Skip to first unread message

Clearing Archive Roboposter

Dec 1, 2022, 12:06:05 AM12/1/22


OK, today is Tuesday, March 31st 2009, a beautiful day in the
afternoon at Cornell.

These quick summaries haven't been so quick, have they?

And we have been summarizing summaries until the cows come home.

The cow's symbol is Daisy by the way.

But hopefully we have a good understanding of what has been said
here and can repeat it back easily or at least catch someone else when
they mess around with it and pull a fast one on us.

"The pianist's interpretation of Chopin was sad and melancholy."


The pianist's RENDITION of Chopin was....

The audience's INTERPRETATION of the pianist's rendition...

So this time we are going to go directly to the meat of the matter
as fast as we can.


So far we have covered the second and third lines of the proof
which are:



The 1.) line of the proof is very easy and we don't have to spend
much time on it, because it is a logical tautology.

It says simply either you are learning with certainty or you

More formally that goes:


'Not certainty' of course simply means uncertainty like what any
multidimensional machine has to suffer due to its nature of separation
of parts and separation from what it is learning about.

Now we got to talk about logic here a bit.


Logic is a description of the meaning of the words IS and IS NOT.

IS, ARE, EXISTS, and BE, are all the same thing, just different
declinations, tenses or conjugations of the same idea, TO BE and TO NOT

An important quality of the word IS, IS that it follows the
following formula absolutely, without fail or exception, which we know
from direct observation of things that IS.

On the left is the formal statement of the pattern, on the right an
easier translation. The left one however is the magipotent one.

IS is IS IS means IS
IS is not IS NOT IS does not mean IS NOT
IS NOT is not IS. IS NOT does not mean IS

You can't change the wording of magic incantations just to make
them more grammatically correct or easier for teacher to understand and
still expect them to work, now can you.

So propagate the left one, not the right one, to your secret clubs.

Hey if the square root of 2 could have a secret club, perfect
certainty of IS can have one too!

The reason that logic IS perfectly certain IS because it IS a
description of the word IS, and IS IS a description of the nature of
your own consciousness.

You do have a consciousness, don't you?

You do see color forms around you?

You sure?

You would bet your eternity in hell on it?

You would bet everyone else's eternity in hell on it?

OK, then join the perfect certainty club.

You ARE, you SEE that you ARE, and you KNOW that you SEE that you

And that IS a PERFECT CERTAINTY because it can't possibly BE wrong,

You doubt that you exist?

Do you doubt that you doubt?

How can you not exist, and yet still doubt whether you exist or

QED: If you can doubt that you exist, you exit, because a nothing
could not wonder whether it was a something or a nothing.

Descartes: I doubt I am, therefore I am.

He said "THINK", I think I am therefore I am, but by TO THINK he
meant to question or wonder whether he existed or not.

Because consciousness is self luminous, and self aware, it can see
it exists by direct perception, it can see by direct perception that
it's own DOUBT of it's existence exists, and it can see what the meaning
of TO EXIST means by that same direct perception.

There is no other standard of what TO EXIST means.

Self aware, self luminous consciousness is there to show you!

Consciousness has the highest possible ontological status of all
things because of consciousness's perfect certainty of it's own

That's a joke of course, as there are no degrees of ontological
status, either you are or you aren't.

But consciousness is the only thing that can be SURE it exists!

Everything else is a theory, maybe it exists, maybe it doesn't,

So I hope the point has been made clear, you exist.

If you doubt it, that proves it, so check mate sucker.

You can't be uncertain if you are uncertain, you can't wonder if
you doubt, you can only be certain you are uncertain, and you can only
be certain you doubt if you do.

Perfect certainty of doubt and uncertainy is the beginning of
perfect certainty.

Since your conscious unit can see that it IS, and IS NOT ISN'T, you
thus have perfect certainty of your own existence and what it means to

Since you have perfect certainty of your own ISness and what it
means TO IS, you thus have perfect certainty of logic which is merely a
formal statement of what IS means.

In logic text books this is usually stated as the big 3:

If you IS, then you IS.

Either you IS or you IS NOT.

You can't be both IS and IS NOT at the same time.

Ayn Rand wrote a whole book called Atlas Shrugged, about people who
couldn't grok the nature of logic or consciousness (nor consumption,
production and ownership for that matter).

The book's 3 major sections were entitled:

1.) A implies A.

2.) Always A or not A.

3.) Never A and not A.

Now here is a girl I could marry.

