Mr.  Zindler,

     Your comments about free will and my Father's work Man and his
God's are of course correct.

     A will that is undetermined by ANYTHING would in fact be
undesirable as its actions would not be based on desire for good or
bad, but in fact would be random.

     Since there are more ways to harm than to help, a will operating
randomly would in fact be worse than evil.

     Factually nothing can be free of its own nature, everything acts
according to what it is.  The will certainly desires pleasure and
dislikes pain, so clearly right there its actions will be determined
by what we call the Law of Normal Direction.

     A 'normal' is a right angle to a surface, in this case isobars of
pleasure, lines of constant pleasure.  Isobars are like altitude lines
on a map, showing areas of constant altitude.

     The hiker wanting to go down hill as fast as possible will take
the route at right angles to the isobar he is presently on.  Downhill
is 'pleasure' in this case.

     The law of normal direction says that the Will will take the
shortest course from one line of constant pleasure to the next higher
pleasure isobar.

     This is summed up in the equation


     The will computes what to do from what it wants, and what it
knows about how things work.

     Desire itself can not be changed by the will unless it desires to
do so.  What things bring pleasure and what bring pain are pretty well
determined in the survival make up of the organism.

     Pleasure is connected to pro survival actions by the process of
evolution if not some higher philosophical authority.

     Sometimes some pleasures are addicting or damaging, such as the
pleasure of drugs or poisons, or even sex.

     Thus public morals are put in place as warnings against such
things with penalties to those who endanger the greater good by
endangering themselves or others.  It harms everyone to harm oneself,
one does not have an inalienable right to harm even ones own self
except if it serves the greater good.  They invested in you after all,
and harming yourself wastes that investment, violates their trust and
rightly expected return on investment.

     The real issue here is how the will relates to other wills, will it
be selfish and gather its own pleasure at other's expense (criminal), or
will it be sensitive to others and consider others pleasure and pain its
own?  Anyone who loves a child understands what another's pain means.

     We can assume that beings are fundamentally sensitive, all are
'one' emotionally.  This is a pro survival attribute and it takes
quite a lot to shut it down.

     Stress and shortages of resources can drive a being to withdraw
his area of sensitivity to include only his close family when he is
forced to choose between himself and others.

     When pushed to extremes people will steal and even kill each
other to protect their own resources.  It takes quite a different
person to sacrific himself for a total stranger.  So they draw straws
and the remaining one sits down to dinner.

     Justifications like color of skin, belief systems etc allow him
to cement the competition and ex cooperation between entire groups of
people and himself even when it is not necessary.

     People will share with total strangers of the same skin because
the stranger is added work force who can help produce more.

     But they won't share with the people across the lake because they
smell odd.

     Thus sensitivity can die and the being acts badly usually to his
own detriment.

     "Guilt, Stupidity, Shambles and Shame, Ex CoOperation is the name
of the game." -

     Punishment when designed to act as a learnable lesson is useful
and practical.  Punishments like hell FOREVER do nothing of benefit to
the punished and harm the punisher as much as the punished.

     When there is no lesson to learn or the lesson can not be
learned, then the punisher needs to learn a lesson.

     Thus hell forever is insanity.

     But hell for a while might make sense, if it stopped once the
being understood.

     In fact beings that wish hell forever off an another, no matter
the reason merely create such hells forever for themselves, either in
this life or in the after life if you believe in such things.  But
such hells end once they give it up.  That makes sense.

     Such hells exist already whether or not one wants to believe in
God or Religion, as any psychotherapist will tell you, getting the
person out of his hells is mainly a matter of finding out who or what
he is wishing into a hell and why.  The regret is a big part of it.

     Maybe there are psychotherapists in the after life, let us hope
so if we are inclined to believe in such things.

     Beyond that the whole issue of whether the physical universe is a
state determined machine or is capable of prime postulates that
originate periodically 'out of the blue' or some higher blue, but not
determined from the past within the universe, is still open to

     More particularly the idea that consciousness is merely a process
in or even arises from a process in a mechanical system such as the
brain is in grave doubt.  A little intelligence will show that
consciousness itself, and its capacity for perfect certainty of its
own existence, is in fact direct evidence of something that transcends
mechanics, things operating via cause and effect acorss a spacetime

     Mechanics can not give rise to perfect certainty, since mechanics
learns about A by looking at B.  One can never attain perfect
certainty of A by looking at B.

     Photon of 5000 Angstroms comes from the sun, bounces off the red
face of the Rubik's cube, hits the eye, gets to the retina, optic
nerve, optic chiasm, corpus collosum, visual cortex and gets displayed
in your consciousness.

     By the time you see RED in your conscious pictures, the 5000
Angstrom is long gone.

