Session 28 May 2013

[yamez]

Q: (Belibaste) This cometary body is highly charged, and because of potential difference, there's a discharge with the surface of earth, in the atmosphere, leading to sheets and rain and thunders and plasma sheath which can have a chalice shape. (L) What has recently been working in my mind is the observation that when the earth is in a comet dust stream, it apparently affects the weather profoundly. That means a lot of cloud cover and rain. This seems to have been true about past events in history. I noticed that I didn’t get a single viewing day for one of the recent comets. So I began to wonder just what the deal was. How could the ancients have seen the alleged comet gods if the sky was under cloud cover most of the time! So this might explain it. There were close passages and plasma discharges viewed through cloud cover or “sheets of rain” and we know that some of the plasma formations can be quite anthropomorphic looking among other shapes. (Perceval) It seems it's a compounding effect where cometary bodies have electric effects on the planet that disrupt the planet in different ways that may cause increased precipitation, which then allows for further cometary activity? (Ark) Well, but I would like to ask about what is the nature of the dust? Earth origin or cometary origin?

A: Cometary, and some still holds charge.

I wonder if there is more frequent upper atmospheric lightning, hence more charged dust, perhaps. Check this video of a "sprite", seems to be dissipating/interacting with the ionosphere. Sprites exist in the mesosphere just below the ionosphere and are associated above thunderstorms.

_https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBz7OUBi79w

To quote from the description of the above video...

"Typically the weather we experience on the ground is considered to be a separate phenomenon from the weather that goes on higher up in the atmosphere, in the area known as the mesosphere. The sprites show, however, that some fundamental science connects these two regions, opening interesting physics questions about the interchange of energy between them."

Also, to quote from this blog ( _http://truemaskedwabbit.blogspot.ca/2012/03/sprite-season-begins-hd.html#links )

"Sprites are electrical discharges that come out of the top of thunderclouds, opposite ordinary lightning bolts which plunge toward Earth. Sprites can tower as high as 90 km above ground. That makes them a form of space weather as they overlap the zone of auroras, meteors, and noctilucent clouds."

 

[goyacobol]

sitting,

Fellow questor :(,

We feed the system because we are here for some reason. Despite the interface being an "accessory" of the soul, there is something that the soul learns from interacting here.

I think we exist primarily as an instrument through which the universe experiences itself. For the universe to know itself. To actualize some of it's infinite potential. In a sense, "all there is is lessons" applies to the universe itself as well.

Castaneda used a rather unflattering term to describe this. He said "gluttony" was the reason the universe created such a vast array of sentient beings. In order to devour their experiences at life's end. That term (gluttony) has always made me uncomfortable...as it strikes being borderline blasphemous. I would've preferred something like "experiential maximization" instead.

I am just feeling sad because you seem to be losing hope in this "battle" which the C's say is "through" us. I know it is not a very comfortable thought that we sometimes are almost like pieces on a chessboard for the universe. But, we are at least pieces with freewill or choice and we may help win or lose the game depending on how well we make the choices. When we are moved to a certain position on the board it is up to us to be a Knight, Bishop, Rook, King or Queen. If we assume the neutral stance we may become the pawns in the game. Gurdjieff says there are three forces at work in us:

