Author Topic: Subconscious TP Construct Network idea  (Read 3892 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

December 15, 2015, 02:15:21 PM
Read 3892 times

Steve

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3685
  • Karma:
    138
    • View Profile
Preface: I'm not looking for a discussion about the ethics and morals, as those are the same for any other time that metaphysics are worked on unsuspecting individuals. What I am looking for is firstly people who have experience doing this, and secondly thoughts from other people who are capable of doing this to single people (even if they have never rolled it out en masse).

Background: I work at a place where some of the people don't always make the best decisions about work, preferring to do things by their own ideas rather than the company ideals. In immediate situations, these people can use more input from more experience or more senior coworkers in order to make better decisions.

The concept: Thus the idea to delve into the subconscious minds of my coworkers and set up constructs. The purpose of the constructs would be 1) to monitor the thoughts of the person it is attached to, 2) ignore anything not work related and only filter in thoughts pertaining to situations at work *where the person is unsure of how to proceed and needs immediate input from their coworkers*, 3) broadcast out the uncertainty to any other constructs embedded in the subconsciouses of other coworkers, 4) upon receiving such a broadcast, the construct would bounce the concept off the subconscious mind of the person that the receiving construct is attached to along with the question of "how would I proceed?", then collect the subconscious response from that person and broadcast the response back to the originator construct, 5) upon receiving the replies back, the originator construct would present the overall aggregate impression of the thoughts to the subconscious of the original person in order to give that person a better subconscious impression of the overall proper path they *should* take, in keeping more with company policies. Ideally, I would try to set it up so that people higher up the "chain of command" would have greater weight to their thoughts (because my boss's boss literally dictates the local policies and procedures, and his boss dictates higher company policies to him, etc), but I'm still pondering how best to balance that without it seeming too weak nor too overpowering.

This is *not* an attempt at subverting their free will, as the person will still be making the decision on how to proceed, but will be doing so with a subconscious impression made up from their coworkers thoughts. In other words, it gives them more information to go on. The impressions will not push themselves onto the person's conscious mind, ie pushing them towards one path or another; they will simply present themselves as a sort of "tickling" in the back of the brain for what seems like a good idea on how to proceed. This will also not touch upon peoples' personal lives at all, both because I don't care about those and because I don't need people to insert their personal views about one another into their responses (Ie, if one person thinks badly of another, I don't want that influencing the communication).

The reason: I work in the security field, and when a security guard is out and about interacting with the public on their own, and an important incident arises, a mild panic sets into the minds of many people and their mind starts wondering about what they should do to proceed. The purpose of training is to avoid or mitigate this panic and instill a reminder of the proper policies and procedures, but not all of my coworkers put a lot of effort into training themselves or reinforcing that training. We do have radios that we can communicate with, but we're also taught to act independantly a lot and not continually bother one another for simple things; but then work/social pressures push the line of "simple things" around, such that some people are dealing with situations alone when they really should be getting assistance. On the other hand, some people are already really good at handling these situations alone, which is why the stipulation on "when uncertainty arises" before the constructs activate.

If I were to set this up, I would still be vaguely monitoring the network in order to tweak it where it needs to be, or shut the whole thing down if something goes wrong, or interject if I really need to. I already keep a semisubconscious connection (well, semisubconscious on my end. fully subconscious on their end) with certain coworkers for handling these kinds of things anyway, so this would be expanding that to the use of constructs and the involvement of more people, and automating the process.

Extras:
-This would only be done for the long term coworkers. We get a lot of temporary guards, and I wouldn't bother setting it up for them.
-I'm not sure whether I should increase the complexity a little by bothering to putt in a criteria for a receiving person to be awake when their construct pings a concept off their subconscious, as it should be a weak enough ping that it shouldn't bother them while they're sleeping, and any "weirdness" in their response due to dreams should be overshadowed by the aggregate response anyway.
-I realize that if I'm doing this for groups of coworkers whose shifts I don't work on, I might be sleeping when these things are happening so I won't be able to monitor that activity. But the schedule set up is such that I'll always be awake *at some point* during each other shift's work schedule, so that I can monitor the general effectiveness of how it's working (and then assume it's working fairly similarily when I'm sleeping).
-As I said before, I will be monitoring, tweaking, fixing. It will be a mostly automated process, but not wholly just left to itself.
-The broadcasts will be (mostly) anonymous, as the overall aggregate reply doesn't really care who the originator is or who the responses are coming from; in other words, the responses should be the same regardless of whether I'm asking the question, or whether Billy-Bob is asking the question. The only break to this would be if I gave greater weight to the "higher ups"; they would still not be identified personally, but the grouping of them would obviously need to be identified as a category.
-I would restrict the network to only up to 3 levels higher than myself in the chain of command, as people who are beyond that are too distant from the workings of our department to give meaningful input into the immediate workings that this would be set up for. (Ie, the CEO would be the highest level of policy making in how the company should run, but his input isn't going to be helpful if someone's having a heart attack and we need to deal with it right now)

