03/04/07 Sunday 3:52pm EST
03/09/07 Friday 01:03am EST


     When B follows A, we call this FOLLOWINGNESS.

     When B dependably follows A, we call this DEPENDABLE

     When B necessarily follows A, we call this NECESSARY DEPENDABLE

     Necessary dependable followingness means simply that B MUST
follow A.

     Now if there is no cause between A and B, then B might follow A
once in a while, but it is unlikely, although not impossible, that B
would follow A always, ie dependably.

     However if there is cause between A and B, that is if A causes B
to happen, then we can rightly expect B to follow A dependably because
of the necessity imposed by cause on the A -> B sequence.

     In the absence of cause, it is hard to imagine why any two events
would NECESSARILY have to follow each other.

     And it is also hard to imagine what could possibly cause two
events to necessarily follow each other except CAUSE.

     Thus we say that causation implies necessity, and necessity
implies causation.

     Where there is cause, there is necessity, where there is
necessity there is cause.

     Necessity allows us to put a guarantee on the transaction and to
trust it implicitly.

     When ever A occurs, B will occur.

     So we have:




     Although we consider that dependable followingness most probably
implies causation, this is not a perfect certainty.

     Thus we must conclude that correlation does not imply causation.

     Not even perfect correlation.

     Now the problem with mechanical learning, is the machine can only
be aware of the events that take place.  It knows that A happened, and
that B happened, but it can't know anything about why.

     The machine can only see dependable followingness, it can never
see the NECESSITY of that followingness.

     This is called Jane's Law:

     Causation is insufficient to witness causation in the physical

     That is the existence of cause is not sufficient to witness

     The machine is forever stuck in the third party law.

     Did A cause B to follow, or did C cause both A and B in such a
way as to make it look like A caused B.

     For example one theory of the physical universe says that cause
lies out there in the parts that are interacting.

     Two electrons create a force between them, and thus repel each
other and so they move in space.

     But what causes time to crank forward to give them room in time
to move?

     Another theory says that the world of kinetics is woven with
illusions of external cause, while the true cause, the static above,
is causing everything to move in present time as if the particles were
causing each other to move.

     In this theory, there is no force at all between electrons, they
are moved by a higher hand to act as if there were a force.

     The sophomore will chime loudly that this second theory violates
Occam's Razor which insists that the simpler theory is the true one.

     And we have to admit that virtualizing the physical universe via
a higher cause adds a level of complexity to the final description of

     And if all we care about are things in the physical universe,
then it doesn't really matter if its all virtualized by a higher hand.

     We might as well just continue to consider that electrons push
each other directly.

     Until someone gets out of their body, then we have a problem.

     The simpler theory is the true theory as along a one has all the

     But who has all the facts?

     Worse, as we have seen, theory balls can lead us down the garden
path into traps of limitation.

     If we ASSUME and thus do not look for a higher hand, then we must
conclude that all that exists is the physical universe, that
consciousness is a process in the physical universe, and therefore
exteriorization is impossible or psychotic delusion.

     Thus we never try to exteriorize, or do telepathy, or telekinesis,
because A PRIORI we know these things are impossible, and thus we never
discover they are indeed possible and that our whole theory ball is best
used for playing cricket.

     Or if we find these things like telepathy etc hard, we explain it
away with the fact that our theory balls claim them to be impossible, so
we don't pit bull them until we succeed.

     You see if your theory ball says you can't do it, and you can't do
it, that's one thing, but if your theory ball says you can do it, but
you can't yet do it, well those are two completely different ball games.

     In the first case the being won't try beyond his initial failures.

     In the second case the being will continue trying until he wins.
     So aside from the fact that a machine can't be certain of ANYTHING,
not even its own existence, a machine more particularly can never be
certain of CAUSE.

     And that is because a machine can only know WHAT IS, and what
follows what.  This leaves the machine lacking knowing why what follows

     The machine certainty theorem says learning with certainty across a
distance is impossible.

     The reason for this is that learning across a distance leaves one
stuck with learning by looking at effects, and effects do not prove
cause because correllation does not prove causation.

     Thus we can reword the machine certainty theorm to say that: any
machine which can only learn by looking at effects can never prove that
cause even exists, let alone locate it to its actual source of agency.

     There is no apriori reason why the universe couldn't produce
endless amounts of dependable followingness, with no cause involved

     Two balls will roll out into empty space in parallel (following
each other) forever without any cause between them at all.

     Every time the first ball moves, the second ball moves too, you
see?  Right in tandem and in the same direction to boot!