[quote author=IN SEARCH OF THE MIRACULOUS P. D. OUSPENSKY Chapter 3 pg 84]
"The teaching of the three forces is at the root of all ancient systems. The first force may be called active or positive; the second, passive or negative; the third, neutralizing. But these are merely names, for in reality all three forces are equally active and appear as active, passive, and neutralizing, only at their meeting points, that is to say, only in relation to one another at a given moment. The first two forces are more or less comprehensible to man and the third may sometimes be discovered either at the point of application of the forces, or in the 'medium,' or in the 'result.' But, speaking in general, the third force is not easily accessible to direct observation and understanding. The reason for this is to be found in the functional limitations of man's ordinary psychological activity and in the fundamental categories of our perception of the phenomenal world, that is, in our sensation of space and time resulting from these limitations. People cannot perceive and observe the third force directly any more than they can spatially perceive the 'fourth dimension.'
"But by studying himself, the manifestations of his thought, consciousness, activity—his habits, his desires, and so on—man may learn to observe and to see in himself the action of the three forces. Let us suppose, for instance, that a man wants to work on himself in order to change certain of his characteristics, to attain a higher level of being. His desire, his initiative, is the active force. The inertia of all his habitual psychological life which shows opposition to his initiative will be the passive or the negative force. The two forces will either counterbalance one another, or one will completely conquer the other, but, at the same time, it will become too weak for any further action. Thus the two forces will, as it were, revolve one around the other, one absorbing the other and producing no result whatever. This may continue for a lifetime. A man may feel desire and initiative. But all this initiative may be absorbed in overcoming the habitual inertia of life, leaving nothing for the purpose towards which the initiative ought to be directed. And so it may go on until the third force makes its appearance, in the form, for instance, of new knowledge, showing at once the advantage or the necessity of work on oneself and, in this way, supporting and strengthening the initiative. Then the initiative, with the support of this third force, may conquer inertia and the man becomes active in the desired direction.
"Examples of the action of the three forces, and the moments of entry of the third force, may be discovered in all manifestations of our psychic life, in all phenomena of the life of human communities and of humanity as a whole, and in all the phenomena of nature around us.
[/quote]

While I value the contributions of Castaneda, especially in his revelations about the "Predators" in our lives, I think he may have put some emotional spins here and there that are his personal touches. After all the C's have indicated that many of our sources are only accurate to a certain percentage. For instance even the C's sessions were affected by Frank's presence Session 24 November 1994:

Q: Why was it that we were able to channel STO material, with Frank being so borderline regarding this ultimate choice between STS
and STO?
A: He was programmed for the specific purpose of "downloading" from you secrets coded into you before birth of your present body.
He failed because you were incorruptible. He is now charged with the mission, in concert with Vincent Bridges, of destroying your
ability to accomplish your mission.
Q: Well, that means that there is a strong possibility that the material that came through while Frank was a participant was very
likely corrupted. Is that why you gave the figure of 72 percent purity of the material regarding those sessions?
A: Yes.
Q: So, are you saying that Frank's presence produced that 30 percent corruption?
A: Yes.

If it wasn't for my own tendency to be frustrated with the game/battle I wouldn't even mention these things. I do believe that the universe may be learning through us as you mentioned. I know we are only in "school" and do not always design the curriculum to the smallest details but I believe we chose to be here at this "time" for our learning process. Hope you are not offended by my reply and I am not just overreacting.

goyacobol

 

[Psalehesost]

If mathematics is universally true (and I think it is), then where do mathematical objects (rules, numbers) exist? They need to be accessible from anywhere in the universe. That is, they're everywhere, accessible nonlocally by whatever intelligence has the consciousness necessary to access them. And that implies that our universe truly is a UNIverse, it is ONE, unified. It's not like one part of it can be separate and different in kind from any other part. And just like our own consciousness unifies all our experiences (e.g., individual sensations get combined into one 'gestalt' image), Cos mic Mind unifies all the parts of the universe.

Regarding mathematics, I'm not sure what the universal information is. Probably not the rules humans have defined, in themselves, but a structure that can be described by such rules, much like natural language can describe the world. Probably we can't know it directly - it can simply be translated through the minds of mathematicians into these concepts, rules and definitions that humans can work with.

And this can be done in several different ways. To give a general picture: There are several ways to define numbers and other basic concepts (such as sets, and functions). And on a higher level, quite different concepts can be used to the same end - e.g. in calculus and analysis, infinitesimals vs limits. And when things get truly abstract, a similar structure - generalizable to some extent - appears between the algebra we all know (the one for numbers) and other algebras involving other mathematical concepts.

The development of mathematics seems much like the development of language and thought in general: Concepts come and go, different descriptions are used at different times and by different groups (and some become generally accepted, much like English is now "the" international language), and it ends up a matter of taste (mixed with pragmatic concern) which of the alternatives are preferred.

