LOOKER AND LOOKED AT When you are dealing with a conscious unit, you are dealing with a LOOKER and his LOOKED-ATs. For example, spot some color around you in the room, that's a looked at. The looked at is being looked at by a looker, which is you, the conscious agent I. Agent means causally capable. Agency is cause. The illusion of space gives the apparency of a "looked through" between the looker and the looked at. For a machine the looked through may be actual, but for a conscious unit, it is an illusion, there is no true separation between looker and looked at. The proof tells us this, because two different objects can only see each other by looking at impingments in themselves. If the looker and the looked at were two different objects as the apparency of consciousness of color presents to us, then the only way the looker could come to know about the looked at is to be the effect of the looked at, and then COMPUTE backwards in time from the effect received now to the nature of cause a few nanoseconds before. Thus the looker would never actually SEE the looked at, only the effect in the looker allegedly caused by the looked at, and the process of logical deduction that followed from the effect in the looker back to the looked at. If there were true separation between the conscious looker and the looked at, the looker wouldn't be able to see the looked at, at all. The looked at would be a mere theory to the looker, not a directly perceived perfect certainty. If you can see something and it looks like it is OUT THERE, then it can't be out there, because if it were you wouldn't be able to see it. Thus seeing implies no space or time between looker and looked at, the looked through just isn't there except as a holographic delusion. If you consider a machine looking at something, for example a camera taking a picture of an apple on a table, the best the machine can do is receive the impingments of photons, and record them in its memory bank. At no time does the machine have direct contact with the apple! The idea that the photons originated from the apple is mere theory. Meatballs will tell you that this theory is as close to certainty as you can come. Dreamballs will tell you photon's don't even exist, never have, never will, the theory in other words is wrong except as agreement with virtual reality game play. Within the virtual reality photons 'exist', but only virtually. IMPLIED VIEWPOINT Now say we take a physical universe room, and put an apple on a table somewhere in the room. Further we place a machine with a video camera somewhere else in the room and aim the video camera directly at the apple. When we turn the machine on, it takes a picture of the apple from its perspective and saves the image in its memory core. The machine's picture of the apple is a SYMBOL for the true apple out on the table which is the original REFERENT. The symbol refers to the referent, and the referent is symbolized by the symbol. Notice there is an actual or virtual causal pathway between the referent apple and the symbol apple, due to light waves bouncing off the referent apple, hitting the video camera and ultimately causing a picture to be stored in the machine's memory. The symbol is causally related to the referent, but the symbol is not the same object as the referent. Idiots like to claim that if two objects are causally related to each other, then they ARE each other. Even if the two objects are 60 million lightyears beween them. The referent is a causal precursor to the symbol. Because there is a causal connection between symbol and referent, some data about the referent is stored in the symbol, allowing us to engage in learning by being an effect, learning about the referent by looking at the symbol. We learn about apples by studying pictures of apples. School is such fun. Now we remember from the A's and the B's, that if A and B are objects, and A has a different set of qualities than B, then A and B are two DIFFERENT objects. A and B could have been two different names for the same object, but then their quality sets would have been identical indicating that each object's name was A or B. So if A and B have different quality sets, then A and B are without doubt two different objects. In the case of the machine taking a picture of an apple in a room, one of the key differences between the symbol apple and the referent apple, is that the symbol apple has an implied viewpoint and the referent apple doesn't. The term implied viewpoint means that one can tell by studying the object from where it was being looked at FROM. Not all objects have implied viewpoints. For example there is no amount of studying one can do of the referent apple on the table that will tell you where the video camera is that is about to take a picture of it. The apple exists on the table in its entirety, whether you can see it or not. It is not part of the apple where it is being looked at from. Remember object quality sets are composed of two different kinds of qualities, qualities of BEING and qualities of RELATION. The qualities an object has alone are qualities of beingg, the qualities an object has by virtue of its prsent relation to another object are qualities of relation. Although it is a quality of relation between the apple and the camera that the camera