Homer Wilson Smith
HomerWSmith at lightlink.com
Thu Mar 15 18:26:19 EDT 2018
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
DELUSION ABOUT ILLUSION
The primary delusion is that something exists independent of what
we perceive. He sees a car and thinks it is a *CAR*, rather than a
colorform picture of a car in his conscious unit.
Say someone gets out of his body with full perception. Chances are
he will be seeing more than the usual physical universe around him.
This universe seems to be a composite universe, with perhaps multiple
universes intersecting and interacting, and higher and lower levels of
each universes interplaying like a layer cake.
With body's eyes we see the lowest layer of one of the universes,
the one we call the physical universe. Go exterior and perhaps you
start seeing higher levels of the physical universe, and perhaps
intersecting areas of other universe.
So say this guy goes exterior and he sees a shadowy figure off in
the distance through the wall etc and his first reaction is "I see a
Ghost!" Ok that's fine. But now he says "It *IS* a Ghost!", or "It
ISN'T a Ghost!" or "I'm not going to believe you are a Ghost until
someone else proves to me you are a Ghost!"
This is going to dry up his perceptions. Why? Because it is
evaluation. He is evaluating for the experience and like evaluating for
a pc, it is death to the experience. He is trying to overlay a frame
work of *TRUTH* on this experience, its an add on, and an alter-is.
The truth is "I perceive a ghost", anything more is evaluation.
There are people who don't want to perceive anything that isn't
real. Perhaps they consider it impolite to the God of Reality.
This presumes that things exist independent of their own
perceptions, and if they don't, they aren't real!
This also puts the person into the problem of determining what is
real or not. It's easy to determine what you perceive, if you perceive
it, you perceive it. But how do you determine if something is 'real'?
Unfortunately most people determine if something is real by
whether other people perceive it also or not. But how did THEY
determine it was real? It's sort of a catch 22 endless regression.
What they don't realize is that ultimately reality had to start
with someone who said "It's real because I perceive it." That allows
everyone else to say "Well its ok for me to perceive it because its
real, and I know its real because Goober says so!"
This is the framework upon which the science of proving reality
Notice that science itself has little to do with proving the
reality of things, thats an alter-is twist that certain meatballs put on
it. The scientific method of observation, theory, prediction,
verification and peer revue, really has nothing to do with establishing
the 'reality' of anything, only the dependability of it. Its a further
alter-is of things that if things are dependable, they must be REAL.
Now the proof has an underlying principle that is usually left out
of the discussions. By far the most important line in the proof is
2.) Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Looking at
It's simple enough to model, put a video camera out there attached
to a TV screen, and look at the world through the TV screen as your only
mode of access. If the video camera is pointed at a red car say, light
waves come in and bounce off the car and head for the camera lens.
The change in the direction of the light waves records the
existence of an external cause out there called the red car. The car
is cause and it EFFECTS the light waves by causing them to bounce.
The light waves go to the video camera and now THEY cause the
retina of the camera to emit electrical signals, which travel to the TV
set which cause the scanning electron gun to change its intensity, which
causes the phosphors on the screen to light up, which causes light waves
to be emitted yet again from the TV screen towards your eyes, which
causes YOUR retina to emit eletronic signals to head for your brain,
which causes activity in the visual cortex, which causes conscious
picturs to appear and you see them.
YOU end up looking at effects, namely the pictures in your
consciousness, in order to learn about cause, namely the car many levels
of cause and effect back. Notice that at no time is the video camera in
contact with the car out there, it is only ever in contact with light
waves that were caused to change course from the sun to the video
camera, by the car. The video camera doesn't even really know if the
car is out there because the light waves could have been bent by God to
make it look like there was a car out there. The video camera only
knows about the effects in itself and those effects do not prove cause.
OK, so this is Learning across a Distance by Looking at Effects,
and does not produce certainty of cause.
Now what's left out is a deeper analysis of why learning across a
distance implies learning by looking at effects.
Here is what the proof has to say on it.
The primary assertion is if A and B are two different objects, then
the only way B can learn about A is if A is cause and has an effect on
B. B must change state because of A in order for B to learn about A.
This implies that if A has no effect on B, then B can never learn
about A no matter what B does or how much cause B has on A.
This also implies that the ONLY thing B can learn about A, is how
A's cause affected B, in other words the only qualities that two objects
can learn about each other are causal relations.
The Proof further says if A and B are separated by a real distance,
then A and B are two different objects.
So we have
2a.) If A and B are separated by a distance, then A and B are two
2b.) If A and B are two different objects, then the only way B can
learn about A is by looking at effects in itself caused by A.
If B is learning about A across a distance, then B must be learning
by looking at effects.
So you see how 2.) is derived?
Ok now notice that the proof says if A and B are two different
objects, they must learn about each other by looking at effects and
therefore can't have certainty of each other at all.
Notice this is true even if A and B are NOT separated by a
distance. Even if A and B are on the same point, but are nonetheless
two different objects, they must learn by looking at effects in
themselves, and therefore may never enjoy certainty of each other's
existence or cause.
Thus the only way for A and B to learn with certainty about each
other, they must be one and the same object!
Since the conscious self is able to learn with certainty about the
existence and cause in its conscious picture color forms, one therefore
has to conclude that the self IS the same object as its perceived color
In other words you ARE what you perceive.
Now a meatball will start saying "Homer is saying I am a tree!"
No, trees do not exist, only your perception of the tree exists as
a colorform picture in your conscious unit. Yes you are the colorform
when you perceive the tree, that is why you can perceive the existence
and cause of that colorform, because you are learning by looking AT
CAUSE, and not learning by looking at effects.
But looking at CAUSE is not possible across a distance,
nor between two different objects.
B can never see A's cause even if A DOES have an effect on B. B
can only see the effect of A on itself, that A caused that effect is a
Even if we believe that trees exist, its still not true that you
are the tree, you are however the colorform you see of the tree, even
though holographically the colorform looks like it is 'out there' where
you fancy the tree to be.
The virtual reality theory however claims that trees do not exist
at all, nor does space of any kind, only colorform pictures of such in
the eye of each conscious unit.
Each person has his own colorform of the tree, we aren't all seeing
the same actual conscious picture. The pictures may look alike, but are
individual pictures for each being. Each being sees only his own
colorforms at all times.
Since space itself is an illusion, all observers are on the same
point/place, and the idea that someone else is 'over there' in your
picture is just plain wrong. Everyone is 'here' where you are.
So if you take a look at Quantum Mechanics, its primary departure
from Newtonian mechanics is that 'what reality is' depends on the
process of observation itself. They say that reality doesn't really
exist until it is observed, and that the process of observation
'precipitates' pre reality into real reality via the process of
observation itself. This means that different events of observation
might precipitate slightly different final realities.
Now personally I believe the quantum boys are still lost in
delusion about illusion, but if you take a look at what they are saying
in the context of the proof and the idea that the entire external
universe is a hologram of colorforms, then you can see where they might
be leading. Observation IS reality.
The proof says that the perceiver and the perceived are one and the
same thing because certainty flows between them.
The virtual reality theory says that all there is are perceivers
and perceiveds and that therefore things are only as real as they are
perceived, no more and no less.
Thus of course the process of observation 'precipitates' reality,
as observation IS reality.
Hopefully some day the Quantum Boys will wake up, and hopefully
we have made a few meatballs roll over in the graves they call their
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer at lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Mar 15 12:00:02 EDT 2018
Send mail to archive at lightlink.com saying help in body
=========== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===============
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning,
but not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L at mailman.lightlink.com
More information about the Clear-L