Powered By Saaraan

Paradigm Check

Information and advice for those new to the Occult.

Paradigm Check

Postby blindwake » Sat Jul 15, 2017 7:12 am

For the record, there's a very short summary near the bottom.

I've been spending quite a bit of time trying to explain reality with a few simple axioms and mappings between some occult terminology and generic terminology. I would appreciate it if anyone could invalidate any of my ideas, provide improvements, etc. I'm trying to develop a simple understanding of magick that does not use analogies or esoteric terms, but instead uses self explaining terminology. I'll explain my paradigm in roughly the order that I came up with it so that it is easier to understand. Hopefully I am not cryptic.

I used to follow a materialist perspective, and I believed that the brain caused awareness, until I realized that you can't actually have an existence without awareness. Reality is described in terms of qualities (colors, feelings, etc.), and qualities can only be defined in terms of awareness. In short, if a quality is not observed in some way, it can't really exist. So I reversed my paradigm from the "brain has awareness" to "awareness has the brain".

The whole "the brain creates awareness" thing doesn't really make sense. Saying that a high number of neural interactions in the brain causes awareness is like saying a bag of popcorn becomes aware if you shake it fast enough, "Look! There's lots of collisions! It's complex!" The idea of causation itself doesn't really make sense. Causal rules are arbitrary; seemingly programmed. If they were not simply defined, there would be an infinite number of causes causing each other.

There's no reason why mixing green and blue makes cyan; it could just as easily create red. It's all based on a rule set. So, the idea of a dependency between the brain and awareness doesn't make sense at all. Sure, the existence of a brain might mean that the rule set has to apply an awareness to it, but in no way are the brain and awareness dependent on each other to exist; they are unique and separate things.

It'd be like if I took a data set and decided that they are somehow dependent:

class Human
{
Brain
Awareness
};

Sure, the brain can die, and then awareness might be expelled from a human, but that in no way means that the brain and awareness traits are dependent on each other. The awareness object still exists even if it is removed from the human. In fact, there's no reason that awareness can't simply be reading data from the brain to decide how it'll act! Would you say that a person playing a video game dies if their character dies? Just because the player knows information about the player? And just because the player doesn't watch the character sleep when they do, but instead chooses to skip the boring stuff?

On another note, I can't prove that people other than myself are actually aware, so I have to assume that reality is subjective, and that I am the only person that is aware. Assuming that reality is objective would be intellectually dishonest because I have no evidence to support objectivity. This means that I can treat the universe as completely subjective; the physical world is just a hyper stable dream. An interesting note to this though, is that if the universe is subjective, then it sort of makes sense for awareness to be indestructible. If awareness can exist forever, it also makes sense that it has an infinite past. Given an infinite past, my single awareness would have had more than enough time to have lived out the lives of every single human on earth, experience being every plant, rock, etc. Therefore, even though I am the only person that is aware, everyone else is also me, therefore they are also aware. However, despite this, there is only ever one awareness. Therefore, when I observe another person, they are unaware, and when they observe me, I am unaware; there is a sequence of awareness that is not bound by time.

If the universe is subjective, then any semblance of objectivity must be coincidental. Incidentally, if intelligence is based on patterns, then it makes sense that I could only understand objectivity in a subjective world that is coincidentally seemingly objective. Therefore, this reality actually makes sense. If there were no patterns or consistencies in this world, it's likely that intelligence would be impossible to develop (not spawn). There is no such thing as objectivity, only subjectively objectivity in the sense that a player can connect to an MMO game and interact with other players, but ultimately what the player is observing is their own computer's copy of the MMO's world.

In order to confirm to myself that awareness cannot be destroyed, it has to be impossible to fill it with "nothing". People tend to fear death because they think that it is oblivion, but I think that oblivion is just a word without a real meaning. If reality is defined in terms of qualities, it is impossible for oblivion to exist because it does not have qualities. The only thing tangible about oblivion is the fear response that it can cause in people. The idea of "nothing" doesn't really make sense, because it is a relative term. If there is a white canvas, it can be said that there is "nothing" on it until some other color is painted onto it. However, if the canvas were black, black would be "nothing", and white would be "something". The way I see it, if reality is defined in terms of qualities, if you remove a quality, another must replace it.

It could be argued that "nothing" is possible, because at times a person can be knocked unconscious, sleep, etc., and not remember anything. But memory is not a part of awareness; awareness holds memory, just as it holds the brain. As far as I'm concerned, in a subjective universe, when I fall asleep and wake up, there is no reality during the time I am "unaware". Reality simply reloads itself at the required time when I wake up. It's like hitting "next chapter" on a DVD remote; you get to skip all the boring stuff.

It is impossible to deduce a past from any given present, because the present does not have enough data to fully reference the past; data is overwritten as the past transitions to the present. In other words, at any given instance of time, every possible past which can lead up to the present is true. Reality can be treated like an RPG. Does a video game's world and all of its rich history exist before the game is entered? Or does it just load? Memory is an attribute of the present, and it cannot prove the past has occurred in any one way. In this way, it is reasonable to assume that this physical world could have been created by Zeus, Yahweh, and Pikachu, or all of them. If you take one "frame" of reality (as if reality is a movie) and place this frame on a graph (displayed as a single point), the future is always deterministic, (there's no free will) so you always have a defined line moving from present to positive infinity, but you can connect any number of lines from negative infinity to the present to act as the past, as long as the line satisfies the present and its future. Therefore, if there is no evidence of a past event, then it is no longer relevant to the past or future.

Anything that exists must have a representation, or else it cannot be a part of a subjective reality (as reality is defined by qualities). Therefore, even the "programming" that exists to decide our current physical reality's interactions must have a representation somewhere, even if it has more than one representation (it could have many). Levels of reality can be distinguished based on their level of ambiguity (physical things must appear mostly the same to different perspectives, astral things might appear slightly differently to different people, etc.) Because anything that exists must have a representation, and can be accessed, everything must be mutable, because there are no laws for read only access.

Nothing is ever created or destroyed. Things are only moved in or out of subjective existence. Because unique concepts cannot be constructed from each other (you cannot break down "blue", "the note A#", etc., into components), unique concepts must always exist somewhere (how else could they be made?). This somewhere must be an asset library of sorts that always exists and has non-sequential sorting. When green and blue are mixed to create yellow, there is no "creation" involved, instead, reality's rule set simply links the asset "yellow" to the location where it needs to appear. In the same way, if a house is burned down, the house never ceases to exist, it is simply "removed" from the observable reality and the asset "empty space" is linked in its place.

There is no "most basic" primitive that is used to create reality. Because things do not have compositions, but are unique in themselves, the ability to compare things for similarities is a rule set dependent feature. For example, in our reality we might say that light green is closer to green than it is to red, but this is untrue, as light green and green have totally different complexions. The only reason they can be compared is because the human eye is limited in color perception by a number of cones, and has to mix inputs in order to create a range of colors. In this way, the brain creates the illusion of color similarity. If an object A is composed by moving green and red into proximity, then an object B is composed by moving yellow and red into proximity, object B might be considered similar to object A because in its specific reality, "red" is a similar component of A and B, even though object A and B might look totally different. Composition is relative to the rule set.

At any given "frame" of reality, there can be an infinite number of causes for this frame. If a reality "frame" were modeled by a point on a graph, and causal chains were labelled as arrows, then it would be OK for there to be an infinite number of arrows pointing (applying force / change) to the reality "frame", as long as the reality "frame" were "resolvable" / could make one "net" frame. In other words, there doesn't have to be a limited number of elements in a single of "frame" of reality, much like an infinite series can still have a sum. This is important to recognize because it is often called nonsense to have an infinite regression result in an outcome. For example, it might seem "off" to think that reality might be a dream that can be awoken from, and that that waking reality can also be awoken from, and the next, and so on, but that is perfectly plausible. As long as infinite regress results in a single well defined result, it's OK. Because of this, reality's "programming" doesn't actually have to be "just defined" in any sense. Each portion of reality's programming could be resolved from an infinite number of functions. This is OK as long as the infinite number of functions has a definite result. However, if there is an infinite number of functions anywhere, it makes sense to ask where those functions came from to begin with. The easy answer is that they simply existed, much like awareness simply exists. Because awareness cannot deduce its past, it makes no sense to try to deduce its beginning. Because the universe is a part of awareness, it makes no sense to try to deduce its beginning either; there could have been any number of beginnings. Therefore, it's OK stuff to "just exist."

I'm trying to make sense of the terms used in Franz Bardon's Initiation Into Hermetics. Using my current paradigm, I'd map "akasha" to "quality". Then I'd map the other four elements to the interactions of qualities, as descriptive terms. I'd associate "fire" with "will", "water" with "submission", "air" with "chaos" (capricious / changing), and "earth" with "order" (patient / persistent).

Let's say I have "akasha" in the form of a box. If the box has an attribute that says that it makes another "akasha" (object) do something, the first box could be said to have a "fire" attribute. If a box was configured to receive a force and not send any forces that conflict with the received force, I would say it has a "water" attribute. If a box were configured to stay the same, and resist external forces, I could say it has an "earth" attribute (a combination of fire and water; a will to receive itself). If a box were configured to not stay the same, and amplify incoming forces, I would say it has an "air" attribute (a combination of water and fire; a receive to will).

Akasha = Objects
Fire = Send
Water = Receive
Air = Amplify received instruction
Earth = Nullify received instruction

Now, treat reality as a single room full of competing "signals". Each signal has a certain magnitude of force, interacts in different ways based on its attributes, and the output / resolution of all the interactions in the room is equivalent to whatever you are presently aware of. Based on this idea, everything always exists at the same time, but higher magnitude objects obscure lower magnitude objects. Reality is subjective, so if it did not always contain everything, there would be some qualities which would be impossible to unobscure through changes of focus. Whatever is in front of you right now is only a matter of focus; everything still exists even if your intelligence is not aware of it. The moon does not disappear if you look away, because the same reason you saw if the first time will still (probably) apply the next time.

The signal model means that subjective reality can be organized into planes based on what is subjectively most observable. The physical plane is "low" because its objects have strong enough "signal magnitudes" to usually always be perceivable. Of course, object magnitudes still fluctuate as the observer moves around in the physical world. For example, if there are two rooms, and I am in room A, then it can be said that room A has a higher magnitude than room B. If I move into room B, then I know that room B now has a higher magnitude than room A. "Signal magnitude" is subjectively measured. Instead of awareness moving from room to room, it's as if it stays still, and objects are moved into awareness' view (the room positions itself relative to awareness). The idea is that awareness is like RAM on a computer; it holds a state, but it doesn't actually do anything. In computer graphics, there is a fixed origin, so in order to move a camera throughout a digital world, the camera doesn't actually move, instead the game world is translated, rotated, scaled, etc. so that it appears properly to the fixed camera. The same idea applies to awareness. Because space is ultimately completely relative, it is important that it can resolve into something definite. In order for this to happen, there has to be some kind of definite coordinate system to translate relative coordinates into something meaningful. In the case of a video game, relative coordinates are converted into screen coordinates. In the case of reality, relative coordinates are converted so that awareness can perceive them in a specific way.

In a subjective world, one has to ask, why do I perceive being myself instead of perceiving that I am another person? The simple answer would be that you are not yourself, and you do not have a body. You are merely perceiving a body. Awareness doesn't think; it's like a monitor connected to a PC, and it's the PC that does all the calculations and thinking. The answer then to why you perceive being a specific person must be exactly the same reason that a video game forces a human to act as a specific character: because that's what the arbitrary programming is currently causing to happen. So, for each subjective perspective of reality, reality is actually set up totally different. Two people (that ultimately share the same awareness) in a shared subjectively objective environment, will have the same overall environment in the sense that they are both abide by the same rules (collisions on shared objects, perception requires light, etc.), but they are actually in slightly places. The shared physical plane will function mostly objectively, however, outside of the shared environment, the individuals will have potentially quite different higher planes (with the exception of shared higher planes such as such as the ether, RTZ, etc.) After all things with the same data are the same. Therefore, there must be some different data between varying perspectives.

It occurred to me that the "planes" (physical, astral, mental, non-sequential) could be described like a game engine. This occurred to me when I was thinking about breaking down the components that make up experience.

Specifically, I was thinking about why pleasure is pleasurable, and why pain is painful. I realized that there is nothing intrinsically pleasurable about pleasure, and there is nothing painful about pain. They are just feelings, and their meanings are dependent on how they cause an individual to act within an environment. I realized that the only reason pleasure is pleasurable is because an individual feeling pleasure will be compelled to try to feel more of it. In the same way, the only reason pain is painful is because an individual feeling pain will be compelled to avoid it. There is a clear separation between the action, feeling, and meaning. When an individual feels pleasure, they will want to do so again; this is the action, the compulsion. Then there is the actual feeling, which cannot be described except by itself; it must be experienced to be understood. The feeling is just a representation for a meaning. The representation could change, just like a game can change all its textures with a texture pack but still behave the same way, and still have all the same relevant meaning. Then there is the meaning itself: what the feeling represents, what logic it is related to. When you feel pleasure, you automatically think, "this feels good". This is the meaning or association. When your awareness receives a feeling, it automatically associates it with certain actions. It's like a messaging system.

What's interesting about this is that in a subjective existence, when you see another person exhibit signs that they are feeling pleasure, you also know that that person could not possibly be feeling anything in the same way that you could, because they are not aware. This means that the feeling must be separable from the actions which cause the feeling. The actions must be able to be caused by a purely physical means. And they can, because we know that certain chemicals in the body are associated with different feelings. Even without actual feelings, the chemicals still do what they do, because the brain is essentially an organic computer.

This is important because it shows that there is a level of processing that is completely independent of awareness. There is a game mechanic. Though every environment might have many playable characters, there can only ever be one truly aware individual, because there can only ever be one representation of the environment. The environment must be stored as data somehow, so it is stored in the observer. If there were more than one awareness at once, there would be multiple possible representations for each observable object, and as one observer was acquiring a representation from an object, the other could be writing to it. This would create a concurrent processing issue. Just like a multi-threaded program in modern times, reality must ultimately resolve into one coherent instance. No matter how many threads you use at once to render a single frame of a video game, there must always be a final rendered image. If there were two images, and it was desired for them both to be seen at once, they could be drawn side by side, but then there would still be one single final image; it would just be composed of two smaller ones. In this way, sure, it would be theoretically possible to become a god entity that could experience being multiple people at once, but even then, that would be the same thing as putting two images side by side; the result would still be a single awareness. Therefore, there is only one awareness, ever, because many combined are still one.

