When you are dealing with a conscious unit, you are dealing with a

     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.


     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

     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

     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.


     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

     In other words redness is more actual than photons which are a mere

     Redness you can be certain of, photon's you can't.

     You, you can be certain of, the rest is theory.


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