     You see that's learning about the cube (external referent) by
looking at an internal symbol, the red picture in your conscious
picture.  That's learning about A by looking at B.  No way can that
produce certainty about the cube.

     However you ARE perfectly certainty of what you see in your
consciousness.  A massively over looked fact.

     Since consciousness is capable of perfect certainty within
itself, it can not be mechanical, meaning no space/time, no serialized
cause or effect as we know it.

     Consciousness is not luminated by another like the cube is,
consciousness is self luminous.  When it comes to knowing you are
conscious, symbol and referent are one, cause and effect are one.

     That might sound like hoke from a new age crystal gazer, but its
dead serious science.

     The quantum guys are just beginning to talk about the non local
universe, that which causes things in this universe but which itself
is not describable in terms of locations in space or time, even its

     Learning across a distance is a form of mechanical learning
regardless of what does it.

     One never sees the referent dreictly, the learned about, only the
symbol received a short while later of that referent.

     Perception of symbol does not produce certainty of referent.

     Such learning does not produce perfect certainty of the referent
because there is no direct contact with the referent.  By the time the
photon from the sun hits your eys, the sun could be long gone.

     And surely photons aren't red green or blue.  This is a mis
assignment of qualities of conscious experiences to alleged external

     It is confusing the qualities of the object used as a symbol (our
conscious color forms) with the qualities of the alleged physical
unierse referent (the photon) which of course no one has ever seen.

     And no where in the brain is anything that is red, except blood.

     Ultimately all we can see is our conscious experiences.

     The perfect certainty of that experiencing precludes such s from
being a mechanical space/time process.

     The 'process of perfect certainty' is in fact an absolute

     These facts are on rock solid ground as any scientist worthy of
his name will tell you.

     1.) Learning implies learning with certainty or learning with not

     2.) Learning across a space/time distance implies learning by
looking at effects, not directly at causes.

     3.) Learning by looking at effects implies not learning with
certainty about causes, nor anything else for that matter, including
existence, state or change in state.

     Here we leave present day science behind however and extend
ourselves into the new.

     4.) Learning with certainty about cause, existence, state and
change in state exists in concsiousness.

     Therefore learning with certainty in consciousness implies
learning, but not across a space time distance and not by looking at

     So what does Learning but not across a space/time distance mean,
and what does 'not by looking at effects' mean.

     It means that consciousness is nonlocal, scalar, zero
dimensional, the learning takes place by looking directly at causes
not by looking at secondary effects presumed to have been caused by
what is under study.

     If the process of seeing red consciousness were mechanical, you
couldn't see it, as you would be looking at something else later in
the causal pathway and inferring back to the possibility that it was
red that started it.

     Thus the issue of what is will and is it free of state
determinism from the past of space/time is replaced by the issue of
what is the nature of the monitoring higher universe of non locality
with no space or time which none the less has causal influence over
the universe of space and time.

     In the end true cause is not what happens between photon and cube
or photon and your eye.

     True causality lies in what pushes time forward frame by frame.
If time didn't move forward, nothing inside of space/time would move

     Thus in some sense the serialized cause effect sequences we see
IN space/time, are themselves illusions, virtual realities if you
will, while the whole space/time universe is itself powered through
time by the real cause, the external non local universe.

     Yes, this implies that there is more to consciousness and the
Will than can be explained in the brain.

     This has already been asserted, the brain is a space/time machine
and is thus incapable of perfect certainty.  Consciousness is capable
of perfect certainty of itself and its experiences, and thus can not
be a machine and thus can not be merely a process in the brain.

     For many that may portend an entrance into 'religion' if you
will, but really its just a deeper science based on the observations
of perfect certainty and their impossiblity in the world of mechanics.

     Relativity was strange to most people when it first came out.

     Well perfect certainty is stranger still, certainty of existence,
of difference, of change in time etc, are all impossible in a
mechanical model of learning by looking at effects.

     No machine can be built that can prove with perfect certainty
that any effects are caused, nor can any machine prove that it has
even changed changed state with perfect certainty, or that any change
is taking place at all.

     No machine can even prove with perfect certainty that it exists.

     Thus no machine can be perfectly certain of existence, cause or

     Since consciousness is perfectly certain of all three, of its own
exitence and the existence of its color form perceptions, of its own
agency, and of change in time, there is no way consciousness can be
modeled in a mechanical system.

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

     Consciousness may however able to be interfaced with such a
machine such as the brain.

     On the other hand maybe not.

     Ramifications may be unacceptable to the reader.

     Homer Wilson Smith

Homer Wilson Smith     The Paths of Lovers    Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF        Cross            Internet Access, Ithaca NY    In the Line of Duty

Fri Dec 30 22:28:22 EST 2005