OUT GOING CAUSE AND IN COMING CAUSE MCT - 1 13 December 1993 Copyright (C) 1993 Homer Wilson Smith Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes. > (If you hadn't noticed, I'm not convinced that certainty is >absolute rather than relative.) Fine let's accept a relative scale of certainty. I submit that there is NO reason whatsoever to conclude that there is cause connecting any two events that can be gleaned from merely observing those events no matter how often they follow each other. Correlation does not absolutely imply causation. All a machine could do was model an intervening series of followingnesses to 'explain' the two events that gave predictable results, but the concept of cause would never enter into it. Cause is something we perceive directly with consciousness in ourselves, so we anthropomorphize and assume there is cause between external events too. THE CONCEPT OF CAUSE CAME FROM THE DIRECT OBSERVATION BY CONSCIOUSNESS OF ITSELF! Not from some external observation as no external observation can be of cause, only of the change in state that the implied cause was responsible for. It is this ability of consciousness to observe cause directly that is what a machine can not do. Learning about the existence of cause with certainty is impossible for a space time machine. Those who deny the existence of certainty are denying their certain knowledge of their own causation as an operating responsible being. You can not have your cake and eat it too. You can not say there is no certainty of anything and then claim to be a certainly responsible man. Denial of certainty is essentially denial of certainty of responsibility. For any observed followingness in the external physical universe between two events, there are always at least two equally possible models to 'explain' it. The first is that there is direct cause between the two events, and the second is that there is a third party causing both events to happen sequentially in such a way as to make it look like there was direct cause between the two events. This we call the 'Causal Third Party Law', not to be confused with Hubbard's third party law of people saying bad things about each other. This can be diagramed with a 'flow of cause' diagram using 'cause lines' to delineate the flow of cause. In one case B follows A and is caused directly by A. This is diagramed with, A --------> B In the other case B follows A because C causes both A and B to happen to make it look like A caused B. This is diagrammed like, A B ^ ^ \ / \ / \ / C Computer games are an example of how a 3rd party, the computer, projects apparent cause on the screen by making the little light pictures bounce off of each other and explode when hit by other light pictures. There is NO CAUSE taking place between objects on the screen. As an aside, I submit that the apparency of the physical universe is such a computer arcade projection in our conscious color form. One can say that this 3rd party theory is a more complex theory than just assuming direct cause between observed events, and in the sense that there is a third party, this is correct, so one would expect or hope to find reason to support the more complex theory. Just notice that in dreams where I knew I was dreaming, I have bounced tennis balls off of walls to see if they were solid and worked like 'real walls', and indeed they did. And clearly in a dream the ball bounces of of the wall because of a third party, as the ball and wall are merely mockups and have no external causally agent actuality associated with them. I could just have easily had the ball go right through the wall in the dream merely by changing my mind about the solidity of the wall, so clearly the wall and the ball in the dream have no cause of their own when it comes to why the ball bounces off the wall. This is classic example of a 3rd causal party operating to make a virtual universe function like a real universe. By the way I had an interesting lucid dream the other night. I found my self dreaming in an area I did not recognize, as far as I could remember I had never seen or been there before, in dreams, in waking life or in past lives. So who knows whose picture it was. I have taken to trying not to waste these times, and I have spent many hours thinking about what I should audit or think about during these lucid dreams, because often they are just solid as a rock, and nothing of interest happens, I just wander up and down lonely corridors peeking into empty rooms and offices. I figure if I could just remember the right subject I could stir up some interesting encounters with my past or whatever. Sometimes I run into BT's and things, you know blobs of goo floating or rolling along the floor leaving slime trails, and making faces at me or trying to distract me from what ever I am trying to do like fly or feel up some girl. Feelable girls are real scarce in my dreams, a reflection of my life and my childhood, and of the kind of girl I was in many past lives. So in this dream I started listing what I might think about to see if it caused any effects in the dream. Suddenly I came up with the idea of making myself younger. I looked around for a mirror, but there was none to be found, so I MADE ONE appear merely by demanding it do so. It was unstable for a moment, but I looked away from it for a moment and when I looked back, it was clear and stable. In the mirror was an image of me, but actually it was NOT what I look like now or this life, similar but not really the same. Usually in mirrors I look like me in this life, or I look like something I recognize from past lives, but this image was just an image, not really one I had seen before. So I said, ok now you will become younger, and the image in the mirror did indeed change to a younger me. I did this a few more times and the image finally stuck at about 17 years old, I could not get it to go any younger. I got frustrated and again started listing for what I might do with this mirror. Then I said, I know, I will become a girl! A solution to the scarcity of feelies no doubt. Suddenly there I was in the mirror, a 17 year old girl, tits and everything, actually kind of cute, but the front teeth were ever so slightly too big. I did not recognize the image, either from this life or a past life. So again I don't know whose image it was or where I got it from. Lots of