     Yes, this is because of how they were started and because of their
basic nature, to keep moving once started.

     So perhaps there was cause at the beginning of the universe, but if
set on its course properly, the universe could just roll on its own,
following itself all over the place, with no further causal influence.

     What beings really can't stand is a ball rolling in a straight line
for all of eternity, and then in the middle of eternity it just hangs a
louey 'for no reason'.  That drives beings bonkers.

     None the less, the idea that cause exists in the physical unverse
is an anthropomorphization of our own experience of personal agency, I
AM, and I DO, onto the physical universe.

     We KNOW we cause things as conscious units, so we like to think the
physical universe does it too.  I mean it does seem to impinge on us
hard enough, right?

     We instinctively can not tolerate the existence of perfect
dependable followingness without needing to believe that it is caused by
some NECESSITATING factor, namely some cause.

     If every time I throw the switch, the light turns on, there just
HAS to be reason, or I am not going to get any sleep at night.

     Notice however that the REASON that might exist is a third thing
different from the mere happening of the two end events, switch thrown
and light on.  The machine can only see the two end events, not the
third thing, the causal necessity between them.

     So we have two actualities, switch thrown and light on, and
dependable followingess between them, but a postulate of cause between
them would be a third actuality that the machine can never know.

     That is because all the machine can do in the process of learning
is BECOME an end event in itself, it never in fact sees the first event
let alone any cause between the first event and its own change of state.

     A machine can't even know for sure it has changed state, because
its present state never contains certain proof that it was ever in a
prior different state.

     But even if a machine could know it had changed state, that is all
it would have as data, it would not have any data about the first event,
nor any possible process of cause between the first event and its own
change in state.
     These latter two alleged actualities, the first event and the
process of cause between the first event and the machine changing state,
remain forever theories to the machine.

     The machine, like the human, can't stand the idea that it changed
state for no reason, other wise the concept of cause would never occur
to it :)

     In truth machines don't give a damn either way, the only reason
they even consider the possibilitiy of cause is because they are TOLD to
by the humans that build them, or by the forces of evolutionary
happenstance that allow them to survive better if they can use their
concept of cause to better predict and control their future.

     It nonetheless remains a hopeless case for a machine within that
same physcial universe to track down that cause and allocate it to a
specific source of agency with perfect certainty.

     The fact that machines survive longer because of their theories of
cause merely means these machines are passing the 'test of time', not
that their concepts of cause or assignments of that cause to specific
sources of agency are even vaguely correct.

     Maybe there is cause, maybe God just laid down a sucker path down
the garden for them.

     Truth and theory are two completely different things.

     Truth is true, models merely work to walk the garden path.

     A machine can only theorize based on dependable followingness, as a
machine is blind to the necessity between events.

     Notice that our perception of personal agency *IS* a perfect
certainty, thus in being able to experience the existence of cause and
allocate it properly to its source of agency, consciousness has exceeded
the capacity of a machine by a miraculous level.


     There are those who would claim that the great I AM is an illusion,
that the truth is I AM NOT.

     I recommend running anhiliation and deanihilation on such people
until they spot who or what is anhiliating or deanihilating things.


     We know from the above that CAUSATION and NECESSITY are one and
the same thing.

     We also know that if there is no causal pathway between A and B,
then any changes in state in B are irrelevant to the nature of A, and
thus B can learn nothing about A at all, not even in theory.

     If there is no causal pathway at all between A and B, A might as
well not exist for B.

     Thus a machine DEPENDS on the existence of a causal pathway
between the events it is trying to learn about and itself.

     If a machine can't be the effect of a cause, if it can't solicit
and receive an impingement, then the machine can't learn anything.

     No causal pathway means no learning.

     Learning means there is a causal pathway from learned about to

     But notice the machine depends on the existence of a causal
pathway that the machine itself can never prove exists with certainty!

     Thus the machine can never be certain of anything it learns, even
its own existence, because it can never learn with certainty the ONLY
thing that could ever possibily validate its learning, CAUSE.

     So the only way something could have a true perfect certainty of
something is if it could verify the causal pathway involved between
learn about and learner.

     I will say it again, please get it this time.

     Learning with certainty implies learning with certainty about the
causal pathway between the learned about and learned.

     No learning with certainty about the causal pathway means no
learning with certainty about anything, period.

     Thus certainty of truth must ride on top of the foundation of
certainty of causation and certainty of necessity.

     Certainty of a truth implies the necessity of that truth being
true, which can only happen if you are certain of that necessity also!

