ADORE710

homer at lightlink.com homer at lightlink.com
Tue May 29 03:06:03 EDT 2012


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

     THE NOT SO ROUND THEORY BALL

     The effete intellectual snottery on a.r.s exceeds the capacity of
modern day science to measure it.

Dennis:
>> This is what I mean by your complexity. Assumption building on
>> assumption. Begging the question. No, Homer. All this to explain
>> why different people measuring the same thing get the same results.

     I see the problem more as a closed or round theory ball, as
described in the first of the Valentine Day's Lectures on the proof.

     http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/homer/adore646.memo

     THEORY BALLS

     Theory balls consist of observations, theories, predictions,
experiments and further observations.

     EVIDENCE

     Observations are evidence.

     THEORIES

     Theories consist of specifications (daisies exist), generalizations
(all daisies grow in the summer), and causal relationships between them
or explanations, (all daisies grow in the summer because they need
sunlight.)

     VERIFIABILITY and FALSIFIABILITY

     Specifications can be verified but not falsified.

     SPECIFICATION: Some daisies exist.

     Find one daisy, and your theory that some daisies exist is proven
true.

     Failing to find a daisy merely supports but does not prove your
theory false, as absence of evidence for a specification, is not
evidence against it.

     GENERALIZATIONS: All daisies grow in the summer.

     Generalizations can be falsified, but not verified.

     Find one daisy that grows in the winter and your theory that all
daisies grow in the summer is proven false.

     Failing to find one daisy that grows in the winter supports but
does not prove your theory true, as absence of evidence against a
generalization is not evidence for it.

     EXPLANATIONS: All daisies grow in the summer because daisies need
sunlight to grow.

     Explanations of causal relation are a kind of generalization, thus
they too can be falsified but not verified.

     Find one daisy that can grow without sunlight, and your theory that
all daisies need sunlight is proven false.

     Failure to find a daisy that can grow without sunlight, does not
prove your theory true, it merely supports it, as absence of evidence
against a generalization is not evidence for it.

     This might sound weird, take the following experiment for example.
Turn off all the sunlight and see if all your daisies die.  If they do
that supports but does not prove with perfect certainty the
generalization that ALL daisies need sunlight to live let alone that
lack of sunlight is why they die in the winter.  They could also die of
the cold or length of day or shift in the magnetic field.

     COMPLETE THEORY BALLS

     A theory ball is 'round' or complete when all observations are
explained and all predictions are observed.

     This indicates that one has a complete understanding of everything.

     The problem arises when certain observations have not yet been made
or have been left out.  These can crack the theory ball, or at least
make it out of round, when such observations can neither be explained
nor predicted by existing theory.

     For example the physics boys are looking for the Grand Unified
Theory of Everything, they hope that by unifying the so called four
fundamental forces of nature, gravity, electromagnetism, and the weak
and strong nuclear forces, they can explain everything.

     They might be able to predict and explain much of the mechanical
universe this way, but consciousness is not mechanical, as no machine
can be perfectly certain of anything, and you can.

     See the proof at http://www.lightlink.com/theproof

     Sorry boys, love and shame can not of force and mass be made.

     Think about it, you all been taught that force and mass is all
there is, that YOU and your consciousness are only processes in force
and mass in motion, tick, tock, tick, tock.

     For those of you who aren't divinity challenged, a euphemism for
shallow as a dry river bed, you know that will and motivation are not
force and mass, and you know they can't be made of force and mass.  Well
neither can consiousness as a whole.

     But that ain't science, that's enlightenment.

     These are two different things apparently, so let's get back to
science.

     ACTUAL OR VIRTUAL

     Now here is my exact position on this, it has nothing to do with
belief, faith or bogus religion, it has only to do with solid science,
using both verifiability and falsifiability as guidelines.

     There are a spectrum of theories to explain why we see things in
our consciousness which is a graphics rendition engine for space and
time and the objects in them, These theories range from the dreamball to
the meatball theory.

     The dreamballs say that our conscious rendition is a representation
of a virtual universe, a dream or hallucination if you will.  Something
seen in consciousness with no exterior existence at all.

     The meatballs say that our conscious rendition is a representation
of an actual universe 'out there'.  They point out into their conscious
picture to show us where exactly out there is.

     WHY BOTHER WITH THEORY?

     We have a number of key observations that need to be accounted for.

     The primary observation is that two different people see the same
object at the same time, for example a pen on my desk.  I see it, and
you see it, and so how come we have an in sync conscious experience of
that part of the landscape?

     The second observation is that when I move the pen on the desk, you
see the pen move on the desk, and visa versa.

     Clearly my rendition of the pen in my consciousness is somehow
causally connected to your rendition of the pen in your consciousness.

