Return Home
It is currently Tue Oct 22, 2019 1:46 pm

All times are UTC-06:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 219 posts ]  Go to page Previous 14 5 6 7 815 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 4:22 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 11:29 am
Posts: 185
Location: South Carolina currently, home state- Michigan, also have lived in Florida
db,

As I am getting it right now, (which of course could be way off base), just because a "fact" exists in the LCS actualized past database doesn't mean it has been made part of the PMR VR game that we are all playing. If we, by our observations and measurements, don't firmly establish a "fact" in PMR, it's not actually "in the game". The data that is "in the game" fluctuates. When my grandparents died, they took some data out of the game (their memories), but left some data in (photographs they took). If those photos are destroyed, that data goes out too, especially after all who have seen those photos have died or forgotten.

But that still leaves your question about the beers in the fridge. It kind of gets into muddy waters here for me too. When Tom gave that example, LCS apparently had a purpose. The beer guy ended up at the store where a synchronistic event happened. If the beer had been in the fridge, as per the past actualized database, beer guy would never have gone to the store where the meaningful event had a good probability of happening. If beer guy had a "beer cam" in his fridge where he monitored his beer regularly from remote locations, LCS would not have been free to "adjust" the number of beers in the fridge in order to orchestrate the likelyhood of the synchronistic event occurring over at the store.

Maybe in the case of the beer, LCS would normally provide beer guy a data stream in accordance with the past actualized database, since at one time he actually did put a specific number of beers in the fridge (although he has now forgotten). It's just that there are no rules constraining LCS at this point since no one really has objective proof or even a strong memory in PMR.

In the case of the tree in the woods, if no human FWAU has ever seen the inside of that forest or looked at those particular trees LCS provides a data stream based on high probabilities. Since information is already in PMR that it is a pine forest, it's an extremely high probability that the guy in the woods will have pine trees rendered for him at whatever level he makes observations.

It's starting to seem less like "smoke and mirrors" to me the more I think about it.

Jeanne


Top
PostPosted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 6:45 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 08, 2010 9:34 am
Posts: 239
Location: Austin TX
That's right, I forgot that he used it in a synchronistic example. Thanks, makes sense now.

_________________
After all this is over, all that will really have mattered is how we treated each other.

http://www.malleablelight.net


Top
PostPosted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 6:54 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 1:54 pm
Posts: 2707
Location: Miami, FL
Quote:
I was actually speaking in the context of reverse causality, information lost by all observers, what happened in the past. Using Tom's example of beer bottles in a fridge and the only person who saw the beer get put into the fridge or drinking the beer forgetting after a long trip how many there were. Tom stated during one of his lectures that a beer could turn up missing due to uncertainty.
I live alone (so I know nobody else is taking stuff from my fridge). According to how this works I can give some advice. When you get home from shopping keep all receipts in a drawer. If you think the LCS may decrease the items you have in the refrigerator (LCS playing against your supplies (may be they want you to lose weight)), then go back to the drawer and read all the receipts focusing mainly in the stuff you care the most. After that, go back to the fridge and watch out when you open the door, because it may be overloaded. In case it is the opposite (LCS may add stuff), just put all receipts in the garbage :)
Quote:
I will use another relational database example, why would there be any uncertainty? Seems like LCS has enough information to figure this out, even if the PMR brain forgets about the beer because the past actualized DB has that info and it doesn't violate the uncertainty rule that Tom talks about (in the context of the person doesn't remember in the first place). LCS simply grabs the last known data from the actualized DB.

... and from before

This would suggest that there is no uncertainty at the LCS level and therefore why would the LCS need to spin a tail when it can just get the answer? I guess I am just pointing out to myself that the rule only applies to keep things consistent for observers of PMR, but why would LCS make something up when actually has the correct information when faced with uncertainty (in the context of reverse causality).
I had similar questions as well. Tom answers this in this thread, check Tom first posts. The LCS tries to find pertinent data with minimum effort (cost). I presume also that it may choose a probabillity versus the history or viceversa if that event favors a lesson to be learned or another potential lowering of entropy of the system.
David, every relevant information can be found in the LCS. This VR is designed like this to leave room for NPMR manipulation (e.g. luck, so that can favor luck sometimes, or the opposite). The LCS cares mainly to bring a game that can better be used by beings to evolve by bringing them opportunities to pass lessons and create changes at the being level (changes in Consciousness Domain/Space).

