A symbol is an object that is used to symbolize or refer to a

     A referent is an object that is symbolized or referred to by a

     An object is anything with qualities, or more accurately a quality

     A nothing is an object with no qualities, an empty quality set.

     A something is an object with some qualities, a non empty quality

     Symbols and referents are TWO DIFFERENT OBJECTS that are used to
refer to each other.

     As two different objects, a symbol and referent have two different
quality sets, the symbol has its own set of qualities and the referent
has its own set of other qualities.

     Two different objects implies two different quality sets and two
different quality sets implies two different objects.

     Some of the qualities of the symbol are MAPPED onto the qualities
of the referent, thus the symbol can be used to refer to the referent.

     There is always a causal pathway between a referent and a symbol.

     Without the causal pathway, the symbol would never have been
conceived to refer to the referent.

     Thus we have the idea that a referent/symbol pair implies

     We extend this to assert the converse that by definition that
causation implies referent/symbol pairs.

     Thus ANY two events in a causal pathway are referent and symbol to
each other.

     The earlier event is a referent, and the later event is the symbol.

     The later event contains data about the earlier event, thus the
symbol has data content referring back to the referent.

     Thus one can infer from the nature of the symbol back to the nature
of the referent.

     This is called learning about the referent by looking at the
symbol, and is the definition of mechanical learning, learning by being
an effect.

     Such inference however is never certain, as the inference depends
on the unprovable assumption that the symbol was in fact caused by the

     The data content of the symbol falls off in proportion to its
causal distance from the referent.

     Causal distance is distance in space, time and number of
intervening events, called causal hops, between referent and symbol.

     Spacetime distance implies causal distance for there has to be at
least TWO events for there to be space or time between them.

     Causal distance implies spacetime distance because two events that
happen in the same space *AND* at the same time are considered to be one
event, with causal distance zero between them.

     One can not learn with certainty about any referent by looking at a
symbol removed from the referent by a causal or spacetime distance.

     Mechanical learning is learning about a referent by looking at
later symbols.

     Conscious learning is learning about a referent by looking at the
referent directly in present time.

     Conscious mockups (of color form or sound form say) are self
luminous or self symbolizing.

     It is possible for a referent to be used to symbolize itself.

     This is called a self symbolizing referent or a self referencing

     As such the referent and the symbol are not two different objects
but one and the same object.  Since they have identical quality sets,
the data content of the symbol is an exact match with the truth of the
referent and thus a perfect certainty can be obtained about the referent
by looking at the symbol because the symbol IS the referent.

     Notice that since a self symbolizing referent and its symbol
(namely itself) are one and the same object there can be no space, time
or causal distance between them.

     Where normal referents and symbols relate to each other by cause
and effect across a causal distance, a self symbolizing referent relates
to its symbol by causeeffect across no causal distance.

     Causeeffect is when cause and effect are one and the same event.

     All mechanical phenomenon are causal chains of referent and symbol
operating across a 4 dimensional spacetime causal distance.

     One learns mechanically about referents by looking at later
symbols.  This gives rise to theories and probabilities about the
referent but no perfect certainty.

     All conscious phenomenon are causal chains of self symbolizing
(self luminous) referents operating within a zero dimensional no space,
no time, no causal distance.

     One learns consciously about referents by looking directly at the
referent.  This gives rise to perfect certainty.

     Learning about a referent by looking directly at the referent is
called conscious seeing.

     Machine's can not see, they can only infer possibilities.

     If there were actual space, time or causal distance between a being
and his color mockups, he would not be able to SEE them.

     If the mockup of two different colors you made out there 10 feet in
front of your face were actually out there, not just in illusion of out
there, you wouldn't be able to see them.

     You would only be able to BE something different as a result of
them, from which you might then infer back to their possible existence.

     Is that how you see a red mockup?  An inference from an effect in

     Or do you just see the red mockup period.

     Yes seeing the red IS an effect in yourself, but are you learning
about the red by looking at the secondary effect, or by looking directly
at the red?

     Since you can see your mockups, they aren't out there where they
look to be.  

     When people say that something is not out there, others tend to take
this to mean the thing doesn't exist at all.

     When we say that color mockups are not out there, we mean only that
they are not out there, they do exist, but not out there where they look
like they are.  The distance between perceiver and perceived is illusory,
holographic in nature.

     Thus conscious perception of space is a reality of space, not an
actuality of space.

     And thus consciousness has no dimension of any kind, and no
space/time or causal distance between Looker and Looked At.


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

Mon Jan  2 20:47:30 EST 2006