Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,810 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 2,273,719
Pageviews Today: 3,152,761Threads Today: 610Posts Today: 13,823
10:08 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Neuronics: The future of humanity (Humanity without physicality)

 
curve

User ID: 818657
Australia
10/07/2011 05:13 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Neuronics: The future of humanity (Humanity without physicality)
Chaol, thank you so much for your earlier replies, they have definately cleared much of the confusion.

Am newly inspired to make use of the genius, this time with conscious intent. Have created the symbol, along with the structure/rules for my symbol, provided it appropriate space/potential, in a way to maximise interaction.

I am working on an Ec string to compliment it now.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 2691406
Spain
10/07/2011 05:52 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Neuronics: The future of humanity (Humanity without physicality)
With only 10% of our bodies being human and 90% being microbes and bacteria and such, what is it that identifies itself as "I"? What is it that motivates all of these trillions of cells to call themselves, in concert, "me"?

 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1172732


Good question ;)

Basically, we are not human.

"I" includes all these other life forms.

We think their thoughts and feel their feelings along with "ours".

The cells do not think of themcells as a single entity any more than your mouth does.

Your mouth has its own genome and would be considered 'conscious' but would not say "I" or "me".

Those terms (I, me) are our own ideas or interpretation of reality.

We perceive that which is most relative to us and say ."that is me".

The cells realize it is part of another whole (YOU) as much as realize that you are.

After becoming non-physical, what then happens to the "I"? Will there still be an "I"? A "me"?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1172732


You are already non-physical.

Physicality does not actually exist.

But to answer your question, the "I" will still be there. It'll just be a different you. You'll still remember your childhood and your favorite drink.

The difference is that your reality won't take as long to adapt to your thoughts.

Your reality will be as you want it to be. (The entirety of your wants, not just what you want at a particular moment.)
 Quoting: Chaol


you do not need neuronics at all, you just have get out of here. this is it.
curve

User ID: 818657
Australia
10/07/2011 06:30 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Neuronics: The future of humanity (Humanity without physicality)
Ought-mui eks t'dour etar exet (Learn Ec with ease)

(+I+L,+PP,SI) (-SS,-S+I,-S-L) (-S+L,-SI,+IP) (I-I,-I-P) (I+P,I-I)

Learn (+I+L,+PP,SI) ought-mui

Ec (-SS,-S+I,-S-L) Eks [I cheated here, translation was based on pronunciation only, doesn't quite fit][alternatively single icon 'ex' (I+P)]

language (-S+L,-SI,+IP) t'dour

with (-S+L,-SI,+IP) etar

ease (I+P,I-I) exet

Last Edited by curve on 10/07/2011 07:06 PM
MutantMessiah
Jesse

User ID: 2238668
United States
10/07/2011 06:42 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Neuronics: The future of humanity (Humanity without physicality)
Ought-mui eks t'dour etar ouret (Learn Ec with ease)

(+I+L,+PP,SI) (-SS,-S+I,-S-L) (-S+L,-SI,+IP) (I-I,-I-P) (I+P,I-I)

Learn (+I+L,+PP,SI) ought-mui

Ec (-SS,-S+I,-S-L) Eks (I cheated here, translation was based on pronunciation only, doesn't quite fit)

with (-S+L,-SI,+IP) etar

ease (I+P,I-I) ouret
 Quoting: curve


Wow curve.. I need to catch up.
Nothing is irrelevant.
curve

User ID: 818657
Australia
10/07/2011 06:54 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Neuronics: The future of humanity (Humanity without physicality)
Ought-mui eks t'dour etar ouret (Learn Ec with ease)

(+I+L,+PP,SI) (-SS,-S+I,-S-L) (-S+L,-SI,+IP) (I-I,-I-P) (I+P,I-I)

Learn (+I+L,+PP,SI) ought-mui

Ec (-SS,-S+I,-S-L) Eks (I cheated here, translation was based on pronunciation only, doesn't quite fit)

with (-S+L,-SI,+IP) etar

ease (I+P,I-I) ouret
 Quoting: curve


Wow curve.. I need to catch up.
 Quoting: MutantMessiah


hang on, still correcting
MutantMessiah
Jesse

User ID: 2238668
United States
10/07/2011 07:12 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Neuronics: The future of humanity (Humanity without physicality)
+S+I +S+P. "Ooea" "noticing the intended" or "witnessing intent manifest" :)! Ooea!
Nothing is irrelevant.
curve

User ID: 818657
Australia
10/07/2011 07:37 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Neuronics: The future of humanity (Humanity without physicality)
+S+I +S+P. "Ooea" "noticing the intended" or "witnessing intent manifest" :)! Ooea!
 Quoting: MutantMessiah


I love the sound of that word, nice to have a single word definition for those statements too.