     Being certain of a truth without being certain of the causal
necessity underlying your certainty leaves you with certainty of

     Thus learning with certainty is always learning with certainty of
the necessity and causation between what you are learning about and

     If you can't be certain you have changed state, if you can't be
certain of the impingement, if you can't be certain of the cause
flowing from learned about to you, then you can't be certain of the
learned about, period.

     Notice you aren't using your change in state to then theorize the
existence of a possible cause, in consciousness you are looking at the
NONE THE LESS BE THERE!  Without cause there is no learning at all.

     In consciousness the KNOWER, KNOWN and KNOWN ABOUT are all one
event, but they remain 3 separate parts of that one event,

     For certainty of knowing to pervail, the flow of cause must be
from KNOWN ABOUT to KNOWER and that flow must be the carrier wave of
the KNOWN.

     *AND* not only must there be certainty of the known, there must
be certainty of the carrier wave of cause that brings the known to

     The light of consciousness is the light of CAUSATION.  The
difference between red and blue is the difference between two

     With cause in the physical universe, there is learning by looking
at the effect in one's self, and thus no certainty, only theory about
possible cause.

     With cause in the conscious unit, there is learning by looking at
the cause directly, and thus there is perfect certainty.


     Thus the conscious unit can not only see the two end events, the
two colors out there and himself, he can see the process of cause
between them and him resulting in the impingment.

     In the absence of certainty of causation/necessity, there can be
no *VERIFICATION* of the causal pathway, and thus no certainty at all.

     So when you are looking at the two different colors out there,
and you see you have a perfect certainty that there are in fact two
different colors, where is the causation?  Where is the necessity?

     Well they have to be there, and you have to be able to perceive
them as well as the two different colors, or else you have nothing.

     Causation and necessity don't have color themselves, but they
have to be there and be perceivable or you wouldn't be able to see the
colors and know they are different at all.

     What is the color of agency?


     There are two basic directions of cause in the conscious unit.

     They are causal outflow and causal inflow.

     When the conscious I AM engages in an intention to create a
mockup of two different colors, he is engaging in causal outflow which
then creates the mockups of two different colors.

     In this case the I AM is cause and the mockups are created
effect.  This is causal outflow.

     When the conscious I AM wants to verify that what got created is
what he intended, he must LOOK AT the mockups and perceive the two
different colors.  This is causal inflow.

     This causal inflow is the process of perception and is learning
with certainty.  He looks at the mockups and learns that they are two
different colors and what colors they are, compares this learning
against his original intention, and thus verifies that what he
intended to create got created.

     In this case the looked at colors are cause and I AM is learner
at effect.

     So we have the two directions of cause:

     Looker -> Mockups    Outflow Creation
     Looker <- Mockups    Inflow  Learning/Verification

     The learning process is just like any other learning process, the
mockups are referent and the looker becomes the symbol of final

     However in the physical universe, such a learning would limit the
looker to learning about the mockups indirectly by being himself a
symbol, thus no certainty.

     But in the conscious universe, since there is no actual
separation between looker and looked at, the looker can learn about
the mockups by looking at them directly.

     Since the looker IS the looked at, the looked at is not only the
referent but ALSO the symbol of final authority, as consciousness is
self symoblizing where looker and looked at are one.

     The process of learning is a CAUSAL process in both cases,
however in the physical universe, the looker can never see the cause
transpiring, while in the conscious case the looker MUST see the cause
transpire, and it is this perception of cause that allows him to
conclude with *PERFECT CERTAINTY* that his mockups are as he wanted
them to be.

     The looker can not only see the two different colors, he can SEE

     Seeing seeing is seeing cause and the necessity of the truth of

     And that is the color of agency.

     Certainty of truth means certainty of necessity of that truth
which means certainty of causal pathway between learned about and

     By "necessity of truth" we do NOT mean that the truth which was
learned had to be that way, but only once the truth is learned with
certainty, it does necessarily have to be the way the certainty says
so with no possibility of error.

     It's not necesarily true that the apple must be red, but once
perceived to be true that it is red, it has to be that way.

     So we have the full causal pathway here:

     Truth - Causation - Necessity - Learning - Certainty of Learning
- Certainty of Necessity - Certainty of Causation - Certainty of

     Notice that perception of two different colors with perfect
certainty provides *CONTINUOUS* reverification of that certainty.

     Continuous reverification is the light of self luminious
consciousness, and the light of perfect certainty of CAUSE.


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

Tue Mar  6 01:44:21 EST 2007