Homer Wilson Smith
HomerWSmith at lightlink.com
Thu Jan 31 14:54:28 EST 2019
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
There are lots of times a being can have evidence for something
that he can not show others.
Beings can have all kinds of experiences and awarenesses that give
them high probability that the spiritual world exists but will be
utterly incapapble of showing those events to another.
A being can prove things TO HIMSELF. Even then one might argue
that applicability to the out there world is still open to question.
But if a being can get out of his body, go visit corporate board rooms,
get inside information on stock movements, come back into the body,
invest and win, and do this repeatedly, then who cares if anyone else
knows about it. He has proven he is effectively out relative to his
body to his own survival satisfaction.
The ethics of doing this however is another matter.
The meatball will scream that if you can't show it to him, then it
either doesn't exist, is an hallucination or doesn't count as
That's fine but at some point you will have to realize that being
'scientific' isn't the be all and end all of existence.
Finding and knowing the truth is.
Very good science can attain very good results and still be
unshowable to others because of their own mental, emotional, physical or
Truth has nothing to do with others.
The highest truth about others would be a perfect certainty that
they even exist.
The exitence of all peers is unpeer reviewed.
It is tempting to say that observations are always certain, and you
have observed that others exist just as you do.
But when the apparatus of observation itself is based on theory,
then observations made through that theory become themselves merely
Remember that learning about causes different or separated from you
by space, time or nature, never produce a certainty but only an
uncertain theory for the rest of time.
The way you know YOU exist through self luminous consciousness, and
the way you know OTHERS exist through causal pathways along concourses
of stone and meat, are two completely different ball games.
Your own existence is a direct observation, it can't be wrong.
Other's existence is a scientific theory at best, until you have
directly seen the consciousness of another.
How can you certifiy that a peer exists if you haven't any
certified peers yet to corroborate your theory that peers exist?
Usually the first peer to be certified as existing, is certified
without corroboration of others, out of desperation.
Someone has to get the 'scientific' ball rolling.
You see someone new, so you ask the guy next to you if they see him
too. But how do you know the guy next to you isn't a hallucination
helping you certify other hallucinations?
Formal science ignores this problem completely, and every science
can be traced down to its first uncertified peer.
All you know for sure is you and what you are conscious of exists,
so in the end you are alone with your truth.
A meatball is to some extent in the position of a person blind from
birth who can not see nor imagine color.
So you say 'I see a red car', and the blind person says "prove it!"
You say, "Well I can't show you the red because you are blind."
So the blind person says "How do you know you aren't imagining or
hallucinating the red car."
You say "Well I don't, but the halluincation is still red, and I
still see it!"
Or you say "You know back in 1973 I saw Goober do something
indicating the government was in on the drug trade in cocaine."
Someone else says "Prove it!"
Well you can't show him what you saw, the only evidence remaining
is your crystal clear memory.
The point is you have evidence where others don't, and you have to
call the shots in your world according to your experiences regardless of
other's involvement in replicating them.
Maybe some truths will or should always be replicatable by others,
but depending on the truth and the quality of your uncertified peers, it
may be a very long time between now and then.
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
Sun May 2 01:01:41 EDT 2010
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Jan 31 12:00:04 EST 2019
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-----
More information about the HomerWSmith-L