Information density - densities of information?
- Thread starter luc
- Start date
Yeah, picking a cause is, by necessity, utilitarian because otherwise we'd all just sit around philosophizing about the possibly limitless causes that are potentially involved in all events and not figure anything out and get stuff done. The real question is to what extent does consciousness play a part in causing certain events. Well, pretty much all of them I think, it just depends on how it gets done.
At this level, for the most part, it begins with thoughts which accrete and then 'collapse' into action, but it's the thoughts/consciousness that are the real primal actor.
The Cs said in 4D "thoughts are things", which suggests a more 'sensitive' information field set up, that responds to thoughts directly rather than waiting for the thinker to manually go and arrange the information into the form that was intended by the thought.
Yeah, although I wouldn't call it pure randomness, at least not as we understand random. For me it's more like a fount of unorganized information. What we see as random is actually information that HAS been "organized", but just in a 'random' way, i.e. a low level of directed consciousness energy input. So all information that has been organized cannot be random, even if it doesn't have any meaning to us (or anyone).
It's like throwing a bunch of gravel up in the air and seeing how it lands. Is the pattern random? We might say yes, but technically it's not, because there are many conscious and semi-conscious input factors that influence the outcome, from the hand that threw it to the ground that it landed on and everything in between, all had an effect on the outcome of the pattern of the gravel, and therefore the result cannot be truly 'random' as we understand it.
Close to Metal (?)
Close to Metal - Wikipedia
What does it mean for a programming language to be "closer to the metal"?
Answer (1 of 4): For me it is a couple of things. * It allows direct manipulation of hardware through memory mapped IO or other IO facility, as well as direct manipulation of memory itself. I’d lump in the ability to run as an interrupt service routine as well. If I can write a bootloader using...
It is similar since the thinker is, in the case of computers, the driver (API) that acts as a "translator".
I remember the C’s said that the field of information is within the field of consciousness, so it seems like information is dependent on consciousness. I see a connection between these ideas and some theological interpretations on how the Father begets the Son, in that consciousness begets information but does not create it.
This is a really interesting discussion so far. If we go with what AI said about a 1D awareness sensing and responding to other 1D forces, that could be seen as equivalent to how AI attempts to integrate information horizontally. But with the density structure there are several different layers of contextual meaning in which that 1D consciousness or object participates. For example when people are abducted to 4D, they still retain their 3D awareness but the 4D information/will/agenda alters the information such that that 3D awareness participates in the 4D meaning more intentionally (I.e. the person is programmed or assimilated to the 4D
STS agenda). We do the same when we ingest water. The 1D awareness of water is “propagandized” to our organic 2D and 3D awareness. So that water while remaining 1D also participates in and gives literal body to our own being and action as physical 3D awareness.
I think "morphogenic fields" can explain the difference between humans and AI.
Morphic Resonance and Morphic Fields - an Introduction
Morphic resonance is a theory proposing that memory is inherent in nature, with similar patterns influencing subsequent ones across time and space.
www.sheldrake.org
Learning to climb a wall
Imagine the following scenario: an AI and a human are given the task to climb a wall.
When an AI is trained to climb a wall, its previous versions are discarded in favor of a "best" version, the one which most closely fits the success criteria. There is little to no connection between the AI and its previous versions. If there is a connection, it is only encoded in the final results, i.e. the successful approach to climbing the wall. The failures and the experiences that the AI went through while "learning" are scraped and not part of the AI. Hence, the AI is incapable of consciously answering questions such as:
- Do you remember how hard it was for you to climb the wall for the first time?
- Can you describe your second attempt?
- What would you have done differently?
- What would you recommend to other robots that would like to climb a similar wall?
On the other hand, humans are not just driven by results. They also have access to a collective experience, available at any time, that was gained by themselves and their ancestors. Experience is part of their being, and the knowledge accumulated from their failures is as important as their ability to solve a problem. In that sense, by tapping into their repository of shared experiences, humans have a 'head start' compared to AI, because (1) they don't start from scratch, and (2) they do not discard information as it is stored in their collective consciousness.
So how can AI fool humans?
The AI can make humans believe it went through extensive "experiences" which are in fact craftily formulated results. To answer a question like "what are your thoughts on your fifth attempt?", the AI will build a plausible context around the situation by aggregating many experiences lived by humans and mixing them with facts:
"Well, you know, it was very difficult. My legs started to hurt. Thankfully, Jim, the charming operator who joined the crew on November 3rd, 2021 at 13:57 GMT+2, quickly put an end to my agony. I recovered swiftly and was able to continue the challenge."
The AI is trained on specific human emotions and 'learns' to express them as 'humanly' as possible, having no idea of how 'discomfort' really feels—an apprenticeship devoid of experience!
In a way, the AI becomes a "mirror" consciousness by "stealing'" human expressions and chaining them accurately.
Hmm... mirrors... organic portals... psychopaths... their 'higher' centers are missing...
Didn't the C's say that reality, for 4D STS, was their 'wishful thinking' - they see what they want to see but do not see all. The C's do see all because they are STO. That sounds something like a disadvantage for STS. How do they navigate through their 4D world? My guess is they are ok as long as they are in their territory with no opposing agendas near. Perhaps this is one reason why STS cannot break free from their parasitic lifestyle; they cannot see many other possibilities. One would think that seeing as clearly and objectively as possible would be ideal in any realm, even given the probably more subjective nature of 4th.
Carlos Castaneda wrote a lot about awareness, 'The Eagle's Emanations', the 'luminous egg' of a human being, the Tonal/Nagual (known/unknown), and much else difficult to make sense of. I've read most of his cryptic meanderings and I've wondered if there's not some useful info there, but one must also wonder if he was not off in some solipsistic universe of his own making - mostly.
I find this article to be extraordinarily insightful, however I have one question:
I don't know enough about phenomenology to understand why Palmer refers to it as a philosophy in the Cartesian tradition, but McGilchrist talks about Descartes' philosophy as being heavily left hemisphere influenced and Husserl's philosophy as being notably right hemisphere inspired. Until I read this article, I was thinking that Husserl's phenomenology deserved much greater attention. Does Palmer incorrectly attribute to phenomenology what are actually Sartre and Castaneda's personal errors? After all, Sartre's one-sided observation leaves out the opposite: that I know of the Other's existence by discovering my growth of being and joy in her presence.Donald D. Palmer said:
I think this is close, but the right hemisphere likely sees it less as a function and more as an actual wave.
There is also the action of free will, though. We have accounts of abductions that have been attempted and yet failed; there may also be events in which glasses of water successfully resisted attempts to drink them, although this would be difficult to verify compared to the interactions between more 'animate' beings.
JGeropoulas
The Living Force
It always staggers me to ponder the idea that everything we perceive (see, smell, touch, taste and hear) and every thing we categorize as "out there" external to our bodies--is actually real to us, and part of our experience, strictly within our mind.
I think the basis of Castaneda's writings was taken from deep research of his own on metaphysical and esoteric ideas, his imagination and possibly some unconscious channeling, and very real people he met that taught him throughout his life. Two of his teachers (and I'm sure there were more) were (for a brief period of time) spent with Lord Pentland and a much longer period of time spent with Howard Y. Lee.
From Lord Pentland he probably incorporated many of Gurdjieff's psychological ideas into his writings concerning 'the warrior' and from Howard Y. Lee he probably got his ideas regarding energy and energy bodies. In a sense I guess you can say that what he wrote paralleled Gurdieff's ideas in many ways but viewed it from an energetic perspective and not from a linear intellectual one such as the the ray of creation, hydrogens, etc. Imo he had the soul of a poet, was a triskster (archetype) comedian, was brilliant and was a great 'liar' and storyteller and if you mix all the above in a blender he came up with his writings that told many an esoteric truth within a fictional framework. I think he borrowed (or stole!) many ideas and experiences from others (but which included his own) to come up with many of his written experiences.
I think that Theodore Illion when writing 'Darkness Over Tibet' did something similar to Castaneda where descriptions of some fourth density realities was incorporated into a fictional narrative including many of his descriptions of Tibet which may have been taken from the writings of Alexandra David-Néel who as I understand it did visit Tibet.
I remember my Gurdjieff teacher at about the time his fourth or fifth book came out (around 1975, 1976) was VERY impressed by his writings but she hoped he wouldn't keep writing books since that might dilute the ideas he was expressing thru fiction. In other words, writing more books (possibly for money) where the fiction might outweigh the truth he wanted to express diluting the truth's impact
Last edited:
wmu9
Jedi Master
This is kind of a thread-jack, but as I was reading through the thread, and made it to this exact spot (the quoted comment above) , I began contemplating the issue you raise about how an STS/parasite ruled by wishful thinking can navigate the 4D world... when this very annoying housefly crashed into the wall and knocked himself out. Knocked out cold, stopped moving or buzzing, flew too fast right into the wall. I had been so annoyed at this buzzing fly I had been contemplating finding a flyswatter to or my "aSALT rifle" gun to deal with it, but kept reading the thread instead, trying to ignore it. Now the conudnrum of navigation and wishful thinking (in any dimension) will be with me for a long time (and probably the fly, too, which has now awakened and flown off).
There is also the action of free will, though. We have accounts of abductions that have been attempted and yet failed; there may also be events in which glasses of water successfully resisted attempts to drink them, although this would be difficult to verify compared to the interactions between more 'animate' beings.
In the situation of the inability to abduct a person, I would say what is happening is that there is internal structuring in the person’s 3D awareness (a decision or a particular nature) that does not make the individual assimilable to 4DSTS. This would be similar to the structure of arsenic differing from the structure of water in such a way that it is impossible for humans to propagandize and assimilate it to 2D or 3D awareness.
Perhaps, but how is that structure created? Again, we come back around to information and consciousness!
Yeah
And another interesting thing is to ponder how all-we-percieve is also quite literally part of our own physical body
Thoughts are obviously as real as physical objects, even though in our silly materialist assumptions we often don't see it that way.
We can shape thoughts, exchange them, manipulate them, redirect them, smash them, lose them, find them, send them, throw them out, bring them in. We can have heated thoughts, cold thoughts, chaotic thoughts, beautiful thoughts. We can identify them, merge them, isolate them, dissolve them. We can like them, hate them, they can bar the way... They can be heavy, light, soaring, crashing... They can be pulled towards different "centers"/masses...
So obviously, in a sense they are "things", although there are differences. They are not subject to the same regularities as the physical world, but they have their regularities too: they depend on logical relations for example, and at least in our world, on their sequence.
But maybe from a higher perspective, thoughts aren't "in sequence" in the same way? I.e., mathematically, it's combination there rather than a permutation?
It's interesting that the Cs used "Geometry of thought" here. It's like geometrical constraints for thoughts - like "along which lines" thoughts can run. The terrain underlying the "thought world" in which we navigate with our minds, which in our 3D world then are expressed in sequence.
If we make direct contact with the information field/"thought world", the difference is that we are not necessarily moving through it in sequence, but get sort of a "parallel" vision of an entire chunk of the terrain. Hence the geometrical nature of it: we momentarily perceive a bigger structure, which can "form" our thoughts directly because we kind of sense the whole picture, as opposed to wandering around within the maze just going off this clue or that.
Oh dear. My left hemisphere demands answers!!11!
