Self luminousness is a relatively odd phenomenon, in that it is
more easily explained using mechanisms of the physical universe than
mechanisms of consciousness.

     The whole idea of mechanisms of consciousness is an oxymoron
anyhow, as there is no space or time in consciousness to have a

     Consciousness is not a space time gizmo.

     Although it has a penchant for thinking that it is.

     We use the mechanisms of the physical universe to show what self
luminousness is NOT, because the mind is good at understanding cause and
effect in the physical universe, and at the end, we can ask the mind "If
not that, then what?"

     There are two kinds of luminous objects in the physical universe,
sources and reflectors.

     The sun, stars, fire and light bulbs are sources, and most
everything they light up are reflectors.

     Sources originate "causal messenger waves" called photons that move
across space and time to the end receiver which then causally receives
them, that is becomes an effect of them and changes state because of

     The photons carry a data imprint about the nature of the source, so
one can theorize about the nature of the source by receiving the

     In our terminology the source of the photons is the referent and
the photons themselves are symbols for the source.  Eventually the
photons hit the receiver, causes the receiver to change state, and now
the receiver has become a symbol too, and thus has imprinted on it data
from the photons which allows the receiver to theorize about both the
photons and the original source.

     Remember that the terms referent and symbol are relative to each
other, once a symbol is created by a referent, that symbol itself
becomes a referent relative to the next symbol in line which it causes.

     Thus Sun -> Photons -> Eye creates a chain of referents and symbols
where each item is a symbol to the referent before it, and each item is
also a referent to each symbol after it!

     Relative to the photons, the sun is the referent and photons are
the symbol.

     Relative to the eye, the photons are the referent and the eye is
the symbol.

     Reflectors don't originate causal waves on their own, but reflect
those coming in from other sources.

     More generally 'to reflect' means to make changes in.

     The moon is a reflector of the sun's photons, and doesn't really
originate many of its own photons in the body's visible spectrum.
Because a reflector changes the nature of the causal messenger wave
impinging on it, it ADDS a data imprint to the wave on top of whatever
data imprint was already there from the source.

     Another word for data imprint is a data signature.

     Thus photons coming from the sun are already imprinted with data
about the sun, and when they bounce off the moon, the moon adds its own
imprint to the photons, so the photons now carry data about two
different events, the first is being originated from the sun and the
second is being reflected off the moon.

     Every time the photons interact with something, more data is
imprinted on the photons, and it is pretty easy to see that after many
such imprints, the earlier imprints might be lost in the morass and
confusion of later imprints.

     For example the stream of photons coming from the sun contains data
about what elements are in the sun.  This data is called spectral lines
and actually are MISSING frequencies due to absorbtion on the sun before
the photon leaves its surface.

     Once that stream bounces off the moon, a similar set of absorptions
take place according to the elements on the moon or its atmosphere.

     Thus when the waves hit Earth, and there is a signature for Element
X, it becomes difficult to tell whether X existed on the moon, the sun
or both.

     Further as the photons travel through space they interact with gas
clouds and other phenomenon in 'empty space' enroute to the Earth, and
these add and detract to the data stream making it even harder to
determine what's what.

     'Causal distance' is the number of different interactions between
the original referent and the symbol of final authority, that have
changed the data content of the messenger wave.

     It's called a messenger wave because it carries data about its
sources and all interactions in between.

     The symbol of final authority is the last event in the chain that
is actually being studied to determine the nature of all prior referents
and symbols back to the original referent.

     Any symbol in the chain can be used as a symbol of final authority,
they aren't special symbols except for having been chosen as the one we
are going to start learning from about the prior chain.

     Nor are symbols of final authority the last symbol in the chain,
causal chains continue on out to infinity in space and time like an
endless line of dominos falling.  A symbol of final authority is merely
one random and arbitrary domino chosen in the middle of the chain to
start theorizing back to the beginning.