Keep in mind, if this were to be included in the Ec-English translation, it would possibly require at least one further icon, to differentiate it from more common words. For personal use, not so important.

Could you please describe how you chose these icons? I wonder at the use of +S for the word notice/witness, I think I would have chosen differently, but would love to hear your explanation.

Also, I welcome questions and suggestions from all regarding the Ec words I have made earlier. I need input!

Last Edited by curve on 10/07/2011 07:38 PM
MutantMessiah
Jesse

User ID: 2238668
United States
10/07/2011 08:12 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Neuronics: The future of humanity (Humanity without physicality)
+S+I +S+P. "Ooea" "noticing the intended" or "witnessing intent manifest" :)! Ooea!
 Quoting: MutantMessiah


I love the sound of that word, nice to have a single word definition for those statements too.

Keep in mind, if this were to be included in the Ec-English translation, it would possibly require at least one further icon, to differentiate it from more common words. For personal use, not so important.

Could you please describe how you chose these icons? I wonder at the use of +S for the word notice/witness, I think I would have chosen differently, but would love to hear your explanation.

Also, I welcome questions and suggestions from all regarding the Ec words I have made earlier. I need input!
 Quoting: curve



I often find my will playing out before me. I didnt really have a way to define that "thing". So, I thought, since I am defining it and it is so strongly relative (I love when I notice it), I assumed strong symbol. I followed it with a strong interaction, because "noticing" is something that is always happening. When I personally witness my intent manifesting, I also see it (high symbol) as something yeilding to strong possibility. Ooea :)

I guess I had meant for it to be used internally as it comes up. I guess it also.kinda means "I agree with this "

Last Edited by MutantMessiah on 10/07/2011 08:18 PM
Nothing is irrelevant.
curve

User ID: 818657
Australia
10/07/2011 08:20 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Neuronics: The future of humanity (Humanity without physicality)
Suggested translations English-Ec

'you' (+SI) 'oo' (as in too)

I thought this might work because 'you' are highly symbolic (of) someone other than myself, whom you interact/associate with to varying degrees, you also have consciousness(I). I like this but there are also other possibilities.

'me' (+S+I) 'oo' (as in book)

I am the ultimate symbol, naturally nothing is 'closer' to me than me, I interact with nothing and no other, more than I do with myself, I am conscious(I).

Thoughts peoples?

I hope these explanations make sense, I find it difficult to sleep of late, so find it difficult to express myself clearly.

Last Edited by curve on 10/07/2011 08:22 PM
MutantMessiah
Jesse

User ID: 2238668
United States
10/07/2011 08:37 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Neuronics: The future of humanity (Humanity without physicality)
Suggested translations English-Ec

'you' (+SI) 'oo' (as in too)

I thought this might work because 'you' are highly symbolic (of) someone other than myself, whom you interact/associate with to varying degrees, you also have consciousness(I). I like this but there are also other possibilities.

'me' (+S+I) 'oo' (as in book)

I am the ultimate symbol, naturally nothing is 'closer' to me than me, I interact with nothing and no other, more than I do with myself, I am conscious(I).

Thoughts peoples?

