Claudio,

If you will look at the page header information on the page you reference or simply go back to the first page of the chapter, you will see that what you are referencing is from My Big TOE| Probable Futures, Real Time, Our System, State Vectors, and History. In this and other associated chapters Tom is discussing the implementation of state delta ts between the various PMRs and NPMRs of OS and such matters. In other words, just what the chapter title says. What I was discussing is the way that our experience as individual consciousnesses or IUOCs of our participation is put together out of/within CS. How we as IUOCs time share our attention between the various activities within which we participate and may be conscious of.

There is simply no validity to your statement that I do not understand and am not correct in terms of what I am speaking about, based on the material that you reference. You have simply picked up material referring to delta ts that you find appropriate to what you want to prove and claimed that it is pertinent and disproves what I was saying. It is not pertinent and is totally unrelated. You might as well be disputing my saying that dinner will be served in a half hour by quoting from a treatise on time dilation at significant fractions of the speed of light. I may or may not be in error in my statement, but your referenced material has nothing whatsoever to do with this or prove it one way or the other.

If you would pay attention to what is actually being stated and comment on the actuality rather than jumping off to find something/anything that you can find that vaguely uses some of the same words to refute what I am saying out of your error from not paying attention, we would get much further. I did not jump in and say that you were wrong. I made a post explaining something to a member of the board relative to a post of theirs relative to which you had said nothing. You simply were compelled to disagree and try to disprove what I said so you jumped in with a claim that it was in error, based on something you pulled up that mentions delta t. If you had simply tried to understand what was being said first, you need never have posted anything and most certainly not such misleading a reference.

Ted

I know what you were talking about and I gave tons of reasons why what you were saying was wrong, but you just ignore them. Even I made references from Tom posts but you also ignore them. Well, you can ignore everything and keep thinking that you are always right. It is up to you. The posts regarding the delta-t's are relevant to your bad assumption that an IUOC jumps from some tasks in one level to another one with your "time sharing model". I was trying to help your analysis by finding in the book relevant information regarding what you were saying. You never said why your assumptions were correct, so for me they are still wrong, inconsistent and don't get the reasons behind. I kept telling you that Tom was talking about the FWAU awareness and you keep saying that he was talking about the IUOC awareness which is in different cycles one at a time. Multiple times I mentioned the multiprocessing that Tom mentioned and you keep ignoring all this. Well, if you don't care about stating consistent things, there is no more I can do.

Your "time sharing" model is not clear to me, but you don't seem to care about expanding it neither anybody else cares about what you are saying either, so bottom line it seems always meaningless to talk about anything because nobody cares anyway. Nobody cares to understand the models better.

Claudio

_________________
"Every moment can be as good as you want it to be."
"Experience is the ultimate teacher."

> http://soprano.com <

For Claudio if he will pay attention and anyone else interested in seeing the source material that I have been explaining and Claudio disputing:

With considerable difficulty (and not wasting Tom's time to ask him for a location), I searched out the following source information in MBT. Relative times are discussed between base time as within AUM, NPMR time and PMR time. Book 1, Section 2, Chapter 31, Page 261 at this link to Google books:
http://books.google.com/books?id=6To090 ... &q&f=false

There you will find the following data provided by Tom where s represents a PMR second.

AUM's fundamental time period: 10^-80 s
NPMR's fundamental time period: 10^-62 s
PMR's fundamental time period: 10^-44 s

The ratio between these fundamental time periods in sequence is 10^18. Each one in sequence is 10^18 times larger than the next smaller one, going from AUM to NPMR to PMR.

Delta t for PMR is 10^36 delta ts in AUM's fundamental time.
Delta t for NPMR is 10^18 delta ts in AUM's fundamental time.

Well, we don't just appear and disappear between PMR clock ticks. We continue to exist as our IUOC. If you can remember, Tom made a post referencing "What your uncle never told you" which clearly stated that we as IUOCs are integral parts of the Consciousness System/AUM. I can provide a link if you don't remember. So our IUOC, the basic total code that is all of us as both functionality and data in digital format is present and busy functioning as an integral part of AUM for all of these time ticks for AUM.