Claudio

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

> http://soprano.com <


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 8:21 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 08, 2010 9:34 am
Posts: 239
Location: Austin TX
soprano,

Thanks, I remembered this after Jeanne reminded me that Tom was speaking in the context of synchronicity, and it made sense after that. I even got it the first time I heard Tom speak about it, but then after a few weeks of work it got semi-erased. It's great that both you and Jeanne reinforced this with the same response.

_________________
After all this is over, all that will really have mattered is how we treated each other.

http://www.malleablelight.net


Top
PostPosted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 9:15 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 1285
Somewhere earlier in this thread I cautioned about taking metaphors beyond where they are useful and adding assumptions to them (burdening them with personal beliefs) as you go. There is nothing wrong with extrapolating them as far as is useful to do so but do be careful to be aware of where the intended metaphor ends and your beliefs masquerading as obvious logic begin. An author states that "her eyes sparkled like stars" and two guys get in a fight over whether the stars were bright pulsars, angry red giants, or more subdued brown dwarfs. They write the author demanding to know exactly what sort of stars was he talking about because this issue has become critical to their understanding of the book. A few hundred years ago the answer to the question: "How many angels could stand on the head of a pin" became a life and death matter as an extremely limited metaphor morphed into a test of dogma versus heresy. What I said above about the metaphor "AUM" holds equally true for the metaphors "IUOC" and "FWAU" - indeed for all metaphors. The conclusion of that discussion was: "Better to just live with uncertainty and remain open-minded and skeptical than to specify out of habit and belief (it must be that way, how else could it be?) what is un-specifiable. Details unnecessary to the logical exposition just clutter the result."

With that being said, let's see what specificity can be brought to our understanding of Individuated Units Of Consciousness (IUOC) and Free Will Awareness Units (FWAU). The term IUOC is born of the need for The Larger consciousness system (LCS or equivalently AUM) to lower its entropy (evolve itself) by experiencing and interacting with itself. Thus it breaks itself up into interacting pieces called IUOCs. Thus, The One is "All there is" and "All there is" makes up The One. The LCS is a conscious information system, thus the IUOC, as a subset, is also a conscious information system (self-modifying interactive memory, processing, and purpose).
We say that only consciousness is fundamental and that all reality frames are virtual. That is to say that consciousness is the source and all else is derived. The Source (LCS or AUM or The One) is an information system, that means that what it does is transmit information in the form of data and interpret information from data received. That is exactly what we as IUOCs do, which is not surprising since we are subsets of the LCS. We are it (at least a part of it), and it is us. How much of a part, you ask? Well, isn't any part that might be left over after all the IUOCs are counted also fit the definition of an IUOC? What else does the LCS have to do besides interact with itself in order to evolve rather than dissipate? Is any management of the IUOCs required or supporting infrastructure needed? Is it other IUOCs that perform those functions? All IUOCs are not equivalent - all are in a state of change and at different stages of evolution). (Caution: naming all the types of IUOC along with what they do and how and why they do it is pushing these metaphors too far.) The point is that we are it and it is us - period - the LCS is a collection of IUOCs - but, they are not all just like us in understanding, decision space, and the size of their big Picture. However, they all transmit personal, subjective, information in the form of data and interpret personal, subjective, information from data received. That is what digital conscious beings in a digital information system do - that is all they can do besides operate on their data to lower their personal entropy and focus their intent (use their free will) to interact in such a way that helps others do the same.

All information, and thus, all reality is individual, personal, subjective, and uncertain for all IUOCs and thus for AUM (consciousness as a whole) - even if there are shared components as in a multiplayer game. Consequently, significance and content within communication - i.e., productive interaction -- must be assessed in terms of probability. Probability is a logical process invented to deal with uncertainty. The whole consciousness system is evolving in its own uncertain probabilistic way as required by evolution. Recall that I have often said that people captured in the historical database (e.g. your last incarnation) are (when you interact with them) just as they were when they were "alive" but without free will. That they represent a probability model of the character they played in that lifetime. They exist in the database as a collection of all the choices they could possibly have made and the probability of making each. That is the information that defines them within that incarnation - exactly the same information that flows from the future probable database through the present (where free will follows intent into action within the virtual reality) then on into the past database as DELTA-t cycles tick away. That is literally true. An IUOC interacts as a collection of information (self-modifying interactive memory, processing, and purpose) that has, at its present moment, a probability (based on past interactions) of how it will interact with future possibilities. Moreover, it has within its processing function a freewill intent that can modify any of those probabilities that lie within its decision space, thereby redefining the IUOC into a new being or perhaps better said: into a new state of being with a new entropy level.