Ever hear someone say "Logic *IS* illogical?"

Well that little word *IS* in there damns them into Godel jail,
because they are USING logic to deny logic and that is, well now what do
we call that, hold on a moment, I will think of it, oh yeah,



Godel jail is where people go who think in contradictions.

"All truth is relative."

"All generalities are false."

"There are no absolutes."

"There is no truth."

"I can prove logic wrong." With what logic?

"I am certain I can't be certain of anything!"

"I can't be certain of anything, and I doubt that to!"

"I doubt that I exist, and I doubt that I doubt.

At least I am being consistent.

I think."

(Being consistent doesn't mean you are right.)

"I am uncertain whether I am uncertain."

"I am undecided whether I am undecided."

"Well I am certain I exist, as far as it goes.

But I could always be wrong.

You can ALWAYS be wrong!

Even that could always be wrong."

"Well I would bet I exist.

Haven't you ever been certain of something and found out later you
were wrong? What happens to your perfect certainty then huh?

Any certainty can be wrong!"

"Maybe I just think I see two different colors around me with
perfect certainty."

"Maybe I am a wrong robot programmed to think that I am certain
when in fact I am not and can't be. You can program a robot to think
and say anything, you know, including this."

"If someone else thinks I don't exist, then maybe I don't!"

"Maybe I am someone else's hallucination."

Right and if we could find that other guy and give him some Prozac,
you would disappear and his life would be much better, wouldn't it.


You don't have lots of friends or teachers like this?

Sigh, I must be a magnet for idiots.


The wrong robot problem is a serious problem for some people.
particularly those who run away from perfect certainties, because the
certainty of eternal cosmic pain is too much for them.

A wrong robot can be programmed to think and say anything, so when
you as a conscious unit say, "I can see that I see and therefore I
exist", they will challenge you with, "But maybe you are just a wrong
robot that has been programmed to say that you see that you see and
therefore you exist, when in fact you can't see that you see, and in
truth haven't a clue whether you exist or not (which is the true fate of
all machines.")

But the issue is not what they SAY to others, but what they see of
and think to themselves.

Conscious seeing that you see is not a mechanical process, even if
the results of that conscious seeing are being reported by the brain and
a mouth, or a line printer, or some other space time gizmo. Not much

Consciousness is not a space time gizmo!

From the outside looking in at such a person, you don't really know
if he is a wrong robot programmed to claim he is a conscious being, or a
conscious being programmed to claim he might be a wrong robot for that

But from the inside looking at himself, those that can see that
they see, can be very certain that is what is going on. A robot doesn't
see anything, it merely REPORTS that it does according to some IF THEN
ELSE statement in its code, and that is based on a FORCED impulse
responding to prior forced impulses.

So if you see that you see, then you are not a robot, wrong or

And if you are a conscious being that is claiming to be a wrong
robot, you should go see a psych or something and get your fears of
daddy, girls or infinite consciousness and God cleared up.


A party line is that fixed idea, pet theory, or philosophical
vanity that, when confronted with evidence or reason that it is wrong,
overrules that evidence or reason.

The core party line is the perfect certainty that:

Perfect certainty is impossible, unimportant, useless, undesirable
or dangerous.


"At first they said it wasn't true.

Then they said it was unimportant.

Then they said they knew it all along.

Then they said it was dangerous."


Now I gotta say something about existence here.

I ran into a professor once of theoretical physics who said he had
no idea what existence meant.

I was pressing him on the subject of perfect certainty, and he was
giving me the same old same old "Oh well no, you can't be certain of

Of that he was quite certain.

"It's not polite to be certain of things, you could always be

So I said "You are certain you exist aren't you?"

And he responded "Oh well I have no real clue what I am, or even
what it means to exist."

I was going to say "You're sure of that are you?" but I held my

Further whether you know what you are or not has nothing to do with
whether you know with perfect certainty THAT you are.

Apparently academentia is a holding pen for idiots.

So look, let's end this once and for all.

Existence is a quality of being that belongs in the object quality
sets of objects which exist, and doesn't belong in the quality sets of
objects that don't exist.

There is something very simple here.

Take any two colors out there in your conscious space, such as a
patch of red and another patch of green. Say you are looking at two
books and their bindings sitting next to each other, and the left one is
red and the right one is green.

Now we don't care about the alleged physical universe books, we
only care about your conscious experience of the red and the green which
you can see directly 'apparently out there' in front of you.

