I've been conjuring with the notion of so-called "world peace", which may be a fancy in a sense, but rather I'm referring to a sane, caring civilization. In other words "world love."

I've been comparing the mind (not the awareness, which I consider the perceptual medium, but rather "mind" as accumulated stuffs (believes, ideas, bents, philosophies, and so on)) to the holodeck from Star Trek (funny enough it seems like someone on the boards was thinking in the same terms.) Any who, I think one of the problems in having a legit discussion about world peace has to do with the problems that thought creates. "You are a foreigner and I am a native," this assertion disregards the intuitive obvious which is, yes, that may be the case, but we both have sprung from the same original source (which you could say is the Big Bang for the PMR-centric or consciousness for the NPMR-centric).

So we have this thought apparatus which is absolutely necessary, but it is being mismanaged in that there are these cultural, economic, religious, philosophical, scientific, etc. conflicts.

So it seems to come down to thought.

The other point is that thought is a simulation. It's more of a "could be" rather than an "is." Play with me for a moment. Think of a rock rolling up a hill. Ok. Go on...

Thanks. That was a simulation. FURTHERMORE, consider language. Reading itself is the sound of virtual reality. This voice that emerges while you read is attempting to simulate the meaning that I have tried to lay out in these sentences. But in the end they're otherwise meaningless shapes...

Moving onto our cultural virtual realities (or human wrought virtual realities) so many philosophical predispositions (both personal and cultural) begin with some kind of thought-based assumption ("Jesus is the son of God", folk wisdom, common sense, categorical imperatives, human nature, that's just the way it is, and so on). What do I mean? Let's say I wanted to make some kind of case regarding a nation-state. My first thought-based assumption would be that said nation-state is a "real" entity. However, such an entity is really little more than a convenient contrivance built upon equally conveniently contrived legalese. Thus, from the beginning my arguments origin is this kind of simulation.

Outside of fear and ego, it seems to me that the dreamworld of the mind remains an accomplice. Is it thought then, this simulated notion of how things are/supposed to be, is this what slows the process of lowering entropy? My mental furniture that I can't seem to get off of? The mental possessions I've accumulated; the others I covet and the palace I hide within--I feel this may be our situation...

Comments?

_________________
"It's just data."

http://lifeisavideogamethemovie.com
https://www.facebook.com/LifeIsAVideoGameTheMovie

Edge,

I don't find this particularly clear in what you are getting at. But we have all had an example of how this works in the fantasies played out in Washington, DC with the fight over continuing to maintain the nation as we know it or tearing it apart with the rest of the world as well and having to build from scratch. Now the clowns we elected, after all of the grandstanding and ego based chest thumping have left on vacation to no doubt brag on their accomplishments. They have no remorse for the millions of dollars loss they have caused with the stock and bond markets. That was necessary to their ego demonstrations and just too bad for those taking the hit. They have also waltzed out of town leaving the FAA hung up for a further month plus until they condescend to return and deal with that problem, also being caused by Congressional clownishness. This leaves a reported 4,000 FAA employees without work and incomes and puts millions of dollars worth of work and thousands more construction workers without work and incomes. It also leaves the contractors with work crews that are disappearing and that will have to be rebuilt before work can restart. Not to mention all the equipment sitting idle and costing money for no return. There is probably a reimbursement clause for the contractors for government caused work stoppages and that will cost the government further millions. All because of the egos of the clowns that we elected to federal office. Both houses should start their sessions with a playing of the song, Send in the Clowns. Not the words because that won't fit but just an acknowledgement that they are in fact nothing but clowns in suits and 3 years old to boot.

Ted

Did anyone else shoot coffee through their nose this morning thinking that was an advertisement? Sheesh, Edge don't scare me like that.That horizontal bar is only excusable while viewing Hubble pics....going back to bed now.

_________________
Shut up and meditate

Heya Ted,

I appreciate the response ^_^

In short, I've been wrestling with the very simple question of "What is thought," without deferring to an outside agent (text, opinion, etc); though I'll certainly entertain others' notions...

I love that question "What is thought?" --because you have to think your way though it.

My conclusion has been synonyms like simulation, virtual reality and so on. Thought is a simile. Even the voice one hears in their head as they read THIS is "hearing" a simulation of their own physical voice. Though these thoughts may end up manifesting in PMR in certain ways, they are still, at home, simulations, could-be scenarios, in the case of cultures, religions or philosophies they are nearly full-blown, standing virtual realities in themselves.

