after a web search, I can locate no definition for "process fractal"; please define.

Roland,

You will not find a definition of "process fractal" anywhere except MBT. The concept and term were invented and defined in MBT Book 3, Section 5, chapter 13. There you will find that a process fractal works similarly to a geometric fractal (the type of fractal everyone is familiar with) with a simple process being substituted for the simple geometrical shape/curve/mathematical relationship used to generate the geometric fractal. A simple process applied to itself recursively at different levels of scale.

Though my description in MBT is entirely conceptual, I have since seen some applied sociological computer models dealing with race and cultural/psychological processes that would qualify as extremely simple and limited process fractals. However, they did not use the term "process fractal" nor understand that their process belonged to a more general analytical approach or logical tool set.

Tom

Tom/Ted ,anyone?
I fully accept that process fractals are indeed part of the thrust of PMR.
I can see them all over the place. Fractals in general I believe are such an intrinsic part of PMR that they appear to be almost a fundermental element of our existence.
I have just watched the link posted by np "Itzak Bentov" and it is clear fractals really do seem to seem to be a large part of existence/consciousness on all levels but what I want to know is how do they play out in NPMR and beyond?
It would make sense that in PMR our food chain in a lower level of something from NPMR,the process fractal of survival of the fittest.
Is there some sort of "Food" chain in operation where "food" is not neccessarily the same as it is here.Do we get preyed upon or do we prey upon somethng /someone else in order to "survive?"
I am sorry I may not be making my question very clear,i will try to explain further.
"Down here" we either prey upon or are preyed upon in order to survive. This is the order /nature of survival. A process fractal.
What is the predatory nature in NPMR and beyond that translates into the food chain down here?
In order for process fractals to be "real "they would surely have to be as much a part of NPMR rule sets,as they are here in PMR .and that would surely include the process fractal of the food chain where foood is interchangable with whatever is required for survival beyond PMR.
I think what i may be best saying is do we depend upon someone /somethng else for "survival" as we do in PMR and if not then why not? Surely if it is a true process fractal(the food chain) then is should be apparent /repeated as a process in NPMR?
What is it we need? Does Growth take the place of nourishment beyond PMR? If so then what/who is it preys upon "growth" .
Hope I have managed to make myself at least partially coherent?
Cherie

Cherie,

Tom may have to correct me if I err or am inadequate in this reply.

PMR and NPMR are not linked in the sense of PMR as some kind of subordinate virtual reality to NPMR. They are both VRs in their own right and for the kind of linkage you are thinking of, you have to go back to the base system, The One Consciousness System, AUM within which our minds exist and experience the VR data streams as input that creates our VR expereiences. Both VRs have their own rules sets that define them and neither one is derivative of the other nor is there any necessary linkage of this type. In PMR the VR has resource limitations, a food chain, a requirement for energy in the engineering sense of thermal or potential energy, chemical energy, electrical energy: the ability to do work which for some life forms (but not all) means a requirement for oxygen to be used in oxidation processes to produce energy. In NPMR, this is not part of the rule set so predation and a food chain are not involved there. Energy in NPMR is not required in this sense, but is inherent to our minds relationship to AUM and the reality cell structure which underlies and 'energizes' all of Conscious Reality, AUM. But if you step back to evolution as the fundamental process, you find the common ground between these VRs. Not in the sense of life forms evolving as in PMR, but in the sense of beings evolving to higer quality or levels of consciousness.

So there is no predatory nature in NPMR that translates into the food chain down here. But there is an evolutionary fractal process that is common to both VRs, coming from it's being inherent to the nature of The One Consciousness, AUM. In PMR this evolutionary process expresses in part in the evolution of species and food chains as part of this system, including energy production. In NPMR this evolutionary process results in evolutionary processes for beings, individually and in concert. It isn't a matter of growth taking the place of nourishment in NPMR versus PMR. I hope that I have made this clear, but if not, perhaps Tom can expand on it or I can explain and expand further myself. Ask and I will try to do better. It is a complex situation inherent to the VR nature of our experienced realities and the underlying nature of The One Consciousness, AUM and the operation of the reality cells as Ultimate Reality.

Ted Vollers

Cherie,

Ted, you are right on. Here is another way to say the same thing. Both PMR and NPMR are process fractals because they are both based upon the process of evolution being iterated and reiterated at every level of existence. Evolution is a process that accumulates experience based change according to some criteria of profitability. Each reality frame has its own defining rule-set and profitability criteria that go with that rule-set to provide the evolutionary pressure that guides change toward more successful states of being within that frame and rule-set. In PMR there are two universal criteria (survival and procreation) and one that applies only to the upper end of PMR beings (intentional self-improvement). The existence of our PMR food chain is an artifact of the interaction of our rule-set with our physical evolutionary criteria of survival and procreation. Food is a local PMR concept. So is consumer electronics which evolves according to the criteria of value and cost.

Consciousness evolves according to the criteria of entropy reduction. So, there are many different reality frames (such as PMR) and subsystems within each frame (such as consumer electronics) that each have rule-sets coupled to evolutionary criteria that together define the local meaning of "progress" within each. All depend on (are process fractal elements of) The One fundamental system of consciousness which, as an information system, evolves through entropy reduction.

Tom C

Aha! Right I've got it! I am confusing local rule sets with higher level rule sets. So I take it there will be no critters being "hunted" to extinction else where?

cherie

Cherie,

some, but not all, of the other PMRs I have visited have similar rule-sets and therefore have similar expressions of consciousness (bad guys at the top of the food chain kill and torture for fun and profit just like here). However in most of what we would call NPMR (less constrained rule-sets), the bad guys (there is no food chain), though still mean spirited, do not hunt critters to extinction -- they are more like the toughs and thugs that inhabit a middle school (11 to 13 year olds) schoolyard in a very bad neighborhood.

Tom C

Tom:In PMR there are two universal criteria (survival and procreation) and one that applies only to the upper end of PMR beings (intentional self-improvement).
Cherie: If intentional self improvement only applies to the upper end of PMR beings then what purpose do "Clams" and "ameobas"(and Lawyers?) serve?
If entropy reduction is the name of the game then would critters such as those mentioned above be nothing more than mistakes/experiments? Try-outs? "Lets see what happens" type creatures? Or is it they have evolved as an important/side effect of PMR though only for the benefit of PMR,If they can never hope to achieve low/lower entropy then will they eventually "die" out as nothing more than a casualty of unsuccessful PMR habitation? I can't see the profitability of maintaining them indefintely when all they do is exisit in a stable state?
Cherie

Very good point Cherie,

A sloppy use of language on my part. I was not specific enough when I used the words "intentional self-improvement". By "intentional", I meant intentional through an aware intellect -- a consciousness directly analyzing the problem and purposely laying out solutions that eventually effect change at the being level -- as opposed to intentional actions that come from a deeper level of thoughtless action-reaction. Through their direct action-reaction interaction with their environment and through any indirect feedback loops that are generated because of those actions-reactions, Clams, amoebas, and Lawyers are still able to evolve their consciousness. (since it is not politically correct to just pick on lawyers, let's add self-important: university professors, high ranking military officers, and elected/appointed government officials to that list of slow learners -- that will make all the lawyers feel so privileged to be in such esteemed company they won't even notice our baseless arbitrary humorific abuse -- yes, "humorific" is a brand new word I invented just for this special occasion)

Sorry for generating that confusion.

Tom C

Cherie's question above is a much more concisely-worded version of one I had jotted in my notebook to ask here, or discover later answered in MBT, as I continue to read through it. So I'm glad to have spotted it, and your answer, Tom. It certainly seems that on the planet Earth part of our PMR, at least (we don't yet know what may be the case elsewhere in our PMR universe), the greater proportion of biomass would fall under cherie's category of possible false-starts as optimum consciousness-evolution vehicles (even if we do spare lawyers & co, and, I would add, topically perhaps, bankers, from the count). Yet many of these critters have the most exquisitely fine-tuned and elaborate interactions between themselves, others, and their environments, evolved (it seems), mainly or only for PMR survival. Insect societies (ants especially, also bees, wasps and termites) are a good (perhaps the best) example - I wonder if there is a good consciousness-evolving potential at the level of the colony of these social insects - does the collective entity have free-will choices not held by the individual insects? A colony of ants (and a swarm of bees) can "argue" amongst itself as to the best nest site, until one party or other wins out, but that's mainly a choice based on pure PMR survival, I suppose.

Is the Fundamental Process of (consciousness) evolution "aiding" (a poor word) Man in his destructive interaction with other PMR life-forms?

Arthur

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

Cherie, Arthur,

Let me attempt what I think may be a clarification. Playing my usual 'harp', remember that this is a PMR and is a VR. The biomass is a virtual biomass and the real players of those bit parts are the low end of the spectrum of individuated consciousnesses, not fundamentally different from our real total selves, except for having a lower level of comprehension and a much smaller decision space. They, like you, take roles in PMR as part of their developmental process for their own total beings. Whether they are false starts is not really true, even if their present PMR roles are replaced by other organisms in the process of evolution. This process of evolution is the primary process of consciousness evolution. Try anything once! Follow up with the other primary process of organization and entropy reduction. If it doesn't work well, note and file the data and try something else. This is built into the rule sets of PMR and into the nature of Consciousness Space. Following the procedural basis for consciousness development does not produce failed organisms that should have never existed. It produces data as options are tested and evaluated for productivity. The real role players of individuated consciousnesses taking these parts in possibilities that did not work out retain the benefits of what was learned. They continue on participating in the next experimental design.

The colony/social insects mentioned are also experiments in consciousness organization. And the ones we can observe, the ones that work, survive and continue, are obviously successes. This is something that I see stressed in the study of biology, limited as my contact with it is. It is an example of the reiteration of the primary processes of consciousness development. You get an isolated environment, perhaps a large island or sub continent and some organism manages to get there and develop over time. That organism then proceeds to evolve and develop variants on its original conformation that puts new sub species into all the ecological niches that are not already filled. So perhaps what was originally a medium sized predator develops variants like larger predators and up to something bear like and also variants like smaller predators, scavengers, etc. Evolution puts life into every possible niche.

I wouldn't say the Fundamental Process of consciousness evolution is doing anything for or against any destructive proclivities of man. Environmental destruction happens with all species. Have you seen any documentaries showing what happens when elephants, for example, exceed the carrying capacity of their local environment? Or perhaps they are pushed into too small an area by men? They destroy their environment, just like humans do. Get too many rats in the environment and they make it unfit for rats, not to mention humans. The conclusion just hasn't come in for the human species. It probably will over the next generation and looking ahead does not bode well for our children. Unfortunately we have not been smart enough as a species to see the rocks of the Malthusian shore as our population ship approaches. There has always been a way to say it ain't so. But if our species ends up amongst the failures when the data finally comes in, we, you and I as individuated consciousnesses, will continue by taking other roles in this or another PMR. Just not necessarily as humans, but as what ever replaces us.

Ted

In other VR's that we at this level in the fractal (those with consistent presence in this VR) have access to if we work at it, meaning other heres' that we perceive as physical when our consciousness is ‘there' after leaving this one that is a dog eat dog VR world with requirements for oxidation (see Ted's post here) (rust and fire are two levels on this continuum, fire is just real fast rusting) to power the it, such as NPMR, be ‘powered' by love? Is it the ‘physical' attachment we (meaning those that can) have with our PMR body when consciousness is out and about be what powers the experience, or is it love, or something else? Do we have an energetic connection to what we are sparks of that runs through the fractal levels to the source?

