MAIL ME THIS POSTING!
MY E-MAIL ADDRESS:
For example: homer@lightlink.com

     VALENTINE'S DAY LECTURE II

     THE PROOF, A QUICK SUMMARY
 
     Good evening, today is Friday evening February 20th, 2009.

     Tonight we are going to continue the Valentine's day lecture on The
Proof.

     In the last lecture we went over the second line of the proof,
because it was the first discovered.

     The second line of the proof is simply:

     Learning across a distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.

     The original cognition was simply that if an object has no effect
on you whatsoever, then there is no way to know anything about that
object, not even that it exists, EVEN IF you are having a tremendous
effect on it.

     Of course if it is having no effect on you, you wouldn't know you
were having an effect on it, but that only serves to drive the point
home.

     Now one can honestly ask why this rule might be so, and we may not
be able to answer why in the way you would like.  But some more things
can be said about it that will shed light on where further philosophical
research might want to go.

     It has to do with the idea of two different objects.  Just to be
silly about this we are going to formally define two different objects
as any two objects that are not one and same object.

     But really it has to do with quality sets.  Every object in the
universe has its own quality set, its own defining set of qualities that
completely describe it.  Even the nothing has a quality set unique to
it, even though it's empty.

     These quality sets include not only the qualities the object has
alone, but also all the qualities the object has by virtue of its myriad
relations with other objects, and of course both kinds of qualities may
change over time.

     Say we have a ball, that's our object.

     The ball is round, this is a quality the object has alone.

     The ball is on the table, this is a quality the object has unalone,
because it is in relation to the table.

     Notice the quality 'the ball is on the table' is ALSO a quality of
the table, it is just as true of the table that 'the ball is on the
table' as it is true of the ball.

     And so it is with all qualities of relation, they belong equally to
both objects that are in relation while they are in relation.

     So every object has its quality set and from here it becomes easy
to define two different objects.

     Formally, A and B are two different objects if and only if they
have two different quality sets.

     Thus a red round ball over here on this table, is a different
object than an 'identical' red round ball over there on that table.

     As a convenience we like to claim they are identical, but of course
they aren't, or they would be one and the same object.

     On the other hand if both balls were identical in EVERY quality,
and rested in the same spot on the same table at the same time, then one
would have to say there was only one ball there, as long as NOTHING
discriminated between them.
 
     In other words claiming that A and B have identical quality sets
and yet are two different objects is a direct contradiction of the
definition of two different objects.
 
     Notice that this definition implies that as an object moves through
time it becomes another different object.

     An object at 12 noon has one quality set which includes it's
location in time of 12 noon.  That 'same' object 1 second later has a
quality set which includes its location in time of 12 noon plus 1
second.  That's two different quality sets, and thus two different
objects.

     Again as a convenience we like to think of a ball sitting on the
table as the same ball from moment to moment, certainly my kitty
Mirabilis (miracle) sitting on the bed is better thought of as the same
cat through out the day rather than a whole string of different cats
that all look the same.  We can't quite see the USE of considering them
different cats, so we don't.

     But in fact this idea that an object is the same object across time
is an anthropomorphization of our own conscious self which is timeless
and which in fact does not change at all as time passes as it has no
location in time.  What the conscious self SEES has location in its
particular space time framework, but the seer is not in nor off space
time, and thus it does not move nor change with time.
 
     Our bodies may grow older, our chemicals buzz around and change,
the contents of our consciousness certainly changes, but all along there
is something that is me that doesn't change.  I am still the same
*HOMER* from moment to moment no matter how much my accoutrements of
reality change.

     Thus the composite called Homer and his body have a quality set in
which many qualities are changing as the 'object moves through time',
but there are at least a few qualities that never change, even with
time, and that's the true me, the Timeless One.

     And so it is, the true thing that Homer calls 'I' is a spaceless,
timeless motion source, and everything he sources is changing, but
somehow the source itself is not.

     We tend to think that this true 'Homer', that remains the same
object from moment to moment, is also moving in time, so we consider
other things that actually do move in time to also be the same object
from moment to moment.
 
     But in fact the 'Homer' object is timeless and doesn't move in
time, and thus it is truly changeless, and we therefore must not make
the mistake of assigning qualities of timeless beingness to entities
that live in space and time and have only temporal becomingness.