BT's around I guess. Later that night I had another dream, this time with my mother. Now you know me and my mother, we are like cats and dogs, but in this dream my mother was very young and very beautiful, and she was being a really decent person, and she was concerned about my well being and we started to talk about my case and auditing and what I had been running recently. I showed her an injury I had when I was a kid, a badly cut finger that needed stitches which is one of the key incidents on my case, involving her and my extreme distaste for her, and she took my hand in her hand and looked at the injury and expressed sadness and surprise because she did not remember my getting the cut. Then she started telling me how sorry she was for an engram that I had received as a baby during the first year of my life, apparently some kids at a beach were dropping me in the sand and smashing my head into the sand for fun. This startled me because I had never conceived of such an engram. It is still not real to me, but my love for my mother was very strong. I accepted her apology and woke up. I can still feel love and emotion for this ideal archetypal mother. No doubt Margaret was really like that before HER upbringing brought her to ruin. Now I NEVER dream about my mother, maybe 5 times in my whole life, and the last 3 times have been in the past 2 months. This is because the charge on my mother is some of the hardest charge to confront having to with death and hell and the whole mess I have been writing about. So clearly someone is making case gain around here. > >HS> ... Machines can observe EFFECTS, Conscious Units can observe the > > CAUSE BETWEEN EFFECTS. > >I understand this assertion about machines. I await your demonstration >of the assertion about Conscious Units; i.e. "Looking at Cause." Are you aware of the existence of cause within yourself? When you move your arm, is the movement of your arm CAUSALLY connected to your volition to move it, and is your volition to move it causally connected to your desire to move it? Can you determine the answer to this question by observing the three events, desire to move the arm, the volition to move the arm, and the moving of the arm? Are these proclaimed causal connections merely surmised and modeled theories created to explain the apparent followingness, or can you see for sure that there is cause between your desire and your arm moving? That is Out Going cause, between you and a change in your color form. Here is another example of Out Going cause. Making a mental image picture is creating color form. When you make a mockup of an apple in your mind's eye, how clear it is? Can you hallucinate an apple totally solid so that by observation alone you can not tell it from the 'real' thing? Can you do this in self aware dreams? Can you make it so solid that you can feel its color weight and temperature, and take a bite out of it and taste the cold apple against your tongue and the bitter sweet taste and smell? While you are making that apple, can you directly observe that the creation of that apple is causally related to your prior desire and present volition to create that apple? Or does the appearance of the apple in your conscious color-form, your mind's eye, merely follow the appearance of your desire and volition with no clear directly observable causal connection? Is there a third party, such as God, waiting until you desire to make an apple and then He makes it for you? If not, are you sure not? Are YOU responsible for the apple, or do you merely desire it and something else creates it for you? Even if something else creates it for you, can you observe directly and personally that this something else is doing so BECAUSE you want it to, even if only because it wants to? Is there any directly observable causal connection between wanting an apple to appear, and the apple appearing? Do you ever have images come to you that you are NOT able to directly or easily see the causal connection of the appearance of the image to your desire? Do you have images come to you INSPITE of your desire? Is the image of the physical universe itself such an image which is observed to impinge on you inspite of or without invitation by your desire? There is also In Coming cause. Now In Coming cause is NOT from other beings, it is ONLY from your own conscious color-form back to yourself, it is what allows you to check out that what you wanted to create actually got created. In Coming cause IS the process of perception of color form. Notice we are not talking about light or photons or any other of that external physical universe nonsense, we are talking about perceiving conscious color-form, just like you do in a dream. Self luminous color form is what you see around you when you 'open' your eyes and look, or when you imagine something, or what you see in dreams. It is color in apparent space and time, and is used to symbolize and refer to the implied external physical universe which may or may not be out there. The color form is certainly there. Say you desire to visualize (create) a color-form of two different colors. There is the idea 'different' in your mind which is it self not a color or a visualization of a color. Then you create a mockup in front of you that is one half yellow and one half red. Do you see the yellow color-form next to the red- color form? Is the appearance of the two toned color form causally related to your desire to see a two toned color form of two different colors? Are you perfectly certain? If yes, then that is certainty of Out Going cause. But now, how do you know that what you WANTED to create actually got created? By looking at the color form you can tell if two different colors got created. That is CERTAINTY OF IN COMING CAUSE and is the 'checking it out process'. Can you see IN THE CONSCIOUS SELF LUMINOUS NATURE OF THE MOCKUP ITSELF that IT IS CAUSE of you knowing that is it there and that indeed it has two colors? We have two events here that follow each other. The color form appears in your view is the first event. You know it has two colors is the second event. We are doing this in a dream so there are no photons to worry about, just you and your color form and direct perception by self of its color form. Here is the question. Is the existence of the color form in your view, and the fact that you are looking at it, in