Because there can only ever be one awareness, but multiple perspectives of the same awareness can use a shared subjectively objective environment, the shared environment must be separate from the unshared information that is specific to each perspective (data must be different between perspectives or else they are the same). This means that any shared environment must be free of perspective dependent data. What plane is it that has shared data only, and can't seem to solve the hard problem of consciousness? The physical plane. This leaves the astral plane to be assigned the role of staging area for things like dreams, and leaves the mental plane to be assigned the job of maintaining a rule set for the lower planes. This works nicely with the previously made assertions that higher planes have objects with more ambiguous representations (shared environments are non-ambiguous, the astral plane is slightly ambiguous, and the mental plane is very ambiguous), and the assertion that higher planes are more "out of the way" than lower planes (our shared physical plane is our most easily accessible plane).

In the sense of a game engine, the planes can be modeled as such:

Non-Sequential Realm = Asset Library (Hard Drive)
The Abyss = Data Transfer Layer (File Stream)
Mental = Programming Definitions (Source Code)
Astral = Subjective Asset Storage / Subjective Staging Area (Levels)
Physical = Shared Environment (Active Level)

Before a game can use an asset, it has to read a file from a memory device, then store it into RAM. The non-sequential realm can be treated like this memory device because it holds singular instances of unique items. While many instances of an asset can exist in a loaded game environment, there is only a need for one copy of an asset on a computer's hard drive. Going with this mapping, the abyss could be treated as a data transfer region of sorts.

The mental plane can be treated as the "rule set" or programming layer because it describes the meaning of assets in terms of the game. It describes how objects are composed of other objects, and it holds a definition of arbitrary causal rules. It might seem unintuitive to have object logic exist before assets, because it would seem that an object should exist before it can have traits, but in this case, the "object" isn't the asset in the sense of a representation, but has an asset; "object" in this case is meant in the programming sense: a collection of related pieces of data and functions. The object isn't defined by shape or space, but by raw data. Objects that behave the same do not have to be represented the same, so it makes sense that representation is independent of behavior. In a game, the asset to represent an object isn't actually stored in the object anyway. Instead, the object contains a reference to the object which is contained elsewhere. Objects are not instanced here. Each object, even if they have the same behavior, has a separate instance.

The astral plane can be treated as the "representation" layer because it contains all the assets that have been linked to objects in the mental plane. While the assets themselves exist on the non-sequential realm, the object + asset pairs exist in the astral plane. This would be like a sandbox level where all the objects that are usable on the physical plane exist, ready to go, but are not necessarily used on the physical level, and are more easily manipulated for staging purposes. Perhaps this could be thought of as a library of all the "levels" which are part of the main game (physical realm), but are not presently loaded into the shared physical realm. This is like the level select area, where you can see all the stuff available in the game without actually playing the game; an asset previewer if you will. The key difference between this realm and the non-sequential realm is that the assets all have meanings or behaviors. Things are composed here, whereas in the non-sequential realm, things are all separate. Objects are instanced here. Each instance of an astral object must have a mental object to give it behavior. It would seem possible for many astral objects to share the same mental object.

The physical plane is the perceived result of the mental and astral planes. If the higher planes were treated as the game's underlying engine, then the physical plane could be seen as the end product which is delivered to the user. Of course, the end product has all the debugging, game logic info, etc., turned off for immersion. The physical plane is still connected to the higher planes, but for the most part, its ability to communicate with upper game logic is cut off, except by what means the upper game logic has already provided. For example, punching a wall in the physical realm is guaranteed to make the upper game logic perform various tests, perhaps an update to the integrity of the wall and hand, etc. In this way, if events were executed in the correct fashion in the physical realm, it would seem quite possible to intelligently cause upper game logic to perform unintended actions, and effectively "hack" it from below. Because reality is so obviously multi-threaded, depending on reality's implementation of "memory safety" it might be possible to cause different threads (procedures) of upper game logic to interrupt each other, and cause useful "errors" (which hopefully go uncorrected). I suspect this would be at least part of the meaning of "As above, so below."

Summary:
-All of reality is stored in awareness (mind creates brain)
-Causation is arbitrary. There is no conclusive "why", only relative "why", and "how".
-There is only one awareness
-Awareness cannot be created or destroyed. It simply is. There is no "I think therefore I am." There is only "I am."
-Awareness is not bound by time, but must experience things sequentially
-Because awareness has an infinite past, it has played the part of all things at all times, therefore all things are aware.
-Intelligence requires patterns and consistencies in an environment to develop (not spawn).
-There is no such thing as true objectivity, only subjective objectivity. Reality is completely subjective.
-Oblivion (true death) is undefined and therefore does not exist. Anything without a definition does not exist.
-Nothing can be thought of as what is consistently unnoticed, while "something" can be thought of as noticed change.
-There is always a conservation of quality. If one quality is erased then it must be overwritten by another.
-There are never lapses in awareness. Memory is not a valid indicator of a lapse in awareness.
-For any given present, the past is ambiguous.
-Free will does not exist. Reality is deterministic.
-Anything that exists must have one or more representations. Varying perspectives may see varying representations.
-All things are mutable (except for the asset library)
-Assets may not be created or destroyed. Instances of assets, however, can be created or destroyed.
-There is no most basic type used to create reality. Reality is made of data in the form of many unique qualities.
-Similarities between non-like objects are incalculable except through environment specific composition rules.
-All objects or combinations of objects are unique, and composition is environment specific.
-For any given moment of reality, there may be an infinite number of causal forces which resolve to create that reality.
-All permutations of all things always exist at the same time, but at varying degrees of relevancy
-"Higher" and "lower" planes are defined by how consistent representations are from varying perspectives. "Lower"
planes have more consistent representations.
-"Higher" and "lower" planes are defined by how easy they are to observe. "Lower" planes are easier to observe.
-Awareness does not think. You are not your body. You are not "you". Awareness IS reality. You are the universe.
-Awareness is not an object. Awareness has objects. Awareness IS the canvas of creation.
-Awareness does not move throughout reality. Reality moves so that awareness may see what it needs to.
-Each perspective is enforced by specific data. Different perspectives must not have the exact same environment.
-Qualities do not have meanings, but are associated with meanings. Pain is not painful. Pleasure is not pleasurable.

Mappings (For Bardon's Initiation Into Hermetics) - The lesser four elements are attributes / behaviors of the fifth element:

Akasha = Quality (Object)
Fire = Send instruction (Volition)
Water = Receive instruction (Obedience)
Air = Amplify received instruction (Chaos)
Earth = Nullify received instruction (Order)

Non-Sequential Realm = Read only memory (Game Files) [Source]
The Abyss = Data Transfer Layer
Mental Plane = Object behavior definitions (Game Objects in RAM) [Meaning]
Astral Plane = Object + Asset instances (Game Levels in RAM) [Message Format]
Physical Plane = Game (Active Level) [Outcome]

The basic causal mechanism behind magick in my paradigm is that because awareness has a reality, it must always have power over reality. Because it seems possible to influence what you are aware of, it would seem logical that anything you are aware of must have a higher "magnitude" than anything you are not quite aware of. Therefore, by honing one's ability to focus, it becomes possible to manipulate the magnitudes of objects in order to cause effects. Essentially, while physical reality is designed to cause awareness to perceive something in an action -> awareness fashion, if an individual's retention of their awareness is stronger than the push of physical reality, it is possible to make causation flow in reverse: awareness -> action. Therefore, magick is simplified into two core skills: invocation and evocation. Invocation is the use of focus to force a change in perception (a purely astral and mental plane operation.) Evocation is the use of focus to change something external of the self (on a shared environment such as the physical plane.)

Side note: I would much appreciate it if anyone here has insight on what specifically might cause myself to perceive being myself rather than someone else. That would be useful for astral and mental projection.

Input is much appreciated.
I can't wake up. Can't kill the ideology.
blindwake
Forum Member
Forum Member
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 8:58 pm
Location: I'm Dreaming

Re: Paradigm Check

Postby Shawn Blackwolf » Sat Jul 15, 2017 10:20 am

Too much of a wall of text for me...

Not broken up enough... [wink]

That is my *personal* first criticism...may work for others , though... [thumbup]

Then I barely got into it , before I stopped...Why ?

Because your first premise is incorrect...

Anything may exist...however , awareness is something different...

So the universe may exist...I may exist , let's say in a coma or brain dead state...

( god and goddess and Faery forbid )...

However , I , or someone else in that state does not have to be aware...

They most likely are not... [rolleyes]

They might not even be conscious...

So , existence is not determined by either awareness or consciousness , as far
as what we could consider the dimension of time...

Could the universe have been conscious , to create itself ?

Most likely , yes...assuming the universe created itself...

Could it be unaware , or could we , of our existence ?

I say yes...I have experienced such , even in meditative states...

Awareness to me , is as well physical based , whereas consciousness is mind based...

Can one divorce oneself , even temporarily , from awareness and consciousness , while
existence for everyone else , including the universe , continued ?

I would say yes...

So , I think there is a faulty beginning to your paradigm , unless that is addressed later in your wall of text...

If it is addressed , then perhaps that should be moved to the beginning...

However , I could be wrong...this is , of course , IMO , and FME...
Shawn Blackwolf
Forum Member
Forum Member
 
Posts: 353
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 7:09 pm

Re: Paradigm Check

Postby blindwake » Sat Jul 15, 2017 10:03 pm

Here's a more condensed version (~1/4). Though I'm more interested in rebutting your points.

Every statement you have made is correct, except none invalidate my paradigm (they agree with it):
-Yes, it's a wall of text.
-Yes, the universe still exists if you are in a coma state.
-Yes, someone in a coma state is unaware.
-Yes, existence is not determined by awareness.
-Yes, the universe could have been conscious to create itself.
-Yes, you can project or phase out of physical existence while it still continues

Yes, there is a lot of text. However, complex pieces of information have to be read completely to be understood.
It is possible that I could have been more concise, but then I might have been less understandable.

I could have moved my explanations earlier, but then you would have complained that something else should have been there instead.
You have to look at the whole picture before you can see an image.

First, I think we might have different definitions of "awareness" and "consciousness". I'll clear that up by providing mine:

Awareness: A data structure capable of holding qualities. Much like a piece of paper that can be written to, like computer RAM, etc. It is inanimate.
Consciousness: An intelligent entity that is capable of recognizing that it exists.

Consciousness exists WITHIN awareness, but awareness is not dependent on consciousness. Awareness HAS A consciousness. Awareness HAS A universe. It is a container.
Consciousness and memory are traits of a human body, but awareness exists independent of these things. Your awareness not your body. There is no "you".

Awareness is like the TV displaying a first person video game. Somehow the first person character (consciousness) has deluded themselves into thinking that they are the TV.
The TV contains the perspective / movie, and the entities in the movie think, change the perspective, etc.
Awareness if fixed. It is not an object. It contains objects. Therefore, when you walk, it is not your awareness that "moves" forward, it is the universe that moves towards you.
It's like this: the ship's engines don't move the ship, instead they move the universe.

My paradigm is a twist on solipsism. The idea is that reality is completely subjective, not objective.
This means that you are correct that someone in a coma is unaware. It also means that you would be correct if you said a healthy person is unaware.
Because you are the only person that is aware. However, from another person's perspective, they are the only person that is aware, and you are unaware.
Reality is subjectively objective. Each person exists in their own subjective universe, and the illusion of objectivity is merely coincidental.

The trippy part of this, is that if awareness is the core of existence, and cannot be made or destroyed, it must have existed for an infinite amount of time in the past.
Therefore, while you can say that you are the only person aware at any time, you must also be all other people at that same time (though experienced sequentially).
This means that while you are the only person aware, you are still influencing the experiences of other perspectives, even if no awareness is there to experience those perspectives at that specific moment.
So you have to treat other people as aware, even though they aren't. (Rocks, ants, all that good stuff, are also aware.)

What happens when you are "unaware" is simple. Life's "Next Chapter" button is hit (like on a DVD), and you just skip to the part where you are aware. It is like loading a new level in a video game.
The universe still exists during the skipped chapters. This is because reality is deterministic; there's no free will. Because of this, you can treat any future moment as an extrapolation of a past moment.
Reality can be modeled like a function, where y is a "moment of experience", and x is the position on a sequence / timeline.

If you look away from the moon, it's still there because the same reason you saw it the first time will likely still be there when you see it the second time.
So yes, reality still exists if you are in a coma, because the changes that occurred over the skipped time will be visible when you wake up. If there is evidence for a past, then it happened.
This applies to projection and phasing as well. This is the reason why stuff still happens outside of your house when you're not watching [grin]

Existence is not determined by awareness because awareness is just a container. Stuff within awareness changes awareness. Does your TV affect a movie? Or is it the characters in the movie that change the movie?

How the universe created itself is actually indefinite. There's not enough data in our present reality to conclusively know how it was made. The past is always ambiguous. This is because as far as we are concerned, someone could have just spawned our universe much like loading a game level. If you're playing an RPG with a rich history, do you think it's reasonable for your game character to try to figure out how the game world was created? History can be forged; memory (or the present time's state) is not a definite indication of the past.
I can't wake up. Can't kill the ideology.
blindwake
Forum Member
Forum Member
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 8:58 pm
Location: I'm Dreaming

Re: Paradigm Check

Postby Micr0cosM » Sat Jul 15, 2017 10:41 pm

Honestly, there isn't anything there I particularly disagree with and have come to pretty much the same worldview myself.

I love the computer related analogies also.

Good work.
“Science is a way of talking about the universe in words that bind it to a common reality.
Magic is a method of talking to the universe in words that it cannot ignore.
The two are rarely compatible.”
― Neil Gaiman, The Books of Magic
User avatar
Micr0cosM
Forum Member
Forum Member
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2015 9:12 pm

Re: Paradigm Check

Postby Shawn Blackwolf » Sun Jul 16, 2017 12:41 am

I can see *from your perspective* how that belief works for you , though after all my years ,
exploring consciousness , awareness , and embodiment / disembodiment , multi - dimensional
realities , indulgence in depths of quantum physics and mass quantities of psychedelics , and
shamanic / magical / rituals and journeys , I disagree , however I do not operate like an academic
in debate or discussion...my wiring is different...so bear with the way I express my perspective... [thumbup]

Thank you firstly , for separating your words more...your effort is duly noted...

As far as definition of Awareness : ( and I have been teaching this to students for 23 years , with success on their
parts , when they applied the information , which comes from an ancient code , and Primordial Tradition )

1. I heartily disagree the physical universe does not exist , therefore I / You / As Me , does not exist...
The exterior exists as much as the interior...as Bohm would say the explicate emanates from the implicate...
They are intricately linked , the same as your in breath and out breath...

