Yes, Claudio. Anything in the world to make me out as wrong except to actually pay attention to what is being said and how it corresponds to references and reference materials. There is an open question with regards to you. Are you actually incapable of correctly parsing written English language constructs and understanding what they mean within their context? Or alternatively do you deliberately choose to ignore this in order to claim that a textual string means what you want it to mean, to make it mean what you want it to, instead of what a more reasonable or unbiased person would understand it to mean?

If the former, then with your intelligence you could learn to correct this problem, if you were willing to do so. If the latter, then you deliberately choose this approach and are obviously unwilling to change. In either case, it comes down to whether you are willing to change.

Here within PMR we are stuck with communication by use of language. More specifically, MBT is written in the English language and we are in an environment limited to the English language which places words in linear order and where the total meaning depends upon the common, dictionary definitions of the words and the context within which they are placed which might dictate additional word definitions beyond the dictionary including special application environments such as within MBT or slang usage. The context is both a matter of the actual content and ordering of the words within the sentence and the actual 'thing(s)' being discussed within the paragraph or even larger context such as a chapter. Entropy in this environment is a matter of the inability or unwillingness to communicate without error in interpreting incoming information and creating outgoing information as a text string for input by others. This is much more important even than entropy as defined based upon simple bit rate errors in communication.

Where do you understand yourself to stand on this open question? Is this inability or unwillingness?

Ted

Truth speaks for itself. You may only believe Tom with his own words. Bring him here to explain this to you or remain with your own limited model.

Claudio

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

> http://soprano.com <

Ted,

I am confused here.

IUOC has many FWAUs. Let's say one of FWAUs is functioning in PMR and the rest of them active in NPMR. Our IUOC must switch context to the PMR filter and deal with the experience via our PMR virtual self or PMR FWAU. (Ted) What happens to those FWAUs in NPMR? I understand, that they continue to process in NPMR, so, since there is no division exists, our IUOC keeps multiprocessing or multitasking, i.e. PMR FWAU and NPMR FWAUs parallel-processing. Is it correct? I can be wrong with a computer terminology.

For instance, somebody is driving a car, paying attention to a road, and at the same time is talking to his/her guide. Can it be called a multiprocessing?

Lena

_________________
'Real knowledge is to know the extent of ones ignorance.' Confucius.

Lena,

As Tom has previously described the most common situation, it is for us to exist as one continuous awareness within NPMR. This amounts to one FWAU that continuously spans a vast time as measured by participation in PMR lives over PMR time and in essence seems limitless. Then it has been discussed that periodically, as our guidance or we ourselves find appropriate, we as our NPMR FWAU will decide that it is time to have another dose of accelerated learning by experiencing a life in PMR again. So the characteristics of that PMR FWAU to be are established from the available inventory within our IUOC and it begins to function as the 'self' experiencing that PMR existence or life. And one PMR existence at a time is not the limit. There can be more than one PMR FWAU simultaneously and individually experiencing a different PMR life time but the norm is one at a time. By the same token, the norm is for there to be one NPMR FWAU and I am not aware of there typically being more than one or of any advantage to there being more than one. That is our continuous experiencing of conscious existence as an IUOC. To go beyond this, we must get Tom's input as I never understood from him that there were more NPMR experiences than one for typical IUOCs.

All of these FWAUs, however many of them as exist, plus the IUOC as it performs as part of AUM, share a repeating block of CS states/fundamental delta ts. This is what I quoted MBT about in terms of the relative number of states/fundamental delta ts earlier on devoted to each functional VR we are experiencing. The greatest number go to the things that our IUOC participates in directly. Each FWAU for its own experience of a VR has a certain amount of fundamental delta ts devoted to its experience as it is generated by TBC and then sent out to each IUOC and experienced as one tick of that particular VR clock. These VR clock cycles are generated and experienced at the periods Tom indicates. The NPMR VR clock ticks come more frequently as Tom describes than the PMR VR clock ticks. It takes a great deal more fundamental clock ticks for the CS system to generate each PMR cycle than it takes to generate each NPMR cycle. As I read the descriptions of the potential computer terminology variation that might apply to this kind of description, it appears to me that calling it time sharing is the most appropriate terminology. The CS decides when to provide/produce the VR time cycle which you might compare to a hardware interrupt which matches time sharing. Our IUOC must then prepare to and receive the incoming data as the appropriate FWAU that is designed and designated to do so with the correct rule set filter in place for the incoming data to be fully understandable as representing that particular VR. In a very real sense, it makes no difference what PMR computer term you apply as it is not a perfect fit and we are not talking about PMR computers but the digital consciousness system that is AUM. I only made the explanations above defending time sharing as the proper choice because we must learn to be careful of our terminology so that we do not cause misunderstandings of communication, effectively higher entropy communication, than is necessary. It is difficult enough communicating clearly in the linear words of English without being sloppy and careless in our choice and use of words or deliberately trying to dominate that communication by deliberately manipulating our choice of words.

