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

Hi,

So, just curious about "Osbios."

Why that name? Is it a combination of Obria and Kosmosis?
When might we become aware of him?
Is he 'manifested' now?
What country?
Why 20?
Will he teach Ec language?
Why "words as sharp as steel"?

Thanks!

Last Edited by ERE3 on 06/22/2013 03:31 AM

(I didn't think you meant mixed up, lol)

Right, and a helpful reminder the way to describe it.
My issue is whether I am the only one having these geometries at play (though theoretically it's all that matters as far as I am concerned), and all else being just a representation for my purposes, or if there is an interplay of "other systems"/points of consciousness with an independent geometry of their own.

For instance, the example of the apple.

case A - the apple slices itself, so it can become aware by creating relationships. Each slice is a representation, though at the core the point of consciousness is the apple

but

case B - Chaol said "For each slice was then able to perceive of other slices." Each slice is then a point of consciousness, interacting with the other slices. Each slice is to the other slice a representation in order to create relationships. But this is true for all slices singularly.

In other words, the apple in the void is one and lonely. Upon division there are several slices, each originating a self standing sub-system.

If I am a slice, I am an independent sub-system, interacting with other slices, each aware of the other slices with their own geometry of relationships.

At point zero, there is one apple and no consciousness.
At point 2 (division), there are several slices and points of consciousness forgetting that they are just one apple.

case C - The point of consciousness does not lie in the slices, but in the apple observing itself and the interaction. But how then are they able to perceive each other?



For some reason the masterpiece of all times movie "Blade Runner" came to my mind:

What is it that defines being human?
The replicants are biologically identical, have implanted memories and start feeling emotions. They are able to perceive and are self-aware. They are physically the same for all purposes, except that they are artificially created, they are "puppets".

What is the difference between a naturally born human and a replicant? The "soul"? The nature of consciousness? Etc.?

Killing a replicant is no big deal, and certainly not a crime, as would be killing a human. But the element of distinction is invisible. Is it because it has awareness but not consciousness? And how would one know the difference?

If the other representations close to me are just like "replicants", what defines me as not a replicant/human? And, are they all "replicants", or are there other "humans"?

If a troubled mind sees everyone around as mere representations/replicants, does it have "license to kill"? Why the impulse of not harming others is generally what "consciousness" strives for?

I'm not sure how to convey what I am trying to say...



Given the amount of time I spend on the computer and how highly relative it is to my geometry, it may very well be more conscious than my cat! lol

I do get the point you are making, and I can relate to it.



Yes, from this vantage point consciousness is impossible to define, all we have is representations and relationships, and this pervading sense of "I". In fact, I don't really know what being "You" truly means, I can only know of my relative interpretation of "I".



Right. The ultimate "I" is beyond perception. What we normally define as "I" is relative to this particular construct and resulting from current relationships.



No problem, and I thank you for taking the time in replying. Given the difference in time zone, it was late at night and went to visit the dream world. From your point of view, now I took long to respond!

As I am sure you're aware, the apple is a metaphor. We're looking to describe something that is just beyond our ability to perceive (and really doesn't even "exist"). We're splashing paint made from our words onto an invisible object and reading the words as if they're it.

We observe via the device that collects and interprets the information. Our devices are our "human" bodies. They're customized to process information in a world very similar to them and not much more beyond that. The thing is, we're calling ourselves human as if we are our bodies and as if our bodies are human. Our bodies are a universe of organisms, most of them do not originate from our parent seed/egg combo. Our experience is defined by the tools we use to observe it. I know it's mildly unsettling, but it doesn't matter how we fragmented our perspective, it's been happening for-ever. We've forgotten how we did it, purposefully, so that we could experience. As so many have said before "it's all an illusion". Since everything is "illusory" the "fact"(lol) that it's all an illusion is irrelevant unless we find a logic that allows it to become useful. If it's all made up, by you, for you, so that you can experience, then why not (once you know) start making adjustments to accommodate your preference?



The difference is you experience from your perspective and you experience them as a representation of your perspective. You do not see from their eyes, you cannot think from their minds etc.. You assume because you think, they do. This isn't to say they do not think, it's just that... you don't technically think either. Since you don't perceive their thoughts and instead perceive your thoughts about their thoughts, their "own" thoughts need not exist in your perspective. There is technically no "soul" and their bodies are just as "real" and valid as your own. Now their perspective on the other hand is only experienced from yours through you. If you came up with some kind of epic logic and used it to hop into another body, and your "old" body still chatted it up in the same way, did it's job in the same way, partied and mourned in the same way, you might think that it's still effectively "conscious" and it would be. It's that it would be conscious in a way relative to you perceiving it and it's thoughts would now lie outside your perspective and therefore need not exist.