Because, experience shows that an IUOC can have multiple incarnations (FWAUs) simultaneously and can serve as an intuitive conduit to those incarnations (higher self), two new metaphors are invented to facilitate our conversation: The FWAU (soul) is the interface (receives the PMR data stream) within the consciousness system that is committed to a specific PMR virtual trainer experience packet and the higher-self is the connection between the PMR character and the IUOC/LCS. In fact, the IUOC is not separate from the LCS. It is not distinct in the way we think of a PMR thing having weight and taking up space. It is a piece of the LCS that bubbles up to the surface as needed and disappears back into the LCS again when not needed. A rough analogy: Think of a Word document. It is not stored (it does not live) in a little corner of the hard drive, it is scattered all over the drive and is pulled together whenever it is needed. It is "One with the drive" until gathered back up into a document . The LCS is indeed a group of IUOCs but they do not all live in separate corners of consciousness-space. They melt back into the LCS - the source - and a new one is reassembled (bubbles up) out of the LCS as necessary with the appropriate constraints, histories and portfolios required to do what needs to be accomplish next as an interactive part of the system - this is AUM, the conscious digital data field interacting with itself. The FWAU, IUOC, Oversoul, Higher-self, guide are, as you have heard me say many times, simply metaphors for your interface with the LCS. So communicating with your IUOC, higher self, guide, etc, is the same as communicating with the LCS. The LCS with self-modifying interactive memory, processing, and purpose generates a collection of rules and rule-sets, data and information to define and serve the concept of evolution through the interactive experience of IUOCs. I use these metaphors to help you put these concepts into a form you can understand and profitably deal with. You may find this new exposition unhelpful and not to your liking - if so, let it go. Use metaphors that work for you - let go of the ones that leave you feeling cold and naked on the side of the road wondering what to do next. It is not so much that some metaphors are more accurate than others (that is true but not particularly important), as it is that some are more useful than others to facilitate growth in different individuals.

At PMR character death, what is left in the historical data base is the record of that lifetime (all the data that is important from a big picture perspective) in terms of the probability (updated by this lifetime) of all the decisions both made and not made. One can come back 100 years later and interact with that historical character and it will be just like interacting with that individual within that incarnation -- including all the physical, spiritual, emotional and egoic content -- except there is no free will since the processing function stayed with the IUOC/AUM. Meanwhile, after death, the old FWAU dissolves after uploading and the IUOC is at least partially regrouped out of the LCS again (as needed), centered in a new virtual reality (with its own rule-set, purpose, probable information field, free will choices and decision space) that helps it reorient and integrate the just past experience packet (into the IUOC and thus into the LCS) in order to maximize lessons learned and plan future sessions in the PMR trainer.

What do we mean by virtual? We call something virtual if is a creation of consciousness - i.e., it exists only in an IUOC's mind or AUM's mind. More specific to us: Something is virtual if it is an interpretation of data received by an IUOC/FWAU. All of the content of consciousness is virtual - only consciousness itself is fundamental.
All information results from an interpretation of data received from "other". Other is just another part of AUM being used to create interactive learning opportunities through the successful processing of experience into new growth (decreasing system entropy). Are not the IUOCs themselves a creation of AUM's mind", then they too are virtual but at a higher level - like a simulation within a simulation. IUOCs are virtual probabilistic subsets of rules/data/information whose output must be interpreted by AUM and by other IUOCs. IUOCs, like AUM itself, represent self-modifying units of interactive memory, processing, and purpose that take in data and output data. Between the data input and data output of these virtual beings there exists an intent and free will which generates (through the processing function) personal subjective information out of input data and memory. AUM's plan is that massive free will interaction between IUOCs will generate inputs with effective feedback that, when run through the IUOC's self modifying processing function, will lead to the lowering of the entropy within the IUOC. That is its function and purpose - to transform interactive experience data into understanding leading to love and personal growth.
Every sentient (consciousness) virtual being in PMR has, by definition, a free will intent that operates within a finite decision space inherent to that individual being. This category has a wide span ranging from people to insects, worms and perhaps even protozoa. Some decision spaces at the lower end of the scale are infinitesimal while some at the opposite end are expansive. Among humans, who have the potential to hang out at the expansive end of the scale, there is an extremely wide variation. Determining whether a critter has a finite decision space is very difficult as one progresses toward the lower end of the scale. We may assume that independent decisions are being made but it is problematical differentiating at that level between hard wiring and actual free will decisions. For an easy example of hardwired: plants are alive and responsive (interactive) to both light and gravity among other things. But a plant stalk belonging to a plant that needs light doesn't make an independent decision whether to move its leaves toward the light or keep them facing the dark. Where the light strikes the stalk cells are constricted and the stalk automatically moves toward the light. The process is hardwired, no decision is made. The same goes for plant cells passing water, nutrients and information to wherever they are need to help the plant survive and reproduce. Simply reactive behavior -- evolutionary hardwiring to make the plant more adaptable.