Food is a virtual resource that allows experiences important for lowering entropy, as long as it is owned and locked up. Energy to power non-sentient things here in our PMR is another. Since both of these PMR requirements became controlled quality of consciousness (QoC) seems to have taken a back seat to many, out of necessity to survive. Once individuated units of consciousness (iuoc) can have their oxidation requirements met freely (by their own hand), and their place to do it as well (comfortable surroundings), more energy can be expended in the growth of QoC which will result in lowering entropy in the long run. You have to expend energy, and have it available, to gain energy by lowering entropy, in my opinion.

I watched a contemporary cartoon this morning with mice from Mars that is based on VR with on-the-fly programming coming in to save the day, as well as a leader type mouse named Stroker that had to take the VR generator away from the other mice at the completion as they weren't ready for it yet.

Ted, your comments are very comforting, that's the term I have, comforting. Thank you, as always.

Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

Bette,

You have missed something in the MBT model. In PMR by the rule sets in place, we have to produce energy to do work. We have to eat foods, things subject to oxidation. We have to breath in air. This is a product of the rule sets. Tom does not report this as a requirement in NPMR. Nor in general in Consciousness Space required by some local rule set. Tom describes everything as resulting from the existence of 'reality cells' that can be in at least two states, unperturbed and perturbed. These cells interact based upon rules which I do not know and Tom does not describe or indicate that 'anyone' really knows. We have no direct access and no real need to know. PMR residents have been eating and breathing for many centuries before the oxidation reaction was known. It is this basic property of Absolute Reality, the base of Consciousness Space, that makes things 'go'. The contents of these reality cells makes up the data and the code that makes up everything. You, me and AUM in total. This is the digital reality. The Cosmic Computer and it's program.

There are no power cords or power supplies. The energy to make it go is inherent in the system. The code acts upon data because that is the way the media upon which it is based operates. This is consciousness reality, not subject to the laws of Thermodynamics which are PMR based. This is why I refer to the Game of Life as something that can give you some experience with this kind of reality. Love is not a power source. Love is a concept that is not absolute. It is a created concept of individuated beings, particularly within PMR. That does not mean it is not also an NPMR concept and that it is not a powerful force. Remember that there is a big difference between love in PMR where we are speaking English with it's limitations on the meaning of the word love. It is at the core of what makes AUM all One Thing and which we, as individuated beings, are part of. But not in the PMR sense. In a sense way beyond even adding other languages concepts of the dimensions of love to the sense in English. Entropy as an NPMR and Consciousness Space concept is information related, not energy related as in the sense of PMR. Lowering entropy in NPMR and Consciousness Space does not provide you with more energy in the sense of expending energy in PMR. It provides more 'energy' in the sense of understanding more powerful concepts, an information related thing.

Tom is the physicist and entropy expert, but I believe that I have all of this right.

Ted

Ted: Lowering entropy in NPMR and Consciousness Space does not provide you with more energy in the sense of expending energy in PMR. It provides more 'energy' in the sense of understanding more powerful concepts, an information related thing.

Dan: As I understand it, it would amount to the same thing in effect however - lowering entropy and the attendent greater understanding WOULD "enable" one to learn how to manipulate PMR reality from within NPMR (those psi effects TC talks about) thus more energy to "expend" in PMR - which would be subject primarily only to the PUP (psi uncertainty principle) and perhaps permission from the Big Cheese depending upon what you were doing WITH that power.

_________________
"Whenever one's conceptualization of reality (or of anything real) rests upon the absolute, the infinite, or the perfect, one should question the underlying assumptions very closely and expect to find a fallacy." - Uncle Tom Campbell

Thanks for both explanations Ted. I like the succinctness of your last line above, regarding lower consciousness entropy - It provides more 'energy' in the sense of understanding more powerful concepts, an information related thing.

Arthur

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