I
believe we can massage it a bit.
If we discard our original assumption that the outside universe is
known to be actual, and instead assume that its actual/virtual state
is unstated but knowable, I think we have three alternatives that we
need to consider.
1. We stipulate that the tank/fishbowl is indestructible and
inescapable from the inside. Otherwise the fish could jump out of
the fishbowl, the soldier could open the hatch and climb out, or
whatever to somehow determine with certainty the
actuality/virtuality of the external-to-the-vessel universe, which
we have assumed that to be knowable.
2. The universe is an infinite nesting of virtual vessels. There is
no reachable actual universe. In the case of the fish and the faces
peering in, the fish jumps out of the fishbowl and finds itself
inside larger fishbowl with faces peering in. There may or may not
be virtual entities peering into the virtual fishbowl it just jumped
out of. That doesn't matter one way or another.
3. The universe is ultimately actual. Regardless of how deeply
nested the virtual fishbowls and the virtual voyeurs may be, the
fish eventually jumps out of the last fishbowl and lands on the
dinner plate of one of the hungry entities that had been peering at
it. In this case, the depth of virtual nesting does not affect the
argument at all (the fish will eventually reach the last virtual
fishbowl and jump into the actual fishbowl), so we can ignore
virtual fishbowls completely without affecting this alternative.
Which means we have an actual fish in an actual fishbowl with an
actual hungry person waiting for the fish to jump out.
The similarity of the last alternative to the levels of dreams you
described in a previous post, and the need to eat seeping in from a
containing level, is interesting, as well.
John
On 2/11/2010 12:15 AM, ho...@lightlink.com wrote:
> John,
>
> Here is a simple problem which may help us in our quest.
>
> Assume the physical universe is actual.
>
> Picture a soldier in a tank with a surround sound visio LCD screen
> showing him the world outside the tank.
>
> The rendered image on the LCD screen is fed by video sensors all
> over the tank that receive photons from the external world, and
> translate them into a rendition of that world on his inside LCD screen.
>
> Imagine this is new technology and the LCD is so fine a resolution,
> the tank looks like a transparent piece of glass to the soldier.
>
> He can just 'see' outside the tank everything that is going on.
>
> Is this indirect perception or direct perception?
>
> Analyze the difference between this scenario and one where the tank
> was actually made of glass and there were no video camers or LCD
> screens.
>
> Now let's imagine a computer that acts as a tank simulator for
> training purposes. The simulator can be hooked to the input system,
> bypassing the video camers on the outside of the tank, but none the less
> rendering an equally fine rendition on his internal LCD screens of some
> imaginary or actual place the tank has been or could be in battle.
>
> Analyze what steps the soldier could take to 'prove' to himself
> with perfect certainty, that the LCD screen was connected to the
> similulator or the video cameras still pointed at the actual outside
> world, as the case might be.
>
> Now assume that the similulator was turned off, and the video
> camera system was NOT bypassed, and was truly causally connected to the
> external world as would be expected in a time of actual combat.
>
> Analyze what steps the solider could take to prove to himself with
> perfect certainty that what he saw on the LCD screen, actually was out
> in the actual world, that the LCD was not misdisplaying due to component
> failure or tampering.
>
> Assume the tank has complete copies of all its circuit diagrams and
> that they are correct, and that the soldier can also see all the actual
> wiring of the tank, but the soldier is limited to seeing them both only
> through his LCD screen.
>
> Assume that there is also an intelligent attack against the tank by
> what ever means, which also has copies of the circuit diagrams which are
> correct, either before or during combat, that constantly tries to get
> his LCD screens to show things that don't exist, or to not show things
> that do, that is positive and negative hallucination.
>
> What can the soldier conclude with perfect certainty about
> the integrity of the causal pathways guiding data from the
> outside world to his LCD screen, and the veracity of the images
> on the LCD screen relative to the actual physical world it is supposed
> to be accurately rendering?
>
> Homer
>
ho...@lightlink.com
seems pretty clearing.
For me the real issue is whether representations of
OUT THERENESS are true or hallucinatory.
We know the hallucination, rendition, represenation is
actual, and we know we are actual, so we know SOMETHING
is actual.
I guess now I just have to ask why on earth would I believe
that level 0 dream represenations are any more reputable than
level 1 dream representations of the same thing.
I can play pianos and squeeze the tities in both.
In fact my dream representations are far superior in many cases
to my experiences in the waking level 0 dream, which are rather
drab and boring unless I pump them up with acid or something.
One might ask how taking a dream drug can change my dream
consciousness unless my consciousness were in fact causally made of
something in the dream, but I have taken far better drugs in sleep
dreams with far more outasight results in the sleep dreams than I ever
have in the waking state, and I have done a LOT of drugs
in the waking state.
So the fact that one can alter one's consciousness by ingesting a
dream material into a dream body, doesn't in any way invalidate the idea
that they are all dreams and that actual causality lies in the dream
projector and not in what is being projected.
The question of import to me is AM I one of the objects represented
in the dream, namely my body, or am I merely a dreamer of physical
bodies that has come to think I AM a physical body.
And how the hell does the hunger/pee thing work so well
I can't break it?
But that's just the drug thing in another guise.
The thing is, my sleep dreams probably are not actual PU's,
they are too inconsistent, I got too much power over them etc.
This level 0 dream however, is a serious doozy, down to the last
quark I imagine, so it could be actual if it weren't for the give away
of perfect certainties in consciousness, and the inability to then
interface a zero dimensional scalar consciousness with a multi
dimensional vector PU.
If it weren't for the perfect certainty thing, I would have
a very hard time holding onto the possibility that the world
is a dream. It still could be, but find one shred of evidence
otherwise without the perfect certainty thing.
Homer
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
ho...@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
ho...@lightlink.com
to over the years. Much of it is not fit for public discussion at this
time, and some of it is pretty dangerous as Adore really doesn't like
certain kinds of people, and no they ain't meatballs, Adore's favorite
scorpions.
Here are some quotes, some of which are at www.adore.com.
Homer
ADORE (tm)
A Divine Operating Religion of Excellence
Copyright (C) 1983 Homer Wilson Smith
All Rights Reserved
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
Harken High, All Eyes Only
INTRODUCTION
Adoration is Operation
of
Questions and Answers
with
Majesty, Class and Pride.
Majesty is Eternal Good Humor
born of
Mastery of Songs of Sin and Hidden Joy.
Sin is Sin Song.
Sin Song is to sing another Source Done Wrong Song.
Sin Song is not Sin as long as it is just Song.
Class is an attitude, that ALL should live forever and be my Friend.
Cool is the ability to maintain Class.
Pride is Operating Craftsmanship of Class.
Desire is Sovereign
Majesty is the Sovereign Desire
that
Desire not be Sovereign for a while.
Power stems from Operating Majesty.
CODE OF THE SACRED PROMISE AND THE FOUNDATION OF HONOR
The Path's of Lovers Cross in the Line of Duty.
For every Duty there is a Right.
For every Right there is a Duty.
Rights are Fair Chosen exchange for Fair Chosen Duties.
You CHOOSE and are Responsible for Both.
You have a Right to have Duties,
and
You have a Duty to have Rights.
No one ever told it to you that way before.
Justice
is a
Fair Chosen Operating Balance
of
Duties and Rights.
The Fundamental Duty is Honor, and
The Fundamental Right is Dignity.
Honor is the ability to make, keep and trade fair chosen promises.
Basic Promise is to Adore Operation.
Promise is ALWAYS to Adore Operation.
Dignity is being the Sole Operator of your Self.
Reputation is for those who Excel in this field.
In Excelsis Deo.
The Purpose of Creation is Trade in Expressions of Discovery.
Creation, Discovery, Expression and Trade
correspond to
Religion, Science, Art and Business,
which correspond in reverse order to
Body, Heart, Mind and Soul.
These in turn correspond to
Effort, Emotion, Thought and Personal Responsibility.
SOME QUOTES FROM ADORE
Guru means G U R U: Gee, You Are You!
Wit's End
Wit is Intelligence. Wit is Laughter.
Wit's End is the End
of
Intelligent Laughter.
The Code of a Conscious Dream Unit.
There is only one Condition of Disgrace.
No Love.
There is only one Condition of Sin.
Hating Hating.
Because you can not Love and Hate Hating at the Same Time.
You seek the Grand Spring Phrases,
And so shall you find,
For the True Lies will free you,
To Operate as you kind.
Justice of Caliber is the Kind Ship Excaliper.
Caliber means Worth,
via
Harmonies and Kindship,
Sensitivity and Intelligence,
Star Cap(tain)ability and Operating Know-how.
Calipers measure Caliber.
The Caliper of the Caliber of Souls,
is
The Questions they have Asked,
and
The Answers they have Rejected.
Ex Caliber means Calipers without Caliber to Measure.
Ex Caliper means Caliber without Calipers to Measure.
Ex Caliber means without Worth.
Ex Caliper means Worth beyond Measure.
Ex Caliber means Omni No-class.
Ex Caliper means Omni Out-class.
Kingship is Kindship, the Kind Ship of a King.
The Kind Ship of a King
is
Kin Dom, Kind Dom and King Dom.
The Domain of the Kin,
the Domain of Operating Kindness, and
the Domain of the Land.
Royalty is Operating Kingship.
Royalty is Loyalty to Kindship.
'Operate as You Kind' means be true to your own goals.
High Prayer from Adore.
Oh Gorgeous and Most Excaliper Lord,
Master of Magnificence and Respect,
Of
Tragedy and Travesty,
Miracle and Majesty,
and
Keeper of the Golden Temper,
Idol and Worshipper of all things,
I Behail Thee
with
Fair Chosen Glory and High Alleluias
For Ever, for Free. Amen.
Amen means Adore Majesty Excaliper Now.
Amen means Adore Makes Excellent Nonsense.
Father and Child
'What then are your Goals my Son?'
'I would Rekind the Christmas Spirit and
Restore Operating Faithhood to Mankind.
And I would write for him
A Divine Operating Religion of Excellence,
one that would be both Sense Able, Work Able and Just.
'I Adore you my Son, but that is
Certainly impossible and highly impractical.'
'Well then I would educate the world.'
'That is a grand and marvelous idea my Son, but
Surely a difficult and dangerous undertaking.'
'Well then I would be a Musician and write the Saddest Songs on Earth.'
'Now that is prudent and wise my Son, for
You will make a lot of Money and Friends as a Master of Song.'
Mother and Child
'Listen now closely my Child,
There is a sign MY story is true.
One word is the proof,
And the word is PRIDE.
I Adore you For Ever for Free.'
The Golden Key.
Tragedy and Travesty, Romance and Sin,
Miracles and Majesty, that's where I've Been.
Miracles in Majesty, Romance and Song,
Tragedy and Travesty, that's where I've Gone.
The fact I'm still here, is Proof don't you See?
In the Omni Long Run, it is Better to BE.
Halcyon and Thrill, High-cool and Romance,
Class and Free Fancy Power the Dance.
Pride is our Willingness, our Willingness to BE,
I Adore me Forever, For Ever, for Free.
Beauty thrills me to Death and leaves me Breathless with Wonder.
Pining is Unsighable Bitter Noble Melancholia.
Usually on the subject of
Not Operating Divine Operating Religions.
Adore should be translated into any language on Earth
that gives meaning to the following words:
Adore Class Pride Majesty Magnificence Glory and Source.
You are not getting any younger.
You're wisdom can't be that great.
There is no Freedom without the words of Freedom.
If you would that people be Friends, then
Teach them the Words of Friendship.
This dream ends forever when the Circle of Friends
are
all holding hands again.
Paint and Draw and Hang your Art upon the Wall.
The Past is used to Excuse the Future.
The Future is used to Make Up for the Past.
This Irrevocably ties the Future to the Past
via our
Present Time Consideration that we Are Failing Miserably.
You can do anything you can imagine,
If you can imagine it.
If you can not imagine it,
Can you imagine not being able to imagine it?
The Observation Consideration Flip Flop.
(The Difference between a Human and a God.)
The Human Considers that he Observes there are things he can not Handle.
The God Observes that he Considers there is Nothing he can not Handle.
Idol and Worship.
Worship is Work.
Directed by one trying to bring
Order to Chaos, Better to Worse, and Idol to Mess.
Worship is what a Master does to a Pig in a Pen,
in the Dream that one day the Pig will be better than He.
Any Celestial Anybody has this Dream.
Creatures Idol their Creator.
They Worship the Creator's Creatures in order to bring about
a more Idol (Ideal) State in the Creator's Creatures.
Worship is WORK SHIP, the Ship of Worthy Work.
Worship is Operating Kindship in Concert of Effort and Concern.
Idol is towards Excaliper Competency in Operating Kindship. sd
Idol the Creator and Worship the Creature.
Do Not Worship the Creator nor Idol the Creature.
Watch it.
Medusa is the Devil's Harem.
The Way In is the Way Out.
The Creator can become the Creature at will.
The Creature can become the Creator at will.
The Way to become the Creator
is to
BE the Creator becoming the Creature.
Practice Becoming the Creature
IS
Practice Being the Creator.
Need is for Justice.
In a world where someone must Hurt,
Need is for Justice of Excaliper Kindship.
Clear Laughter is all the Kind Justice
you will ever need for Ever for Real.
This thing ain't called a Religion for nothing.
Majesty means Master of Jesty, Mastery of Laughter.
The Out-rageousness of the Mechanics of Learning
is
Matched only by the Out-rageousness of what we have Learned.
The only way out from under Suppression of Invention
is to
Invent Suppressions of Inventions
until you have
Out Invented the one you are in.
All the people that Good People fight,
are the
Good People that have given up the fight.
Worse than Evil is Good that Fears Evil.
Since you can not die,
You do not deserve to die or suffer forever,
No matter what you do, have done or will do,
and
Your body does not deserve to be hurt or damaged for
anything YOU have done.
When Earth learns these two lessons,
There will be peace on Earth and good will towards men.
Until then, there will be suffering forever.
