For example:

Arthur C. Clarke  7/9                       ART MATRIX - LIGHTLINK           PO 880 Ithaca, NY 14851-0880
                                            (607) 277-0959      Voice
                                            (607) 277-8913      Fax
                                            (607) 277-5026      Modems

                                            08/17/07 11:45pm

     Dear Esteemed Sir,


     Anthropomorphization is the assignment of qualities that rightly
belong to consciousness to things other than consciousness.

     Whenever symbols are used to refer to referents, various qualities
of the symbol are used to refer to similar qualities in the referent,
especially if the qualities in both symbol and referent bear a high
degree of geometric congruency to each other.

     Geometric congruency, or geometricity for short, means the symbol
is square and the referent is square.

     That is highly convenient but allows us to easily forget that the
symbol is not the referent.

     Another less obvious geometricity is existence, the symbol exists
and the referent exists.

     In fact our very concept that the referent exists is BECAUSE the
symbol exists.

     Since the only source of information the being has about the
referent is via the symbol, one can assert that everything one knows
about the referent comes from direct perception of the symbol.

     Thus we consider that the physical universe exists because our
conscious experience of it exists.  Because our conscious experience
exists we assume that what it is being used to represent exists also.

     Thus in dreams or hallucinations we are fooled into thinking the
referent exists just because the symbol exists.

     In such cases we are not lucid.  Lucidity is recognition that the
symbol exists but the referent doesn't.  One is lucid when one knows one
is dreaming, imagining or hallucinating for example.

     We consider the physical universe has space because our
consciousness of it looks like it has space.

     We consider the physical universe has time because our conscious
experience of it seems to have time.

     We assign force to the physical universe because of our conscious
experience of force and impact.

     Most people's convictions are based on the conscious experience of
impact.  The impact seems more real than the consciousness experiencing
it, thus more credence is given to the alleged referent causing the
impact than to the experienced symbol of the impact.

     Nonetheless the sense of actuality ascribed to the referent comes
directly and only from the actuality of the symbol.

     To claim the referent is actual, but the symbol is inactual, is one
definition of insanity.  The guy thinks he is seeing the physical
universe referent directly.

     We also assign mass and energy to the physical universe because of
our conscious experience of mass and energy.

     In each and every case we have taken a quality of the symbol and
assigned it to the referent.

     The whole idea of cause in the physical universe is an
anthropomorphization of our experience of cause within ourselves.  If we
had never had the direct perception of personal causal agency within
ourselves, we would never have had the idea to assign it to the physical
universe too.

     Notice that direct perception of causation is impossible in the
physical universe because of it's inherent dimensionality and separation
between parts.

     One can see two events, but one can never see the causation between
     "Mere causation is not sufficient to witness causation." - Jane's

     Thus assigning causation derived from direct perception of
consciousness, to the physical universe where it can never be observed
or proven at all, is a very wild step of anthropomorphization.

     Assigning cause between events in the physical universe is an
extreme example of collapsing symbol and referent.  It is useful to our
survival, but in the end its more important for us to know that the
apple falls, and not whether it falls due to lines of force or curvature
of space.

     Such models of cause are useful to science because they lead to
predictions, and science would not progress at all with out them, but if
the world is a dream, then the entire physical universe is a virtual

     Why does the ball bounce off the wall in a sleep dream?

     There is no causation at all between conscious pictures in a
sleep dream, a third party is projecting both ball and wall to give
the illusion of cause between them.

     Actual cause (third party) projects virtual cause (dream time

     If the world is a dream even in the waking state, then all physical
causality is the same as it is in a dream, virtually real, but actually
non existent.

     Anthropomorphization can be useful as an analogy but is a
philosophical weakness if carried too far.

     For example it would be an error to assign love and pain to the
physical universe just because we experience love and pain in our

     Do we imagine that two electrons repel each other because they
suffer in each other's presence?

     Do we imagine that electrons and protons are attracted to each
other because they feel pleasure in each other's presence?

