Return Home
It is currently Thu Oct 22, 2020 7:07 am

All times are UTC-06:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 219 posts ]  Go to page Previous 111 12 13 14 15 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Aug 07, 2010 5:10 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 1:54 pm
Posts: 2707
Location: Miami, FL
Quote:
Jeanne212,

Yes, exactly. For the same reason, when you open that fridge door you might find 3 or 4 beer because no measurable rule-set processes or changes have taken place inside the closed fridge while you were gone. (your dog wasn't in the fridge counting beer or memorizing where each bottle was located) and either 3 or 4 equally satisfies all the needs of all the conscious critters in the universe to live in a consistent reality.

Tom
Tom:

The mass of 3 beers is not the same as the mass of 4 beers. Why would LCS create rules for PMR like conservation of mass if then it can be violated? So, if I want to make sure I don't miss a can in the refrigerator I get a box for Aluminum recycling to store my cans and if I suspect I have one can less, I go to count the cans I saved, and then the missing can will have to appear, right? Well, I am lucky I don't buy cans, I just drink water, mainly.

Also why the LCS went through the growing of trees from a seed to a grown tree, when that at the end does not matter? It sounds like a waste of time. Why have laws of growing, actually? Also, one tree less would alter mass, temperature, etc. Regarding the refrigerator, may be is good to keep it dirty with bacteria and fungi, so that they make sure we preserve some containers there. We just clean them only when we get them out of the fridge. So many thinks don't make sense. Why create things that seem so complicated, instead of making a VR simpler, still with enough constraints to simulate objectivity and separation. NPMR makes more sense to me than PMR regarding wasting resources and making it so complicated, for what?, so we have schools to study these fake simulations? Nothing personal Tom, I just wish, I can participate in designing VRs.

Claudio

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

> http://soprano.com <


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Aug 07, 2010 5:12 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:35 am
Posts: 9999
Location: Ridgecrest, CA
It seems like there is something to do with the next Delta-t NOT collapsing UNTIL someone looks. The next time someone looks in the fridge it is a new view with that break in what is in the fridge existing (no Delta-t's happening in that fridge because it isn't being rendered). What the last view was probably will be what this new view will be, but the record won't be there for in between views. Okay, now what did I just say?
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.


Top
PostPosted: Sat Aug 07, 2010 5:22 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 1:54 pm
Posts: 2707
Location: Miami, FL
It still does not make any sense. TBC should keep a logical probability of mass and temperature distribution inside the fridge, without too much detail and resources, if the door is not open, those distributions stay pretty stable and there is not so much need of computation every DELTA-t. With that logical distribution, that somebody in PMR actually can design and simulate (I worked in Finite Element Analysis (FEM) modeling software), there's no room to lose a beer, a coke or whatever. Besides, bacteria easily develops in the fridge. Try leaving bananas, tomatoes, grapes, etc., for more than a month in the fridge.

Clau

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

> http://soprano.com <


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Aug 07, 2010 6:34 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:35 am
Posts: 9999
Location: Ridgecrest, CA
Quote:
It still does not make any sense.
What I just said, or the whole thing of what happens to something when it isn't being rendered? It seems clear that there is not record if something isn't being rendered, and then when a similar thing is rendered, it doesn't have to fit a record that doesn't exist. Probability is just probability. The probable tree isn't there. The probable inside of that fridge is JUST in the historical actualized thread of who saw it last, right? There is a high probability that if someone else opens that fridge the same stuff would be there, but that is not rendered until they open and look. So now there is what the first person saw last, and what the new person saw first. How probable is it they will see the same data? I'm conversing Claudio. Brain storming, no right/wrong answers, like that. Let's leave out any bacteria in the fridge at this point, ok.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.


Top
PostPosted: Sat Aug 07, 2010 6:48 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 1285
The entropy reduction VR game called PMR is made just for the edification of the PMR residents -- if they are happy in their nice little buttoned down consistent reality -- the system has done its job and there is no need to work any harder or track or save any more data than it must to get the job done. Most of our guessing about how LCS works is based on an assumption of computational parsimony (that the process employed by the LCS is efficient (i.e., no, or at least little, wasted effort).