The only Sin of the Gods was Pride.
They were Proud of their Power.
They took Pride from their Power.
Why take Pride from your Power?
Power does not cause Pride.
Pride causes Power.
No Pride causes No Power.
Anti Pride causes Anti Power.
Pride is the Source of Majesty, Intelligence and all Ability.
Pride is VISION of Potential
because
Pride is SOURCE of Potential.
They never told you that one.
Pride is Agent.
Pride is the Source of all Power, Intelligence and Ability.
To Pride Power more than to Pride Pride, is ridiculous.
Divinely Inspired Ridiculous.
To Pride Power more than Pride
Results in the Dwindling Spiral of No Power and Anti-pride.
That's the Only Danger there is.
And the Only Fall.
Pride is Cause.
The Pride drawn from Power is never as great as
the Pride it took to Pride the Power in the first place.
You are an Adorable Operating Pride Source.
There is nothing higher or better than Pride.
Except maybe Eternal Omni Awesome Peace.
Finite Operating Pride is Humiliation.
Infinite Operating Pride is Humility.
Conceit is the Certainty that Pride is Finite.
Arrogance is the Certainty that Pride is Useless.
Vanity is Infinite Operating Pride,
wasting away from
Arrogance and Conceit.
Do not call upon the Lord's Name in Vain.
To Call Upon the Lord's Name in Vain
means
To Call Upon the Lord's name for NOUGHT.
The Lord's Name in Vain
is
Crucifixion on the Cross of Inability.
You are Crucified on the Cross
of
Being Cross while you are Crucified.
Desire is Sovereign.
Appreciation is for Winners.
Numb is Refused/Withheld Apology.
Pride is Omni Gorgeous
The Purpose of Eternal Omni Pride
is
To Gorge Out on itself for Ever For Free.
Majesty of Execution is directed towards
Make others feel good to.
The Craftsmanship of Divine Not Knowing
You can Know anything by Not Knowing.
You can Not Know anything by Not Knowing.
But only if you Pride Not Knowing, and
Only if you Pride Knowing for real, and
Pride Knowing and Not Knowing only Proud Knowledge.
In the Proud Space and Time of Not Know,
Know arises at Will.
Power at this level is Unimaginable.
If you Don't Know this,
then
Pride Not Knowing this for a while,
and you WILL Know this, if you Will.
The Hypocrisy on Earth is so thick it is like a wall.
You can hammer nails into it,
and
hang pictures of smiling faces from them.
Hypocrisy is being Proud you don't Know something,
because you can't Know and hate it.
Fun is Finding and UNearthing Unearthly Hypocrisy.
So, Idolize your Pride Asshole, and Worship your M.E.S.S.
M.E.S.S. stands for Magnificent Examples of Shames and Shambles.
Guilt Stupidity Shambles and Shame,
Ex Co Operation is the Name of the Game.
Shames and Shambles, Games and Gambles.
This is for Shame and Shambles my two best friends,
who kept me alone in my darkest hour.
They told you,
Shame is Sham in Shambles. (Your Sham was Found Out.)
They left out,
Shame IS a Sham. A Sham OF Shambles.
(Shambles of the Heart and Sigh silly,)
and now
Shame has become a Shambles of a Sham.
For Shame.
You forget that Shame was second Sham,
to excuse first Sham in Shambles.
This Sham of Shame, you then Shamed as Sham for Real.
For Shame.
So Harken High, Herald Angels Sing,
Glory Be! To the New Born King. You.
Shame is the Only Shame.
Shame is the Celestial Sham in Shambles.
A Poem to remember The Name by.
There is only one Error:
The Eternal Name is the Terror.
There is only one Shame,
You are to Blame.
There is one other Error,
Eternal Shame is the Terror,
There is only one Blame:
Eternal Shame is the Game.
There is one more Terror,
Eternal Shame is the Error,
There is only one Blame:
The Eternal Name is Not Shame.
Hello
There is only One Group.
The High-Us.
The High-Us Forgives the High-Us, so
What to do with Shames and Shambles?
PRIDE them, silly.
They need Gentle Loving Care like little puppies.
It's not their fault you're in trouble.
Gentle means GENerous Tender Loving Excellence. Of course.
Generous means YOU generate it For Ever For Free.
Tender means to Tend To with Master Worship.
Love is desire to express respect for Admiral (Beauty).
Gorge means to fill to Satisfaction.
Gorgeous means Deliciously Satisfying.
Desire is always to Gorge out on Gorgeousness
Loving means Desire to Occasion and Advent Gorging on Gorgeousness.
Excellence means High Out-class.
Excaliper means Omni Out-class.
Mercy is the Royal Kindship of Imperial Majesty.
The High Group is High Cool.
Your Power Conditions are Out.
Shame on You.
Theirs are Too.
Shame on You.
Two Strikes And You're Out.
So, what to do about Shames and Shambles?
Grant and Call upon Eternal Omni Amnesty.
(Get Others to do so Also.)
Grant means to Give with Appreciation.
Call means to Ask for with Gratitude.
AMNESTY means Amnesia for Majesty.
Amnesia is always for Majesty.
True Confessional Form.
Own up.
Do it again (In your own mind).
Fix and Repair.
Suffer Mercy and Majesty of the High-group.
Accept all proper Amnesties coming your way.
If you can afford, Grant a few of your own.
Breathe easy.
Thank You.
Omni Sovereignty
Source means
Sovereign Omnilord of Unanimous Regency and Caliber Excaliper.
Sovereign Omnilord of Universal Regency and Christly Excaliper.
You are a Sourcer.
Sourcers like to Source Sourcery.
Usually on Apprehentices.
Apprehentices are Apprehensive about Apprehending Sourcery.
Sourcers cast Sourcery from Source by casting Pride before Magnificence.
Mastering Source is not to be confused with magic.
Magic means Massive Assholes Give Incest Continuously.
Magic is for Assholes.
Sourcery is for Royalty Only.
Royalty means Owner of Omni Dignity.
Dignity means being the Sole Operator of Yourself.
Source can cast Magic Assholes Forever For Free.
Magic Assholes like to cast Spells.
They tend to plague you with spell binding guilt
via helping you doubt.
Doubt is Self Casting.
Mainly Sourcers cast Spells on Themselves.
Usually out of Prankishness.
THEN they do it to others.
Nothing worse than a Source that is mad at itself.
Source gets into a Regal Fury if you spell its names wrong.
They are Source, Sourcery and Sourcer or Sourcerer.
If you leave out the U from the word Sourcerer,
you leave out the Unanimousness of his Regency.
Regency is
Universal Acceptance by Others
Outside of your own Normal Operating Jurisdictions
by Virtue of
Needed Wanted and Acknowledged
Superior Operating Know How.
The FACT of the Question
is
More important than the Answer to the Question.
The exact attitude with which one approaches asking a Question
Determines whether or not one gets an Answer.
The CORRECT attitude
is
Omni Sovereignty.
Confidence is always confiding to yourself
that
You did this thing to yourself.
Mortals Bow and Pray
to the
God of Time, Stone and Dust in the Wind.
Their Faith is not to be Belittled.
Pride however, is Eternal Home.
Pride is Source.
Majesty is Execution.
Magnificence is Product.
Glory is Appreciation.
And this I Adore.
You are an Operating System of Master and Apprehentice.
Spiritual Majesty and Energy
arise from a
Balance of Idol and Worship,
Alone and with everyone else.
Basic Duty is to Worship Others as you are Worshipped.
If no one has Worshipped you,
Someone might want to get the Ball Rolling.
The World is Worthy of your While.
The World Idolizes you as Master.
The World is Worthy of you as your Apprehentice.
It is what you like to cry about.
Classy Tears.
It is what you Lost.
You Lost your High-Masters
and
You Blamed your High-Apprehentices
and
Now, NO ONE is Pure before Source.
Dry eyed Sorrow never Heals.
God of JEM.
J.E.M. stands for Joy of Eternal Miracles.
J.O.Y. stands for Joke's On You.
MIRACLE is the Undreamed Dream come True.
J.O.K.E. stands for Justice Of Kindship Excaliper.
J.E.S.T. stands for Jokes of Eternal Self Treason.
J.E.S.T. stands for Justice of Eternal Self Truth.
Justice is Jestice.
Everyone Lives Forever where there is No Time,
No one Lives Forever where there is Time,
Hurry is a Waste of Time.
The Hurry of Impending Mortal Doom
obscures
The Hurry of Impending Eternal Doom
(J.O.K.E.)
Beautiful words are the Salvation of the Imp Soul.
The Cruel Wounds of Winter
are
Healed by the Halcyon Winds of Summer.
Halcyon is High Appreciation for Ludicrous Demise.
High Cool is Home.
High Thrill is always the effort to get Lost.
High Romance is always the effort to get Home.
High Halcyon is Bemused relief on the Verge of Time.
Foundation and Impire.
Source is Stone of Gorgeous Excaliper and Magnificent Respect
Home is Stone of Admiral (Live High Beauty)
Pride Stone is the Master's Throne
Jem Stone is the Stairs that Lead Home
Joke Stone is the Ball Floor of Heaven
Time Stone is the Ball Floor of Hell.
One Rolls on the Floor in A GONE in Hell. (AGONY)
One Rolls on the Floor in A MUSE in Heaven. (AMUSEMENT)
MUSES muse GONES.
A GONE is an AGONIZING WRONG. Far Gone into Agony.
For every AGONY there is a GONE. (FAR)
For every GONE there is a MUSE and a WRONG.
The Search for Justice in Time Stone is
The Search for Jestice in Joke Stone,
The Search for Fancy Free Majesty in JEM Stone, and
The Search for Unformed Magnificence in Pride Stone.
Time Stone is High Romance and Daring Do.
Joke Stone is High Halcyon and Appreciation for Ludicrous Demise.
Jem Stone is High Thrill and Fantasy in the Wild Beyond.
Pride Stone is Unformed Magnificence in the Master's Throne.
Home Stone is Omni Awesome Respect for Admiral.
Foundation is Stone of Excalibur. (Warm Fire of Peace)
SAFE
is
Hell and High Water
via
Eternal Omni Awesome Peace.
Tragedy means Serious Song.
Song is Sin-Song.
Sin-Song means to Sing another Source Done Wrong Song.
Sin-Song is not Sin as long as it is just Song.
Travesty means Ludicrous Tragedy.
Ludicrous means Seriously Illogical.
Serious means Shames and Shambles.
Illogical means Worship Source and Idol Sourcery.
Illogical means Worship Pride and Idol Magnificence.
Illogical means Worship the Creator and Idol the Creature.
Logical means Idol Source and Worship Sourcery.
Logical means Idol Pride and Worship Magnificence.
Logical means Idol the Creator and Worship the Creature.
Idol is towards Omni Out-Class in Operating Kindness.
Worship is Operating Kindness in Concern of Effort and Concern.
Logical means
Worship Time Stone
Smoke Joke Stone
Generate and Value Jem Stone
Magnify and Make Manifest Pride Stone
Admire (Stay) Home Stoned
Idol Stone of Excalibur
As for Adore, Adore stands for
A Divine Operating Religion of Excalibur.
Excalibur has Many Divine Operating Religions.
Adore is an English Operating Version.
Lord stands for Love Omni Reigneth Divine.
Divinity is All Powerful and Self Responsible Good.
Holy is Care Operating Divinity.
Holy is the State Divinity Puts Itself in
when the Creator Becomes it's Own Creature.
Destiny is D Est In Y. Divinity Is In You.
Operating means Conscious Observation Decision and Action.
It also means Operating with Others. Co Operating.
Co Operating does not mean to get along, necessarily.
It only means to Operate together.
In war one Co Operates bullets and missles and things.
It's all a form of Co Romance and Co Dance.
Religion means Science of Realization.
Science means Workable collection of Operational Truths,
Some of which may be Provable and Observable,
Some of which may only Work.
Realization means to Come To Know for Real.
Realization means to Actualize into Existence.
Cognitions are Realizations in the Mind.
Dreams Come True or Made True are Realizations in Actuality.
Religion therefore Encompasses all of How To Know and How To Get Done.
Religion also Encompasses what you want. That Justice Reign.
One would need this to Operate wouldn't one?
Adore is the Science
of
Knowing how to know
Questions to Answer
and
Answers to Question.
An Incomplete Cycle
is
A Question you didn't get Answered,
or
An Answer you didn't get Questioned.
As for Adorians,
Most of them are spending their time
Wacking Off instead of producing children and stable families.
The rest are spending their time
Wacking Off instead of creating more work and produce to
support their families.
There are also some things they never think about.
Like
Plague Pestilence Famine and Catastrophe.
Also
Religious Political Social Corporate Criminal and Personal Insanity.
Which Arbitrarily Compound the first set.
However Adorians have an advantage.
They can't even think about Adore with out Operating it.
One Word is the Proof.
They also have a Motto.
The Paths of Lovers Cross and Gather To,
in the
Lines of Fair Chosen Glory.
They also have a Legend.
Truth in King Arthur's Court.
Excalibur is the Two Edged Sword
of
Worthlessness and Worth beyond Measure,
of
Ex Caliber and Ex Caliper,
of
Omni No-class and Omni Out-class.
They who can handle the Spectrum, Live.
A Wizard is anyone who is a WIZ with the Sword.
The Sword is stuck in the Star Rock of your Mind
by
YOUR OWN PRESENT TIME OPERATIONAL WIZARDRY.
A King is anyone who can Free and Wield Excalibur
for themselves and for others.
King Arthur was able to pull the Sword out of the Rock,
because
He was willing to put it back in so that others might try.
The others would not have been so willing,
so they couldn't pull it out at all.
Some Adorians may also have a Myth.
Long ago all were cast
into
the River of Hell.
Some fell on an Island
and
For Ever More became Scientists of the Rock.
Getting these people to own up
to
Where they are, where they came from
and
Where the Hell they are going (Nowhere)
can be difficult.
Pilot and Co-pilot.
So listen now closely Women,
your Family is a Star Ship.