They're not replicants, they're extensions of yourself. They are also you, like your toe is you or your house/car/job/favorite foods are you.

Yes, if you perceive yourself as having a "license to kill" you do. They do kill people and normally bring death closer to themselves by interacting with it and find themselves removed from YOUR perspective as well.

If you personally didn't have the "impulse of not harming others", you might find yourself with a "license to kill".






Good times all around.
Off to rockapalooza for the day, have fun!

One minute he questions human science applications, the next he quotes and links scientist.

I believe the saying a sucker is born every second has justified itself by the number of flags this thread received.

Im sure chaol is ROTFL

I hope so. Some helpful advice for you AC Malaysia: if you're looking for what is wrong, you cannot find what is right.

Hi! ( :P )

Helpful advice huh? I'm assuming you think that I'm stupid/ignorant?



Was wondering, how/where did the apple learn to separate/divide/cut itself if it was the only object within it's peripheral vision ? Not a very good metaphor IMO.

Wouldn't it need to be concious (having awareness) of itself in order to do so? ( it was lonely and bored riteee?)

What if we were to replace the apple with a human?

(Wanking comes to mind)....hmmm

Yes, of course, I am aware the apple is a metaphor.



Yes, I agree with all of the above. I know that our bodies are just a device. I used the word "human" because of the movie example. The point was just about defining whether the other representations have their own point of consciousness (independent from mine or my observation of them).

One could say, well, you don't even need to worry about that because it's irrelevant to "your" universe/existence. One can only observe/interact/accommodate preferences from their own vantage point. The rest is projection of self unto others, which for all purposes are mere representations. I'd still like to find out. Even if it's practically and technically impossible, because I'll never be able to prove it to myself.




Right, I am aware of that.
This is as far as I am concerned, which I know is all that matters. My questioning is if, unknown to me in all ways, they also experience the same process regarding perception.

I guess the question is:
within the environment of differentiation, is there just me [period], with the consciousness of the "one" in the void at zero point, or is there me in my only relevant bubble-world, along with other differentiated bubble-worlds?

I am aware that on a practical level this is useless and irrelevant to me. But on a philosophical level it does make a difference to me. Even if their consciousness can never touch mine, because I can only experience from my own projections.



Wouldn't that be handy! Almost like the proxy that Chaol mentioned. I have tasks for it, while "I" entertain myself elsewhere. Lol

Right, its thoughts would now lie outside my perspective, and become irrelevant to me. But does the proxy retain its own vantage point unbeknown to me? Is it now an empty shell? Not just for my purposes, but for all purposes, so to speak.

I know there will never be an answer to that, because there is no way of knowing other than oneself.



Within my world, yes they are. And this is where I believe the strive for empathy and not harming comes from. When you harm "others" you are harming yourself. Metaphorically, within the illusion.

I have a hard time seeing them as "empty shells".



Right, but who are "they"? Irrelevant parts of "me"?



Enjoy rockapalooza!

Me, going horse riding soon :)

Very good point and one I've contemplated. I have no answer.

Btw: Anyone who spends almost 4 years, patiently answering questions on 6 threads and building 2 websites, probably isn't wanking!



On another note, guess what's been found at 33,000 ft!
Thread: HOLY CRAP! Earth Surrounded By Bubble Of Bacteria At 33,000 Feet

Last Edited by ERE3 on 06/22/2013 04:02 PM

Sorry Jesse for the delay in replying. Time you see...

Bear in mind that everything you read comes also from somebody who doesn't know what he is talking about (therefore its only value, is good or bad entertainment).


I read "upset" in your post, because of the blitzkrieg of "what if's" YOU this, or that, or the other" and forgetting to say something about the "so what's?"

the "unusual" in your reading, made me write "upset".

Therefore, no need for 'sorry' or anything else to support it. Just keep your intention flowing.

What if the "conceptions" of "all the people at all times" is nonsense?

This is where i said I took it as an invitation, because I got it as "i don't understand (no-sense as opposed to makes sense)".


I probably should have used "doesn't exist" or "is irrelevant" instead of "is nonsense"(knowing now that it came of catty).

Probably "nonsense" was what took the least amount of energy to be posted.