2. Awareness is sensory / feeling based , and is centered in the gut level / solar plexus area of the human body...
Awareness is *how something feels* , in the state of embodiment...if I ask a student how something feels , and they
start the answer with "Well , I think..." , I tell them I am going to get out my four foot triple braided cat of nine tails...

And that shall help them understand Awareness...lol... [wink]

Awareness of the universe is intricately tied to the body soul...

Consciousness to the light body...

Subjective is tied to Consciousness , Objective is tied to Awareness...as my Tradition teaches it...

Many years ago , when I was 23 - 24 years old , I experienced the thousand petal lotus , yet I felt it in my body , at the
same time , there was no divorce of the two , it was a wholistic experience...matter of fact , kundalini was so intense ,
I chipped a tooth from my teeth chattering for twenty minutes...there was a witness to how long it lasted... [shock2]

So we define things differently...there is the physical body , and awareness , and the internal light and consciousness...

And they work together , as a wholistic system , to experience and integrate existence , which is a program...

Now through that integration , one may learn , while in the state of embodiment , how to re - metaprogram consciousness ,
thus affecting perception of existence...there is the hard wiring , and the programming , both...

I hope that helps you see another perception...and as you choose to type an answer , if you choose , be aware of how that feels
as your body makes those movements , and be conscious of your mindframe , as you think about how to phrase your response... [thumbup]
Shawn Blackwolf
Forum Member
Forum Member
 
Posts: 353
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 7:09 pm

Re: Paradigm Check

Postby blindwake » Sun Jul 16, 2017 7:36 am

Is the difference in your wiring that you do not provide reasoning for each of your points?
It would be understandable if you felt comfortable stating what you believe to be a fact because of experience.
Experience itself is a valid source of reasoning; more so than logic. As reality trumps logic, and logic is only a method of trying to understand reality.
Otherwise I'm not sure what you mean. Regardless, I have an extremely high amount of patience.

Though, if you are using experience as reasoning for your own paradigm, I expect you to be able to make me think of situations where my own is broken.
For example, if I think I've made the best race track ever (that only has space for two cars), and you think my assertion is false, I expect you to be able to say something like:
"What if you want to race with more than two cars?"
I won't take your word at face value. It has to make me think and invalidate my own ideas.

You probably have a lot more practical experience than I do though. I've only been practicing for about a year and a half.
Most of that time was also just me trying to figure out what I was actually doing. I remember reading a ton a books on magick, and none of them actually told me how to do it.
The books would say, "make a sigil, then cast it by focusing on it," or "do the following actions for the LBRP," but I didn't actually have a single clue why my procedure was supposed to work.
In order to truly believe in what you are doing, you have to understand it. Otherwise it's so easy to fall out of practice because it can seem pointless.

I don't want a paradigm that is "good enough" and "works for me". I want the most simple, yet still functional paradigm.
I started off with pre-built paradigms (Franz Bardon & The Golden Dawn), then because I didn't actually understand what their terms meant, I started making my own while using theirs as "guidelines".
Then I could actually understand what I was doing because I'm the one that made my procedure.

I would agree that the universe exists, and that "I", "You", "Me", exist. I just don't think that it is correct to identify awareness with any single person.
I'm not trying to use awareness in the sense that it associates with a person (to enable them to feel).
I'm trying to use it as a way to describe existence itself (where are the qualities in reality).

The main problem I'm trying to solve is how a person experiences qualities (colors, sounds, smells, etc.)
If there is an IN THERE, and an OUT THERE, both of those things have to exist in one structure, otherwise it doesn't make sense for them to be able to interact; they must be part of one system.

I'd like to be able to easily say that qualities exist OUT THERE, separate from myself, and in the physical world, but this doesn't seem to be the case for an objective world.
If I try to store a color in the physical world, say by drawing a picture on paper, I'm not actually drawing colors onto the paper. I'm drawing placeholders for colors.
If you ask a scientist how a person sees colors, they'll tell you that your retina receives wavelengths (numbers), and that your brain associates these numbers with colors.
They never tell you where the brain gets the colors though. If you cut open a brain, a rainbow doesn't flow out.
When I'm drawing a picture, I'm not actually drawing colors, I'm basically drawing a bunch of numbers onto a paper. Then someone else interprets it later. It's a mapping, not an actual color. The map is not the land.
I know that I'm not drawing a color onto a picture, because if a blind person were to look at my picture, I know that they would not see what I see.

Then I have to wonder: where is the actual color?
The only place I ever see a color is in my perception, which tells me that perception can hold a color; an actual color, and not a symbol that leads to one.
But if my perception isn't actually seeing a color OUT THERE, where it appears to be, where is the color? And if it isn't OUT THERE, what does OUT THERE actually look like?
The solution I chose, is that the color is in fact OUT THERE, because reality must be described by qualities. The colors have to be somewhere.
I decided that if different people are seeing different colors, and the colors are OUT THERE, then they must actually be in different places.
So, reality is completely subjective, but can appear to have shared / objective regions.
For each person, reality exists OUT THERE, exactly as it appears.
It'd be like a multiplayer video game. Each person is interacting with the same stuff, but each player could potentially have a different texture pack, graphics mod, etc., running.

If I try to give each person an awareness at the same time, and for each person, colors are OUT THERE, then there's multiple definitions of the same world.
There has to be one definition because there is only one world.
Again, the solution is to give each person their own OUT THERE.

So if I can see someone is exhibiting signs of feeling pleasure (for example), I know that they are not actually feeling anything, but that I am simply seeing a machine running on chemicals (a program if you will.)
Even if a person were not feeling something, the chemicals in their body would still cause them to behave exactly the same anyway.
Likewise, if someone else is observing me as I exhibit signs of a feeling, they know that I am not feeling anything.

Essentially, because feelings are OUT THERE, if I cannot feel what another person is feeling, then they must not be feeling.
If I ask someone, "how did that feel?", they have to respond based on the chemicals in their brain. They are a machine.
However, that person still has a perspective, because if I were to transplant my own perception into their body, my body would no longer be feeling, and the body I have possessed would be feeling.
The idea is that there can be any number of perspectives, but only one perception of OUT THERE.

As I understand it, you are saying that each person has an awareness, which is their subjective perspective. I would agree with that.
I would say that there is an "I", "You", "Me", but only in relation to perspectives.
What I meant before when I said that there is no "I" is that once the body is dead, there can be a different body, a different perspective.
So it seems wrong to associate "I" (one perspective) with something that can eventually have had many different bodies.
There's definitely an "I" in the sense that the perspective exists, and a "You", etc., but if a perspective is like a DVD, then it seems wrong to say that the DVD is the TV it's being displayed on.

I would liken perspective to a machine which does not have to be perceiving in the sense of colors, etc. I think that perspectives are things that are filled with something else that perceives.
For example, I could say that a watchtower is a perspective, but that doesn't mean that anyone is actually in it to watch anything.

So, if there are ten people in a room, then only one person is perceiving at a time, and the others are machines running within the OUT THERE of the perceiving person.
It's like how in a multiplayer video game, on any one screen, there is a local player, with a physical controller, while all the other characters in the video game are just 3D models receiving input from the internet.

However, the other people are still valid perspectives, as it would be possible to rebind the perceiving person's awareness to the one of the other machine people.
The idea is that there is only ever one OUT THERE. But it is modified by changing the perspective of the one awareness. There's only ever one "active" person.
All the others are machines running within the "active" person's OUT THERE.

It'd be like: you have one TV, but you can play any movie you want, as long as there's only one movie playing at a time.
If you wanted to play two movies at once, you'd make two virtual TVs within the actual TV (which would still be just one TV.)
If you then had one story that had 3 characters in it, you could have 3 movies of that one story: one for each character's perspective.
You'd still only be able to play one movie at a time though, so each must be played in sequence.
So, you'd have one world with 3 people, and they would all experience the same time period, but in sequence (one after another).

I suppose that you could call the stuff that is shared between all 3 people's experiences "objective", then call all the differences "subjective".
But because each perspective is ultimately subjective, I'd feel more comfortable using the word "subjectively objective": having the illusion of being objective.
It's not that the physical world doesn't exist. It's that there's multiple variations of it, so it isn't totally accurate to call it objective, even if there are some similarities between different versions.

Objective in this case would mean that if any two perspectives were to meet each other every once in a while, each time the people met, they would be meeting the same original people (original data).
This would just require having two subjective worlds though, then forcing the active perspective in each world to never leave, even once.
Because both have the same world (story), and reality is deterministic, it would be as if they were in the same world, even if they were not (because they're on separate DVDs).
What's really important is that any perspective is able to keep coming back to the same people in their world and be able to start from where their relationship left off. It means that reality has a "save" system.

Here's how I understand what you have told me of your tradition. I have mapped each of your terms to what terms of mine I think they map to, and I have mapped my terms to Franz Bardon's for my reference:

Yours = Mine = Bardon's

**Higher (Macrocosm)
Consciousness-------------
|||||=||||||---Possible Experiences = Asset Library = Non Sequential Realm (Bardon's IIH)
|Awareness||---Body of Light = Observer = Mental Plane (Bardon's IIH)
|||||=||||||---Awareness (Objective) = Perspective (Objective) = Astral Plane (Bardon's IIH)
|||||?||||||---Physical Body = Physical Body = Physical Plane (Bardon's IIH)
|(Subjective)|-------------
**Lower (Microcosm)

The physical body will function based on physical laws, no matter how it "feels", so the feeling is separated from the body itself. The physical body is a machine.
The physical body uses its limited senses to interpret its environment into a mental model.
The physical body then uses its brain to think, walk, talk, process sounds into other ideas (listening can be impaired with brain damage), symbols into other ideas (reading can be impaired with brain damage), etc.

So, your version of awareness is what is felt by the body?
So awareness is what is linked to the body, as an interpretation layer?
For example, if the physical brain writes data into a visual buffer, say it writes a signal in physical terms that the brain's intelligence process understands, awareness would read this value into an actual experience?
Say the brain writes "1" into a visual buffer, then awareness could read this and pass the experience "red" up to the body of light (your term of this)?
If the brain is blind, awareness cannot read color information. If it is deaf, if cannot read sound information, and so on.
It has been shown that awareness is actually not in sync with when the brain receives stimulus, so it would make sense that awareness only receives data when the brain has synchronized senses.
How then exactly would the brain send data to awareness? Are there specific data interchange points?
But it is the brain which is ultimately in control of the physical body's actions. If the brain is damaged, there is no way to fix it. There is also no free will, because of determinism.
So, awareness is like a DVD Player, and the physical body is a DVD that awareness is current playing.

The body of light (your term) would be whatever is watching the output of the DVD player. It would be what is deciding what to watch next, etc. This would be what is coined "the immortal soul".
Assets are in the non-sequential realm where things can only be linked to, because the non-sequential realm is a read only memory location, a changing experience requires an intermediate layer: the body of light.
The awareness (your term) reads a perspective from a physical body, decides what experience it is on the non-sequential realm, and gives this experience to the body of light.
The awareness is a linker. It interprets the physical world through the eyes of a physical body, then uses the interpretation to give the body of light an image on its TV.
When the body of light finishes its DVD, it chooses a new perspective, perhaps by reincarnation, or perhaps by other means.

Consciousness (your term) then, is the result of the entire process. Consciousness is the WITHOUT (that which simply is), and the body of light is the WITHIN (that which is inside of consciousness)
There is a recursive process. An ouroboros. It is a function which calls itself for eternity.
Consciousness is not on any specific plane, because it contains all of the planes. It is the disk, and the body of light is the laser which chooses to read a perspective of data.
The body of light is part of experience so that it can alter experience. Something has to be there to swap out the DVDs.

This is not an actual process in the sequential sense, but is performed instantaneously across all planes. The planes are the data; a configuration. Then consciousness (your term) is the result of the configuration.
The result is, indeed, a program. It has source code (body of light), linker (awareness [your term]), assets (asset library), a state machine (physical body), and an output (consciousness).
Therefore, by learning to shift awareness (your term) to from the physical body, to the body of light, the body of light can be controlled, and it can alter the DVDs (magick).
Perhaps a better term for consciousness (your term) and awareness (my term) would be "experience".

The paradigm is still basically the same, but it is now clarified that experience and its configuration have a recursive relationship, even if experience contains its configuration.
I still however, hold that true objectivity does not exist. There may be many parts of a story, in the same place, but there is still only one subjective way to experience each of those parts: experience.
I have added the term "observer" to be my mental plane construct, to show that there is an entity which chooses a perspective.

By hard wiring, do you mean the assets retrieved across "the abyss" (data transfer layer) in the non sequential realm?
By programming, do you mean the total configuration of the the mental, astral, and physical realms which are linked into one coherent output (consciousness [your term])?

Is my analysis correct?
I can't wake up. Can't kill the ideology.
blindwake
Forum Member
Forum Member
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 8:58 pm
Location: I'm Dreaming

Re: Paradigm Check

Postby Shawn Blackwolf » Sun Jul 16, 2017 8:56 am

Blindwake , I say this respectfully , yet truthfully...

I lost the ability to read your post , about halfway through...

I am on another site where others say the same thing to people who post like this ,
and it is not meant derogatory...it is just this much overthink ( to me , and those
I mention ) becomes gobblygook , and a wall of text and non understandable...

I tested in the top levels of intelligence when I was a student...I talk to quantum
physicists , or other scientists and highly intelligent people...

I believe you are highly intelligent , but your way of thinking , posting , and
expressing yourself and your thoughts , is not , *for me* something I wish
to spend time with , after trying...

I believe you shall find your answer , eventually , and truly wish you well on this path...

It is not that I can not grasp your concepts...it is that there are so many areas
where we differ , I would be spending so much time trying to explain , to someone
who I do not believe would understand me , at this time of your exploration ,
that *for me* it would amount to a waste of my time I can spend on other things...

So , no , your analysis is not fully correct...but I leave you with your path , of what I
consider to be overthink , and mental masturbation ( no slight meant , just a term )
and hope you find others willing to explore this with you...

I am going to go look at the colors of nature , walk in the beach sand , and forest loam ,
and breathe the ocean air and roses in my small garden...and with my senses , enjoy
life , as I experience it in my body...whatever body I am in , here or elsewhere...

Be well , live long , and prosper...and may you find your answer !

And a gift , if you are not familiar with one of the greats of his , and my time...

This is just the preface...you might find him interesting...he was one of a group ,
including Leary , Robert Anton Wilson , Burroughs , Hakim Bey , McKenna , and others ,
who I followed , spoke with , learned from , or hung out with...