So. What's blocking the road to dynamic evolution (in Tom's definition of evolution)? Ego, fear, especially beliefs, and so on... But those three alone (ego, fear, belief) are, I think, largely the result of certain fetishized thoughts or collections/patterns thereof. The egoic sense of self, as in the narrative "who I THINK I am/who I TELL myself and others I am" is confined to the arena of thought. It is thus an idea, a simulation, a virtual reality in its own right. And it is from this origin of mental self (a shanty-town of experiences, people, media and the like), a sense of self that remains classically "disconnected" from the world, "seeking" unification (whether that be either secular or religious in nature is irrelevant), this idea-me ego self naturally spins off fears, beliefs, ideologies, perceptual bents (or "reality tunnels") and from that the road to evolutionary love is obscured. Life becomes an obstacle course in the virtual reality theater of the mind.

Now, I must repeat, it's not that I think we have to abandon thought completely. That's impossible. It's an indispensable utility. Rather I think our attitude to thought should be similar to our attitude when watching a Hollywood movie. It's mostly emotion teasing, gut-wrenching special effects with only a few limp gestures toward the real world. Buts really just a flashy, talking cave painting backed by a heroic orchestral score.

So, in maxim form:

Thought is the resistance between one's self and evolutionary love.

Our mental simulations (our ideas) are making high quality consciousness a difficulty.

_________________
"It's just data."

http://lifeisavideogamethemovie.com
https://www.facebook.com/LifeIsAVideoGameTheMovie

Edge,

It seems that both the words thought and mind have a lot of baggage attached to them over time... differnt folks use the terms in various ways. I see them as somewhat antiquated.

I call the mind "the modeling system" and thinking would then be "data modeling and management".

Just my take.

-Montana

The issue isn't "thought" it is "meaning", correct?
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

Edge, Montana, et. al.,

Put this into your cogitations. I have mentioned this before but other than Claudio nay saying, I have not remembered much reaction. If our PMR experience is based upon the Big Computer projecting the PMR VR into the future and being 'collapsed' into an observation for each participating IUOC at each step which is molded by the VRRE aspect of TBC specifically for each IUOC, then our 'thoughts' must also be picked out of the vast mass of 'thoughts' flowing through our digital brains. Remember that Tom's model put the cycling rate of the digital reality of CS at a fantastic rate in terms of cycles per second. Then he said that each cycle of NPMR experience is inserted once every many a vast number of system cycles. Then for each vast number of NPMR cycles, a PMR cycle is inserted and then PMR science cannot begin to measure at the speed of these PMR cycles. I am not searching out the numbers again, but it has been mentioned that PMR science cannot even measure down to the theoretical limits mentioned for PMR which are vastly slower than the real limits of the PMR cycle rate.

How can our thoughts which toddle along slowly in the hundredths of a second rate possibly relate to the actual thought processes taking place within our digital mind as an IUOC? The Big Computer must be selecting out of this fantastically fast flashing by of digital thoughts the specific ones of which we become conscious. Of all of the thoughts being processed within our digital minds, only one can be plucked at a time and presented to us as our internal thought process. This must be based upon where our 'mind' is focused at the given time. And then there are mistakes, glitches. Are people with Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder experiencing a PMR rule set based disorder or are they experiencing a VRRE/TBC based glitch which puts them into a repeating mode? Or is their digital consciousness as their IUOC actually stuck in a tight loop that holds them in a repeating train of thought, obsessing about one thing?

If you wish to consider the meaning and reality of our thoughts, consider resolving this question.

Ted

Resolution of this seem possible only one way - an NPMR excursion to the IUOC of an FWAU with OCD to query the IUOC directly.

People's misconceptions are what prevents them from growing but you can't be aware of a misconception. One clue is to stop believing in things that are impossible to verify.

If you misread the price label, and the cashier misreads the price label, the actual price doesn't matter. The person who wrote the price label was also only just a person and the money is just paper. A policeman might be just a man in a uniform, but when he is given authority by enough people, it doesn't matter who he really is when he writes you a ticket.

Reality is what happens, not what could have happened, even if it is disgenuine.

If we could change the ideas and thoughts of all people, world peace would be easy, but it is probably impossible. I think world peace is a meaningless goal. We're not put into the world to be pitied and comforted, we're in the world to be "hammered" into shaped. Rather, the hammer falls indescriminately and it is up each individual to get into shape.

Or atleast that's my view at the moment.

_________________
Johan

Interesting topic,
Much of this has to do with the "old" vs the "new" paradigm. The old paradigm is one of fear and separation. "We are different (and separate) from you, therefore, you should not be trusted" (fear). The old system was based on artificially created scarcity. "There is not enough to go around, therefore we need to reap HUGE profit or fight each other for it". "They are less important than us". It seems to have been an acceptable position for us to take... "In order for us to live and prosper, THEY must suffer, sacrifice, and die".