     There is another kind of luminousness in the physical universe
called phosphorescence.  If one shines ultra violet photons on certain
chemicals, they will glow with visible light.  The UV photons kick
electrons up a few orbit levels, and when they fall back down, they may
fall one level at a time, each level sourcing a photon of a different
frequency than the one that kicked the electron up.

     Some chemicals will continue to glow even after the UV rays are
removed, as there is a time delay between kicking the electrons up a few
levels, and having them fall back down.  Such chemicals act as a storage
device for energy, giving it back slowly over time in a different form.

     Phosphorescent chemicals are sources, not reflectors, although they
also reflect normal light at the same time.

     Barium Sulfide looks one way with the lights on (reflector), and
another way with the lights out (source)!

     So here is the problem with physical luminousness, that is things
that glow in the light, and things that glow in the dark.

     Referents and symbols in the physical universe are always two
different objects separated from each other by space and time.

     By the time a symbol is created later in time, the original moment
of the referent is gone.

     It is tempting to say that an object that is resting in space but
moving in time is the same object from moment to moment.

     For example in a perfectly still room, we light a candle and
consider the flame.  It is unmoving, unwavering, and might as well be a
still picture, but is it really the 'same flame' from moment to moment?

     Only poetically.

     The photons coming off the flame are different from moment to
moment, the atoms and molecules in the flame are different, so no the
flame is a new flame every instant even though it looks like the old

     Well the same is true for the candle, it looks like the same candle
from moment to moment, but in fact there are many changes inside the
candle as time takes place, and even if there weren't, the very fact
that the object has moved forward in time one moment, means it is a
brand new instantiation of that object and thus is a different object
than the 'same' object a moment before.

     This is an important issue because the human conscious unit is a
spaceless timeless object that IS in fact the exact same object from
moment to moment, because it's roots have no time to change in.

     Thus we feel that although every part of us is changing from moment
to moment we are still the same being from moment to moment.  I may be
an younger or older being, a ignorant wiser being, an energetic or tired
being as time moves on, but I am always me, the same being.

     We then anthropomorize this 'continuity of objectification' onto
physical universe objects by claiming that the objects we see in the
physical universe are also the same object from moment to moment.  We
admit they may have internal changes going on, a light flashing on and
off, but its the same light bulb as time goes on, right?


     Every moment of time recreates the entire physical universe over
and over again.  Nothing is actually moving in time, each moment of time
is a brand new instantiation of things, where in it is made to look like
some objects have continuity through time.

     Just as two tennis balls in different places in space are two
different objects, two tennis balls in different moments of time are two
different objects, even if the first ball 'became' the second ball a
moment later.

     Anthropomorphization of qualities that belong to the spaceless
timeless conscious unit onto physical universe objects that have space
and time is philosophically very dangerous.

     The dangers are ending up thinking either the physical universe is
conscious, or that consciousness is meat.

     Thus we can say that at the moment the symbol is created in a
causal chain, the referent that gave rise to it is gone, the original
referent to that symbol exists no more because it is in the past.

     Only that which is in the present exists and is causally agent.

     Thus in NO sense are we seeing the referent by looking at the

     That's like claiming we see the plane by looking at its
condensation trails 30 minutes later.

     The condensation trails act as EVIENCE for the prior existence of
the plane, but are not themselves the plane.

     Someone who has looked at condensation trails all his life, has
never actually seen a plane, even though he might have walls and walls
of theories about what a plane is like, derived from the data imprinted
on the condensation trails about the plane that created them.

     For example if the condensation trails come in sets of 4 smaller
trails in parallel, he might conclude the plane had 4 engines spread out
in space, on what though only God knows.

     The problem is if the symbol that is created by a referent is a
different object than the observer trying to learn about the referent,
the observer can't see the symbol either!

     Go on, read it again until you get it.

     Thus the observer can't see the sun, nor can the observer see the
moon which has become a symbol to the sun.

     Both sun and moon are distant in space and time from the observer
and thus are different objects than the observer.