....................................................................................................................................................................

Programming and Metaprogramming in the Human Biocomputer
Preface to the Second Edition, by Dr. John Lilly, 1967

In a well-organized biocomputer, there is at least one ... critical control metaprogram labeled "I" for acting on other metaprograms and labeled "me" when acted upon by other metaprograms.

Beyond and above in the control hierarchy ... there may be other controls and controllers, which, for convenience, I call "supraself metaprograms." They are many or one depending on current states of consciousness in the single self-metaprogrammer. These may be personified as if entities, created as if a network of information transfer, or realized as if self traveling in the Universe to strange lands or dimensions or spaces. If one does a further unification operation on these supraself metaprograms, one may arrive at a concept labeled God, the Creator, the Starmaker, or whatever. At times we are tempted to pull together apparently independent supraself sources as if one. I am not sure that we are quite ready to do this supraself unification and have the result correspond fully to an objective reality.

Certain states of consciousness result from and cause operation of this apparent unification phenomenon. We are still general purpose computers who can program any conceivable model of the universe inside our own structure, reduce the single self-metaprogrammer to a micro size, and program him to travel through his own model as if real (level 6, Satori +6: Lilly,1972) This property is useful when one steps outside it and sees it for what it is—an immensely satisfying realization of the programmatic power of one's own biocomputer. To over-value or negate such experiences is not a necessary operation. To realize that one has this property is an important addition to one's self-metaprogrammatic list of probables.

Once one has control over modeling the universe inside one's self, and is able to vary the parameters satsfactorily, one's self may reflect this ability by changing appropriately to match the new property.

The quality of one's model of the universe is measured by how well it matches the real universe. There is no guarantee that one's current model does match the reality, no matter how certain one feels about the high quality of the match. Feelings of awe, reverence, sacredness and certainty are also adaptable metaprograms, attachable to any model, not just the best fitting one.

Modern science knows this: we know that merely because a culture generated a cosmology of a certain kind and worshipped with it, was no guarantee of goodness of fit with the real universe. Insofar as they are testable, we now proceed to test (rather than to worship) models of the universe. Feelings such as awe and reverence are recognized as biocomputer energy sources rather than determinants of truth, i.e., of the goodness of fit of models and realities. A pervasive feeling of certainty is recognized as a property of a state of consciousness, a special space, which may be indicative or suggestive but is no longer considered as a final judgement of a true fitting. Even as one can travel inside one's models inside one's head, so can one travel outside or be the outside of one's model of the universe, still inside one's head (level or state +3 Satori +3: Lilly,1972). In this metaprogram it is as if one joins the creators, unites with God, etc. Here one can so attenuate the self that it may disappear.

Definitions:

Metaprogram: a set of instructions, descriptions, and means of control of sets of programs.

Program: a set of internally consistent instructions for the computation of signals, the formations of information, the storage of both, the preparation of messages, the logical processes to be used, the selection processes, and the storage addresses all occurring within a biocomputer, a brain.

Self-Metaprogram: a special metaprogram which involves the self-programming aspects of the computer, which creates new programs, revises old programs, and reorganizes programs and metaprograms. This entity works only directly on the metaprograms, not the programs themselves; metaprograms work on each program and the detailed instructions therein. Alternative names are set of self-metaprograms, "self-metaprogramming entity," or the self-metaprogrammer.
Shawn Blackwolf
Forum Member
Forum Member
 
Posts: 353
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 7:09 pm

Re: Paradigm Check

Postby chowderpope » Sun Jul 16, 2017 9:27 am

blindwake wrote:For the record, there's a very short summary near the bottom.


Are you accustomed to lying often? My god man. I'm making a note to come back and read this thread when I'm stuck on the toilet for a while and need some material.
Awake from sleep! Remember you're the son of a Great King, see to whom you're enslaved!
User avatar
chowderpope
Forum Member
Forum Member
 
Posts: 683
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2015 8:32 am

Re: Paradigm Check

Postby Shawn Blackwolf » Sun Jul 16, 2017 11:32 am

ROTFLMAO... [thumbup] ... [shock2]
Shawn Blackwolf
Forum Member
Forum Member
 
Posts: 353
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 7:09 pm

Re: Paradigm Check

Postby blindwake » Sun Jul 16, 2017 7:33 pm

Alright, I'll check out those authors.
I can't wake up. Can't kill the ideology.
blindwake
Forum Member
Forum Member
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 8:58 pm
Location: I'm Dreaming

Re: Paradigm Check

Postby Shawn Blackwolf » Sun Jul 16, 2017 8:17 pm

Something else , including some links to articles...

This site , at it's height , was *the site* all who were pioneers of what you are looking into ,
knew about , and went to or participated in...most links , and all videos are dead...

But if you take the time , and click enough , following the white rabbit , so to say , you
still shall find much hidden within...there is a drop down box , up top , on right , that says
"deoxy.org"...click it , and it will give you a list of the site...as I say...follow threads , one
to another , as it was set up that way...

Many of us wish it was still up and running , but it served it's time...

Now , we are more spread out...not centralized... [wink]

Do not get frustrated with the dead links...just find the links still up , with articles...

You may just find info on things and people to explore further on the net...

http://deoxy.org/deoxy.htm
Shawn Blackwolf
Forum Member
Forum Member
 
Posts: 353
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 7:09 pm

Re: Paradigm Check

Postby blindwake » Sun Jul 16, 2017 9:35 pm

That site looks interesting. I'll look through it and see where it takes me. Thanks.
I can't wake up. Can't kill the ideology.
blindwake
Forum Member
Forum Member
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 8:58 pm
Location: I'm Dreaming

Re: Paradigm Check

Postby Vap0rWar3 » Mon Jul 17, 2017 5:57 am

GREAT POST
I am ingesting it and will have another wall! mostly with questions.
User avatar
Vap0rWar3
Forum Member
Forum Member
 
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:55 am

Re: Paradigm Check

Postby Shawn Blackwolf » Mon Jul 17, 2017 7:22 am

Figured you would like it , and could digest it and ask for more , VaporWar... [thumbup] ... [wink]

I knew he would find his crew !

Good man !
Shawn Blackwolf
Forum Member
Forum Member
 
Posts: 353
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 7:09 pm

Re: Paradigm Check

Postby Vap0rWar3 » Tue Jul 18, 2017 5:26 pm

Ok answering in part as I took your post and put it into word and with my current responses the total is 11 pages.

So...
I used to follow a materialist perspective, and I believed that the brain caused awareness, until I realized that you can't actually have an existence without awareness. Reality is described in terms of qualities (colors, feelings, etc.), and qualities can only be defined in terms of awareness. In short, if a quality is not observed in some way, it can't really exist. So I reversed my paradigm from the "brain has awareness" to "awareness has the brain".

Reality is defined as
the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

Phillip K Dick defined it as
Philip K. Dick put it, reality is that which, if you stop believing in it, does not go away.

As to your description, I agree Reality appears to need Awareness to exist.

There's no reason why mixing green and blue makes cyan ; it could just as easily create red. It's all based on a rule set. So, the idea of a dependency between the brain and awareness doesn't make sense at all. Sure, the existence of a brain might mean that the rule set has to apply an awareness to it, but in no way are the brain and awareness dependent on each other to exist; they are unique and separate things.

Light reflecting off the substance that reacts to our eyes. Are you stating that the colors could be different if our eyes interpreted them differently or that the eye is an biological tool of awareness?
Either answer is intriguing but I do not know that it directly supports the idea that brain is or is/not the creator of awareness.

Sure, the existence of a brain might mean that the rule set has to apply an awareness to it, but in no way are the brain and awareness dependent on each other to exist; they are unique and separate things. It'd be like if I took a data set and decided that they are somehow dependent

We know the destruction of the brain will destroy the creatures awareness to such an extent that it is immeasurable. If awareness continues in the absence of the brain, but cannot be measured, does it actually exist?

Sure, the brain can die, and then awareness might be expelled from a human, but that in no way means that the brain and awareness traits are dependent on each other. The awareness object still exists even if it is removed from the human. In fact, there's no reason that awareness can't simply be reading data from the brain to decide how it'll act! Would you say that a person playing a video game dies if their character dies? Just because the player knows information about the player character? And just because the player doesn't watch the character sleep when they do, but instead chooses to skip the boring stuff?

See earlier comment, you could posit that awareness is like the soul and exists separately, but we have no way to measure it in the absence of the brain

On another note, I can't prove that people other than myself are actually aware , so I have to assume that reality is subjective, and that I am the only person that is aware.

Beyond the standard definition of awareness, which could be a projection of your awareness, and therefore Solipsism

Assuming that reality is objective would be intellectually dishonest because I have no evidence to support objectivity

Measurable events/actions that take place outside of your awareness (not just not being perceived but completely outside your knowledge. UNLESS, all potential cause and effect that you think of is a rationalization to conform to the world view that you have adopted, again Solipsism.

Therefore, when I observe another person, they are unaware, and when they observe me, I am unaware; there is a sequence of awareness that is not bound by time.

What if all are aware simultaneously, but were small facets are a larger awareness, and there by one being, with mortal blinders on, preventing their understanding/memory of a vast union, while trapped in meat.

If the universe is subjective, then any semblance of objectivity must be coincidental. Incidentally, if intelligence is based on patterns, then it makes sense that I could only understand objectivity in a subjective world that is coincidentally seemingly objective. Therefore, this reality actually makes sense. If there were no patterns or consistencies in this world, it's likely that intelligence would be impossible to develop (not spawn).
There is no such thing as objectivity, only subjectively objectivity in the sense that a player can connect to an MMO game and interact with other players, but ultimately what the player is observing is their own computer's copy of the MMO's world

I agree completely

In order to confirm to myself that awareness cannot be destroyed, it has to be impossible to fill it with "nothing".

You are attempting to prove that awareness cannot be destroyed by determining that an action is impossible. Yet, if you commit to this line of reasoning, you are preventing yourself from obtaining a mental state of nothing, which is a self fulfilling prophecy.

It could be argued that those who master meditation can obtain a state of nothing (how I interpret Nirvana), so your test is directly influenced by bias.

The only way to prove that awareness cannot be destroyed, through our current line of reasoning, would be to experience it yourself, IF you could be determined to be completely objective, which we have already determined is impossible. Therefore, within the current line of reasoning it is impossible to prove.

People tend to fear death because they think that it is oblivion, but I think that oblivion is just a word without a real meaning.

It would be the absence of all things and therefore immeasurable and unknowable, similar to the concept of what came before the big bang and linear time.

I would look at it like the concept zero. The idea of even having a numeral that represented the absence of things was alien for a large portion of human history. But, that concept is necessary for all higher math.

I agree though that we apply shades of meaning (subjectivity) to the concept of oblivion/nothing, but that is based on the context of language and regional thought forms.

As you stated earlier, there is no objectivity only subjective-objectivity, and within that concept the absolute oblivion could only exist in the absence of a perceiver/awareness.

----------

Ok thats what I got so far. I look forward to you answers/responses.
Last edited by Vap0rWar3 on Tue Jul 18, 2017 5:52 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Vap0rWar3
Forum Member
Forum Member
 
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:55 am

Re: Paradigm Check

Postby Vap0rWar3 » Tue Jul 18, 2017 5:46 pm

Continued...
There is no "most basic" primitive that is used to create reality. Because things do not have compositions, but are unique in themselves, the ability to compare things for similarities is a rule set dependent feature. For example, in our reality we might say that light green is closer to green than it is to red, but this is untrue, as light green and green have totally different complexions. The only reason they can be compared is because the human eye is limited in color perception by a number of cones, and has to mix inputs in order to create a range of colors. In this way, the brain creates the illusion of color similarity. If an object A is composed by moving green and red into proximity, then an object B is composed by moving yellow and red into proximity, object B might be considered similar to object A because in its specific reality, "red" is a similar component of A and B, even though object A and B might look totally different. Composition is relative to the rule set.

At any given "frame" of reality, there can be an infinite number of causes for this frame. If a reality "frame" were modeled by a point on a graph, and causal chains were labelled as arrows, then it would be OK for there to be an infinite number of arrows pointing (applying force / change) to the reality "frame", as long as the reality "frame" were "resolvable" / could make one "net" frame. In other words, there doesn't have to be a limited number of elements in a single of "frame" of reality, much like an infinite series can still have a sum. This is important to recognize because it is often called nonsense to have an infinite regression result in an outcome. For example, it might seem "off" to think that reality might be a dream that can be awoken from, and that that waking reality can also be awoken from, and the next, and so on, but that is perfectly plausible. As long as infinite regress results in a single well defined result, it's OK. Because of this, reality's "programming" doesn't actually have to be "just defined" in any sense. Each portion of reality's programming could be resolved from an infinite number of functions. This is OK as long as the infinite number of functions has a definite result. However, if there is an infinite number of functions anywhere, it makes sense to ask where those functions came from to begin with. The easy answer is that they simply existed, much like awareness simply exists. Because awareness cannot deduce its past, it makes no sense to try to deduce its beginning. Because the universe is a part of awareness, it makes no sense to try to deduce its beginning either; there could have been any number of beginnings. Therefore, it's OK stuff to "just exist."


I love and hate this on so many levels. I agree with your statement and would liken it to a person trapped in a prison that allows infinite movement in all directions. The prisoner is aware that they are trapped, but unable to see the prison nor fathom what lies beyond it. The circumstances could be argued that the prison is a lie, a false notion inside the mind of the prisoner, as it does not physically constrain them, but at the same time, it cant be disproved either.

This reminds me of another quantum physics theory that all life as we know it in 4 dimensions (3 physical and Time) are likely to be a sink hole in the larger 10-11 dimension space, and we are unable to perceive how lowly we are, in the same way that a single cell amoeba cannot perceive us.

The only potential salvation to such a prison is the hope/belief that the obtainment of enlightenment/godhead would expand our awareness to such an extent that we are able to both perceive and escape the prison. Yet, how utterly terrifying would it be for humans to only briefly obtain the ability to perceive the prison, but never escape it. This line of thought immediately leads me to think of H.P. Lovecraft. Is sanity the prison, or does the mind go insane when it perceives the limitations that cannot be overcome. Is there a limit to perception?

On that note, I will never sleep again.. so thanks for that. :P

Side note, I met someone once that only believed in the "IS". There is no good or bad, there is no past or future, there is only the "IS". Everything "IS".