     Same thing goes for Mirabilis, if she were a physical robot with no
consciousness, well then the rule applies, she is a new cat every
second.
 
     But since Mira is a conscious unit IN a body, just like you and me,
she too has a timeless core, and it is the unseen timelessness of that
core spilling over into space time, that allows us the idea that she is
the same 'cat' from second to second.
 
     She is not the same cat, she is the same BEING which is what is
left over after all the physical catiness is removed.
 
     But who cares, as long as it doesn't get us into trouble, we can
consider the physical cat is constant too, the same cat from moment to
moment, even though it grows old and every atom in it is brand new every
couple of months.
 
     At best the ARRANGEMENT of her parts is constant through time, but
even that constancy would only apply to the most gross observation of
arrangement, as like any living organism, its structure only looks
constant at a very macroscopic level.

     You know some would argue that animals are not conscious, are not a
conscious unit, are not conscious beings.

     Take one of Mira's little paws and snap it in two like a pencil.
 
     Does she feel pain?

     If not then she is just a bag of chemicals simmering away at 98.6F.
 
     If she feels pain, then she has a conscious unit inside her that
experiences things just like you and me, and she IS that conscious unit
just like you and me are our conscious units.
     
     She may not have the highly evolved conscious functions of humor,
thought, philosophy, creativity, music, and ethics that we have, but she
has the same conscious functions of perception, color, hearing, taste,
smell, pleasure, pain and emotion that we have.

     You may never have seen a dog cry, but if you have never known a
dog to be sadder than sad, you are pretty dead yourself.

     It is the conscious unit that feels pain, not the bag of ball
bearings that make up the body.
 
     It may be true that the state of the ball bearings pre signals
(causally precurses) the pain in the conscious unit, but conscious pain
is not merely a process in or the arrangement of things that do not feel
pain themselves.
 
     You can't make pain out of things that do not feel pain.

     Pain is not a process in an arrangement of painless parts.

     Since the whole point of The Proof is that conscious units can do
things that physical objects CAN NOT, it is important to maintain a
clear distinction between the conscious and physical aspects of a
composite being.

     So in the world of The Proof these lackadaisical attitudes towards
what are, and are not 'two different objects', can run us into serious
trouble.  Therefore social usage of language is out, and we need to
stick to the more accurate formalisms presented here.

     Two different objects means two different quality sets.

     Two different quality sets means two different objects.

     For example it is sometimes easier to notice that one quality set
has changed state, than to notice the differences between that same
quality set and another almost identical one.

     Thus we have a theorem that says if the quality set of one object
changes, and the quality set of the other object does not, then they
were and are two different objects.

     To wit: If A and B are two objects and A changes and B doesn't,
then A and B were and are two different objects.
 
     ANY DIFFERENCE IN STATE, OR DIFFERENCE IN CHANGE BETWEEN TWO
OBJECTS, BE IT IN SPACE OR TIME, OR ALONG ANY OTHER DIMENSION OR
QUALITY, MAKES THEM TWO DIFFERENT OBJECTS.

     You might rightly ask doesn't the phrase 'two objects' imply 'two
different objects,' and the answer is no.  One object can have more than
one name.

     So we can say that A and B are two objects, but if they have
identical quality sets then A and B are one and the same object, with
two different names.  A and B are still two objects, but they are not
two different objects.  Subtle but important use of language here.
 
     Thus, BY DEFINITION, two objects can mean two different objects,
but it can also mean one and the same object called by multiple names.
 
     So we can validly say that A and B are two objects which are yet
one and the same object.

     Notice if A and B are two objects which are one and the same
object, there isn't a problem of two different quality sets here, one
for A with A's name in it, and another for B with B's name in it,
because the one object has one quality set which includes both names.

     If indeed A and B had two different quality sets, then A and B
would in fact be two different objects.

     So mama and mommy all point back to mother, who is one and the same
object whether she is named mama, mommy, mother or mummy.

     The reason we spend so much time on this issue of two different
objects, is because of the issue of learning by being an effect which we
have detailed in the previous lecture.

     That issue is stated in the following rewording of the original
discovery:

     IF A AND B ARE TWO DIFFERENT OBJECTS, THE ONLY WAY THEY CAN LEARN
ABOUT EACH OTHER IS BY BEING AN EFFECT OF EACH OTHER.

