Consciousness is a constellation of functions belonging to the
conscious unit, the self aware agent being who is aware of the 4
fundamental qualities of himself.

    I AM
    I WANT
    I DO

    The constellation of functions are

    The LOOKER

     The looker is the self aware agent I-AM of the conscious unit.

     This is the same I as the I AM, I WANT, I KNOW and I DO.

     The I-AM is God in carnation.

     God is the AllThatIS and is a multi I-AM being.

     The looked through is the illusion of space and time that
separates the looker from the looked at.

     The looked at is the panoply of conscious experiences,
color-forms, that surround the being.  Looked ats include any
conscious experience at all, not just visual, including, sound, taste,
smell, feeling, emotion, thought, ideas etc.

     The term 'color-form' applies to any conscious experience, not
just visual.  A color-form is any space time arrangement of conscious
experiences or looked ats.

     Anything the being is conscious of, anything at all, is a looked
at, a color form, and a conscious experience.  All three terms mean
exactly the same thing.

     The dictionary has many definitions of consciousness, we are only
interested in the first one,

     Consiousness: 1.) The state or condition of being conscious.

     Conscious: 1.) Having an awareness of one's own existence,
sensations, thoughts and one's environment.

     All consciousness is consciousness-of.

     Aware: 1.) Conscious

     Sentient: 1.) Conscious

     Sentient howver comes from 'sense', and is used to refer to sense

     For example we don't usually consider a rock sentient, in that it
has little in the way of ability to sense impingements and respond to

     Some plants however, such as the mimosa will fold up instantly
upon being touched, and the morning glory will bloom only during the
early sun.

     Surely they are 'sensitive' and can sense their environment, but
are they sentient?

     Do we care if the enemy robot army is 'aware' of us?

     A machine will surely record a symbol in its memory bank
representing that it has sensed your existence, but is this sentience?

     A machine trying to be aware of itself, will only produce an
endless stream of symbols representing the existence of prior symbols,
none of which are sure.  Thus whatever sentience a machine has, it
isn't certainty.

     Consciousness however has a sentience that includes certainty of

     When you see red, you KNOW you see red, no question about it.

     A machine can be impinged upon and record that impingement, but
it can never see what it is that impinged upon it.  The original
source of the impingement is long gone in space and time by the time
the causal messenger wave crosses that space and time and hits the

     This is why when you look up at the sky, the stars you see are
many millions of years old, and what you see is long gone and no more.

     The 'star' may still be there, but not the star you are seeing,
and in many cases the star in toto is long gone and doesn't exist any
more at all, even though there it is shining in the sky.

     This is because the causal messenger wave, light, takes time to
travel from the edge of the universe to where you are, sometimes
across billions of years.

     By the time the message gets to you, your lover is long dead.

     In fact just because you see the star now doesn't mean the star
ever existed at all, because God could easily have created the entire
universe 6000 years ago as if it had been here for billions of years.
Thus the universe may have been created with that star light already
in transit, never having been emitted by an actual star.

     Not only is any universe creator quite capable of doing this, 50
percent of the American population believes just this, the Earth and
the universe it is in is 6000 years old, created to appear 15 billion.

     Ok, so this is the problem with machine sentience, machine
learning, a machine can only receive an impingement from a causal
messenger wave traveling at a finite speed across space and time.

     Further the idea that the resulting impingement was sourced by a
*STAR* is an enormous tortuous trail of theory and speculation, and
deductive logic, no certainty there, only tests of time etc.

     This is all very different than a conscious unit looking at a red
conscious experience and knowing it is seeing red.

     The red conscious experience, as a looked at, is not lit by
anything except itself, and does not emit anything across the looked
through to the looker.

     No photons, no causal messenger wave, yes there is an impingement
on the looker from the red, but the looker can see what impinged on
him by looking AT THE RED DIRECTLY.

     You see a machine can't do that.

     A machine can never look at nor know for sure the source of any
impingement at all.

     A conscious unit can.