Maybe you are dreaming, imagining, or hallucinating and the
physical books aren't really there, we don't care, all we care is that
you see the books, see the two different colors and can tell with
perfect certainty that they are TWO DIFFERENT COLORS.

So on the left is an object WHICH IS RED.

On the right is an object WHICH IS GREEN.

Now notice, something can't BE RED, without BEING first!

Redness is in fact a limitation on being.

An object can be, then it can be red or green.

If it is red, then it is not green, and thus BEING RED is a
limitation on your nature. It's quality set is not infinite, as it is
at least infinite minus green!

So first notice if you are saying an object IS RED, you are saying
that the object IS.

Thus we can assert the following:

IS RED implies IS.

IS GREEN implies IS.

IS ANYTHING implies IS, except IS NOT.

(That's a Godel Jail joke.

Sorry, Godel Jail inmates have no sense of humor when it comes to
IS and IS NOT.)

Now let's diagram this simply so we can deal once and for all with
these high falutin' PhDs who don't know whether they exist or not.

You see they may not be able to DEFINE exist in terms of other
words, but they sure as hell can give you an OPERATIONAL definition of

So here is how this goes.

We have two objects, say two different pieces of dayglo square
construction paper taped to the wall, the right hand one is day glow red
and the left hand one is day glow green.

And we might as well add in that we are dreaming, so there is no
paper there, just two conscious renditions of what paper would look like
if there were paper there!

And we will call these two conscious objects A and B. Thus we have
two different quality sets, one for A and one for B.

The quality set for A contains three qualities, is (exists), is
square and is red.

The quality set for B also contains three qualities, is (exists),
is square and is green.

Thus between the two quality sets there are two qualities which are
the same for both objects, namely is (exists), and is square.

Notice the is (exists) and is square qualities are IDENTICAL
between both objects.

And there are two other qualities which are different for each
object, namely red and green.

So now go take another good look at the red and green objects in
present time. Go on, go do it, right now.

If you don't have two different colored objects in your
environment, open your eyes. Or use the black ink and white paper you
are presently reading. You wouldn't be able to read it unless there
were two different colors there, right? You are sure?

Notice the two qualities that are different between the two colors.

Notice the red and green or black and white, and how they are
different from each other.

Now, notice the two qualities that are the same between the two
objects, existence and squareness.

Notice the existence in the first object and notice the existence
in the second object and then notice how these two instantiations of
existence are identical between the two objects.

Instantiation means an 'instance of' rendered in actuality, namely
your conscious experience.

Green existence is exactly the same kind of existence as red

Existence is existence no matter what adorns and thus limits it.

Each of the two objects exist exactly as much and in the same way
as the other.

If either object didn't exist, they couldn't be red or green, now
could they?

In the redness and the greenness you will see something that is
different between those two qualities, namely their color.

But in that same redness and greenness you will see something that
is exactly the same between the two of them, namely EXISTS.

Well you know what red and green means because of direct experience
of them in your consciousness, right? I mean no one could ever possibly
EXPLAIN to you what red and green are unless you actually saw them
yourself in your own consciousness.


If red and green were referents and you were looking at a later
symbol that was imprinted with causal data about the prior referents,
the symbol might indicate that there were two different colors in the
referent, but would it show you WHAT THE TWO COLORS ACTUALLY LOOKED


The symbols would show you what the symtols looked like, not the
referents, unless the symbols had the same colors as the referents!

Well now you know what EXISTS means for the same reason, because of
your direct experience of existence of the two colored objects in your
consciousness. No one could ever explain to you what TO BE means any
more than what TO BE RED means, but there it is for you to see directly
and thus to know exactly and only what it means.

So if one object

IS A RED SQUARE and the second object


then we can see via direct perception that both objects IS, both
objects have shape and both objects are square, and both objects have
color, but the one object is red and the other object is green.

If you don't know what IS RED means, then perhaps you don't know
what IS means,

But if you know what IS RED means, then you know what IS means, and
thus you know what existence means, and you can see existence all around
you everywhere you look.

Yes, that is an operational definition of existence, you can't put
it into other words.

But you can look and behold, and see existence directly, and see
what existence looks like right there in your face, and you can
recognize it when you see it, and you can't be wrong about it, because
its a direct perception, and not a stupid theory.


Now notice a while back I said that TO BE RED was a limitation on
TO BE. That means that TO BE means you could be anything, but once you
are RED, well that means you aren't GREEN!

A whole mess of other things you aren't either.

TO BE SQUARE means you aren't ROUND.