Conscious entities have free will and are changeable so just because last Delta-t it was probable that Beer guy put 4 beers in the fridge, a week later when he returns and opens the door it may be most probable by a gnats eyebrow that he put 3 beers in the fridge -- since no consciousness beings were in the fridge, the LCS didn't have to keep track of, or render, the beer (or even the refrigerator for that matter. But on return, Beer guy steps through the door and a fridge must be rendered to preserve consistency because he and others and multiple memories and records are very clear on there being a fridge in the kitchen -- and not any old fridge, but pretty much the same one that was there when he left.

Now the beer is another thing -- neither he nor anybody else really have a clue. Perhaps today, because someone commented on his beer belly, he is now intending to have put in 3 when he left the previous week -- who knows, but the LCS can do what it pleases and if there is a discrepancy between the historical record of last week and the historical record of the measurement that is made when the door is pulled open the following week -- who cares? (Indeed the number of beers placed in the fridge before leaving may not have been recorded at all -- there was really no need to since the probability was near zero that beer guy or any other entity would know how many beers were in the fridge) The LCS has no requirement to keep the databases free of minor discrepancies that are irrelevant to the mission of running a top notch VR school house - that is not one of its constraints because it is not necessary. Such discrepancies as that are not important. At least, that is the assumption of parsimonious computing -- that nothing is done just for the hell of it. That is pretty much all the points i wanted to bring out on the table with this example.

Now remember, this beer thing is just a made up example to illustrate how the system runs on probability instead of being objective, and to help people understand the sorts of constraints that the LCS has to meet. That is all it was intended to accomplish. Pushing this hypothetical metaphor/example way past the point where it was designed to operate as a useful top level concept demonstration tool will no doubt create all sorts of issues for those two guys who want to know what sort of stars were in her eyes and the precise spectrum that each of the stars was radiating at the moment the author described her standing there in the street that night.... Jeez, maybe it wasn't stars at all...maybe those were reflections of street lights -- that changes the whole story and makes a lot more sense. You know, because of being closer, streetlights are a lot brighter than stars. You probably wouldn't notice the stars because of the streetlights. I bet the author doesn't even know that they were really streetlights and ...... :-)

Tom


Top
PostPosted: Sat Aug 07, 2010 7:10 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
Our PMR science and our PMR logic tells us that if you put 4 beers in the refrigerator, forget about it, and come back in two weeks, there is still going to be 4 beers.

But, TBC is also not constrained by PMR science and logic. Only by maintaining the appearance of non-violation of PMR science and logic.

On a slightly different note, in PMR objective reality real coincidences happen fairly regularly. This would allow TBC to throw in a few extra "coincidences" of its own making in at opportune moments without blatantly violating PMR objective reality. After all, no one can prove it wasn't just another coincidence.

Claudio,

I think that if you are extremely uncomfortable accepting that TBC ever does the 4 beers / 3 beers thing in PMR that is fine. I think Tom is pointing out that theoretically TBC could "get away" with it without violating any of its own rules and requirements. (We know that the rules of PMR science and logic have been broken if such a thing happens.) TBC's rules and practices for itself can logically be different than rules within the PMR game. TBC could potentially have an "override" option that it can use in special circumstances, such as with so called "coincidences". TBC may use such an "override" option and it may not. We would never know from a PMR point of view.

Jeanne


Top
PostPosted: Sat Aug 07, 2010 7:11 pm 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

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

Here is where you are seemingly getting hung up, Claudio. You say "I worked in Finite Element Analysis (FEM) modeling software". That is fine as a start for learning some of the basic concepts. I did my research on the numerical solution of the partial differential equations for heat and mass transfer within a porous material which has much the same constraints as these are also conservation equations. But you must step beyond the requirements of this kind of PMR based system for conservation of energy and mass, balancing of forces, etc. Tom is describing a computer model based upon probability which operates also with the PMR rule set including conservation laws. Within such a probability based system, you have the capability to deal with breaks in the chain of computation, both in time and in place. This is done for purposes of reducing computational resource requirements. It is simply a waste of resources to create node points in interstellar space just to create a continuous computational field.