I think that should be everything for now. I wouldn't be going forward with this for at least a couple of months as I go over the concept more and more in order to make sure it's a rock solid good idea (and to solidify it more in my own mind), but I am seriously considering attempting to set this up.

~Steve
« Last Edit: December 15, 2015, 02:24:10 PM by Steve »
Mastery does not occur when you've performed a feat once or twice. Instead, it comes after years of training, when you realize that you no longer notice when you're performing a feat which used to require so much effort. Even walking takes years of training for a human: why not everything else?

December 17, 2015, 08:03:35 AM
Reply #1

Rayn

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1248
  • Karma:
    -18
  • Personal Text
    <insert something cynical and sarcastic>
    • View Profile
    • Noein
I find this kind of funny.

Whenever something starts with a should, it is normative. Normative things typically predicate ethical ideologies, so you are seeking to influence this yet you don't care to hear about other's ethical views where these ethical views determine whether or not someone with experience will help you.

I have extensive experience with creating telepathic networks; however, because you are not willing to debate whether or not you should or not should not do this, you have not shown me why I should help you do this. This means that I am not willing to help or give you information. Another reason why I won't help you is that you are not open to criticism. For example, from the little bit I have experienced of you, your telepathy is a little bit sloppy where you are likely to form unintentional links. Pretty much, links can be formed via somethings association to something else. If a person is thinking about x while seeking to link to y, they can link to x and y or link x and y together. You do that, which means that your technique tends to be not very focused and kind of loose. You also tend to do a lot of things psychically without meaning to. This implies a certain lack of control. I believe this is due to some bizarre ideology you hold.  These are from observations based on past interactions months old, so you might have improved. I have pointed this out to you, along with other things, yet you were resistant to being critiqued. This is an ethical concern for me.

As a whole, this contributes to my choice to not help you. Originally, I was not going to post this, but I believe the feedback could potentially be helpful to you, so this is a way for me to help you without contributing to your goal.

With keeping with your desire to not derail, if you want to create a general response to this, I would create a separate thread. I won't respond in this one, anymore, per your intentions and desires as laid out in this thread.

The gist of what I am saying is because I don't like what you intend to do with the knowledge I have about making telepathic networks, I have decided to not help you. I am explicitly telling you this so that you will think about this.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2015, 10:11:49 AM by Rayn »
Noein - A Resource on Psi, Science, and Philosophy
but sorcery refuses to be a metaphor for mere literature--it insists that symbols must cause events as well as private epiphanies. It is not a critique but a re-making. It rejects all eschatology & metaphysics of removal, all bleary nostalgia & strident futurismo, in favor of a paroxysm or seizure of presence.

December 17, 2015, 06:20:16 PM
Reply #2

Steve

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3685
  • Karma:
    138
    • View Profile
I find this kind of funny.

Whenever something starts with a should, it is normative. Normative things typically predicate ethical ideologies, so you are seeking to influence this yet you don't care to hear about other's ethical views where these ethical views determine whether or not someone with experience will help you.
If you don't want to help, you're not required to. Nobody is forcing yourself, or anyone else, with experience to post.

Quote from: Rayn
I have extensive experience with creating telepathic networks; however, because you are not willing to debate whether or not you should or not should not do this
The reason I'm not going to debate it is because it's the same basic debate regarding influencing other people without their knowledge or consent. That's not the purpose of this thread. You can go start a different thread if you want to talk about that.

Quote from: Rayn
you have not shown me why I should help you do this.
Your choice. If you don't think you should, then don't. I'm also not asking for "help", in the sense that I need other peoples' input in order to pull this off. I will do this regardless of whether anyone even replies in a helpful manner; in fact, I started off with the assumption that nobody would post a meaningful-to-the-topic reply.