I dont know if that is enlightening, or just someone who really wanted to sound enlightened, but it has stuck with me and resonates very much with what you have put forward so far.
User avatar
Vap0rWar3
Forum Member
Forum Member
 
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:55 am

Re: Paradigm Check

Postby Cerber » Tue Jul 18, 2017 6:17 pm

Vap0rWar3 wrote:This reminds me of another quantum physics theory that all life as we know it in 4 dimensions (3 physical and Time) are likely to be a sink hole in the larger 10-11 dimension space, and we are unable to perceive how lowly we are, in the same way that a single cell amoeba cannot perceive us.

I always imagined it like a bubble inside a black hole, it's contradicting in a way, but from outside it's "looks" like a bubble, but feels like a black hole. With very strong "gravity" and matter is so heavy. Getting in to it is easier than getting out. Even communication is complicated and seems like very much depends on the "weather".
It's no use going back to yesterday, because I was a different person then.
User avatar
Cerber
Forum Member
Forum Member
 
Posts: 672
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 3:24 pm
Location: UK

Re: Paradigm Check

Postby Vap0rWar3 » Wed Jul 19, 2017 4:17 am

Cerber, I really like that image. I think a black hole works really well as an analogy since it is a gravity sink is so strong that light cannot escape. I envision communication to higher beings/god forms/things that exist beyond, to be as light, struggling to escape and requiring greater energy than say affected local space.

I wonder if the fact that a black hole disintegrates by losing dark matter would hold true analogously with 4D space into a higher 10-11D space. Is our dimensional sink hole deteriorating/returning to entropy as all other matter appears to be?
User avatar
Vap0rWar3
Forum Member
Forum Member
 
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:55 am

Re: Paradigm Check

Postby Cerber » Wed Jul 19, 2017 4:30 am

Maybe even "our" black holes are full of life just in yet another form, and unable to communicate with the outside world easily
It's no use going back to yesterday, because I was a different person then.
User avatar
Cerber
Forum Member
Forum Member
 
Posts: 672
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 3:24 pm
Location: UK

Re: Paradigm Check

Postby blindwake » Wed Jul 19, 2017 9:51 am

Vap0rWar3,

There's no reason why mixing green and blue makes cyan ; it could just as easily create red. It's all based on a rule set. So, the idea of a dependency between the brain and awareness doesn't make sense at all. Sure, the existence of a brain might mean that the rule set has to apply an awareness to it, but in no way are the brain and awareness dependent on each other to exist; they are unique and separate things.

Light reflecting off the substance that reacts to our eyes. Are you stating that the colors could be different if our eyes interpreted them differently or that the eye is an biological tool of awareness?
Either answer is intriguing but I do not know that it directly supports the idea that brain is or is/not the creator of awareness.


Take two clones (same visual faculties) and have them look at the same cube. The light coming off of this cube has "some wavelength". Each clone's brain will presumably interpret this wavelength to a similar internal representation, but this is still just an interpretation. We have gone from "wavelength" to "brain signal", but neither of those things are the color. Now, let's take into account that how a person acts can be separated from any notion of "experience". Look at your computer, and observe it do anything. Did it feel? Did you feel its feelings? Look at a person, and observe them in pain. Did the person feel? Did you feel their feelings? The computer can function without any notion of experience just as well as a human; both are mechanical. Therefore, I can assume that whatever is "experiencing" is not necessarily the human, but some sort of other device; an interpretation layer perhaps. If the human is not the experiencer, then the experiencer can choose to interpret any "brain signal" data into whatever experience it wants to; it is only reading from the human.

So, let's say that there is a current mapping like this:
[earth] -> [human] -> [experiencer]
wavelength A -> 1 -> Blue
wavelength B -> 2 -> Red

Now, change the human so that it interprets the wavelengths differently, and changes what it is storing in its memory:
wavelength A -> 2 -> Blue
wavelength B -> 5 -> Purple

The experiencer is still mapping "2" to "blue", regardless of what "2" means to the brain. Now, if the brain were a tool of the experiencer, then it could also remap experiences to different brain values:
2 -> Green
3 -> Blue

Transform that to:
2 -> Blue
3 -> Green
And suddenly the sky looks green, and fields of grass look blue. As another interesting side note, the brain would not need to be fazed by this in the slightest. Its internal model hasn't been modified, so its programming can still function OK.

There was an implicit argument. The argument was that if causation is arbitrary, then it isn't the brain which has a "creates a" trait, or the awareness which has a "creates a" trait. Instead, its the environment itself that decides what to do with the data. We have a program "reality" which has a state (some list of variables). The program might then look like this:

boolean brainexists;
boolean awarenessexists;

If(brainexists is TRUE) then awarenessexists is TRUE
else awarenessexists is FALSE

The brain is just data, and the awareness is just data. Data doesn't do anything. The program does stuff. Saying that the brain causes awareness is sort of like saying that "5" causes "21". There is a correlation between the brain and awareness, but that does not mean causation. Imagine this. you have a table (objective reality), a tablecloth (brain), and a metal cube (awareness), which are all stacked on top of each other. You pull the tablecloth and the cube comes off the table along with it. Based on this observation, when the cube was on the table, did the tablecloth create it? Or was it just the nature of the environment, gravity, to make both the things come off at the same time. Now that both objects are off of the table, does their not being on the table somehow stop them from existing, or are they just removed from sight?

Sure, the existence of a brain might mean that the rule set has to apply an awareness to it, but in no way are the brain and awareness dependent on each other to exist; they are unique and separate things. It'd be like if I took a data set and decided that they are somehow dependent

We know the destruction of the brain will destroy the creatures awareness to such an extent that it is immeasurable. If awareness continues in the absence of the brain, but cannot be measured, does it actually exist?


Does reality exist, in the absence of awareness, if it cannot be measured without awareness? That's a cheap argument though, and kind of doesn't go anywhere.

Here's a better one, do you know that a creature is aware while the brain exists? Look at your nearest human, and ask yourself if it would be possible for them to exist as a machine, without any concept of awareness in the sense that you know, and still exhibit signs of awareness. Does exhibiting signs of awareness make something aware? If I scream as if in pain, does that mean that I felt pain if that's what the measurement tools say? I don't think there's a soul, in the sense of a bidirectional data transfer between it and the brain. We know that a person can function as a machine and does not have to be aware, so I think that awareness is something else entirely. It's like, the body is a watchtower, which will always do watchtower things whether or not anyone is in it to do watching, but someone being in the watchtower in no way changes how the watchtower behaves. So, the human is like a datafeed being played to a TV, and there's something else that is watching the TV.

If you're playing an FPS shooter, and your character gets shot dead, does that mean that you are no longer aware, despite the fact that your character is no longer exhibiting measurable signs of awareness? I see no difference between a human, my clock, and an inanimate clock. The physical system appears to be self contained for the most part, and it is the job of outsiders to look inside of the closed system to read data. It's not really a duality so much as its a flow chart. Data moves in one direction, so it's impossible for the inside to see the outside. It's like how bacteria in my stomach might never be able to know of anything outside of my stomach. Saying that a measurement can't detect awareness, and therefore shows a lack of it, is like saying that a DVD's contents can't detect their viewer, so there is no viewer.

Assuming that reality is objective would be intellectually dishonest because I have no evidence to support objectivity

Measurable events/actions that take place outside of your awareness (not just not being perceived but completely outside your knowledge. UNLESS, all potential cause and effect that you think of is a rationalization to conform to the world view that you have adopted, again Solipsism.


What I mean by subjective is that there is one total definition of existence, from my perspective, in terms of qualities. I do not mean that stuff outside of my line of sight does not exist, and does not continue to function. That is obviously wrong. A better way to view it would be as if my awareness can see everything, but my intelligence is limited to working on a small subset of this everything. I was thinking in the lines that "reality is made of qualities". Therefore, if each person can perceive their own version (experience / qualities) of "objective reality" then there would have to be multiple definitions of reality. Which, is obviously not right, because there is only one reality. So, the solution I came up with was to put each person in their own individual reality. An individual's intelligence might not be aware of their entire reality, but it is THEIR reality (subjective). Treat reality as a function of sorts. It takes a perspective and outputs an experience. One input, one output. It doesn't make sense to have multiple inputs result in multiple outputs in one function call. Actually, the function only takes one argument, so that doesn't work at all. I'm not sure if that makes sense the way I'm explaining it.

I'm not sure where people got the idea that a subjective world only has stuff that is visible, and non visible stuff does not continue to work. I mean, there is one line (animation of a perspective's experience), which takes time as an argument, and results in one instance of experience. So, I guess, objective reality as resolved from one subjective perspective. Perhaps I'm mixing up my concepts of subjective and objective. I meant "subjective" as in one interpretation, and "objective" as in a unified interpretation. I guess it works just to say that "objective" means any environment where the data is not directly dependent on the view of it. So, if I meet "Bob", leave, and see "Bob" again, it will be the same "Bob" (within reason, because obviously the data which describes him could have changed a bit within a span of time). But if that's how you define subjective and objective, all you really mean is "data that is subject to a lot of change over a small period of time", and "data that is not subject to a lot of change over a small period of time". Unstable vs Stable. I was referring to interpretations, not stability.

Therefore, when I observe another person, they are unaware, and when they observe me, I am unaware; there is a sequence of awareness that is not bound by time.

What if all are aware simultaneously, but were small facets are a larger awareness, and there by one being, with mortal blinders on, preventing their understanding/memory of a vast union, while trapped in meat.


If awareness is the storage device for the universe, then "simultaneous" means that there would be multiple perspectives within that one awareness. That would be like the difference between having one TV, and one TV with two virtual TVs inside of it. Either way, there's still ONE system that everything exists in, because data that is not in the same system cannot interact. If we are all aware at the same time, and each physical brain is roughly the same (there's nothing special about yours that makes you see through its eyes), then I have to ask the question, "Why am I aware of myself, and not someone else, or not my bass guitar." The solution I came up with is that if there is nothing special about the physical world, then there must be something special about the non-physical world. If I am aware of myself and not you, then there must be some kind of force which decides this. Therefore, when I am aware of being you, the force enforces your perspective, and when I am aware of being me, the force enforces my perspective. The force has to be related to the overall configuration of the universe. In the universe when I am aware of myself, the universe is configured that way. In the universe that I am aware of you, the universe is configured that way. For multiple people to be aware at the same time, there would have to be multiple definitions of the same universe configuration; which makes no sense.

The easy solution then, is to decide that there is only ever one perspective, which is decided by the overall configuration of forces within the whole universe (each perspective is a different universe). So, there can be multiple simultaneous perspectives at one time, but they can only be experienced sequentially. So, if there was a room with three people, at one time, and one event occurred, the one observer would basically be like a guy sitting in front of a TV while watching DVDs in sequence. They'd watch "The Room - Person 1's Perspective", then "The Room - Person 2's Perspective", then "The Room - Person 3's Perspective". The order that the movies are watched in is inconsequential because the actions occur the same in either one. Maybe the guy then wants to watch "The Room - The Bigger Picture". That DVD has all three perspectives viewed from one awareness (like three virtual TVs in on TV). Regardless, because each DVD is predetermined (like life is deterministic), it doesn't matter who gets to be aware first, because it doesn't matter. Does not watching the sun make it stop revolving? No. Then the sun doesn't have to watch itself for it to revolve either.

In order to confirm to myself that awareness cannot be destroyed, it has to be impossible to fill it with "nothing".

You are attempting to prove that awareness cannot be destroyed by determining that an action is impossible. Yet, if you commit to this line of reasoning, you are preventing yourself from obtaining a mental state of nothing, which is a self fulfilling prophecy.

It could be argued that those who master meditation can obtain a state of nothing (how I interpret Nirvana), so your test is directly influenced by bias.

The only way to prove that awareness cannot be destroyed, through our current line of reasoning, would be to experience it yourself, IF you could be determined to be completely objective, which we have already determined is impossible. Therefore, within the current line of reasoning it is impossible to prove.


You are correct. Thank you for catching that. But, if "nothing" is a mental state which I can potentially stop myself from experiencing, then it is an experience (if nirvana is an experienced, then it is not non-experience). What I was really looking to prove is that non-experience is not possible in the context of a world which is defined by experience. The real basis of my reasoning is that if causation is arbitrary, I can't find a solid reason for the universe to begin, and I can't find a solid reason for the universe to end. Anything that has a beginning has an end, so the opposite of that is that anything without a beginning is without an end. Instead of looking at my timeline like Line(x1, y1, x2, y2), I decided to look at it like y = 5x + 2 (as an example). This defines my timeline for an infinite amount of time, and because it does not need a beginning, it does not need an end; it is causation free. Whereas a defined line between two points has a beginning and an end, so needs a cause. If I define the line on a piece of paper, then it is as if the paper causes the line. Whereas if I define the paper in terms of the line, it is the paper that causes the line (because the size of the paper must be chosen for the length of the line), where the paper can be thought of as awareness. If the line has a specific end and beginning, one has to wonder who chose those points.

Despite my best attempts to describe my reasoning, this concept is very abstract to me, and I'm detecting that it might not actually make all that much sense. Please do your best to destroy it.

People tend to fear death because they think that it is oblivion, but I think that oblivion is just a word without a real meaning.

It would be the absence of all things and therefore immeasurable and unknowable, similar to the concept of what came before the big bang and linear time.

I would look at it like the concept zero. The idea of even having a numeral that represented the absence of things was alien for a large portion of human history. But, that concept is necessary for all higher math.

I agree though that we apply shades of meaning (subjectivity) to the concept of oblivion/nothing, but that is based on the context of language and regional thought forms.

As you stated earlier, there is no objectivity only subjective-objectivity, and within that concept the absolute oblivion could only exist in the absence of a perceiver/awareness.


That is true. Then it could not be hoped to understand it, and it is better that effort is not spent wasted on it. I'm not really sure what else could exist besides linear time, so I've sort of labelled it a basic "must" of existence. Even if you get rid of space, it is still possible to have interactions between pure data; interactions do not have to be based on any concept of proximity. However, for any sort of interactions to occur, it would seem that a concept of sequence would be required. Then, in different realms, certain quantities of sequence could correlate to certain amounts of sequence elsewhere. For example on the astral, 500 operations might correlate to 20 physical operations. At least from a subjective view, I would think that linear time, in the sense that change must always be observable, would be a must. Unless of course you could imagine being aware of one instant of reality forever, with no chance for change in the perspective.

0 isn't really a measure of nothing though. It's a placeholder. I can have 10, which means 1 * 10 + 0 * 1. But 0 is still a thing. It has a representation. It's a symbol of shorthand. You don't actually think (1 * 10 + nothingness) when you think 10. You just look at the second digit and know that that means 1 + 1 + 1 ...