The function of having multiple FWAUs is as I understand it that these experiences are normally separate from each other and that an FWAU can be established with special characteristics for some particular purpose in experiencing a PMR life selected out of the complete inventory of capabilities and proclivities available to that IUOC. Also the FWAU separation includes the need to apply the rule set appropriate to that particular experience based upon it being an FWAU experiencing NPMR with that rule set or an FWAU experiencing PMR with that kind of rule set. And we have been talking about continuous experiences as in NPMR or relatively continuous as within PMR. The FWAU is what ties this experience together over time, that experiences it as a continuous whole. Nothing happens to the FWAU experiencing NPMR because we happen to start up a new PMR experience. It continues to experience its existence as before.

Then we start to complicate things by skipping around with our conscious connection. In NPMR, there is no walking, running or flying so where we direct our conscious intent as we function as an FWAU experiencing NPMR is where we perceive ourselves to be. In PMR, we must walk, run, fly, drive or some other kind of movement in order to change our experience and with whom we are interacting. Then we can experience NPMR while within PMR and we add a different type of complication. We are now crossing up our PMR experience stream with a brief NPMR experience stream but experienced through our PMR FWAU and the PMR rule set superposed on the NPMR rule set. It becomes more confusing and subject to interpretation. We now experience ourselves as flying or some other method of movement that is not native to our PMR experience. This is our interpretation rather than our actual experience. The bottom line seems to be that, presuming that we learn how, we can experience anything within Consciousness Space. There is no reason for there to be another FWAU for a brief and intermittent experience. FWAUs exist for continuous experiences like NPMR or for a full PMR lifetime. The experience of an OOBE is through our PMR FWAU, but the PMR rule set is bypassed, just like for dreaming, in that we can fly, float, pass through walls etc. No extra FWAU is needed for this relatively short experience.

I think that this covers the range of options that you mentioned except for those specific interactions at the end. I will cover those later and separately. If not adequately complete or unclear, please let me know.

Ted

Lena,

To answer your last questions:
"For instance, somebody is driving a car, paying attention to a road, and at the same time is talking to his/her guide. Can it be called a multiprocessing?"

I quote the following from the article on multiprocessing from Wikipedia:
"Multiprocessing is the use of two or more central processing units (CPUs) within a single computer system. The term also refers to the ability of a system to support more than one processor and/or the ability to allocate tasks between them. There are many variations on this basic theme, and the definition of multiprocessing can vary with context, mostly as a function of how CPUs are defined (multiple cores on one die, multiple dies in one package, multiple packages in one system unit, etc.).

Multiprocessing sometimes refers to the execution of multiple concurrent software processes in a system as opposed to a single process at any one instant. However, the terms multitasking or multiprogramming are more appropriate to describe this concept, which is implemented mostly in software, whereas multiprocessing is more appropriate to describe the use of multiple hardware CPUs. A system can be both multiprocessing and multiprogramming, only one of the two, or neither of the two."

It would appear that from this standard usage that multitasking is the most appropriate term to use. My reasoning is as follows. We are not specifically programmed to do this that you refer to so I would opt for multitasking versus multiprogramming. Continuing on, I would rule out multiprocessing as it refers to the use of multiple hardware CPUs which does not apply. The use of CPU does not apply to the distributed processing system of our digital reality of the Consciousness System and of our selves as IUOCs and we as IUOCs certainly do not have more than one of them.

This is in fact how I have commonly heard this doing of more than one thing at a time referred to: multitasking.

In a sense it is being ridiculously up tight to worry about getting this kind of terminology precisely correct. If you and I were just Sally and Joe IUOC hanging out on our local corner of the RWW and chatting casually about how are things in the neighborhood, it would not matter. But as Lena and Ted as responsible members of the MBT community asking and answering significant questions relative to our understanding of the nature of Consciousness Space, it is more significant that we make an effort to be precise in our usage of words and careful of our accuracy in what we say to one another: to be in fact, responsible. It is then worth the effort to communicate as fully and completely as possible.