Probably, the degree of connection with universal information at a deeper level varies greatly in those dealing with mathematics, just as it does in people as they deal with natural language and concepts in general. In part it may be nature, as in organic portals versus the souled, and also more broadly the degree of Being. Then, of course, the depth of knowledge - whether it is juvenile or more mature. Those with poor connection may "get by" and (especially in mathematics) even contribute to the body of knowledge by building upon what others have brought into the 3D world.

 

[goyacobol]

I guess my question is where does consciousness exist. Like you "I think that matter and consciousness (or experience) are tied together." but are they so tied together that they have no separate existence? The C's seem to indicate memories from past lives are stored in our subconscious.

I don't think consciousness exists in a 'place' the way physical objects do. I think the psi evidence suggests that mind is a nonlocal phenomenon. Maybe think about it this way. If mathematics is universally true (and I think it is), then where do mathematical objects (rules, numbers) exist? They need to be accessible from anywhere in the universe. That is, they're everywhere, accessible nonlocally by whatever intelligence has the consciousness necessary to access them. And that implies that our universe truly is a UNIverse, it is ONE, unified. It's not like one part of it can be separate and different in kind from any other part. And just like our own consciousness unifies all our experiences (e.g., individual sensations get combined into one 'gestalt' image), Cosmic Mind unifies all the parts of the universe.

I will put "place" on the back burner for now. I don't want to get hung up on one detail for now. I think the idea of "mathematical objects (rules, numbers) They need to be accessible from anywhere in the universe." is very plausible.

I think it is very possible that atoms have some form of consciousness but humans are much more complex in structure to the point of collecting memories. Do atoms have memory? I don't know. Then there are supposed to be sub-atomic particles too. Do they have memories and learn from their experience? Again, I don't know.

Whitehead and Rupert Sheldrake would say yes. ;) Their memory takes the form of habits, e.g., atoms tend to behave in certain ways because they have done so before many times. They 'remember' via morphic resonance with other things similar to them, and with their own past. But it's only with higher forms of life that memory is a conscious process. Memory is what accounts for the persistence of things, whether in a single life cycle, or all life cycles of a particular 'species'.

Wow, I just watched the YouTube video of Rupert Sheldrake's banned TED-Talk and it really has my wheels spinning in a good way I think. Your reference to him is a great help. I will check out more on Sheldrake and Whitehead too.

Is one iron atom different from another iron atom because it has a different experience?

I think so. But if we think about 'soul pools' (as in animals and OPs), maybe the individuals are even more connected on that level? After all, iron atoms have more in common than two golden retrievers. In Sheldrake's terminology, their morphic resonance with each other is stronger.

Yes, I think that makes more sense to me now that I have seen the Sheldrake video where is talks about morphic resonance. I have been interested in the aspects of sound resonance for awhile now too.

Do atoms have mental poles? I do not know the answer. Wow, you have me thinking (with a hammer?). I think my mental pole is getting bent.

I think they must, otherwise we run into the problem of 'magical emergence' (poof! voila! mentality emerges where it didn't exist before). That's one of the arguments for panpsychism.

In other words events seen as 'magic/magik' or magical might be better explained as a natural form of panpsychism where even the smallest elements of the universe have some degree of consciousness. This too seems to fit with many other aspects of concepts I have been researching.

I only used the word realm as a place-holder so to speak for where the consciousness might exist if it can be separate from the mind/machine. I believe I am attempting to re-think my ideas about "soul" and what does "group soul" mean and perhaps their relationship to consciousness.

Gurdjieff seems to speak of a permanence or imperishability for the man who attains his own "I" by "conscious labor and intentional suffering". If this "I" is imperishable then "where" does this imperishable "I" formed by "conscious" efforts exist?

I've had those Gurdjieff quotes in mind for a while now. I'm reading up on the 'survival' research and philosophy at the moment (just getting started really), so I haven't really developed any solid ideas yet. But at the moment, I think it might have to do with hyperdimensional states. Whatever 'survives' or is 'imperishable' seems to me to be an even more organized form of information (e.g., our personalities). If it's true that animals don't truly reincarnate (i.e., they have a group soul), and that reincarnation is possible for humans, that suggests humans have more 'power', their information is more stable, without the need for a physical body. We're more 'individual', more 'specific' (or at least, we can be, if we put in the work). So maybe by virtue of our complexity, and the more ordered information that results from self-observation (attention brings order, again with evidence from psi) means that that information can persist in a non-material form.