Does that make sense? Or am I missing something? What exactly is difficult about having the number 0 as a placeholder (specifically)? Really, people have difficulty learning to use anything new.

Quantum Thing:


That is actually a very useful tid bit. I never thought of it as a prison. I was actually mostly thinking of how any one unique experience could be the result of any number of operations.

Imagine that every possible experience, the totality of the experience, at any one instant, can be represented by a number. There are an infinite number of these numbers, so there are an infinite number of possible experiences. Because similarities of experiences are based on the rule set, all different experiences are completely different. So, if I have a room with a billion things in it, and a second room where one item is nudged 0.001cm to the left, both rooms are totally different. The issue is with what composes an experience. Take a painting for example, and decide that you want to isolate one object and move it. How do you do that? Without knowing how the painting was constructed? Without knowing the write order of each brush stroke? No matter what, you can't isolate the object, because there is no object: there's just a bunch of colors. So, in order to modify the painting, you have to take the procedure, and modify just one operation.

So, the infinite causation resulting in one output is sort of like this:
12 = 10 + 2
12 = 2 * 6
12 = 24 / 2
and so one

but, you can also have any number of infinite extra operations as long as they inevitably cancel out. So, you could have:
12 = 3 * 4 + 5 + 7 - 12
and write that as
12 = 3 * 4 + ...

Then if you want to change part of the painting, you just change the right hand side.
12 = 10 * 1 + 2 * 1
Say the "1" of "12" is the position of one object in the painting. 12 is a unique concept, so in order to isolate its parts, you have to change the creation method:
"n2" = 10 * n + 2 * 1

So, given the possibility that there are infinite things you can add or take away from experience (there could be an infinity of colors for example, that we've never even experienced) you could treat any one reality as the result of an infinite number of true or false values. A box at x-position 1 is one true/false. The same box at x-position 2 is a different true/false. So, when you move that box on your painting, you aren't actually moving the box as a visual object, you're turning off its old position, and turning on its new position. Changing reality then, is sort of like only having one sound playing on loop (which has all possible frequencies in it at once), and then having one humongous graphic equalizer that you can use to focus in on certain experiences. To move to the right (which is actually just a change of data, not a camera movement), you just turn down the "reality is at X" slider, and turn up the "reality is a bit to the right of X" slider. Then you can sort of keep infinity on both sides of the equation, because no matter what, there's only one sound, and you're just shaping it a bit (even if the sound has an undefined number of frequencies).

Treat experience as the bottom of the sink hole (the output), and intelligence (or the program) as the top of the sink hole. In order for a program to function, it has to know what its variables mean, in order to respond to them. In the case of an intelligence, a program which reprograms itself, it's possible that the new program resulting from each program no longer knows how to use previous information. What if the single cell amoeba can already perceive us, but its intelligence (or lack thereof) stops it from using that information. If the amoeba exists in our physical world, then all kinds of physical forces must be acting on it, but that does not mean that it has configured itself to hear them, see them, respond to them, etc.

Why does the single celled organism develop into something with eyes? Because there is light to be used as information. If there were no light, there would be no possibility (or reason) to develop eyes. So, for the person in the cage, the bacteria not aware of the host, perhaps it is not that the black room is in fact endless, but that they are running in a circle, in the center of a building where every wall is covered in exits, and the person's intelligence has not yet thought to get out of its tunnel vision. After all, you cannot perform an action if you do not know that you can do it. Intelligence is just complex logic... if then... etc. If there is no "if then" to check for the exists, you're just going to keep doing what you know how to do: run in darkness. I tend to think that in order for things to evolve, the things must have been able to somehow recognize what they had to evolve into, or at least would have needed a reason to change into what they did. You don't develop ears for example, if there's nothing to hear. Evolution seems to be approaching a totality. The goal already exists, now you have to approach it.

I think that the key limiter to perception is intelligence. You can only ever perform your program. Because, even if you could perceive everything, you would only ever notice that which your intelligence has decided to use anyway. Based on this assumption that your intelligence is ignoring things, it seems plausible that you already perceive everything. After all, how else would it be possible to eventually become aware of something if the something was not always there to discover? Kind of like how a room exists before you are intelligent enough to know how to open doors and walk inside.

IS:

I don't believe in right or wrong. I also don't believe in absolute meaning, only relative. I think that the past is just data leftover in the present that hasn't been changed yet. After all you can only think about the past in the present. I don't think it makes sense entirely to think of there being no future. I think there's some truth to the idea that there's only the present, no future, because ultimately there is only ever one storage device (experience) which endlessly writes to itself. It's a recursive program that modifies itself, basically. I don't think it's correct to say there's no true future though, when it is definitely possible to observe change. I think I get where the guy is coming from though. For example, I prefer "I AM" over "I think therefore I am" because I don't think thinking has anything to do with being. Actually, just "AM" works, because the idea of self is transitory. In this life I might be me, but the next, I could be someone else. Either way, I am the same experiencer, experiencing a different perspective.

Anyway, it's night time, I'm tired, probably beginning to lose my sense of reasoning, and I've already responded to your things, so I'm going to stop typing before I confuse myself and stop making sense (in case that hasn't already happened [grin] ).

I look forward to seeing the rest of the response.
I can't wake up. Can't kill the ideology.
blindwake
Forum Member
Forum Member
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 8:58 pm
Location: I'm Dreaming

Re: Paradigm Check

Postby Vap0rWar3 » Wed Jul 19, 2017 6:21 pm

Great stuff.
I think that it is safe to say that you view Awareness as a singular thing, though abstract and interpreted by intelligence.

For some reason the idea of an absolute, in this case a possibility of an absolute Awareness, rings false with me. Probably some level of bias I have yet to uncover.

However, we agree on a lot of points. I greatly like your analogy with technology and I think that it holds true, and I agree in the IS/I AM.

On the topic of linear time however, it gets a little wonky. We as humans basically agree that linear time is the measure of progress towards entropy, and that is considered a sacred truth in the theory of relativity.

However, new studies on quantum entanglement are starting to throw doubt on linear time as an absolute. Essentially the mathematics involved with quantum entanglement predicted what Einstein called "spooky action at a distance", which allowed the manipulation of one particle to affect another at some distance away. However, if you take out the assumption that time is linear, then you no longer need to account for particles across a distance, and it then goes on to show that the manipulation of one particle affects another across time. Actions in the present can affect the past.

Now, my personal bias against time is that I dont really get it. I have trouble with it, it slips and stretches, condenses and is less reliable that you would expect. I can account for that in two different ways, either my perception of time is flawed or time itself is inconsistent. Based on the majorities definition of time, one would believe that its my flaw, though I have to tell you that I am certainly intrigued with the studies I mentioned earlier.

Anyway, back onto the topic at hand, due to the complex nature of reality/awareness/intelligence, I think we have no choice but to make certain assumptions and I by no means want to derail you by questioning the linearity of time.

If an ultimate awareness exists, in my opinion, it would be joined with some form of super existence/god form, the limiters of personal perception that you mention quite easily fit into both of our ideals.

I recently read somewhere that we know that the human brain censors data input, and the theory behind it is that data that is unnecessary to our survival/benefit and would be a waste of resources to consider. Based on my study of evolutionary biology, I buy into that theory pretty heavily. The same theory could hold true to your hypothesis of ultimate awareness, coupled with personal perceptive limitations.

Just as the bacteria may be capable of awareness, but yet unaware, the human may be capable of higher awareness, but unprepared as their is no biological need to propagate that trait. Since survival is the underpinning of the evolutionary process, the only way you could massively change the standard perception of human stock would be to have a predator introduced where the new awareness was somehow beneficial against said predator, or of course introducing a eugenics program that screened for it, similar to how diseases and genetic defects get weeded out by the host not surviving to propagate.

None of those solutions are moral by our current definition, so I think we can rule out evolution assisting us in this matter. That leaves technology and unintended consequences/secondary benefits of its use. Like the creation of a mind/machine interface, that unexpectedly increases awareness.

Otherwise we are condemned to spend countless hours honing our own awareness, using different tools/paths, with different success rates.
User avatar
Vap0rWar3
Forum Member
Forum Member
 
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:55 am

Re: Paradigm Check

Postby Stukov » Wed Jul 19, 2017 7:05 pm

When writing out massive amounts of text, I recommend using headers breaking down each sections.

Such as this


Then text

Or another header like this

It may be too large though.

Using Lists can help when you can break down the structure to succinct points.


[*]List piece 1[/*]
[*]2[/*]
[*]3[/*]
try 1
try 3


I believe when you "reply" to this thread you should see the code used (it should also be present in the stuff above the text box).

Hmm, list isn't working...gonna look into this.
I am the Watcher.
I am the Wanderer.
I am the Whisper.
I am the Warden.
I am the Weaver.
User avatar
Stukov
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 1053
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 4:23 pm

Re: Paradigm Check

Postby Vap0rWar3 » Wed Jul 19, 2017 7:57 pm

As I continue to read your initial post I see now that Awareness in the analogy of a game engine could be considered two things, either A) you are essentially stating there can only be an objective reality which exists as a whole regardless of who is currently interacting with it (the game and the players), or B) Awareness is likened to a ultimate truth such as an awareness held by a singular god-form (in this analogy the game itself).

I would use Awareness differently and more closely with perception, such as the limits of perception. In the terms of games, say overheard fog of war, a single player/model has lets say perception with a maximum range of 10 hexes. The perception is the ability to become aware of anything within that range, and awareness would be the distance to which a person could perceive.

This model gets complicated when we start to talk about the limitations of perception, such as only seeing ultraviolet, or not having the capability of hearing, but ultimately would still hold true.

While this is a little bit of quibbling over definitions, otherwise I agree with most of your assertions.

-All of reality is stored in awareness (mind creates brain)

I would agree in an uber/god mind/unified source sense

-Causation is arbitrary. There is no conclusive "why", only relative "why", and "how".

Out of all of this, this part struck me the most. I would have disagreed vehemently until I saw your comparison to a line on a piece of paper. Thank you for this.

-There is only one awareness

See uber/god mind/unified source

-Awareness cannot be created or destroyed. It simply is. There is no "I think therefore I am." There is only "I am."

Agreed

-Awareness is not bound by time, but must experience things sequentially

Agreed, except experience is limited to the subjective perceiver

-Because awareness has an infinite past, it has played the part of all things at all times, therefore all things are aware.

Agreed

-Intelligence requires patterns and consistencies in an environment to develop (not spawn).

Agreed, out of infinite possibilities the one we exist in has the right parameters to promote intelligence as we know it.

-There is no such thing as true objectivity, only subjective objectivity. Reality is completely subjective.

This is a little conflicting as a statement. I would say that the existence of a singular awareness would be the ultimate objectivity, but that objectivity cannot be perceived nor gained by intelligence as we know it, and therefore reality which is the combination of all that is perceived by intelligence as we know it, is completely subjective.

-Oblivion (true death) is undefined and therefore does not exist. Anything without a definition does not exist.

We cannot conceive of an instance were oblivion exists, nor is there a way for us to measure the complete absence of all things, and therefore we must posit that it does not exist.

-Nothing can be thought of as what is consistently unnoticed, while "something" can be thought of as noticed change.

Took me a few reads to get this one, but it goes back to oblivion. Nothing = Oblivion, everything else must be something, though something could exist in a state that we are unable to perceive it, but it would still exist in the awareness of the uber/god mind/unified source

-There is always a conservation of quality. If one quality is erased then it must be overwritten by another.

I didnt pick this up in reading above. While it seems very logical to me, I cant think of a way that it couldnt be true.

-There are never lapses in awareness. Memory is not a valid indicator of a lapse in awareness.

Agreed on the higher awareness, memory and perception are flawed based on the perceiver.

-For any given present, the past is ambiguous.

Agreed, all states are in flux. History is a lie both from the victors but also in what we remember.

-Free will does not exist. Reality is deterministic.

I am still unsure of this. Seems that your model of reality that determines causality is false, would endorse free will.

-Anything that exists must have one or more representations. Varying perspectives may see varying representations.

I cannot fault the logic of this.

-All things are mutable (except for the asset library)

Agreed

-Assets may not be created or destroyed. Instances of assets, however, can be created or destroyed.

This reminds me of the Platonic theory of the ultimate objects existing only in our imagination and god's eyes. All objects such as chairs are flawed representations of these ultimate objects.

-There is no most basic type used to create reality. Reality is made of data in the form of many unique qualities.

I can agree with this.

-Similarities between non-like objects are incalculable except through environment specific composition rules.

Agreed, similarities being defined by that which perceives. (heavily influenced by culture, language, and thought forms)

-All objects or combinations of objects are unique, and composition is environment specific.

Agreed

-For any given moment of reality, there may be an infinite number of causal forces which resolve to create that reality.

I'm still unsure on causality/determinism/fatalism; I'm not sure this is proven in your current argument.

-All permutations of all things always exist at the same time, but at varying degrees of relevancy

I can agree with this if we accept non-linearity of time. Where all things and actions are happening simultaneously. In a linear time construct, I don't think this statement could be true.

-"Higher" and "lower" planes are defined by how consistent representations are from varying perspectives. "Lower"
planes have more consistent representations.
-"Higher" and "lower" planes are defined by how easy they are to observe. "Lower" planes are easier to observe.

This is a good description, and fits nicely within my ideas of multidimensional space. A person living in 4D space can easily observe an object in 2D space, such as a drawing.

-Awareness does not think. You are not your body. You are not "you". Awareness IS reality. You are the universe.

Yes, Yes, disagree, partially agree. I defined reality as being the totality of perception by intelligence earlier, which would be counter to this statement. I would agree that by your definition of Awareness it meets the standard definition of reality. The totality of you's are the universe, in my opinion.

-Qualities do not have meanings, but are associated with meanings. Pain is not painful. Pleasure is not pleasurable.

Agreed.

------------
Ok, so that may have been the most intense thinking I have had to do in a while. I am curious how long it took you to come to these truths?
User avatar
Vap0rWar3
Forum Member
Forum Member
 
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:55 am

Re: Paradigm Check

Postby blindwake » Thu Jul 20, 2017 5:53 am

Awareness isn't abstract

I think that it is safe to say that you view Awareness as a singular thing, though abstract and interpreted by intelligence.


You've got it backwards. Intelligence is abstract, and awareness is the definite thing. I'm talking about awareness in the most literal sense. When you look at the sky, you are seeing awareness. When you breathe air, the feeling of your diaphragm expanding is awareness. Awareness is the storage device. Intelligence is the program which acts on the storage device. It's a machine analogy. A computer has its memory registers that it uses to keep a state for its logic (there is storage, and there is a program). An entity has awareness (the storage) and its intelligence (the program).

