This is the model Tom describes, but maybe not his exact words: the "rule set" is hypothetical, we don't know exactly what the rules are. When the rules were defined (before "run simulation" was clicked), there were no humans, no earth, no rain.

The rules do not say it is bad for a human to stand in the rain, because those concepts did not exist at the time the rules were defined. Some animals have come to prefer rain or live in the sea. Rather, the simulation exists precisely to determine what it means to relate to others, regardless of what circumstances develop.

To say that the "system" knows what feedback to deal out, sort of defeats the purpose of the simulation.

_________________
Johan

Johan,

Don't be so literal. Note the "in the general form" part. If there were any fish likely to be reading this, I would not have used the 'stand in the rain' part. If there were any birds reading this, it would do no good to say 'don't jump off a cliff' as they routinely do that. If we were all Inuit, I might have used the old "don't eat yellow snow" idea. We don't know the rule set in detail. That is what science is about. But that is the nature of feedback from the rule set.

Ted

After a review, it appears that indeed Tom rarely associates the word feedback with the fundamental level, but here is an example of where I may have picked up the idea of two levels of feedback

the core concept was that intent is interacting with internal feedback, and action is interacting with results, as two separate loops

I think I need to tweek my understanding...

intent must be directly driving internal (to QoC)

as well as external (to FWAU) feedback,

as decision->action->result does not inform external feedback, rather, intent informs external feedback. Tom is not as clear on this in the below quotation as he usually is.

for myself, when I read "PMR ruleset", I think of rules that do not normally interact with the IUOC or the higher ruleset, like small picture physics. I will have to ponder this more and I await comments/discussion.

_________________
Does this PMR make my butt look big?

This is how I see it.

An ego filtered PMR feedback always immediately reaches IUOC. Real changes, entropy reduction, happen on a being level (IUOC). IUOC accepts feedback, and feedback triggers some change in IUOC entropy (it could be decreased or increased). As a result IUOC's intent is modified. Communication between IUOC and its FWAUs is constant and 'a signal' goes back and forth immediately with no delays. All changes on a being level affect any FWAU's intent, thoughts, behavior and actions.

External or internal feedback is a metaphors of PMR causality rule set.

Lena

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

I think that it is not a matter of not being able to look at it as two feedback loops. Rather a matter of those loops having interconnections. Pollute the environment and destroy the vegetation may not 'directly' involve interaction with other IUOCs but they certainly indirectly do and the feedback might be external but has internal consequences. It is all one jigsaw puzzle of interlocking pieces.

Ted

The feedback comes from the system (internal or external, it's all data entering our IUOC). Part of the system may know what works, but you might not. You are part of the system but the system is not a perfect one. It may be obvious to certain parts of the system but not to you.

If it is obvious to you then you probably don't need much feedback.

_________________
Mike

That doesn't make sense. It invalidates the purpose of the "individuation".

The results of my actions must be experienced. That experience creates the feedback. The feedback may be transported through the system.

Calling it "just data" spoils the debate.

_________________
Johan

Mike said "all data" not "just data." :)
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

Man,

Did Bette clear that up for you or does it still not make sense?

Based on your last post I can see there is a bit of a disconnect with our language.

Your job is to lower your entropy, to be a more productive system that is part of the bigger system. The feedback is there to help you do so. The feedback comes from all that is not you.

The system is not a perfect one, so it does not always know the answer - because you do not always know the answer. That is why the system is evolving. Reconfiguring itself into a more optimal configuration. As it evolves and grows, new opportunities are made available that weren't available before. New things to try and experiment with, to see what works and what doesn't.

Since other parts of the system may know more than you, they may know the answer and try to help you out. Sort of like how Tom wrote MBT.

_________________
Mike

I understand what you mean. It does not compute. The system can't "sometimes" know and choose to share, depending on whether it fits with a specific turn in the discussion. The discussion is really about the purpose of the "individuation" and why the system would break this individuation. Is the system's participation and intervention here haphazard or are we missing something?

If I sit in a closed room and write insults on papers I then burn - nothing happens. Burning a flag or religious text in secrecy doesn't upset anyone.

Feedback is the reaction of others, informing me of how they are experiencing my actions. Feedback does not inform me what is right or wrong.

My specific suspicion is that feedback, shame, guilt, and so on may be connected to karma, that karma is a sort of elastic rope that connects beings, and feedback is the signal we perceive that something is unresolved. Maybe the tension of the rope.

Maybe, if we are not open to receiving it and interpreting, it manifests in reality.

