> 1- There is me. I just know it.

      No, we LEARN by looking.  We see and we conclude.

      We can also continuously reverify over and over again.

      The problem is in the mechanism of that learning.

      In the physical universe we are learning by looking at effects of
distant causes.  We never see the cause, only the messenger of the

      We never see the King, and can't see the King, only the messenger,
and the King that originated the message is long gone by the time the
messenger reaches us.

      In the conscious universe we are learning by looking directly at
the cause, we can SEE the cause causing us to learn that something is

      The experiences of red and green and blue are AGENT and we know
that because we can SEE THEIR AGENCY directly.  There is no messenger
between them and us, and we can see that too.

      For certain.

      We can only be certain of the King when there is no messenger at
all, zero mission visuals.

      Does cause exsit at all?

      How do we know.  Observe the process of learning the answer to that
question.  See what you come up with.

      A machine can not see cause nor prove there is any.

> 2- I am bombarded by signals telling me that there is a whole lot of other
> stuff.
> I am certain about # 1. I do not see a way to get certainty about # 2.

      Again be clear, the stuff we actually see is certain, but these
experiences of color form are being used to REPRESENT the existence of
something external to us which we can not see directly.  That is a
choice of OURS to use them that way.

      In a dream we know there is no external actuality, in the waking
state we CHOOSE to assume there is.

      Put two pieces of red and blue paper in front of you, and observe
the conscious experience of red and blue which is certain.

      But how do we know THE PAPER is out there in the physical universe?
We don't and can't.

      There may or may not be external referents to the conscious
renditions we can see, but there is a game to be played with these
experiences which is survival.

      That game pressures us into playing the game with pain and
pleasure, and pressures us to try to explain WHY pain and pleasure are
caused by the things that do, but its a virtaul world we live in, the
external actuality just simply isn't there at all, and thus our waking
state becomes just another dream.

      It has causal rules that even if arbitrary are momentarily binding
while we are in the dream, particularly if we do not understand it is a
dream (non lucid), but it opens the possibility that we can understand
how the dream was created BY CONSCIOUSNESS and what hand OUR
consciousness may have had in creating it and joining it.

> Any reasoning that tries to prove that there can be only one explanation for
> our mutually perceived universe may be logically sound, but does not
> resonate with me; it may be a valid intellectual construct, but simply not
> pertinent.

      We can't prove, we can only support with evidence.

      One trip out of wer body and it becomes clear that at a minimum
each person lives in their own private idaho virtualization that seems
to co resonate with other's similar dreams.

      There is no evidence for the external physical universe at all.

> The construct, by the way, is cool, and I am proud of you. Really. But I
> believe (believe?!) that the nature of reality is different, unknown and
> perhaps not amenable to analysis that can be put into words. In other words,
> as Bill might say, the answer is wordless. And thoughtless.

      The answer to what question?

      The question before the court is a simple and exact question:

      Does actual space and time exist as it is represented to us in our
conscious renditions of it, or are we dreaming of space and time where
there is none?

      If there is no space or time out there just conscious experiences
of them, then who or what is cause if cause is not out there, and if we
are not made of outthere, a physical body.

      And if there WERE external space and time, how could we ever prove
it?  Or even support it?

      And if we can prove that we can never prove it, why surmise it?

      Quantum Mechanics long ago gave up surmising about things that
can't be measured.

      Clearly something exists other than us, the question is what is its
true nature, matter, energy, space and time, or consciousness?

> What I hope for is that there we are more than just coal, water and air,
> that there is indeed a mystery, and that we will one "day" know it.

      OK, the second question before the court, simple as pie is as

      We DEFINE a machine as any system of parts interacting with each
other via cause and effect across a spacetime distance.

      Qustion: Can this machine learn with perfect certainty anything?

      That it exits?  That matter, energy, space or time exist?

      That it is receiving two different frequencies of light, that we
might call red and green or blue but it calls 700nm?

      Simple question, any information theory professional will tell you 
conclusively, no.

      A machine can't verify any causal pathway or any parqt of
itself no matter how many video cameras it has trained on itself.

      A can say 'I exist!' and be right, but it can't LEARN that it
exists with perfect certainties, and thus verify or KNOW that it is right.

      That's because a machine that learns only via causal pathways can't
use causal pathways to verify any of the causal pathways it is using to
learn with or about.

      Since consciouness can SEE the causal pathway directly between
its experience of two different colors and its conclusion that
there are in fact two different colors there, and reverify with the
same answer until the cows come home, it is clear that a conscious
unit is not a machine using causal pathways to learn about itself.

      Note, conscious learning IS a cauasl pathway, but the conscious
unit is not USING results of the causal pathway to learn with or
compuate back to cause from the final effect it sees.

      In the machine, cause and effect are two different events,
at two different times, and the cause is gone by the time the
effect happens.  Thus the machine computes back to the theoretical
nature of that cause from what it sees in the effect.

      The machine is thus 'learning' about the cause by looking
at the effect.

      In the conscious unit, cause and effect are one and the same even
in a single moment of time and space.  There is no distance in time or
space between them.  The conscious unit does see the effect and compute
back to the cause under trhe assumption if there is an effect there must
be a cause, the conscious unit looks at the CAUSE directly and sees IT
CAUSING the EFFECT, thus the conscious unit not only is certain of the
cause directly but also that the cause caused the effect the machine
also sees with perfect certainty.

      This is self luminousness or zero emission learning.

      Zero emission learning is messenger free learning.

      Zero emission learning is not a space time process because there is
no space or time between cause and effect, if there were, the cause
would be gone by the time the effect got there, and the machine would
have only the effect to look at and a gone cause to surmise about.

      Thus a machine is forever blind to cause, while a conscious unit,
well all a conscious unit ever sees is agent colorform.

      This also comes back to the universal and existential statement

      Any universal statement can be disproven but not proven.

      Universal: All daisies are black.

      This can never be shown to be true, but can be shown false, by
presenting one white daisy.

      Existential: There exists at least one white daisey.

      This can never be shown to be false, but can be shown to be true.
Again one white daisy will do it.

      The statement "There exists an independent objective physical
universe independent of our conscious experience" is an existential

      It is easy to prove.

      Show me one.

      Lastly remember we all have an addiction to mysteries, without them
people think life wouldn't be worth living, for the seeeking, searching,
trying to find, looking for and discovery function of the mind would
grind to a halt.

      So its fine if there are mysteries and unknowables, we are not
dealing with them, we are dealing with perfect certainies, things we can
know and that's it.

      Except for the one little problem of memory of past lives, if we
have CHOSEN for forget them intentionally, then there are many questions
that need to be answered, why, how, when, and what should we do about

      Do we have amnesia?

      Is our amnesia benign?

      Did we choose to forget, and choose to forget the choice to forget?

      Motivation please...

      An approach to undoing the choice to forget would also
be useful.

      Thus these issues have astounding ramifications and are sloughed
off and "Oh Posh!"ed only by fools.

Sun Nov  8 19:32:31 EST 2015