Homer Wilson Smith
HomerWSmith at lightlink.com
Mon Aug 31 15:42:11 EDT 2020
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
ASSIGNMENT OF QUALITIES II
OK, so we have this conscious unit, a looker looking at his looked
ats, and we stick him in the head of a human body and connect his
consciousness to the sensory system of the body.
That means that now, rather than his looked ats being pure
imagination, dreaming or hallucination, they are causally connected to
events in the alleged physical universe.
You know, photon bounces off object, hits retina, travels along
brain pathways and eventually gets displayed as color and intensity in
the the conscious unit's looked at display.
So this guy is sitting there aiming his eyes at an apple on a
table in the physical universe, and he's seeing a red apple in his
The red apple that he actually sees in his consciousness is the
symbol, and the physical universe apple on the table is the referent.
Presumably the physical referent is a causal precursor to the
conscious symbol, and the state of the symbol is trackiing the
referent properly. For example if the physical apple changes color,
the conscious experience (symbol) will change color in tandem.
Tracking between symbol and referent is also called necessary
If there is no casaul pathway between symbol and referent then
there is no guarantee that the tracking will continue for long,
even if it continues forever.
Thus causation is what brings NECESSITY to dependable
Now we know that the symbol and referent are two different events,
two different objects, existing and happening in two different
spaces and times.
The referent happens before the symbol in time determined by the
speed of light travel from apple to eye, and the speed of impingement
through the brain system.
The referent is also in a different place in space than the
symbol, because the referent is out there in the physical universe,
whereas the symbol is in here in the conscious universe, even though
the symbol LOOKS like it is out there where the physical apple
We know that the symbol is not actually out there, because if it
were the looker couldn't see it, distance in space or time between
looker and looked at creates blindness by making direct contact
Across a distance in space or time, everything remains forever a
Lastly we know that the symbol has its own qualities, different
than the referent, but that some of the qualities of the symbol may be
similar to those of the referent, and other qualities of the symbol
that the referent doesn't have, may be used to refer to qualities in
the referent that the symbol doesn't have.
Take color and frequency for example, as described below.
Color is a quality of the symbol which the symbol has and the
referent does not have, which is used to refer to frequency of light
reflecting off the referent, which the referent has and the symbol
So let's take a look a what some of those qualities of the symbol
are that are used to refer to the referent.
The first quality is existence. The symbol exists.
The conscious looker exists, and his looked ats exist, he can see
them and he needs no further proof. Someone else may doubt that he
sees them, but if he does see them, they must exist, as they couldn't
be seen if they didn't exist.
They don't just exist 'for him', if they exist for anyone, they
must exist for everyone whether they know it or not. In other words
if it is true for Goober that Goober sees a red apple, it must be true
for everyone that Goober sees a red apple.
This quality of existence in the symbol is then attributed to the
referent: because I see a conscious apple, there must BE a physical
Our whole concept of existence, what it is, what it means, what
it's ramifications are, come directly from our experience of the
existence of our conscious experiences.
If our conscious experiences did not exist, we would never have
come up with the idea of existence in the first place because we could
never have experienced something that existed!
How else could you experience something that existed, except
through the existence of your own conscious experiences of its
Our sense of existingness comes directly from our conscious
experience of the existence of our conscious experiences.
Since we have never seen any physical object EXCEPT via its
symbol in our conscious experience, assignment of any existence to the
physical object that exceeds the existence of the conscious symbol is
meaningless or arbitrary. Certainly not based on experience!
You can't experience something that has more existence than
the existence of your conscious experience of existence.
Sometimes you can have an indirect experience of something's
existence. The table may not look visually to real to you, but then
you bump into it and feel the pain. The realness of the pain
convinces you of the realness of the table more than the original
visual of the table did.
So all reality, actuality, or existingness that we assign to the
referent physical universe comes directly from the existingness of our
In other words the physical apple can not be more real, more
actual, have more existingness than the conscious experience by which
we learned of the apple in the first place.
