I don't care if people call me an idiot but I do care sometimes to wonder why. I know who I am, no matter what people think of me or call me.

Later Harvey!

Claudio, just another idiot :)

PS: I loved that "sycophants", that was really funny. Tom said he did not like people calling him normal.

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

> http://soprano.com <

If this is how you love me, may be I prefer you hate me or just leave me alone. I don't like your love. It sounds fake to me. I can perceive true love.

Claudio

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

> http://soprano.com <

You couldn't perceive a flashlight if it was wedged in your ass Claudio.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

more sensation than perception

_________________
....'we were on the edge of the desert, 100 miles from Barstow, when the drugs began to take hold'...HST

I may be a little late in posting, but I'll do my best not to confuse the issue.

Tom has said in the trilogy that PMR is a highly effective way to reduce entropy - in fact, he goes into great length about the sorts of interactions that a PMR rule-set specifically inhibits - there are no take-backs or do-overs and access to the minds of others, probabilities, and historical information are not available here. It is a place that really drives consciousness evolution in an in-yaour-face way. It's effectiveness is why, as a sub-set of NPMR, it exists. Otherwise, why would an evolving system use something that is less effective (unless NPMR is a sub-set of PMR and it doesn't seem that anybody is going there, so I'll not address it)? As a constrained sub-set of NPMR, it is efficient for entropy reduction for the lower end of the quality scale, but would be inefficient for beings on the higher end. Why? Because for beings in the upper spectrum consciousness quality, the advantage of such limitations becomes a disadvantage - degrees of freedom become ever more important as consciousness quality grows. This is, intuitively, easy to follow. So, for some beings, PMR is the best place for the evolution of consciousness, as Tom has said. He also said that his biggest gains were not in PMR. Perhaps Tom's growth would be limited if he were bound to the NPMR rule-set - of course, we all remember quite well that NPMR is not perfectly filtered from our awareness and as quality increases, we become more able to access NPMR. All of this fits quite well with a general understanding of the theory. We can infer from this that Tom is a relatively low-entropy being, indicated by his claim of NPMR access, everyone's experiences with him, and his ability to come up with such a theory. As such, it is possible that PMR is not as efficient as NPMR for the evolution of his consciousness.

Hi Moji:

Good post. Different from posts like:



The number of cycles of NPMR compared to PMR is way larger. This also goes with experiences that feel longer than in PMR when in NPMR like while the body sleeps at night. Do you think most people around in PMR are evolving? Some are, some stay about the same (some don't want to change the way they act so they don't evolve too much), some get worse. They devolve in PMR. Some become more reluctant to listen or change, more intolerant, more greedy, more selfish, more interested only in making more money and making other people lives as miserable as possible.

The post above may suggest a wrong assumption that every being in NPMR does exactly the same thing. We are all different. As below so above. People very active here and willing to learn, to help to grow will most probably behave in a similar way after death. People that here just like to be comfortable, do nothing, might behave similar in NPMR. You cannot generalize. In NPMR you can process information faster and can play with databases, and go on different training sessions.

Tom posted here that some of us train also when sleeping. Well, I am one of those weird spieces of beings for some. Training every single night, going through different scenarios. If Tom evolves a lot in NPMR, probably billions of other beings would do as well.

Claudio

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

> http://soprano.com <

Claudio,

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that, for some, NPMR is more efficient than PMR for consciousness evolution. Am I understanding what you are saying here?

Hi Moji:

Well, I said a lot of things, but yes. I also think it is more complex than what's being said here. For example I experience subsets of myself. I see my being (or sets of beings) as turning on and off features and subsets while in training to work better on certain subsets, also attracting and repelling aspects, subsets. I can agree that VRs like PMR can favor evolution of Consciousness, but that the state, configuration and plan of a being or sets of beings is more important. I think the intent of a being towards evolving is very important.

Claudio

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

> http://soprano.com <

Somehow I missed the question. But believe me when I say that if I wanted to be tested on my knowledge of MBT it wouldn't be by you Claudio.