Quote from: Rayn
Another reason why I won't help you is that you are not open to criticism.
I am open to criticism. But I don't just stand there and be like "Okay. I won't say anything in response." Just like I'm doing now, I'll reply to the criticism. Doesn't mean I'm not listening.

Quote from: Rayn
For example, from the little bit I have experienced of you, your telepathy is a little bit sloppy where you are likely to form unintentional links. Pretty much, links can be formed via somethings association to something else. If a person is thinking about x while seeking to link to y, they can link to x and y or link x and y together. You do that, which means that your technique tends to be not very focused and kind of loose. You also tend to do a lot of things psychically without meaning to. This implies a certain lack of control.
Yes, when I don't much care about the result. I will be focused on the results for this project, however, so while unintentional links will always be a problem for everyone, I do take steps to mitigate them during a proper working. It was good of you to point it out, however.

Quote from: Rayn
I believe this is due to some bizarre ideology you hold.
Maybe it's bizarre. It's quite normal for me. The "ideology" is just that I don't always work at "100% peak efficiency/effectiveness/focus/control/whatever" for the small things. It's like at work when they tell you to put in 110% on "everything you do"; that's just ludicrous and retarded, so I don't bother. (Ie, I'm "pretty sure" (read: I've done it countless times) I can write a standard day-to-day-issues report while barely conscious of the report. No need for 110%, 100%, peak anything, etc)

Quote from: Rayn
I am explicitly telling you this so that you will think about this.
I have thought about this. I'm not a novice in terms of telepathy, though I'm no grand magus either. But I will work on this project in the coming months; I will monitor it for potential points of disaster and update it, fix it, modify it, or shut it down; whatever needs to be done. But I'm hardly going to put it aside due to unsubstantiated statements of potential ... what? Disaster? Run-away constructs/networks? I'm not scared off of things by boogieman warnings :)

But regardless, thank you for your reply.

~Steve
Mastery does not occur when you've performed a feat once or twice. Instead, it comes after years of training, when you realize that you no longer notice when you're performing a feat which used to require so much effort. Even walking takes years of training for a human: why not everything else?

December 17, 2015, 08:32:33 PM
Reply #3

Steve

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3685
  • Karma:
    138
    • View Profile
Mastery does not occur when you've performed a feat once or twice. Instead, it comes after years of training, when you realize that you no longer notice when you're performing a feat which used to require so much effort. Even walking takes years of training for a human: why not everything else?

December 18, 2015, 12:18:36 AM
Reply #4

Steve

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3685
  • Karma:
    138
    • View Profile
Triple post.

Quote from: Rayn
Whenever something starts with a should, it is normative. Normative things typically predicate ethical ideologies, so you are seeking to influence this yet you don't care to hear about other's ethical views
I ignored it the first time around because I used the word "should" in a number of places and was too tired to go through the mental exercise of figuring out which "should" you were talking about. Having not been able to sleep while laying awake in bed for a while, I think I figured out which should you're talking about now.

This isn't a matter of social normative values. This is a matter of doing one's job by following the proper policies and procedures; if a security guard wants to continue working at our site, they do things the way management tells us to do them or they can look for a job elsewhere.

The two major pieces of the puzzle that relate to this are the work filter, and the trigger on uncertainty about what to do next. When a security guard gets into a situation where they need more information but they're too afraid or nervous to ask for it (because their mind is seizing up, because they haven't been properly trained to relax themselves and think clearly), or they just plain don't have time, that's when the tp network will kick in to do the second best thing for them; give them more knowledge about how they should proceed, from security guards who have this knowledge and training and who should be in relaxed enough situations that they'll at least subconsciously remember the gist of their knowledge and training in order to pass it on (and in a lot of situations, the correct answer is "contact the supervisor for further directions").

So firstly, the security guard out in the field isn't just given a set of keys and told to go wander. We train them. This network is not meant to replace the training, but is meant to help fill in for when that training is failing. Secondly, we have a big book of Standard Operating Procedures that literally dictate "In situation a, do x, y, and z." The network is meant to give the amalgamated response from all other nodes from security guards who should know what x, y, and z are so that the person in the tense situation gets that reminder.

