Notes from an "alternate universe". Introduction to a new way of thinking.

I have struggled with this thoroughly since I began seeking to get oob, alter reality, and lucid dream. I've found that I am unable to "stomach" a lot of things that I used to consume. (From a hypnosis standpoint) I've read and seen lectures about the foods we consume interfering with our "clarity" of thought and (I guess) my subconscious took them very seriously.

I can eat total crap on occasion in small doses and I'm ok. If I make it a regular thing, I get very sick.

I've come to terms with the so-called "poisons" in my environment. I'm on the 42nd parallel within the "band" of rad from fuku. Even the foods stamped organic here, are likely to be gmo. Everywhere I go there are the florescent light bulbs. I've no desire to acquire a water filter and brush my teeth with fluoride enhanced toothpaste (lol).

Sometimes the most profound realizations and understandings come from the darkest most toxic places possible.

What may appear to be a restricting logic from one angle may be an enabling logic from another.

Bob Monroe, ate whatever he wanted, was a chubby unhealthy dude and is one of the most well documented OOB (alternate reality) explorers I know of. Thomas Campbell (one of Monroe's researchers), like you Chaol, stays away from anything that qualifies as a psychotropic.

I find my self in a supersaturated psychotropic soup. I wonder sometimes, how much easier it would be to get OOB, Lucid dream or alter reality if I were to get away from all of those things... I suppose I'll find out when/if the time comes.

I guess even our "comfort" is doing all it can to fight to retain it's relevance. I can't imagine "change" on the scale we've been discussing can be all that comfy. Perhaps "comfort" is a form of resistance?

Last Edited by MutantMessiah on 06/20/2013 11:26 AM

Making coffee and trying to define the concept regarding the house.

An incident came to my mind.
The neighbors are also the landlords. Generally lovely people. The guy though freaks out about insects and on occasion uses that poisonous spray can.

Me, I even named the spiders in the house... country living, after all.

One day, too late to stop him, the wind carried the spray over to my little organic aromatic herbs garden. I tell you, in that moment, I could have choked that crappy value in my perspective with my own hands!

lol

There is no telling what all goes into our reactions to substances since we are around 10% human cells and the rest is colonization of other life-forms. When my husband eats lemons, he goes into ecstasy.

I was real interested in the "liqwid crystal" me tel u talked about. I wondered if soaking certain stones in pure water in sunlight, might be something to consider.

The state feels like a transition out of my body, frequency of the apparent vibrations increasing (like pressure is building up? Lol) and I do often hear a loud "pop". If I do anything other than pay attn to it occurring, it stops and I have to "start over". Never tried to do anything "here" with it.

I think the logic was when Chaol was linking the rooms with identical objects and music.

Actually, come to think of it, could be:

symbol - link with identical objects
logic - closing eyes in darkness
space - room(s)
interaction - listening to low volume music

Chaol, I've been wondering if your teleportation was physical. Did you actually find yourself in the other room, or was it more like a lucid dream state?

I am asking because during one of the Sekhmet experiments with Old Chaol, I lucidly went in the building where I used to live, far away from here. It was so "real", it truly felt like I visited the place. Even explored around and left a note under my friend's door. Except that I was aware my body stayed on this couch and I did not technically teleport.

That is my understanding too.

Maybe what is implied in Chaol's statement, is that the "I" is all and everything within perspective? This way, technically, there is no "center".

In other words, placing myself at the center of my one and only universe, I see what I perceive around me as separate, forgetting that I am what I perceive.

The table is "I", and so is everything else. Which is just a value resulting from a certain relationship. I am all values, so I am everywhere and all things within my field of perception (de-centered).

Back to talking about "surgery". There are other words that could be used to describe this...such as a change in perspective. In the Ecsys website Jesse posted yesterday...Chaol says:

[link to web.archive.org]

"One instant can change the course of your life (and how you remember your past)."

We can use a Genius to achieve this so I guess a Genius could be also thought of as surgery.

I know there are other ways to cross the bridge. Chaol just wanted us to appreciate it when we got there so we have to work at it.

I would think as we gain and evolve, new tools (or ancient tools) would arise.