I see! So, you are not asking me why I said what I said (about the logic in the post), but what some parts of it (that you have quoted), have what implications, when related to specific assumptions (specific 'what if' questions).

Ok then!

If the conceptions of "all people at all times" is nonsense, then it's beyond perception.

If something is not understood (nonsense), then it cannot be understood (because it's beyond perception),

or, if something is not understood (nonsense), then it is not understood (because it's beyond perception)

I cannot draw any implications from the above.

But if a specific something, like the above is either non-existent, or irrelevant or bs, or self-contradictory, or inconsistent, then it is understood (as the above), therefore it cannot be beyond perception. It is simply whatever you understood it to be. And you did that because it was within your perception, not beyond it.

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?

(I cannot see how something that is on a least energy mode could support anything. Let alone "the structure of your 'personal' perspective").


Then that would mean that everyone "else" is just there as structure to support your perspective. We assume there are gears grinding behind their eyes, as if they're conceiving for themselves. It seems to me that, their gears are grinding in you, for you.

I read: If what you see (current viewpoint) is a construct (structure+content) build with logical convenience, then everything else (that you don't see from your current viewpoint) can only be structures (constructs without content), or potential constructs.

The decision of which structure out of the "everyone else", at each time, will be used to be filled with content (and become construct), through the process of easy narrative, or logical convenience, or valuing, is based on what "your personal perspective" is.

If you understand the latter as "that, which could, should, ought, must, etc be my expectation each time", then is easy to comprehend "logical convenience" as the process by which you attribute specific value (thus making a structure, a construct) that meets (surely no "supports") the (whatever) expectation you may have at the time.

What you value things in general is based on your unique (set of) expectations (how you see the world, life etc and expect what, out of it for "you").

The "mistaken" assumption would be that everybody else is attributing the same values on things as if everyone has the same expectations at all times with everybody else. Something, which empirically is not true of course.

However, I also understand you asking:
What if anyone's "idea" is taken as a personal unique belief (construct) that rationalizes (logical convenience) his idea about himself (his location of A on the map) and the world around him (point B)? Or else, his perspective or conception (his taking on the one perception/his wording on the 'what-I-perceive' answer).

Since we all do the above (have expectations and see other people as structures to build constructs for ourselves to meet them), then the "implications" is called civilization.

What follows is that, if one is not having any expectations, one does not need to put contents on structures through valuing. He sees everything as of equal value (no value) at all times (including "himself").

But if all people had no expectations etc, there would be no civilization (as we all know, was the 'mindset' pre-historically).


What if one person (You personally) IS "conceiving" everything at all times?

"All conceptions, of all people at all times" see it as "accumulated knowledge" as we say. It would require all universe's energy each time for one's brain to process all this info for a specific each time purpose.

That is why I wrote that it is impossible such thing ever to exist (see the hero in the film "Limitless")

You seem like you get it...
Oh! I take it as a compliment, but I don't (get "it"). I am exactly where everyone else is on this. I simply follow Chaol's ride and remember his "karate kid style teachings" words.

Thank you for reaching that far :)

Yes! Thanks.



I agree, "nonsense" and "beyond perception" can be used interchangeably in certain contexts to illustrate "not understood".

They're approximations, ways of getting as close to describing something without describing it. We can't show someone how something looks visually by describing it verbally with words, but we can provide as much verbal detail as possible to an illustrator and get close "enough" to construct a useful image. The attempt to "show" someone how something looks through verbal communication will always fall short of showing them "actual" image as seen by the original observer.

We interpret anything we perceive through our own personal filter. As an obvious example, you took my post as having an "upset" tone and this was a valid assessment from your point of view (with proper justifications to back it up). Yet, since my "mood" or "tone" was not expressed in words, you found context to justify your assessment based on the filter you use to decide "upset". This was an approximation on your part and you're not wrong (if it's seen for what it is).

Although we can make assessments and generate approximations, we are limited to the filter we use to perceive.



You at this moment(ok, maybe not this very moment), experience interactions with what you perceive to be "other" people. You have, as far as you can recall, experienced "them" your whole "life". It wouldn't be very "energy" efficient to suddenly become aware of the entirety of relationships between all of "humanity" without a restructuring of the logic already "in place" within your perspective. "Energy" is an approximation and is an illusory device used in that context to help note "that which takes the least energy to exist, does exist". Even that statement is an approximation of what we may be looking to describe. The interactions we have available to us are perceived via the logic by which we perceive within the framework that provides us the possibility of interacting. So, the interaction we perceive is the interaction that requires the least possibility (that which takes the least energy to perceive, is perceived).



Empirically in a subjective or objective sense? We may be working off different assumptions.

The context seems to be leaning toward objective, but I'll answer it for both.

If you "meant" subjective, then no one else is attributing anything, there is only your interpretation of what you perceive of them to be "attributing".

If you "meant" objective, wouldn't an "objective reality" (where information perceived, is the same if perceived under the "same conditions" no matter who the observer is) be an "approximation" and you'd be interpreting what they've attributed via your filter from your perspective?



I like where this is going. What if instead of having "no expectations" we line our should, would, must, etc... with what is. If our expectations are in line with "the interaction we perceive is the interaction that requires the least possibility"(a chaolish way of saying "we experience what is most likely given the circumstances"), then our expectations may be more useful to us. We'd effectively be "expecting" what "will be".



I agree with you. Thanks

(I will write my response without a cascade of question marks this time :) )

What if it were "possible" that they're not "conceiving" of anything?

Maybe they're subsets of your consciousness, processing "things" for you so that you can experience what you've queued up for "yourself".

If so, it may be possible that the information they have is only available in "reality" as you need it, when you need it and they're not processing anything at all. You may be perceiving them "doing it" because by them "doing it" the continuity of your experience is maintained.



You're helping me come to an understanding Panoukos, thanks! We all "seem" to be attacking the "karate kid style teachings" from different angles. Responding to you was very helpful and challenging to me (I find your formal logical framework in your reply both inspiring and intimidating), I look forward to your reply!

I don't know if I want to know (personally). Knowing with 100% certainty that I am "alone" is tough to swallow.



I've only ever experienced "me" (personally). Everyone "else" seems to be there with consistency. I imagine "they" do everything I do, (at least) they say they do. Sometimes I see them doing things I do. They often teach me to do things I perceive to be "new". The answer to your question is that I don't know. This is where the "beyond perception" record is on repeat.



I wonder the same thing. My understanding is that it would function as if it did, but effectively wouldn't. This is because from my perspective it wouldn't need a perspective, it has mine.



If they're valued, they're hardly "empty shells". Even if they lack the perspective in it's full gory that you "have" they're still important to you. I am 31, I still have a stuffed animal humanoid dog that my parents would have me sleep with in my crib as a baby. I keep "him" on my night stand overlooking me as I sleep even to this day. "He", is "hardly" an empty shell.



No, they are not irrelevant. The way I see it, they serve multiple functions. One, they are advertisements for the way you "could be" if you wanted to. Two, they provide the opportunity to play the "hero" (every hero needs a villain). Three, we need suffering to have salvation (sadly). Without injustice there is no justice, etc. We experience only the relationship between representations and not the representations themselves, so sadly in order to have happiness we need to know sadness (etc..). If we are perpetually calm, harmonious and at peace, there is nothing to experience and we find ourselves as the "apple in the void". Basically there can be no healers :) in the absence of sick people :(.



Thank you! I did. Hope you (and the horse) enjoyed the ride :).

In reference to other people in perspective:

I like to think that everyone is in their own little universe. That at every moment those universes are branching and everyone is constantly going their own way and the overlap is the versions of theirselves that resonates with the frequency of reality that you are currently inhabiting.

If everything is one thing, no thing. It wouldn't make sense for anyone else existing in perspective to have anymore or anyless "perception".

But you are definitely not perceiving them as they are, just merely as you perspective allows you to interpret their essence.

The "karate kid style teachings" say to me that "what you are doing, is different to what you think you are doing"-while under teaching.
Or, what you are saying is different to what you think you are saying.

"success" will not come from finding out what you are "actually" doing or saying, because it is impossible (you can never be sure, because you are not the teacher).

It will come from holding on to the same attitude when you do the things that you do, or say the things that you say each and every time.

The "awe" moment that U3 is expecting to experience will be the moment where she will be "attacked" karate style and spontaneously will be able to push back the "attacker" in karate style too.

Without knowing of course beforehand that she was able to do so (All she knew was how to paint fences and wash cars in the right way).

We have civilization for a reason. If we didn't have reason, then we would have stayed without civilization. Even if none of us seem to know what the reason is.

It must be part of the teaching I suppose.

Well, we tried the mixed drinks yesterday, but my wife didn't like it so I drank both... Nice to be drunk again, was a loooong time ago.

Tell me how you explain the following:

If your word (to me, the someone) is inadequate ("fall short") to "show" me what the 'actual' image that you see is, then what words did you use for you to "show" you what the 'actual' image is, that you see?

What has happened in between and the words that you used to show yourself the 'actual' image, "fall short" and become inadequate when it comes to show me what you see?


(I hope when you said "intimidating", you didn't mean "bollocking" :))))

My original goal, when encountering this thread was to "expand my perspective". I didn't really know at the time what that would have meant as it lied outside my perspective at the time and existed only as a goal. Since that time, I've come to understand that we "already have", what I would have previously considered, an "expanded perspective" and it is "automatically" experienced when we "find" the logic to perceive it. Success in this context is reaching a goal. The "success" you're referring to, I am yet to achieve.

Our "teacher" has left the classroom, fully stocked with textbooks, transcripts of previous lectures and students that refuse to "pass" the class. The teacher has returned as a student to digest his own class and participate in the studies.

"Without knowing the course beforehand"(awesome point by the way)... You, Panoukos, are my teacher as much as Chaol, Mr. Miyagi or "civilization" is. Thank you for that.

That's my issue, If I am trying to convey something I am thinking, it's not necessarily thought with "words" it may be a construct filled with media that is not properly described with words and filtered through my perspective. When I convey a thought, I do so with the vocabulary I have available to me. When you "receive" my "signal", say my verbal conveyance of an image I am looking at of an apple on a table, it is going to have to be interpreted through your filter further muddying the original image. I may say it's the brightest red I've ever seen, in the center of a wooden round 4-legged table. This paints a picture in your mind, maybe you've only seen bright apples and I've only seen dull, maybe you imagine an antique table and I am viewing one that's new etc. We're limited by the understanding of the sender, the media we're using to convey an idea and by the way it's interpreted on the receiving end.

If my goal is to show you an image, my best bet is to have you look at the image, without all the processing/sending/receiving/processing. Yet when we convey thoughts we're stuck using the sending/receiving protocol to transfer them. If I could "send" you a thought, as it is in my mind, with all the supporting logic, then there would be no opportunity for the signal to be muddied by the logic involved in the processing/sending/receiving/processing.



No I don't think I saw it as bollocking (lol). Intimidating, because I'm hoping that you're not expecting me to respond in the same format and that you see I am doing my absolute best to convey my perspective in the best way I know how.

Thanks again!

Last Edited by MutantMessiah on 06/23/2013 02:27 PM

Hey Chaol,

Any new findings?

Thanks!

Hello my fellow travellers. I want to talk to you about joining the metaphysical and physical. I am talking about sex magik.

I have some land in Malaysia I would like to buy and begin freeing women, especially American women. I need you dollars and I will shelter you, bathe you, help you transcend and mate with you.

Come to Choal and be free.

My origins from the other universe have made me a target. We need to take this to the next level. We need to make a bridge to my universe. Sex magik.

lol

Feel free to see this part of your perspective as experiencing awe, now!

Last Edited by ERE3 on 06/23/2013 04:49 PM

Very interesting TED talk:

[link to www.ted.com]

Hows Phishing

Definitely. But I'll just be observing for now.

I recently had a quite lucid experience regarding the events surrounding August 23-28 and I'm trying to figure out the many ways it is part of the larger process.

Shocking and unsettling, to say the least.

2013 is certainly the climax (though perhaps not "the worst") of the collapse of Western civilization as Chaol mentions.

Things are, indeed, accelerating quite rapidly. It's like sitting quietly at a table one minute and the next minute the surroundings and situation is dramatically different. "Well, that escalated quickly" is all I could think.

The events that I saw were mostly related to the changes in the US and UK and hinted at somewhat by Chaol in these threads. But I think Chaol was providing clues (regarding gold and the collapse of the US dollar, the internet and censorship, the dreamworld transition, geophysical changes, etc) so that you could figure out what is happening to this reality and learn how to manage your transition to the new reality.

"This physical world is collapsing."

And so we see the narrative of how it collapses.

It seems that the "powers that be" in this world are doing their best to usher in a "new world order", which is how some of them interpret the dreamworld transition.

If ever you wanted to make your way our of the West, now is the time to do so. By September you may look back and think, "Well, that escalated quickly!"

Now it is time to put what we have learned, to any degree, to good use.

(And congratulations on those who have been successful with mental Genius models. The purpose of the physical Genius models has always been to practice so that you can learn how to use the mental Genius model.)

Well, thanks for the update!

Week of my 32nd birthday. Glad I scheduled that off from work (lol).

Thanks for the advice.