Ted

Definitely makes more sense to call it multitasking than processing. We don't have two CPUs going on in our head, right? Also, isn't it true that IUOC isn't constrained by c, so the information doesn't have to be organized in threads or processes? In other words, there is no point to have multiprocessing going on, as one process is enough to handle multitasking, etc?

_________________
Brandon

Lena, Ted is not agreeing with Tom. He is adding his ideas without caring to check his errors when I point them out. IUOCs multiprocess in parallel. Tom answered that to kroeran when he recently asked him in the thread of Tom's gurus (as I quoted in this thread), and Tom talked about this several times. Ted keeps choosing to ignore his errors and keeps choosing to describe his model, not Tom's.

If you start with the assumption that everything that Ted says agrees with Tom you may get confused. It is good that you question this with open minded skepticism. Omsing can keep you distinguishing between Tom's model and Ted's.

Claudio

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

> http://soprano.com <

Hi Brandon. In Tom's MBT, what you think of you is one process running, but there are other processes running on your bigger you (your IUOC) which you are in general not aware of.

Claudio

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

> http://soprano.com <

IUOCs use the resources of the Big Server (AUM). You can think of AUM as having gazillion CPUs to say a ridiculous almost infinite number or a ridiculous almost infinite processing capacity. Ted's model limiting IUOCs as less efficient than PMR computers sounds ridiculous to me as well.

IUOCs are "virtual" divisions of AUM, remembering the dotted line surrounding IUOC inside the superset called the LCS.

Claudio

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

> http://soprano.com <

Claudio,

Where ever did you get the idea that I was saying that IUOCs were less efficient than PMR computers. If you actually tried to understand something instead of just trying to be negative, perhaps you would get somewhere.

Ted

Thank you Ted.

I have to read your both replies several times more to feel, if I am able to understand it. A technical/computer based part of MBT is a mind boggling to me, please bare with me and my use of computer language here. I very seldom ask this kind of questions. I hope, that those who read what I post here are smart enough to see, that my English and my technical skills are far from being perfect, and they will be kind enough to excuse me, or simply skip my posts. We all can do only so much not to become ridiculously up tight to worry about (Ted) anything.

Lena

_________________
'Real knowledge is to know the extent of ones ignorance.' Confucius.

Hello Ted:

You keep saying that IUOCs can multi-task but can only work in one process at a time (NPMR self, PMR self). PMR computers can multiprocess. I am OK if you think this way as your model. Tom and I think IUOCs can not only multitask but also multiprocess. Tom's evidence is spread all over this thread. Who's not trying to understand? Who is trying to be negative? Hope you can get somewhere.

You can think your IUOC is less efficient than a PMR computer.

Open your eyes and your mind.

Claudio

.

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

> http://soprano.com <

Let's keep in mind - all these terms and divisions are just PMR-centric metaphors for the model, not the reality, which we can never fully discern anyway. They serve a purpose in helping us to perceive something of the structure of the system, but that's all - not something to get too hung-up on, or get in the way of the really important purpose of growing up. Worth discussing, but only amicably, and with the above always in mind.

Love to all,
Arthur

_________________
"Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans."

Lena,

As Tom always said, if it is not understandable to you, you don't have the technical background, then just let it pass. You clearly understand so much that it would be absurd on anyone's part to fault you for any technical background that you don't happen to have. The Buddha did not accomplish less, was no less the Enlightened One, for not having a degree in physics and experience with computers and thus calling it Illusion instead of a Virtual Reality. PMR works as a training ground for lowering of entropy and improving Quality of Consciousness if you have never heard of The Buddha, MBT, or any religious figure or organized religion. It is built to work that way.

Ted

I think this can be reduced to something simple:

Ted thinks an IUOC can only do one thing at a time (e.g. while its FWAU is experiencing PMR, the IUOC cannot do anything else on those time frames). Tom on the other side says that an IUOC can do other tasks using the same time frames while its FWAU assigned to PMR is experiencing PMR and/or NPMR. This is possible because an IUOC can multiprocess. I follow Tom's model, not Ted's.

Claudio

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

> http://soprano.com <