Last Edited by ERE3 on 06/20/2013 04:26 PM

That's great, Ambra. Thanks. I wonder if his objects were hand-made, identical symbols?

Neo told us we can use the Genius mentally, so I was wondering what his mental process is. Chaol taught us logic is...this happens, I do this. That happens, I do something else. So, I'd like to know Neo's mental process. (I'm hung up on logic, heh!)

Great to have you back posting!



Edit: Here's what he said about the mental Genius...and I apologize. I didn't keep the link to the post! ;o(

"You can also do this in your mind. If, for example, something is broken or you want to perceive something then take what you see already around you and internalize it by representing it mentally with symbols. Once you have ‘good’ symbols for those things you can work with them as you see fit. It one symbol has problems moving or interacting it may mean that there is a problem with what it represents in physical reality.

(There is no limit to what can be done with this, as everything is a symbol, a value, in perspective.)

I do this all the time and it’s how I can communicate with you, ‘travel’ in space and time, etc. It is actually what you’re doing right now when you exist (or at least pretend you do).

Realize that your perspective is all ready full of symbols and you move beyond the physical and into the metaphysical.

Then the values in your perspective, the things, the objects, etc., are no longer more real or more substantial than your thoughts. It’s all symbol and all on the same ‘level’. A mountain takes no more effort to move than would a pencil. What matters is how it works in your perspective rather than what size it is or how complicated you think it might be.

Once you get the hang of it you’ll find it much easier to work within this kind of reality that the one you’re upholding now. It takes a lot of energy to make your symbols seem that real."

Last Edited by ERE3 on 06/20/2013 04:23 PM

Hi U3, thank you!

When I was reading Chaol's post, I imagined the symbols as physical objects, but in fact they could have been mentally placed, just like we used Sekhmet.

Sekhmet was the symbol we used as a "gateway" to a specific place. The large room with people, under the Sphynx, etc.
Two identical gateways would link two locations, even mentally.

I'd like to know too how he did it, and especially if the surroundings/perception changed at a physical level.




Right, I do remember that. Thank you for posting it!
Ironically, that is perfect for the broken fridge, he he.
I may represent it mentally with a symbol and work with it, as an experiment.

There is something nice about working with physical symbols, those cute special objects one creates, which give the idea of immediate physical interaction. But being able to work with mental symbols can be quite handy, and, in a way, more dreamworld like...

I like to think of it as "dreamworld magic", even if it's not magic, it's logic. We are dreamworld engineers!

Thread: Tsunami like damage in India's Himalayan state of Uttarakhand- 13000 MISSING !!! (Page 4)

Stuff all around seems to be hitting the fan lately!

Dow closed down.
Thread: Brazil!!!, al hell is about to break loose, millions on the streets later today
A volcano near Mexico City erupted.
Methane gas is being released in large quantities.

Last Edited by ERE3 on 06/20/2013 08:49 PM

"I" (lol) see where you're coming from, thanks! As I see it, the "no-thing-in-particular" that refers to itself as "I" is what perspective (all that "exists") is structured around.

It seems useful to me, to see it this way.

If we're dancing around saying some (no)things are more relevant in "perspective" to other (no)things. The (no)thing in perspective they're relative to, is that (no)thing identifying itself as "I". It's "I's" perspective.

Although "I" is all encompassing and ever-pervasive within perspective, it illustrates itself to itself in a way that some aspects of it are relative and some not so much. With that being the structure of our perspective, the "I" (as the most relative aspect of perspective) is at the center which all (no)things are relative to in varying degrees.

Glad to have ya back Ambra.

The bolded statement of Chaol's quote above threw me for a loop and prompted the "Bwah?". It made me wonder whether he was being serious, sarcastic or provoking discussion. I leaned toward the assumption he was "provoking discussion" to brainstorm about his "Perhaps I'll discover a better way to explain it".

Last Edited by MutantMessiah on 06/20/2013 09:08 PM

Shiva... Hmm...

from: [link to www.sanatansociety.org]

"Shiva is the god of the yogis, self-controlled and celibate, while at the same time a lover of his spouse (shakti). Lord Shiva is the destroyer of the world, following Brahma the creator and Vishnu the preserver, after which Brahma again creates the world and so on. Shiva is responsible for change both in the form of death and destruction and in the positive sense of destroying the ego, the false identification with the form. This also includes the shedding of old habits and attachments.