I hope these explanations make sense, I find it difficult to sleep of late, so find it difficult to express myself clearly.
 Quoting: curve


I agree. I think of them both as relative to the one perceiving the terms. Works for me.
Nothing is irrelevant.
curve

User ID: 818657
Australia
10/07/2011 08:50 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Neuronics: The future of humanity (Humanity without physicality)
+S+I +S+P. "Ooea" "noticing the intended" or "witnessing intent manifest" :)! Ooea!
 Quoting: MutantMessiah



 Quoting: curve



I often find my will playing out before me. I didnt really have a way to define that "thing". So, I thought, since I am defining it and it is so strongly relative (I love when I notice it), I assumed strong symbol. I followed it with a strong interaction, because "noticing" is something that is always happening. When I personally witness my intent manifesting, I also see it (high symbol) as something yeilding to strong possibility. Ooea :)

I guess I had meant for it to be used internally as it comes up. I guess it also.kinda means "I agree with this "
 Quoting: MutantMessiah



Thanks for sharing your reasoning, that's very helpful...the language of perception indeed. I would have come to it from a different angle. But then again, is not my word, is yours. Please share more when you can.
curve

User ID: 818657
Australia
10/07/2011 08:56 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Neuronics: The future of humanity (Humanity without physicality)
Suggested translations English-Ec

'you' (+SI) 'oo' (as in too)

I thought this might work because 'you' are highly symbolic (of) someone other than myself, whom you interact/associate with to varying degrees, you also have consciousness(I). I like this but there are also other possibilities.

'me' (+S+I) 'oo' (as in book)

I am the ultimate symbol, naturally nothing is 'closer' to me than me, I interact with nothing and no other, more than I do with myself, I am conscious(I).

Thoughts peoples?

I hope these explanations make sense, I find it difficult to sleep of late, so find it difficult to express myself clearly.
 Quoting: curve


I agree. I think of them both as relative to the one perceiving the terms. Works for me.
 Quoting: MutantMessiah



Well we have a beginning, now we just need others' contributions.
Korzen

User ID: 1174378
United States
10/07/2011 09:07 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Neuronics: The future of humanity (Humanity without physicality)
I was interested in how you was controlling reality, at the beginning of this month there was some major event, how did that turn out?

I been working hard to alter reality for most of my life, and mixed results yea, but I think it can be done.

When I was a kid I used to believe that none of reality existed until you looked at it.
Later I realized this was a quantum physics principle.

Everyone is their own universe, make reality what you want it to be. I know that sounds so cliche, but if you try it you can exert some control over reality.

This Ecsys system seems like the keys to the Ferrari.
curve

User ID: 818657
Australia
10/07/2011 09:40 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Neuronics: The future of humanity (Humanity without physicality)
I was interested in how you was controlling reality, at the beginning of this month there was some major event, how did that turn out?

I been working hard to alter reality for most of my life, and mixed results yea, but I think it can be done.

When I was a kid I used to believe that none of reality existed until you looked at it.
Later I realized this was a quantum physics principle.

Everyone is their own universe, make reality what you want it to be. I know that sounds so cliche, but if you try it you can exert some control over reality.

This Ecsys system seems like the keys to the Ferrari.
 Quoting: Korzen



Keep reading then, these threads will definately appeal.
Vegatech

User ID: 1572063
Australia
10/07/2011 09:56 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Neuronics: The future of humanity (Humanity without physicality)
Suggested translations English-Ec

'you' (+SI) 'oo' (as in too)

I thought this might work because 'you' are highly symbolic (of) someone other than myself, whom you interact/associate with to varying degrees, you also have consciousness(I). I like this but there are also other possibilities.

'me' (+S+I) 'oo' (as in book)

I am the ultimate symbol, naturally nothing is 'closer' to me than me, I interact with nothing and no other, more than I do with myself, I am conscious(I).

Thoughts peoples?

I hope these explanations make sense, I find it difficult to sleep of late, so find it difficult to express myself clearly.
 Quoting: curve


I agree. I think of them both as relative to the one perceiving the terms. Works for me.
 Quoting: MutantMessiah



Well we have a beginning, now we just need others' contributions.
 Quoting: curve


Hi All.
especially Mutant and curve, i would like to thank you for all your input. it has helped me with this!!!

I have been thinking about the ec characters for months and thanks to your posts it has been getting a little easier(i think).

I was thinking about your character expressions and i was thinking that

'Me' might be (+S+P) as (i) am a high symbol and as i don't always interact with anything
(+I or I or -I) like when i am sleeping but i always have the high potential energy or possibility (+P) to interact so i was thinking (Me) should be (+S+P) express as (ea)

following on

'you' would depend on how close or relative the (you) was to my perspective as family or friends would be a high symbolic value (+S) but some other you would be a low (-S) as in people we have not actually met. so i don't know if we can generalize every other person with a high symbol but i totally agree we are all symbols to each other so maybe all other people in our perception could be (SI) (sIt) both symbolically and interactively neutral until they actually interact like we are now.