Think back to the last time you did something because of an emotion; a feeling that you were aware of. Your thinking was the program, and the emotion was the piece of data it was acting on. You literally observe all of the program's stored data. Experience in the human sense would be like if you were a CPU and you could experience all the memory registers. The experience is the data. It's all the variables. It's just not numerical. Your computer might have multiple processes running at once, and have a flag value called "act aggressively" (boolean "1 / true" or "0 / false") that is shared between the processes. When one process sets the flag to true, the other processes know to "act aggressively". In the same way, when one of your processes sets the flag "act aggressively", it writes an experience: feel angry. Your other processes (such as your highest level of thinking), feel compelled to act angry when it "feels angry". Instead of setting a value to "true", it adds a non-numerical experience to awareness (storage). Reality might be deterministic, but you are still thinking. You ARE the program. You read / feel the memory registers, and you act by writing to the memory registers (for example, if you are angry, you might "write" to memory by punching a wall).

All of those things that you are not directly aware of are still a part of the storage device. You just aren't intelligent enough to read them. It's like how a computer might have hundreds of processes running at once, but each process is allotted a certain amount of personal memory to use for its operation, by the operating system. Processes aren't allowed to access the memory of other processes. It's a security feature. That doesn't mean that each process doesn't have its own memory though.

Naturally, if you ARE the data (the experience), then one has to wonder about the program itself. If the program has any sort of existence, much like a program on modern computers, it also has to exist in storage in some form. It's just that there doesn't have to be a finite amount of storage that it takes up. The programs are thus synonymous with the data. One program might run, and write to another program as if that program is a memory buffer, even though the program doing the writing is also data. Data acts on data. Whether a thing is data (slave to a program) or a program (has slaves) is just a matter of what it is doing at any specific moment.

The awareness is definite, and the program is abstract. The awareness is like the books in an infinite library, and the program is like the library itself. Though it might be impossible to know everything about the library (as it is endless), you can always be sure that the library has books, which you can definitely read. But, because the program and data are sort of the same thing, none of them are really abstract. They both have definite representations, and are well defined things, its just that it might take an infinite amount of time to sequentially access all the contents. That doesn't stop the contents from being any less definite than they are.

Absolute awareness

For some reason the idea of an absolute, in this case a possibility of an absolute Awareness, rings false with me. Probably some level of bias I have yet to uncover.


I'm not sure what it would be if not absolute. In order for a program to be running (time to be actively moving things), there has to be some kind of state for the state machine to be changing. At the very least, the RAM has to come before the programs that are loaded in to it. Perhaps this world comes from something else, but if that were the case, then the world that created this one would need to have a creator, and so there would be an infinite chain of creators. Technically, that's not impossible, but it's not exactly useful for representing reality. Treat reality as a dream. For any dream, we could suppose that the dreamer could fall asleep into another dream (inception: a dream within a dream within a dream...) or the dreamer could wake up. However, if the dreamer can wake up from the dream, and both the dream and the wake are defined in terms of qualities, and thus, are mostly indistinguishable from one another, who is to say that the wake is not in fact just another dream? Just like the possibility of infinite dream nesting, there could be the possibility of infinite waking. When there is no ideology of "what is the REAL reality", what is real is quite simple: what is experienced. Therefore, I simply accept the fact that the dream exists, because I can see this with my own eyes, and stop worrying about origin, because the origin could be infinite. What really matters is that I simply am, and that no explaining can disprove that to me; it is self evident. I know I am somewhere, and I know that there may not be an absolute position where where I am. However, I always know that there is at least a relative position for where I am.

Perhaps it is time that I use better terminology for my ideas. "Awareness", in the way I have been using it, means anything which can be experienced. Perhaps I should distinguish the individual perspectives within awareness, that can be limited, from the total storage itself.

Linear Time

I'm not so sure what else there could be if not a single observable sequence in time. In a subjective sense, linear time seems necessary; it is just the observation of change.

Actions in the present don't affect the past though. There's no storage device for "past". Anything presently existent is stored in the present. You can't measure the past from the present. You can measure what's leftover of it as it still exists within the present (archaeology, history, etc.) There is only present time, unless you are somehow extrapolating the past out of the present. In which case, any past you can come up with is almost definitely wrong (because the present does not have enough data to fully describe the past).

I think what scientists really mean by having the present change the past, is that they assume that for a certain future to occur, a certain past event must have occurred. When really, it is just their ideas of the rules that are wrong. The future doesn't have to act how you think it should, based on past observations. If a state is not determined until it is measured, at the present time that it is measured, it will resolve to some present state, regardless of whether the past seems to be in contradiction. My understanding is that when the measurement contradicts what was expected, based on what was measured to have happened in the past, they say, "the past was rewritten." What if, it's just that the present resolves despite the past? The past still happened, but reality trumps logic, so all the laws that are thought to need to be satisfied, are not necessary at all. It's not the past that was rewritten. It's that something happened that doesn't make sense based on our present understanding of the rules, so we pretend that the past is somehow magickally changed. When really, all that happened was a violation of expectations.

I have almost no knowledge of quantum physics though, so take my perspective with a grain of salt. Still, it doesn't make sense for a value that isn't stored (the past) to require being changed in order for the future to be. That's kind of like assuming that if at one moment I'm on the left side of a road, and the next I'm seen at the right side of a road, that I must have walked across the road. In reality, I could have (theoretically) teleported across the road. Does my teleporting across the road somehow mean that the past (me being on the left side) is rewritten so that I must have actually been just beside my new position, because the only acceptable cause of my motion is walking? It's as if the process (past) is overwritten because we don't actually understand how it could have happened otherwise.

For the record, can you please explain to me what NON-linear time would be? In experiential terms. No matter what time flows to (from here to entropy, from here to the kingdom of the flying spaghetti monster, etc.) isn't that still an observable change? Which is point A to B (even if the path might not be spatially linear in our understanding of the process of the motion)? Which is still linear? I don't get it.

I think we might be just arguing over semantics here though, because in science, time is (I think) counted as a dimension (like space), and I'm not thinking of time in a mathematical sense.

Time Perception

Now, my personal bias against time is that I dont really get it. I have trouble with it, it slips and stretches, condenses and is less reliable that you would expect. I can account for that in two different ways, either my perception of time is flawed or time itself is inconsistent. Based on the majorities definition of time, one would believe that its my flaw, though I have to tell you that I am certainly intrigued with the studies I mentioned earlier.


Regardless of your perspective of time, the sequence of operations is always the same. It can appear to be going fast, or slow, but the operations are always in sequence. It's like how a DVD has a set order of events, but you can change the playback speed. Perhaps there is no "flaw". You're just observing reality on fast forward when you feel like skipping stuff. Imagine a video recording of a timer. Frame one says "0 seconds", and the last frame says "60 seconds". Time itself is a very relative measurement. Now, imagine that the video is objective reality (what is telling you how much time passed in actuality), and imagine that you are a subjective experience of the video. Now play the video at a very fast speed, but imagine that you have a super fancy TV that can play every single frame of the video; it's not skipping frames, so you're still seeing all the data. Now, let's say that you play the whole video in what feels like 5 seconds. Now, ask objective reality (the TV image) how much time passed. No matter what speed you play the video at, it's always going to tell you that 60 seconds passed once it's over. Even if you set the playback speed so that it takes a subjective 5 hours, the video will still tell you that 60 seconds passed.

This works quite well if you treat experience as separate from the perspective (human). Of course, because it is the human in objective reality that is saying that they felt like time was skewed, in this case, you have to look at the human's processing to figure out why time seems skewed. Just like the experiencer is separate from the human, the human is separate from the environment. A human brain has an internal model of the reality, not the reality itself. What I understand is that the perception of time speed is highly related to the amount of processing that the brain is doing. Young people experience slow time because they are constantly learning, and older people experience fast time because they don't have to do that much processing. Not that much processing means that the human isn't updating its internal model that often when compared to moments when it is doing a lot of processing. Take a 60 second period of actual time, where the human updates the internal model 60 times. Time appears normal, because when the human looks back to its memory, it has an average amount of data spanned across that 60 seconds. Now, take 60 seconds actual time, and have the human update the internal model 120 times. Time appears twice as slow, because when the human looks back to its memory, it has twice as much data spanned across a specific time period, than it normally would. Now, take 60 seconds actual time, and have the human update its internal model 30 times. Time appears twice as fast because there is half as much data across the normal time period.

Take a TV, and play a 60 second clip of some sort of average event (something like a person walking on a sidewalk, where change can easily be observed in a sort of linear way). Over this 60 second clip, let's say there are 60 images. Each image lasts 1 second, then the next takes the place of the last. Let's treat this as normal.

Now, have 120 images, with each one lasting half a second. There appears to be twice as much content in the same amount of time. You can see more in depth (slower & smaller) changes.
Now, have 30 images, with each one lasting 2 seconds. There appears to be half as much content in the same amount of time. You can see less in depth (faster & bigger) changes.

It is then reasonable, that perception of time could be related to how fast the brain updates its internal model. Higher intelligence requires more detail, and more impulse based responses require less detail. So, when you are full of adrenaline, your body knows that it needs to pay attention to every last detail that might decide between life or death, so it updates the internal model more often. In the opposite way, when you are in a sleepy daze, and just going through the motions, you function mostly by impulse, which requires less detail, so the internal model is updated less often. Perhaps the change in update frequency is related to energy expenditure: only waste energy getting lots of data when you actually need it. Otherwise, the internal model can be considered OK for longer periods of time, thus reducing the amount of processing per second.

For the record, derailing is completely OK. If we do not question our assumptions the most, anything built on top of those assumptions can possibly be wrong. Better to spend more time working on the foundation, than to have a beautiful building collapse because it was structurally unsound.

God entity

If an ultimate awareness exists, in my opinion, it would be joined with some form of super existence/god form, the limiters of personal perception that you mention quite easily fit into both of our ideals.


Not necessarily. If awareness is equivalent to a computer's storage device, and programs are equivalent to processes, then to have one storage device for all processes to run in, in no way means that there has to be ONE master program. Although, going back to the computer analogy, it would make sense that there would be an operating system reigning over all its sub-processes. However, the OS does not have to be composed of all the other programs. It could be smaller than all the other programs in terms of what it can actually see, as long as it had more power than all the other programs, so always remained in control. The OS might see all the processes, but it doesn't necessarily have to know the specifics of each program's functioning; it's just the manager. So, if the OS doesn't know all the specifics of each program's functioning, then it doesn't necessarily have access to all the memory (experiences) of its sub-processes. The ultimate awareness itself wouldn't be a program, but there would be many programs within it. Although, I guess it could be seen as a program, as the entirety of it would always be constantly changing.

You know what, you win this round. The storage device must always have some program which has more power than all of the other programs (even if by just a little bit, say each program has a power of 222, while only one has a power of 223). This still leaves me with needing an answer for my key question: Why am I experiencing myself rather than something else? I would think that it would have to be because the operating system decided to try taking its own power away, and try being something smaller. God wants to try being a man. I'm not quite sure how range of view works though, in this case. I think I can assert that I must be aware of everything if I am ever able to eventually take intelligent notice of anything. So, perception could be based on intelligence, while awareness would be whatever intelligence can possibly notice (everything).

Brain censoring input

I recently read somewhere that we know that the human brain censors data input, and the theory behind it is that data that is unnecessary to our survival/benefit and would be a waste of resources to consider. Based on my study of evolutionary biology, I buy into that theory pretty heavily. The same theory could hold true to your hypothesis of ultimate awareness, coupled with personal perceptive limitations.


That would make sense. Perhaps it's that the brain is programmed for immediate satisfaction, for survival. You wouldn't try to build beautiful glass buildings (feats of architecture), if you were constantly under attack. You'd never finish your project because you'd be destroyed. It's the same reason you don't spend all your resources in a real time strategy game, on buildings and science: because then you wouldn't be able to afford an army. I really like this theory.

If you treat the data the brain stores as being equivalent to experience, the reason you never experience anything out of the ordinary, is because the brain never had a reason to store the unknown data.

Accelerated evolution

Just as the bacteria may be capable of awareness, but yet unaware, the human may be capable of higher awareness, but unprepared as their is no biological need to propagate that trait. Since survival is the underpinning of the evolutionary process, the only way you could massively change the standard perception of human stock would be to have a predator introduced where the new awareness was somehow beneficial against said predator, or of course introducing a eugenics program that screened for it, similar to how diseases and genetic defects get weeded out by the host not surviving to propagate.

None of those solutions are moral by our current definition, so I think we can rule out evolution assisting us in this matter. That leaves technology and unintended consequences/secondary benefits of its use. Like the creation of a mind/machine interface, that unexpectedly increases awareness.

Otherwise we are condemned to spend countless hours honing our own awareness, using different tools/paths, with different success rates.


Perhaps, if I am correct that the data IS the experience, attaching the brain up to a computer, thus increasing its stored data, would be equivalent to expanding experience. At that point though, one would have to ask, "What is the point of all these data flags (experience)?" In order for the experience of attaching a brain to a computer to be meaningful, the brain would actually have to understand the new data, else it would get very confused.

What really is the concept of "ascension" that we work towards, if not the increase of intelligence? It would seem that intelligence and the idea of exploration are at odds. Most people adore "feelings". Their brains are wired to keep certain memory registers in a certain state. Their intelligence is therefore at a level of impulse. In order to move beyond this level of impulse, it is necessary to realize that there is nothing at all pleasurable about the feeling of pleasure, except that your wiring is designed to want more of it. Lots of people look into the occult for things such as adventure, new experiences, etc., in an effort to fulfill their wiring's desire to set a data flag. When really, the next step of intelligence beyond impulse, is to realize that the experience itself is mostly irrelevant (the data state), and what is REALLY important, is its complexity. The ascension isn't so much a movement towards experiencing more data, but towards being able to manipulate more data in a meaningful way. It is an increased level of strategy. It is like moving away from short term goals such as building basic units (in the example of a real time strategy game), and a movement towards investments in lasting things such as science, civilization, etc.

Though our species has moved beyond impulse on a holistic level, I think it is safe to say that the individual components of the species are still very much at an impulse level of intelligence, rather than a strategic level of intelligence (looking at the long term picture). This is evident in the fact that people hate the idea that they could be classified as machines, and like to think they are special. I, however, do not see a difference between a disk drive whirring with delight as it processes the disk I've put into it, and the human that screams for joy when chocolate is put into its face. Pleasure is truly an interesting topic. It is the only reason I study this subject.