     These are two incredible observations that really need to be
accounted for.

     Neither one of us sees the pen directly, both of us are using our
own eyes and bodies and brains to render a likeness of the pen in our
consciousness.  So how come when my rendition moves, yours does too?

     THE MEATBALL THEORY

     The meatball theory gives a very complicated but internally
consistent theory as to how this synchronicity could happen, namely that
there exists a single actual pen out there, photons bounce off it to
each of our eyes, albeit from different viewpoints, the nerve impulses
are rendered by our brain into our own personal 3D color rendition of the
pen.

     Thus we have two people looking at one actual object from different
viewpoints.

     When I exercise cause over the pen by moving it with my hand, you
pick up the change because both you and I are in causal sensory contact
with the same pen.  There is a causal pathway from the pen, via photons,
to our eyes, brain, and consciousness, so when the actual pen moves, we
both get it rendered as having moved in our conscious rendition of the
common landscape.

     It is the same actual pen for both of us, creating two identical
personal renditions differing only by angle of view.

     Thus we have one actual pen, and two conscious renditions of that
pen, one for you and one for me.  Since our renditions are each causally
connected to the actual pen, if the pen moves, both of our renditions
are changed to reflect the change in the actual pen.

     Thus both our conscious rendition engines are in contact with the
same actual external universe and thus bring us consistent data about
what is going on out there.

     Sanity would be defined as properly rendering that external actual
universe.  In theory everyone should agree as to what is out there in
the actual universe, because even though we see it from different
viewpoints, there is only one actual thing out there, and thus
ultimately all our perceptions of it should agree.

     If everyone's rendition engine renders a green tree, and mine
renders a pink elephant, mine is nuts, or out of contact.

     THE DREAMBALL THEORY

     The dreamball theory gives a simpler but also internally consistent
theory which says that the source of our conscious rendition of the pen
and its landscape is not sensory input from an actual external universe,
but a direct data feed from an internal and eternal source of data from
which our conscious image is rendered.

     Eternity is the holographic film of space and time.

     Thus both you and I can render a pen never having seen one before,
because there are no pens except those that have been so rendered.

     God did not have to see a tree before conceiving of one to create.

     Further somehow we can make sure that the pen I render looks the
same as the pen you render, so that we can PRETEND there is a common
actual pen out there, where there isn't.

     This would be how God works, did you think it could ever be any
other way?

     In other words we are sharing a co dream together.  This demands a
whole new synchronization mechanism that connects the two of us so we
can render in sync with each other, 'see the same thing at the same
time', that is independent of any alleged actual universe out there,
otherwise we could never share the dream.

     Notice at all times each being is seeing only his own dream, his
own rendition.  But both beings have identical copies of the pen, which
having synced up into one virtual pen, can be moved and controlled by
both parties.

     Ever have a shared sleep dream with someone else?

     How do you think that took place?

     In the meatball theory, all cause between two beings travels from
one being, OUT through the alleged exterior physical universe over to
the other being, via OUT THERE.

     There is no direct cause between beings that travels directly
between beings, and not out through space and time and back again.

     In the dreamball theory there is no OUT THERE, out there is only
virtual, and thus can not carry causation through itself.  Thus like a
multiplayer arcade game, there must be an actual causal path between two
different beings independent of the virtual out there being displayed.

     The virtual bullet you shoot causes the virtual enemy to drop not
because of any interaction between the bullet and the enemy but because
of a lower level shared rendition system that orchestrates both to act
as if they had affected each other across all players at the same time.

     Thus shooter, victim, and all observers in the game see and think
that the bullet killed the victim.  The bullet certainly didn't kill the
victim because it has no causal efficacy at all.  The victim was killed
by the computer controlling the multi being rendition system, which
created both the bullet and the victim getting killed through
simultaneous orchestration of each player's personal rendition of the
game.

     A virtual universe is a rendition engine acting AS IF there were an
actual universe and the rendition engine is in causal contact with with
that actual universe keeping track of what it going on.

     Such orchestration is a pretense, as there is no actual universe
out there at all, and the rendition engine pulls its data from an
internal source that has no physical geometric similarity to the space
time universe being virtualized on the display screen, your
consciousness.

     One doesn't need to have a cube in order to render a cube, only
merely needs the data that describes a cube to render a cube.

     The data that describes a cube doesn't at all look like a cube!

     In the meatball theory, the conscious rendition has geometric
similarity, it looks like, the actual universe it is rendering.

     In the dreamball theory, the conscious rendition has no geometric
similarity to anything at all, except itself, certainly not the data it
was drawn from.

     WHICH IS MORE COMPLICATED?