     The observer can't see anything until the observer BECOMES a symbol
in the causal chain himself, the symbol of final authority, and even
then the observer can only see himself.

     Thus it is not enough for the sun to emit a photon to see the sun.

     It is not enough for the photon to reflect off the moon to see the

     It is not enough for the photon to hit our retina for us to see the

     That photon has to somehow hit US by creating a conscious
experience and then we can see THAT!


     That means that the observer and the symbol of final authority can
not be two different objects, but must be one and the same object.

     Since any imposition of space or time between two objects means
they are two different objects, there can not be any imposition of space
or time between the observer and the symbol of final authority if the
observer expects to use that symbol to learn anything.


     One then only sees oneself, as the symbol, never the source, as the

     Thus the observer can never see anything that is separated from him
by any amount of space or time.

     Read it again, until you get.



     Now if you take a look around you, you can clearly see your own
conscious renditions, pictures, of the physical universe, we call these
color forms.  They can be of color, sound, taste, smell, feeling, effort
etc, all are called 'color forms'.

     Your conscious unit is the rendition zone in which color forms are
displayed and used to symbolize referent events allegedly happening in
the physical universe.

     You turn a light on in the room and it reflects off a ball emitting
5000 Angstrom light which hits your eye, retina, brain, and
consciousness and is finally rendered as a red round thing in your

     Color forms are different objects than the objects they represent.
There are no red photons for example, redness is a quality of a
conscious experience, not of photons.

     Photons have frequency, speed, wavelength, intensity, energy,
momentum, but no redness.  There may be a causal connection between a
photon coming in and the redness we see in our consciousness, but the
redness is a quality of our conscious experience, not the photon.  In
fact the photon is long gone before we ever see any redness, because it
was absorbed by the retina microseconds before, and NO PART OF ITS 5000

     Thus photons and conscious experiences of photons are two different

     Further one can imagine, dream, and hallucinate redness without
having any photons at all!

     Thus photons are not conscious redness, and conscious redness is
not photons.

     Conscious rendess is not nothing either, it is quite something,
just as the photons are something.  In fact our whole idea that photons
are something comes from our direct perception that conscious redness is

     If conscious redness were nothing we would never have gotten the
idea that photon's were something.

     All learning about the referent (photons) comes from the symbol
(conscious redness).

     We anthropomorphize that because the symbol exists, so must the

     The symbol certainly does exist, as it is self aware, therefore
certain of is own existence, but the photons forever remain a theory.


     What a hoot, eh?

     Thus one is using one's entire consciousness to symbolize something
that is not conscious, namely the physical universe of force, mass,
energy, space and time.

     Yet when we look at the red ball we see in our consciousness it
looks like it OUT THERE.  There is the apparency of distance between
ourselves, the conscious looker, and the conscious looked at which is
the conscious experience of the red ball.

     It may be fitting and convenient that the concious experience of
the red ball LOOKS like it is OUT THERE because we consider the physical
ball is also out there.  We hope dearly that because we see space that
there must be space.


     If we assumed that the conscious experience of the bed ball is
actually out there because it looks like it is out there, then we have a

     'Out there' would mean space and time separate looker and looked

     That means looker and looked-at are two different objects, and so
can never see each other.

     Which means the looker could only see the looked-at by being an
effect of the looked-at.

     Which means the looker could never see the looked-at directly but
only the effect in himself allgedly resulting from the looked-at.

     The effect in himself can never be OUT THERE, because then it isn't

     But the conscious red ball IS the final effect in himself, which is
why he can see it directly.

     Thus even though his conscious experience of the red ball LOOKS
LIKE IT IS OUT THERE, it can't be.

     The fact that he can see it directly means the looker and looked-at
are one and the same object, both of them HERE NOW.

     And so the being IS his own conscious experience, even though it
seems bent on creating illusions that he is not.

     So now we come to self luminousness.