I don't want to take too much "time" from your "survival" research and philosophy. I think what you have shared relates very well with many of the concepts Gurdjieff talks about.

Thank you, :)

goyacobol

 

[sitting]

I am just feeling sad because you seem to be losing hope in this "battle" which the C's say is "through" us. I know it is not a very comfortable thought that we sometimes are almost like pieces on a chessboard for the universe. But, we are at least pieces with freewill or choice and we may help win or lose the game depending on how well we make the choices.

I've come to the realization that what lies ahead will not be a simple walk in the park.


It will rip society, families, and individuals apart. Literally! And no matter how well prepared you might think you are, it ain't gonna be enough. So I've stopped worrying. What's destined to happen...will happen.

I've thought deeply about your remark. And I've concluded that "gaining acceptance" is perhaps a better description than "losing hope". There's a big difference between the two. Acceptance means being able to receive. That which is most dire...along with that which may be miraculous. Without prejudgment. This I think is very important.

Your cautionary remark regarding Castaneda is well taken. And I maintain a critical eye on his work. If personal resonance is any measure, I would say it resonates well with my system.

I also rely on Taoist philosophy and practices. That too has good resonance. And it goes without saying that I've found Laura's work to resonate the most deeply of all. I would've stayed lost without it.

Each day, I try remembering my "companion" is always nearby. The one that can tap me any moment without warning. And I strive to conduct myself with the Taoist attitude of "soong" (loose, detached) and "hoown" (empty).


PS I greatly value our exchanges. So being offended doesn't even come into the equation. :)

 

[Chris]

Great session, Chateau crew. Thanks for sharing it. :)

And Mr. Scott's monograph really made my day. So hilarious and so true.. ;)

I think the C's have made a distinction between knowledge and consciousness. But while we're at it, why not bring up Being as well? Information, consciousness, knowledge, being, and so on. If we can think of all the related things and connect what the C's have said about them, maybe we can make a "map" with the interconnections? How about drawing it, with the words and the relationships as arrows connecting them? Visualizing may reveal a pattern.

After reading goyabocol's post, I had begun jotting down the main concepts in this session, along with ones from the previous sessions, and started making connections among them. And then monotonic posted about the same thing, the idea of creating a map. Talk about nonlocal resonance! I have been looking for a software that would allow me to build a concept map that can be shared with and edited by others as well. So far, I have come across one available on this website:
http://cmap.ihmc.us/

It's free and seems to be enough for the purpose at hand. So I just made an electronic version of the map I had been working on, using this software.

But first, some warnings are in order. I will say beforehand, all the possible errors in this map are mine alone. The copyrights to all the info in it is Laura's (just so no one thinks I am trying to be cheeky). I have provided a couple of links to sessions with Cs where I could find them. This is just a rough draft, which might confuse rather than help you, and is in no way complete. I want to share this in order to help myself and others learn from it, if possible. The brain also arranges information by association, so the idea of a concept map outlining some principal idea seems to be a natural one. Lastly, this is in no way a replacement for your good ol' brain.

Thus, at great mortal peril to myself :P, and at the risk of getting flamed by my forum colleagues, I present to you the knowledge map (see attached: "cass cmap sceenshot.PNG". I would have also attached the actual .cmap file for anyone to edit it, but the .cmap file type is not allowed as an attachment. Will send it over by any other means if anyone wants)

Let's improve it and use it as a tool for learning.

 

[piliangie]

Ups , sorry I forgot ,wasn't deliberate...nop I was not yelling ...

 

[dant]

[...] but the .cmap file type is not allowed as an attachment.

Add .cmap to Zip file and attach.