     In that sense some might feel that the dreamball theory is more
complicated than the meatball theory, but many are just upset they spent
their whole lives hunting cause in a dream.

     So if all we had to explain is why do two beings see the same
landscape and why when I move my pen, does your pen move too, then the
meatball theory might be the simplest one.

     But the meatball theory says that cause travels out through the
meatball universe from being to being, or between external object and
being, using cause waves (photons), and eyes and brains etc.

     Thus if a being HAS no eyes, lenses, or brains, he won't be able to
see any part of the meatball universe because he won't be able to pick
up its cause waves.

     But if just one person is able to get out of his body, and see the
world where there are no eyes and no lens, and then engage others with
direct telepathy or telekinesis, and remember past lives and go dig up
the box he left wherever, then suddenly the meatball theory has met its
achilles heel of falsifiability.

     If ALL communication about the meatball universe MUST travel
through the meatball universe to meatball entities such as bodies and
eyes, and just one instance can be found where communication, data about
and/or causal action in the universe is traveling with out such means,
then the meatball theory is dead out of the gate.

     Now admittedly a number of paranormal phenomenon might be explained
by adding complexity to the meatball theory, stupid people often
consider that just a little more complexity and obfuscation of what they
don't understand will explain it all, just like a little more cocaine
will make them feel perfect.

     The physics boys are doing this with their race to the Grand
Unified Theory of Everything.  They say they are almost there, and you
say 'But what about consiousness", and they say "Oh yes well,
consciousness is just chemistry bubbling away at 98.6, you know, its
just a process in the brain, and like other brain things it is too
complex to understand presently, but we, uh, are sure the brain works
with the basic 4 forces of nature just like everything else, Occam's
Razor you know, so if we understand THEM better we will understand the
brain better and eventually we will understand consciousness too."

     The hell they will.

     In other words more complexity of cold dark dead matter will
produce self luminous consciousness that is capable of perfect
certainty.

     Divinity = force and mass in motion.

     But I suspect that scientists would be hard pressed to find the
energy waves that travel from being to being during telepathy or even
telekinesis, particularly if they are faster than light.

     The amount of energy it would take to move the marble, or lift a
brick would burn a brain out, so if someone tried to do with with
physical energy, he would probably go "Scanners" on us, heads blowing
up, the whole ordeal.

     So the minute you move the marble or lift a brick, someone is going
to say where the hell is the energy coming from to do this?

     If he can lift the brick can he light a city?  Should we be asking
for a contract?  Or should he be eminently domained into being a weapon
of war for us in the name of national security?

     Meatballs are so stupid, there is no negative number large enough
to measure it.

     OK, sorry.

     But at some point someone is going to say if we are going to hunt
the paranormal, the meatball's round theory ball ain't so round any
more, we got observations and anecdotal stories that can't be predicted
by the theory, and it is time to apply the nutcracker to it, crack it
open completely and rearrange its parts until it is round again.

     The number of paranormal reports through history is staggering, and
modern science is choo-chooing in the direction of they are all
delusional.  You want to be on that ride?

     So we are not asking anyone to believe or have faith, but merely to
understand that they MUST have a working model of how the paranormal
could be possible before they will ever be able to replicate these
things to their satisfaction.

     In this case, my gut instincts tell me this would involve reversing
the idea that consciousness arose out of actual meat, and considering
instead that virtual meat arose out of consciousness.

     However there are serious consequences to this theory if true.

     For one consciousness could no longer be a process in the brain
because consciousness existed before any virtual universe.

     (We assume philosophically that a consciousness that existed before
the creation of space and time, and which then created space and time,
would still itself have no space or time, and thus would be
fundamentally different than an analogue or pretend consciousness
created as a process in a space time machine like the brain, whether
virtual or actual.  In other words robots can say ouch, but will never
feel love or pain.)

     Second consciousness can not be interfaced with a brain, because in
the far end case, the meat universe is a virtual universe and has no
actual cause traveling through it, to it, or from it at all.  It's a
movie, even though the conscious unit can change the direction of the
movie according to his own choice of which way to go.

     By analogy the conscious unit is both the arcade game designer and
player, although he may be playing a game he didn't design, and the
universe at large is the virtual landscape of that game, in which cause
in the landscape doesn't exist except at the pretense level.

     This may be shocking and insulting to those who have committed to
the seriousness and mystery of life and the hunt for cause, but their
feelings are not science.

     We can ask why would the multi being God incarnate and forget that
he had done so?

     That's fine, ask all you want, but who are you going to go complain
to?

     So we have shown how the meatball theory could be falsifiable.

     One verifiable exteriorization and the meatball theory is past its
due date.