I hope Chaol will guide us through this as i have been reading this forum since it started but it is only in the last 4 to 5 weeks i have started to feel like i am getting it.

But i would still like to know what everyone thinks of my reasoning as you guys were looking for others to contribute and i am on board!!!

Thanks
curve

User ID: 818657
Australia
10/08/2011 01:38 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Neuronics: The future of humanity (Humanity without physicality)
Vegatech, thank you so very much, your contribution is greatly valued.

With respect to your suggestions regarding 'you', you make a great point about perceived closeness of another, a 'you', but I was thinking how we most often use the word in conversation etc. When we do use the term, it almost always relates to someone who is, at least, physically close to us (whether or not we interact with them as much as another), such as 'nice to see you' or, who we are directly relating to, i.e. 'when will you learn Ec', or when addressing a crowd 'I thank you all'. Speak up if you don't agree.

For the standard translation, my thoughts were to keep it as simple as we can; this being the language of perception, it would be quite easy to add an icon to explain a 'you' and exactly how you perceive them.

I agree totally though, that anchors could comfortably be moved either way.

That's why we need as much input from as many different people as possible, to discover which expression makes the most sense (L) to the majority.

Keep in mind, this is only a draft, I feel we will be changing even agreed upon 'values', when we realise another word is better expressed that way.

'Me'...again, I agree here also. I was toying with (P) outputs for 'me' and 'you'...actually, either would work. Same for the anchors.

[link to ecsys.org]

(The only thing I would disagree with is: 'me' is always interacting with me, I think even sleeping would be defined as (I)nteraction according to Ecsys. Just making a point there).

However, (P)ossibilty and (I)nteraction, along with +, n or - as output could be interchangeable to create a logical value, we just need to reach a consensus.

This is great Vega, keep contributing.
MutantMessiah
Jesse

User ID: 2238668
United States
10/08/2011 08:36 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Neuronics: The future of humanity (Humanity without physicality)
Thanks Vega. I appreciate this experience as well.

Curve, I agree with your you and me, would they more accurately be described as "I see myself" for "me" and "I see beyond my most relative self" for "you?"
Nothing is irrelevant.
Vegatech

User ID: 1572063
Australia
10/08/2011 05:15 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Neuronics: The future of humanity (Humanity without physicality)
Thanks Vega. I appreciate this experience as well.

Curve, I agree with your you and me, would they more accurately be described as "I see myself" for "me" and "I see beyond my most relative self" for "you?"
 Quoting: MutantMessiah



Thanks mutant

that's a good call.

also curve with the icons to make ecsys easier to understand someone asked chaol some months ago and he suggested two icons but i have been unable to find it as there are so many pages of responses. so i hope Chaol can pop in and reiterate his response?

But while i was trying to find it i did find this Chaol quote

"Other than the few icons of the 66 icons that I have defined, no others have definitions until users in this world ascribed standard definitions to them. (thus the game/app, which see)

It is still very usable without the standard definitions (because you would give them your own personal definitions).

Personal definitions for the icon sets would be much more powerful than a standard set of definitions.


As previously-mentioned, there aren't as yet standard definitions specific to this world. Although they will eventually be had, the personal definitions you create will be much more useful (and powerful).

It is as you make it and define it. That is the power. You are manipulating how you define your world.

Hope this helps some.
"


It would seem that we have standard definitions we all agree too and our own definitions that we will use for our own purposes. anyway do we have a consensus that everyone is happy with our first ever agreed upon standard definitions of

'me' +S+I 'Book' and 'you' +SI 'Too'


I think we are off to a great start thanks to you guys but i am sure if anybody else would like to help we all would welcome any thoughts.

Thankyou
Chaol (OP)

User ID: 2690124
Thailand
10/09/2011 12:27 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Neuronics: The future of humanity (Humanity without physicality)
Greetings!