Now in the animal kingdom there is also compulsive hardwiring called instinct. Where instinctive hardwiring leaves off and true decision making appears in any critter is somewhat hard to tell. However, that is the line of demarcation (a finite independent decision space) between a conscious being and a biological non-conscious robot running a program. All critters have instincts and run hardwired programs (including humans) but some critters have independent decision space as well, and it is these critters, no matter how big or small, that I am calling sentient conscious beings with connections to the larger consciousness system. All living things (critters and plants) are interactive to some extent with their environments - they take in data and react to it. However the non-consciousness ones are simply obeying a rule-set like your desktop computer or an industrial robot - doing what their rule-set says they must do in each case - they have no independence from the rule-set in how they react. Consider these to be biological computer generated players that need no FWAU interface to the LCS - aware of their environment, but not conscious.
Although every conscious being is connected to the LCS through some sort of interface, all interfaces are not the same. Now, the metaphor I used in MBT to describe this interface for humans was an IUOC. As discussed above, how well this metaphor can be extended to fit other species depends mostly on the "I" - how independent is the unit of consciousness. Some dolphins, whales, dogs, birds, monkeys, pigs, foxes, and many others would seem to be pretty obviously independent with individual personalities that demonstrate creative problem solving behavior. With humans, the connection to the LCS is direct where intuition and "guides" (two more metaphors) provide an individual interface. All conscious critters (including humans) have a FWAU and thus are, as Claudio says, an avatar for an IUOC. With some humans that is the extent of their interface, they have not developed communications through intuition or guides. Many non-human critters show what appears to be intuition, and a very few may even have individual guides. Most have what are typically called "group souls" which is a metaphor to indicate that there is not enough differentiation between members of a species to warrant individual attention from the LCS so the species shares a single interface that supports a huge number of parallel lines.
This is enough clarification for now, hopefully it covers the basics - it's already enough to puts most readers into a coma. I will save the rest until additional questions focus on where this needs to go next.

Tom


Top
PostPosted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 10:10 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 8:30 am
Posts: 417
Location: Woodstock,Ga
When TC goes off like this it helps me to avoid coma by imagining Tom speaking the text in his "Kermit the Frog" voice.

Hope this helps


Top
PostPosted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 10:31 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 1:54 pm
Posts: 2707
Location: Miami, FL
Hello Tom:

Well. If I was reading this with my mouth wide open, I can guess about others' reactions. I would define this post as a revelation that I would call MBT 2.0. I think that I pushed you to put this on the table, and actually now I understand better when you said, that some are not ready for this. For a software release a version 2.0 might just replace a 1.0 and we should stop talking about 1.0, but MBT is a different story and I think is better to keep using 1.0, because 2.0 is not just a release for "general public". Anybody can read this last post but how much time might take for different FWAUs to digest it? We can keep digesting this for some time. For me I also see this as fitting together with your answers to my questions regarding Color perception (when you answered to me that is all software changes, no hardware). It also fits with your answers regarding my questions about Amount of Consciousness and Moving information in Consciousness (a comparison with relational databases, etc.), and then some other questions spread around in the board.

I know this pushing to this 2.0 might create a lot of headaches and more questions. Sorry if I pushed you too much for this. But I needed this to satisfy my inquiries and make better sense.

I don't want to keep bothering too much, but I think your reply fits somehow what I expected and the line answer I was waiting for was even better, because you answered it better. Instead of being a PMR style answer of separation you explained with the limitations of the length of this post what is that line.