     Is nuclear force sexual lust?

     Do we imagine that physical universe forces such as gravity and
electromagnetism are in fact conscious sentient wills seeking to
maximize their pleasure and minimize their pain?

     Are we torturing something by bringing the north poles of two
magnetics together?

     Using your right hand pick up your left hand and move it.

     Did your left hand move because of force or pain?

     It moved because of force.

     Now use your right hand and threaten to stick a hot needle in your
left hand and watch you move it.

     Were you moved to move your hand by force or pain?

     Notice both force and pain are causative, they cause us to move,
and many biological pathways involve both force and pain, but force is
not pain, and pain can not be built out of force and mass alone.

     Pain is not MERELY a process in arrangements of force and mass.

     "Love and pain can not of force and mass be made," because both are
conscious experiences and thus not part of the alleged multi dimensional

     It is also an extreme error to assign 'redness' to anything in the
physical universe at all, because redness is solely a quality of a
conscious experience.  It's external referent is frequency, and
frequency and redness are two utterly different qualities in two utterly
different kinds of objects that have no absolute or necessary
relationship to each other.

     In other words the assignment of redness to 5000 Angstroms of
electromagnetic radiation is an arbitrary hook together with no
underlying fundamental necessity that it should have been that way.

     In fact in dreams one can hook redness onto any frequency of light
at all because THERE IS NO FREQUENCY OF LIGHT in dreams.  In a dream all
there is, is conscious self luminousness.  In dreams one might just as
well hook redness to 'X rays coming from the stars' according to one's
fancy of the moment.

     Now one can argue that assigning conscious colors to SOME frequency
of light in the physical universe was necessary for the game of
evolution to take place, and right this might be.

     It can also be argued that only a subset or small part of the
entire spectrum of eletromagnetic radiation was necessary and optimum
for that survival to happen, that which we call visible light.  And
again this is probably correct.

     However it probably can not be argued that it was better to assign
redness to 5000 Angstroms, green to 4000 Angstroms and violet to 3000
Angstroms rather than some other way around.

     Further it can not be argued that any two beings can verify that
they both see the same color as the other, given the same frequency of
light, because each can only see their own consciousness and thus can
never verify that the other is seeing the same color as them.

     We show two people the same frequency of light and say to them this
is to be called red, so now everyone calls it red, but who is to say
that some don't see it as green or violet or some other color we never
heard of.  There would be no way to prove it one way or the other, as
no conscious unit can even prove that any other conscious unit even
exist, let alone what colors it sees.

     We like to believe, but belief is not perfect certainty born of
direct perception.
     The only thing that matters for survival purposes is that every
time the being sees a sample of 5000 Angstrom light, he sees the same

     WHAT color he sees is not relevant.

     Since different people have different levels of color blindness,
and animals have a wide range of sight from black and white in dogs to
color in cats and birds and bugs, spanning many more different
frequencies than the human being can sense, at no time can anyone be
sure that what anyone sees while looking at 5000 Angstroms of light is
the same as all other things that can also see that frequency.

     The conscious color to frequency hook together is arbitrary.

     Thus redness is not frequency!

     Thus consciousness which has redness but no frequency, is not
photons which have frequency but no redness.

     Thus conscious experiences are their own thing, their own object,
with qualities utterly of their own, some of which may be used by the
conscious being as symbols to map onto, refer to, referents in the
alleged physical universe.

     Only the dullard continues to collapse symbol and referent and
continue to claim that there is no symbol and that he sees the referent

     These are the 'consciousness is nothing and the brain is something'
crowd, of which I so tire.

     In case you hadn't noticed.

     You couldn't have the concept that the referent was something
unless the conscious experience of it were something also!

     Your faithful servant,

     Homer Wilson Smith

Homer Wilson Smith     The Paths of Lovers    Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF        Cross            Internet Access, Ithaca NY    In the Line of Duty

Sat Aug 18 00:02:42 EDT 2007