In Finite Element Analysis calculations, the calculation space must be continuous over the area of interest. You cannot just look at part of a beam and then at another part of the same beam. You must have the continuous beam calculated from constraint point to constraint point. That is because everything must be conserved such as mass and energy and everything must be balanced regarding forces. But in the totality of PMR, continuous calculation of everything within the expanding universe that we seem to see around us and detect with our instrumentation, is excessive for computational resources and unnecessary as the CS has developed ways to deal with discontinuities in the calculation field. These discontinuities relate to the separate observational field available to each conscious being involved in the VR. These discontinuities in both time, place and scale of observational ability are taken care of by the probability basis for the underlying model. When there is a break of years in the observational history, records are lost, observers change or die, observers are aware at different fractal levels, probability permits bridging this discontinuity without the requirement for calculating every point at every delta t intervening just to satisfy continuity equations when those continuities can never actually be observed. Nor just to satisfy your need for this approach of continuity and conservation laws based upon your past work history and experience.

I seriously think that this may be the true basis for these disagreements about how things function. Consider how probability permits bridging discontinuities within the observational field of conscious entities participating in PMR. See if this does not finally explain to you why the probability basis underlies the PMR model as calculated within TBC.

Ted


Top
PostPosted: Sat Aug 07, 2010 7:36 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

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

Thank you for replying.

I know I am perceived like a pain in the butt, and I would in others' eyes. Our extrapolations can't prove anything. Experience, experiments can prove or not something. I think the logical next step would be to try and design some tests to prove these effects you mention, if possible (I haven't done enough thinking about it yet, though).

Tom: Most of our guessing about how LCS works id based on an assumption of computational parsimony (that the process employed by the LCS is efficient (i.e., no, or at least little, wasted effort)).

Claudio: This is key. Like the saying: "if something works fine, why change it?"

Tom: Conscious entities have free will and are changeable so just because last Delta-t it was probable that Beer guy put 4 beer in the fridge, a week later when he returns and opens the door it may be most probable by a gnats eyebrow that he put 3 beer in the fridge -- since no consciousness beings were in the fridge, the LCS didn't have to keep track of, or render, the beer (or even the refrigerator for that matter. But on return, Beer guy steps through the door and a fridge must be rendered to preserve consistency because he and others and multiple memories and records are very clear on there being a fridge in the kitchen -- and not any old fridge, but pretty much the same one that was there when he left.

Claudio: I wonder what would a refrigerator manufacturer think about this (just a funny comment, no implies). Now, what I mentioned would constrain the observation problem. If the beer guy buys 12 cans at a time and keep the empty cans, he would force the system to be consistent. You gave no comments about my mentioning of conservation of mass, and the fact that the beer guy can better count than TBC sounds funny, but I guess your first comment at the top, says it all. The purpose is the evolution. If you want to comment, you are still welcome.

Tom: Now remember, this beer thing is just a made up example to illustrate how the system runs on probability instead of being objective, and to help people understand the sorts of constraints that the LCS has to meet. That is all it was intended to accomplish. Pushing this hypothetical metaphor/example way past the point where it was designed to operate as a useful top level concept demonstration tool will no doubt create all sorts of issues for those two guys who want to know what sort of stars were in her eyes and the precise spectrum that each of the stars was radiating at the moment the author described her standing there in the street that night.... Jeez, maybe it wasn't stars at all...maybe those were reflections of street lights -- that changes the whole story and makes a lot more sense. You know, because of being closer, streetlights are a lot brighter than stars. You probably wouldn't notice the stars because of the streetlights. I bet the author doesn't even know that they were really streetlights and ...... :-)

Claudio: I know it was a made up example, like the ones I tried. I tried examples to explore with my limitations (no hands on experience on how TBC does it) possible inconsistencies, taking into account that others that don't consider MBT seriously like myself would find funny and actually ridiculous. I know, like you said, because of not enough understanding. That's why I went through this, to understand better.