I want to focus on one piece for now that I needed to close some gaps I still had:
Quote:
All living things (critters and plants) are interactive to some extent with their environments - they take in data and react to it. However the non-consciousness ones are simply obeying a rule-set like your desktop computer or an industrial robot - doing what their rule-set says they must do in each case - they have no independence from the rule-set in how they react. Consider these to be biological computer generated players that need no FWAU interface to the LCS - aware of their environment, but not conscious.
When this non-consciousness ones operate being observed, the system responds and the observation shows their behavior (e.g. observing with microscope some plant cells). When not being observed does this data and elementary (non-free will) interactions stop working when not observed? Is this data being removed and new data brought back when observed? I am not asking about the rendering, I am asking about from the other side (Consciousness Space of plant data). I was comparing this non-observed behavior of plants vs. observed and compare it with the other end of the scale (e.g. humans when we sleep and we then wake up again). For humans, we preserve the data (memory), so when we wake up we remember and keep consistency. Does this happen with the lowest decision space ones (like plants)? Does the plant information (related to their basic interactions) in CS (domain) gets deleted and recreated when non-observed, and then observed? Ted said it is not, but I wanted to confirm this with you. It can go either way if I try to guess, because comparing with humans it is preserved, compared with probabilities and non-oberved irrelevant data, it could just be removed and recreated when observed again (like the examples we discussed at the beginning of this thread, even that I think you were mainly describing the rendering and I am interesting in the "behind the scenes"). If there is no "behind the scenes" process for the plants then that behind the scenes can get deleted and recreated when necessary.

Sorry for pushing you to this (what I metaphorically call 2.0 version). But I love it! :) Bravo!

Awesome!

Claudio

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

> http://soprano.com <


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 10:51 pm 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 11788
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
Claudio,

"Does the plant information (related to their basic interactions) in CS (domain) gets deleted and recreated when non-observed, and then observed? Ted said it is not, but I wanted to confirm this with you. It can go either way if I try to guess, because comparing with humans it is preserved, compared with probabilities and non-oberved irrelevant data, it could just be removed and recreated when observed again (like the examples we discussed at the beginning of this thread)."

I said that as non conscious entities, plants are always virtual representations within your (as a conscious entity associated with an IUOC) experience of PMR. They are not consciousnesses or minds (associated with IUOCs) that are created and destroyed when observed and not observed. They are not created and destroyed in fact but remain as probabilities within the probability fields of TBC and are maintained with as much consistence and constancy as the depth of observation and recording of data within PMR requires. I do not see your statement as specifically clear as to what I said so I am clarifying it again here. Of course you, as you appear within your own or others experience of PMR, are also a virtual representation. As a conscious entity associated with an IUOC, your mind has a constant existence within CS which your virtual representation within a VR does not.

Ted


Top
PostPosted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 11:00 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 08, 2010 9:34 am
Posts: 239
Location: Austin TX
Ok Tom,

Based on your response and per my question about Robert Monroe writing about his leaf experience in Far Journeys I should conclude that He experienced a leaf's awareness not consciousness? There was no decision space only the awareness.

This seems logical to me per my understanding of what you just wrote.

_________________
After all this is over, all that will really have mattered is how we treated each other.

http://www.malleablelight.net


Top
PostPosted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 5:49 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 1:54 pm
Posts: 2707
Location: Miami, FL
Ted:

Let me clear it a bit.

Tom said:
Quote:
Consider these to be biological computer generated players that need no FWAU interface to the LCS - aware of their environment, but not conscious.
My question is: This awareness of the environment plants have only exist when observed by other players, that awareness come and go as observed or they stay aware of their environment (probability based environment) in CS? Is their awareness a switch on and off or they remain on? By you saying "they remain as probabilities" you are only answering their role as being part of the game, but I don't see your answer to this specific question: Does their awareness (in CS) of their environment stay alive when not being observed in PMR?

Thanks,

Claudio

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

> http://soprano.com <


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 6:28 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 8:08 am
Posts: 205
Quote:
I'm not thinking that the crime scene actually changes, it's just that the measurements taken at the crime scene, which would have identified the murderer, are now lost to the PMR VR game.
Jeanne

Possibly. However there can be no changes to anything that the still living perpetrator was already aware of. This has already been proven experimentally.

Seven


Top
PostPosted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 7:04 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 08, 2010 9:34 am
Posts: 239
Location: Austin TX
Quote:
My question is: This awareness of the environment plants have only exist when observed by other players, that awareness come and go as observed or they stay aware of their environment (probability based environment) in CS? Is their awareness a switch on and off or they remain on? By you saying "they remain as probabilities" you are only answering their role as being part of the game, but I don't see your answer to this specific question: Does their awareness (in CS) of their environment stay alive when not being observed in PMR?
I am curious about the same thing. Perhaps the awareness stays but is not rendered for the observer if the observer is not around. It would make sense because possibly a plant might evolve into a consciios being? Good question.