You see? So we all know what to be red and green, and round and
square mean, but we have trouble with what TO BE means, because it means
existence unlimited by anything specific.

Yet everything specific carries the common quality of existence
into it's instantiation of limitation.

Dig it and don't leave it.


Now there used to be a game we would play that is useful when
trying to learn a new language with someone who speaks a different

You put an apple on the table and you say 'Apple!'.

Now of course they know what an apple is because they eat them all
the time, but they have no clue what your word 'Apple' means.

The word apple (symbol) is not an apple (referent).

The word apple at the start of the game could mean apple, or it
could mean fruit, or it could mean food, or it could mean object, or it
could mean exists.

So you put an orange on the table and you say 'Orange', and then
point to both and say 'Fruit'.

By putting the orange on the table, you have demonstrated that
apple does not mean fruit.

Apples are fruits, but an apple is a more limited kind of fruit.

If apple meant fruit, then you could point at both the apple and
the orange and call them both apples.

Then you put some chicken on the table and you say 'Meat' and then
point to all three and say 'Food'.

You see after a while the process of parallation will deliver an
understanding to the other person of what your words do and do not mean
and what level of abstraction they belong to.

What you are doing is placing many different objects and thus their
quality sets on the table, grouping them into classes, and then calling
off the class label for the qualities that are both common and unique to
that class label.

You put an apple and an orange on the table and say 'fruit'.

The qualities that define 'fruitiness' are common to both apples
and oranges, but are a SUBSET of the total qualities that make up either
an apple or an orange.

So where the qualities of an apple and an orange overlay, you have
a common set of qualities which are common to a whole group of different
objects including apples and oranges which make them all fruits.

Apples and oranges are DIFFERENT subsets of fruits.

And those common qualities that make up a fruit are UNIQUE to
fruits, as all objects which have that particular grouping of qualities
are fruits also, therefore only fruits will have that group of qualities
called fruitiness.

In other words once an object has the necessary and sufficient
qualities for being a fruit, adding more qualities can never change it
from being a fruit!


The set of qualities which are common and unique to a set of
objects is called the PERTINENT QUALITIES of the class or concept that
encompass all the objects in the group.

Consider again a table with apples, oranges and meat on it.

It is not true that all the objects on the table are apples, or
fruit, but they are all food.

The more different objects you place on the table, the broader and
more general your common concept becomes.

Apple is very specific, fruit less so, food even less so, and
object even less so.

In the limit, if you were to place EVERY OBJECT IN EXISTENCE on the
table, what would be the only remaining common quality to all of them?

You got it Goober, existence.

So if you do this process in your head with the universe around
you, take a look at EVERYTHING you see, and ask yourself repeatedly what
the common quality is to all these things, eventually you will
differentiate out 'existence', and then you will know exactly what
existence means and you will be seeing it directly in everything you
have looked at.

Be sure to spot yourself amongst all those things also, so you will
see that you also exist.

Then you can throw your PhD out, because you are no longer
certified stupid.

By the way the word PARALLATION means Parallel Relation, and really
should be Parallel Qualities, meaning common qualities.

For example, all apples are related to the class of apples, and all
oranges are related to the class of oranges, so we have two separate
relations going on 'in parallel' or at the same time. It is the two
separate relatingnesses going on at the same time that demarc the fact
that there are two separate groups being defined, and allows us to
discriminate between them and understand their labels (language) as

Another way of looking at this is, every object on the table is
RELATED to each other by COMMON (parallel, similar) qualities, and
parallation is the mental process of gleaning those common qualities to
determine the meaning of a word.

Parallation is a terrible word and should be struck from the
language, but until someone comes up with a better word for this
process, I are stuck with it.

Besides its the name of a paper I wrote freshman year at Cornell
for philosophy class in 1969.

The TA gave me a C+ for the class but said 'There is some
thinking going on here.'


The process of parallation is used to determine or define the
pertinent quality set of a class of objects that are related by common
and unique qualities in their quality sets.

Common means every object in the class has the pertinent quality

Unique means that every object that has the pertinent quality set,
is in the class.

You can run this both ways.

You can start with a group of objects, and try to guess the
pertinent qualities that are common to them.

This method is used to learn a new language when the pertinent
quality sets of words are already known to the other person, but not to
you. So he shows you groups of objects and words until you get what the
word means. Any baby learns this way.

Or you can DEFINE a pertinent quality set out of whole cloth, and
then try to figure out which objects belong to the set.