     This is because with the machine there is space and time imposed
between machine and source, thus rendering them two different objects.
     The machine learns about the source (A) by looking at itself (B).

     You can never have certainty about A by looking at B.

     This is the necessary fate of any two different objects, neither
will ever see the other directly, they can only see each other
indirectly via looking at each other's impingements in themselves.

     In a machine the looker knows about the looked at only by looking
at the looker and deducing back to a possible looked at.

     Causation remains forever a theory to a machine.

     A conscious unit however can see the red directly, the source of
its impingement.  In a conscious unit, the looker knows about the
looked at by looking directly at the looked at.

     This produces perfect certainty that not only does the looked at
exist, but also cerrtainty of its nature (red) and the fact that is
was the source of the felt impingement!  Certainty of causation is a
miracle found only in conscious units.

     This can happen because in a conscious unit, looker and looked at
are not separated by a space time distance and thus are not two
different objects.

     The seeer and the seen are one and the same.

     The looker and the looked at are one and the same object and

     There is no time between the arising of the seen and the seeing
of it, because the seen IS the seeing of it.

     That means the I-AM is whatever it sees.  Hubbard said you can be
what you see.  Truth is you are what you see, but the illusion of
separation, the looked through, divides the I-AM looker from the red
looked at.  The I-AM is here, and the red is out there.

     Here and there are illusions.

     As are now and then.

     Delusion, which is rock solid belief in the illusion, leads to
the dwindling spiral of consciousness.

     Where else would you expect a belief in non existent separation
to get you?

     There is no space time distance between I-AM's either.

     Operating as a machine the consciousness has located itself in a
'body' with 'sense organs' that pick up impingements from the alleged
physical universe.

     Thus consciousness has fallen down to assigning its conscious
experiences, of which it can be certain, to events in the physical
universe of which is can not be certain.

     The conscious experience is relegated to a mere symbol for the
alleged actual physical universe referent.

     Worse the conscious unit has collapsed symbol and referent and
habitually thinks there is only the referent.  The conscious unit has
forgotten that it is seeing the physical universe through a TV screen,
namely itself, and thinks it sees the physical universe directly.

     The conscious unit thinks the TV screen is a clear glass window,
into the physical world.

     Thus the conscious unit will say things like photon's have color,
like redness.

     Photons, even if they did exist, which they don't, except as
dream machines, have numerous qualities, speed, frequency, energy,
momentum, but they don't have redness or color as part of their
quality set.

     Any physicist will tell you this, then quickly skip over the
question of what then does have the quality of redness?

     Conscious experiences however, being perceived directly in the
spaceless timeless dimensionless medium of consciousness itself, do
not have speed, frequency, energy or momentum, but guess what, they
have color, redness, for example.

     This is very hard to discuss with a meatball, they just won't
have it.  They can't uncollapse the certain symbol from the uncertain

     They need to be certain of the referent, so they usurp the
certainty of their own conscious symbol and assign it to the referent.

     That's like a living conscious unit looking at a rock and saying
'You are alive and I am not'.

     What do you expect to happen to a being who assigns away his
certainty of his own existence to things of which he can't possibly be

     In collapsing their color form experience with the alleged
physical universe, they have assigned their certainty of the symbol to
the referent!

     Thus they are certain the physical universe exists, but think
consciousness is merely a process in the brain.

     This produces an inverted being, he is 'certain' of what he can't
be certain of, and not certain of what he can be certain of.

     Collapsing symbol and referent and assigning the qualities of the
symbol to the referent has its uses in game play, but when it becomes
an irreversible stance of the mind, the being can be considered to be

     What is more insane, a man that thinks it is a God, or a God that
thinks it is a man?

     What is more insane, a dimensionality that thinks it is non
dimensional, or a non dimensionality that thinks it is dimensional?

     What is more insane, a machine that thinks it is a conscious
unit, or a conscious unit that thinks it is a machine?


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

Thu Feb  8 01:50:06 EST 2007