     Can we show how the dreamball theory could be falsifiable?

     That would involve verifying the assertion 'there is an actual
physical universe'.  Notice that is a specification, not a
generalization.

     So that's easy, show me an actual physical universe, just one, and
its done, meatballs rule.

     Notice however we need to be shown an actual physical universe, not
a picture of one, nor a rendition of one, nor a representation of one,
nor a symbol of one, nor a video or one, nor a copy of one, nor a
written account of one, but the actual thing itself.

     There is a philosophical problem with this demand in that a being
locked inside a room with only a TV set to see, can only see pictures
and renditions of things, thus you could never show him the actual
thing.

     The being locked inside his consciousness is the same way, all he
can see is his consciousness, which is clearly a rendering engine, and
thus from the existence of the rendition which he can see, he can not
verify with absolute certainty the existence of the allegedly rendered.
What he is seeing could be a dream, imagination, hallucination or play
back from some simulated data source.

     Which it is.

     There is also no symmetry between proving the meatball theory and
proving the dreamball theory because in a sense the meatball theory is a
subset of the dreamball theory.

     We KNOW we are conscious, and we KNOW that our consciousness is
rendering things for our edification.

     So there is no need to prove that.

     Only an idiot wonders whether or not he wonders.

     The question only remains whether the rendered images represent
real time actualities out in the actual physical universe, or if we are
sitting in a flight simulator if you will.  Both look the same, you
can't tell FROM what is rendered, whether the implied referent is
actually out there or not.

     You can't break the window of your consciousness and stick your
neck out to see if the picture painted on the window matches the
actually out side.

     In fact a theorem can be made from this which is that any being
that is stuck looking at something via a rendition of it, can never know
if the thing itself is there, because you can't prove the existence of A
by looking at B even if B is in fact a causally related rendition of A.

     Thus if we assume that beings are in fact stuck inside their
consciousness, we can argue that it becomes impossible to know if the
implied external actuality exists.

     However it is suggestably possible to know that it doesn't exist,
if in fact it doesn't.

     If the meatball theory is true, then consciousness can never do any
thing outside the realm of physical causality because by definition
consciousness is MADE of physical causality, just chemistry bubbling
away at 98.6.

     However one instance of consciousness violating physical causality,
then it is suggested that consciousness is not MADE of that physical
causality because it is virtualizing it instead, and the need to assert
that meat is actual falls away.

     This doesn't prove meat doesn't exist, but we start to lose
interest in meat in the absence of impelling reasons to keep it around.

     Much better to study consciousness of meat and what consciousness
can do than study the meat which consciousness renders, which may not
even be out there.  Except of course as a virtual game to get fed etc.

     THE NATURE AND EXISTENCE OF THE RENDITION ENGINE BECOMES MUCH MORE
IMPORTANT THAN ANYTHING IT CAN RENDER.

     You might not be able to eat knowledge about consciousness, but you
might be able to create a world where you don't have a body that 'needs
to eat', or other pesky little dreams.

     The only reason people are in love with the meatball theory is
because they know THEY exist, and they want to know why.  The meatball
theory claims meat exists and thus explains why consciousness exists,
namely that consciousness is a process in meat.

     One you show that consciousness can do something that meat can't,
and that consciousness can exist independent of meat or space and time
and anything in it, then consciousness takes on its own stature and the
existence of meat becomes moot.

     The primary thing that consciousness can do that meat can't is the
function of perfect certainty of itself and what it sees.

     A space time machine can not do that.

     Learn the proof.  http://www.lightlink.com/theproof

     Thus we already have some slightest evidence enough that
consciousness is not meat, which gives us courage to study the dreamball
theory to see if we can explain and replicate all these very many
anecdotal reports of para normal powers.

     If beings share a dream by telepathy even when awake, and there is
no external cause at all, then clearly the God function that keeps the
waking dreams going is already operating telepathy, telekinesis, and
creation all the time, or we wouldn't be able to create and experience
dreams together.

     Tapping in to the God function then just becomes a matter of
understanding how.

     Understanding how to get back to God, involves only understanding
how and why we left it.

     The way in, is the way out.

     Practice coming in, puts you out.

     That one line my friends leads to a WHOLE technology of repairing
God hood.

     Homer

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Jan 30 01:14:03 EST 2010

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue May 29 03:06:03 EDT 2012 
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore710.memo
Send mail to archive at lightlink.com saying help

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFPxHVbURT1lqxE3HERAvXaAJ9p6b+Dp3MoovGnM+Jjd+6bZ2x/VQCffNI5
IFFUvnpGOHmWRI57rPP6Cx0=
=KUlD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


More information about the Homerwsmith-l mailing list