     Every thing in the universe which is luminous, is a referent that
creats a causal wave of symbols emmanating away from it.

     Both referent and symbol are actual objects made of force, matter,
energy, space and time.

     Basically luminousness in the physical universe is referent objects
creating or affecting other objects forever outward into space and
forward into time.

     Physical luminousness is this causal wave expanding outwards
forever in space and time away from the referent, giving those that
become the effect of it the opportunity to theorize about the nature of
the referent that started it, and all the other referents in between
that got involved.

     Luminousness in the physical universe IS the process by which two
different objects 'learn' about each other, all the while remaining
totally blind to the original source as all they can see is themselves.

     Luminousness is HOW causality and data (same thing) flow from here
to there in space and time.

     Now a machine can not even see itself, as it's parts are spread out
across space and time, and no system of parts can tell if any other part
actually exists or not because they can't see each other directly, The
existence of a machine remains a theory even unto the machine!

     The existence of any part of a machine remains a theory to every
other different part.

     And worse, once a machine in a causal pathway changes state due to
an impingement from a causal messenger wave, the machine has no absolute
proof that it ever was in a prior state, thus a machine can only
theorize that it has changed state.

     Any record of its prior state could have been tampered with.
through faulty circuitry or mal intent on the part of others.  No
machine can verify it's own circuitry with absolute certainty.

     Thus any learning that a machine does about a referent is
theoretical learning about the referent based on theoretical data
gleaned from its own alleged changes in state!

     A machine can have no direct perception of anything because it is
spread out in space and time across many different parts interacting via
cause and effect.

     By the time the right side of a machine receives a signal from the
left side, the left side that started it is GONE!

     And here we come to the very subtle difference between BEING and


     Does the fact that one IS, mean necessarily that one KNOWS that one

     For a machine the answer is clearly no.

     For a machine or any kind of space time gizmo, knowledge is
particular set of states in the machine that represent or symbolize the
existence of other states in the machine, or even the existence of the
machine itself.

     The fact that something is in a state, doesn't mean it KNOWS it is
in a state.  Knowing it is in a state is ANOTHER state representing its
'knowledge' about the first state.

     But no state can symbolize itself because no state can result from
having interacted with itself, and thus producing a symbol attesting to
its own existence as a referent, where the referent and symbol exist AT

     Now a machine CAN investigate itself, and some parts of the machine
can be the effect of other parts of the machine, and the effect that is
produced in some parts could be considered 'knowledge' about those other

     But that knowledge comes at the cost of being too late to be
knowledge about what is TRUE NOW, as the causing parts are long gone in
time by the time the effect on the learning parts is completed.

     It is conceivable that a single part could be in a state, and
interact with itself and thus ADD ON another state which would be
'knowledge' about the first state.

     But the second state would ALWAYS have to be later in time, and
thus always relegated to be knowledge about the past and something it
can't see directly, even if it is looking at 'itself'.  It isn't really
looking at itself, because the itself that it looked at is gone into the
past by the time the knowledge about itself becomes manifest.

     Being the effect of itself does not remove the fact that time must
exist between the state that is cause and the state that is effect, and
thus the second state remains a symbol for a long vanished referent
(itself prior).  Thus self awareness of self NOW remains impossible to a

NOT SELF LUMINOUSNESS, it is merely an infinite regression of indirect
perceptions, thus nothing is seen or known by any particular state, OF

     A machine that turns it's video cameras onto itself will record an
image of itself, then record a SECOND image of itself containing the
first image recorded of itself, then record a third image of itself
containing the first two images recorded of itself etc.

     It takes time to record an image.

     The machine has to emit a photon which is picked up by its own
video camera which lays down an image of the machine in the machine's
own memory a moment later.

     Then the machine AND the image in the memory both emit photons
which are picked up by the video camera and a second image containing
the machine and the first image is laid down in the machine's memory.

