Indirect perception means learning about A by looking at something

      Sounds kind of silly doesn't it?  But the whole physical universe
works this way.

      Direct perception then would mean learning about A by looking at A

      In fact scientists consider 'indirect perception' to be redundant,
and 'direct perception' to be an oxymoron (contradictory thus

      Learning means gathering data about, so we are trying to learn
about object A, by looking at something else.

      Looking itself is an anthropomorphization of what consciousness
does while looking at its own conscious color forms, red, green etc, but
accepting that misuse of the word looking in the physical universe, it
means directing our attention at and gathering data about, so looking is
just another form of learning.

      Anthropomorphization means assigning qualities or conditions to the
physical universe that rightly apply only to consciousness.

      "My robot cares about me.  Here have a red photon."

      Anti Anthropomorphization.  means assigning qualities or conditions to
consciousness that rightly only apply to the physical universe.

      "She is so far away from me.  When my body dies, I die with it,
consciousness is nothing but chemistry bubbling away at 98,6 degrees."

      So indirect perception means learning about A by learning about
something else.

      And direct perception means learning directly about A through
direct contact with A.

      The reason that direct perception is considered to be contradictory
is that it is not possible to have 'direct' contact with a object that
is not yourself.

      Even if you bump into a table, there is nothing really touching
you, it's all a matter of alleged forces from the table interacting with
alleged forces in your body.  In the end the body may know something is
pushing against it, but it has no clue what.  The what *ALWAYS* remains
a theory.

      In information theory a symbol is an object, like a 1 or a 0 in a
data stream, that represents data about another object, such as an
intended communication between two people.

      Symbols refer to referents, and referents are referred to by

      Referents are symbolized by symbols, and symbols symbolize

      Find what fits the above pattern and you will know what a referent
and a symbol are.

      Symbols and referents are two different objects, the symbol being
used to convey data about the referent in lieu of having access to the
referent directly.

      Thus we try to learn about the referent by looking at the symbol.

      Not only do all symbols contain data about referents, ANY object
that contains data about a referent can be called a symbol for that

      Any object that is causally affected by an earlier other object,
has data imprinted on it about the nature of the earlier causing object,
and thus the later effected object is called a symbol for the earlier
causing referent.

      Thus with any two objects that bear a cause and effect relationship
to each other, the causing object is the referent, and the effected
object is the symbol, and the symbol would be expected to contain data
imprinted on it about the referent, by the interaction with the

     In the absence of cause between the two objects there will be an
absence of a data imprint on the symbol, and in the presence of a data
imprint on the symbol, there had to be cause impinging on it from the

     Further in the absence of a data imprint on the symbol (the symbol
didn't change state), there could not have been a causal impact on the
symbol by the referent.

     So cause implies data imprint, and data imprint implies cause.

     And no cause implies no data imprint, and no data imprint implies
no cause.

     So indirect perception takes advantage of this cause-effect
relationship between two different objects, which creates data
imprinting by the earlier object on the later object, so we can gather
data about the earlier object by gathering data about the later object

     Take for example a group of scientists looking at a computer
monitor showing the collision between Levi-Shoemaker 9 with Jupiter.
The images were coming from a camera pointed at Jupiter, either the
Hubble telescope, or near by satellites going around Jupiter.

     Clearly the scientists in their lab do not have direct contact with
Jupiter, and thus are using indirect perception to learn about the

     But does anything have direct contact with the original event one
might ask?  Perhaps the video camera in the satellite going around
Jupiter might be considered to have direct contact, or at least more
direct contact.

     Unfortunately, although there may be such a thing as less and less
indirect contact, there is no such thing as more and more direct
contact, either you have direct contact or you don't.


     With indirect contact you are always learning about A by looking at
something ELSE.

     That something else may be one event removed from A, or trillions
of events removed from A.  There is a gradient scale going from little
indirection to lots of indirection.

     In fact one can state a theorem about this 'casual distance'
between two different events, namely that the greater the causal
distance, that is the more intervening events there are, the 'greater'
the indirect contact is, the more degraded the data imprint becomes
until it approaches becoming useless and no usable;e data imprint at all.

     But direct contact means learning about A by looking AT A, so there
can't be any degrees of looking at A, you are either looking at A or
your aren't.  There are LOTS of ways to look at something OTHER than A,
thus indirect contact is a gradient scale depending on how causally
distant those other things are from A, but there is only ONE way to look
at A directly, and thus direct contact permits no gradient scale.

     Direct contact and indirect contact ARE TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT BALL

     Indirect contact produces models and theories, direct contact
produces perfect certainties.

     No matter how close B is to A, as long as one is looking at B and
not A, one is not in direct contact with A AT ALL.

     One can't even claim that very close indirect contact is virtually
indistinguishable from direct contact, or God forbid, as good as direct

     No model or theory even approaches perfect certainty, for one can
never be certain of a theory!  Although evidence (symbol) can disprove a
theory, evidence can only support a theory, meaning leave it un

     No matter how pure the fool's gold, it will never be real gold.

     Scientists like to talk about 'solid proof' for their theories,
they are the great usurpers.  All they have proof of is their conscious
experience of the matter at the time.

     Does the fact that one sees a pretty girl mean there IS a pretty

      Conscious experiences come in 4 flavors.

      1.) Imagination,
      2.) Dreaming
      3.) Hallucination
      4.) Connected to sensory input.

     It just isn't possible to tell with perfect certainty which is
which, because all one can see is one's experience at the time.  In the
end everyone is alone with their experience, and anything else they
might put on it is alter-is, added significance, trust, desire,
expectations, convenience and hope.

     The existence of peers is not peer reviewed, and until you prove
the existence of your first peer, they can't be used to corroborate your

     Of course with publication deadlines we can just ASSUME that peers
exist and no one will notice.

     Now yes, one may be able to prove that other's exist, BUT NOT BY
them, the referent, by looking at the symbol, your conscious experience
of them.

     Looking outwardly, using your conscious experiences to tell you
about what is in the physical universe is ALWAYS INDIRECT PERCEPTION.

     So yes, the video camera is closer to Jupiter in the causal pathway
between the event and the scientists observing it, but the video camera
in no way has direct contact with the event at all.

     The video camera is receiving photons bounced off the incoming
asteroids and Jupiter's surface, at no time is the video camera in
direct contact with the rock or the planet.

     In fact the exact rock that bounced the photons DOESN'T EVEN EXIST
ANY MORE by the time the photons reach the video camera, as that rock is
multiple nano seconds in the past, it's GONE by the time the photons hit
the camera on the satellite.

     There may be another rock there at the moment the photons hit the
camera, but its a new rock a few nano seconds in time later, even if it
looks like the old rock.

     Worse the existence of that new rock is a complete theory without
evidence until photons bounce off of IT and hit the camera even later in
time, which event merely supports the theory the rock was there when the
alleged photons allegedly bounced off of it.

     A rock now is a theory without evidence until the photons
which bounce off of it hit our eye at which point the rock then
becomes a theory with evidence.

     To a machine that can only learn by indirect perception, a distant
now is always a theory without evidence, until the evidence checks in
HERE some time later, at which point what WAS now, which BECAME then,
becomes a theory with evidence.

     There is no certainty because there is no direct NOW contact with
the rock.

     Thus the video camera has no direct contact with any part of the
event as it is happening NOW, it only has alleged contact via the
alleged photons that come to it multiple nanoseconds later.

     Looking at photons bouncing off a rock is not looking at the rock.
In fact this matches exactly the definition of indirect perception,
namely learning about the rock by looking at something else, photons.

     The only way one could have direct contact with the rock is if it
were 'self luminous', meaning referent and symbol are one and the same
event, not separated from each other by either space or time.

     Consciousness is self luminous, thus capable of certainty of
itself, The physical universe, and everything in it, is not.

     But look, even when the photons hit the video camera, does the
video camera see the photons directly?  No, the photons cause changes in
state in the camera's circuitry, and THOSE STATE'S are the learning the
camera has of the photons.  AT no time does the camera SEE THE PHOTONS.
By the time the changes in state have happened in the camera, the
photons are long gone.

     Thus we can only have direct contact with ourselves.

     Everything else is a theory.

     So the photons are a symbol for the events taking place on Jupiter,
as the nature of the photons has *ALLEGEDLY* been imprinted by earlier
distant events on Jupiter.

     Then those symbols are converted into radio waves which are sent to
Earth which themselves become another symbol.  Finally a picture is
drawn on a TV set surround by scientists which becomes yet another

     But relative to the video camera out at Jupiter, the photons
themselves become the referent, and the changes in state in the
receiving screen in the camera becomes the symbol FOR THE PHOTONS.

     If every referent gives rise to a symbol, which then becomes a
referent itself and gives rise to another symbol, at what point does
anything get 'seen'?

     What we have is a series of referents followed by symbols.  Does
the symbol SEE the referent, or does the symbol merely BE in a state
indicating the theoretical existence of the referent?

     Is being in a state indicating the possible existence of something
else, the same thing as SEEING that something else directly?

      A chain of referents followed by symbols later in space and time is
merely a sequence of dominos falling.

      Does domino 10 'see', in any sense of the word, domino 9 that hit
it a moment ago?

      Is mere being an effect, 'seeing'.

     Even if we concede that domino 10 knows that it was hit, does it
know it was hit by domino 9?

     Being an effect and changing state is all anything in the physical
universe can do.  And once it has changed state, it has no clue that it
HAS changed state, no perfect certainty whatsoever.

     Further any object's ideas about WHAT caused it to change state are
a model and theory at best, delusion at worse.

     If B follows A, one can never tell if A caused B, or if C caused
both A and B in such a way to make it look like A caused B.

     That's the third party law.


     We can consider that every time a referent causes a symbol to change
state, that an act of perception or observation has taken place, but
clearly no symbol has direct perception of its referent anywhere in the
chain, only of itself.

     By the time the symbol arises, the referent that powered it is gone
into the past in spacetime, so the symbol is always alone with itself in
it's theoretical knowledge of the referent.

     Thus the symbol can never SEE the referent NOW directly, it can
only see its own state allegedly caused by the referent.

     Consciousness however can see itself in the NOW, it is self
luminous.  Conscious experiences, as referent, are self symbolizing.

     Further if you are seeing the red in the NOW, there is no space or
TIME between the arising of the red and the seeing of the red, as the
arising of the red IS the seeing of the red.

     Thus there is no space or time between the referent and the symbol
because the symbol IS the referent.

     Self luminous means seeable but not because of emanation of
something else, like photons.

     Self luminous is self seeable, end of sequence.

     That's a big deal folks.

     Self luminousness is bigger than the fact that the Earth isn't

     It is bigger than the fact that the Earth isn't the center of the

     It is bigger than the fact that the Earth is not the only planet to
have life on it.

     It is bigger than the fact that this universe is not the only
universe there is.

     It is bigger than the fact that consciousness didn't arise from
matter, energy, space or time, but that these things arose from

     Self symbolizingness is so big, that to date, no one knows about
     Self luminousness and self awareness of self luminousness is so
beyond beyond what we understand as physical mechanics, that we don't
even have the words to describe how we don't have the words to describe

     That's because self luminousness is not a space time phenomenon, it
is a spaceless, timeless, instantaneous, eternal phenomenon.

     Pity the poor guy who doesn't believe in such things, but is one.


Homer Wilson Smith     The Paths of Lovers    Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF        Cross            Internet Access, Ithaca NY    In the Line of Duty
Tue Jan 27 18:08:47 EST 2009