All that has a beginning by necessity must have an end. In destruction, truly nothing is destroyed but the illusion of individuality. Thus the power of destruction associated with Lord Shiva has great purifying power, both on a more personal level when problems make us see reality more clearly, as on a more universal level. Destruction opens the path for a new creation of the universe, a new opportunity for the beauty and drama of universal illusion to unfold. As Satyam, Shivam, Sundaram or Truth, Goodness and Beauty, Shiva represents the most essential goodness."

Makes me think... More Tool:

Shiva and Sekhmet are essentially the same, no? Archetypes.

Who else in your perspective fits this archetype?

Hi MM

Right, I do see it basically the same way you describe it.
I also went into a loop, and my reaction was *cough* wtf? (lol)

If Chaol mentions it, there must be a good reason, to get us thinking. I haven't refreshed the page, so don't know if Chaol has addressed this yet.

One thing that comes to my mind, is that because the aspects that are more relative are the ones we experience more directly, it's just a matter of "focus" on particular relationships, rather than others. But the less relative aspects are just as much "I", except that the fish eye lens is not capturing them at the moment (unless they become relative and enter the camera's "field of vision", so to speak).

Ultimately, if I am no-thing in particular, I am also no-where in particular.

The "center" is part of the illusion created by the relationships. A center implies a space (even if a tiny dot), where there is no space...

However, I can't help but think of my "I" as being at the center, because I have to "locate" my point of perspective somewhere, so that relationships can be formed "around" me.

What appears to be my center, is simply where the focus is. That is, the no-space of the difference between relationships. If it makes sense.

Lo and behold!

I don't want to claim victory too soon, but here is a report on the fridge.

Inspired by U3's post, last night I laid down on the couch and made a mental symbol for my environment. I imagined a giant luminous geometrical shape, like a dodecahedron, with a command station inside, like a spaceship.

"Major Tom to ground control"...

I entered it, and started playing with the commands, fixing things, and trying to find out which one was related to the fridge on this end. I even run a background check, and then launched a repair program.

The fridge was noisier than ever, but ever so slightly would "hesitate".

Then went to sleep, and tried to keep fixing and running programs, with the intention to find the right thing to do in the dreamworld, find there the parallel representation of the fridge here and tend to it, even when not recalling/not lucidly. I fell asleep with a fridge symphony full steam...

This morning I woke up, and there was this soothing silence (!!!). I had to open the appliance to make breakfast, immediately it started to make noise.

Confident in the improvement, I thought of the program running in the background in the dreamworld simultaneously.
The thermostat clicked, and right now it's quiet again!

Did also the logic with both Geniuses I created.

Aaah, soothing silence... "milabir"!

I wonder how long the peace will last, but there are improvements, something is happening.

Yup. It does indeed "make sense". Here's some snippets from the "old" ecsys site that help to explain how I see it:


"Think of your consciousness like a book. Each word in the book represents a concept. Then words are grouped together into related concepts. You know what each word means but there is no meaning and life until you put them together. The meaning of all these words is determined by the relationship between the words. Similarly, you are aware of each part of your self but there is no consciousness until the parts begin to relate. Consciousness arises from relationships.

Now imagine that a small portion of the words in the book changes constantly. At every moment a new batch is added, shifted, or taken away. At each of these moments the book changes into a slightly different form, altering your awareness. If you were alert and able to read as fast as the book was being changed it would seem as though everything were happening "now". If you were not as alert and unable to read as fast as the changes, it would seem as though a new entity, "past" was being created. Then you may realize the level of your awareness depended not upon the speed of your reading, but upon how involved you are in the drama the words illustrate. Some stories in the book you find more interesting than others so you focus on those words more. Suddenly, it appears as though these dramas are "close" to you in space and time while others appear more distant."

"When something is less structured (and has more potential energy) we think of it as Future. If we provide structure to a "future" thing we will seem to experience it in our Present before it seems to go to the Past."

"Matter is composed of both particles and waves in the same way that our perception of "now" (i.e., not "absolute now") is composed of both structure and unstructure. The fluctuating difference of the particle/wave phenomena is perceived as matter, exactly as the fluctuating difference between the past/future phenomena is perceived as "now"."

