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@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com Sat Jan 30 01:14:03 EST 2010