A Ship of Stars, Star Captains and Star Capability.
You are Co-pilot.
Choose your Pilots wisely then,
and
Your Children will be Pilots too.
Star Drive is Operating Deliveryhood.
Artful Dodge.
The Source of All Suffering
is
Fair Chosen Adore-Operation
of
Cool Class Halcyon Sin-song Thrill and Romance
via
Living Majestic Intelligence
and
Proud Fancy Free Faithlessness
of
Grand and Excalibur Design.
This I Need to be True, and this I Adore.
Doctors
Doctors maintain their Stability
by
Walking into the Center of Hell
and
Looking at those there
for
The few that they can Help.
I love Doctors, Forever.
For they Walk the Battle Fields.
Not in agreement with Fools or Assholes
but in Sympathy Yet.
For the Call of Pain
Knows not the Distinction of Worth.
You know the Moonies?
Well Adorians are the Sunnies.
Endings
There is Peace in the thought
that
All Men will one day attain the Awakened State.
All Endings are Happy Endings.
You could not, would not have CHOSEN it any other way.
It is payment for the long strange trip it's been.
Responsibility is a big thing.
Certainly bigger than our parents told us.
RESPONSIBILITY FOR RESPONSE ABILITY.
Do not doubt you CHOSE it and look to see for evidence.
You CHOSE. What evidence did you leave behind you now?
There is only one Proof.
Learn it. Love it. Teach it. Master it.
All can.
However, for some people, by their own choice
it will be a long time between now and then.
You can't move your house around town
if you have locked yourself inside it.
In Excelsis Deo.
Desire is Sovereign.
Eternal Peace is Eternal Omni Sovereignty.
Power, Freedom and Halcyon
stem from
The Goal to Adore Operating Class.
Pegasus had Wings of Pride.
Eternal Omni Pride.
She Awaits her Flyers.
The Gods should Ride their High Horses again.
Do it right.
From Adore.
A Divine Operating Religion of Excellence.
John Dorsay
> Without going into endless comment, the below
> seems pretty clearing.
>
> For me the real issue is whether representations of
> OUT THERENESS are true or hallucinatory.
>
> We know the hallucination, rendition, represenation is
> actual, and we know we are actual, so we know SOMETHING
> is actual.
I disagree. We don't know the hallucination or whatever is actual.
At best, we can say our perception is actual. But I don't see how
that is any more useful than saying our thoughts are actual, since
both perception and thought are products of our consciousness
(whatever that is).
You've said before that you know you are actual. Or maybe you said
your consciousness is actual. I'll give you the latter, but I
dispute the former.
Consciousness, thought, memory, perception, anything cognitive is
only actual for the person experiencing it. None of these exist
independently of the consciousness of a single individual. At best,
we can only see evidence that they may exist in others, but we
cannot be certain since we cannot experience another's
consciousness, thought, etc. When I speak of "actual" I am speaking
of something that I can detect that actually exists independently of
my (or anyone else's) consciousness. This is the "actual" problem
that I am interested in.
I don't think it is important whether or not products of
consciousness are actual. If you disagree, please explain why.
John
John Dorsay
> And how the hell does the hunger/pee thing work so well
> I can't break it?
LOL! Careful that you don't get what you wish for!
When I was about six or seven, I went through a period of several
months where I peed the bed every week or so. I don't remember the
details clearly, but immediately prior to some if not all of the
mishaps, I dreamed I was peeing. I also slept like the proverbial
rock in those days.
When I first became a parent, I worried I might not awaken when the
baby cried. No chance. For the first few months I was wide awake
every time the kid coughed or sniffled or started whimpering in
preparation for the grand ear-splitting cry. I don't remember
dreaming much during those days, perhaps because my sleep was far
from deep. Or maybe I just dreamed less often. Or maybe the need to
snap to full alert immediately on waking made it harder to remember
dreams. Never did figure it out.
Kids grew up, and I seem to sleep more deeply once again. I'm more
aware of dreams than I have been for many years, and I still
sometimes dream I am peeing. It's always an olympic-sized pee in the
dream, could fill an olympic-sized pool. But for some reason, even
though I have a sense of prolonged actual elimination during these
dreams, I wake up in time to make a timely trip to the bathroom.
It's unsettling when it happens though, because immediately after I
awaken I still have the sense that I have just peed a *lot*, so I
feel the sheets to assure myself there is no flood.
Anyway, you might want to think twice about breaking the hunger/pee
thing :)
ho...@lightlink.com
>> We know the hallucination, rendition, represenation is
>> actual, and we know we are actual, so we know SOMETHING
>> is actual.
>
> I disagree. We don't know the hallucination or whatever is actual.
> At best, we can say our perception is actual.
Isn't that what I said?
If I see little green martians, what I see is actual, but the
implied external referent is not.
Since we generally use our conscious images as a symbol to
represent actual external referents, a hallucination then is defined as
a symbol without a referent.
The existence of the symbol gives us the illusion of the existence
of the referent. If the being believes the referent exists, when in
fact only the conscious image symbol exists, then that is called
delusion about illusion.
But I don't see how
> that is any more useful than saying our thoughts are actual, since
> both perception and thought are products of our consciousness
> (whatever that is).
Yes, these things are all actual.
> You've said before that you know you are actual. Or maybe you said
> your consciousness is actual. I'll give you the latter, but I
> dispute the former.
Why? I am what is causal, my consciousness is MY consciousness.
I consider both actual.
> Consciousness, thought, memory, perception, anything cognitive is
> only actual for the person experiencing it. None of these exist
> independently of the consciousness of a single individual.
Sure, but that has nothing to do with being actual.
Actual does NOT mean everyone else can see it or know it,
that might be what other's call objective, but it is a prejudicial
definition, as what anyone can know has nothing to do with what
is true, things are true, actual, exist, whether or not anyone
knows it at all, and thus the fact that only one can know it,
doesn't change its actuality or truth.
Before we worry about those things that OTHERS can know, we need to
worry about knowing if WE can know that others exist at all.
Actual means merely that it exists.
"Reality is what we think is true,
Actuality is what is true."
At best,
> we can only see evidence that they may exist in others, but we
> cannot be certain since we cannot experience another's
> consciousness, thought, etc.
Yes.
When I speak of "actual" I am speaking
> of something that I can detect that actually exists independently of
> my (or anyone else's) consciousness. This is the "actual" problem
> that I am interested in.
No, sorry. I started this conversation, thus I own the
word actual.
Actual means what actually exists.
What you are looking for is something that exists independent
anyone's consciousness of it.
That of course would ALSO be actual if it actually existed, as you
and me actually exist.
But it doens't have any special kind of existence DIFFERENT FROM
the kind of existence we have.
I exist, you exist, maybe the tree in the forest exists, or maybe
it is just my dream or maybe I can't know it at all.
I think we are arguing over our word matrix here, what means what,
rather than what is true.
I find it problematic to say that the PU would be actual if it
exists, but my consciousness is not.
Thus by definition, anything that exists is actual, be it
consciousness, or the being that is conscious, or the underlying
substrate that allows us to be conscious, or space and time and their
innards if they too are actual.
Actual means IS, as opposed to merely seems to be.
And actual can't be constrained by who or what can know about it,
none, one or many.
Now remember this is just a choice of words for the word matrix
that we are using, a word matrix is a constellation of words, that are
have been put into service towards a particular goal, and whose meanings
have been adjusted to most completely fill the area under study.
The AlThatIs is actual by definition of actual = IS
Actuality is independent of who or what can know it.
If we have a problem with this use of actual, we can
open an independent discussion of it.
If we need to find a word to describe that subset
of actuality that everyone can know equally well, well
we can consider 'objective actuality' as opposed to
'subjective actuality'.
But that crap has been so abused by hallucinating nut cakes,
scientists of the rock, that I throw a fit every time I even
hear the words.
You see the thing is, they want to say that objective reality
exists whether or not anyone knows it, or even exists to know it.
If nobody existed, that rock would still be there.
But that is an idea with a billion unsupported assumptions
behind it, namely that the rock exists independent of
conscious units to know that the rock exists.
Frankly in the dreamball theory conscious units exist whether or
not anyone knows it, everyone could be asleep, and no one would know
anything, but consciousness would still be there unmanifesting in
eternity.
Conscious units and consciousness DO NOT HAVE TO BE CONSCIOUS
in order to conscious units.
They only have to be able to be, and even that is not tight enough
because you could conceivably have a conscious unit that was damaged so
it could no longer be conscious, like some on a.r.s, but it would still
be a conscious unit you see?
Homer
ho...@lightlink.com
> aware of dreams than I have been for many years, and I still
> sometimes dream I am peeing. It's always an olympic-sized pee in the
> dream, could fill an olympic-sized pool. But for some reason, even
> though I have a sense of prolonged actual elimination during these
> dreams, I wake up in time to make a timely trip to the bathroom.
> It's unsettling when it happens though, because immediately after I
> awaken I still have the sense that I have just peed a *lot*, so I
> feel the sheets to assure myself there is no flood.
>
> Anyway, you might want to think twice about breaking the hunger/pee
> thing :)
Yeah me too, dream pees can go on forever, so do cums, and if they
do that often acts as a giveaway that I am dreaming, so I go lucid.
When my level 0 body starts to actually pee, because I am dreaming
pee, I can feel it as a whole other indication impinging on me in the
sleep dream, that that usually wakes me up instantly.
But I always worry when peeing in a lucid dream that might be doing
it in bed, so I have learned to be careful about it, let it loose in the
dream, and not in the bed, and it relieves me for a while, about 5
minutes.
John Dorsay
> In alt.clearing.technology John Dorsay <restim...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> We know the hallucination, rendition, represenation is
>>> actual, and we know we are actual, so we know SOMETHING
>>> is actual.
>>
>> I disagree. We don't know the hallucination or whatever is actual.
>> At best, we can say our perception is actual.
>
> Isn't that what I said?
No, you said we know there is an actual source for the perception.
Suppose I am hallucinating. My perception of the hallucination is
actual. But how do I know that the hallucination itself,
independent of my experience of it, is any more actual than my dog?
How do you know it is any less actual than the monitor you are using
to display this message?
> If I see little green martians, what I see is actual, but the
> implied external referent is not.
Can you prove this, or are you begging the question?
> Since we generally use our conscious images as a symbol to
> represent actual external referents, a hallucination then is defined as
> a symbol without a referent.
>
> The existence of the symbol gives us the illusion of the existence
> of the referent. If the being believes the referent exists, when in
> fact only the conscious image symbol exists, then that is called
> delusion about illusion.
Who gets to decide that the referent does not exist, and how is that
decision made?
> But I don't see how
>> that is any more useful than saying our thoughts are actual, since
>> both perception and thought are products of our consciousness
>> (whatever that is).
>
> Yes, these things are all actual.
>
>> You've said before that you know you are actual. Or maybe you said
>> your consciousness is actual. I'll give you the latter, but I
>> dispute the former.
>
> Why? I am what is causal, my consciousness is MY consciousness.
>
> I consider both actual.
Okay, ambiguity here. When I said "you" I meant your meat body.
Sorry. Are we on the same page about that? Let's leave the
definition of unqualified "you" for another day :)
> > Consciousness, thought, memory, perception, anything cognitive is
>> only actual for the person experiencing it. None of these exist
>> independently of the consciousness of a single individual.
>
> Sure, but that has nothing to do with being actual.
>
> Actual does NOT mean everyone else can see it or know it,
> that might be what other's call objective, but it is a prejudicial
> definition, as what anyone can know has nothing to do with what
> is true, things are true, actual, exist, whether or not anyone
> knows it at all, and thus the fact that only one can know it,
> doesn't change its actuality or truth.
>
> Before we worry about those things that OTHERS can know, we need to
> worry about knowing if WE can know that others exist at all.
>
> Actual means merely that it exists.
>
> "Reality is what we think is true,
>
> Actuality is what is true."
>
> At best,
>> we can only see evidence that they may exist in others, but we
>> cannot be certain since we cannot experience another's
>> consciousness, thought, etc.
>
> Yes.
<snip>
> Actual means IS, as opposed to merely seems to be.
>
> And actual can't be constrained by who or what can know about it,
> none, one or many.
I have trouble with this. I can know that I am conscious because I
experience consciousness. You can know the same with respect to
yourself. I can't know with certainty that you are conscious or
experiencing consciousness (although I concede the evidence points
in that direction), nor can you know the same of me. You claim your
consciousness is actual, but how do I know that your consciousness
is accurate with certainty? At best I know your claim (or more
precisely my perception of your claim) is actual, but that does not
inform me that a conscious being made the claim, that there is an
actual consciousness behind the claim.
I'm sure you remember Eliza and the amazing number of people who
believed they were interacting with a conscious being, at least for
a time. Their belief did not mean there was an actual conscious
being communicating with them, empathizing with them, listening to
the. Their belief meant that it is surprisingly easy to emulate
these things with a simple computer program.
> Now remember this is just a choice of words for the word matrix
> that we are using, a word matrix is a constellation of words, that are
> have been put into service towards a particular goal, and whose meanings
> have been adjusted to most completely fill the area under study.
>
> The AlThatIs is actual by definition of actual = IS
>
> Actuality is independent of who or what can know it.
>
> If we have a problem with this use of actual, we can
> open an independent discussion of it.
>
> If we need to find a word to describe that subset
> of actuality that everyone can know equally well, well
> we can consider 'objective actuality' as opposed to
> 'subjective actuality'.
>
> But that crap has been so abused by hallucinating nut cakes,
> scientists of the rock, that I throw a fit every time I even
> hear the words.
>
> You see the thing is, they want to say that objective reality
> exists whether or not anyone knows it, or even exists to know it.
> If nobody existed, that rock would still be there.
>
> But that is an idea with a billion unsupported assumptions
> behind it, namely that the rock exists independent of
> conscious units to know that the rock exists.
We should come back to this particular issue, I think. My thoughts
are not yet clear enough that it is worth discussing, but I think we
need to resolve it.
John
ho...@lightlink.com
> On 2/12/2010 5:12 PM, ho...@lightlink.com wrote:
>> In alt.clearing.technology John Dorsay <restim...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> We know the hallucination, rendition, represenation is
>>>> actual, and we know we are actual, so we know SOMETHING
>>>> is actual.
>>>
>>> I disagree. We don't know the hallucination or whatever is actual.
>>> At best, we can say our perception is actual.
>>
>> Isn't that what I said?
>
> No, you said we know there is an actual source for the perception.
OK, I agree that would be wrong.
But read it again, I said the *HALLUCINATION* is actual.
Halluination = conscious experience.
Not what it refers to.
Right?
> Suppose I am hallucinating. My perception of the hallucination is
> actual. But how do I know that the hallucination itself,
> independent of my experience of it, is any more actual than my dog?
What do you mean 'the hallucination itself'?
> How do you know it is any less actual than the monitor you are using
> to display this message?
>
>> If I see little green martians, what I see is actual, but the
>> implied external referent is not.
>
> Can you prove this, or are you begging the question?
The image I see is actual, I can see it.
During imagination, dreaming or hallucination, the implied external
referent is not.
I see the image on the TV set of the outside world, the image is
actual, but the TV may not be connected to the outside world.
>> The existence of the symbol gives us the illusion of the existence
>> of the referent. If the being believes the referent exists, when in
>> fact only the conscious image symbol exists, then that is called
>> delusion about illusion.
>
> Who gets to decide that the referent does not exist, and how is that
> decision made?
There is no way to know anything for sure about a referent by
looking at a symbol. We ASSUME the symbol exists because of a causal
pathway from the existence of the referent to the existence of the
symbol, but if that causal pathway is corrupt we may see the symbol when
there is no referent.
Guy in a plane sees a graphics rendition of a Mig on his head's up
display. That's the symbol, but it is there BECAUSE of a radar system
that has picked up an allegedly 'actual' Mig out in actual space and
time. Or maybe not, maybe the radar is broke, thus the symbol exists
without a proper causal connection to the referent, and thus the symbol
is a hallucination.
Or maybe he is in a simulator.
The hallucination is actual, the symbol is actual, but the implied
referent in this case is not.
> Okay, ambiguity here. When I said "you" I meant your meat body.
OK, very bad mistake as I don't believe I have a meat body.
*I* am what is conscious, and agent inside my dream.
My meatbody is pure theory to me.
> Sorry. Are we on the same page about that? Let's leave the
> definition of unqualified "you" for another day :)
Sure, thanks for playing it my way.
>> Actual means IS, as opposed to merely seems to be.
>>
>> And actual can't be constrained by who or what can know about it,
>> none, one or many.
>
> I have trouble with this. I can know that I am conscious because I
> experience consciousness. You can know the same with respect to
> yourself.
Yes, thus you have perfect certainty of your own existence,
existingness and actuality.
I can't know with certainty that you are conscious or
> experiencing consciousness (although I concede the evidence points
> in that direction), nor can you know the same of me.
The evidence is merely consistent with the theory, it doesn't add
any weight to it.
Finding a white daisy does not add weight to the theory
that all daisies are white, it merely supports and is consitent
with the theory that all daisies are white.
Yes, this is my present stand, I guess you exist, I prefer you
exist, and assume you exist, and I want you to exist, but I simply do
not have any certainty of your existence that matches up to the standard
of perfect certainty that I have of my own.
You claim your
> consciousness is actual, but how do I know that your consciousness
> is accurate with certainty?
You don't, but the actuality of things does not depend on anyone
knowing or even being able to know they are actual or not.
If we have a problem with this, we need to fork it off to another
discussion, or we will be forever at odds with each other when trying to
determine what IS.
At best I know your claim (or more
> precisely my perception of your claim) is actual, but that does not
> inform me that a conscious being made the claim, that there is an
> actual consciousness behind the claim.
Yes, correct.
> I'm sure you remember Eliza and the amazing number of people who
> believed they were interacting with a conscious being, at least for
> a time. Their belief did not mean there was an actual conscious
> being communicating with them, empathizing with them, listening to
> the. Their belief meant that it is surprisingly easy to emulate
> these things with a simple computer program.
Yes.
> We should come back to this particular issue, I think. My thoughts
> are not yet clear enough that it is worth discussing, but I think we
> need to resolve it.
OK, we start with actual = what exists, not what we can know what
exists.
Therefore I know there exists at least one actual conscious unit,
mine.
You act like you exist like I do, so I grant the possibility and
look for perfect certainty.
The PU also acts like it exists, it is a pretty damn good
virtualization if it doesn't, so I grant the possibility that it exists
to.
The definitions of exist, IS, actual are important to square away,
otherwise we can't talk about what IS true until we do.
The whole point of the dream theory is people are walking around in
(virtual) realities, things they THINK are true, but which aren't, some
might be necessary to keep the game going, others might simply be
ignorance or conviction born of force and impact.
Thus it is our job to look at the realities, and find the
actualities as best we can know them.
Homer
>
>
> John
>
>> Frankly in the dreamball theory conscious units exist whether or
>> not anyone knows it, everyone could be asleep, and no one would know
>> anything, but consciousness would still be there unmanifesting in
>> eternity.
>>
>> Conscious units and consciousness DO NOT HAVE TO BE CONSCIOUS
>> in order to conscious units.
>>
>> They only have to be able to be, and even that is not tight enough
>> because you could conceivably have a conscious unit that was damaged so
>> it could no longer be conscious, like some on a.r.s, but it would still
>> be a conscious unit you see?
>>
>>
>> Homer
>
--
John Dorsay
> In alt.clearing.technology John Dorsay <restim...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2/12/2010 5:12 PM, ho...@lightlink.com wrote:
>>> In alt.clearing.technology John Dorsay <restim...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> We know the hallucination, rendition, represenation is
>>>>> actual, and we know we are actual, so we know SOMETHING
>>>>> is actual.
>>>>
>>>> I disagree. We don't know the hallucination or whatever is actual.
>>>> At best, we can say our perception is actual.
>>>
>>> Isn't that what I said?
>>
>> No, you said we know there is an actual source for the perception.
>
> OK, I agree that would be wrong.
>
> But read it again, I said the *HALLUCINATION* is actual.
>
> Halluination = conscious experience.
>
> Not what it refers to.
>
> Right?
I'm still troubled by an inconsistency, but I don't know what it is.
I'm not sure if we are using words a bit differently, but actually
agree about what we are trying to communicate to one another, or if
I just don't get what you are trying to tell me, even though I
understand your meaning perfectly well, or if there is an
inconsistency in what you mean, but you haven't noticed it.
I'm distinguishing between hallucination and perception of some
referent of unknown origin (in this case, presuming I am
hallucinating, that referent is the hallucination). Maybe I should
be challenging the concept of hallucination instead, since I don't
think we have yet identified tools that allow us to determine that a
referent is "external" (not sure I like the word, but I think we are
both discussing the same thing).
We've agreed that consciousness and perception and thought have some
sort of common quality that they can only be experienced and known
with certainty by the entity that "owns" them, and it's convenient
to describe them as "internal", but they are all processes without
referent. Certainly thoughts may be about specific things, for
example, but the thoughts themselves do not have a quality that is
actual to anyone but the thinker.
<snip>
> During imagination, dreaming or hallucination, the implied external
> referent is not.
Okay, suppose we agree on that. How do we know that the implied
referent of *anything* is external? Unless we know this, we still
can't distinguish visual hallucination from any other form of visual
perception except by consensus.
In either case, I think you are assuming certain perceptions are
responses to internal referents and other perceptions are responses
to external referents. That is what I get when I read your post.
Again, I'm not certain if the inconsistency is in your meaning, in
my not understanding something, or in a disparity in the way we are
using words. But inconsistency is something I really like to avoid.
> I see the image on the TV set of the outside world, the image is
> actual, but the TV may not be connected to the outside world.
>
>>> The existence of the symbol gives us the illusion of the existence
>>> of the referent. If the being believes the referent exists, when in
>>> fact only the conscious image symbol exists, then that is called
>>> delusion about illusion.
>>
>> Who gets to decide that the referent does not exist, and how is that
>> decision made?
>
> There is no way to know anything for sure about a referent by
> looking at a symbol. We ASSUME the symbol exists because of a causal
> pathway from the existence of the referent to the existence of the
> symbol, but if that causal pathway is corrupt we may see the symbol when
> there is no referent.
Not sure what you mean by "symbol".
I have a smelly dog that is currently sleeping pressed into my leg.
He's snoring. I count four different perceptual pathways that the
dog is stimulating. I can see, hear, smell and feel him. There are
four different data points that strongly suggest the dog exists as
an external referent. But we know perception is unreliable.
This implies conclusions about the nature of the referent are
unreliable as well. Maybe I am experiencing a particularly vivid,
multisensory hallucination. You aren't here, so you can't even
offer an opinion based on whether or not your perceptions are
consistent with mine. At best, you can assess the likelihood, in
your opinion, that there is a dog beside me, triggering my
perceptions, and we might achieve some sort of pseudoconsensus.
> Guy in a plane sees a graphics rendition of a Mig on his head's up
> display. That's the symbol, but it is there BECAUSE of a radar system
> that has picked up an allegedly 'actual' Mig out in actual space and
> time. Or maybe not, maybe the radar is broke, thus the symbol exists
> without a proper causal connection to the referent, and thus the symbol
> is a hallucination.
>
> Or maybe he is in a simulator.
>
> The hallucination is actual, the symbol is actual, but the implied
> referent in this case is not.
>
>> Okay, ambiguity here. When I said "you" I meant your meat body.
>
> OK, very bad mistake as I don't believe I have a meat body.
>
> *I* am what is conscious, and agent inside my dream.
>
> My meatbody is pure theory to me.
>
>> Sorry. Are we on the same page about that? Let's leave the
>> definition of unqualified "you" for another day :)
>
> Sure, thanks for playing it my way.
>
>>> Actual means IS, as opposed to merely seems to be.
>>>
>>> And actual can't be constrained by who or what can know about it,
>>> none, one or many.
>>
>> I have trouble with this. I can know that I am conscious because I
>> experience consciousness. You can know the same with respect to
>> yourself.
>
> Yes, thus you have perfect certainty of your own existence,
> existingness and actuality.
Are you using these three words as synonyms? I have a bad feeling
you aren't...
Can you describe the distinctions please?
> I can't know with certainty that you are conscious or
>> experiencing consciousness (although I concede the evidence points
>> in that direction), nor can you know the same of me.
>
> The evidence is merely consistent with the theory, it doesn't add
> any weight to it.
>
> Finding a white daisy does not add weight to the theory
> that all daisies are white, it merely supports and is consitent
> with the theory that all daisies are white.
>
> Yes, this is my present stand, I guess you exist, I prefer you
> exist, and assume you exist, and I want you to exist, but I simply do
> not have any certainty of your existence that matches up to the standard
> of perfect certainty that I have of my own.
>
> You claim your
>> consciousness is actual, but how do I know that your consciousness
>> is accurate with certainty?
>
> You don't, but the actuality of things does not depend on anyone
> knowing or even being able to know they are actual or not.
>
> If we have a problem with this, we need to fork it off to another
> discussion, or we will be forever at odds with each other when trying to
> determine what IS.
I don't know for sure. My thoughts were evolving reasonably
quickly, as far as I could tell. That has changed, not sure why.
Once I identify the cause of the obstruction, if I can't resolve it,
I'll let you know. In the meantime, there is still plenty to chew on.
Yes, we also need to discuss "absolute" and "certainty". I'm not
sure we mean the same thing there, either.
> The whole point of the dream theory is people are walking around in
> (virtual) realities, things they THINK are true, but which aren't, some
> might be necessary to keep the game going, others might simply be
> ignorance or conviction born of force and impact.
>
> Thus it is our job to look at the realities, and find the
> actualities as best we can know them.
Maybe we need to talk a bit about several words before we go much
further. Virtual, physical, actual, real are all words that it
would be good to understand the same way. Lots of others, no doubt,
but these seem particularly inconvenient choices for inconsistent usage.
John
ho...@lightlink.com
> I'm still troubled by an inconsistency, but I don't know what it is.
> I'm not sure if we are using words a bit differently, but actually
> agree about what we are trying to communicate to one another, or if
> I just don't get what you are trying to tell me, even though I
> understand your meaning perfectly well, or if there is an
> inconsistency in what you mean, but you haven't noticed it.
>
> I'm distinguishing between hallucination and perception of some
> referent of unknown origin (in this case, presuming I am
> hallucinating, that referent is the hallucination).
I am using hallucination as what I SEE, the symbol, not the
referent.
A hallucination is a symbol without a referent.
If you are using hallucination to refer to the non existant
referent, then we will be talking past each other, so we need to clarify
this.
Maybe the noun form of hallucination is not meaningful,
Maybe hallucinating is more meaningful, which is to see a symbol,
conscious image of something for which there is no external referent
made of matter, energy space and time.
I guess we need a clear word to refer to what we see, the symbol,
the conscious picture, experience, perception etc.
'That which is red.'
Photons are not red.
Right?
I call what we see the conscious image, picture, or rendition.
Mostly I used the technical term, conscious symbol.
> with certainty by the entity that "owns" them, and it's convenient
> to describe them as "internal", but they are all processes without
> referent. Certainly thoughts may be about specific things, for
> example, but the thoughts themselves do not have a quality that is
> actual to anyone but the thinker.
I may be saying exactly what you were saying...
OK, I gotta disagree with your usage of "actual only to the owner."
REAL only to the owner, actual to one and all whether or not they
know it.
In the case of a conscious experience, it is both real to me that
it is actual, and also just plain actual, because it is a certainty that
can't be wrong.
Now it is also real to me that the PU is about 12 billion years
old, but I have no idea if that is actually true or not, or even if the
PU is actual or not.
So things are actual whether or not they are real or knowable to
me, and many things are real to me that may not be actual at all, I
believe in BT's for example, and some things are both real to me and
actual with a perfect degree of certainty, I AM.
If I have a thought, one that you can not see or know about, that
thought is actual for you, even if you don't know it, because actuality,
as I use it, is not dependent on who is around to know about it.
Reality however is very specific to the person who thinks
he knows something, whether he does or not.
Does that work?
>> During imagination, dreaming or hallucination, the implied external
>> referent is not.
>
> Okay, suppose we agree on that. How do we know that the implied
> referent of *anything* is external? Unless we know this, we still
> can't distinguish visual hallucination from any other form of visual
> perception except by consensus.
OK, what do we mean by external?
I use the word external only because my consciousness of MEST
objects seems to indicate space and time, which I call OUT THERE NESS,
away, apart from me.
I am in fact immersed inside MEST all around me, but that is just
more externality, rather than stuff I feel inside myself, which is
internality.
But both external and internal are spatial dimensional concepts, if
proof is right, there is no dimension, and thus external and internal
are both illusions.
On the other hand I have a couple of times done a Dr. Who.
Remember his telephone booth, it had more space 'inside' it than it
took up outside.
I have looked inward and almost fell into a whole galaxy 'inside
me'.
This led to interesting speculations about what exteriorization
actually was, that just make me dizzy now. But it was very real
'falling inward'.
> In either case, I think you are assuming certain perceptions are
> responses to internal referents and other perceptions are responses
> to external referents.
By external I would only mean those purported to be objects in
space and time.
My copy of you avatar body LOOKS like it is over there across the
room or the country, but dream theory says that our conscious units are
on the same scalar point.
Point is such a bad word, scalar here now, how about that.
That closeness of our conscious units allows us to use direct
telepathy to share the co dream instantaneously with each other.
If I want to visit you, I have to move my avatar body through that
(maybe illusory) space and time to get near to where you are.
Dream theory says conscious units can't move, thus *I* am not
moving, but I am rerendering the rendition of MEST around me to look
like I am moving, sort of like in a movie where we are in the driver's
seat of a car during a car chase. WE sure aren't moving, even though we
feel we are from the imagery going by.
Thus out thereness is a prime candidate for declaring to be dream
illusion.
That is what I get when I read your post.
> Again, I'm not certain if the inconsistency is in your meaning, in
> my not understanding something, or in a disparity in the way we are
> using words. But inconsistency is something I really like to avoid.
Right, we just need to keep at it, until it clicks.
>>>> The existence of the symbol gives us the illusion of the existence
>>>> of the referent. If the being believes the referent exists, when in
>>>> fact only the conscious image symbol exists, then that is called
>>>> delusion about illusion.
>>>
>>> Who gets to decide that the referent does not exist, and how is that
>>> decision made?
Ah, well ask a meatball.
Most hallucinations are not consistent.
Take the jet fighter, his heads up display shows a Mig, but he flys
right on by it and no Mig. Head ups display loses to 'actuality'. But
that assumes the pilot has a direct line to actuality that can be
compared against and thus 'verify' the symbol generator, the radar.
But in fact, he pilot could also be hallucinating or anti
hallucinating (not seeing it) as he flies it by, so he has a whole other
apparatrus, his eyes, brain, etc, that could be wrong.
In the end, we hope that hallucinations are inconsistent enough to
not pass muster against the perfect consistency of the physical
universe.
Thus we spot them as imposters, and this is in fact why we don't
want people doing OT powers. If you move the marble for someone on the
street, he will IMMEDIATELY go into total mental failure, is this a
dream? Am I hallucinating? How do I wake up? He won't go to work.
The GNP will crash.
In the movie a beautiful mind, his room mate of 20 years finally
'proved' to be a hallucination, when he realized it wasn't growing old
the way 'real' people do.
So that got him in sync again with what everyone else was seeing,
the common hallucination where everyone grows old:)
Further his hallucinatory room mate, couldn't affect others, but he
failed to notice that because he was only with his room mate alone.
In the end, he still saw his room mate, couldn't get him out of his
space at all, but now he saw it as an image with no referent, no real
being at the other end of the avatar.
Or if there was another being, the avatar was not being properly
distributed to everone in the common dream, just him.
The real question is who determines if it ISN'T a hallucination?
In the end, the answer is only that we have agreed to this game to
a point where it can hurt us. If we walk in front of a car and get run
over, we get hurt. So it is not 'sane' to not see a car that is there,
and to run away from cars that are not there.
But that is just agreement with the bigger hallucination that
everyone is agreeing to, the PU. If it doesn't hurt us, it doesn't
matter if we see it or not.
Thus the point of whether it is a hallucination becomes moot or
unanswerable.
It is not meaingless though, people do believe there is a universe
of MEST out there that would continue existing, even if all conscious
units died, and in fact CU's are made of that MEST, so MEST is more
actual than the CU's are and has ontological priority of existence. The
CU depends on the existence of MEST rather than the other way around.
So when I see a pen on the table, that is one object, my rendtion
made of red and green consciousness.
EVERYTHING in my conscious rendition is made of the same 'stuff',
conscious rendition stuff, whatever the hell that is, no matter what the
object is that is being rendered. Renditions of steel, plastic, air,
music, feeling, are all the same stuff, conscious rendition stuff.
We used to call it RETTAM, which is matter backwards.
The question is, is there ANOTHER second object, made out of
plastic, that is also out there and would remain if I close my eyes and
the conscious rendition disappeared.
I claim the question is unaswerable because we can't look outside
our conscious rendition, thus we can't tell if we are hallucinating pens
or not.
All we can do is play the game of the PU, until we wake up at which
point we will no longer be concerned with whether it was actual or not,
because it can no longer hurt us.
As long as a conscious rendition can hurt us, we tend to PRETEND
what it want's us to pretend, that there is something out there hurting
us which our sensors are picking up.
That is the game MEST plays, "I am real and YOU are made of me, and
if you don't watch out, I will kill you in pieces, and I will continue
on while you will be no more."
>> There is no way to know anything for sure about a referent by
>> looking at a symbol. We ASSUME the symbol exists because of a causal
>> pathway from the existence of the referent to the existence of the
>> symbol, but if that causal pathway is corrupt we may see the symbol when
>> there is no referent.
>
> Not sure what you mean by "symbol".
A symbol is *defined* as any actual event, in space time or not,
that is causally connected to a prior actual event called the referent.
Thus we look at the sun via a telescope that puts an image of the
sun on a piece of paper.
The paper with image is a symbol for the sun, because the data on
the paper results from a cause effect pathway, via photons, from the sun
to the paper.
Our conscious rendition is a symbol of the PU, because photons from
the PU hit our eyes, and the image goes through our brain and eventually
gets displayed, rendered, in our conscious via color.
The physical universe doesn't have color, it has frequency.
Thus the qualities of the symbol object do not always match the
qualities of the referent object, but are USED to map from one to the
other. So when we see red in our conscious symbol, we know there is
something in the PU at about 5000 Angstroms wavelength. It is an
arbitrary hook together though, and there is no way to even know if
everyone sees the same color when exposed to the same frequency.
> I have a smelly dog that is currently sleeping pressed into my leg.
> He's snoring. I count four different perceptual pathways that the
> dog is stimulating. I can see, hear, smell and feel him. There are
> four different data points that strongly suggest the dog exists as
> an external referent. But we know perception is unreliable.
Yes, particularly if it is intentionally virtualized by
the dream universe, God, if you will.
> This implies conclusions about the nature of the referent are
> unreliable as well.
Yes. There is the problem of geometricity.
Geometricity is when the symbol is geometrically congruant or
similar to its referent. Symbol and referent look the same shape.
We aim a video camera at a cube, and we see a generally cubic
object on the TV set. That is geometricity.
However, if the image on the TV results from a video tape playing,
then the referent cube doesn't even exist as a cube, but only as a data
stream of 1's and 0's. It is tempting to claim that the video tape had
to have been recorded from an actual cube, but an artist could have
created the whole thing out of thin air without ever seeing an actual
cube.
Thus the data displayed about the referent VIA the symbol, is
interesting and is useful to play the game the arcade stand wants us to
play, but then to assume that inside the arcade game box is a whole mess
of little figures running around that look just like what's on the tv
screen is nuts.
We call that concept, the screen is a glass window to the world.
We assume that because the rendition looks like space and time and
figures doing things, that behind that rendition, those kinds of
geometrically identical things are taking place. That illusion is
necessary for the game play, we WANT to forget it is an arcade game, so
we CHOOSE to believe that the TV set screen is a glass window to another
world.
Same thing with consciousness, who knows what the referent ACTUALLY
looks like geometrically, it could just be data in a crystal up in
heaven or something, but to play the game we want to believe things
actually are as they a rendered in our consciousness, so we got a smelly
dog picture that actually looks just like our smelly dog does, imagine
that!
Maybe I am experiencing a particularly vivid, > multisensory
hallucination. You aren't here, so you can't even > offer an opinion
based on whether or not your perceptions are > consistent with mine. At
best, you can assess the likelihood, in > your opinion, that there is a
dog beside me, triggering my > perceptions, and we might achieve some
sort of pseudoconsensus. > Even if I were there, and I assumed you
existed, and I assumed the dog as a conscious unit existed, the base
theory is that we were co dreaming. That would be zero geometricity
between source referent and symbol in our consciousness.
Next theory would be that geometricity was very high, not only does
your dog exist as a conscious unit, it also has an avatar that really
does look just like what we see it as. and that avatar is physical,
made of spacetime meat and not consciousness.
But that would involve a whole second object, a second universe of
space and time with objects in which our conscious image had high
geometric congruency to them.
A cube stored in a display list in a computer file doesn't at all
look like a cube until it is rendered as a cube on the graphics display
(our consciousness).
That's the dreamball theory.
However if the graphics display is connected to a video camera
aimed at an actual cube, then the referent cube looks like a cube AND
the symbol rendition looks like a cube too.
I know I am switching between dreamball and meatball contexts here,
don't get confused.
>> Yes, thus you have perfect certainty of your own existence,
>> existingness and actuality.
>
> Are you using these three words as synonyms? I have a bad feeling
> you aren't...
Absolutely am.
IS = ARE = AM = BE = EXIST = ACTUAL = TRUE
>> Finding a white daisy does not add weight to the theory
>> that all daisies are white, it merely supports and is consitent
>> with the theory that all daisies are white.
I have to add to this. In order to prove that all daisies are
white, one would have to have checked out an infinite number of daisies
across all space and time. Thus the presence of ONE MORE white daisy
doesn't add weight, because 1 / infinity is virtually nothing.
If you knew that there were only 100 daisies in all of existence,
and you had found 80 of them to be white, then the next daisy that was
also white WOULD add weight to your theory that all were white.
> I don't know for sure. My thoughts were evolving reasonably
> quickly, as far as I could tell. That has changed, not sure why.
> Once I identify the cause of the obstruction, if I can't resolve it,
> I'll let you know. In the meantime, there is still plenty to chew on.
OK, I don't know if you have looked at the proof page.
Although it is long, it is very thorough.
You might want to start with the Valentine lectures, as they are
for a normal intelligent audience way below your present level.
Then the Clarke letters, which I go into everything in painful, but
not rigorous detail, for an old man who was a consumate thinker,
philospher, future gazer and scientist.
Then the formal presentation, which will put both of us to sleep,
but probably Bertrand Russell would enjoy :)
>> The definitions of exist, IS, actual are important to square away,
>> otherwise we can't talk about what IS true until we do.
>
> Yes, we also need to discuss "absolute" and "certainty". I'm not
> sure we mean the same thing there, either.
OK, for me absolute refers to truth.
An absolute truth is DEFINED as something which is true for all
people in all places and all times, whether they know it or not.
I exist, right now. That is an absolute truth. If someone on Mars
thinks I don't, if I am not real to him, he would be wrong.
All truths are absolute truths.
Say Joe likes chocolate and Susan likes vanilla.
It is true for all people, places and times, that RIGHT NOW at
12:24am EST, Sat Feb 13th, Joe likes chocolate and Susan Likes vanilla.
This is an odd construct, because it says it is true for the year
2034 that on September 11th 2001, the world trade centers were nuked.
Thus it is true for 9/11 2001 that they were nuked, but it is also
true for 9/12 2002, that they were nuked on 9/11, 2001.
In this sense truth is accumulative across time.
But in the end it is just a construct to deal with problems of
'absolute truths'.
They also get rid of common self referencing nonsense like 'There
are no absolute truths!'
But to be more sensible, if we agree that 'there are no absolute
truths' is self contrdictory and thus false by reductio adsurdum, it
then follows that there may be some absolute truths, and we need to find
them.
Some are logical like either something exists or nothing exists.
Some are intuitive, something can't come from nothing, and
something can't go into nothing. Lots will argue with that one though,
and most evern get what they mean by nothing or something straight. The
trick is to DEFINE something and nothing so that everything is either
one or the other, and the somethings can't come from nothings or visa
versa.
Some are observational, today I saw a daisy. True for the rest of
time, that today I saw a daisy.
Perfect applies to certainty, it merely means a certainty that self
obviously can't be wrong.
If someone denies the existence of perfect certainties, ask them if
they are perfectly certain of that.
If they yes, they are mind broke.
If they say no, remind them that indicates that it may be wrong
that perfect certainties do not exist and thus maybe some perfect
certainties do exist, and then take them to task to find one.
I exist will do. Or if that doesn't work, SOMETHING exists that is
not a nothing.
Worst case ask them if they are perfectly certain if they
doubt the exitence the perfect certainties.
Next step might be an ax through the head depending on the laws in
your state.
Truth exists whether or not anyone knows it.
Certainties only exist in the minds of knowers when regarding a
particular truth.
So truth is ontologically superior to a certainty, as truth, and
that which is true, had to exist first before something could get the
idea of it, and decide his knowledge was certain or not.
Thus we have absolute truths, and perfect certainties.
> Maybe we need to talk a bit about several words before we go much
> further. Virtual, physical, actual, real are all words that it
> would be good to understand the same way. Lots of others, no doubt,
> but these seem particularly inconvenient choices for inconsistent usage.
First is actual and virtual.
You understand an arcade game, right? They create a virtual world
with rules and regulations, causes and effects and consequences that are
real to the player while playing, but are never actual.
The bullets in the arcade game do not kill the avatar of the enemy.
There is no cause or effect between them. The APPARENCY of cause and
effect is controlled by the 3rd party, the computer that makes sure that
every time a bullet hits the avatar of a player, the avator goes poof.
Thus arcade games virtualize universes of objects and the cause and
effect relations between them.
Neither the objects nor the cause/effect relations are actual, but
the symbols for the objects on the TV screen are actual.
The REALITY in the player's mind is what is real to him, namely
that his bullets blow the enemy avatars out of the water, he doesn't
think about the 3rd party computer orchestrating the whole illusion of
objects and cause and effect.
The REALITY is also that the objects are not just symbols on a
color TV screen, but the actual thing out there, avatar goes bang, the
bad guy HURTS.
Virtualizing actualities turns them into realities for the engager,
which is why we call it virtual reality. What it actually is, is
virtual actuality, because everone confuses reality and actuality.
Thus reality = virtual actuality.
Physical merely means anything made out of ACTUAL non zero
dimensional spacetime and matter and energy, as it was described to us
in school.
Most arcade games try to virtualize physical actualities and
action. However most arcade games in the mall USE actual physical
actualities, like computer and Tv screen and power and electricty to
virtaulize OTHER non existent physical actualities.
Non physical means something without spacetime dimensionality.
Conscious beings are one example. I can't think of any others :)
Homer
> John
realpch
<snip>
> So things are actual whether or not they are real or knowable to
> me, and many things are real to me that may not be actual at all, I
> believe in BT's for example, and some things are both real to me and
> actual with a perfect degree of certainty, I AM.
Why? Why choose to believe in BTs?
<snip>
> In the end, we hope that hallucinations are inconsistent enough to
> not pass muster against the perfect consistency of the physical
> universe.
>
> Thus we spot them as imposters, and this is in fact why we don't
> want people doing OT powers. If you move the marble for someone on the
> street, he will IMMEDIATELY go into total mental failure, is this a
> dream? Am I hallucinating? How do I wake up? He won't go to work.
> The GNP will crash.
<snip>
Ya see? It's the familiar miracle caveat? I suppose we must face up to
it, it's just not an OT universe!
:-D
> It is not meaingless though, people do believe there is a universe
> of MEST out there that would continue existing, even if all conscious
> units died, and in fact CU's are made of that MEST, so MEST is more
> actual than the CU's are and has ontological priority of existence. The
> CU depends on the existence of MEST rather than the other way around.
<snip>
Oh thank god, I was getting worried.
> That is the game MEST plays, "I am real and YOU are made of me, and
> if you don't watch out, I will kill you in pieces, and I will continue
> on while you will be no more."
Absolutely! That just about sums it up!
:-D
Peach
--
Extra! Extra! Read All About It!
Save some dough, save some grief:
http://www.xenu.net
http://www.scientology-lies.com
John Dorsay
Yes to photons vs red, no to hallucination vs symbol.
To explain my objection to hallucination, perhaps it is easier if I
return to the example of my smelly dog (who, conveniently enough,
happens to be pressed into my leg sleeping once again and assaulting
the same four perceptual pathways as he was last night).
First the case in which I am not hallucinating, in which there is an
actual external referent. The referent, through various means,
stimulates the corresponding neurological inputs. These inputs lead
to a sequence of events within my body which ultimately leads my
nervous system, at its interface with my consciousness (whatever
that may be) to somehow inform my consciousness of the sight, sound,
smell of the dog (all of which are characteristics that could be
perceived directly by others in the same immediate environment), as
well as the pressure I feel on my leg where his body contacts mine.
My awareness of this information, whether it is the visual image,
the dog smell familiar to all dog owners, the auditory image of the
sound of his breathing, or the gentle pressure of his body against
my leg, are all what you describe as symbols. BTW, I like the use
of word symbol in this context, now that I understand what you mean.
Now suppose I am experiencing a particularly vivid multisensory
hallucination in which I CANNOT distinguish the symbols from those I
just described. What is the source of the symbol? I CANNOT know,
since I CANNOT distinguish the symbols themselves from the symbols
derived from a actual external referent. Therefore, I submit the
hallucination is the referent, not the symbol.
All of which leads me to suggest that the concept of hallucination
and hallucinating does not help us, since we already know perception
is unreliable, and certain perceptions (such as the pressure on my
leg caused by CONTACT with the dog) will not be perceived by others
anyway, regardless of whether or not the referent is actual and
external.
> I call what we see the conscious image, picture, or rendition.
>
> Mostly I used the technical term, conscious symbol.
>
>> with certainty by the entity that "owns" them, and it's convenient
>> to describe them as "internal", but they are all processes without
>> referent. Certainly thoughts may be about specific things, for
>> example, but the thoughts themselves do not have a quality that is
>> actual to anyone but the thinker.
>
> I may be saying exactly what you were saying...
>
> OK, I gotta disagree with your usage of "actual only to the owner."
>
> REAL only to the owner, actual to one and all whether or not they
> know it.
I still have trouble with this, although I don't think I disagree.
For example, I am having some difficulty accepting the actuality of
thought for others, since I have to rely on indirect evidence rather
than direct experience.
Thought consists of the thought process as well as thought subject
matter. When I ask you for your thoughts on a subject, what I
really expect is
1. You will apply your thought processes to the subject I ask about
2. You will pass the result of your thought processes, not the
thought processes themselves, to your communication process.
3. Using communication processes, you will inform me of the result
of your thought processes as best you can.
Then I will apply the requisite inverse processes as best I can,
and, if every step worked well, I will understand the results of
your thought processes as you intended.
However, I will not experience any of the steps you performed, nor
will you experience any of mine. Still, presuming I can accumulate
as much evidence of thought in others as I want, I do think it is
completely reasonable to use "actual" as you suggest. There is a
requirement of inference (based on the evidence) that seems to
change the nature of the actuality of others' thoughts from the
actuality of my own, but maybe it only changes the nature of the
proof of actuality and I am guilty of treating the actuality of my
own thoughts preferentially :)
> In the case of a conscious experience, it is both real to me that
> it is actual, and also just plain actual, because it is a certainty that
> can't be wrong.
>
> Now it is also real to me that the PU is about 12 billion years
> old, but I have no idea if that is actually true or not, or even if the
> PU is actual or not.
>
> So things are actual whether or not they are real or knowable to
> me, and many things are real to me that may not be actual at all, I
> believe in BT's for example, and some things are both real to me and
> actual with a perfect degree of certainty, I AM.
>
> If I have a thought, one that you can not see or know about, that
> thought is actual for you, even if you don't know it, because actuality,
> as I use it, is not dependent on who is around to know about it.
>
> Reality however is very specific to the person who thinks
> he knows something, whether he does or not.
>
> Does that work?
Not sure. I have difficulty separating "actual" and "real", since I
tend to think of both as rooted in the PU. For example, I cannot
understand the statements "The PU is REALLY 12b years old" and "The
PU is ACTUALLY 12b years old" as being distinct except in the
trivial difference of the words REALLY and ACTUALLY. Regardless of
which form is used, I know that I have no way of proving or
disproving the claim that the PU is 12b years old. Just like I have
no way of proving your claim that you are experiencing actual
thought processes, regardless of how compelling the evidence may be.
In both cases I can probably accumulate supporting evidence such
that as I accumulate evidence, my uncertainty approaches 0
(presuming that the evidence overwhelmingly supports the claim), but
it's asymptotic and perfect certainty is unreachable.
>>> During imagination, dreaming or hallucination, the implied external
>>> referent is not.
>>
>> Okay, suppose we agree on that. How do we know that the implied
>> referent of *anything* is external? Unless we know this, we still
>> can't distinguish visual hallucination from any other form of visual
>> perception except by consensus.
>
> OK, what do we mean by external?
I think I mentioned that I found the internal/external dichotomy
unsatisfactory too, although my issue is with the problem of
identifying whether or not a particular referent can stimulate a
"similar" (again, I have no good word) perception in others. This
leads to some peculiar divisions though. The sight, sound and smell
of my dog have (presumably) external referents, yet the pressure of
his contact with my leg has, at least arguably, an internal referent.
> I use the word external only because my consciousness of MEST
> objects seems to indicate space and time, which I call OUT THERE NESS,
> away, apart from me.
>
> I am in fact immersed inside MEST all around me, but that is just
> more externality, rather than stuff I feel inside myself, which is
> internality.
>
> But both external and internal are spatial dimensional concepts, if
> proof is right, there is no dimension, and thus external and internal
> are both illusions.
>
> On the other hand I have a couple of times done a Dr. Who.
>
> Remember his telephone booth, it had more space 'inside' it than it
> took up outside.
>
> I have looked inward and almost fell into a whole galaxy 'inside
> me'.
>
> This led to interesting speculations about what exteriorization
> actually was, that just make me dizzy now. But it was very real
> 'falling inward'.
>
>> In either case, I think you are assuming certain perceptions are
>> responses to internal referents and other perceptions are responses
>> to external referents.
>
> By external I would only mean those purported to be objects in
> space and time.
Okay, that works.
I think I disagree. Just as I believe, with your co-operation, I
can accumulate evidence to allow me to approach 100% certainty that
you experience thought processes, I believe I can accumulate
evidence to allow me to demonstrate that the PU is actual with
certainty that is arbitrarily close to 100%. I think I can also
demonstrate with as much certainty as you can tolerate that we will
not wake up, indeed we cannot wake up from our level 0 experience,
because we really are already awake and living in an actual PU that
exists independently of any of us or our consciousnesses. Maybe I
am FOS, but that is the direction of my current thoughts on the matter.
>> I don't know for sure. My thoughts were evolving reasonably
>> quickly, as far as I could tell. That has changed, not sure why.
>> Once I identify the cause of the obstruction, if I can't resolve it,
>> I'll let you know. In the meantime, there is still plenty to chew on.
>
> OK, I don't know if you have looked at the proof page.
>
> Although it is long, it is very thorough.
>
> You might want to start with the Valentine lectures, as they are
> for a normal intelligent audience way below your present level.
>
> Then the Clarke letters, which I go into everything in painful, but
> not rigorous detail, for an old man who was a consumate thinker,
> philospher, future gazer and scientist.
>
> Then the formal presentation, which will put both of us to sleep,
> but probably Bertrand Russell would enjoy :)
Will do, I look forward to reading them. You may not hear back from
me for a while, bunch of meatspace commitments on my plate for the
next week or so. But I'll get back to you for sure.
I'll also say I have quite enjoyed our dialog thus far, and I thank
you for taking the time you have. Regardless of whether or not we
are headed for irreconcilable differences (not to prejudge without
having read the material, but that seems to be the direction I am
headed in at the moment), it has provoked much interesting thought.
Thanks!
John
John
barbz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave
--
xenubarb
Chaplain, ARSCCwdne
A walk down the path of history is crunchy with the crispy corpses of
those who pooh-poohed or ignored the clown car of ridicule when it
pulled-up to the curb.
Stephen Jones
John Dorsay
> In alt.clearing.technology John Dorsay <restim...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > To explain my objection to hallucination, perhaps it is easier if I
> > return to the example of my smelly dog (who, conveniently enough,
> > happens to be pressed into my leg sleeping once again and assaulting
> > the same four perceptual pathways as he was last night).
> >
> > First the case in which I am not hallucinating, in which there is an
> > actual external referent. The referent, through various means,
> > stimulates the corresponding neurological inputs. These inputs lead
> > to a sequence of events within my body which ultimately leads my
> > nervous system, at its interface with my consciousness (whatever
> > that may be) to somehow inform my consciousness of the sight, sound,
> > smell of the dog (all of which are characteristics that could be
> > perceived directly by others in the same immediate environment), as
> > well as the pressure I feel on my leg where his body contacts mine.
>
> actual, with actual causal pathways between the two.
>
> Very clear.
>
> > My awareness of this information, whether it is the visual image,
> > the dog smell familiar to all dog owners, the auditory image of the
> > sound of his breathing, or the gentle pressure of his body against
> > my leg, are all what you describe as symbols. BTW, I like the use
> > of word symbol in this context, now that I understand what you mean.
>
> actuality, the physical. As long as don't lose sight of the fact that
> the symbol is a referent in its own right, with its own qualities and of
> the same onotological status (same existingness) as the doggy referent, then we won't get
> into trouble.
>
> It is however kind of a waste of a perfectly good conscious
> experience to only USE it to refer to something else. :)
>
> Especially since the symbol is perfect certainty capable, and the
> referent is not.
>
> > Now suppose I am experiencing a particularly vivid multisensory
> > hallucination in which I CANNOT distinguish the symbols from those I
> > just described. What is the source of the symbol? I CANNOT know,
> > since I CANNOT distinguish the symbols themselves from the symbols
> > derived from a actual external referent. Therefore, I submit the
> > hallucination is the referent, not the symbol.
>
>
> A Hallucination is a noun.
>
> Does it refer to the missing referent?
>
> According to your usage, it would seem yes.
>
> Does it refer to a state in consciousness, where we experience
> symbols in the absence of referents?
>
> "I suffered a hallucination yesterday" That means I experienced a
> state of perceiving a symbol implying the existence of a referent, when
> in fact there was no referent.
>
> My usage would be slightly different, rather than say the missing
> doggie WAS the hallucination, I would say the missing doggie was what
> was being hallucinated via the present symbol.
>
> I don't care either way really,
>
> I will try to use the term hallucination in a non ambiguous way,
> just realize that throughout all my past postings, including everthing
> at the proof site, I tend to loosely refer to the symbol as the
> hallucination or the seen, and the referent = the hallucinated, the
> implied.
>
> However when I say the physical universe is a hallucination, I am
> using it your way, right? Symbol present, referent missing.
>
> You know, now that I think about it, I have been using 'the
> hallucination' mixedly, sometimes referring to the symbol and sometimes
> to the missing referent.
>
> I shall stop doing this, and I shall endeavor to correct it while
> editing things already written.
>
> >> REAL only to the owner, actual to one and all whether or not they
> >> know it.
> >
> > thought for others, since I have to rely on indirect evidence rather
> > than direct experience.
>
> of others and their thought.
>
> I would say that regardless of your perfect certainty, either they
> do exist or they don't, either they are actual or they aren't. That
> merely means that maybe there are actual things we can never know, or at
> least never know through the medium of external pathways of physical
> causation.
>
> For example, if you didn't exist at all, how could that possibly
> affect the actuality or true existence of their consciousness or
> thought?
>
> Right?
>
> > However, I will not experience any of the steps you performed, nor
> > will you experience any of mine. Still, presuming I can accumulate
> > as much evidence of thought in others as I want, I do think it is
> > completely reasonable to use "actual" as you suggest. There is a
> > requirement of inference (based on the evidence) that seems to
> > change the nature of the actuality of others' thoughts from the
> > actuality of my own, but maybe it only changes the nature of the
> > proof of actuality and I am guilty of treating the actuality of my
> > own thoughts preferentially :)
>
> actuality and my thoughts and thought processes wouldn't be affected at
> all, right?
>
> >> Reality however is very specific to the person who thinks
> >> he knows something, whether he does or not.
> >>
> >> Does that work?
> >
> > Not sure. I have difficulty separating "actual" and "real", since I
> > tend to think of both as rooted in the PU. For example, I cannot
> > understand the statements "The PU is REALLY 12b years old" and "The
> > PU is ACTUALLY 12b years old" as being distinct except in the
> > trivial difference of the words REALLY and ACTUALLY.
>
> a major error. YOU have to take responsibility and decide that using
> two words to mean the same thing is
>
> 1.) A waste of words,
>
> 2.) Probably means a meaningful difference is being defined out of
> existence by no longer having a word for it.
>
> Many people's reality is that the physical universe is 6000 years
> old, even though it is IN FACT 12 billion years old.
>
> Reality is what people think is true, and can sometimes be used to
> mean the sum totality of agreements as to what most people think is
> true. That is the reality of the time.
>
> Back in the old times, the reality of the time was Earth was flat.
> Actuality was that it was round. They were simply wrong.
>
> Early people had the reality that all numbers were rational,
> actuality is that there are non rational numbers, transcendatals and the
> rest. Again the people were simply wrong.
>
> In general realities are wrong, because ignorance is always in
> there making them wrong.
>
> The game of life is forming a reality, and then testing it against
> survival experience in order to get the reality to conform more closely
> to actuality. One assumes in that game that wrong ends in non survival
> and right ends in survival long term.
>
> The phrase the physical universe is REALLY 12b, is merely a sloppy
> colloquialism, or maybe we simply say that between you and me, we DECIDE
> to split the two terms real and actual just for our own more meticulous
> use.
>
> We are in fact taking existing words and putting them into a word
> constellation in order to better work with subjects under study. While
> doing we may find it necessary to shift the meanings of some words,
> while utterly redefining others. That is called word tuning.
>
> Science does this all the time. You just have to be careful of
> which audience you are talking too.
>
> > In both cases I can probably accumulate supporting evidence such
> > that as I accumulate evidence, my uncertainty approaches 0
> > (presuming that the evidence overwhelmingly supports the claim), but
> > it's asymptotic and perfect certainty is unreachable.
>
>
> > I think I mentioned that I found the internal/external dichotomy
> > unsatisfactory too, although my issue is with the problem of
> > identifying whether or not a particular referent can stimulate a
> > "similar" (again, I have no good word) perception in others. This
> > leads to some peculiar divisions though. The sight, sound and smell
> > of my dog have (presumably) external referents, yet the pressure of
> > his contact with my leg has, at least arguably, an internal referent.
>
> space/time causal pathway.
>
> The conscious you, at the dead center of the fishbowl, has nothing
> inside you at all, it is all out there, if you believe in the PU.
>
> >> By external I would only mean those purported to be objects in
> >> space and time.
> >
> > Okay, that works.
>
>
> >> All we can do is play the game of the PU, until we wake up at which
> >> point we will no longer be concerned with whether it was actual or not,
> >> because it can no longer hurt us.
> >
> > I think I disagree. Just as I believe, with your co-operation, I
> > can accumulate evidence to allow me to approach 100% certainty that
> > you experience thought processes, I believe I can accumulate
> > evidence to allow me to demonstrate that the PU is actual with
> > certainty that is arbitrarily close to 100%. I think I can also
> > demonstrate with as much certainty as you can tolerate that we will
> > not wake up, indeed we cannot wake up from our level 0 experience,
> > because we really are already awake and living in an actual PU that
> > exists independently of any of us or our consciousnesses. Maybe I
> > am FOS, but that is the direction of my current thoughts on the matter.
>
>
> First you need to discriminate between
>
> 1.) a directly observed conscious experience which is a perfect
> certainty BECAUSE of the direct observation, and a
>
> 2.) an indirectly observed physical universe phenomenon of any kind
> that is a THEORY because we can only see it via the TV screen of our
> consciousness.
>
> I disagree that a theory can APPROACH a perfect certainty, because
> a theory is not a truth or even a guess at a truth, it is at best a
> model that WORKS, but has nothing to do with TRUTH, the way things
> really are.
>
> All a theory can do is stand the test of time, or be proven
> right or wrong. A generalization can only be proven wrong, it
> doesn't work.
>
> An existential theory can only be proven right, given one
> instance that agrees.
>
> The only thing that approaches an asymptote is your willingness
> to bet on the theory.
>
> 'The sun will rise tomorrow' Not a certainty, but a good bet.
>
> Your worry about losing the bet approaches zero, not the truth of
> the theory which remains the same, one countering intance and its gone.
>
> Take the theory of gravity.
>
> Early guys said there were force lines emmanating from the planets
> that attracted other masses. This worked for a long time, and was
> mathematically easy to compute.
>
> Was it true? Or was it just a model that duplicated the results of
> planets going around each other?
>
> Then Einstein said, no, its not force lines, it is curved spacetime
> that causes the same thing. Because time is curved into space, things
> move in space when they move in time.
>
> Again is that truth or just a model?
>
> If the physical universe is a virtual actuality, then ALL such
> theories are not truth, they are just models. It is a very grand
> mistake to fancy that any model is actually how it works.
>
> Perhaps the PU is actual and God is MAKING IT all the time, it is
> GOD that moves things AS IF there are force lines, or curved space.
>
> The best you could do is theorize the model God has in mind when he
> moves things.
>
> Because the statement 'The physical universe is actual' is a simple
> existential statement like 'daisies exist', all you need to do to prove
> it exists is to see one.
>
> There is no asymptote to follow to better and better certainty.
>
> Either you seen one or you haven't.
>
> Maybe seeing only traces or effects of one might be a kind
> of asymtote towards betting the thing exists.
>
> But only seeing the thing itself ends the uncertainty.
>
> But all you can see is your consciousness of one, and symbols NEVER
> prove referents because they are separated by non verifiable causal
> pathways.
>
> Causal pathways are universal statements, B always follows A
> BECAUSE of photons say. Universals can only be falisfied, never
> verified, which is why more causal pathways can not verify other causal
> pathways.
>
> Cause between cause and effect is never sufficient to witness cause
> because all you can see is the effect and the presence of effect
> does not prove cause. Cause is ALWAYS a theory if all you have is
> effect.
>
> Dependable followingness does not prove causation.
>
> Thus any theory you have about things in the phyiscal universe are
> always going to be limited to models that work or do not work, never
> truth, and any theory you have about the existence of the physical
> universe itself is always going to be limited by your inability to see
> one directly.
>
> So presently, which way would you bet on the virtuality/actuality
> of the phyiscal universe and with what odds?
>
> If you were to experience a full blown exteriorization and could
> see the world without your bodies eyes, would that change anything?
>
> > Will do, I look forward to reading them. You may not hear back from
> > me for a while, bunch of meatspace commitments on my plate for the
> > next week or so. But I'll get back to you for sure.
>
>
> .10 per use.
>
> > I'll also say I have quite enjoyed our dialog thus far, and I thank
> > you for taking the time you have. Regardless of whether or not we
> > are headed for irreconcilable differences (not to prejudge without
> > having read the material, but that seems to be the direction I am
> > headed in at the moment), it has provoked much interesting thought.
>
> until you get the zero dimensionality of consciousness and the non
> mechanality of its non radiative self luminousness.
>
> Homer
>
>
> > Thanks!
> >
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> > John
>
>
John Dorsay
> On 2/14/2010 1:16 AM, ho...@lightlink.com wrote:
> In alt.clearing.technology John Dorsay <restim...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > For example, I am having some difficulty accepting the actuality of
>> > thought for others, since I have to rely on indirect evidence rather
>> > than direct experience.
> Ok, that is an issue in YOUR perfect certainty about the existence
> of others and their thought.
>
> I would say that regardless of your perfect certainty, either they
> do exist or they don't, either they are actual or they aren't. That
> merely means that maybe there are actual things we can never know, or at
> least never know through the medium of external pathways of physical
> causation.
>
> For example, if you didn't exist at all, how could that possibly
> affect the actuality or true existence of their consciousness or
> thought?
>
> Right?
Good question, and the sensible answer seems obvious. What if I am
the god-like power responsible for all consciousness and thought,
though? If I don't exist, what then?
How does this usage of "reality" differ from "belief"? I think it
would be clearer to say that in old times, there was a widespread
belief that the earth was flat, widespread belief that the universe
is 12b years old, minority belief that the universe is 6k years old
etc. Perhaps there is a nuance to your use of the word "reality" in
this context that I am missing?
It's a model, of course. And its value is proportionate to its
accuracy with respect to prediction.
I prefer to use the statistician's term "confidence", rather than
"certainty" in these contexts. Using Newton's model, we can predict
the movement of objects at everyday speeds with sufficient
confidence that it is a sufficiently accurate model that nobody
expects the moon to spontaneously crash into earth or launch into orbit.
Newton's model fails as the speed of the objects approaches the
speed of light. But at both normal and light speeds, Einstein's
model provides us with confidence that we can predict motion with
great accuracy. Einstein's model also guarantees that the moon will
maintain its present orbit, but it also offers us assurance that
celestial bodies do not jump out of their familiar positions just
because the path of the radiation that allows us to detect them is
affected by the gravitational effects of other celestial bodies.
Einstein's model has broader application than Newton's, but it does
not invalidate Newton's model (trivial inaccuracies aside) when it
is applied to objects moving at normal speeds.
Are either "true"? It depends on what you mean by "true". Are
either "useful"? I think that is beyond dispute.
> If the physical universe is a virtual actuality, then ALL such
> theories are not truth, they are just models. It is a very grand
> mistake to fancy that any model is actually how it works.
>
> Perhaps the PU is actual and God is MAKING IT all the time, it is
> GOD that moves things AS IF there are force lines, or curved space.
>
> The best you could do is theorize the model God has in mind when he
> moves things.
>
> Because the statement 'The physical universe is actual' is a simple
> existential statement like 'daisies exist', all you need to do to prove
> it exists is to see one.
>
> There is no asymptote to follow to better and better certainty.
No. But there is an asymptote to follow to greater and greater
confidence.
> Either you seen one or you haven't.
>
> Maybe seeing only traces or effects of one might be a kind
> of asymtote towards betting the thing exists.
>
> But only seeing the thing itself ends the uncertainty.
>
> But all you can see is your consciousness of one, and symbols NEVER
> prove referents because they are separated by non verifiable causal
> pathways.
>
> Causal pathways are universal statements, B always follows A
> BECAUSE of photons say. Universals can only be falisfied, never
> verified, which is why more causal pathways can not verify other causal
> pathways.
>
> Cause between cause and effect is never sufficient to witness cause
> because all you can see is the effect and the presence of effect
> does not prove cause. Cause is ALWAYS a theory if all you have is
> effect.
>
> Dependable followingness does not prove causation.
>
> Thus any theory you have about things in the phyiscal universe are
> always going to be limited to models that work or do not work, never
> truth, and any theory you have about the existence of the physical
> universe itself is always going to be limited by your inability to see
> one directly.
I agree. However, we appear to differ on the value of increasing
confidence in theories and models. I contend that the greater the
predictive value of a theory or model, the more likely that the
model is a good representation of something actual. In the case of
multiple models of different complexity, I will defer to the wisdom
of William of Okkam.
> So presently, which way would you bet on the virtuality/actuality
> of the physical universe and with what odds?
How confident am I that the PU is actual? Is there an alternative
other than a consistent mass hallucination that affects us all?
> If you were to experience a full blown exteriorization and could
> see the world without your bodies eyes, would that change anything?
How would I know this if it happened? How would such an experience
differ from a dream?
>> > Will do, I look forward to reading them. You may not hear back from
>> > me for a while, bunch of meatspace commitments on my plate for the
>> > next week or so. But I'll get back to you for sure.
> Meatspace committments, that's great, can I use it?
>
> .10 per use.
In this lifetime or in all of them ;)
John
ho...@lightlink.com
>> For example, if you didn't exist at all, how could that possibly
>> affect the actuality or true existence of their consciousness or
>> thought?
>>
>> Right?
>
> Good question, and the sensible answer seems obvious. What if I am
> the god-like power responsible for all consciousness and thought,
> though? If I don't exist, what then?
Depends on how your God like powers worked.
In the Bible it says that the world is created (re rendered) by the
every breath of God.
Thus if God ceases to exist, the world would vanish.
Of course God ceasing to be would also be something into nothing, a
major philosophical irritation to me.
On the other hand, many early Christians who became the world's
first serious scientists, like Newton, felt that maybe God CREATED the
world and then let it function with some or no interference.
Kind of a cross between religion and meatballism.
God who is not MEST makes MEST.