"A wave minus potential energy is a particle (3-2=1)

A particle plus potential energy is a wave (1+2=3)

Matter is the "result" of structuring and unstructuring potential energy, resulting in a continuous stream of structured, interactive representations."


That "now"(no-thing "4") that structures the "future" (potential energy 3-1) into the "past" (more structured potential energy 1+2) seems to be the "non-existant" I at the "center" of perspective. I agree, we cannot see the "I" as it is, because we "are" it.


"Something can either be true, or it can be perceived. It cannot be both. We can be aware of something but not be aware of the truth of what it is. When the totality of something cannot be grasped in our perception, it appears infinite (such is your reality, seemingly infinite in every direction)."

"Now / here cannot be perceived nor experienced. It is an unstructured representation and, for all intents and purposes, does not exist. Because it is unstructured it cannot be perceived. Every perception we have can either be past or future. However, because 'past' is more structured than is 'future' we perceive past much more readily."

The following is a good parallel:

"Mass

Working with a basic model we can discover things about the nature of mass:

Mass is a function of particles rather than a property of either matter or particulate. It is not an element in the 'unified field' model.

Gravity affects matter's mass depending on how it interacts with the particulates.

The amount of matter associated with an object depends upon the gravitational interaction with that object and every other object/space. Its mass increases proportionally according to how unstructured the gravitational interaction is for an object of constant particulate. However, a constant gravitational interaction will decrease mass if it 'combines' with an object of decreasing particulate.

Gravity is everywhere at once. Gravity facilitates particulate, which causes gravitational interaction of particulate and results in matter. Gravity interacting with more particulate results in matter having more mass.

Matter with less mass causes gravitational attraction. matter with more mass causes gravitational repulsion. (This repulsion is more of a lack of gravitational attraction due to matter becoming more structured with particulate. However, a thing can be both attracted to and repelled by something at the same time; due to the dynamism of the universe attraction and repulsion are not in opposition when the gravitational aggregate is considered.)

Constructions of matter will repel other constructions that have more mass, and attract those with less mass. With constructions of approximately similar mass the two constructions will group more together.

Mass is relative and depends on time/space differential. (For example, if there were only two stars in the universe, on opposite ends, they would initially be quite attracted to one-another the closer they became (i.e., the more interactive) the more their mass would repel one-another.)"

Chaol,

I understand that it is best that we make a genius around our intent. But wouldn't that become our new focus and thus requite something around IT?

A neighbor coming to ask where the tree went, I just don't see how that is more likely to come true than than original of just having a tree disappear. Is it because the genius knows our true intent of not wanting the tree?

Oh, I really, really like this.

Not only are you seeing a way to fix something in your current environment, you are also integrating both worlds!!! WhooHooo!

More stuff......

Thread: New Record Flooding in Canmore, Canada, 100,000 evacuate in Calgary

I've just watched "The Mist" for the first time.. I was freaking blown away. Stay away from the CERN!

Our perspective when 'awake' is like a lower energy version of our dreams when we are 'asleep'. Our dream images are symbolic and our awake images are symbolic. The differences being that we believe our dreams are more maleable then our visions when awake. Perception is determined by the state of being/point of consciousness/relevant relationships we are experiencing at the moment.

If I were having a serene afternoon gardening with my chickens as companions, I would be in a state of being/relationship mode of communion with the elements/symbols/nature around me, a state of harmony/peace (unless I was at war with weeds). My chickens poking around me would be symbolic of this communion, the way I feel, my frequency state/state of being/point of consciousness/relevant relationships. I associate this feeling with the chickens meandering around and interacting with me. When done gardening, I continue the day evolving through many different points of consciouness/states of being/frequency states such as anger, frustration, determination, etc. In a day or two, I could walk out and find the chickens were killed by a predator. If I see this as 'real', my access to the state of being/point of consciousness of peaceful harmony with my surroundings could be lost because I perceive my interaction with the chickens as the source. Or I could see it as symbolic. A different energy state/set of relationships/point of consciousness is removing my peaceful state of being. I'm giving a discordant energy state more relevance than the peaceful one. I'm allowing myself to feel less peaceful more often.