Every 10^18 time ticks for AUM, a time frame is generated for NPMR and sent out over the RWW to each participating IUOC for that particular NPMR. There it is received and experienced as one time tick worth of duration by the Virtual Self, the FWAU, that has been created based upon the total IUOC to receive and perceive that NPMR experience. This represents a very small time increment and comes around very fast and is perceived as a continuous experience although actually made up of very small incremental changes.

Every 10^36 time ticks for AUM, a time frame is generated for PMR and sent out over the RWW to each participating IUOC for our particular PMR. There it is received and experienced as one time tick worth of duration by the Virtual Self, the FWAU, that has been created based upon the total IUOC to receive and perceive this, our experience of and within PMR. Again this represents a very small time increment and comes around very fast and we perceive time as a continuum. The very small incremental changes all blend into our perception of continuous time passage as opposed to time quanta.

If we participate in additional NPMR or PMR experiences, our IUOC forms another FWAU to receive and perceive those time frames, just like for our primary experiences of NPMR and PMR. Those experiences, as are all of our VR experiences, are time shared by our IUOC through individual designated FWAUs, one per each Virtual Reality frame. This simply means that in the normal scheme of things, each VR experience stream is isolated from the other. If you are the rare individual such as Tom, you can be aware of more than one VR reality frame at a time at will. If you visit NPMR while you are at base your PMR VR self, experiencing through and according to the PMR rule set, you interpret your NPMR experience based upon that rule set and it is outside of your normal experience of NPMR through your FWAU ordinarily designated to experience this reality frame.

This is not a difficult concept to understand, presuming willingness to do so. Here it is with references and written out in detail. Perhaps it was a mistake to assume that it would be understandable to the many participants here on the BB who have suitable backgrounds and have read MBT already when given without specific references and full details.

Ted

Ted, conditioning or labeling does not define or create truth. You are not the teacher here and I the student. Ted Vollers is not just superior to Claudio Soprano. Only you create this fantasy that the problem was me not paying attention and I don't care what some people may think, I know what is on my mind. You were not explaining anything only till this last post when you finally decided to put your ego on the side and your apparent "know it all" attitude and decided to explain some things in order. I put things in order and explained things on this thread before you did. You tend to always take care of defending your condition of being the teacher of the board after Tom. Only after my efforts and because of extending this post you decided to do some real effort and work.



These periods you describe here are not different from the periods I mentioned before you but before you doing some thinking and analysis you said:



Not relating the 2 sets of time cycles (delta-ts at all labels) described in 2 different chapters is either ignorance or laziness of thinking in your part Ted (I prefer to think the 2nd one). If you cannot relate that all those delta-ts are the same you may have to re-read some parts of the books again. Now you don't say anything about your previous mistakes in my opinion because you have this typical sequence (1. I am mostly always right and Claudio is mostly always missinterpreting, 2. (optional), let's do some analysis). I wish you always start with this type of post (your last one), to avoid all this back and forward.



Compare this to what I posted before on this thread:







Now compare your last quote above and the related information on your thread with these previous statements from you:





This is an error, because an IUOC can parallel process all experiences of its VR selves plus NPMR experiences (all becomes a system that multiprocess with different aspects taking care of their stuff). An IUOC can multiprocess, a FWAU can also multiprocess, but even if a FWAU does not parallel process an IUOC can parallel process or multiprocess, it does not need to handle different cycles in serial mode. I prefer you admit your errors, instead of focusing on my possible missunderstandings. I was trying to help you understand, not the other way around that you insist on projecting to the board. I don't know if you want to create some magic to keep consistency adding some conditions that you couldn't have been wrong in your previous posts.

Regarding your last post (good post), I cannot detect anything wrong except for this part:



An IUOC can perceive time frames in parallel, as the IUOC (mainly higher self) operates (it multiprocess in parallel). A FWAU can also process in parallel or remote view or be an spectator of other reality frames without creating a FWAU for that. Also, an FWAU can also temporarily co-process another FWAU's experience in another reality frame experiencing that other FWAU either as an spectator or taking part of the control process.