Back on topic, perhaps what should be realized, is that the perspective is not the awareness. "Why am I myself rather than someone else?" It would seem that the human perspective is actually a tool for something else. Going back to the DVD analogy, where there is god in a sofa, their eyes glued to a screen (a human perspective), perhaps the easiest way to escalate awareness, for the self, is to realize that you are god, not the screen. Then, training for "evolution" is not so much about evolving the human itself, but about telling god to snap out of it, and look away from the screen.

It is interesting, that if you look at many past cultures, some believed that god was stuck in a human form, and that they had to set it free. Perhaps the burning of a person in that ceremonial sense, was like an effort to hurt god and make it snap out of the human perspective. Because if god has the power to force one perspective over another, and the experience, the data, is the universe, imagine what power god would have if they were not so focused on keeping the perspective the same, but applied even a little bit of force towards change.

I think that's the real secret to magick: it is not the human that performs magick. Instead, it is the human which makes themselves so boring, or so otherwise difficult to pay attention to, that god realizes that they are not the human, and is thus able to change their dream. It is like how a human is usually unconscious during their dreaming, but once they are aware, they can alter their surroundings. When the human enters the circle, they are no longer themselves, but god. And it is this realization that allows for true power.

Truth of awareness

As I continue to read your initial post I see now that Awareness in the analogy of a game engine could be considered two things, either A) you are essentially stating there can only be an objective reality which exists as a whole regardless of who is currently interacting with it (the game and the players), or B) Awareness is likened to a ultimate truth such as an awareness held by a singular god-form (in this analogy the game itself).


B: Awareness IS the game. What is a force if not the ability to make measurable change? Then, the game is about individual programs vying to have their specific perspective take the focus of the game. Each program applies "force" which determines what is visible, is the idea I'm currently working with. So, while I am myself right now, because some entity is applying force to have this perspective take the stage, if anything is strong enough to kill me, the perspective would change to whatever killed me, because it would be the next most visible (next strongest force) perspective.

Terminology Fix

I would use Awareness differently and more closely with perception, such as the limits of perception. In the terms of games, say overheard fog of war, a single player/model has lets say perception with a maximum range of 10 hexes. The perception is the ability to become aware of anything within that range, and awareness would be the distance to which a person could perceive.


That would be a better use of words. What I was getting at before though, is that the game board IS what is visible. What you see is what you get. It would probably work better to introduce the concept of perspective. There is the game map, the part of it that is being shown on the screen (the perspective), and then there is the intelligence, which decides what data is useful (focus / perception). I'm not sure what you would call the game map itself. I imagined awareness as some super big screen that can see the entire game map at once, the perspective as the most relevant area of the game map (what would be shown on a smaller screen), and the intelligence as what data is in perception (your word), or is usable. So, going back to the game analogy, the awareness is the player itself, which is looking through the perspective of their screen (which displays the game), and the screen only shows certain relevant data (the perception / intelligence).

The idea was to solidify that the world IS the subjective experience. If I call everything that exists "the game map", and then call the next component in the hierarchy "the perspective", this implies some level of objectivity where the map can exist without the perspective. Whereas if I call the map "awareness" and then call the next component "perspective", this implies that there is a god type entity which simply chooses to focus on a small portion of awareness (everything). I see where you're coming from though. Perhaps instead of calling "everything" something non mind related, which would imply objectivity, it could be called a "dream". Meaning a subjective world that is not necessarily in perspective.

So, with the new terms, we have:
Dream (Everything) -> Perspective / Awareness (What could be noticed) -> Perception / Intelligence (What is noticed)
So yeah, while the ultraviolet stuff is still in the perspective, it might not be perceptible. That makes sense.

Line Thing

-Causation is arbitrary. There is no conclusive "why", only relative "why", and "how".

Out of all of this, this part struck me the most. I would have disagreed vehemently until I saw your comparison to a line on a piece of paper. Thank you for this.


What was so important about the line thing? What about it, specifically, was instrumental in changing your perspective?

Scope of perspective

-Awareness is not bound by time, but must experience things sequentially

Agreed, except experience is limited to the subjective perceiver


Yeah, I'm not actually sure how to logically think about changes in experience. I kind of decided that I know I'm aware, and that an experience is unique in itself, in that I can't really deconstruct it properly into components, in order to modify it, even if I am able to intelligently recognize parts of it, and that the stuff that actually changes experience is like a black box. In order to see what changes experience, you just have to start moving dials and such until you figure out what does what. This goes back to the causation is arbitrary thing. Because it's arbitrary, and causation is what changes experience, you just have to fiddle to figure out what each arbitrary thing does through trial and error (this is where practice is more valuable than knowledge).

I'm not really sure what happens to the stuff that you aren't aware of. If it actually isn't visible, or if it's just a matter of intelligence to become aware of what is in the dream (first use of new term!).

Try eating a piece of food. Don't really focus on it. In fact, eat while watching TV or something. Now, stop watching TV, and focus on how the food tastes. If you pay attention, you'll notice that the experience actually changes. It's more savory. It's like turning up the magnification on a telescope. Then, one has to wonder, was that experience always there, or was it created when it was focused on? Either way, the taste always existed, and you just linked to it (going back to my creation/destruction in the true sense doesn't exist thing). So, if changing the taste of something is THAT dependent on the intelligence's perception, who's to say that you don't actually have five hundred metaphysical view screens (like how your current vision seems to form a screen in front of your face), that are definitely existent (you are aware of them, in the sense that you might be able to perceive them / notice them), but you just haven't decided to really focus on them? In that way, it's perfectly possible to think that you are aware of everything (in all possible permutations), but are hopeless to ever notice anything, because your intelligence is not designed to work with the information. But then, I have to wonder how intelligence decides what is noticeable or not. Perhaps the one god entity just tunes everything out and decides to observe solely what its DVD (intelligence / human perspective) is aware of.

As an interesting side bit, has it occurred to you that you aren't actually aware of everything about your human perspective? It would seem that the god entity decided that it only wanted to pay attention to a certain specific part of human existence. As there is nothing physical anywhere on the human body which would indicate a specific spot that the god entity has to lock its perspective. In this way, if you could somehow regain minor control of the god entity, it would probably be possible to learn how to become more aware of your body as a whole (feel each organ, try to feel individual cells, etc.) After all, the nervous system is just for the human to be able to interact to stimulus (as a machine.) It has nothing to do with what the god entity might decide to observe.

Objectivity

-There is no such thing as true objectivity, only subjective objectivity. Reality is completely subjective.

This is a little conflicting as a statement. I would say that the existence of a singular awareness would be the ultimate objectivity, but that objectivity cannot be perceived nor gained by intelligence as we know it, and therefore reality which is the combination of all that is perceived by intelligence as we know it, is completely subjective.


That's fair. I'm not actually sure I understand the proper definition of objective and subjective. I basically just meant subjective = "dreamlike" and objective = "like the wake".
In other words, "my world", and "shared world". You seem to have cleared that up for me. Objective apparently actually means "influenced by bias" (basically). I'm not sure how I messed up my definition.

Free Will

-Free will does not exist. Reality is deterministic.

I am still unsure of this. Seems that your model of reality that determines causality is false, would endorse free will.


Causality is not false. It is just arbitrary. At any given instant, the rules are stored in the dream, but the rules can change from state to state. It is a self changing program. But, the program is still always based on its definition. Try to imagine a situation where if you start at time A, and proceed to time B, then go back in time to the exact original time A, that A will not again lead to B. You do in fact have a will, in the sense that you have a choice, but your decisions are always based on your knowledge, the environment, etc. So, your decisions are not really free of destiny, because for every decision you make, you must have made that decision, based on your programming. Therefore, the true key to freedom is not to make the right decision (you can't change that), but to understand why you made the decision in the first place, so that you have the potential to make a better one later (if a similar decision shows up again). It's not free will. It's an increasing level of intelligence / strategy.

Plato

-Assets may not be created or destroyed. Instances of assets, however, can be created or destroyed.

This reminds me of the Platonic theory of the ultimate objects existing only in our imagination and god's eyes. All objects such as chairs are flawed representations of these ultimate objects.


I've never actually looked into Plato (or Artistotle, etc.) Perhaps I should.

Infinite Causation

-For any given moment of reality, there may be an infinite number of causal forces which resolve to create that reality.

I'm still unsure on causality/determinism/fatalism; I'm not sure this is proven in your current argument.


It's probably a logical fallacy to even have infinity resolve to something finite. You're probably right.
Unless of course, you do something like -infinity + infinity = 0
You could have reality be constructed of infinite operations, which are resolved with infinite processing power. A lot of the operations would probably cancel out to "0", which would leave only the finite part of reality (experience). In this way, you could sort of have an endless universe. Because, in my opinion, the idea of having a certain amount of "designed" reality, then have deep space just turn into an endless void would be kind of saddening. I'd like to think of a way that the universe could be infinite in size and complexity, yet still able to be experienced by some finite perspective.

My basic idea was that if there are an infinite number of possible assets in a perspective, there must be an infinite number of "true/false" values which must have been set for that perspective to exist. I suppose that instead of having infinite processing, you could have infinite memory. You could realize that the experience isn't really constructed at all, but is just referenced by the perspective. Like, if reality is y = 5x^10 + 2x^9 + 4x^8 + ... + 2 (where x is a position on the experience sequence) then y has to be one reality. It doesn't really matter how it was constructed, just that it exists, and is associated with a part of the infinite timeline.

Another thing I might have been thinking of when I mentioned infinite causation, could have been the dreamer inception thing. For any one perspective, there are infinite wake ups, and infinite possibilities to fall into yet another deeper dream. This means a possible infinity to space. But, I suppose the processing itself doesn't have to be infinite. Just the memory.

Concurrent existence

-All permutations of all things always exist at the same time, but at varying degrees of relevancy

I can agree with this if we accept non-linearity of time. Where all things and actions are happening simultaneously. In a linear time construct, I don't think this statement could be true.


I was actually not thinking of processes for this one. I was thinking of assets. If the universe if subjective, then anything which is reachable (able to be experienced) would need to be somehow linked to the dreamer. It's like how you can never perceive something if its not already in your awareness. In this sense, I guess I could posit that the future already exists, and is assimilated by the present. I was imagining that everything always exists in the dream, but at varying levels of perceptibility. That way, the forces in the dream are always either suppressing something from view, or encouraging something to be visible (force is based on changes in perception, after all; measurement). But, it must be impossible for things to be fully suppressed (to zero), or else they wouldn't still be perceptible. I imagined a world where all the asset library's things would exist initially at a "existence force" of "1", and then they would compete for their force to be at the highest number. Where higher numbers are more easily observable than lower numbers, but nothing is ever "0" (completely obscured).

This goes back to my sound analogy. All the permutations of reality exist within one sound, then the "existence force" (ease of observance) would be how high the frequencies are amplified on the graphical equalizer. Because you can never fully mute a frequency, only dampen it, the hard floor is "1", not "0". This was my best explanation for how objects could be composed into an experience. Though it's definitely kind of abstract.

I'm not actually sure what you mean by non-linearity of time. Nevermind. I just googled it. OK. We can definitely agree on non-linear time. I think it would be perfectly plausible, for example, for me to be saved by some guardian angel, and then later experience saving my past self once I have become the guardian angel. There can be many crisscrosses of lines. However, I don't think it would be possible to change the past. There's only one present time. So, when you go back in time, you actually overwrite the present with the past. The idea of "past" and "future" is itself kind of not there, because there's not any single line to follow backwards or forwards. You could take the derivative of any present point, but the tangent line is not the past line. There's only now, and where that leads. If I go "back in time", I'm not following any line, I'm just picking what I think is the past, and am overwriting the present with it.

Awareness is the universe

-Awareness does not think. You are not your body. You are not "you". Awareness IS reality. You are the universe.

Yes, Yes, disagree, partially agree. I defined reality as being the totality of perception by intelligence earlier, which would be counter to this statement. I would agree that by your definition of Awareness it meets the standard definition of reality. The totality of you's are the universe, in my opinion.


For any given perspective, where the observer experiencing the perspective cannot be created or destroyed, there is enough time in the past for the present observer to have experienced every possible (past and future) perspective in every permutation (given non-linear time). So yes, the totality of every possible perspective is the universe. Yes, each individual perspective is itself (you = you), but the god entity is not the perspective.

Given this idea, why you think group magick would be more effective than solitary magick? A while back, I was toying with the idea that multiple mages in the same room are actually the same person (because the observer can be all of them at once, sequentially, thanks to non-linear time.) I then toyed with the idea that if something only exists if it is experienced, I could posit that it is experience itself which actually applies a force to cause existence (meaning experience cannot be destroyed because it self reinforces.) So, if you have multiple copies of the same observer at once, they are all applying "existence force" to the same shared environment. With this idea, you could kind of create a mirror effect between the observers in the room, thus amplifying the power. It's very abstract, but it's an interesting idea. After all, in a purely subjective world, reality would in fact only exist while it was observed (if we assume that observation is what causes existence.) You could posit that not every situation has more than one observer. For example, a dream is easily changeable because perhaps the god awareness only ever decides to visit the dream once, so there's no interfering forces against the dreamer's will. However, in a reality like earth, where an observer might want to come back again and again, each observer would be reinforcing the "stable-ness" (objectivity) of the earth (it would be a shared construction.) Besides this, I can't really think of a reason why group magick would be more powerful than solo magick. If reality were solely subjective, and the future observer were not able to influence the past observer, there should be no notion of resistance, because the world would just be the single observer's play thing. I was toying with the idea of interfering observers being an origin of force.

Time to reach my understanding

Ok, so that may have been the most intense thinking I have had to do in a while. I am curious how long it took you to come to these truths?


I first started looking into the occult approximately 1 year and seven months ago. Of that time, only the past six months or so have actually been productive (focused). However, in all fairness, everything starts slow no matter what it is. The fair answer then, is 1 year and seven months ago.

Stukov

I am officially in love with headers. They save me a lot of eye pain. [grin]
I can't wake up. Can't kill the ideology.
blindwake
Forum Member
Forum Member
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 8:58 pm
Location: I'm Dreaming

Re: Paradigm Check

Postby Stukov » Thu Jul 20, 2017 6:26 am

Your welcome, still dont know whats wrong with the list code.
I am the Watcher.
I am the Wanderer.
I am the Whisper.
I am the Warden.
I am the Weaver.
User avatar
Stukov
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 1053
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 4:23 pm

Next

Return to Beginners Info

Who is online

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

Bridge by mehdiplugins.com