Godlike Productions - Discussion Forum
Users Online Now: 2,225 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 446,882
Pageviews Today: 720,972Threads Today: 246Posts Today: 3,791
08:50 AM


Back to Forum
Back to Forum
Back to Thread
Back to Thread
REPORT COPYRIGHT VIOLATION IN REPLY
Message Subject Notes from an "alternate universe". Introduction to a new way of thinking.
Poster Handle MutantMessiah
Post Content
I don't know. If perception is simply observation and conception is an observation which is "conceived", the latter seems to have additional implications not housed in the former? I don't think (because it seems knowing "this" is beyond my "current" experience) that it matters which term is used, but it seems that perception is "more" accurate than "conception" because maybe we're perceiving something that has been pre(lol)-conceived?
 Quoting: MutantMessiah


Perception is "what comes to you", that is the everything.
Conception is the process by which you put concepts in what you perceive "each time" (and you are free to put any concepts you like).

My long shot would be that, if you add all the conceptions of all the people at all times (that is, since the invention of the tool that allows this process to take place, and this is the "word"), you will get the (one) perception (the "I know everything").
 Quoting: panoukos


What if the "conceptions" of "all the people at all times" is nonsense? What if it is a construct from your current viewpoint as a logical convenience (that which takes the least energy) to support the structure of your "personal" perspective?

But it is impossible for one person to conceive everything at all times.

Therefore a new tool (word) will be needed, so that he could.

I guess this will come when everything that could have possibly been conceived by all of us has been conceived (said), and therefore will come the end of this word as we know it.
 Quoting: panoukos


What if one person (You personally) IS "conceiving" everything at all times? The appearance of "other people" and their "conceptions" allows for an easy narrative for you to attain the perspective you've queued up for yourself. Just as your computer you use to post here, research there and entertain yourself is an extension of yourself, other "people" and their "conceptions" provide a similar function within perspective.

@Lok

If we "know" there is no A and B, then any thought is a "conception" but perception comes before conception.

If there is no A or B is because we dont have (or don't use) the concepts to depict them, therefore any thought is "pure" perception.
As you said,
You are not thinking thoughts
because thoughts come with concepts. No concepts, no thinking (you do of course something else, which obviously cannot be expressed in words/concepts :)
 Quoting: panoukos


Old Chaol (I think) had it right, it's not that anything is "created" or "conceived" it's that it's already represented within perspective and the act of "conception" (or creation) could be more accurately be assigned the term discovered (or found or uncovered). Like you've personally noted here, we're unable to perceive something that we've no way of representing. So it could be that "conception" is an uncovering of the logic that allows the possibility of the representation to interact( be perceived)?

I'm reminded of the following post:
Personally, I don't think I'm very patient. That's where Ecsys comes in.

The table you're sitting at has all of the properties of the newest spaceship. You just have to find them :)
 Quoting: Chaol


Chaol, thank you for another great post. Could you please elaborate in a way that is more relative to our(my) current understanding of what you've taught?

Just so that you do not have to repeat yourself, I do understand that we(I or perhaps more accurately "this"):

---experience that which takes the least amount of energy(or as stated previously, the least number of interactions) to perceive.

-and-

---can utilize the "genius" to call a particular flavor of experience into perspective by "naming" something "new" or seemingly "unrelative"(lol, which is funny because nothing is perceptible outside of relevancy) both in language and in physical terms (as physicality is the current (most logical) language of perspective), then allow that "representation" to interact with the representations that are already perceived (I understand that none of it "truly" exists, so any perspective is possible as none of it exists anyway). Once the desired outcome is relative, it will be experienced (yet it has been experienced all along).

I realize the steps one takes to "find" them are subjective, but it would be great if you gave some(more) advice on this.

Thanks a ton.
 Quoting: MutantMessiah


The table does not become the spaceship by itself.

You discover the spaceship in it. Meaning, it 'morphs' into a spaceship in your mind. But not as the spaceship you know (hence, unseen) but the one you don't know (yet).

Realize that the spaceship and the table are the same thing. However, because its essence (nothing) cannot be contained in any one perception it appears to be separate when it is perceived.

(It may be more than two things in your perspective, but for this illustration let's say it is one.)

If your desire is to build a new spaceship then you can start with anything. Taking the nearest table, you would treat it as though it had properties of an advanced spaceship.

This, in a way, coaxes your perception into uncovering those properties for you. The values are all ready there but they did not previously have any reason to be perceived. Now you are giving them a reason.

This does not mean that your table will magically turn into a spaceship. However, it does mean that the spaceship will become more relative to your perspective. Because you are all ready perceiving 'parts' of it.

So the table is a stepping-stone to the new spaceship. It's distance to your perspective really depends on how relative it is to it.

A couple of examples of how this could play out:

1) Opening the table's drawer that you never really noticed was there leads you to a stack of papers that your father had. They are university transcripts. You see that his marks for science were quite high and suddenly you feel confident that science is what you should do. You soon enroll at a local university's physics program and the rest is history.

2) Turning the table upside down and riding on it for a couple of hours was fun, especially when the cat joined in. But somehow you got a wooden splinter on your rear and now you're driving to the nearest pharmacy, sans cat. While there you meet an old friend. Memories are briefly shared. He shows you a picture of something that he found in his garage on his mobile, and this makes you think of a new invention that will evolve into a spaceship in 20 years.

These are both logical narratives for your mind. It is relating one thing to an other thing in a way that makes sense to it.

The table 'becomes' the spaceship in this way. It may be 5 minutes or 5 years or, depending on how relative it is, may never be experienced. But it is all ready experienced now, in some way.

The question then is, "How many steps from here to there?"

How do you get there? You start with the first thought, and take the path of least resistance.

In both examples above you may claim that Chaol is nuts and Ecsys does not work. But it is how perspective works. It is not magic. It is logic.

This is what we do all of the time. It is how we go from what seems like one experience to the next. We can make something more relative to our experience by uncovering it in our current experience, then it becomes more logical for us to experience (and then we experience more of it).
 Quoting: Chaol
 
Please verify you're human:




Reason for copyright violation:







GLP