I could spend much time trying to figure out the exact meaning of the symbolism or realize that I'm letting discordant energy/symbols chase away my peaceful state and choose to retain this state of peace no matter what. First came the peaceful state from within, then came the chickens to represent it. So I can create a symbol and place it in the garden and interact with it in the same way. I might see more butterflies fly by or a frog begin to follow me or more blue flowers. I can choose to interact with these in the same way as with the chickens. I have then retained control of my state of being, by not reacting to the symbols, such as the chicken getting eaten, but by realizing they are feedback to allow me to understand myself and allowing me to choose which direction I'd like to go.

If I get upset at the predator, which is only natural in this current state of existence, I am getting upset at the portion of myself which represents that belief/energy state/relationship. I can choose to make this state less relevant by creating the preferred energy state of harmony and staying in that state as much as possible. The less I react to the predator, the more irrelevant it becomes until my state of being is no longer effected by it at all, reducing it to irrelevancy. To do this, I might have to appear as slightly crazy to others, since even though a predator rampaged through and killed all chickens, I would have to continue on unperturbed because that state of being (represented by interacting with chickens) within me does still exist and I would be choosing to continue to express it (instead of running out with a gun/trap and killing the predator).

Bashar once described our experience here on Earth as an opportunity to witness the act of creation. This is a purposefully low vibrational environment that allows us to see our creations slowly unfolding before our very eyes. In our dream state, a higher energy state, we can more instantly materialize things. We change our thoughts, our state of being, our interactions things instantly change. To see our interactions, our relfections of ourselves more clearly, we would have to slow down the process. Like being able to see a humming birds wings flap, we need to take a video and watch in slow motion. If you could experience anything instantly, like the color red, and the moment you thought of it, you became the essence of red, you wouldn't be able to 'see' it happen, it would just happen. Here, you can say you want to experience red and then watch it slowly unfold before you. Red cars, red birds, red clothes, a deep red sunset, etc.

Anyway, the values in our perspective offer us a glimpse into our thoughts, beliefs, energetic state, relationships, point of consciousness, etc. It's the only thing within our experience that we have control over and which gives us freedom. We can choose to feel anything we want by using our imagination via symbols, memories, fanatasies. Just like kids do.

Thanks MM, interesting read!

Consciousness arises from relationships, so "I" is the byproduct of an ever-fluctuating difference, the result of structuring and unstructuring.

Which leads to the question "Where am I?"
Nevermind "who" or "what"... lol

Just like "I" can't grasp the "now" [time], I can't truly grasp the "here" [space]. (Incidentally, it's interesting that time/space combined form the word "Nowhere"). Something can either be perceived or be true, can't be both.

So, what "I" can't help but perceive as my "center" (the point of observation and formation of relationships, my point of consciousness), cannot be true (for the only reason that I seem to perceive that way), is part of the illusion perhaps?

Still in the loop...

Hi U3!
I was just about to report on the fridge. Still work to do, as it resumed charging a lot. But there are improvements. I shall go back to the "command station" later this evening.

Within the geometry of relationships in the physical, I am looking at possibilities in the immediate environment, for instance a guitar out of tune has been tuned. Though no relation to the fridge that I can tell.

Maybe I should take care of the rusty bike in the shed as well.

I will keep you posted on progress, still happy about this morning, stuff did happen at least as a temporary fix. Good enough for a beginner!

Maybe it is true and that's why we cannot perceive it.

Lol, good one!

@1571103
Interesting, the entire concept was beautifully expressed.

As an example for something I theoretically agree with, ironically you mentioned what is for me the biggest challenge in maintaining a zen-like detachment. That is, symbols that I perceive as living beings.

As for any material object, perceived as "inanimate", it would be easy, no matter how "dear" it is to me. But if anything happened to my pets, it would be an awful challenge. As much as it is when hearing of suffering animals and humans alike.

I guess the same would be for a mother regarding her children. (Not that she would replace the lost child with another symbol and interact the same way to maintain the same state of being.) Like, oh shit, my son just died, well I'll tape together a rubber band and pencil and put it in his bed...