     Now that is a major statement, but by itself still doesn't get us
to the second line of The Proof.

     We need to take a look at space and time and notice something about
them that is true about ALL dimensional extensions.

     A dimension is a series of objects (in this case points in space or
time whether or not they have any mass or energy in them) which are
otherwise identical, EXCEPT that they are at different positions in
space and time!

     In other words, in an empty space, if you take a good look at any
two randomly chosen points in that space, there will be no difference
between them at all, EXCEPT their position in relation to each other and
to all the other points in that space.

     That pretty well defines a 'dimension', which can be applied to
space and time where you have a collection of objects, namely 'points'
or 'moments' in space time, which are identical except in their
differing relations to the rest.

     If it were not for their relation to the rest, there wouldn't be
any difference between them at all!
 
     The important part of this is, because two different points in
space have different quality sets by definition, namely in their quality
of relations to each other, they must be two different objects!

     Thus if a solid object (of mass, energy or consciousness) actually
occupies those points of space, they too must be two different objects.

     Thus we come to the next assertion which is

     IF A AND B ARE SEPARATED BY AN ACTUAL DISTANCE, THEN A AND B ARE
TWO DIFFERENT OBJECTS.

     By distance we mean any distance along space or time or any other
dimension of any other kind.

     By actual we mean true space or time rather than a convenient
holographic rendition or illusion, dream, imagination, or hallucination
of space and time.

     Now the above statement that distance between A and B implies they
are two different objects, is also a major assertion and needs as much
study as it can get, but it's rather intuitively obvious so many tend to
gloss it over when doing deep philosophical analysis of these things.

     So let's take these 2 assertions and see where they lead us.

     A.) IF A AND B ARE SEPARATED BY AN ACTUAL DISTANCE, THEN A AND B
ARE TWO DIFFERENT OBJECTS.

     B.) IF A AND B ARE TWO DIFFERENT OBJECTS, THEN THEY MUST LEARN
ABOUT EACH OTHER BY BEING AN EFFECT.

     Thus we conclude that
 
     IF A AND B ARE SEPARATED BY AN ACTUAL DISTANCE, THEN THEY MUST
LEARN ABOUT EACH OTHER BY BEING AN EFFECT.

     The second line of The Proof rewords this as simply,

     2.) DISTANCE AND LEARNING IMPLIES LEARNING BY BEING AN EFFECT.

     OK, so that was a quick summary of the first lecture, and shows
some of the philosophical development that went into determining its
truth and importance.  I am sure more can and will be said about it by
other's in the future.

     As I also said in the previous lecture, The Proof comes to some
astounding conclusions, many of which might seems unacceptable at first.

     As in any logical proof, if one doesn't like the conclusion, one
either has to argue with the logic, or find that one of the earlier
assumptions is wrong.

     As you will come to see, the bare logical form of The Proof is air
tight, there can be no argument with it.

     However it's 4 major assumptions are of course all fair game,
including number 2 above, which is the second assumption, first
discovered, of The Proof.

     Once they are all presented and argued for, the average reader will
be tempted to accept number 2.) above, and try to take apart assumptions
1.), 3.) and 4.).  Notice we haven't said what 1.), 3.) and 4.) are yet!
 
     A good amount of time will be spent trying to invalidate 3.) in
particular, but in the end most people finally accept 1, 3 and 4, and
come back to 2 and dwell on it for a very long time as the devil in the
works.  So we give it to you here first.

     Number 2.) may seem reasonable now, but when you see where it
leads, it won't.

     When you see this happening in yourself, you can take it as a sign
that you are finally getting The Proof at a deep level.

     OK, let's take a break here for coffee and donuts, and we will
continue after the break.
 

     CERTAINTY AND UNCERTAINTY

     So let's get on with the next line of the proof which deals with
the nature of certainty and uncertainty.

     Certainty is a quality of relation between the knower, which is
your conscious you, and that which is known, which is data about the
quality sets of various objects which are the known about.

     The various objects can be direct conscious experiences like
perceptions of space, time, color, taste, smell, hearing, pleasure and
pain, or implied objects such as the objects in the alleged physical
universe.

     So you have the knower, the known (the what is known), and the
known about.