     Then the machine and each of its two recorded images emit photons
which are picked up by the video camera and a third image is recorded
contining the machine, and its first two images.


     A video camera can not take a first image of a machine with the
first image already in the machine, because at the time the picture is
taken, the first image IS NOT in the machine!

     Thus no picture of a machine can include itself in the same
picture, and thus a machine 'looking at itself' can not be self aware or
self luminous.

     Each picture is NOT self symbolizing.

     Each picture is a symbol of a referent picture BEFORE IT, not of

     To 'know' about any picture, ANOTHER later picture must be taken to
represent the earlier picture we wish to know about.

     So we are always dealing with two different objects here: the
picture and the second picture of the picture are two different objects.

     With true self luminosity, the referent and the symbol are one and
the same object, thus knowledge about the referent is knowledge about
the referent is NOW.  This only comes about by direct contact of the
referent with itself with no time between cause and effect.

     In the machine we get a series of states, one after the other like
this, each separated from the other by time.

     A1 -> A2 -> A3 -> A4 -> A5

     A2 symbolizes the existence of A1, A3 symbolizes the existence of
A2, A4 symbolizes the existence of A3 etc.

     Each symbol represents the existence of the machine in the past,
that it learned about by being the effect of the machine IN THE PAST.

     By the time A2 exists, A1 doesn't exist any more.  And even if one
wants to claim that A2 arose BECAUSE of A1, that claim remains forever a
theory, not a self luminous certainty.

     A2 never had direct contact with A1, because direct contact means
that A2 sees A1 in the NOW.

     Now let's take a cat.

     A cat is an enormously complex space time gizmo, parts interacting
across a space time distance via cause and effect.

     In order to know everything there was to know about that cat, one
would have to know everything about amino acids, proteins, nucleic
acids, genetics, glucose cycles.  In fact one would have to know just
about all of biology, chemistry, molecular and atomic physics and
quantum mechanics etc.

     One would have to know these things to build a cat from utter

     So that's a lot of knowledge embodied by one cat, certainly more
knowledge than man has at this time, not to mention why the cat is so

     Certainly if man doesn't know everything there is to know about a
cat, the cat doesn't either.

     But the cat is quite capable of BEING a cat even if it doesn't know
clue one about what a cat is or how they work.

     The cat is an INSTANTIATION of knowledge, without itself actually
knowing much about itself.

      Thus a cat can BE with facility, but not KNOW about that being.

      Now clearly in order to KNOW one has to BE first, but one can
clearly BE and not know anything.  Consider a rock.

      Again a rock is a functional instantiation, an embodiment, of
everything there is to know about that rock, but not one state in the
rock actually represents or symbolizes that knowledge, and not one state

      A rock is an example of pure being without knowing.

      A cat has more knowing than a rock, and may even be aware of
itself, but one may doubt that a cat is aware of being aware of itself,
although in theory it could be because it is conscious.

      A human has way more knowing than either a rock or a cat, and it
also has knowing about BEING, and knowing about knowing, and knowing
about knowing about knowing etc.

      Although it might be tempting to claim that knowing about knowing
about knowing is similar to the machine produces temorally separated
states each knowing about the prior one, the human consciousness is in
fact capable of knowing about knowing about knowing all in the same

      In otherwords the human being is self aware, and aware that it is
self aware all in the NOW.

      A machine can not do that.

      The self awareness of consciousness, the ability to look at oneself
looking, is not a space time process which produces effects later than
the cause.  It is a spaceless timeless non process that produces
certainty in present time OF what it is looking at in present time.

      If you look at yourself looking, you are not looking at your self
looking in the past.  If you were, you could never see it as what you
were looking at would be gone by the time you were the effect of it.

      You can look at yourself looking NOW.

      If you see a red ball in your conscious experience, and you see
that you are seeing a red ball, that is all happening NOW, because you
are seeing the red ball directly not via a symbol caused in yourself by
the red ball earlier.