Thus the assertion that the physical universe is real, but our
conscious experiences are not as real is delusive inversion.
The next quality that the conscious symbol has is certainty of
Not only does the conscious sysmbol exist, but the looker KNOWS
it exists without question, without doubt, without second thought.
This is the quality of learnability with perfect certainty.
Now we know that if looker and looked at are two different
objects separated by space or time distance, then the looker can never
see the looked at directly.
The looked at is NOT THERE for him.
The best the looker can do is wait for an impingement and then
theorize back into time about the possible nature of the source of
In this case the looker changes state as a result of the
impingement from the alleged remote source. The looker's change in
state is the symbol, and the alleged remote source is the referent.
Since one can not learn with certainty about the referent by
looking at or being a symbol for it, space and time between looker and
looked at make perfect certainty of looked at impossible.
Since the existence and nature of the conscious looked at IS
perfectly certain to the conscious looker, we are forced to conclude
that in the case of consciousness, the looker and looked at are one
and the same thing, not separated by a space or time distance.
Thus although the red apple LOOKS like it is out there, relative
to the looker, that out thereness must be an illusion, and the
entirety of consciousness and what it is conscious of must exist in a
zero dimensional, spaceless, timeless existence.
However the looker, seeing its perfect certainty of its
experience of the apple, then assigns perfect certainty to the alleged
Thus not only does the conscious looker then consider that the
physical apple exists, he concludes that the physical apple exists
with *CERTAINTY*. He has no doubt about the symbol, so he has no
doubt about the referent.
At all times and all places this is a very serious form of mind
broke, because it is impossible to attain certainty of a referent, via
certainty of a symbol.
Certainty of the referent is not certainly implied by certainty
of the symbol.
Consciousness *IS* certainty-of.
Since the only thing a looker can be conscious of is his own
conscious experiences, namely his a conscious looked ats, therefore
the only thing that a looker can be certain of is his own conscious
looked ats, his conscious experiences or symbols, in this case, of the
With regards to a zero dimensional conscious unit perceiving
objects separated from him in a multi dimensional space time
continuum, the conscious symbol is always certain, the referent
remains forever a theory.
The next quality that the symbol has which is mistakenly assigned
to the referent is color.
Color, like redness, is a quality of being on one object, the
The ability to reflect photons of a given frquency is a causal
quality of relation, between two different objects, physical apple and
Color in the conscious symbol is used to represent frequency of
reflected photons in the physcial universe. Intensity of color in
consciousness is used to represent amplitude of energy of those
photons or number of them per second.
There are no photons in imagination, dreaming or hallucination.
The lamp does not light the room in your dreams.
Conscious looked ats are self luminous, if they were illuminated
by something else, you couldn't see them at all. You could only
become a symbol for them according to the impingement on you of their
reflected or emmanated causal messenger wave.
Being a symbol for a referent is not the same thing as SEEING THE
The fact that you see your looked ats with certainty proves that
you ARE them, and there is no via between them and you seeing them.
Thus color and perception of color is a zero dimensional
conscious phenomenon that has no place, CAN have no place in the multi
dimensional physical world with distance and time separating lookers
and looke ats.
Thus there is no color in the physical universe, only waves of
energy of different frequencies all made of the same stuff.
The fourth quality of the conscious symbol that is assigned to
the physical referent is out thereness.
If you ask someone where his conscious experiences are he will
point vaguely in the area of his head, but if you ask him where he
sees the red apple, he will point out there where he thinks the
physical apple is.
Now our conscious color forms certainly LOOK like they are out
there, and thus because we see space we think there is space.
But in fact if our conscious pictures were out where they look
like they are, we couldn't see them, because imposition of space and
time between looker and looked at creates the blindness of no direct
Being a symbol for a referent at a distance from you is not the
same thing as SEEING the referent directly.
However the illusion of space is so strong in our conscious
looked ats, that we are just sure the physical referent must also have
space and be out there. I mean where else could it be?