If God created the big bang say, and gave actual, not virtual cause
to all its parts, then the universe would continue under its own power
until what final state was reached. If it oscillated every better.
In this case, God could have died, and/or gone on vacation, and the
PU would continue on its merry or not so merry way.
This is pretty dim philosophy, and is probably too much an
anthropomorphization of how humans act.
If God never existed, then nothing would be here, unless something
was here that wasn't created by a God, in which case it BECOMES God by
definition, although it may not be sentient.
So my view is something can't come from nothing, nor go into
nothing.
That soothes the philosophical belly.
Thus if something exists, which it does, then something must have
always existed, and must always continue to exist.
If God created the PU, then one has to ask out of what did he
create it? Again problems of something and nothing come to bear.
On the other hand if God is only dreaming the universe, then there
is enough eternal functionality in God alone to 'explain' that the PU
could come and go in a dream, without anything actual, actually being
created or destroyed, just changes in state in a preexisting Godly
mental state.
Now of course where God came from assumes that everything
that exists had to be created by something earlier that already
existed.
The answer to that is that there are eternal existences that
can be and are not created nor desroyed, God/HighUS, and
and then there are temporal dreams of space time matter and energy,
Timestone in Adore, and MEST in Scn.
Since timestone is an illusion in consciousness of each
dreamer, nothing ACTUAL could be said to be created nor destroyed.
If that dreaming God is a multi I-Am being, meaning a One AND a
Many, then that God could have many dreams, each one belonging to one of
the Many, and shared via the high speed backbone provided by the One.
Notice I don't mean One Being, but the One function of the God thing
which has both a One function and a Many function.
The Many are conscious sentient beings, the One is something else,
the underlying substrate that allows consciousness to exist, which is
not itself conscious. The source/cause of consciousness can't be itself
conscious.
Thus there is no absolute Big Guy in the sky who created the rest
of us. Our existence is a co creation amongst all of us in unison, WE
created the universe as a dream in OUR minds. Universe creation is a
Many function, not a One function.
The One function allows the Many to co dream together with perfect
sync.
Does that answer the question of whether your existence would
affect the truths of my existence in any way?
Homer
ho...@lightlink.com
>> constellation in order to better work with subjects under study. While
>> doing we may find it necessary to shift the meanings of some words,
>> while utterly redefining others. That is called word tuning.
>
> How does this usage of "reality" differ from "belief"?
This is a messy issue because there is also 'conviction' and
'faith'.
People confuse conviction with certainty.
Certainty is born of direct perception in consciousness, conviction
is born of indirect perception via impact with force. You run into a
wall hard enough and you get a conviction the referent wall is out
there, not just your conscious symbol. This process is a necessary one
to decending for long term below 26.0 Apparencies are Actuality. People
couldn't stay in the dream thinking it was actual unless they had run
into dream stuff with lots of force and pain resulting. That convinces
them it isn't a dream. And they BUY INTO IT, pay money for the
treatment, the whole thing.
They even have a warantee that if they wake up anyhow, the
treatment will be redone for free.
So that creates a world of realities which are technically the same
as beliefs and bets.
Realities usually aren't questioned, it is REAL to most people that
the PU exists.
But some people believe there is life on other planets, but it
isn't real to them the way the PU is real.
So at the top are realities that are convictions and false
certainties based on force and pain that are rarely if ever scrutinized.
Below that are beliefs, probabilities, and bets where people know
they are judging the truth of in absence of complete data.
Faith's are things they choose to believe only because it makes
them feel good, which is not necessarily a bad thing, except they then
allow OTHER things to poison their faiths with things that make them
feel bad, like hell forever.
I think it
> would be clearer to say that in old times, there was a widespread
> belief that the earth was flat, widespread belief that the universe
> is 12b years old, minority belief that the universe is 6k years old
> etc. Perhaps there is a nuance to your use of the word "reality" in
> this context that I am missing?
I would have to say that reality is the technical term,
what people think is true whether or not it is.
Convictions, beliefs and bets are gradient scales of realities.
Personally I tend to avoid the use of the word belief as much
as I can. When people ask me what do I believe, I tell them,
"I would bet...'
> It's a model, of course. And its value is proportionate to its
> accuracy with respect to prediction.
>
> I prefer to use the statistician's term "confidence", rather than
> "certainty" in these contexts.
Right, but confidence is NOT in the truth of the model or the
theory, but in the probability that predictions will continue to match
observations.
> great accuracy. Einstein's model also guarantees that the moon will
> maintain its present orbit, but it also offers us assurance that
> celestial bodies do not jump out of their familiar positions just
> because the path of the radiation that allows us to detect them is
> affected by the gravitational effects of other celestial bodies.
> Einstein's model has broader application than Newton's, but it does
> not invalidate Newton's model (trivial inaccuracies aside) when it
> is applied to objects moving at normal speeds.
Actually the *MODELS* are very different, the predictive outcomes
are not. Einstein's model was a whole new look, curved spacetime is NOT
just another kind of force field like electromagnetism.
In other words Newton said gravity should be modeled as a force
field.
Einstein said no way, its curved spacetime. Both are just
mathematical constructs, it is tempting to claim that spacetime actually
IS curved, just as it was tempting to claim that there actually were
force lines between planetary bodies.
> Are either "true"? It depends on what you mean by "true". Are
> either "useful"? I think that is beyond dispute.
Right, that is true for all theories, their point is not truth, the
way a perfect certainty by direct observation is, their point is merely
and only predictive usefulness.
>> There is no asymptote to follow to better and better certainty.
>
> No. But there is an asymptote to follow to greater and greater
> confidence.
Certainly :)
> I agree. However, we appear to differ on the value of increasing
> confidence in theories and models.
Not at all.
THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF SCIENTIFIC ENQUIRY IS TO MODEL THE UNIVERSE
IN SUCH A WAY AS TO BRING USEFUL PREDICITON.
I contend that the greater the
> predictive value of a theory or model, the more likely that the
> model is a good representation of something actual.
Depends on what you mean by REPRESENTATION.
I would leave it at good PREDICTOR.
OK, I disagree entirely, the actuality behind the phenomenon is not
related to the model we use to predict it.
It's ok though, I agree to disagree on this point, it isn't
important, as you can never know the actuality behind a theory
anyhow, all you can know for sure are the observations you make
and whether your theory bears them out.
>> So presently, which way would you bet on the virtuality/actuality
>> of the physical universe and with what odds?
>
> How confident am I that the PU is actual? Is there an alternative
> other than a consistent mass hallucination that affects us all?
No. We know we see at least a virtual spacetime universe.
But I see these in dreams all the time.
Why would I assume the waking state is any different?
(Beyond that I bought in with my 7 quid back at 26.0 on the tone
scale.)
And then beyond that, if the PU is actual, why would I assume my
consciousness was a process in the PU, rather than an external observer
who has joined the PU for its own enjoyment?
>> If you were to experience a full blown exteriorization and could
>> see the world without your bodies eyes, would that change anything?
>
> How would I know this if it happened? How would such an experience
> differ from a dream?
So this is a big subject, because if you are addicted to the PU is
the only thing that is actual and everything ELSE might be a
halluincation, then you will insist on proving your exteriorization VIA
the physical evidence.
You get out of your body, go next door, a friend opens a book to a
particular page, and you read the first line aloud using your body.
This is using what we call end to end PU verification of a
spiritual event. Physical book at one end, and physical body at the
other.
So, say you do this, how do you explain the ability to SEE things
where your body's eyes aren't?
I don't claim this is possible, I KNOW FOR SURE that many have
claimed they have done it, and thus, since I am interested in the
matter, I am trying to preemptively come up with a theoretical model of
the AllThatIs that would allow for such abilities, and also show me a
predictive path towards replicating them at will.
>>> > Will do, I look forward to reading them. You may not hear back from
>>> > me for a while, bunch of meatspace commitments on my plate for the
>>> > next week or so. But I'll get back to you for sure.
>> Meatspace committments, that's great, can I use it?
>>
>> .10 per use.
>
> In this lifetime or in all of them ;)
Man that's a tough bargain.
I will have to let my lawyers talk to your lawyers.
Ted Mayett
> Personally I tend to avoid the use of the word belief as much
>as I can. When people ask me what do I believe, I tell them,
>"I would bet...'
>
A philosopher, I forget the name or the exact wordings, but along the
lines of... "If there is even a remote possibility of God/Heaven being
accurate, then "bet" on that for the rewards make it a good bet."
It seems to all boil down to belief Homer. Granted the PU is not
provable. It does not follow though that there is a game made by Him
or Us, or the Him that is US.
For years I had thought that life was a happy accident. Lots of
reading and pondering, and that is what I came up with, that Life
is/was a happy accident. Then I read this book called Artificial
Life, it shattered my theories and now I believe that Life was an
inevitability. It had to happen. Given the scope of the universe it
was inevitable that atoms would mix just so, to give rise to life.
And even intelligent life. And the math so large and mind boggling
that the probability of these EXACT words here being printed/typed on
another planet, at the same time, are quite real.
When I came across Apathy on the tone scale, I loved that word! Got
to thinking that Reality was the quintessential Apathy. That viewed
this way and that way by this one and that one, and un-bothered and
indifferent to all, reality continues to be reality.
Math defines reality. When you drop something it falls to the ground,
but not mathematically. In math there is only a probability that it
will fall to the ground, and that is the reality of a dropped object
on this planet. You can sit in a chair, holding a book in your hands
and be reading. And probability allows for that gravity could act
just perfectly enough so that the book leaps out of your hands and
climbs up in the air by itself. While this would be quite unlikely,
it is allowed in the field of probability, math.
This book I read once, talking about that thing about enough monkey's
on typewriters for long enough and one of them will type a Shakespeare
play. Well the math for even something as simple as 'Dear Sir,' from
one of those monkeys is a large number. It said the number was higher
than a noted physicist's estimate of the number of electrons in the
known universe. Which that number of electrons was not as a large a
number as the number of moves possible on a chess board.
Recorded history is still young, as far as numbers go. This could be
why there is no solid proof of past lives. If there is this leaving
and coming back again from this plane of existence here, then surely
somewhere and at sometime it would be quite instantaneous.
I enjoy your writings here tremendously. I would call you a
Philosopher, and a darn good one at that. Entertaining, and more
importantly, thought provoking. I appreciate of your philosophy that
there is no rush, or immediacy required. Your stance of sooner or
later, in some lifetime, we will all seek... upper levels if you will.
But for me Homer, I just keep coming back to The Rubaiyat of Omar
Khayyam. More on this later....
ho...@lightlink.com
> It seems to all boil down to belief Homer. Granted the PU is not
> provable. It does not follow though that there is a game made by Him
> or Us, or the Him that is US.
Never said it FOLLOWED.
The dreamball theory is an alternate THEORY.
The only proof one will ever have of personal responsibility is
recovery of that ability back at the eternal level before space
and time were made.
>
> For years I had thought that life was a happy accident. Lots of
> reading and pondering, and that is what I came up with, that Life
> is/was a happy accident. Then I read this book called Artificial
> Life, it shattered my theories and now I believe that Life was an
> inevitability. It had to happen. Given the scope of the universe it
> was inevitable that atoms would mix just so, to give rise to life.
> And even intelligent life. And the math so large and mind boggling
> that the probability of these EXACT words here being printed/typed on
> another planet, at the same time, are quite real.
The existence of mechanical life is probably a certainty,
but the impossiblity of consciousness arising from anything
mechanical at all is more of a certainty.
There in lies the rub, consciousness is its own best
evidence that there is at least more to the world than
mere spacetime mechanics.
> Math defines reality. When you drop something it falls to the ground,
> but not mathematically. In math there is only a probability that it
> will fall to the ground, and that is the reality of a dropped object
> on this planet. You can sit in a chair, holding a book in your hands
> and be reading. And probability allows for that gravity could act
> just perfectly enough so that the book leaps out of your hands and
> climbs up in the air by itself. While this would be quite unlikely,
> it is allowed in the field of probability, math.
Actually not, it is allowed in the field of QUANTUM MECHANICS,
which uses probability mathematics in its description of things.
The mere existence of probability mathematics does not imply
the existence of quantum mechanics, quantum mechanics didn't HAVE
to be, just because math offered it probability as a way to
express itself.
Anyhow the point is, IF the PU doesn't exist and we are all
dreaming it does, then that state is one of significance.
According to their experinces there will be those that once
reminded they are dreaming will say 'Oh right, now I remember', and
others that will cat call the idea with contempt. IF the PU is a dream,
the cat callers would still be lost in delusion about illusion.
Sanity would at least be not knowing if the PU is a dream or not,
even being aware that one CAN'T know it exists if it does. There is
no sanity in someone who bangs on a dream table with a dream hand
and then claims the illusion to be actual.
Whether it was fair chosen or not is a whole other problem not
related to the PU being a dream.
Personal responsibility for 'being here' is ludicrous on the face
of it, no one in their right mind would choose to enter an arena of such
suffering as they have, or would they?
Probably noone comes in TO suffer, but if they choose to come in,
they probably know that suffering is a possibility.
So choice is a major item on any case, particularly questions about
whether we had choice and arc breaks on not having had any, and then arc
breaks on HAVING had choice and now regretting it or feeling alien to
ones self.
Anyhow each person has their own experience of the world, from
very shallow to very deep.
Thus each will approach the subject of their spirituality differently.
Someone who has had a near death experience or a full blow
exteriorization with perception will not bother with the questions
doubting such things, but will instead devote their attent to how could
this be, in order to better be able to control and use such abilities to
the good or bad of mankind.
Others will get lost in the, well *I* have never experience such a
thing so YOU are delusive, and its all impossible anyhow, and until you
PROVE IT to me, I am not going to lift a finger thinking about it any
further.
So our job here is not to convince anyone against any convictions
they already have, but to help those who have already seen the light of
perfect certainty and other spiritual experiences to join the path
towards finding a true theory of how it all works, and to walk the path
to greater spiritual discovery and ability.
There is no need to awaken the sleeping or near dead.
Homer