      If you were seeing the red ball in your consciousness, by looking
at a later symbol for it, YOU WOULD NEVER SEE THE RED BALL, as the
referent is never seen at all when looking at the symbol later in time.

      Since you do see the red ball in your consciousness, you are
looking at the referent directly, in the NOW, and THAT is self

      No photons, just BEINGNESS AND KNOWINGNESS that is one and the same

      In the machine's case, being and knowing are always two different
events, as the knowing is always about a prior being.

      Being is the referent and knowing is the symbol.

      In the physical universe, being and knowing are always separated by
space and time between cause (being) and effect (knowing).

      Thus the knowing arises from indirect perception, and is never more
than theory about the being.  The knowing can never SEE the being
directly as the separation between the two by space and time forever
make them two different objects.

      Thus in the physical universe the machine can never SEE anything,
it can only BE something and theorize later about that being.

      In the consciousness however, being and knowing are one and the
same event, not only does the knowing know about the being, the knowing
can also know about the knowing about being, all in the same instant.
That is knowledge NOW OF NOW.

      SEEING is the process by which conscious knowing directly contacts
BEING, and this seeing is what we call self luminosity.

      In the absence of seeing, there is no self luminosity, and in the
absence of self luminosity there is no seeing.

      In the presence of direct seeing there must be self luminosity, and
in the presence of self luminosity, there must be direct seing.

      Direct seeing is redundant, and indirect seeing is an oxymoron.

      There is no indirect seeing, indirection means only theorizing,
and seeing is not theorizing.

      Machines can not see, you can, therefore you are not a machine.

      With indirect perception the symbol can never see the referent and
in fact can never know with certainty that there WAS a referent, because
effect does not prove cause, and even if it did, it would be a theory, a
logical syllogism, anyhow, not a direct perception.


      1.) I know all effects are caused
      2.) I know I was an effect
      3.) Therefore I know there must have been a cause.

      Logical thought is not seeing.

      Notice that no machine can prove that all effects are caused,
merely by looking at effects, BECAUSE EFFECT DOES NOT PROVE CAUSE.

      Notice that no machine can know it has changed state, because
present state has no certain evidence of any prior different state, thus
a machine can't know with perfect certainty it was an effect.

      Thus a machine can't know 1.) or 2.) above with certainty, thus
can't even conclude 3.) with certainty.  And even IF a machine COULD
know 1.) and 2.) with certainty, it still could only logically conclude
that there must have been a cause, which is not the same as SEEING that
there is cause directly.

      A conscious unit can see causal agency directly.  When it is
looking at red and green conscious experiences, it can see that it's
conclusion that it is seeing two different colors is directly causally
connected to the red and green itself.

      Red and green are not just red and green, they are
causally agent allowing the looker to know there are two different

      Because the looker can not only see the BEINGNESS of the red and
the green, but the CAUSINGNESS of the red and green towards it's
conclusion that they are different the looker can verify that there is
in fact a causal connection going on, and therefore the learning must be

      Consciousness can see the causal process take place, and no
machine limited to being an effect can do this.

      Thus a machine can not verify that any effect was actually
caused by anything at all let alone what might have caused it,
and thus can never attain pefect certainty on anything.

      A conscious unit can.

      With direct perception, the referent and symbol are two different
co existing FUNCTIONS in a single non spacetime object, where cause and
effect are the same event, instantaneous to each other, and the symbol
can see the referent directly because the symbol IS the referent, thus
having perfect certainty not only of the referent but of the process of
seeing itself.

      The conscious unit IS everything that it can see.

      Everything it can see is self luminous, there is no causal
wave between referent and symbol, the referent and symbol
ARE each other and light each other directly.

      Self luminous seeing is not small stuff.

      And it is not mechanical.

      A machine can not do this.


Homer Wilson Smith     The Paths of Lovers    Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF        Cross            Internet Access, Ithaca NY    In the Line of Duty
Wed Jan 28 17:55:31 EST 2009