For anyone interested, I've started a new thread on a general discussion of reality here Thread: Calling all Great Minds: A discussion on Reality for anyone to share what they think or ask any questions they want (of anyone else, in an open and free discussion not related to neuronics)
curve

User ID: 866856
Australia
10/09/2011 12:51 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Neuronics: The future of humanity (Humanity without physicality)
Thanks Vega. I appreciate this experience as well.

Curve, I agree with your you and me, would they more accurately be described as "I see myself" for "me" and "I see beyond my most relative self" for "you?"
 Quoting: MutantMessiah



Great point, we have to define the words in our 'fresh' perspective.

Thanks Vega, great points also.

Am happy the ball is finally rolling.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 2796189
United States
10/09/2011 01:10 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Neuronics: The future of humanity (Humanity without physicality)
In the alternate Earth where I am from, we use something called neuronics.

Neuronics is a way to influence neurons and other cells in the human body to change what you experience.

Any cell in a biological body can become a neuron, and any cell in the body can thus be influenced using neuronics.

It is like your electronics here, where devices are 'powered by neuronics'.

Read more at [link to ecsys.org]

In the electric field surrounding each cell there is 15 million volts of energy per meter, approximately 500% more than a bolt of lightning. (See [link to www.technologyreview.com] )

You use electronic devices to influence electrons in particular ways, and so we have devices that influence neurons.

You have televisions, alarm clocks, robots, computers, and other devices. We have an array of similar devices that we use to change our reality.

Most of you would call such technology teleportation, materialization/dematerialization, time-shifting and time travel, etc. We're not changing anything physically by using these devices, just changing perception.

(There is no physicality.)

Many of us in my world live non-physically. That is to say, we are not bound by physical constraints.

In this world, you're moving quickly towards this point.

Neuronics is one way to live as a human, but not live in a human body. (Strangely enough, your body is not human. It's more than 90% microbes.)

[note: re-edited per [link to www.godlikeproductions.com] ]
 Quoting: Chaol


In the alternate Earth where I am from, we use something called neuronics.

You're from Canada, for fuck's sake, not Mars.
MaJorMan
User ID: 1450186
United States
10/09/2011 02:16 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Neuronics: The future of humanity (Humanity without physicality)
I tried a few times to make sense of EC but I guess gave up rather quickly due to its intricacy. Def gotta give you guys credit for trying to make sense of this and getting others involved. You've motivated me to try again, hopefully I'll have some positive input to add to this soon.
curve

User ID: 918107
Australia
10/09/2011 04:16 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Neuronics: The future of humanity (Humanity without physicality)
I tried a few times to make sense of EC but I guess gave up rather quickly due to its intricacy. Def gotta give you guys credit for trying to make sense of this and getting others involved. You've motivated me to try again, hopefully I'll have some positive input to add to this soon.
 Quoting: MaJorMan 1450186


Please do Major. I don't think it is as intricate as it seems, well, it is only in your perspective for now. Before you become familiar with Ec you can still assist us with agreed definitions, the reasoning we provide when selecting an icon and, I am beginning to see, the words we select to translate.

I am wondering if people think we could create a functional language without the use of common words relating to gender, such as he, she, his or hers?

[link to www.duboislc.org]

Here is a list of the 1st 100 most commonly used words.

I noticed that the word 'he' came in at #11 and 'she' not until #46. I wonder what impact this would have on our current perspective and if our new language might be able to function just as effectively without their use, drawing less attention to perceived gender differences. Or am I shooting in the dark here? (These are just an example of words we may choose not to translate).

Major, your opinion and all others welcome on this subject.

Last Edited by curve on 10/09/2011 04:18 PM
MutantMessiah
Jesse

User ID: 1524898
United States
10/09/2011 09:01 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Neuronics: The future of humanity (Humanity without physicality)
I tried a few times to make sense of EC but I guess gave up rather quickly due to its intricacy. Def gotta give you guys credit for trying to make sense of this and getting others involved. You've motivated me to try again, hopefully I'll have some positive input to add to this soon.
 Quoting: MaJorMan 1450186


Please do Major. I don't think it is as intricate as it seems, well, it is only in your perspective for now. Before you become familiar with Ec you can still assist us with agreed definitions, the reasoning we provide when selecting an icon and, I am beginning to see, the words we select to translate.

I am wondering if people think we could create a functional language without the use of common words relating to gender, such as he, she, his or hers?

