Difference implies existence.

      You can't BE different with out BEING first.

      Thus look around you.

      Do you see two different colors?

      Well there can't BE two different colors, unless there is BEING

      Thus difference implies existence.

      Thus something exists now.

      Would you bet your eternity in hell on it?


      Would you bet everyone else's eternity in hell on it too?


      Its a safe bet, because if nothing exists, then there is no you and
no hell to worry about even if you lose the bet!

      Certainty of difference implies certainty of existence.

      A machine can't do this.

      A machine can not see anything with certainty.  not even itself,
let alone two different colors out there.

      A machine is a system of parts interacting via cause and effect
across a space time distance.

      A space time gizmo.

      Machines are made of parts that change state allegedly because of
external causes impinging on them.

      A sensor gets hit by a photon, and an electron is released causing
a circuit to trip and ring a bell.

      Is the event of the bell ringing the same thing as the photon?


      Does the bell ringing *GUARANTEE* the existence of the photon?


      Thus parts in the sensor change state due to external impingment by
other parts, namely in this case the photon.

      But a part can not even tell that it has changed state, so how can
it tell that it has been impinged upon, let alone what the nature of the
source of that impingement might be?

      You might argue that the electron couldn't be there unless it had
been kicked out of orbit by the photon.  Let me tell you, God can put an
electron where ever he damn well pleases.  It's only a theory that God
doesn't exist and can't do this.

      And anyhow that electron could have gotten kicked out of orbit for
no reason at all, if you are to believe quantum mechanics, so there is
no certainty of tracking between the presence of the electron and the
alleged photon that came in to trigger it.

      Learning by being impinged upon is learning by indirect
observation, one looks at B to learn about A, one looks at one's
self to learn about whatever external event one is interested in.

      One looks at changes in one's self to learn about what caused those
changes in self.

      The sensor sees the electron and concludes there might have been a
photon.  That is indirect observation and this only results in theory
not certainty.

      Consciousness learns about its color forms by direct observation,
it is in direct causal contact with them, in fact learner and learned
about are one and the same object, even though it looks like there is
space between them.

      If there WERE space between learner and learned about, there could
be no direct contact, and thus no direct observation and thus no

      The illusion is that the learner is here, and the colors are out
there.  Ain't so, can't be.  If the colors were really out there, then
no one could see them.  If consciousness were spread out over space and
time in actuality, then consciousness would not be able to be conscious,
see with certainty, anything, including itself.

      Consciousness MEANS to see with certainty.

      Thus since consciousness can see with certainty its own color
forms, there can be no space nor time between the existence of the color
forms and the seeing/learning of them, and in fact the seeing and
learning about the color forms must therefore be one and the same event
as the existence of the color forms.

      Thus existence of color forms implies seeing/learning about their
existence.  No spacetime between learner and learned about.

      Color forms are self luminous, not lit by anything else, and self
intelligent, they are self aware of their own self luminousness.

      The I, the learner, and the color forms, the learned about, are one
and the same object, one and the same event.  The illusion of space
between them is only that, an illusion.

      Mortality and the belief in space time arises from the delusion
that the illusion of outthereness is not an illusion but actual.

      Consciousness represents to us that there is space between learner
and perceived, between the I and the red out there, and thus we are born
to die because we are made of parts spread out over a distance, and thus
can be 'busted apart'.

      However just because we SEE space, doesn't mean there IS space.

      And worse, it doesn't take any space to create the illusion of

      Thus the hologram, which portrays 3 space dimensions and one time
dimension, is actually lacking any dimension itself.

      Space is a viewPOINT of dimension, a point of no dimension from
which one can then engage in illusions and delusions about viewing

      Redness is not a quality of photons.  Redness is a quality of
conscious color forms.  Conscious color forms are made of the stuff that
consciousness is made of, not photons.

      You can see red without photons.  And even when the redness is
allegedly precursed by photons, the photons are LONG GONE by the time
the redness shows up in your conscious display screen.

      There is at least a few milliseconds between the photon being eaten
by the retina and the image showing up in your conscoiusness.

      But there is no time at all between the image showing up in your
consciousness, and you seeing that image!

      And there is no redness inside the brain either, nothing at all in
the brain that could be described as red.

      Photons have nothing about them that could be described as red.
Redness does not apply to photons, any more than the square root applies
to dogs.

      Only a conscious color form can be red, or green, or yellow, or

      Thus when you are looking at two different colors, say red and
yellow, you are not looking at photons, you are not looking at anything
in or of the physical universe, because if you were you couldn't see
them!  Instead they would be impinging on you, causing you to change
state, from which you would conclude that maybe there is something out
there causing it.


      Being an effect does not prove the existence of cause.

      A machine which can only learn by being an effect can never prove
that causes exist at all!

      Thus a machine can never see anything, it can only change state,
and even then can't know for sure it has changed state!

      So look at the red and the green, notice you are certain you see
two different colors out there.  Realize you are not concluding that
there must be two different colors out there because of some OTHER
phenomenon such as a change in state in yourself.

      You aren't learning about red and green by looking at
something else!

      You are concluding there are two different colors out there because
you can see them directly.  And you can see the CAUSE between the color
form and yourself that makes you KNOW for sure that your perception of
them is right.

      That's called learning by looking at cause, direct observation of

      Machine's can only learn by looking at effects, indirect
observation of source.

      Machine's have no clue whether there is anything out there at all,
they only report what they are trained to report from the changes they
have undergone in themselves.

      Direct seeing is not thinking, direct seeing is not concluding
there must be something there because of some OTHER thing one has
noticed in oneself.

      Direct seeing is concluding something is there because of direct
contact with the thing that is there.

      Machines have no direct contact with ANYTHING, not even themselves,
thus a machine can't directly see anything, and thus can be certain of

      Certainty is consciousness-of, consciousness is certainty-of.

      Without consciousness there is no certainty, and where there is
certainty there is consciusness.

      Consciousness IS the process of certainty taking place between
learner and learned about by direct observation, direct perception of

      A machine can't do that.

      You are not a machine.

      Although you have been acting like one for a very long time.

      Oil, yum!


- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith     The Paths of Lovers    Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF        Cross            Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com    In the Line of Duty    http://www.lightlink.com

Wed Feb  7 01:04:58 EST 2007

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Jan  5 03:06:02 EST 2015
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
================== 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.

Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

Mon Jan  5 13:53:15 EST 2015