Sainbury:

I see, you care more about who tests you than learning MBT, or helping find truth. I think we are very different. I also like to help others when they ask for something. We are different.

Claudio

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

> http://soprano.com <

Averting my eyes from you Claudio is as Evil as letting someone abuse a child without an action, so I will take you off "ignore" and try to avert your brand of egoic stupidity from harming anyone here.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

That's true - and, as a late-comer to the thread, I'm trying to catch up a little bit. So, we've got this notion that it is possible for some beings to find greater efficiency of consciousness evolution in NPMR (which, I would think most people here can agree is possible) with one reason seemingly being NPMR time quanta, which occur at a rate of 10^18 faster than in PMR (most of us should know that). I sense that you are using this concept along with the greater freedom (fewer constraints) in NPMR to as an indication that the speed of consciousness evolution is greater, for some, there.

You've also pointed out that some beings progress at very different rates (or regress) and that beings can produce similar results regardless of location within AUM, but not always - all things that are possible. Also, in your response to me, you add that using intent to drive evolution is a big factor - this is certainly a point that Tom has made many times, so this clearly falls within his theory. And lastly, you've mentioned some characteristics of your own experiences with consciousness evolution.

Am I still on the right track regarding your comments in this thread?

edit:

You mentioned that you find this comment to be unclear.



Perhaps I see what you mean - If a FWAU that experiences NPMR does not contribute as much per unit of time (delta QoC compared to FWAU in PMR), but may contribute as much in total and its contribution is not as fast: Per unit of time is a rate, and fast means 'something per unit of time' - "as much in total" would imply the same rate, unless the difference in time quanta is not considered... perhaps we have a contradiction or a misunderstanding.

The "intense interactions and feedback of PMR" is a familiar concept from MBT, so I don't think anyone should be confused by this. Let's ask Ted if he can clarify his statement a little bit, since it seems not to be a statement we would expect, given what we know.

Hey Ted, could you please help us with the contradiction we think we've found?

MojiDoji,

My career has repeatedly consisted of being put into the position of figuring out a situation, typically an existing screw up, in which I have no background. The fall back that takes you through to a solution in such a situation is to apply basic principles. This has been of so much value that I always tend to work from or consider basic or first principles. Tom recently commented that he takes this approach too when he was discussing QM details and current versus earlier points of view. It turned out that his result based upon first principles was more correct than the position taken based on the current thinking of some physicists. Consider this as background.

Tom has described how PMR type VRs were created/developed specifically as a way to accelerate development, improvement of QoC and reduction of entropy. There seems no basis for disputing that NPMR type VRs were the original versions. The Consciousness System is driven by a constant cycle of give it a try and then test the results, adjust accordingly. These seem such basic concepts that I assume that they are present in anyone's mind familiar with MBT. The PMR VRs were specifically developed, according to Tom, as a method to accelerate development and have been so successful that they have become a standard part of the typical IUOCs development program. Every so often, your guidance starts mentioning something like, isn't it getting to be time again for another session of PMR type high intensity training? The results are so good that the extra burden of development, administration and generally higher requirements for computation for PMR VRs are accepted as worthwhile. It is clearly generally accepted by the CS and the CS management that PMR type VRs are more productive and therefore worthwhile compared to NPMR type VRs. NPMR type VRs will always be needed as they are our homes, our basic place of existence as consciousnesses. But the fast track is the PMR high intensity route.

Thus I stated the following:

Quote:
"The FWAU subset that experiences NPMR never contributes as much per unit of time to this effort at improvement. That is not to say that it doesn't contribute as much in total, but not having the intense interactions and feedback of PMR, its contribution is not as fast."

This says the same thing as the paragraphs above with the assumption that the indicated things are given and present within the mind of anyone generally involved in the MBT milieu and thus not need to be restated for every discussion.