     Say you have a square book with a red cover.

     The knower is self aware, so that is you operating as a conscious
unit.

     The known about is the book.

     And the known are the two qualities of being called square and red.

     You are one object, and the book is the other object, and so you
are learning through a distance about the book by looking at it, namely
receiving photons from it.  Thus you and the book are two different
objects, and you are learning about the book by being the effect of it.

     It is this process of learning between two different objects that
we are most interested in here for the moment.

     You say 'The house is red'.  OK, that's a statement of fact, but it
could be wrong for many reasons.

     We now have to go back to take a good long look at exactly what
learning by being an effect means, and why it can never produce a
perfect certainty about the object under question.

     DIRECT PERCEPTION AND INDIRECT PERCEPTION.

     The issue is really not about certainty and uncertainty, so much as
it is about whether you can see anything at all when you are looking at
another object.

     If you can't see the object you are learning about, then clearly
there will be a lack of certainty in learning.  On the other hand if you
can see the object directly, like you can with your own conscious
experiences, then perfect certainty of what you see is available,
because:
 
     CONSCIOUS SEEING IS PERFECT CERTAINTY IS CONSCIOUS SEEING IS
PERFECT CERTAINTY.

     So the real issue here is not certainty or uncertainty, but seeing
and not seeing, or more formally direct and indirect perception.

     Direct perception means learning about an object by looking at it
directly.  That produces a perfect certainty born of direct contact.

     Indirect perception means learning about an object by looking at
SOME OTHER OBJECT.  This produces only evidence, model and theory born
of indirect contact.
 
     One might want to argue that a single moment of direct perception
will only leave a memory in its wake so perfect certainty probably
wouldn't apply.

     But the kind of direct perception we are talking about is
continuously reverifiable direct perception in present time, which then
leads to a continuing perfect certainty in present time.

     Perfect certainties are NEVER about the past, they are ONLY the
PRESENT, namely about direct perceptions continuously going on NOW.

     Now the first thing we notice, is that learning by being an effect
fits the definition of indirect perception perfectly.

     Learning by being an effect takes advantage of the fact that when
object A causes object B to change state, the change in B or B's new
state, has a data imprint ON B about the nature of A, namely how A is
able to effect B.

     That might not seem like a lot to know about anything, but if you
take a look at it, the only things we need to know about other things is
how they affect us, our survival, and how we affect them in fair trade.

     If they help us survive, then we want to help them survive back.

     If they harm our survival, then we want to know that too.
 
     If they have qualities that don't affect us, then who cares, right?

     So this is a major statement then:
 
     All you can learn by being an effect is how things affect you, and
how things affect you is all you NEED to learn about anything in the
physical universe for any purposes you might have.
 
     You also want to know how you affect others, but without them
affecting you back, you can't know that either!

     Seems kind of dry, and unpoetic, but cause and effect are the warp
and woof of life, and if it ain't cause and effect, well it might as
well not BE at all, because you aren't going to know about it anyhow.
 
     It might take a while for this to sink in, but eventually you will
see that it is inexorable.  If something doesn't affect you, directly or
indirectly in any way whatsoever, from the beginning of time to the end
of time, it might as well not exist for you.

     NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU AFFECT SOMETHING, IF IT HAS NO AFFECT ON YOU
AT ALL, THEN IT MIGHT AS WELL NOT EXIST, AS YOU WILL NEVER KNOW ABOUT
IT.

     The absence of an objects's effect on you, does NOT prove that the
object does not exist, only that it doesn't matter to you if it exists
or not, as there is no consequence to you or anything that affects you,
of it existing or not existing.

     So say there is some object way out in the distance like a star,
and you want to learn about it.  That star has to send a photon out
across space and time to reach your telescope and which puts an image on
a piece of paper or viewing screen, which then bounces off the paper and
hits your eyes, your brain, and eventually your consciousness.

     This sets up a causal chain or pathway (same thing), from the star
to your consciousness, that hopefully carries data about the star to
you.
 
     Notice you never get to see the star directly, and in fact by the
time the photon gets to your telescope, THAT STAR WHICH EMITTED THE
PHOTON IS GONE.
 
     Remember, the star, as it moves along in time, is a new different
object every moment that passes.  So the star that emitted that photon,
X amount of time ago, is gone the next instant of time, even though
there may still be a similar star in its place a moment later.

