ASSIGNMENT OF QUALITIES II OK, so we have this conscious unit, a looker looking at his looked ats, and we stick him in the head of a human body and connect his consciousness to the sensory system of the body. That means that now, rather than his looked ats being pure imagination, dreaming or hallucination, they are causally connected to events in the alleged physical universe. You know, photon bounces off object, hits retina, travels along brain pathways and eventually gets displayed as color and intensity in the the conscious unit's looked at display. So this guy is sitting there aiming his eyes at an apple on a table in the physical universe, and he's seeing a red apple in his consciousness. The red apple that he actually sees in his consciousness is the symbol, and the physical universe apple on the table is the referent. Presumably the physical referent is a causal precursor to the conscious symbol, and the state of the symbol is trackiing the referent properly. For example if the physical apple changes color, the conscious experience (symbol) will change color in tandem. Tracking between symbol and referent is also called necessary dependable followingness. If there is no casaul pathway between symbol and referent then there is no guarantee that the tracking will continue for long, even if it continues forever. Thus causation is what brings NECESSITY to dependable followingness. Now we know that the symbol and referent are two different events, two different objects, existing and happening in two different spaces and times. The referent happens before the symbol in time determined by the speed of light travel from apple to eye, and the speed of impingement through the brain system. The referent is also in a different place in space than the symbol, because the referent is out there in the physical universe, whereas the symbol is in here in the conscious universe, even though the symbol LOOKS like it is out there where the physical apple allegedly is. We know that the symbol is not actually out there, because if it were the looker couldn't see it, distance in space or time between looker and looked at creates blindness by making direct contact impossible. Across a distance in space or time, everything remains forever a theory. Lastly we know that the symbol has its own qualities, different than the referent, but that some of the qualities of the symbol may be similar to those of the referent, and other qualities of the symbol that the referent doesn't have, may be used to refer to qualities in the referent that the symbol doesn't have. Take color and frequency for example, as described below. Color is a quality of the symbol which the symbol has and the referent does not have, which is used to refer to frequency of light reflecting off the referent, which the referent has and the symbol does not. So let's take a look a what some of those qualities of the symbol are that are used to refer to the referent. EXISTENCE The first quality is existence. The symbol exists. The conscious looker exists, and his looked ats exist, he can see them and he needs no further proof. Someone else may doubt that he sees them, but if he does see them, they must exist, as they couldn't be seen if they didn't exist. They don't just exist 'for him', if they exist for anyone, they must exist for everyone whether they know it or not. In other words if it is true for Goober that Goober sees a red apple, it must be true for everyone that Goober sees a red apple. This quality of existence in the symbol is then attributed to the referent: because I see a conscious apple, there must BE a physical apple. Our whole concept of existence, what it is, what it means, what it's ramifications are, come directly from our experience of the existence of our conscious experiences. If our conscious experiences did not exist, we would never have come up with the idea of existence in the first place because we could never have experienced something that existed! How else could you experience something that existed, except through the existence of your own conscious experiences of its existence. Our sense of existingness comes directly from our conscious experience of the existence of our conscious experiences. Since we have never seen any physical object EXCEPT via its symbol in our conscious experience, assignment of any existence to the physical object that exceeds the existence of the conscious symbol is meaningless or arbitrary. Certainly not based on experience! You can't experience something that has more existence than the existence of your conscious experience of existence. Sometimes you can have an indirect experience of something's existence. The table may not look visually to real to you, but then you bump into it and feel the pain. The realness of the pain convinces you of the realness of the table more than the original visual of the table did. So all reality, actuality, or existingness that we assign to the referent physical universe comes directly from the existingness of our conscious experiences. In other words the physical apple can not be more real, more actual, have more existingness than the conscious experience by which we learned of the apple in the first place. Thus the assertion that the physical universe is real, but our conscious experiences are not as real is delusive inversion. CERTAINTY The next quality that the conscious symbol has is certainty of existence. Not only does the conscious sysmbol exist, but the looker KNOWS it exists without question, without doubt, without second thought. This is the quality of learnability with perfect certainty. Now we know that if looker and looked at are two different objects separated by space or time distance, then the looker can never see the looked at directly. The looked at is NOT THERE for him. The best the looker can do is wait for an impingement and then theorize back into time about the possible nature of the source of that impingement. In this case the looker changes state as a result of the impingement from the alleged remote source. The looker's change in state is the symbol, and the alleged remote source is the referent. Since one can not learn with certainty about the referent by looking at or being a symbol for it, space and time between looker and looked at make perfect certainty of looked at impossible. Since the existence and nature of the conscious looked at IS perfectly certain to the conscious looker, we are forced to conclude that in the case of consciousness, the looker and looked at are one and the same thing, not separated by a space or time distance. Thus although the red apple LOOKS like it is out there, relative to the looker, that out thereness must be an illusion, and the entirety of consciousness and what it is conscious of must exist in a zero dimensional, spaceless, timeless existence. However the looker, seeing its perfect certainty of its experience of the apple, then assigns perfect certainty to the alleged physical referent. Thus not only does the conscious looker then consider that the physical apple exists, he concludes that the physical apple exists with *CERTAINTY*. He has no doubt about the symbol, so he has no doubt about the referent. At all times and all places this is a very serious form of mind broke, because it is impossible to attain certainty of a referent, via certainty of a symbol. Certainty of the referent is not certainly implied by certainty of the symbol. Consciousness *IS* certainty-of. Since the only thing a looker can be conscious of is his own conscious experiences, namely his a conscious looked ats, therefore the only thing that a looker can be certain of is his own conscious looked ats, his conscious experiences or