With all the respect, Tom, because I respect you a lot and it is difficult for me to disagree with you because of that, my observations and potential similar observations by others don't need to go about stars or angels in a pin. That's going to a extreme that is not necessary. I try to follow your advice to try to see like others may see, and I tried and try the way I presume scientists or techy/left brainer guys may explore MBT. I don't want them to dismiss it. My intuition tells me that I am channeling something that goes with my "resonation" with MBT from the begining that I discovered it, that I should try to help because of this. I want MBT to project good into the future and to join forces with other concurrent trends. I find these examinations and learning important. Thanks to your pacience with me and others, I hope people reading this thread and similars will better undersand the insides of the bigger picture.

Now I channel some focusing on other tasks to help people explore MBT till I find some experiments or exploring on QM at macro levels to compare it with MBT, like it was already done for particles. I admired your interview with Frank on Skype. It was amazing. I admire how easy you adapt to his mind and you create enthusiasm and motivation on him. You are an excellent creator of situations that lower the entropy of the system :)

Take care, uncle Tom. Good night inspirator!

Clau

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

> http://soprano.com <


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Aug 07, 2010 7:55 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 1:54 pm
Posts: 2707
Location: Miami, FL
Thank you for your reply Jeanne, it makes sense.

Your reply Ted, makes a lot of sense as well. What happens to me when I think about the refrigerator is to think how would I do it if I had TBC power. I know I don't need to do a fine finite element mesh, probably I can model it with just some few elements, may be one per enclosed container, keeping the mass and material properties of each object in a fridge.

I want to be critical about what I see happening on this thread. I see people focus too much on my understanding. I know you guys like to help and I appreciate Tom, Ted, Jeanne and others efforts, but I would like you guys and others to take into account that what happened in this thread may represent a scenario in PMR. We are doing some internal Quality Assurance of our product, before release to the public. I know it is not the same scenario, because MBT was already released, but I find good to create these type of scenarios to see how other people might perceive MBT.

In my case, I experienced, and experience how the probabilities play a role in realities. I though find it easier to understand it regarding NPMR than PMR (with my limited experiences). In NPMR the probabilities aspect seems to act more consistent and obvious in a way. In PMR though, on one side I see a so apparently perfect sophisticated VR, that I expect more polished elaboration, but truth is one, views of truth are attempts, and I see I need many more attempts to explore better.

My curiosity on the topic is big, and also because I like to play the designer view. How would I design a VR? I don't know how LCS future probabilty may see me as a potential future designer of some small VRs, but hope I get a chance in the future :)

I perceive a future in PMR where more VRs are going to be built and we will have the chance to explore these designs and see if we can embed them with MBT and QM concepts. This I see a very interesting future field that can play an interesting role in moving further in comparing PMR created VRs and real VRs.

Well, so much typing for now ...

Later,

Clau

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

> http://soprano.com <


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Aug 07, 2010 8:32 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
Claudio wrote:
Quote:
taking into account that others that don't consider MBT seriously like myself would find funny and actually ridiculous.
The people who instantly dismiss MBT as funny or ridiculous are probably not ready or able or interested enough to deal with the whole concept. They are probably better left alone.

For those who actually can and do understand the concepts behind MBT, I would ask them to explain to me why reality couldn't work the way Tom is presenting it? If they can't, at least they would have to admit that it's a viable theory, even if they choose to think otherwise. At that point, at least it resides somewhere in the back of their minds and in the future may come to consider it less unlikely.

And it's really not a matter of getting into all the nuts and bolts of it. Simply - How could you ever really know this is not a virtual reality?

Jeanne

Jeanne


Top
PostPosted: Sat Aug 07, 2010 10:29 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 1:54 pm
Posts: 2707
Location: Miami, FL
Quote:
Claudio wrote:
Quote:
taking into account that others that don't consider MBT seriously like myself would find funny and actually ridiculous.
The people who instantly dismiss MBT as funny or ridiculous are probably not ready or able or interested enough to deal with the whole concept. They are probably better left alone.
Not necessarily. It is common to find skeptical, left brained people that are interested in religion or spirituality and they may get attracted to consider the virtual reality possibility, but they may still dismiss it when they think they find something that may not make sense for them. To avoid that I suggest to give good examples that are more difficult to be considered easy to dismiss and even better to give examples to prove this is the case (like QM examples). We need to strenghen the other end of the QM cord (the macro level end), so that the case is stronger. Science is the more respected religion in the West, as Tom mentions it.
Quote:
For those who actually can and do understand the concepts behind MBT, I would ask them to explain to me why reality couldn't work the way Tom is presenting it? If they can't, at least they would have to admit that it's a viable theory, even if they choose to think otherwise. At that point, at least it resides somewhere in the back of their minds and in the future may come to consider it less unlikely.