As I said, back in '69 freshman year, I got a C+ in philosophy 101
for laying parallation out in detail for the teacher.

His comment was "There is some thinking going on in this paper."

Of course it didn't help my grade that I had skipped half the class
and made jokes at his expense when I did show up.

Hey I was majoring in pot back then, and I wasn't about to let
school get in the way of my education.

Yet sometimes I wonder what the guy who got an A wrote for his term


Yeah I know this is boring, we will get back to God and damnation

As a last comment here, it is probably NOT true that 'existence' is
the highest level concept, because there are objects which do not exist.

Formally we say there are actual existences, and hypothetical

Unicorns are objects with well delineated quality sets, but they
don't exist in the world of actual existence, but do exist in the world
of hypothetical existence.

This creates great room for confusion, because we don't like to say
that unicorns exist, but we do like to use the word IS to describe them,
'They IS horses with one horn.'

So when we say that something exists, do we mean actually or

Formally there is no problem, we just have to be aware that the
popular usage of TO EXIST means actual existence and not hypothetical
existence, even though the formal meaning includes both.

But trying to get this across to Goober and Dufus can be hard.

And what about objects that don't exist at all, in either sense?

Well operationally we can just say that once an object is defined
with a quality set, then it exists hypothetically in any case.

One would expect the broadest and highest level class to have but
one quality in its pertinent quality set. If it had more than one,
there would be fewer objects in it as each added quality is a further
limitation on its nature.

There are more square things, than there are square and red things.

Thus square is a broader class (has more objects in it) than the
class of red squares.

In other words we are looking for the class that contains all
things that can be classified.

In seeking the class that contains all objects everywhere, we need
it to be free of limiting qualities of any kind.

We said that the quality 'IS' is existence free of any limitation,
but we also pointed out there are at least two kinds of existence,
actual and hypothetical, so we have contradicted ourselves.

If we are willing to accept that existence includes both actual and
hypothetical existences, then we have our top level concept in existence
but that doesn't sit well.

We are going to take a different route here and say that both
actual existences and hypothetical existences are different objects with
different quality sets, one containing actual-is, and the other
containing hypothetical-is.

Thus both actual existences and hypothetical existences are
subsumed under the class called OBJECTS.

The one quality common and unique to all objects is having a
quality set whether empty or not!

Thus both somethings and nothings are objects.

Remember a nothing is an object with an empty quality set, and a
something is an object with a non empty quality set.

I will leave it up to the astute reader to smell out the Godel jail
in the above and demarc it carefully so no one falls into it.

So we can conclude that the broadest concept of all is OBJECT, and
everything that is or could be, can rightly be called an object.

In other words there is nothing that is not an object.

Which means classes and qualities are objects too!

And yes Goobie, if you are not careful you will be visiting the
Bertrand Russell ward of the Godel Jail insane asylum very soon.


Russell was one of the world's greatest philosophers and he spent
an entire summer in Godel Jail looking at a blank piece of paper trying
to figure out if the class of all classes that were not members of
themselves, was a member of itself, or not.

That's like asking what is the truth value of:

"This statement is false."

Russell had gotten himself into a world class Godel Jail, and it
took him a long to time fix the damage.

The answer is, if you assume the statement is true then it is
false, and if you assume it false, then it's true. Thus the statement
is a contradiction and thus logically always false. It is kind of the
opposite of a logical tautology which is always true.

Formally we say the statement is degenerate, that is, not a Well
Formed Formula or WFF (pronounced WOOF).

This arises because the statement is self referencing AND self
denying at the same time.

Bad boy.

Russell spent the next summer looking at another blank piece of
paper trying to figure out if the class of all classes that WERE members
of themselves, was a member of itself.

This was like asking what is the truth value of:

"This statement is true."

The answer is, if you assume the statement is true, then it is
true, if you assume it is false, then it is false. The decidability of
this statement is irrelevant because it doesn't matter if you consider
it true or false, but although not a contradiction, it is still
degenerate as hell.

In a fit of revenge Russell left the last one up to Godel as a home
work assignment while Russell went off and played with the girls on the

"This statement is undecidable."

The answer is, if you assume it is true, then it is false because
true wouldn't be an undecidability. And if you assume it is false, then
it is also false, because false also wouldn't be an undecidability.

So it is tempting to claim "This statement is undecidable" is in
fact false because it becomes false whether you assume it true or false.