[link to www.duboislc.org]

Here is a list of the 1st 100 most commonly used words.

I noticed that the word 'he' came in at #11 and 'she' not until #46. I wonder what impact this would have on our current perspective and if our new language might be able to function just as effectively without their use, drawing less attention to perceived gender differences. Or am I shooting in the dark here? (These are just an example of words we may choose not to translate).

Major, your opinion and all others welcome on this subject.
 Quoting: curve


I wonder if we have to? [link to ecsys.org]

+S S cAt:
strong symbol input, neutral symbol output. So, I imagined it could actually apply to a "cat" from my perspective. I have a pet cat, it is a symbol for a lesser form of perspective (as I see it).

+S-S AmericA:
strong symbol input, weak symbol output. I see this as a further removed version of cat (symbol for lesser perspective). It is the perspective of a "larger" organism, a country, business, corporation, family, etc... that level or further removed like a world government would be or religion.

+S+I bOOk:
strong symbol input, high interaction output. I see this as an important symbol that allows for high interaction. Reference material at any level.. this forum, video, song story, catalog, memories, thoughts... a collection of relationships.

works with Curve's:'me' (+S+I) 'oo' (as in book)

I am the ultimate symbol, naturally nothing is 'closer' to me than me, I interact with nothing and no other, more than I do with myself, I am conscious(I).

+S I tOO:
strong symbol input, neutral interaction output. I see this as "along with."

also applies to Curve's:'you' (+SI) 'oo' (as in too)

I thought this might work because 'you' are highly symbolic (of) someone other than myself, whom you interact/associate with to varying degrees, you also have consciousness(I). I like this but there are also other possibilities.

+S-I gO:
strong symbol input, weak interaction output. I can imagine this could be something (a symbol) in your current focus that you are working to interact less with. Like "go" means get away from me, or start doing something with your own means, a catalyst etc.

+S+P rEAd:
strong symbol input, strong possibility output. I see this as noticing the meaning in and kinda like seeing the possibility of.

+S P Bed:
strong symbol input, neutral possibility output. This is something (a symbol) that allows for only so many options, like an environment (a space to be safe etc)... unless you make beds, then well... that's obvious.

+S-P Milk:
strong symbol input, weak possibility output. Something you consume, a strong symbol, it's something very relative and it provides "energy." A car's "M" would be it's fuel.

+S+L Time:
strong symbol input, high logic output. Ecprime, Phi or phi, Pi etc. (from perspective, indivisible)

+S L THink:
strong symbol input, neutral logic output. A method of creation at any level.

+S-L THe:
strong symbol input, weak logic output. A reference to a relationship to another relationship. Pointing (out)at something to bring it into tOO's perspective. This includes your future self. (if you are still subject to something like time)

S-S mEn:
neutral symbol input, weak symbol output. an identity or archetype.

S+I Go:
neutral symbol input, high interaction output. The catalyst to (inspire?) another catalyst.

S I sIt:
neutral symbol input, neutral interaction output. like verbs (more or less)

S-I bUt:
neutral symbol input, low interaction output. but... yea that works, like a lesser form of tOO, so something like: an addition, with additional changes to it or the original.

S+P Yes:
neutral symbol input, high possibility output. An affirmative, or an agreement.

S P nOt:
neutral symbol input, neutral possibility output. a divide

S-P Window:
neutral symbol input, low possibility output. a divide you can perceive through?

S+L Read:
neutral symbol input, high logic output. like a skill?

S L Very:
neutral symbol input, neutral logic output. possibly like an adverb, a symbol used to reference the "quality" of verb?

S-L Five:
neutral symbol input, low logic output. a symbol used to describe a simple skill like counting?

-S+I Kilo:
low symbol input, high interaction output. Like an attribute of mass?

-S I Do:
low symbol input, neutral interaction output. A symbol defining a command.

-S-I Pig:
low symbol input, low interaction output. A symbol used to define normal things that are not interacted with very often (as a reminder this is all based on perspective). This may be different to a pig farmer... but the farmer may choose to agree with me.

-S+P No:
low symbol input, high possibility output. Disagreement

-S P Hello:
neutral symbol input, neutral possibility output. Greeting

-S-P Live:
low symbol input, low possibility output. A symbol like exist, you have to have it, so it's normally relative and it restricts your possibility?

-S+L caSual:
low symbol input, high logic output. Casual, formal, rules for interaction?

-S L Zoo:
low symbol input, neutral logic output. A standard rule for allowing the coexistence of perspectives?

-S-L Six:
low symbol input, low logic output. a simple skill that is less relative than a "Five"

Ok, lol there is the first 30, 36 to go... spent a lot of time on this, going to go spend time with my wife (queen of my tOO). :)

Last Edited by MutantMessiah on 10/09/2011 09:06 PM
Nothing is irrelevant.
Chaol (OP)

User ID: 1503916
Thailand
10/10/2011 02:05 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Neuronics: The future of humanity (Humanity without physicality)
Thank you Chaol! You've cleared up a lot of my confusion. With regard to my post about the 1.7ish number... after looking further into it, it looks like it's related to Phi. Found an interesting correlation with a right angle triangle hyp of square root of 3, opposite of 1 and adj of 2 with the 1,2,3 and 5 of ec. The rest might sound insane, so if you don't know of a correlation, I am probably way off base (with a very overactive imagination)
 Quoting: MutantMessiah


There is some correlation with Ecsys Prime (123), Pi, Phi, etc.

Here's a somewhat related video:



The maths here is quite different, but it's always interesting to hear of such things.
 Quoting: Chaol

I messed up above^

Here goes some irrelevant fantasy:
Consider the 30 degree angle the location of the observer, the hypotenuse to be "possibility," adjacent to be the square of interaction and the opposite to be logic. Rotate the shape around the line of possibility, making two cones, connected at their base(neutral at approx Phi away from the observer). The relevance to the observer is more in the cone closer and less in the further cone. At the opposite end frm the observer lies the focus or intent of the observer. Lol. This is a summary.
 Quoting: MutantMessiah


This one has potential!

(But I don't know what it could become.)
Chaol (OP)

User ID: 1503916
Thailand
10/10/2011 02:15 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Neuronics: The future of humanity (Humanity without physicality)
Chaol, thank you so much for your earlier replies, they have definately cleared much of the confusion.

Am newly inspired to make use of the genius, this time with conscious intent. Have created the symbol, along with the structure/rules for my symbol, provided it appropriate space/potential, in a way to maximise interaction.

I am working on an Ec string to compliment it now.
 Quoting: curve


Surely.

It may be better to keep them separate for now (Ec and Genius) until a good grasp is had.
Chaol (OP)

User ID: 1503916
Thailand
10/10/2011 02:23 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Neuronics: The future of humanity (Humanity without physicality)
I was interested in how you was controlling reality, at the beginning of this month there was some major event, how did that turn out?

 Quoting: Korzen


No one is controlling reality. That would be a bit irrelevant because reality is all-encompassing.

"Influencing" would be more appropriate, and it worked out great.

I been working hard to alter reality for most of my life, and mixed results yea, but I think it can be done.

 Quoting: Korzen


Aren't you doing that now, already?


When I was a kid I used to believe that none of reality existed until you looked at it.
Later I realized this was a quantum physics principle.

 Quoting: Korzen


Yeah, but not even quantum physicists really believe in it.

They are forgetting to apply it to everything. It's not just in their maths but in what they call reality.

Everyone is their own universe, make reality what you want it to be. I know that sounds so cliche, but if you try it you can exert some control over reality.

This Ecsys system seems like the keys to the Ferrari.
 Quoting: Korzen


Until you realize there is just you.

Then there's no need to have a Ferrari.

Then you go back to square one and forget all you've learned.

So, here we are.
Chaol (OP)

User ID: 1503916
Thailand
10/10/2011 02:25 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Neuronics: The future of humanity (Humanity without physicality)
Suggested translations English-Ec

'you' (+SI) 'oo' (as in too)

I thought this might work because 'you' are highly symbolic (of) someone other than myself, whom you interact/associate with to varying degrees, you also have consciousness(I). I like this but there are also other possibilities.

'me' (+S+I) 'oo' (as in book)

I am the ultimate symbol, naturally nothing is 'closer' to me than me, I interact with nothing and no other, more than I do with myself, I am conscious(I).

Thoughts peoples?