Claudio

_________________
"Every moment can be as good as you want it to be."
"Experience is the ultimate teacher."

> http://soprano.com <

Claudio,

To quote you from your last post: "Regarding your last post (good post), I cannot detect anything wrong except for this part:"

I said nothing in any of these posts that was any different from the last post. Now you have come full circle and agreed with it. Other than your desire to be harassing, this serves no useful purpose. You have shown me nothing nor taught me anything nor provided legitimate information for other members. It is in no way a legitimate use of your membership on this Bulletin Board.

Ted

Ted, I showed you and proved your big errors all over this thread and you always come up with some magic to bring all inconsistencies together and still keep your necessary conditions that you are not wrong. I learned from Tom that there is nothing I can do for you to see or detect certain things because you and I are just diifferent. You have to discover these things on your own, but also only if you are interested in going through the process. You, like some others use pre-conditioning that only certain people can teach you something and some other people should be ignored because they just can't teach you anything.

You just said that I did not provide legitimate information for other members. I look for truth by doing omsing, by having an attitude of being open minded and skeptic. I try sometimes to prove somebody wrong or to prove some statement wrong by trying to explore reasons for that being the case. If you can keep doing magic and prove to me that no member got any legitimate information or value from my posts I might consider that, otherwise it is just another statement with no value, because it is just an assumption that can't be proved unless you can admit that your FWAU can multiprocess and know exactly what's on the mind of all members and viewers on this board.



If you consider my action of taking time to go through the book to find information to try to help you understand why you made some big mistakes "not a legitimate use of the membership of the board" has no value to me unless you can explain why that is the case.

I still have a lot to learn and change to "be" and "feel" love for others but I'll try to get there even though it looks a long way so far. Words are just words, but can be also small steps that help the learning to "be there" at some point. I can say that I'll keep trying to love you, considering the fact that you are my brother "in a sense" like also every other being that are part of AUM and consider that you are learning as all other beings are including the whole AUM. Among some things I learned from Tom is to keep trying and expressing myself even if the only one learning some value from what I write is only me, and not worry about what others can learn from it.

I just dump this here that just came to me:



Claudio

_________________
"Every moment can be as good as you want it to be."
"Experience is the ultimate teacher."

> http://soprano.com <

Ramon, we are evolving and there are a lot of advanced levels to grow. One of my desired lessons is on improving seeing from others eyes. Tom woke me up on it but I need a long development. You said "that was all I needed to make productive use of it". I am different from you and I don't act just on "what I need", but on my curiosity to learn, to explore. My intent is not on arguing but in help others to understand. The results of developments might be different from the intents of each person. You and Tom say "You are arguing over your own personal understandings of Tom's words here and in MBT just like the guys in that ridiculous fight over what kind of stars were the girl's eyes like". That is your perception of what goes on my mind but it is not. I know it is difficult for you to see through my eyes. On this thread my mind was all the time sure of what I know about MBT. I am sure that my personal understandings are very consistent, with good basement. I am not confused about them. It comes easy "from my eyes". You say: "Forget about it guys and move on". I agree on the "move on" but the "forget about it" is from your eyes, not from mine. I find value on my experiences (good, bad, nice and ugly). "you are free to keep beating each other over the head until the other agrees with you because that's usually the way this goes, right?". Your eyes see the "keep beating each other over the head until the other agrees with you". My eyes see, try to help others but take into account that your intent may not bring certain particular outcome.

My eyes don't focus so much on the "beating" aspect. Each viewer sees this "beating aspect" with different eyes. Some eyes care more about the beating aspect than the "curiosity aspect", the "trying to learn more about possible models of reality but not just saying yes to a Tom's post but to bring to the table other views, from other eyes and explore the possible value of these views by trying to find possible inconsistencies and putting them in context."

I know Ramon it is hard for you to see through my eyes, like sometimes for me to see through the eyes of people that are way different from me. I tried this words for you to see that my eyes don't love the beating nor love the or see what I explore as meaningless stars. Some details of how an old clock mechanism works may have no value to you but for that guy in the watch repair shop may mean an opportunity to train his mind and learn from it.

Take care my brother, I love you man.