any way causally connected to your coming to know that it has two colors? Maybe a third party is making the color form have 2 colors and making you 'know' it has 2 colors so, yes you are right, but it could just as easily given you false data, and you would never know. Do you know for sure what you know about the color of your color form? Can you see that your knowledge that the color form has two colors is directly and causally connected to the nature of the color form which has two colors? Can you see that there is NOT a third party orchestrating the two events of 1) color form existing and 2) your knowledge about the color of the color form? Can you see that your knowledge of the color form is certain and can not be wrong because you are in direct contact with the color form as DIRECT CAUSE of your knowledge that it has two colors? Can you see it's CAUSE? Can you see it CAUSING you to know it has two colors, red and yellow? This is certainty of In Coming cause, perception. So there are only two kinds of cause that a CU can be certain of. Both are related to self and creation and perception of creation. Out going cause is related to self and creation of color form. In Coming cause is related to self and perception of color form. The first is certainty of Out Going cause between self/desire and the color forms that the self creates. The existence of the created color-form is causally connected to the volition of the self to create the color form. This causal train from self through desire to created color form is directly perceivable WITH CERTAINTY by the self to be CAUSATION AND NOT MERELY FOLLOWINGNESS OR EVENT CORRELATION. The second certainty of cause is the In Coming cause of the self learning about and verifying or checking out that what it wanted to create it actually created. This IS the process by which we perceive our own color forms. There are really only two causes operating here. The first is the Out Going causation called creation (or change) of color-form. The second is In Coming causation called perception of color-form. Color-form by the way includes any conscious experience, be it visual, auditory, tactile, the 52 perceptions of Dianetics, etc. Both the Out Going cause of creation of color-form and the In Coming cause of perception of color form can be directly observed to be CAUSAL with certainty. There is certainly NO third party between your looking at a color form and knowing what its shape and color are, you can SEE that your knowledge about it's color comes directly from SEEING it's color. This is looking at cause, not looking at some effect it has had in you and computing back to what its color must be like to create that effect, which is what a machine does. You can see that the color of the color-form is CAUSALLY responsible for you being able to know its color and to know if it is different from some other color near by. You can see the LIVING CAUSE IN IT as it causes you to SEE it! You see most people are used to looking at their color form to see what its color is, but they are NOT used to looking at their color form to see that it is CAUSALLY AGENT in the process of coming to know what color it is. That is because most people are basically asleep. They are looking at their color form to know what's going on in the implied physical universe, not to know about the nature of color form itself. It never occurs to them that the fact that they can see cause in color form with certainty means they are not a space time machine. The process of learning by looking at cause can not happen in a space time continuum. Thus all INTRA conscious processes of certainty do not involve space or time. There is no space or time between the self and its color form. The image LOOKS 3D, but it is actually 0 dimensional. There is no time between the event of a color form appearing and the event of seeing it, because SEEING IS APPEARING. There is no space between the event of a color form and the event of the self coming to know how many colors it has, because if there were space between self and its color forms, self could never see them, it could only impute them from effects they might have in self. Logically deducing what color something would have to be OVER THERE, in order to have this effect OVER HERE, is not the same as being able to see the color there. Since you can't see across a distance or across a time directly, if you ARE seeing something directly there can be no space and time between what is seen and what is doing the seeing. Self and color form are one. You are actually looking at yourself when you look at the world. >HS> Direct perception of cause is almost magical in nature compared > > to the mechanics of machines, and is the sole purview of a true > > conscious unit. > >I do not have certainty on the existence of direct perception of cause. Then you can not have certainty of the existence of cause. This if fine. >HS> Let's start with, > > > > SOMETHING EXISTS WHICH IS NOT A NOTHING. > >Okay. Granted. Next? Granted what? Granted that maybe this is true, or granted that certainly this is true? Would you bet your Eternity in Hell that this is true? (If you say yes, and you are wrong, you go to Hell forever. It's a good but not perfect check on one's certainty on a matter.) > >TG> When you are wrong, your absolute certainty is not perfect. > >HS> Absolute certainty can not be wrong. > >If you propose that this is true by definition, then I suspect that >Conscious Units in a physical body cannot possess absolute certainty as >defined. Fine, but by your own statement you can not be sure of this. Therefore you might be wrong. Right? If you're wrong, then maybe I am right and such absolute certainty is maybe possible. Saying there is no certainty merely invalidates the surety of everything you say afterwards including your original statement there is no certainty. "THERE IS NO CERTAINTY" = "MAYBE THERE IS CERTAINTY" The statement 'There is no certainty' is itself unsure by its own statement, so maybe it is wrong, so maybe there IS certainty. Certainly. If maybe there is certainty, then the only way to find out is to OBSERVE and see if you see any. Homer ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Homer Wilson Smith This file may be found at homer@rahul.net ftp.rahul.net/pub/homer/mct1.memo Posted to usenet newsgroup: alt.clearing.technology