So now that you have decided that 'this statement is undecidable'
is in fact false, it has become decidable, which of course makes it more

But if you assume the statement is UNDECIDABLE, then the statement
is true as it claims, which is a contradiction, as being true is not an

An so into the Russell spin bin ward you go.

Fortunately the existence of degenerate or undecidable statements
in logic does not influence in any way the validity of the decidable
statements of logic.

In other words the undecidability of any particular logical
statement will never have any possible influence on the outcome of a
decidable statement.

IS is IS remains true, as does IS isn't ISN'T.

Thus undecidables live in their own black hole unable to influence
any part of the real world around them.

In the end undecidables are unWFF's, not Well Formed Formulas, and
an unWFF can't influence a WFF, and only WFF's apply to the real world.

Those that argue that all of logic is undecidable because some
small degenerate areas are undecidable are mind broke.

By the way the undecidability of degenerate statements must not be
confused with the undecidabilities that Godel was eventually to become
famous for, which had nothing to do with the self denying degeneration
of the above examples.

But again the same rule applies, the existence of undecidabilities
in any logic or arithmetic, whether degenerate or not, does not
influence the validity of decidabilities in those same areas.

So logic holds whether people want it to or not.


Well the mere fact that you CAN be certain of your own existence is
beyond astounding and undermines just about every thought that anyone
has ever had on the subject of how things work, and what is true and
what isn't.

The second fact, that everyone is using their consciousness, which
can be perfectly certain of its own existence, to symbolize an alleged
physical universe, which no one can ever be certain about anything,
further aggravates that astonishment.

People apparently care more about what their consciousness
represents to them about the alleged physical universe, than about the
nature of the representer, their conscious unit itself.


Thus pushers of the party line, those who are certain they can't be
certain of anything, let alone their own existence, are a walking insult
to the glory of God in carnation.

That they, too, ARE that same multi I-AM God in carnation just adds
to the mystery.

Frankly I think that PhD's that don't know if they exist or not
should be execrated on the spot.

After being tested for existence of course. Wouldn't want to
execrate some poor guy who doesn't exist, now would we?

To execrate means to call down the damnation of the Devil upon.

You know, if someone doesn't know if they exist, they certainly
don't know if YOU exist either.

Maybe its fine if they don't know WHAT EXISTENCE IS or MEANS, but
it is not OK for them to not know whether they exist or not.

And if they don't know you exist, then they don't know if you feel
pain, and they also don't know if they care or give a damn if you feel

Next time you run into someone who hurts, ask them if they are SURE
they hurt. If they say yes, point out that a machine can't do that.

Then ask them if they are sure they exist.

If they say no, point out to them the cognitive dissonance of being
certain they hurt, but not being sure they exist.

The pain exists but they don't?

A machine can't even know that it exists, let alone that it hurts.

And since all pain is SELF LUMINOUS KNOWING PAIN, a machine can't
hurt at all.

These people who don't know if they exist or not, who are not
capable of operating the perfect certainty facility (faculty) of their
own consciousness, are very dangerous people to have around, building
atom bombs and pretty red buttons to go with them.

Kind of like the Staples Red Button that says 'That was easy!'

There are people who don't care if they leave the Earth growing
green or glowing green.

They generally are certain of things they can't possibly be certain
of, their personal bigotry for one, and not certain of things they can
be certain of, namely their own conscious selves.

If ever there was a scourge on the face of the Earth, on society
and the well being of mankind, these are them.

I know they are our brothers like everyone else, but it is time to
call an idiot and idiot and refuse to allow society to institutionalize
such idiocy in our halls of worship and lower learning.

Let alone the halls of government and power.

"Everyone should be allowed to think what the want!"

Fine, I think people should have a license to think!

The Proof is an effort to end idiotism in our life.


You know, a while back in a moment of distemper I said,

"In it's race to Armageddon, religion is trying to destroy the
world, and in it's race to build weapons of mass destruction, science is
trying to provide religion the means of doing so."

Considering those good people in science and religion, this is
untrue and highly unfair.

But considering those bad people in science and religion, it's a
fair take, and if you add in the bad people in government and big
business where war is big money and thus security for them and theirs,
you have a world scene that is a few control rods short of a stable
nuclear pile.

About the only people with clean hands are the artists.

OK, let's take a break.







Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY In the Line of Duty
Tue Apr 14 15:01:32 EDT 2009

================ ====================
Thu Dec 1 00:06:02 EST 2022
Send mail to saying help
================== ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.

Reply all
Reply to author
0 new messages