     So you never see the star, do you?  You only see a symbol for the
star as the photon hits the film paper at the end of the telescope.

     You have no clue if the star was even out there, as God could have
created that photon mid flight to make it look like the star created it.

     So all you have of the star is indirect 'evidence' of the star
which is the image formed by the telescope on its film plane.

     Indirect evidence is not perfect certainty, it is only theory, thus
learning about A by looking at B can not produce a perfect certainty
about A, not even that A even exists, let alone that A affected B.

     But the issue is not certainty but seeing.  The point is that you
never see the star itself, only a theoretical representation of the star
later in time.

     You only get to see an AMBASSADOR here now of the distant object
that was there then, never the object itself.

     How can you be certain of something YOU CAN NOT SEE DIRECTLY?

     REFERENTS AND SYMBOLS REVISITED

     So remember A and B above, where A causes B to change state.

     A is the referent, what we are trying to learn about, and B is the
symbol which we use to determine the nature of A.

     RENDERED AND RENDITION

     We call the area of B that changed state the RENDITION ZONE, and
the change in state itself the RENDERING.  We hope that the rendering in
B will give us some evidence about the RENDERED which is A, but a
rendering in B will NEVER give us a perfect certainty about A, because
you can't get a perfect certainty about an object by looking at
something else.  That's like trying to see west by looking east.

     Let me say it again, lest you might think I am being lax in my
logic here.  If you are going to take me to task about something, THIS
is what you are going to take me to task for.

     YOU CAN NEVER GET A PERFECT CERTAINTY ABOUT AN OBJECT BY LOOKING AT
A DIFFERENT OBJECT.

     IF A AND B ARE TWO DIFFERENT OBJECTS, YOU CAN NEVER GET A PERFECT
CERTAINTY ABOUT A VIA B, no by LOOKING AT B OR STUDYING B.

     Worse if YOU are 'seeing' B by yourself being the effect of B, you
can never learn about A by being the effect of B.

     But even if you ARE B being the effect of A, you can still never
learn with perfect certainty about A even by BEING B, because as B you
are still learning about A by being an effect of A, using changes in
state IN YOURSELF AS B, to determine the nature of A that might have
caused those changes.

     INDIRECT PERCEPTION OF ANY KIND PRODUCES ONLY EVIDENCE, MODEL AND
THEORY.

     ONLY DIRECT PERCEPTION PRODUCES A PERFECT CERTAINTY.

     Indirect perception is learning about A by looking at B.

     Direct perception is learning about A by looking at A.

     Direct perception between two different objects is impossible.
 
     Therefore direct perception across a distance is impossible.

     The only way to have direct perception of A is to BE A.
 
     Therefore consciousness which sees itself directly, and thus has
perfect certainty of itself, has no distance between perceiver and
perceived.
 
     Indirect perception is learning about cause by being its effect,
and computing back from the nature of the effect to the possible nature
of the cause.

     Direct perception is learning about cause by looking at cause.

     A machine can't do that.

     Consciousness can, its called self luminosity and results in
awareness, self awareness of awareness, self awareness of self awareness
of awareness, ad infinitum, all at the same time.

     We call this instantaneous self reverifiability.

     Consciousness can be aware of its awareness NOW.

     A machine can only be 'aware' of what is WAS aware of a moment
before.  A machine can reverify what it perceivED by perceiving again,
and comparing the two different events.

     Consciousness can produce a perfect reverifiability of the now in
the now.

     Consciousness is a timeless moment of infinite self verifying self
awareness.

     Machines can only work in time and can only be aware of what WAS
even in themselves.  By the time a machine records the fact of any
event, even in itself, that event is long gone, and remains forever a
theory to the machine, even its own existence.  That's because a machine
can not see any part of itself directly.  One atom on one side of a
machine has no clue if another atom on the other side of the same
machine, or even right next to it, even exists.

     So let's go back to our star and telescope and film plane.

     Now in fact you never see the image on the telescope film plane
directly either, because that too has to send MORE photons to your eye,
which then converts it to optic nerve signals, and then brain signals,
and finally to your consciousness WHICH YOU CAN SEE DIRECTLY.

     So what you SEE is not the star, but a representation of that star
in your conscious experience.