As for Data Visualization Software used here, see:
http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,27558.0.html

 

[whitecoast]

[quote author=OpenHeartMonk]
so i wonder sometimes, why bother feeding a system that is destined for destruction? it seems like a lot of wasted effort, and beliefs based on fragmented knowledge can tie up a person's essence processing it over and over and over again. not to mention issues of belief projection.. oh my!
[/quote]

Gurdjieff understood the cosmos to be an enormous system of reciprocal feeding and maintenance. Food, air, and impressions being the main foods for humans. I believe the body exists to nourish the soul with experiences, which then feeds and nourishes agencies in higher worlds. Deep religious and spiritual experiences can qualify as food coming from a higher world and nourishing the lower. I think in STS, food moves from lower densities to higher (we eat plants and animals and higher STS eat us). In STO, higher densities fees the lower (the C's bestow inspiration and knowledge to those doing the work, who then convert that to action to maintain and improve the living system).

 

[Chris]

[...] but the .cmap file type is not allowed as an attachment.

Add .cmap to Zip file and attach.

As for Data Visualization Software used here, see:
http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,27558.0.html

Hehe, yeah I realized the same when I woke up this morning, that a .zip file is all I need! I have attached a compressed .zip file that contains a "My Cmaps" folder which has all the necessary project files.

And thanks a lot, dant. That thread on "Data Mining and Data Visualization Tools" is exactly what I was looking for.

Also, this morning I realized how similar this concept map would be to Ibn-Al-Arabi's concept of the Names/Faces of God, thanks to Laura's chapter on it here at http://cassiopaea.org/2010/05/18/the-wave-chapter-25-a-walk-in-nature-among-the-names-of-god-where-we-have-an-interview-with-the-vampire-and-discover-a-cosmic-egg/

It was mentioned by Cs that gravity is "God". So ultimately what we might be looking at here is a map outlining the various inter-relationships between different Names/Faces of God. I have not actually read Ibn-Arabi's work so I may be wrong. But Laura has written about it in many places that what the Cs talk about is very much similar to the sufi's work in some respects. I also realized that "thought" was somehow intrinsically related to this notion of Names/Faces of God. Thoughts are supposed to be shared by everyone and are common to all realms. "Thoughts are everything in existence." And thoughts are what ultimately help you understand an experience and/or make sense of it. Like, when you blankly stare at an object, it just is. We don't really know the object as it is, its essence. But what becomes important is the thoughts/attributes we use to describe that object. The object otherwise just exists, in potential, it might be completely "unknowable" to us. But thoughts convey the meaning, the color of an object, "how" it feels where we try to describe its "blackness" or "softness" etc etc. But there might be a deeper way of knowing, that I don't know about it. ;)
So now what we can do is add a lot of other Names of God like Love etc and see their relationship with concepts like Knowledge, for example. And we might get a better idea/understanding of these different inter-relationships among them.

I would also love to add concepts of electromagnetism and antimatter (if I had better understanding of them) to the concept map and so on and so forth, to try and get to a fuller description of how all these things tie in together. For now, I'll need to do a lot more reading and contemplation on it.

 

[goyacobol]

sitting

I've come to the realization that what lies ahead will not be a simple walk in the park.


It will rip society, families, and individuals apart. Literally! And no matter how well prepared you might think you are, it ain't gonna be enough. So I've stopped worrying. What's destined to happen...will happen.

I've thought deeply about your remark. And I've concluded that "gaining acceptance" is perhaps a better description than "losing hope". There's a big difference between the two. Acceptance means being able to receive. That which is most dire...along with that which may be miraculous. Without prejudgment. This I think is very important.

Your cautionary remark regarding Castaneda is well taken. And I maintain a critical eye on his work. If personal resonance is any measure, I would say it resonates well with my system.

I also rely on Taoist philosophy and practices. That too has good resonance. And it goes without saying that I've found Laura's work to resonate the most deeply of all. I would've stayed lost without it.

Each day, I try remembering my "companion" is always nearby. The one that can tap me any moment without warning. And I strive to conduct myself with the Taoist attitude of "soong" (loose, detached) and "hoown" (empty).