is looking at the apple from a certain viewpoint, it is not a quality of BEING of the apple alone that it is being looked at from that viewpoint of the camera. However take a look at the picture of the apple taken by the camera. In the picture one can see the room, the table, and guess what, one can directly compute back to where the camera must have been, merely by studying the picture of the apple! The apple on the table does not tell you where the camera is, but the apple in the picture does. The apple exists on the table complete, the apple in the picture exists only as a surface rendering taken from a particular viewpoint. That viewpoint from which the rendering was done can be computed back from the rendering alone. This is because the rendering alone has an implied viewpoint, all by itself. Since the apple on the table does not have an implied viewpoint, but the apple in the picture does, it must be that the referent apple on the table and the symbol apple in the picture are two different objects. Thus we are forced to uncollapse the symbol and referent and realize they are two different objects. Notice the reason we call the apple on the table the referent and the apple in the picture a symbol, is not because one has an implied viewpoint and the other doesn't, but simply and only because there is a one way causal pathway between them. The apple on the table is cause and thus referent, and the apple in the picture is effect and thus symbol. Not all symbols have implied viewpoints. For example the word apple is also a symbol for the apple on the table but does not have an implied viewpoint, you can't tell squat where the apple is being looked at from, from the word apple. Not all referents are lacking implied viewpoints. For example the picture of an apple, which was a symbol to the apple on the table, can now be considered a referent in its own right when we study the effects that picture has on later events in the continuing casual chain. ALL CONSCIOUS LOOKED ATS (EXPERIENCES) HAVE AN IMPLIED VIEWPOINT. Now spot any color form you wish in the visual panoply around you. Say you have picked a red apple sitting out there on your table. Notice that the conscious color form that you are actually seeing has an implied viewpoint, you can tell from looking at the conscious looked at where the conscious looker is! Here is a quick process to get good at this. Spot a looked at. Notice it is seen from a specific perspective viewpoint. Compute back to where the looker must be. Spot the looker directly. Compare the results. Spot the looker looking at the looked at. Spot the looker looking at the looker. Spot the looker looking at the looker looking at the looked at. Do this until you have no question where the looker is by direct perception of the looker, and can easily compute back to the same location as the looker from any looked at in your conscious field. Ok, so again we invoke the A's and the B's and say that since the conscious looked at has an implied viewpoint, but the referent apple on the table doesn't, they must be two different objects. But notice that A and B can't be two different objects, unless both A and B ARE OBJECTS! Even if one of A or B were nothings, they would still be two different objects, the nothing would simply have an empty quality set. Clearly the referent apple on the table has a non empty quality set and thus is not a nothing. Clearly also redness is not a quality of the referent apple on the table, redness is a quality of the conscious looked at symbol, the image you see in our consciousness. Thus the looked at's quality set is not nothing, and thus must also be an object. Thus we have to conclude that if the referent apple on the table is an object, an existing actual thing, then the symbol conscious color form looked at we are using to represent it, is also an object, an existing actual thing. People have a hard time with this, they feel the referent apple is real, but their conscious experience of it, well that's just a nothing of some sort. But look, you can mockup a looked at apple in your imagination even when there is no referent apple there at all! In fact it is the quality of ISness of that conscious experience of an apple (symbol), that we then attribute to the referent apple and thus we think the referent apple IS also. Thus we think that just because we SEE the symbol apple, there must BE an apple. Nope, the apple is a dream, it exsits as conscious experience and symbol only. It is the EXISTENCE of our experience of the physical universe then gets us to consider that the referent physical universe is actual also! If it weren't for the experience of actuality, isness, existence, and realness of our own conscious experience, we would never have considered any of these things about the physical universe that our consciousness represents to us. Thus this feeling that the physical universe exists but our consciousness doesn't is inverted. The physical universe draws its feeling of existence from the actual existence of our conscious looked ats! In other words redness is more actual than photons which are a mere theory. Redness you can be certain of, photon's you can't. You, you can be certain of, the rest is theory. 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 Fri Feb 9 00:54:52 EST 2007