For example:


     This work is about Learning, Certainty and Causality in

     Specifically it is about learning with certainty about causality,
both in and out of consciousness.

     Historically it has been admitted that the physical sciences do
not provide certainty of truth, only mathematical models providing
some probability of workable dependability in their predictions.
     "Truth" is not the agenda of theory, nor physical universe
     The true WHY anything happens is not available to science, only a
model of HOW it might be happening which produces the same results as
     What other 'certainties' we might profess have generally been
relegated to faith.

     Put simply, in a mechanical space time universe, causation is not
sufficient to witness causation.

     That is, learning by being an effect is not sufficient to prove
the existence of cause, nor does learning by being an effect allow us
to more than model or theorize about the true nature of that possible
cause if it does exsit.

     However there is a certainty of interest that resides between the
absolute uncertainities of the physical sciences and the disingenuous
false 'certainties' of the world of faith.

     These are the various perfect certainties of consciousness.
     The certainty we have that we exist and are conscious.
     The certainty we have of what we are conscious of, for example
the perceived color forms of the conscious landscape around us.
     And the certainty we have of our own personal agency, or
causation in the world.

     Desire to move your hand, then move it.  Was there cause between
your desire and the hand moving?
     A machine can not perceive cause at all.
     The search for causation in the outward physical universe is
actually an anthropomorization of directly perceived causation in
     We can see our consciousness and what is it in by direct
perception, and thus with perfect certainty.
     Thus we see that there is causation within our consciousness, and
so we conclude that there must be causation out there in the physical

     Even if we argue against our certainty of personal agency, our
certainty that we perceive conscious differences around us (red and
green for example) and our conclusion that therefore something
certainly exists, is irrefutable.  A machine can not do this.
     Two nothings could not be different and still be nothings.  Thus
perception of difference implies existence of something.
     Certainty of difference implies certainty of existence.

     A machine can not do this.
     It is this learnable and reverifiable certainty of our own
existence and agency that makes consciousness special and leads us to
some startling conclusions about its non mechanical, non space time,
non dimensional, nature.

     Mechanical refers to the operation of a machine.

     A machine is defined as any system of parts interacting via cause
and effect across a space time distance.
     Thus anything which is multi dimensional in nature would be
mechanical, and limited by the laws of mechanics, and anything which
was non dimensional in nature (scalar) would not be a machine.
     This journey started with the question could a machine learn with
perfect certainty of its own existence or of anything for that matter?

     As will be developed, the answer is no, and yet as a conscious
unit we are quite certain we exist, that we care, and that we are
agent and can perceive directly our percetions, and thus we are forced
to conclude that we, as a conscious unit, are not a machine, although
we may be interfaced with one, namely the body/brain system.


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