symbols, in this case, of the physcial universe. With regards to a zero dimensional conscious unit perceiving objects separated from him in a multi dimensional space time continuum, the conscious symbol is always certain, the referent remains forever a theory. COLOR FORM The next quality that the symbol has which is mistakenly assigned to the referent is color. Color, like redness, is a quality of being on one object, the looked at. The ability to reflect photons of a given frquency is a causal quality of relation, between two different objects, physical apple and physical photon. Color in the conscious symbol is used to represent frequency of reflected photons in the physcial universe. Intensity of color in consciousness is used to represent amplitude of energy of those photons or number of them per second. There are no photons in imagination, dreaming or hallucination. The lamp does not light the room in your dreams. Conscious looked ats are self luminous, if they were illuminated by something else, you couldn't see them at all. You could only become a symbol for them according to the impingement on you of their reflected or emmanated causal messenger wave. Being a symbol for a referent is not the same thing as SEEING THE REFERENT! The fact that you see your looked ats with certainty proves that you ARE them, and there is no via between them and you seeing them. Thus color and perception of color is a zero dimensional conscious phenomenon that has no place, CAN have no place in the multi dimensional physical world with distance and time separating lookers and looke ats. Thus there is no color in the physical universe, only waves of energy of different frequencies all made of the same stuff. OUT THERENESS The fourth quality of the conscious symbol that is assigned to the physical referent is out thereness. If you ask someone where his conscious experiences are he will point vaguely in the area of his head, but if you ask him where he sees the red apple, he will point out there where he thinks the physical apple is. Now our conscious color forms certainly LOOK like they are out there, and thus because we see space we think there is space. But in fact if our conscious pictures were out where they look like they are, we couldn't see them, because imposition of space and time between looker and looked at creates the blindness of no direct contact. Being a symbol for a referent at a distance from you is not the same thing as SEEING the referent directly. However the illusion of space is so strong in our conscious looked ats, that we are just sure the physical referent must also have space and be out there. I mean where else could it be? The *PHYSICAL* apple has to be *SOMEWHERE*, right? What better place than out there! Some people will even go so far to say that the reason we see conscious experiences of space is because there IS space. How else could we have represented the actuality of physical space if not through the conscious experience of space? However certainty of experience does not provide certainty of the physical referent, and worse THERE CAN BE NO CERTAINTY of physical referent as certainty is the sole purvue of the conscious experience. Thus claiming we see space because there is space is putting the cart before the horse and is another case of very dangerous delusive inversion. It asserts that the nature of our consciousness is determined by the nature of the physical universe. That consciousness EXISTS in order to accuratly display the physical universe. Eventually they will tell you that consciousness is MADE of the physical universe, and a being is rolling around the drain to hell at that point, the inversion is just too great to survive for long as a causitive unit. Love and shame can not of force and mass be made. The truth is that consciousness had the ability to create illusions of space (and time), and thus decided to employ the ability in its game creation. Actual space was never created, but the illusion of space between looker and looked at was used to invite the idea that space did in fact exist so beings could get lost playing in it. I mean what fun is it knowing you have NEVER gone anywhere. You couldn't get lost even if you wanted to. You can't get lost when you ARE your home. THREE DIMENSIONAL GEOMETRICITY Out thereness is really just a subset of the 3 dimensions of space. Thus not only do you have here and there (depth), you also have left and right (width) and up and down (height). Now it might be pretty easy to see how here and there are illusions, if you just consider the looker IS the looked at, but how do you explain left and right or up and down. I mean maybe there is no distance between you and the square you are looking at, but the square is definitely a square and has a left to right width of a foot or so. So imagine that that the being is a light source, a source of conscious light. And imagine the being has painted on himself a zero dimensional point, a complete picture of the world all around him in 360 degrees. Then imagine the painted up being is inside a perfectly mirrored metal sphere. The light leaves the being, gets colored as it goes through his surface, heads out to the metal ball with the mirrored inside, and reflects back off the mirrored surface and heads back to the being. When the light reaches the being, he 'sees the world' that is painted on him. So seeing the world is like a being seeing himself in a spherical mirror. But now make the radius of the spherical mirror smaller and smaller until it vanishes to zero. Thus the whole size of the being plus mirror is zero. He is still going to see his own reflection lit by his own self luminousness. That's a really bad analogy but might help to understand how something of no dimensions and thus no size, could none the less project and reflect and see a multidimensional world of apparently infinite size. TIME The last quality of the conscious symbol that is collapsed onto the referent is timeingness, or change. A physical universe machine can only be in a state. Since no state proves the existence of a prior state with certainty, a machine can never know with certainty that it is changing state! Thus a machine can never know with certainty that time exists. Yet consciousness certainly can know that not only does its symbols exist, but they change! Thus the conscious looker assumes that because he experiences time in his consciousness, there must BE time in the physical universe referent. So the five qualities of the symbol are 1.) Existence 2.) Certainty 3.) Color 4.) Out thereness, space 5.) Time Each of these are then assigned to the physical universe referent, even though the true referent may not have any of these qualities at all! What is the source of our zero dimensional conscious pictures? Is it a multi dimensional physical universe as represented to us in our looked ats, or is it perhaps something else entirely? At 28.0 on the tone scale, the being descends down through apparencies are reality. The apparencies are the actualities of his conscious symbols, existence, certainty, color, out thereness and time. In going below apparencies are reality, the being considers that his symbols refer to referents that actually have those qualities. He forgets that he is dealing with the alleged referents solely via his symbols, and eventually comes to consider that the symbols are nothing, and the referent is the only something there is. A meatball is a symbol that thinks it is made of the referent. That's like a TV set thinking it is made of the stuff one sees displayed in the TV set. You can't get more inverted than that. 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 Sat Feb 17 23:49:47 EST 2007