To the point that I am still not sure if living creatures (including plants) are really just plain symbols, a simple construct, or other points of consciousness interacting each from within their world, forming relationships with mine. Been struggling with this one.

One could say, that they are there appearing so "real", so I can have an emotional response as part of the illusion, I know... Yet, when looking into someone's eyes, that something that is "there" is still too strong for me to dismiss it as a possible other point of awareness.

So, in theory I agree with keeping in mind that we can have control over the values and relationships that are formed as feedback, to maintain the preferred state of being. In practice, some values and relationships are not so easy to replace like something disposable, without some emotional response.

Chaol kinda touches on this in the following:

"Consciousness starts with a representation. Without representation there is no awareness.

Consciousness, or mind, is the difference between two or more representations. We can perform a simple thought experiment to illustrate this. Imagine a photo of a woman. In this representation the woman appears to be talking on a telephone. We cannot tell much else from the photo other than a few minor details. But now let's add another photo of the same woman, taken a second later. Her face becomes more animated and we can understand and connect with her emotions more readily. By viewing more of these photos in quick succession we might even be able to make out parts of her conversation or tell more about her personality. But adding more of these representations of the woman does not create consciousness or make "her" more conscious.

It is simply that we have become more conscious of her. We are perceiving a possibile form that comes from the activity of the representations.

Surely we were conscious of the woman from the first photo we see of her without the help of the second representation? True, but even the first photo is filled with representations, all interacting together and enabling our awareness of what is represented.

You cannot possibly be aware of something directly. We only know of something in relation to other things. (Other things that cannot be directly perceived, as well.) Consciousness does not actually exist.

Anything in the universe is conscious in a way that is relative to its representation. You are aware of things that share aspects of your representations.

Your consciousness changes because the interactions with other representations change.

We have as many consciousnesses as we have representations. Who you think you are is but a fraction of your complete bodily consciousness."

It'd be "more" difficult (maybe impossible without "drastically" changing perspective) for us to feel "indifference" for representations that we cherish (find highly relative).

This topic made me think to post this link:
[link to petapixel.com]

Last Edited by MutantMessiah on 06/21/2013 07:41 PM

Thanks MM, this must have been in the pages I didn't catch up with.

At least Chaol says that it may be impossible to feel indifference for highly relative representations.

I can understand and relate to the photo example. Because the photo is a representation of a representation. But when there is a direct interaction with a "living" representation, it gets more complicated for me.

Even if the eye captures photos (btw, interesting link and yet another sad animal experiment, let's say a sad value), the direct representation activates the other senses + displays a "personality".

To make things more complicated, I read different things in Chaol's statements above.

1 - Anything in the universe is conscious in a way that is relative to its representation.

So, each representation does have consciousness, in a way that is relative to itself?

In other words, to me, the woman is not conscious, I have become conscious of her (made her relative to me). On the other hand the woman (a representation to me) is conscious regarding what is relative to her (as far as she is concerned, I am not conscious, just a representation to her)

2 - We have as many consciousnesses as we have representations.

Then, each of our representations is an aspect of our consciousness? Conscious nonetheless. If I interact with the representation of a dog, I interact with one of my many consciousnesses in a highly relative way.

This would include "inanimate" objects (anything in the universe) as well [and Chaol did mention electronics and other things as having a form of consciousness], except that they are less relative from the empathic point of view, share less of similar aspects, besides the more fundamental atomic level of fluctuating particles.

3 - Consciousness does not actually exist.

This was my understanding from the beginning of the thread, that according to Chaol there was no consciousness at all. I do not know how there can be awareness of relationships without consciousness.

Unless all he means by that, is that there cannot be self-awareness of no-thing. Awareness/consciousness arises the moment there is some-thing.

Unconsciousness gave birth to consciousness the moment relationships were formed. We perceive consciousness, but consciousness is not ultimately true at the "zero" point. It is however part of our construct, or else there would be no perceiver.

That wasn't Chaol, the part in quotes was from Chaol's old ecsys.org.

We have many different geometries playing at the same time and we call the sum of them our "consciousness". You could line up everything in your home from least favorite to most favorite and you'd have a good example of what is most and least relative to you in your "favorite home stuff" consciousness. You could also line up everything in your home from the least useful to most useful and you'd have a good example of what is most and least relative to you in your "useful home stuff" consciousness. Consciousness is a term we use to describe the totality of relationships relative to that system.



You can see it that way if you like, there is no-thing wrong with that, it's might not be as close to "accurate" as may be useful to you, though. The consciousness you see in the woman is the same consciousness you see in a puppet on your hand (one is more obviously you). You know she looks kinda like something you think you are and you "feel" pain and use the same words to describe it, but she is a representation generated by your current understanding of yourself projected on to her. You relate to her in a way you are susceptible to, based on the vocabulary you have available to understand your perspective.



Yes, they're not "conscious"(part of your geometry) unless you're observing them in some way. A sammich' ya ate a bit ago is still being observed within your perspective because it's interacting with aspects of you that you can sense but are "forgetting". The sammich' is still part-o-ya, but ya can't see it. When you get done "digesting" it, you discard what remains and integrate the rest. The sammich' is just as conscious as your cat or your body/brain, it's just not as relative when relating to your current (sub)perspective of "highly interactive" geometries. Your computer may actually (technically) be much more conscious(total relationships) than your cat, but since it's soooo different from the way you see yourself (doesn't get hungry, cry, love, etc... in a way YOU can relate to) you assume it's not conscious, but your cat is.



Maybe he meant to say something like: Consciousness is not properly defined "here" and the common understanding of it does not exists. What does "exist" is the relationships between representations of no-thing-in-particular.

Maybe he said it for shock value. To provoke thought, incite arguments, so he could make his points to a receptive mind?

"Some-thing" can only be if there is logic of awareness (possibility) plus "some-thing" represented to observe (interact).

S=L(P^2-P)+I

or as Chaol stated here:
"a representation is the result of structure multiplied by a potential energy (squared and minus itself) interacting with another representation."

from: [link to web.archive.org]



Yes. That thing calling itself "I" is beyond perception. There is circumstantial evidence for that "Genius" everywhere, but the "no-thing" is too slippery for perspective! Even if we become aware of it, there will be something "else"(but still it, lol) beyond perspective dipping in to move the chess pieces of perspective. The logic that dictates our current perspective (the dna of perspective) allows for the fragmentation of the "I"(Genius, no-thing-in-particular) so that it can interact like you shaking your left hand with your right but neither are aware they're "you".

Here's Chaol's take on it:

"The Beginning & The End

Imagine, if you will, an apple sitting in a void. Nothing else was around for as far as the eye of the apple could see. This apple was quite lonely because there seemed to be nothing else. Not only that, it could not know of itself and did not feel alive because there was nothing else to relate to. So after some deliberation it decided to do a very wise thing. Cut itself into pieces. (It does not do this in a literal way because it doesn't have a knife and there is no need to. It simply creates a apple-protein that makes each apple-slice forget that it is part of the whole.)

The simple act of dividing itself up created the core of its existence. For each slice was then able to perceive of other slices. For the first time in its existence it could see its own existence. The very moment when it sliced itself was when the apple universe was created. Time, space, and all the trappings of a satisfactory existence. (And, of course, consciousness.)

Only representations exist in the universe because the actuality of what the universe is is beyond perception. We have an infinite variety of representations (things, possibilities, elements, energy, thoughts, perceptions, etc.) because the entirety of It cannot ever be fully illustrated.

What we see is the universe, interpreted in a way that we can readily perceive.

But we do not live in a physical universe. Neither do we live in a spiritual universe. Anything can be expressed physically, spiritually, emotionally, politically, although in an incomplete way and one relative to the agent that is used to express it.

We are indirectly discovering more about the 100% of the universe that isn't physical as our ability to think abstractly expands through the use of computers and networks, games, books, and other media. We are now more involved in abstract mental exercises than ever before. We are traveling through "self" as we travel in time and space.

Astrobiologists look for (organic) life elsewhere in the universe, bypassing the intelligence in our own clouds and geosphere. More importantly, we overlook the capacity for human intelligence to become entirely different than anything we've seen before."
from: [link to web.archive.org]

(Sorry it took so long to respond)


Last Edited by MutantMessiah on 06/21/2013 10:46 PM