Claudio

_________________
"Every moment can be as good as you want it to be."
"Experience is the ultimate teacher."

> http://soprano.com <

Thanks for the reply Clau. I love MBT and it is all about the "details" AND the larger view. I don't mind someone trying to fine tune their understanding of the exact mechanisms behind reality as I do that too but I also do tend to see/relate to things better as one whole "thing" as opposed to the intricate workings of the process. I'm fairly balanced but am more "right-brained" in general. That's the way I operate and do not fault you, or Ted, for loving the details so much. Don't, however, misconstrue that my particular interests translate into lack of understanding or interest. I comprehend what you both are saying and can see how you both COULD be correct in your interpretations. I tend to agree with your idea of multiple processing functions running within the IUOC. That's what AUM does, isn't it: Segregate parts of its processing and memory functions into IUOCs to let them evolve in their own way? As we are chips off the old AUM block, it's not surprising that we could function the same way. AUM doesn't stop what it's doing to focus sequentially on each IUOC as it advances each delta-t.

My point was more that I KNEW where this thread was going to go in the long run between you two. You never seem to actually come to a peaceable agreement on much and argue over which particular type of "stars are in her eyes" instead of acknowledging that you are both at least talking about stars. That's the problem. You guys have more in common about your understanding than differences but the differences (usually fine details) always become sticking points that devolve into you guys putting each other down. This is EXACTLY what happened here yet again. When I originally posted that, I was almost regretting bumping the thread to only have it become yet another battleground. It's not about me though so I was probably wrong to try to interfere.

When I said forget about it, that's what I was specifically referring to: forget about trying to convince the other of your correctness as you are each confident in your metaphors. I never would suggest that you forget about exploring your curiosity of reality. :^)

You both have great intellects. Now let me see more synergy!

With much love for you too,

Ramon

Ramon: Thanks for the reply Clau. I love MBT and it is all about the "details" AND the larger view. I don't mind someone trying to fine tune their understanding of the exact mechanisms behind reality as I do that too but I also do tend to see/relate to things better as one whole "thing" as opposed to the intricate workings of the process.

Claudio: Your welcome. You see one "whole thing". I also see a whole thing but I also see different sets of details and I interrelate them. I go deeper than most here on certain areas of MBT. I bothered Tom a lot with lots of questions, because I am different from most people here. I am very curious and don't like to leave confusion in my thoughts. The way I remove confusion is first try by myself the best I can. If still have some confusion try to ask Tom and wait patiently but also push him once in a while and he helped me a lot to remove confusion. Others here helped me as well.

Ramon: That's the way I operate and do not fault you, or Ted, for loving the details so much.

Claudio: Yes, but I also see that he loves certain details, I love others, and I like to go deeper to put the reasons why on the table.

Ramon: I comprehend what you both are saying and can see how you both COULD be correct in your interpretations. I tend to agree with your idea of multiple processing functions running within the IUOC. That's what AUM does, isn't it: Segregate parts of its processing and memory functions into IUOCs to let them evolve in their own way? As we are chips off the old AUM block, it's not surprising that we could function the same way. AUM doesn't stop what it's doing to focus sequentially on each IUOC as it advances each delta-t.

Claudio: From your eyes you see that both could be correct. From my eyes I clearly see that Ted is incorrect and I am not. I am sorry if people get bothered by that, but that is not my fault. You said "my idea of multiprocessing within the IUOC". In a way it is my idea (part of my model), but I build my model from my experiences and from considering Tom ideas. You can see that I agree 100% with Tom, when Tom said this as I posted above on this thread:



Ramon: When I originally posted that, I was almost regretting bumping the thread to only have it become yet another battleground. It's not about me though so I was probably wrong to try to interfere.

Claudio: I don't think you were wrong in trying to interfere. You were expressing yourself and I like that. You show interest in both of us to improve and also show how you love us and the harmony around. You expressing yourself as you did in the past is very inspiring from my eyes. I admire you and learn from you a lot. You can keep inspiring me and others, keep being Ramon, don't fear telling me anything you think might help me and better keep trying to be even a better Ramon, because you can and try it fearlessly.

