Users Online Now:
Donate To GLP
Back to Forum
Back to Thread
REPLY TO THREAD
Notes from an "alternate universe". Introduction to a new way of thinking.
Ms Sans Serif
In accordance with industry accepted best practices we ask that users limit their copy / paste of copyrighted material to the relevant portions of the article you wish to discuss and no more than 50% of the source material, provide a link back to the original article and provide your original comments / criticism in your post with the article.
[quote:Chaol:MV84NzI1OTBfMzUyNDEyMDNfNjI0OTQyMjc=] [quote:Jesse Sovoda:MV84NzI1OTBfMzUyMjYzOThfMzcwQzg3Qzg=] [quote:Chaol:MV84NzI1OTBfMzUyMjUyNjFfREEzRkU2N0E=] [quote:Jesse Sovoda:MV84NzI1OTBfMzUxNDgxOTNfNEE1MTdBMTM=] [quote:Chaol:MV84NzI1OTBfMzUxNDgwNDNfRkUzRDZFNjk=] [quote:Jesse Sovoda:MV84NzI1OTBfMzUxMzk2NjdfQzU3NzBGMzU=] [quote:Chaol:MV84NzI1OTBfMzUxMzk0MThfMTkwRDUwMEQ=] [quote:Jesse Sovoda:MV84NzI1OTBfMzUxMzc5MzFfQkFFMDZFNEI=] [quote:Chaol:MV84NzI1OTBfMzUxMzQ3OTZfQzY0MDkxODY=] [quote:Unit3:MV84NzI1OTBfMzQ2NDg5MDNfMkVGMkFCRUU=] [quote:Anonymous Coward 5877556:MV84NzI1OTBfMzQ2NDg2MDhfQjI3QzM1NUI=] [quote:Unit3:MV84NzI1OTBfMzQ2NDYyNjdfOTM0RjUwQTM=] Very interesting. 1) So why did this model I have been talking to have to leave then? 2) I had asked about the statement the "other" Chaol made. He says we will learn Ec automatically. Is this a true statement? 3) Or, if we learn it automatically, are you saying we still won't have knowledge of how we use it (such as now)? [/quote] you have never talked to the model. You came to the thread after Chaol returned. You already use EC all the time naturally. You are slowly gaining an understanding of it's use. Keep up the good work. [/quote] Thank you. I appreciate it. Can I learn I create my perceptions through learning how to use the Genius? Or, is it only through learning the language that I will see this? [/quote] Most likely, the Genius, as it seems to be the easiest to understand here. No creation. Just perception. (And on an other level, there is no perception. But I suppose we'll get to that soon enough.) [/quote] "No perception" in the way none of this "really exists"? Or "no perception" as in there is something to be perceived yet remains outside of our capability to directly perceive it? Or no perception like we experience memory, generating experience through imagination but where nothing is technically being perceived except a projection? Or "no perception" as in we cannot form memories to carry over information from one frame to next (each frame no longer relevant to the next)? :5a: [/quote] The most ancient of secrets! :) [/quote] Oh, you tease. It seems that without some mystery to ponder we may be like a ship too close to a dark foggy shore lacking a lighthouse. If I squint hard enough maybe Ill see it before the crash. :hf: [/quote] It's your ancient secret ("deep, dark", as it would be said). It's one of those things that we don't want to think about. As it implies that we would not exist. Indeed, it is [i]the[/i] thing we don't want to consider. Only in an abstract way, perhaps. It's something I've covered at length so the basics are no secret for me. Only the practical applications. If you cannot perceive of something directly then [i]what[/i] are you actually perceiving? [/quote] You'd be perceiving an inferential experience? I think that that inference is made by our intent and is subject to the logic in the system by which we perceive. We are basically choosing what we experience at all times. It's just that on the most basic level we (as we currently can perceive our sense of self) do not exist. Am I off? [/quote] No intent is needed. If we experience what is most relative (or seem to) then what choice is there? You'd be choosing something that not only all ready exists but does not really exist. This is a longer discussion, as it gets into questions like "what about decisions?" and such. If you're up for it, let me know. [/quote] Thank you. I am up for it. I had perceived decisions to be the execution of "choice". I had also assumed that choices are based on the information we have "acquired" on the current experience within the decision space that the logic allows. In that way I assumed that the ability to "choose" anything defined "free will" and I also assumed all this was fundamental to our "ability" to perceive (at the level we do "perceive"). [/quote] "Free will" is an illusion. Unfortunately, there is no free will because of the dependent nature of values in perspective. We can say that you choose to go out and get a cheeseburger as an example of how you have control over what you decide to do. Yet we ignore so much about the supposed choice, focusing only on what seems like the end result (a tasty cheeseburger). We don't think about not being able to materialize a cheeseburger without going outside, or going out to get a cantaloupe burger, or having to put on clothes and pay for it. The cheeseburger is entirely dependent on a myriad of other interdependent systems working together in unison to bring you the appearance of free will. That's the say nothing of the reality that the cheeseburger is not real. Free will presumes that we can be, at times, able to not experience the most relative perspective next. The most relative perspective is what we experience, not free will. But this is also not a choice. You are not forced into experiencing anything, of course. This is the only way it could possibly be done because there is no actual energy. The energy of the universe is an illusion. It would be impossible to 'jump' over to the 2nd least-wasteful perspective just for the fun of it. The reason that we experience that which takes the least amount of energy (or interactions) is because the energy is not really there to begin with. If choices are "...based on the information we have "acquired" on the current experience within the decision space that the logic allows" would that also include the 99.999% of all information regarding our experience that our senses is not aware of? [Scientists would provide that number. I would say 100%] So would this be a conscious choice based on a very infinitesimally small amount of total information? That's to say nothing of the contradicting or misleading information that our brains don't know what to do with. It is not that we are free to choose from a selected variety of perspectives. It is that free will is meaningless when everything depends on everything else. It's one system, you could say. So are you free to go get yourself a cheeseburger? Yes. As long as it is realized that the concept of freedom of choice is irrelevant. [/quote]
I have been living in this world for some time now.
I came from a place also named Earth, much like this planet. There are a number of differences between my home and yours.
I thought it would be interesting to share a few things with you that are relatively common knowledge where I am from. My reasons for doing so will probably be more apparent in the future.
* Consciousness does not exist (but relationships do)
* Matter is gravity that has been structured
* We are not human (we are perspectives)
* When the totality of something cannot be grasped, it appears infinite.
* Space is not physical
* There is no "now" or "here", but relationships.
We use a kind of language like you use numbers here. Numbers, representations of abstract concepts, were 'invented' to work more easily with the world around us. Our language is no different.
If it were invented today it would probably be thought of as existing in parallel with science. A new kind of science.
This language also enables the shifting of perspective like a kind of mental technology. Some of you may find it quite interesting.
If anyone is interested in learning more please let me know.
Pictures (click to insert)
Big Round Smilies
Aliens and Space
Friendship & Love
Misc Small Smilies
View All Categories
Next Page >>
Disclaimer / Copyright Info
with questions or comments about this site.
"Godlike Productions" & "GLP" are registered trademarks of Zero Point Ltd. Godlike™
Website Design Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Godlikeproductions.com
Page generated in 0.004s (3 queries)