_________________
After all this is over, all that will really have mattered is how we treated each other.

http://www.malleablelight.net


Top
PostPosted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 7:14 am 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 3:05 pm
Posts: 1198
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Thanks for the long post Tom, it always helps with slightly different angles on the same thing.

Claudio, Ted pretty much said it in his post.

The question is based on a false premise; Plants are "the lowest decision space ones", they have zero decision space, and thus the question of the data in Consciousness Domain cannot be answered straightforward.

The data of their virtual interactions are not deleted and created regarding observed or not, deletion and creation is not part of probability concept.

Remember that a plant does not need to be observed, for the effects of the plants to exist. Tom has made examples of a planet with two continents, one side with animals and no plant life (no oxygen generation) and one side of the planet with plant life and no animals. The plants on the other continent is completely unobserved, but they still generate (virtual) oxygen because it is probable (as the animals can breathe). Likewise, the effect of the whole iceberg still exist when only the top of it is observed.

The awareness pertaining a plant is not what you think it is (See my post on page 1). The awareness is not like an awareness by a conscious being, it's an awareness only perceived by a conscious being. It is only in relation to consciousness.

There are no off/on switch with their awareness (maybe not the best word), the plants are virtual like a rock. They just have a reaction based on a rule-set.

The answer would then be "Does their awareness (in CS) of their environment stay alive when not being observed in PMR?" There is no awareness (though there is data) in CS to stay alive.


Top
PostPosted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 7:35 am 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 11788
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
Claudio,

This has already been answered by S_S above, but since I have written it out with more words and explanation already, I will go ahead and post it. Apparently you missed things in Tom's long post above as well as elsewhere. Note the following quotation from this post:

"For an easy example of hardwired: plants are alive and responsive (interactive) to both light and gravity among other things. But a plant stalk belonging to a plant that needs light doesn't make an independent decision whether to move its leaves toward the light or keep them facing the dark. Where the light strikes the stalk cells are constricted and the stalk automatically moves toward the light. The process is hardwired, no decision is made. The same goes for plant cells passing water, nutrients and information to wherever they are need to help the plant survive and reproduce. Simply reactive behavior -- evolutionary hardwiring to make the plant more adaptable."

There is your plant awareness. They do respond to the Intent of humans who choose to interact with them as I described earlier. It is the plant responding to the Intent of the conscious human as part of the CS and that Intent acting through the CS is what produces this response. It is not the plant being conscious of the human and what they might say in terms of 'encouraging words'. The conscious awareness and intent is all on the part of the human. This 'hardwired' awareness of the plant is not turned on or off but is inherent to the nature of the plant as being subject to the rule set of PMR that defines their functioning. But the plant as a virtual representation and without an associated IUOC is not maintained in the same way that you as a virtual aspect of your IUOC are maintained whether you are observed by another consciousness or not. If a plant in an isolated area, subject only to deliberate conscious observation at intervals, is observed in the morning and then again observed in the late afternoon, it will appear appropriately at both times in terms of turning towards the sun, part of its hardwired awareness, as the plant will be rendered for observation at both times by TBC which will render it correctly based upon the PMR rule set which is enforced by TBC. The virtual representation of the plant is in fact turned on and off with its being observed and you can stretch it as a play on words by saying that therefore its awareness is being turned on and off as well. But this is nothing like a consciousness being turned on and off based upon observation. The awareness of the plant was always a matter of the nature of the plant being represented by TBC in obedience to the PMR rule set defining that plant. Not at all the same as conscious awareness. This is just an insistence on your part to say this in distortion of the actual meaning of the words.

Ted


Top
PostPosted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 8:07 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 08, 2010 9:34 am
Posts: 239
Location: Austin TX
Quote:
There are no off/on switch with their awareness (maybe not the best word), the plants are virtual like a rock. They just have a reaction based on a rule-set.
How does this play out in the context of evolution? Seems like science has made pretty good progress and has collected plenty of data to suggest that in recent history humans were not conscious being either and evolved from something that had a similar existence as a rock. How does something that is at a rocks level get tot he point of human level through evolution?

Forgive me for my ignorance here as I am still reading through the actual books and this may already be answered.

_________________
After all this is over, all that will really have mattered is how we treated each other.

http://www.malleablelight.net


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 219 posts ]  Go to page Previous 14 5 6 7 815 Next

All times are UTC-06:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited