Return Home
It is currently Thu May 23, 2024 5:40 am

All times are UTC-06:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 88 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Aug 28, 2010 11:15 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 6:32 pm
Posts: 815
Location: Statesville, NC
You're very welcome SS. If I'm not mistaken, this is the first usage of the term OOM as coined by Tom.


Top
PostPosted: Sat Aug 28, 2010 11:24 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:35 am
Posts: 9999
Location: Ridgecrest, CA
RAM, I like the effects of working your brain muscles as seen in your posts rather than arms better. That facebook photo of you all buffed (puffed) uplooks scary, of course it was intended to as is bodybuilding posing.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.


Top
PostPosted: Sat Aug 28, 2010 11:45 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 6:32 pm
Posts: 815
Location: Statesville, NC
Bette,

Haha. Trust me. There is nothing to be frightened of when it comes to me, now or then. I have always worked on both in harmony mostly. I just want to be all that I can be. Right now, it involves running long distances instead of hoisting heavy weights. I plan on adding back some weight training this fall/winter. Just not to that extreme. Balance, as in all things, is key.

Thanks,
Ramon


Top
PostPosted: Sat Aug 28, 2010 12:45 pm 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

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

Tom has described before the way that CS cycles are used for PMR, NPMR and CS uses in a recurring round robin. Time sharing. It is in MBT and I have referred to it before as the basis for talking about our VR experiences as time sharing of our IUOC as first it receives a cycle of one VR, then the other VR and then a lot of cycles are devoted to the functioning or our IUOC as part of the CS doing whatever it does there as a part of the whole. The reference to the CPU is just an analogy. You and I know that there is no CPU in the CS but that processing is distributed all around and intermixed with data. But as an example that some are familiar with, I referred to a CPU because that fits with most people's concepts of computers. Just the same way as for the CS as a whole, our IUOC also has no single CPU or multiple CPUs but rather distributed processing just as for the CS as we are part of and integral to the CS.

Unless you are going to tell me that you can parallel experience PMR and NPMR simultaneously like Tom does, having NPMR experiences from within PMR substitutes out of sequence (the PMR sequence) cycles of experience in NPMR for experience in PMR.

The flashlight analogy refers to our IUOC directing it's attention alternately to different 'things' which it experiences. It shines its flashlight/directs its attention to our VR PMR self and experiences that. Then it shines its flashlight/directs its attention to our VR NPMR self and experiences that. Simply another way to illustrate time sharing of our total attention as our total self/IUOC to experience the VRs that we are participating in.

Ted


Top
PostPosted: Sat Aug 28, 2010 2:41 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

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

It looks that we may have some different interpretations of certain aspects of MBT.

Let's explore:
Ted Vollers wrote:Tom has described before the way that CS cycles are used for PMR, NPMR and CS uses in a recurring round robin. Time sharing. It is in MBT and I have referred to it before as the basis for talking about our VR experiences as time sharing of our IUOC as first it receives a cycle of one VR, then the other VR and then a lot of cycles are devoted to the functioning or our IUOC as part of the CS doing whatever it does there as a part of the whole.
I don't recall Tom saying in the book or here that cycles (I think we can say a cycle is a delta-t (small delta t in NPMR)), are used only for one specific task at a time. I interpret that at each cycle several activities of Consciousness happen. Every aspect is using the same media: Consciousness.

What you are saying would prevent parallel processing and also would contradict this statement by Tom:
Tom in NY slides wrote:There is no fundamental reality frame –all frames are equivalent
Ted: The reference to the CPU is just an analogy. You and I know that there is no CPU in the CS but that processing is distributed all around and intermixed with data. But as an example that some are familiar with, I referred to a CPU because that fits with most people's concepts of computers. Just the same way as for the CS as a whole, our IUOC also has no single CPU or multiple CPUs but rather distributed processing just as for the CS as we are part of and integral to the CS.

Claudio: Right, actually Tom stated a better analogy. From the NY slides:
Tom in NY slides wrote:Using today's "computing cloud" concept as a metaphor: Let each IUOC have its own sentient CPU (or portion thereof) within a multi-processor architecture where all CPUs and memory are shared system resources.
This model fits with my interpretation of the "balls of light" I used in my first post here. Each light shares CPU from AUM.

Ted: Unless you are going to tell me that you can parallel experience PMR and NPMR simultaneously like Tom does, having NPMR experiences from within PMR substitutes out of sequence (the PMR sequence) cycles of experience in NPMR for experience in PMR.

Claudio: I think you are getting confused between the VR (PMR) and the being. The FWAU is an aspect of the IUOC and it "runs" at the same "clock speed" as the IUOC. In my model, the IUOC does not focus on different aspects at different cycles but rather in all of them in parallel, and that does allow parallel processing. Yes, I do parallel process (way more limited than Tom), and lots of other people can as well. Tom's Consciousness is not way different than yours, mine, Big Cheese's or somebody else's. We are all handling reality cells from AUM.
Ted Vollers wrote:The flashlight analogy refers to our IUOC directing it's attention alternately to different 'things' which it experiences. It shines its flashlight/directs its attention to our VR PMR self and experiences that. Then it shines its flashlight/directs its attention to our VR NPMR self and experiences that. Simply another way to illustrate time sharing of our total attention as our total self/IUOC to experience the VRs that we are participating in.
I think your interpretation is wrong. Let me explain more. Here is what Tom said in this thread:
twcjr wrote:Consciousness does not come and go it is always active -- awareness comes and goes with attention -- like being in a dark room with a narrow beamed flashlight -- objects come and go in and out of your awareness as you scan the light around. What you are experiencing is one uninterrupted always-on consciousness with many aspects or many views as seen from specific filters -- each of these views of part of the whole (or part of the data set) you label as various bodies because that is how we humans are all used to thinking -- in terms of separate objects.
Noticed what I put in bold. Tom was describing the flashlight of the FWAU, not just the IUOC. An IUOC uses multiple flashlights (or better lights of different power) simultaneously on all cycles. This is how I think of it:

Different aspects of an IUOC, can be interpreted also as different programs running on the same hardware focusing on different tasks.

Regarding the different delta-t's I think you are confusing the running of the VR (for rendering) with the FWAU. The rendering is slower than the CPU speed of NPMR. This works the same way as in our computers. The cpu can run a lot of cycles in between every rendering of video to the screen. When you do animations you do a lot of calculations to generate (render) a frame (e.g. video, or flash/silverlight animations).

Tom explains this better than before IMO in the NY slides (reference:
http://www.my-big-toe.com/NYWorkshopSlides.pdf)

From there:

Page 66 and on:
The virtual PMR game cannot change “slow” by speeding up the hardware (brain, electro chemical, and and muscle response) –that is fixed by the rule-set. But it can change “last in line” by giving the slowest elements in the sequence a head start so that your intellectual awareness (local consciousness) and body motion seem smooth and well connected
In page 67 he describes an "Optimal Design":
1.Within consciousness, the near probable future choice is computed
2. Next, within the context of a virtual PMR, the virtual body automatically starts to react as the virtual brain emulated within the FWAU receives the probable future data stream (slowest process comes first)
3. Then, in the present, the choice is changed or continued by the consciousness
4. And finally the probable future data and present experience data are interpreted into an intellectual, local, situational awareness by the virtual brain emulator within the FWAU (fast process goes last)
This significantly reduces apparent “video lag” between body motion (slowest component) and local mental awareness (much quicker process). Small times and high future probabilities produce few errors. Much better design.
This explains "our fast reflexes" without being apparently conscious about them (e.g. turning the wheel of the car very fast to avoid an accident). In 3. the FWAU actually uses cpu of NPMR (not PMR brain CPU). In the same slides Tom says the brain is a constrain, the processor of the FWAU runs in Consciousness Domain (or Consciousness Space).

Hope it is more clear now.

Edit: I also find this as useful for the topic. From viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2834&p=4536
twcjr wrote:YOU are real, not virtual, YOU are consciousness -- the sum of all YOUR virtual and non virtual experiences. YOU are using multiprocessing to send you (a portion of YOU) to a private school with rigid rules while YOU stay home and play computer games -- how sweet is that. You who are really YOU are identifying with the wrong you.
You see, the higher self (playing the computer games at home), does not stop playing his game every time the one at school (FWAU) is doing something. The IUOC does multiprocessing, not just handles one process at a time.

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 28, 2010 3:33 pm 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

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

There is a page in MBT on which Tom shows the number of cycles devoted to PMR, the number of cycles devoted to NPMR and the number of cycles devoted to the CS itself. These are the basic cycles, state changes, of the CS itself. The cycles devoted to the two VRs are to prepare all of the background calculation and the appropriate renderings to produce one tick of the VR time clock cycle, the minimum time interval in each VR. I have tried to search this out in the searchable copy on Google but can't come up with the right words. Actually I think that it was more in the way of an illustration and I don't know if it can be searched out by a word search. Tom did this to show how the time in a repeating 'round robin' cycle was used. Our IUOC functions as an integral part of the CS through all of the CS devoted cycles and the prep time cycles devoted to the two (or more) VRs within which we are participating. After each prep period for a VR, our IUOC, through a Virtual Self, an FWAU, devoted to experiencing that particular VR receives and experiences (is conscious of) one cycle of that particular VR clock. That is what I am describing here and it is a very basic explanation that Tom gave. I don't really see any difference, other than details of words, between what Tom and I are describing. I do see a big difference in how you are interpreting what is said.

Do you remember this table or chart in the books? Do you remember what it is describing? If not, we might as well not discuss this any further until I can ask Tom to point it out or find it myself and refer you to it. Just agree to disagree for the moment.

Ted


Top
PostPosted: Sat Aug 28, 2010 4:18 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 1:54 pm
Posts: 2707
Location: Miami, FL
Ted, I think among other things you are confusing number of cycles with length of cycles (delta-t's). Consciousness does not jump from one cycle to another one on different frames. You can't ignore the inconsistencies what you are saying brings.

I gave you enough quotes, but as usual, I have to bring more, and that may not be enough. Well, I have the book next to me ...

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 28, 2010 4:30 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:35 am
Posts: 9999
Location: Ridgecrest, CA
Depth of meanings of words as new information comes into the system changes what may have been said in 2003 changes, or goes deeper, or not. It probably does though.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.


Top
PostPosted: Sat Aug 28, 2010 5:35 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 1:54 pm
Posts: 2707
Location: Miami, FL
Ted Vollers wrote:After each prep period for a VR, our IUOC, through a Virtual Self, an FWAU, devoted to experiencing that particular VR receives and experiences (is conscious of) one cycle of that particular VR clock.
This is one mistake. One cycle of the particular VR clock (DELTA-t) does not mean that is one cycle of delta-t and then the other cycles are used only for NPMR. The difference is mainly in the length of the cycles and the number of NPMR cycles that correspond to one PMR cycle. Also, note that a PMR cycle refers to a cycle of the VR (DELTA-t).

From Trilogy, page 671:
It should be clear that the time increment DELTA-t is composed of or contains some large integer number of NPMR(N) time quanta delta-t, ...
Ted, notice that from this, actually the period in PMR is larger than the one in NPMR, so your suggestion that there are more cycles devoted to "NPMR only" compared to PMR don't apply. Actually at the bottom of page 670 Tom mentions just only 1 cycle of NPMR, in point number 5. So imagine 1,000,000 cycles in PMR compared to 1 in NPMR, the opposite of what you were mentioning.

and here I also found, Ted, what you are mentioning about (the even smaller than NPMR delta-t increment of CS level):

at the bottom of the same page 671:
Though it lies somewhat beyond our immediate perception, contemplate the concept that delta-t is incremented only after so many ticks of a smaller, more fundamental time increment.
and to add to this at the end of the first paragraph of page 672:
Furthermore, consider that delta-t is incremented only after so many ticks of a smaller time increment that is used to simulate probable future states of NPMR(N) (the NPMR(N) delta-t loop).
and the following suggest an even lower level (smaller delta-t):
Because NPMR is an outer loop to NPMR(N) (where OS lives), it makes sense that NPMR(N)
Actually it mentions at least 4 levels of delta-t (might be 5 or more if we consider NPMR a subset of the LCS). Actually now I read it mentions that just below. So the book mentions actually 5 levels:

From smallest delta t to biggest:

CS
NPMR
NPMR(N)
OS
PMR (DELTA-t)

Our FWAU, as a subset of CS operates in all these 5 levels, our awareness of the 5 depends on our evolution and capacity (training and conditioning).