And it's really not a matter of getting into all the nuts and bolts of it. Simply - How could you ever really know this is not a virtual reality?

Jeanne
This usually does not happen. People expect you to prove the viability of the model, not for them to disprove it. It is rare they will try to spend time doing that. People, specially in the USA expect you to sell you the product, and they consider the product better if you can demonstrate it with scenarios, experiments, facts, etc. That's why I see better for us (MBT) to already have the examples and possible proof ready. I don't see it as much necessary in the NPMR area where people need to prove it by their own explorations as in the PMR area, where people expect similar level of experiments as other science experiments. If you want to compete with classical science, it is better to do it at their level, or at least closer, so that they will take it more seriously. Tom did the biggest step to approach science, but I see steps further will improve the rate of consideration much more.

Clau

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

> http://soprano.com <


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Aug 07, 2010 10:51 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 1285
Jeanne212: How could you ever really know this is not a virtual reality?

This is actually a very simple logic problem: Here is how you know :

PMR is an objective reality:
If there is NO such thing as an intent based placebo effect. If no one has ever actually experienced precognition (dream or otherwise) and all fortune tellers are always wrong when predicting the un-guessable. If the Stanford University physics dept validation of remote viewing (Puthof and Targ) and published in the IEEE journal NEVER happened. If all the experiments that have been done by top tier university scientists demonstrating reverse causality and mental intent biasing random data have NEVER happened. If telepathy, empathy at a distance, mothers who know the moment their children get hurt away from home, and people being able to both hurt and heal others with their mind's (intent), have NEVER happened. if only mentally ill, the uneducated gullible, and the not too bright have paranormal experiences instead of much of the entire population (well educated actually has a positive correlation for such experiences). If the Readiness Potential had NEVER been demonstrated and measured at a dozen research institutions. If no one had ever had the consistent ability to predict (better than chance would allow) which card will be shown next in psi experiments. If particles were actually particles instead of probability distributions . etc.. If all the "if statements" listed above were known facts, then one would know that reality COULD BE (was likely to be) objective, rather than virtual (logic would require one to allow for the possibility of any of the above thing happening sometime in the future.

But if any one of the above things that all clearly violate objective causality ever actually existed or happened EVEN to one individual ONCE in the history of mankind, then logic would tell you that this reality absolutely could not possibly be objective. It takes only one violation of an absolute rule to shatter it absolutely. Of course, fact is: Such violations of the assumption of an objective reality have always happened and been experienced, recorded, witnessed and studied in every culture in every time throughout all human history. Violations of objective reality have been proven with careful valid studies over and over again by literally hundreds of scientists using immaculate protocols over the last century. We don't need (logical process does not require) more "proof". Establishing "proof" has long since become an irrelevant non-issue except to the uninformed and those described below.

So you see, it is really not difficult to tell if this reality is objective or not --however, it is exceedingly difficult for those who possess the following two characteristics: 1) They must be in complete denial of the facts (care to dispute the placebo effect or the Princeton PEAR labs experiments, or the Stanford research or the Duke research or the Temple U research to name a very few) and 2) are fanatical "true believers" in objective physical causality as the only possible cause of anything. (i.e., A "true believer" holds to their belief against all reason and rationality). Furthermore they know for sure that none of the above listed things are real or ever happened - all have been imagined in the minds of the gullible and deceitful and can be rationalized away by any true believer in a heartbeat because they are simply, by definition, impossible -- and that is all you need to know.

Never argue with a true believer -- no matter what they believe.

An interesting fact about true believers: They see themselves as possessing the facts (the truth) and see those who disagree with them as true believers. Thus beware: if you see all those who disagree with you as true believers, you may be one yourself.