I agree that what lies ahead will not be a walk in the park. I don't think any of us feel totally prepared. I also resonate with Laura's and Ark's work and all the amazing efforts that the forum moderators and members put into it. Sometimes I feel the forum is like a nearby "companion". If "gaining acceptance" is being more able to "accept" the way reality is then I too hope to "accept" reality even if it is not always the way I think it should be. I feel better knowing how you are looking at the big picture. The gems of truth that resonate with you may be just what is needed in the days ahead. Yes, I know there is a Grand Destiny but after all we may have known about some of it and still decided to be here.

May we all accept our Mission Destiny Profiles,

goyacobol

 

[goyacobol]

Great session, Chateau crew. Thanks for sharing it. :)

And Mr. Scott's monograph really made my day. So hilarious and so true.. ;)

I think the C's have made a distinction between knowledge and consciousness. But while we're at it, why not bring up Being as well? Information, consciousness, knowledge, being, and so on. If we can think of all the related things and connect what the C's have said about them, maybe we can make a "map" with the interconnections? How about drawing it, with the words and the relationships as arrows connecting them? Visualizing may reveal a pattern.

After reading goyabocol's post, I had begun jotting down the main concepts in this session, along with ones from the previous sessions, and started making connections among them. And then monotonic posted about the same thing, the idea of creating a map. Talk about nonlocal resonance! I have been looking for a software that would allow me to build a concept map that can be shared with and edited by others as well. So far, I have come across one available on this website:
http://cmap.ihmc.us/

It's free and seems to be enough for the purpose at hand. So I just made an electronic version of the map I had been working on, using this software.

But first, some warnings are in order. I will say beforehand, all the possible errors in this map are mine alone. The copyrights to all the info in it is Laura's (just so no one thinks I am trying to be cheeky). I have provided a couple of links to sessions with Cs where I could find them. This is just a rough draft, which might confuse rather than help you, and is in no way complete. I want to share this in order to help myself and others learn from it, if possible. The brain also arranges information by association, so the idea of a concept map outlining some principal idea seems to be a natural one. Lastly, this is in no way a replacement for your good ol' brain.

Thus, at great mortal peril to myself :P, and at the risk of getting flamed by my forum colleagues, I present to you the knowledge map (see attached: "cass cmap sceenshot.PNG". I would have also attached the actual .cmap file for anyone to edit it, but the .cmap file type is not allowed as an attachment. Will send it over by any other means if anyone wants)

Let's improve it and use it as a tool for learning.

chrismcdude and monotonic,

I was trying to further develop the idea of a map/diagram/chart etc. as monotonic suggested but I think that my computer analogy is too crude and lacking for the "map" monotonic is suggesting and isn't really what monotonic had in mind. I do think that your "map" is a little confusing but I think it shows how much you are absorbing and brings many of the elements needed to develop a useful model.

I liked parts of your map like Unstable Gravity Waves --> collected/dispersed-->sts/sto and Gravity(when utilized give rise to)-->thoughts/sound. I am not sure about the software since it would require a learning curve but the final result is what I think is most important.

I think you are the "early bird" in the development phase and I admire your enthusiasm. Many flowcharts and diagrams can be confusing so hopefully we/you/whoever can keep working until there is something visually useful to the forum.

I am attaching my crude computer/mind/soul "map" so show where I was going until I saw what you were working on. So keep up the good work. As far as I am concerned I think you may be on to something even though it is a challenging task to represent so many concepts in graphic format. You may need to break everything into more logical sections of "maps"/charts and sub"maps/charts.

goyacobol

 

[Chris]

I was trying to further develop the idea of a map/diagram/chart etc. as monotonic suggested but I think that my computer analogy is too crude and lacking for the "map" monotonic is suggesting and isn't really what monotonic had in mind. I do think that your "map" is a little confusing but I think it shows how much you are absorbing and brings many of the elements needed to develop a useful model.

I liked parts of your map like Unstable Gravity Waves --> collected/dispersed-->sts/sto and Gravity(when utilized give rise to)-->thoughts/sound. I am not sure about the software since it would require a learning curve but the final result is what I think is most important.

I think you are the "early bird" in the development phase and I admire your enthusiasm. Many flowcharts and diagrams can be confusing so hopefully we/you/whoever can keep working until there is something visually useful to the forum.

I am attaching my crude computer/mind/soul "map" so show where I was going until I saw what you were working on. So keep up the good work. As far as I am concerned I think you may be on to something even though it is a challenging task to represent so many concepts in graphic format. You may need to break everything into more logical sections of "maps"/charts and sub"maps/charts.

I haven't explored the software fully yet (just started yesterday), but it seems that the concept map might eventually just end up getting too confusing. But, putting all of these concepts on a map showed me how much I really know about these things. How many relationships and processes do I really understand? I'm afraid the answer to that question, is probably none. I don't understand how gravity is utilized or how information becomes consciousness or even how awareness works etc. I don't know the underlying mechanism of all this. Therefore, the map is only trying to bring those areas to the fore that need more research and exploration, for gaining deeper understanding.

Also, this serves as an aid to my memory, which I am afraid is not as good as of most of the people on this forum have. I have been trying to work things in my head for the most part but sometimes I need to take help of such visual aids. Ultimately though, I think you have to "Work" on yourself in order to increase your mind's "receivership capability" and improve your chances of assimilating knowledge.

I also think that for this "map" to be of any help, it will need a lot of improvements in its design and structure. I see you have been trying to work out your computer/mind analogy in your map. I really like your analogy and it made sense. But, it may just go a little too far unless we can really pin down a couple of points as reference, ones we are sure about. So let's just first collate material on major themes/ideas/facts that we can find, whether in the transcripts of sessions with Cs, or other scientific sources, and then try to understand how all the pieces fit together. And finally, we need to look for clearer explanations of the underlying mechanisms involved.

Time marches on mercilessly and there's always just so much left to do. Aargh..

Thanks for your support though, it's much appreciated. :)

 

[mariowil7]

In relation to the discussion of:

Programer, Conciousness, Information, Hardware, Software etc... in the context of Soul, Mind and Body. It will be intresting

for us to review the concept of the Turing Machine... Here is one definition that can give light to the

concepts above disscussed.

What's a Turing Machine?

A Turing Machine is a theoretical computer consisting of a tape of infinite length and a read-write head which can move left and right across the tape. When started, a Turing machine executes a series of discrete transitions, as determined by its transition table and by the initial characters on the tape. For each transition, the machine checks what state it is in and what character is written on the tape below the head. Based on those, it then changes to a new state, writes a new character on the tape, and moves the head one space left or right. The machine stops after transferring to the special HALT state. So, a transition table for a 2-state TM might look like this:

| State 1 | State 2
"x" | 2, y, right | 1, y, left
"y" | 2, x, left | halt, x, right

So, for instance, if the machine was in state 1 and an "x" was the current character, it would write a "y", move right, and enter state 2. If it were in state 2 looking at a "y", it would write an "x", move right, and halt. Technically, a valid TM should have an action defined for every state/character pair that might occur. The simulator applet implicitly halts if it finds no transition that applies to its current situation.

However odd it may sound for so simple a machine, the Turing Machine is the most powerful computing model known to computer scientists. In this context, "powerful" refers only to what it is capable of doing, not to how fast or efficiently it does it. It has been proven that a TM is capable of performing any computation that a modern computer can, given enough time. Infact, it is technically MORE powerful than modern computers, since it has no storage limitations.

Classically, a Turing Machine is thought of as having its tape bounded on the left but extending infinitely to the right, though its power is not expanded by making it unbounded on both ends. The simulator, of course, is bounded on both ends, which is really the only detail that makes it a simulator and not the real thing. In addition, the classical TM has 4-tuple transitions: (state, character) --> (new state, new character OR direction), meaning that it cannot both write a character and move the head in the same transition. The 5-tuple transitions used in the applet make things a bit simpler and do not actually change the power of the machine, but a 4-tuple machine can be simulated if desired.

_http://ironphoenix.org/tril/tm/help/basics.shtml

Here is the Turing Simulator: _http://ironphoenix.org/tril/tm/ (I recomendo to play with it to get the concept)

Some Wiki Link usefull: _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_machine

and of course the more recent advances in the concept of Programming Language for Turing machines.

The Language is called "BRAINFUCK" dessigned to confuse Programmers... _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainfuck

I think that the well understanding of the turing machine wil shed light in the Diagrams Folks... (I did not fully understud it Yet).



Cheers!!!...

 

[darksai]

I was trying to further develop the idea of a map/diagram/chart etc. as monotonic suggested but I think that my computer analogy is too crude and lacking for the "map" monotonic is suggesting and isn't really what monotonic had in mind. I do think that your "map" is a little confusing but I think it shows how much you are absorbing and brings many of the elements needed to develop a useful model.

I liked parts of your map like Unstable Gravity Waves --> collected/dispersed-->sts/sto and Gravity(when utilized give rise to)-->thoughts/sound. I am not sure about the software since it would require a learning curve but the final result is what I think is most important.

I think you are the "early bird" in the development phase and I admire your enthusiasm. Many flowcharts and diagrams can be confusing so hopefully we/you/whoever can keep working until there is something visually useful to the forum.

I am attaching my crude computer/mind/soul "map" so show where I was going until I saw what you were working on. So keep up the good work. As far as I am concerned I think you may be on to something even though it is a challenging task to represent so many concepts in graphic format. You may need to break everything into more logical sections of "maps"/charts and sub"maps/charts.

I haven't explored the software fully yet (just started yesterday), but it seems that the concept map might eventually just end up getting too confusing. But, putting all of these concepts on a map showed me how much I really know about these things. How many relationships and processes do I really understand? I'm afraid the answer to that question, is probably none. I don't understand how gravity is utilized or how information becomes consciousness or even how awareness works etc. I don't know the underlying mechanism of all this. Therefore, the map is only trying to bring those areas to the fore that need more research and exploration, for gaining deeper understanding.

Also, this serves as an aid to my memory, which I am afraid is not as good as of most of the people on this forum have. I have been trying to work things in my head for the most part but sometimes I need to take help of such visual aids. Ultimately though, I think you have to "Work" on yourself in order to increase your mind's "receivership capability" and improve your chances of assimilating knowledge.

I also think that for this "map" to be of any help, it will need a lot of improvements in its design and structure. I see you have been trying to work out your computer/mind analogy in your map. I really like your analogy and it made sense. But, it may just go a little too far unless we can really pin down a couple of points as reference, ones we are sure about. So let's just first collate material on major themes/ideas/facts that we can find, whether in the transcripts of sessions with Cs, or other scientific sources, and then try to understand how all the pieces fit together. And finally, we need to look for clearer explanations of the underlying mechanisms involved.

Time marches on mercilessly and there's always just so much left to do. Aargh..

Thanks for your support though, it's much appreciated. :)

Well the point I'd like make is basically the bolded "sentence" above. The thing about maps is that their usefulness for learning new things can only be proportional to the understanding one has of all the possible components and types of components, including both "entities" and "relations", that can be represented on a given type of map. Just a normal, geographic map shows perfectly clear why this must be this case, particularly because it is quite simple and well-defined. How would one find water using a map if he doesn't know the blue lines are rivers and the black lines are roads? He would have to wander for a long time not realizing why he is actually going in the wrong direction. What if he doesn't know about contour lines and what they represent? He might think he's getting close, until he comes to a cliff and may not even realize that the distance he has to walk now is further than it was when he started. Or if doesn't know that the map is of a far off land? He would have to search half the Earth, if he's lucky, for that map to be of any use. And if he doesn't know that the map represents land at all? He will hang it up on his wall if he thinks it's pretty and actually see where he's going in his search for water.

Now, this allegory is merely about reading maps, let alone making one where there are parts that are to be represented are mostly not understood and even unknown entirely. It's like building a difficult puzzle with the pieces upside down, many pieces might fit together perfectly, even form several big chunks, but completely mismatch with respect to the colors on the picture side.