Later,

Clau

_________________
"Every moment can be as good as you want it to be."
"Experience is the ultimate teacher."

> http://soprano.com <

Claudio you are addicted to having someone be right, and someone be wrong which means you are UNABLE to hold two conflicting concepts in your mind. That's not good oms'ing Claudio. Ted IS HERE to keep MBT straight, period, hence the difference in what your two Intents are here, in my opinion. I love you both equally, but I like Ted more. That's feedback.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

Thank you for your feedback Bette. Your eyes see that I am addicted to having someone be right, and someone be wrong. I wouldn't call it addiction but if I am addicted to something related to this thread is to a curiosity about the topic. It is not that I am unable to hold two conflicting concepts in my mind. You think (apparently) that holding 2 conflicting concepts in your mind is OK. I experienced a lot of views and like to organize them. While organizing them I judge where to put them and only hold close the ones that make sense, so therefore not keeping confusion. Let's suppose you have your library (Bette's library) and I have mine, (Claudio's library). You might like to collect a lot of books so you put them in your library. When I get two conflicting views (2 books) I build a new book and put it in one place. The ones I consider wrong I put them in another place (further away). I organize my library my way. You don't add too much value in your feedback for my eyes if you just say that my omsing is not good. I don't value as much if people think my omsing is bad. I value much more if somebody can prove me wrong or can really prove some of my statements wrong. I can do it for others, I don't see others capable of doing the same to me here. May be there are some, but I don't see that from my eyes so far. I see SS as awesome for example and I think he might be capable, but it is good to look for proof when exploring, as Tom recommends.

I respect that you like Ted more. I don't mind, whatever you choose for your path is OK with me. Ted is free to choose his path (whether it is what you said, to keep MBT straight period or not), and I am free to take mine whichever way I consider it.

Later,

Claudio

_________________
"Every moment can be as good as you want it to be."
"Experience is the ultimate teacher."

> http://soprano.com <

Proof is for alcohol sweetie.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

I've been trying to follow along with this thread for a couple of days now and have been interested in the whole exchange between Claudio and Ted. I haven't commented because I'm not "advanced" enough yet to add anything of value to the concept being discussed. (I ordered the MBT trilogy and it is on the way now. I've been limping along with Google books so far.)

I recall over on that "Trees in the Woods" thread we got into a similar exchange. Personally, I found that whole exchange challenging, but also enlightening and fun. Ted was focusing on the "rendering" and Claudio was focusing on "the model". I found both views helpful to my own understanding. I can now separate "rendering" from "the model". That distinction was kind of fuzzy for me before we went through all that.

I can see a lot of my own personality in this exchange between Claudio and Ted. When I know I have a valid point of view that others aren't "getting" I will stick to it like a pitbull. (This can be problematic sometimes too - especially with my husband!)

Sometimes there isn't true value in "being polite" or "agreeable". The part I struggle with is trying to be as "assertive" as I need to be, without bringing negativity in, while really trying to listen to the other person too. It's not easy, but it's worthwhile. The path to real communication isn't always smooth.

All the unique personalities that meet on this forum enhance my understanding and enjoyment of MBT. I appreciate all of you.

Jeanne

Hi Jeanne:

Since you joined, I think you bring value to the board. I was mentioning that people focus on different aspects of the same information (e.g. this thread). You use your ability to learn and extract value from it, leaving the confusion to the side like the skin of a banana. This shows your good use of creativity, organization and being able to extract positive from muddy waters.

Keep it up!

Clau

_________________
"Every moment can be as good as you want it to be."
"Experience is the ultimate teacher."

> http://soprano.com <

Hi Claudio,

Thanks for the kind words.

I don't want to ask too many questions or enter too many conversations here until I've read the entire trilogy at least once. (I've read about half on Google.)

I'm left-brained and therefore I focus on understanding the model of reality probably to a greater degree than most. I already have a lot of questions, but I think many will be cleared up through my own reading and studying.

Right now I'm confused about the difference between "consciousness" and "awareness" and am hoping that a complete reading of the trilogy will clear this up for me. I'm also interested in different types of "awarenesses" that exist within the LCS. ( For example: Is there a hierarchy of "awarenesses"? Does the LCS itself possess "awareness"? Is our awareness evolving or expanding as we lower our entropy? Do "awarenesses" ever merge? Does the LCS itself grow or evolve, or is it fixed? These are just a few of the questions I'm considering as I go along.)

Hopefully, my interest in the model is not excessive. :)

Jeanne