We, as a species, have been able to cooperate on a smaller scale (towns and villages) throughout history, but we always seem to run into trouble at some larger border (imaginary lines). We can accept the Chinese family living down the street, (or over in "Chinatown") but the ones in china are "bad" and separate from us. We can accept the Iranian family restaurant downtown but the ones in Tehran are "evil" and should be overthrown and beaten into submission.

I am reminded of the old "Sting" song "Believe me when I say to you, the Russians love their children too..."

The old system is set up so that there is profit in scarcity. There is money to be made in the WAR business. Therefore, scarcity and war will ALWAYS exist in the old paradigm of FEAR, bringing with it, isolation, separation, distrust, competition, anger, hate, violence, suffering, patriotism and of course profit.

The new paradigm is one of LOVE and UNITY. We are, in fact, all cut from the same "cloth", we are all just different bumps in the same sheet called AUM. Once the awareness is gained, we realize that to harm others is harming "self", and it becomes more difficult to inflict harm on "self". The very notion of "selfishness" changes to "By helping and loving others, I am helping and loving self".

Once again Albert Einstein has pointed us in the right direction when he said:

"A human being is a part of a whole, called by us _universe_, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."

...And once again I am reminded of how inspirational Einstein has been to me in my journey.

The problem may resurface again (if and) when we have achieved world peace, and we have "expanded our circle of compassion" to include the entire planet and the whole of the human "race". There may come a time when "us against them" means "beings" from other "systems". LOL, Here we go again...

_________________
LOVE is the answer

peace
patrick

This may be a fairly useful analogy. And you may be right, but maybe we (or some of us) come here WILLINGLY, to DO the comforting and pitying. Some of us can be an example of how to succeed in the entropy lowering simulation. With Love and compassion.

_________________
LOVE is the answer

peace
patrick

I doubt that pitying is a useful expenditure of our energy. Caring is much more useful, and not judgmental too. You pity the fool...:) I'm not sure why I added that last part but it had to do with Mr. T. as well as my thinking to pity isn't so much from Love while caring is.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

Once again the limitations, metaphorical and multiple interpretations of the oral and written language prove to be a barrier to communication. Leading to more misunderstanding than it prevents.
While pity can SOMETIMES contain a certain level of contempt...
according to wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pity


I'm sure that in this case we meant it in the highest and best sense of the word, with all of the sympathetic and empathetic implications, but without any of the negative connotations.




Most of the definitions carry a more positive "FEELING"


according to Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pity

_________________
LOVE is the answer

peace
patrick

I do not understand how you feel knowing how words have too many meanings so we must get to the same meanings to communicate effectively is a barrier to communicating effectively Patrick.

What it does for me is make me realize how words have too many meanings and so it takes longer to first make sure what other is saying is what they are meaning, and then to make sure what we are hearing is what they are meanings, and what they are hearing is what we are meaning. It is not easier, but it is more effective. Also it hopefully is informing that words have too many meanings to avoiding loaded ones that could be taken opposite completely, like to pity someone not being the same as actively caring.

Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

Thanks bette, that is exactly what I mean.


This is really the distinction that I mean. Pity feels different depending on who is receiving, who is giving, and for what reason.

Empathy, sympathy - yes. Then I respect that the challenges someone faces are the same that I would have faced in similiar circumstances, and I don't judge. By showing trust I increase their self confidence.

I pity someone when I think they are unable to cope themselves - meaning I judge them, and relieve them of trust and responsibility? I think there are many fine lines.

It seems things form according to expectations. People who are treated a certain way - maybe with distrust - will reflect back that expecation in their behavior - maybe by constantly asking for permission or by passing opportunities.

On the occasions when I sought pity, for trivial things maybe, I really wanted to be excused for my failures and challenges. I recall from somewhere the feeling of "admitting failure will make the challenge go away" or something like that. This is why a baby cries after it trips on a toy. It isn't hurt but it was startled, feels unfairly treated and wants comfort.

Think about learning to ride a bicycle with training wheels. The problem is that you can't really learn balance until you get more speed but without the training wheels you daren't really get up to any speed at all. So the training wheels give the feeling of safety to let you have the confidence to get up to speed. Crashing at speed will still hurt the same. That is how people should comfort and help each other.

So, maybe we're put into this world in order to find our way out on a bike. We just have to overcome the fear of crashing so we can learn to ride it properly. If you see someone wavering, give them a push, don't try to hold the bike because they will lose balance.



(Or whatever ...)

_________________
Johan