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 28, 2010 7:05 pm 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

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

Your first statement of my first mistake is not anything in fact that I said. You misunderstand apparently.

All of the delta ts that I refer to are for the CS except for the PMR and NPMR VRs. The PMR and NPMR VRs each have an apparent delta t of their own that is not a fixed number of CS delta ts long. They appear equal in length and uniform from within themselves as VRs as part of their rule sets. It takes varying numbers of delta t for the CS to generate/calculate/render the VRs and more is taken as needed when computation becomes heavy. It all looks the same from the inside of a particular VR. Nor is it experienced as a CS delta t and then blank in between. Since they vary independently of each other relative to the CS clock, there is actually no fixed relationship between the PMR and NPMR clock rates although there is likely to be an 'average' that is close to a typical for each and thus a reasonably constant relationship. They are inherently asynchronous but we can speak colloquially about their relative clock rates. We can't readily have access to that kind of detail level of information as to the amount of deviation between rates over time and I don't think that Tom claims to. I have made no claim as to the relative clock rates between PMR and NPMR clocks so it is very difficult for me to be in error about this, not having stated a ratio to be in error about. The only thing absolutely clear is that a vast number of CS delta ts go into a given VR delta t. We don't even know if the CS delta ts are absolutely uniform but we assume so. We have no way to observe and compare from our PMR or NPMR viewpoints.

We need to specify a particular link to a particular version of MBT in Google to search within as I don't see the line you reference on the page 671 of the version that I looked at. What is being discussed there includes delta ts, but not apparently what you refer to.

Your last point is exactly what I am referring to. That many ticks of the CS delta t go into the generation, calculation and rendering of a given VR delta t such as for PMR or for NPMR. Our Virtual Selves, established as a subset of our selves as an IUOC to experience each PMR or NPMR and associated rule set, experiences those individual VR clock ticks as their conscious experience. Our IUOC in itself participates in the functioning of the CS as an integral part, but that is not a conscious participation. Why have consciousness of the internal stream of 1s and 0s of a passing calculation? The VRs were created specifically for our conscious participation as IUOCs and that is where we are conscious.

Ted


Top
PostPosted: Sat Aug 28, 2010 8:11 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

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

The parts I extracted were from chapter 79 (A Model of Reality and Time Probable Reality Surfaces ...), book 3 section 5.

I get to understand you better. I think you not only overlook my posts but also what I post from Tom's sources. It is so hard for you to recognize your mitakes, but anyway, there is nothing I can do about that.
Ted Vollers wrote:Our IUOC in itself participates in the functioning of the CS as an integral part, but that is not a conscious participation. Why have consciousness of the internal stream of 1s and 0s of a passing calculation? The VRs were created specifically for our conscious participation as IUOCs and that is where we are conscious.
TBC is an IUOC, from the latest post from Tom in the Trees thread where Ramon opened a new thread called Tom's exposition, Tom states that everything on the LCS are subsets of Consciousness (IUOCs). How can you say that our IUOCs don't have a conscious participation? You can say that a FWAU does not get how it works, but some IUOCs can get to the root levels, otherwise how can the creators and managers of the VR get to do their job? In the same post from Tom he states that IUOCs are at different levels of development, so some get more understanding and decision space than others. But in any case, what is stated several times in this thread is that "you" or "I" as FWAUs are not the real "YOU" or "I" and the "YOU" and the "I" function in a continuous way in CS in all levels (PMR,OS,NPMR(N),NPMR,CS). The IUOCs don't spread their cycles on each level, some cycles here, some cycles there, but always ticking at the root level and then as participating on each subset levels. We are not sharing a single CPU with some cycles for PMR and not NPMR and viceversa but rather multiprocessing as stated in my last quote from Tom in my previous long post. At root level we all tick continuously as part of AUM's pulses. Let's don't confuse delta t's use for VRs with delta t's of IUOCs, or Consciousness or Players of VRs, even though we may have to "sync" with the corresponding VR clocks.

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 28, 2010 9:39 pm 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

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

Post the link or make a direct quotation as opposed to the immediately above post. Do not paraphrase and extract when quoting Tom. You are looking at your paper copy, which may be exactly the same as my paper copies, if I knew which box they were in. Right now, all I have access to is the Google books version which is no problem, being accessible to us all. What we all have access to is the same link to a Google text which is fully searchable if we shared the link. Here is the book on Google in which I looked: http://books.google.com/books?id=6To090 ... ns&f=false

Do not argue about what Tom means based upon your paraphrasing and extracting a small portion. You have never agreed, but frequently your extraction of a phrase or single sentence means a great deal different from your interpretation within the context of the page or chapter within which it was originally stated.

Look up your specific references in that linked book image on Google and then tell me the pages that go with the quotations. Then I can see where what you are saying comes from and whether I agree with your interpretation of the meaning.

Ted


Top
PostPosted: Sun Aug 29, 2010 5:37 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 1:54 pm
Posts: 2707
Location: Miami, FL
Ted Vollers wrote:Do not argue about what Tom means based upon your paraphrasing and extracting a small portion. You have never agreed, but frequently your extraction of a phrase or single sentence means a great deal different from your interpretation within the context of the page or chapter within which it was originally stated.
I am not arguing about what Tom says. My interpretations are correct IMO. I often point out all your mistakes and missinterpretations that you spread all over. I am sorry that your statements contradict MBT, and as hard to believe it is what keeps happening. I would suggest you base your analysis without the constant assumptions that I have to be wrong because and only because I disagree with some things you write that go in different directions compared to what MBT and Tom says.

The book online from the link you sent me uses the same pages I pointed out above. If you had a different attitude and consider my posts as logical and based on my good understanding of MBT it would save so many back and forwards.

Here is the link to page 670, you can then go to the next pages 671 and 672:

http://books.google.com/books?id=6To090 ... &q&f=false

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 29, 2010 6:36 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 6:32 pm
Posts: 815
Location: Statesville, NC
All this back and forth brings to mind Tom's words from his exposition:

"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 holds equally true for the metaphors and 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."

Basically, I'm saying that worrying over details to this extent is not helpful or productive. Tom's original words were straightforward, to the point, and uncluttered and just that was all I needed to make productive use of it. You are arguing over your own personal understandings of Tom's words here and in MBT just like the guys in that ridiculous fight over what kind of stars were the girl's eyes like. Forget about it guys and move on, taking whatever is productive for YOU with you. Of course, you are free to keep beating each other over the head until the other agrees with you because that's usually the way this goes, right? It always ends in an agreement? No? Nevermind.

Ramon


Top
PostPosted: Sun Aug 29, 2010 7:02 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 8:08 am
Posts: 205
1.Within consciousness, the near probable future choice is computed
2. Next, within the context of a virtual PMR, the virtual body automatically starts to react as the virtual brain emulated within the FWAU receives the probable future data stream (slowest process comes first)
3. Then, in the present, the choice is changed or continued by the consciousness
4. And finally the probable future data and present experience data are interpreted into an intellectual, local, situational awareness by the virtual brain emulator within the FWAU (fast process goes last)
This significantly reduces apparent “video lag” between body motion (slowest component) and local mental awareness (much quicker process). Small times and high future probabilities produce few errors. Much better design.
I have not reviewed these slides yet, but is Tom saying that the PMR brain has a measure of autonomous operation? This is interesting and could lead to all sorts of complications, such as quantum collapse without full conscious observation (as in Whitworth).
Also this would solve the mystery of the Benjamin Libet delayed conscious awareness experiments.

Seven


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 88 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next

All times are UTC-06:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 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

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