     Your consciousness is your personal rendition zone, and what you
see in your consciousness is a rendering, a symbol of final authority,
from which you try to find evidence about the nature of what you
consider caused it to appear.

     You have certainty of the rendition but not of the rendered.

     What you SEE, you have perfect certainty of, namely your conscious
experience of the star, which acts as a symbol for the true star, the
original referent which you can not see directly.

     But the fact that you have perfect certainty of the SYMBOL in your
consciousness, does not imply you have perfect certainty of the original
referent, not even that it existed at the time that the symbol implies
it did.

     The symbol is seen directly and thus is a perfect certainty, but it
is only a theory that the existence of the symbol implies the existence
or nature of the referent.

     In the end you are looking at the star by looking at something
else, namely your consciousness experience of the image of the star on
the film plane, and that fits perfectly the definition of indirect
perception and learning by being an effect.

     Notice also in the example above, your conscious rendition is three
times removed from the original referent, because first the photon
allegedly comes from the star to the film plane, and then again from the
film plane to your eye/brain, and then finally to your consciousness.
Those are called causal hops.

     So although we have perfect certainty of our conscious experience,
we have no certainty whatsoever about anything our consciousness
purports to represent to us.

     And it is a grand error to attribute the certainty we have of our
symbol to the referent.

     Leaving out the film plane this time, the causal pathway can be
symbolized something like the following.

     Star -> Photon -> Telescope -> Eye -> Brain -> Consciousness <- You

     Or to simplify the point:

     S -> P -> T -> E -> B -> C <- Y

     NOW LOOK THIS IS IMPORTANT SO DON'T GO BY IT OR YOU ARE DOOMED TO
BECOME A CHAIR (CHAIRMAN OF A DEPARTMENT) WITH A THESIS HANGING ON THE
WALL, SPENDING YOUR LAST DAYS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IT SHOULD READ
ON YOUR TOMBSTONE.

     Let's take a look at it again.

     S -> P -> T -> E -> B -> C <- Y
 
     Where ever there is an arrow pointing to the right ->, there is
indirect perception.
 
     Wherever there is an arrow pointing to the left <-, there is direct
perception.

     The arrow pointing to the right means you are learning about the
left hand object by looking at the right hand object that was the left
hand object's effect.

     The arrow pointing to the left means you are learning about the
left hand object by looking directly at the left hand object as cause.

     You can't see the star, so you look at the photon.
 
     But you can't see the photon, so you look at the telescope image.
 
     But you can't see the telescope image, so you look at your eye's
retina.
 
     But you can't see your eye's retina, so you look at your brain.
 
     But you can't see your brain, so you look at your consciousness.

     But your consciousness you CAN see, so that ends the learning
process at YOU, the *CONSCIOUS* symbol of final authority, in a perfect
certainty.

     But what are you certain of?

     The star?  No.

     The photon?  No.

     The telescope?  No.

     The film?  No.

     The photons bouncing off the film?  No?

     The image on your retina?  No.

     The crap in your brain?  No.

     Your conscious experience?  Yes.

     Even if you could be certain of the star using the evidence in your
consciousness, it would be a CALCULATED certainty, not a directly
perceived certainty.

     A calculated certainty is something like a syllogism:

     I received an effect.
     This effect had to be caused by something.
     Therefore there is a cause out there, hopefully a star!
 
     A calculated 'certainty', beside being an oxymoron, is a logical
computation or deduction from the effect back to the cause.

     A logical computation says that "I assume that effect implies
cause, I think I received an effect, thus there must be a cause!"

     That process of logical computation is NOT the process of directly
seeing the cause source, and the causation between that cause source and
the effect, and being able to verify that the cause source really was
the source of the effect, as you can with your conscious experiences.
 
     Worse a logical computation is only as useful as we have certainty
of its assumptions.

     All effects are caused.
     I received an effect.
     Thus there must be a cause.

     Quickly, without going too deep into this, if a machine is limited
to learning by being an effect, then that machine can never prove there
IS a cause, because effect does NOT imply cause.

     An effect (change in state in an object) may be necessary to the
existence of cause, but an effect is not sufficient to the existence of
a cause.

     Thus where there is cause, they must be an effect.

     But where there is an effect, there may or may not be cause.