_________________
Johan

Johan,

Karma is a concept from other systems of thought than Tom's books, My Big TOE. It is not seen as a function of reality that ties you to the past like a rope. That does not mean that your past actions do not matter and do not have continuing consequences. But rather than residing in some concept of karma as something that you must dissipate or atone for, a cosmic book keeping system, it is rather that you as your IUOC are a digital being. An individuated consciousness, separately experiencing your NPMR existence and your PMR existence (here). Your IUOC as a digital being contains effectively, some code which is not optimized. Some aspects of your being are dysfunctional. There is also your past history which has created this Quality of Consciousness from the past. Your lives within NPMR and PMR, primarily in PMR as being the most effective because of the degree of feedback, are the mechanism by which that code is optimized, the parameters of your being are 'tuned'. Your karma is not something that the system keeps a running account balance of, it is rather your being as its Intent and its QoC that effectively provides what might be thought of as karma. You are within your being, the result of what you have been and done in the past as the record of what that has created up to now as your Intent and QoC. Clearing karma is really removing the effects within your being of negative past actions that has possibly 'de tuned' your code, raised your entropy. In order to correct for these things, the system, your guidance, might encourage you to seek a lifetime within which you can experience the other side of whatever past life interactions might have created negative results within your being or at least failed to do necessary tuning of your being. This can lead to that aspect of thinking regarding karma as retribution. I still think that understanding it as Tom explains it is more productive, allows better understanding and insight to deal with things than the old concept of karma. A newer and more useful metaphor than karma.

I hope that this makes some sense to you and is of some value.

Ted

You can be certain that I read and understand what you write. I'm not fanatical about karma, and I agree it can be an entrapping belief. Tom's idea of "current state", rather than a back-log, can be more productive. That's not the discussion I'm trying to have, but I do think connections are an important component for it to work regardless.

Here is the core of it:

How does the system know?

Now really understand what I'm saying. How is it possible for anything to know?

If we ascribe properties to the system such as "it knows what is best for you", "it may decide to intervene", "it will give you what you deserve" - it sounds more and more like a god from religions.

(... and it invalidates the basic premise of MBT.)

_________________
Johan

what's the basic premise from MBT that this violates?

NPMR, according to the model, has a hierarchy of conscious and individuated personal guides and management, and then levels of management above our OS beyond our comprehension, and they are not shy about nudging things, which is pretty "God-like".

personally, setting American Protestant Fundamentalism aside, some religions or higher sects had pretty good models, all things considered, and some arrive here after having had profitable interactions with religions such as Spiritualism, Buddhism, Sufism, Kabbalah, Yoga/Hinduism...

that being said, MBTOE includes the intent to have sufficient uncertainty so that fundamentalist athiests and religion haters are not turned off from the outset, and then through interaction, we hopefully converge to a more balanced view

I believe Tom has been known to quote Taoism in lectures.

_________________
Does this PMR make my butt look big?

It is your (speaking generally, not of you particularly) behavior that demonstrates the dysfunction. The system does not 'know' as having scanned your 'circuitry' and having decided so. The system has set up a fully automatic process known as PMR. Within the PMR VR experience, you are sent a data stream. You react to and interact with other IUOCs within that data stream which is both incoming as your experience and outgoing as your interactions/choices. The system reacts through its rule set and other IUOCs react to you. This is feedback. You think X is true about reality. X does or does not match the rule set or how those with whom you are interacting views things so you get feedback. Perhaps you get a slap in the face from the woman with whom you are interacting. Perhaps a child screams and runs away from you. Perhaps your boss asks you to come into his office for a moment and 'reams' you out. Perhaps the police officer pulls you over and you get a ticket or even arrested. Or perhaps alternatively you get a caress and a kiss. Perhaps the child crawls into your lap and wants to show you its favorite toy. Perhaps your boss instead gives you his extra tickets to some cultural event as a token of reward. It is all feedback. The system does not have to decide what feedback to give you. It is a process that automatically generates it, not the system calculating what you should receive. It is a process of simulated physicality overlaid by the free will interactions of all of those IUOCs. The process generates the feedback. The feedback is interpreted properly or improperly by you, your code. If that code is dysfunctional in a major way, it takes you much longer to correct it so that you properly interpret that feedback and are gradually led to proper interactions and love as Tom puts it.

Ted

That IUOC:s are agents in a big simulation to discover harmonious ways to interact.

In the religious view, we are like pin-balls trying to get through a maze. Every feedback is determined by the current state of the ball and the predefined maze.

In MBT, we are like molecules or cells, trying to self-assemble.


The only nudging I can see is a "shaking the table" type-of nudging, which is neutral, and encourages movement.


That's the point. You are now making my argument for me.

Then, the consequences of this is that feedback does not originate from "the system" (as an agent) or "the rules" (echoing off the walls) - it is the transponder back-signals from interactions with other people. Thus, not determining Right or Wrong. Interpreting feedback is what determines whether it is usable.

_________________
Johan