Did you ever get these questions clarified?
    The proof has to do with a number of very clearly defined

     The definitions are not 'right', they just are, and within that
framework the proof makes sense.
     They tend to be right for a meatball which is the whole point, to
blow the meatball out of the water.
    They are:
    Checking Out
    Change in State
    Dependable Followingness
    Necessary Dependable Followingness
    Looked At
    Looked Through
     If A and B are separated by a real distance, or any space/time
dimension, then certain things hold true in the Newtonian Model of
     If B has no direct or indirect causal effect on A, then A can never learn anything
about B.
     If B does have a causal effect on A, then A can learn about B
and the change in state in A that is caused by B *IS* the
learning that A gleans from B.
     Thus the only thing that A can learn about B is how B caused A to
change state.

     If A does not have causal contact with B, A can try to learn
about B via asking someone else who supposedly knows.  God can come to
A and say, well B is such and such, and A can believe or not as it
chooses.  But A can not check it out unless A has direct causal
contact with B.

     So from this we can conclude that Learning and Cause and Effect
are related.

     Without cause/effect there is no learning, and where there
is learning there must be cause/effect.

     So we do an experiment.  We can do this experiment in a dream, so
the problem of photons and physical objects does not enter into it.
     We are talking about conscious experiences here, not material

     Have someone get a red and green piece of paper and put them on
the table and cover them or close your eyes and pretend you do not
know the answer to the following question.
     "Are there two different colors there?"
     Then open your eyes and observe the process of learning the
answer to the question.
     Then ask yourself:
     Are you *SURE* you see two different colors?

     Different means not absolutely identical.  SURE means absolute
perfect 100 percent certainty, about which you could not be wrong and
about which you would be willing to bet your eternity in hell that you
are right.
     Do you know there are two different colors there because
something else told you about it, or can you see it?
     Are you sure that you are *LEARNING BY LOOKING* that there are
two different colors there, or did you just know?

     If you just know, can you check out your knowledge to make sure
it is right?

     Is it possible to check out knowledge without learning by

     If you are learning that there are two different colors there,
are you learning this by direct causal contact with the conscious
color-form of the mockups of the paper?
     Can you see the CAUSE between the conscious color and you,
between the LOOKED AT and the LOOKER?

     Can you see that the LOOKED AT is CAUSE and the LOOKER is EFFECT.

     Can you see that without this cause and effect, the looker could
never know with certainty whether there are two different colors

     Can you see with certainty this cause taking place between the
looked at and the looker?
     Can you see this process of cause and effect taking place through
the LOOKED-THROUGH between the looker and the looked at?

     Are you computing that there must be cause in the looked at by
seeing the effect in the looker?
     Or are you seeing the cause in the looked at directly?
     Machines that learn across a space time distance by being an
effect, can only learn by looking at the effects in themselves.
     Is looking at the effect in the looker the same as looking at the
cause in the looked at?

     Are you a machine?
Homer Wilson Smith     News, Web, Telnet      Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959         E-mail, FTP, Shell     Internet Access, Ithaca NY

On Wed, 6 Aug 1997 wrote:

> Thanks to all who responded to my message.  Hi Christine :)
> Ok, Homer, I went back and read through your mct files more carefully,
> and I have a few more questions for you, if you don't mind.
> First of all, I don't see that I have certainty that I am able to cause
> something.  The only thing I have 100% certainty of is that I am
> experiencing (feeling, seeing, hearing, whatever).  I seem to be able to
> cause things, but I am not 100% certain that I really am causing them.
> You made some statements to the effect that... if I am seeing the color
> blue (visualizing it, for example, so we don't have to worry about
> photons.  although I myself can't really visualize), then the color
> which I created is causing me to see it, or to know that I am seeing it,
> or some such thing.  Frankly, I didn't find this statement to make much
> sense.  I know that I am experiencing the color blue, but I am not
> certain what is causing this experience.  I'm not even sure what an
> experience really is.  I certainly don't see that some portion of what
> I am experiencing is causing anything.  Maybe this should be obvious to
> me but I'm just not getting it, for some reason.  Could you explain this
> to me a bit better?