To bring up Tom in any statement about his own development can hardly be related to the general case which is stated above. As the 6 sigma individual that he is, where and how he finds his fastest development to occur is entirely a matter of him as a special case and not a matter of the general case. Moreover, this does not begin to get into the reality of what Tom's actual statement referred to as I explained. Thus I saw no reason to get into 'what if' speculations about specific results for specific individuals that can provide no information about the clear results arrived at by the CS as to the relative effectiveness and performance of PMR versus NPMR VRs. Such hypothetical and what if considerations are clearly irrelevant. Certainly such special case data cannot disprove the results that the CS has developed leading to the near universal presence of sessions in PMRs within the training cycle for IUOCs.

Whether this provides the specific information that you wanted or if it can be extracted from this, I do not know. I did not really see what answer to what specific question was wanted.

Ted

Hi Moji:

I appreciate your comments. You help big time bringing back here free thinking towards learning.

Moji: That's true - and, as a late-comer to the thread, I'm trying to catch up a little bit. So, we've got this notion that it is possible for some beings to find greater efficiency of consciousness evolution in NPMR (which, I would think most people here can agree is possible) with one reason seemingly being NPMR time quanta, which occur at a rate of 10^18 faster than in PMR (most of us should know that). I sense that you are using this concept along with the greater freedom (fewer constraints) in NPMR to as an indication that the speed of consciousness evolution is greater, for some, there.

Claudio: I agree with this 100%, but consider also that IUOCs can multiprocess, so they can learn both in NPMR and PMR (or PMRs) simultaneously. Tom apparently is able to lower his IUOCs entropy when awake simultaneously (in parallel) in PMR and NPMR. I get training at night, and other subsets of my IUOCs can certainly be working on themselves while I am not aware of that and focusing on the experiences I am aware of.

Moji: You've also pointed out that some beings progress at very different rates (or regress) and that beings can produce similar results regardless of location within AUM, but not always - all things that are possible. Also, in your response to me, you add that using intent to drive evolution is a big factor - this is certainly a point that Tom has made many times, so this clearly falls within his theory. And lastly, you've mentioned some characteristics of your own experiences with consciousness evolution.

Am I still on the right track regarding your comments in this thread?

edit:

You mentioned that you find this comment to be unclear.

Quote:

The FWAU subset that experiences NPMR never contributes as much per unit of time to this effort at improvement. That is not to say that it doesn't contribute as much in total, but not having the intense interactions and feedback of PMR, its contribution is not as fast.

Claudio: I totally agree with what you say. I am not saying this comment is unclear. I am open minded and skeptic. If somebody says: "never contributes as much", I analyze why. I think it may be better said "most likely contributes more in PMR in early stages of evolution". This is so far how I see it in context of the whole big picture. So I agree with what you posted before as well.

Moji: Perhaps I see what you mean - If a FWAU that experiences NPMR does not contribute as much per unit of time (delta QoC compared to FWAU in PMR), but may contribute as much in total and its contribution is not as fast: Per unit of time is a rate, and fast means 'something per unit of time' - "as much in total" would imply the same rate, unless the difference in time quanta is not considered... perhaps we have a contradiction or a misunderstanding.

Claudio: This part is not too clear to me. I hope may be you can rewrite it so I can get it, but I think the higher self of an IUOC (a metaphor of the subset that says who does what and when) has a clear understanding of how the entropy of the being is behaving overall and considers how it changes in all subsets for the same period of time being analyzed (same time period overall).
This is why I corrected what Ted posted here saying "your NPMR awareness" (on my first post in this thread). People may interpret "your" as FWAU (subset of IUOC that is handling this PMR mission). I say the one that knows what really is going on is the subset in charge of the IUOC that we can name it higher self, but the name does not matter as much as to understand that subset has a better vision than others. Hope at least you may be the first one here to understand why I made my first post with the correction on the first mess. The conditioning towards me some people have here deviate from my original purpose.

Moji: The "intense interactions and feedback of PMR" is a familiar concept from MBT, so I don't think anyone should be confused by this. Let's ask Ted if he can clarify his statement a little bit, since it seems not to be a statement we would expect, given what we know.

Claudio: Totally agree with you Moji. I enjoy learning with you, feels good man. Good you came back and contribute here!

Later,

Clau

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

> http://soprano.com <

Please stop making these shots Claudio.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.