The *PHYSICAL* apple has to be *SOMEWHERE*, right? What better
place than out there!
Some people will even go so far to say that the reason we see
conscious experiences of space is because there IS space. How else
could we have represented the actuality of physical space if not
through the conscious experience of space?
However certainty of experience does not provide certainty of the
physical referent, and worse THERE CAN BE NO CERTAINTY of physical
referent as certainty is the sole purvue of the conscious experience.
Thus claiming we see space because there is space is putting the
cart before the horse and is another case of very dangerous delusive
It asserts that the nature of our consciousness is determined by
the nature of the physical universe. That consciousness EXISTS in
order to accuratly display the physical universe.
Eventually they will tell you that consciousness is MADE of the
physical universe, and a being is rolling around the drain to hell at
that point, the inversion is just too great to survive for long as a
Love and shame can not of force and mass be made.
The truth is that consciousness had the ability to create
illusions of space (and time), and thus decided to employ the ability
in its game creation.
Actual space was never created, but the illusion of space between
looker and looked at was used to invite the idea that space did in
fact exist so beings could get lost playing in it.
I mean what fun is it knowing you have NEVER gone anywhere. You
couldn't get lost even if you wanted to.
You can't get lost when you ARE your home.
THREE DIMENSIONAL GEOMETRICITY
Out thereness is really just a subset of the 3 dimensions of
Thus not only do you have here and there (depth), you also have
left and right (width) and up and down (height).
Now it might be pretty easy to see how here and there are
illusions, if you just consider the looker IS the looked at, but how
do you explain left and right or up and down.
I mean maybe there is no distance between you and the square you
are looking at, but the square is definitely a square and has a left
to right width of a foot or so.
So imagine that that the being is a light source, a source of
conscious light. And imagine the being has painted on himself a zero
dimensional point, a complete picture of the world all around him in
Then imagine the painted up being is inside a perfectly mirrored
The light leaves the being, gets colored as it goes through his
surface, heads out to the metal ball with the mirrored inside, and
reflects back off the mirrored surface and heads back to the being.
When the light reaches the being, he 'sees the world' that is painted
So seeing the world is like a being seeing himself in a spherical
But now make the radius of the spherical mirror smaller and
smaller until it vanishes to zero. Thus the whole size of the being
plus mirror is zero. He is still going to see his own reflection lit
by his own self luminousness.
That's a really bad analogy but might help to understand how
something of no dimensions and thus no size, could none the less
project and reflect and see a multidimensional world of apparently
The last quality of the conscious symbol that is collapsed onto
the referent is timeingness, or change.
A physical universe machine can only be in a state. Since no
state proves the existence of a prior state with certainty, a machine
can never know with certainty that it is changing state! Thus a
machine can never know with certainty that time exists.
Yet consciousness certainly can know that not only does its
symbols exist, but they change! Thus the conscious looker assumes
that because he experiences time in his consciousness, there must BE
time in the physical universe referent.
So the five qualities of the symbol are
4.) Out thereness, space
Each of these are then assigned to the physical universe
referent, even though the true referent may not have any of these
qualities at all!
What is the source of our zero dimensional conscious pictures?
Is it a multi dimensional physical universe as represented to us
in our looked ats, or is it perhaps something else entirely?
At 28.0 on the tone scale, the being descends down through
apparencies are reality.
The apparencies are the actualities of his conscious symbols,
existence, certainty, color, out thereness and time.
In going below apparencies are reality, the being considers that
his symbols refer to referents that actually have those qualities.
He forgets that he is dealing with the alleged referents solely
via his symbols, and eventually comes to consider that the symbols are
nothing, and the referent is the only something there is.
A meatball is a symbol that thinks it is made of the referent.
That's like a TV set thinking it is made of the stuff one sees
displayed in the TV set.
You can't get more inverted than that.
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
Sat Feb 17 23:49:47 EST 2007
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Aug 31 12:00:04 EDT 2020
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