I hope these explanations make sense, I find it difficult to sleep of late, so find it difficult to express myself clearly.
 Quoting: curve


I agree. I think of them both as relative to the one perceiving the terms. Works for me.
 Quoting: MutantMessiah



Well we have a beginning, now we just need others' contributions.
 Quoting: curve


Hi All.
especially Mutant and curve, i would like to thank you for all your input. it has helped me with this!!!

I have been thinking about the ec characters for months and thanks to your posts it has been getting a little easier(i think).

I was thinking about your character expressions and i was thinking that

'Me' might be (+S+P) as (i) am a high symbol and as i don't always interact with anything
(+I or I or -I) like when i am sleeping but i always have the high potential energy or possibility (+P) to interact so i was thinking (Me) should be (+S+P) express as (ea)

following on

'you' would depend on how close or relative the (you) was to my perspective as family or friends would be a high symbolic value (+S) but some other you would be a low (-S) as in people we have not actually met. so i don't know if we can generalize every other person with a high symbol but i totally agree we are all symbols to each other so maybe all other people in our perception could be (SI) (sIt) both symbolically and interactively neutral until they actually interact like we are now.

I hope Chaol will guide us through this as i have been reading this forum since it started but it is only in the last 4 to 5 weeks i have started to feel like i am getting it.

But i would still like to know what everyone thinks of my reasoning as you guys were looking for others to contribute and i am on board!!!

Thanks
 Quoting: Vegatech


It is according to your perspective.

My input would be based on a perspective very different from the others in this forum so I think their input would be more useful, actually.

I'll let you know when you're "off", though. But the definitions are your own, because the map is your own (whether shared or individual).
Chaol (OP)

User ID: 1503916
Thailand
10/10/2011 02:29 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Neuronics: The future of humanity (Humanity without physicality)
Vegatech, thank you so very much, your contribution is greatly valued.

With respect to your suggestions regarding 'you', you make a great point about perceived closeness of another, a 'you', but I was thinking how we most often use the word in conversation etc. When we do use the term, it almost always relates to someone who is, at least, physically close to us (whether or not we interact with them as much as another), such as 'nice to see you' or, who we are directly relating to, i.e. 'when will you learn Ec', or when addressing a crowd 'I thank you all'. Speak up if you don't agree.

For the standard translation, my thoughts were to keep it as simple as we can; this being the language of perception, it would be quite easy to add an icon to explain a 'you' and exactly how you perceive them.

I agree totally though, that anchors could comfortably be moved either way.

That's why we need as much input from as many different people as possible, to discover which expression makes the most sense (L) to the majority.

Keep in mind, this is only a draft, I feel we will be changing even agreed upon 'values', when we realise another word is better expressed that way.

'Me'...again, I agree here also. I was toying with (P) outputs for 'me' and 'you'...actually, either would work. Same for the anchors.

[link to ecsys.org]

(The only thing I would disagree with is: 'me' is always interacting with me, I think even sleeping would be defined as (I)nteraction according to Ecsys. Just making a point there).

However, (P)ossibilty and (I)nteraction, along with +, n or - as output could be interchangeable to create a logical value, we just need to reach a consensus.

This is great Vega, keep contributing.
 Quoting: curve


Interesting observation.

But imagine that instead of "you" we said something like "other me" in English.

That would be a tremendous change in perspective. We might even start treating one-another differently!

Then we would see how much language is a part of our experience.

Last Edited by Chaol on 10/10/2011 02:29 AM
Chaol (OP)

User ID: 1503916
Thailand
10/10/2011 02:36 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Neuronics: The future of humanity (Humanity without physicality)
[snips]

It would seem that we have standard definitions we all agree too and our own definitions that we will use for our own purposes. anyway do we have a consensus that everyone is happy with our first ever agreed upon standard definitions of

'me' +S+I 'Book' and 'you' +SI 'Too'


I think we are off to a great start thanks to you guys but i am sure if anybody else would like to help we all would welcome any thoughts.

Thankyou
 Quoting: Vegatech


Kind of like how we have different definitions of "love", both personal and generally-accepted definitions.

We may know what someone is talking about when they say "love" because it is often used in context with other concepts. However, it does not mean that we share the same meaning.

News