Tom


Top
PostPosted: Sat Aug 07, 2010 11:24 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
Tom,

Great post.

You said it much more convincingly than I did. :)

Over in another thread, called "Having trouble accepting this as truth" I posted the following in what has now turned into 102 posts:
Quote:
Why is there so much out there for the debunkers to debunk? There are so many different types of phenomena experienced by so many people that seem to go beyond the realm of "the physical". If I present 100 good cases suggestive of the paranormal to a debunker, and he gives me 100 alternative physical explanations that aren't in themselves conclusive, I still have to wonder why a purely physical/materialist universe has any evidence seriously suggestive of the paranormal at all.
Next time the author of the thread logs on, I'm going to save myself some writing and quote what you just said.

Jeanne


Top
PostPosted: Sun Aug 08, 2010 12:45 am 
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
Claudio, you wrote:
Quote:
It is common to find skeptical, left brained people that are interested in religion or spirituality
That is a pretty good description of me actually!

And you're right, I did start out looking for an obvious flaw in order to dismiss the concept of a virtual reality. I discovered Tom on YouTube, accidently. I don't even know what I was originally looking for. I ended up listening to all of his presentations. I almost wanted to get quickly to the point where I could say, "This is ridiculous" and go on with my day. But it didn't happen, and I ended up spending alot of time on YouTube over the next couple of days.

Tom talks about people getting past their beliefs. I'm actually the opposite. You could say I've been looking for some beliefs all my life. As a teenager, I was actually surprised when people weren't grateful to me for pointing out obvious logical flaws in their beliefs. And even more surprised when they got angry, but were unable defend the positions they insisted were true. (What can I say? I was very, very young then.)

I'd like to see a show on one of the cable channels devoted to the concepts of this being a virtual reality. I just watched one recently about all the parallel universe theories. MBT seems "down to earth" in comparison with what I heard on that show! They've worn out topics like Ancient Astronauts, Bigfoot and Roswell. They even had one devoted to the concept of what would happen to everything if people just disappeared from the Earth. One guy was even ghost hunting in Chernobyl! They certainly couldn't say that MBT was too "far out". :)

Jeanne


Top
PostPosted: Sun Aug 08, 2010 5:55 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 1:54 pm
Posts: 2707
Location: Miami, FL
Quote:
Next time the author of the thread logs on, I'm going to save myself some writing and quote what you just said.

Jeanne
Hi Jeanne:

I already posted your question and Tom's answer in the FAQ, so it can be referred as a link (viewtopic.php?f=17&t=5331) when somebody asks a similar question regarding MBT and virtual realities.

I am happy you came to the board. I like how you participate and contribute and I see that you can do much more as you advance in your exploration of MBT and the bigger picture. No fear and objectivity, good combo.

In my case I found MBT from the angle of interest in NPMR and related stuff. I was first doing searches in Google like "OBE", "astral plane", etc. Then I started to get some good pages that mentioned "Consciousness". It was when I kept googling "Consciousness" that I ended up in Tom's video of London's lecture in 2008 on Youtube.
Quote:
I'd like to see a show on one of the cable channels devoted to the concepts of this being a virtual reality. I just watched one recently about all the parallel universe theories. MBT seems "down to earth" in comparison with what I heard on that show! They've worn out topics like Ancient Astronauts, Bigfoot and Roswell. They even had one devoted to the concept of what would happen to everything if people just disappeared from the Earth. One guy was even ghost hunting in Chernobyl! They certainly couldn't say that MBT was too "far out". :)
Well, I hope too. I saw stuff like that in the History Channel. Tom deserves to be there. Well your intent regarding this may attract this future event to the future probabilities ;)
Quote:
Never argue with a true believer -- no matter what they believe.
Tell me about it ;)

What about this one?

Never argue with an ego driven person, no matter what they think or believe.

Once ego comes to the conversation, I change the dynamics of the conversation. They can only deal with their egos, nothing I can do about it. I deal with mine, nothing you can do about it either (except for giving good advices ;).

Clau

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

> http://soprano.com <


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 219 posts ]  Go to page Previous 111 12 13 14 15 Next

All times are UTC-06:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited