ADORE692 (fwd)

Homer Wilson Smith HomerWSmith at
Wed Dec 12 14:30:13 EST 2018

Hash: SHA1


> Good, very good.  I no longer doubt your pan-determinism.
> You make me look like a pretender.  Very good.

      Well I am at least a good pretender.

      Meatballs are one of my most detested oppterms, even though I was

      But I was a reasonable meatball, I WANTED the dreamball theory to
be true from very early on, and in fact I knew I didn't know which was
true and didn't know how to prove it.  I knew that IF the meatball
theory was true we could never know, and I assumed that IF the dreamball
theory was true there should be a proof of it somewhere, not just an
exteriorization, but something deeper.

      But I couldn't bring myself to just have faith in the dreamball
theory, because I was missing many parts of it, and the world is just
too miserable a place (for me) for my immature dreamball theories to
account for all the pain we are going through.

      Eventually I grew up and the theory matured, and the proof came
alone, which doesn't prove the world is a dream, but it does prove that
consciousness is 0D (zero dimensional) and thus has no space or time to
its underlying structure, and thus MUST be eternal in nature.

      How one would then interface a 0D consciousness with a 3D brain
then becomes an interesting problem in physics and philosophy.

      That seriously upped the stakes in the contest between meatball and

      The meatballs that piss me off, are those that resist the dreamball
theory completely, insist they want to die and that's it bud, and do not
take the time to help themselves to the ample evidence that maybe the
dreamball theory is possibly correct.

      It's their own hope they can't stand, but in the end they exceed my
own credibility and willingness to confront, let alone create.  I try,
but I still go into drooling convulsions of hate :)

       Spot NO   meatball.
       Spot SOME meatball.

      I try to slice them and dice them with my sword of sarcasm, but I
find they just dent and dull my sword to no effect whatsoever on

      As Electra said, 'only BT's bash'.

      "I have had time enough for love" cases drive me crazy.

      PTSness results from trying to prove the suppressive wrong.

      PTS means potential trouble source and is the phenomenon of
rollercoastering heavily in life.


> On Tue,  8 Dec 2009 23:22:52 -0500 (EST), homer at wrote:
>>      So you put your prove it case in session and you run the following
>> process on him.
>>      Auditor: "Why do you believe that OT powers do not exist?"
>>      PC: Prove it!  Move the marble on the table and I will believe you
>> have OT powers.
>>      Auditor: Sorry I don't have any OT powers, I will repeat the
>> auditing question.
>>      Why do you believe OT powers do not exist?
>>      PC: Do YOU believe in OT powers?
>>      Auditor: Sorry, I have no idea one way or the other, I will repeat
>> the auditing question.
>>      Why do you believe OT powers do not exist?
>>      PC: Well that's easy because no one has ever demonstrated that they
>> exist.
>>      Auditor: OK, thank you I got that.
>>      (Ok, in the first place the pc doesn't know that, he has asserted the
>> unassertable.  All he knows is no one has ever demomstrated OT powers TO
>> HIM.  Such an interpolated generalization would be considered dharma
>> treason and get him kicked out of any true scientific debate in history.
>>      That's like saying in 1770 that flying was impossible because no one
>> had built an airplane yet.  Just because no one can do OT powers, doesn't
>> mean they do not exist and aren't there for the taking.
>>      His assertion is also based on the idea that if scientific proof of
>> such powers existed, they would immediately be rushed to publication in
>> Nature, and the whole world would know about it by now.
>>      That's like saying if there were evidence of aliens coming to
>> attack us, we would have read it in the newspapers by now.
>>      Or if the CIA found a reliable way to do remote viewing the whole
>> process would be published in the Pentagon Review.
>>      He will say, "sure but someone would have leaked it by now."
>>      Maybe, maybe not, but the point is the absence of demonstration
>> doesn't mean OT powers have not been or are not available.  Maybe no one
>> has any OT powers in present time.  Maybe they just have demonstrated
>> them to HIM.
>>      Maybe a lot of things, but in any case it just isn't true that the
>> reason he believes that OT powers don't exist is because 'no one has
>> ever demonstrated OT powers.'
>>      That is not why he doesn't believe.
>>      So like any good auditing process, you continue with the process
>> and ask the question again until you get the right answer.)
>>      Auditor: Why do you believe OT powers do not exist?
>>      PC: Well because they are impossible!
>>      (The anatomy of an incredibility is a certainty that something is
>> true and a certainty that something is impossible.  The mind can not
>> think beyond an incredibility or a threatened incredibility.
>>      Thus the mere assertion that OT powers exist throws his entire
>> reality into an incredibility, and stops him cold in his tracks.
>>      He's gotta know right now!
>>      His need to know if they exist, assuming they do, override any need
>> for secrecy or discretion on the part of the people who have those
>> powers.  And if given the chance he would sacrifice those very same
>> people if only he could get them to demonstrate a power that was
>> convincing enough.  His attitude is to hell with the person who had the
>> power, now I can get on with my life knowing they exist.
>> edit
>>      If we could just get the preclear to not know if OT powers are
>> POSSIBLE or not, then we could get him to not know if they EXISTED or
>> not, rather than be adamantly firm that they don't.)
>>      Auditor: Thank you, why do you believe that OT powers do not exist?
>>      PC: Well you see it is like this.  There is this great big universe
>> of space and time and matter and energy out there that existed long
>> before any human beings came along to have OT powers.  From all those
>> parts flying around in space, planets were made, and seas were formed,
>> and amino acids came to be, and then DNA, then cells and finally bodies
>> with brains except for Churchies who skipped the brain stage, etc.
>>      Eventually consciousness and self awareness formed as a process in
>> the brain and we finally have human beings.
>>      Now the problem is that because consciousness is a process in the
>> brain, consciousness can only do what the brain can do, because
>> consciousness IS only some part of the brain in action.
>>      First since the universe existed prior to the existence of brains,
>> it must have existed prior to the existence of consciousness too, and
>> thus any claims that consciousness had anything to do with the creation
>> of the universe, have cause and effect backwards.
>>      The universe created brains and consciousness, and therefore it
>> can't be true that consciousness created the universe and brains.
>>       Unless of course you have a universe with circular time where
>> something later can, later on, end up causing something earlier.
>>      Godel said that General Relativity threw doubts on our sense of
>> causation, because such universes where time loops back on itself
>> perfectly, are possible.
>>      Whatever the nature of cause would be in a time looped back on
>> itself universe would also have to be true of our universe, so he said
>> the ideas of linear time and linear cause are in doubt in all universes.
>>      Godel also said that if Special Relativity is true, that our
>> concept of time itself is completely wrong.  It is usually considered
>> that NOW is all the points in space time that actually exist right now,
>> and everything else no longer exists because it is in the past or
>> doesn't exist yet because it is in the future.
>>      The problem is that moving observers will report different points
>> in space and time that are in the set of NOW points.  And Godel said it
>> is no problem if measurements of time are relative, but it wasn't ok if
>> EXISTENCE was relative.
>>      Also I know that the quantum boys believe that nothing exists
>> except as a wave form of probabilties until something or someone
>> actually observes it, and thus it might take a conscious observer to
>> make the universe precipitate into existence in the first place, but
>> they are confused.
>>      So I know there are problems with our concepts of space and time,
>> but certain things are inexorable, like the conservation of energy and
>> the speed of light.
>>      Take telepathy for example.  Where's the energy wave that carries
>> thoughts from person to person across space time?  Why can't the
>> scientists measure that energy transfer from brain to brain?
>>      Telepathy is also supposed to travel infinitely fast, but that
>> violates the limitations imposed by the speed of light.
>>      The speed of light is not just the speed of light it is the speed
>> of CAUSATION as it moves through the universe.  For example if there is
>> a war on Earth, those on Alpha Centauri can not possibly know about it
>> until 4 years later.
>>      But if someone on earth could relay to his brother on Alpha
>> Centauri via telepathy when the war was started, his brother could know
>> ahead of time that the war was on and invest in the market accordingly.
>>      Now I don't care about that, but it becomes infinitely problematic
>> when data and thus causation can get from A to B faster than the speed
>> of light, because according to the equations of time, time could be made
>> to run backwards, thus messing up the linear straightforward motion of
>> causation.
>>      As for telekinesis, again its a matter of energy.  If you are going
>> to move the marble on the table that would take a very determinable
>> amount of ergs of energy that would have to emmanate from your brain
>> processes, go through your forehead and hit the marble.
>>      But that level of energy would make your brain explode, and anyhow
>> there is nothing in the brain that could possibly generate that much
>> energy, so there is no way telekinesis could work.
>>      As for exteriorization, the brain can't leave the brain, so there
>> is no way it could possibly leave the body to see the world remotely.
>> Further the brain needs a lens to focus the image, if something were
>> outside the body, even if it could pick up photons, it would have to
>> have a lens to focus the image to see what was emitting the photons.
>>      Where is the lens?
>>      As for life after death, the whole thing is an oxymoron, once the
>> brain dies, all its processes die, you can guarantee that through
>> cremation, so how could consciousness, which is a process in the brain,
>> continue on?
>>       As for past life memories, if the consciousness can't survive brain
>> death, how could it have lived before to have any memories, it just
>> doesn't make sense.
>>       Auditor: OK, thanks for all that, I got it.
>>       Auditor: Your needle is floating, this is end of session.
>>       Homer
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Homer Wilson Smith     The Paths of Lovers    Art Matrix - Lightlink
>> (607) 277-0959 KC2ITF        Cross            Internet Access, Ithaca NY
>> homer at    In the Line of Duty
>> Thu Dec  3 23:48:00 EST 2009
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Homer Wilson Smith     The Paths of Lovers    Art Matrix - Lightlink
>> (607) 277-0959 KC2ITF        Cross            Internet Access, Ithaca NY
>> homer at    In the Line of Duty
>> ======================= ========================
>> Posted: Tue Dec  8 23:22:52 EST 2009
>> Send mail to saying help
>> _______________________________________________
>> Clear-l mailing list
>> Clear-l at
> _______________________________________________
> Clear-L mailing list
> Clear-L at
Clear-L mailing list
Clear-L at
Tue Dec 22 17:00:49 EST 2009

================ ====================
Wed Dec 12 12:00:02 EST 2018
Send mail to archive at saying help in body
=========== ===============
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.

Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)


More information about the HomerWSmith-L mailing list