     Thus viewing effects is not sufficient to determine the existence
or nature of cause.

     THE MACHINE CERTAINTY THEOREM

     That is basically the machine certainty theorem right there, a
machine that learns by being an effect can never prove there is cause,
and thus can never be certain of anything, including it's own existence.

     Secondly even the assertion "I am certain I received an effect" is
false, because if a machine is limited to learning by being effect, the
machine can't even tell if it has changed state with perfect certainty.

     Mechanical state does not prove prior different mechanical state.

     This is getting a bit beyond ourselves here, and we will leave
these arguments for a future lecture but the important point here is
that EVEN IF LOGICAL COMPUTATION COULD GIVE RISE TO A PERFECT CERTAINTY
BETWEEN TWO DIFFERENT OBJECTS, IT STILL WOULDN'T BE THE SAME PROCESS AS
DIRECT SEEING SUCH AS TAKES PLACE IN CONSCIOUSNESS.

     Logically computing that the star exists because of a photon that
hits your eye is not the same order of thing as seeing the star
DIRECTLY.

     Two different objects can NEVER see each other directly, and thus
are limited to logical computation from evidence, theory and model to
whatever 'certainties' (low grade predictabilities) they can pretend to.

     But a calculated certainty in the world of evidence and theoretical
models is an oxymoron, so in truth no certainty can be had of the star
at all because you and the star are two different objects.

     AND THAT IS A PERFECT CERTAINTY ABOUT PERFECT CERTAINTY.

     And no that is not circular, it is in fact quite deep.

     Every event between the star and you is a cause effect sequence
spreading out into space.  During every event, data about the object on
the left is imprinted on the object on the right.

     Data about the object on the left is RENDERED in the RENDITION ZONE
of the object on the right.
 
     As the causal chain expands out into space and time, data is
carried along with it in the form of changes in state that are caused
along the way.

     These changes in state are symbolic representations, renditions,
and re renditions of the nature of the original referent.
 
     The final change in state is the conscious picture that forms in
you when you look back down that causal chain at the star.

     You are looking at your consciousness, but your consciousness was
the effect of your brain, which was the effect of your optic nerve,
which was the effect of your retina, which was the effect of your eye
lens, which was the effect of photons coming off the telescope display
screen, which was the effect of photons coming from the star which was
the effect of its internal processes that created the photon in the
first place.

     Everything that you learn about the original referent, namely the
star, comes from the symbol of final authority, namely your conscious
image of the event many moments of time later than the original
referent.

     AT THE TIME YOU HAVE A PERFECT CERTAINTY IN YOUR CONSCIOUSNESS, THE
ORIGINAL REFERENT IS GONE.

     Not only were you unable to see the original referent when it
existed, you certainly are not able to see it later when it no longer
exists at all!
 
     SEEING THE ALLEGED EFFECT OF AN OBJECT IS NOT SEEING THE OBJECT!
 
     SEEING THE SYMBOL IS NOT SEEING THE REFERENT.

     SEEING THE REPRESENTATION IS NOT SEEING THE REPRESENTED.

     SEEING THE RENDITION IS NOT SEEING THE RENDERED.

     BEING THE EFFECT IS NOT SEEING THE CAUSE.

     Talking to the ambassador is not talking to the King.

     Out of convenience (namely arrogance, vanity, conceit and hubris)
we like to think that seeing the effect of an object is the same as
seeing the object, but this is collapsing symbol and referent into one
and the same object, and is the reason it has taken us 50,000 years of
intelligent evolution to figure The Proof out!

     THUS IF YOU YOURSELF ARE NOT THE ORIGINAL REFERENT, YOU CAN NEVER
SEE THE ORIGINAL REFERENT DIRECTLY.
 
     THUS THE ORIGINAL REFERENT THAT EXISTED BACK THEN, REMAINS A THEORY
BASED ON THE EVIDENCE OF YOUR CONSCIOUS EXPERIENCE NOW.

     We need to notice that the vast majority of the causal pathway
between the star and you consists of many different indirect perception
events, each one leading to the next, each one 'learning' about the
object before it, by being the effect of that prior object after it.

     Only in the end is there one single event of direct perception
which is the relationship between the conscious perceiver and the
conscious perceived.

     OK, we will continue this during the next lecture.

     Thank you for coming.

     Homer