I'm replying in this thread rather than the ethics thread because this isn't about ethics, it's about following the rules of the job in order to get paid. No different than if the guard had access to a supervisor in order to ask the supervisor directly, "hey, so what do you want me to do in this situation?"

~Steve
« Last Edit: December 18, 2015, 12:21:42 AM by Steve »
Mastery does not occur when you've performed a feat once or twice. Instead, it comes after years of training, when you realize that you no longer notice when you're performing a feat which used to require so much effort. Even walking takes years of training for a human: why not everything else?

December 18, 2015, 10:46:07 AM
Reply #5

Rayn

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1248
  • Karma:
    -18
  • Personal Text
    <insert something cynical and sarcastic>
    • View Profile
    • Noein
This isn't a matter of social normative values. This is a matter of doing one's job by following the proper policies and procedures; if a security guard wants to continue working at our site, they do things the way management tells us to do them or they can look for a job elsewhere.

No... Something normative is prescriptive. Something positive is descriptive. One uses positive statements when describing what something is. That is the language of Science. You are speaking of an arbitrary social construct where people should follow policy in the form of rules just like one should follow laws in a society. This makes rules and laws normative. It also makes them arbitrary. This is the conventional usage of these terms, as in academia. I dislike arguing with you because the arguments quickly turn into you thinking how you use things is conventional versus appealing to the greater scope of academia where you conflate normative with prescriptive ideas in other threads. Academically, rules, and laws, are normative. Rules and laws are not positive. Laws and rules are academically treated as normative unlike say the rules in physics which are positive. For the record I have one Science degree, and I am also in route to getting two more in roughly two years from very good schools(dual program). To be frank, I can think of less invasive, more ethical, and more practical solutions to this problem, so while it is a solution, killing half the planet to help free up resources is also a solution, but that does not mean we should do it. My area of expertise is finding practical and workable solutions to problems. This is why I am valued. Your problem is that you have a way you want it to be which is causing you think about it in one way which is leading to solutions which are not practical, unethical, and are in the box. From what you laid out, so far, what you have said is not very practical. Ethics aside, you have overly complicated this idea where there is a very elegant way you can implement this. But, in terms of your practices, you have a tendency of doing this for some odd reason.

There are common-sense fixes to this, which makes me think you get a psychological kick out of controlling people. You can pretty much treat the construct as a place to get the information where people intentionally go and get information. Have it watch for this desire where it presents the information intuitively in such a way that when a person decides they need the information, it is there intuitively. You pretty much have it automated to kick in, regardless of their choices, in an invasive way, when you don't need it to. If there is no desire for more information, it can be designed to not interact with anyone. When it does interact with them, it can present the information tacitly such as giving a person knowledge how to draw, intuitively, without telling them what they most draw. The ethical issue is that you are seeking to present information imperatively where you can present information tacitly without being imperative.

I have a series of constructs that people with no metaphysical ability can use. It is designed to lock onto their intention to use it, or get information, in such a way that it becomes a non-invasive tool. You can apply that concept. What you said is more complicated than it needs to be and it is unethical where it need not be, so it makes me think controlling people is something you subconsciously like or something. The constructs make the judgment and start everything versus someone making the judgment themselves via explicitly stating that need more information to themselves where things start happening.

Training and preparation is not exhaustive of everything that could happen. You want people who have sound judgment. If their sound judgment, which is better, is overridden by something else's judgment, which may not be better, you may get a result that was worst than what you would have gotten. I think you should aim for presenting information, tacitly, when there is an internal desire for it in such a way that is not imperative.

I telepathically teach people, a lot of times, and, in doing this, you have to be careful to share the tacit information in such a way that it is not imperative so that a person gets the information while still being able to use the information, and knowledge, to form their own decisions. A lot of times, people want to bundle the two, but that is more or less a desire to control derived from an endemic human desire for power.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2015, 11:42:08 AM by Rayn »
Noein - A Resource on Psi, Science, and Philosophy
but sorcery refuses to be a metaphor for mere literature--it insists that symbols must cause events as well as private epiphanies. It is not a critique but a re-making. It rejects all eschatology & metaphysics of removal, all bleary nostalgia & strident futurismo, in favor of a paroxysm or seizure of presence.

December 18, 2015, 12:42:29 PM
Reply #6

Steve

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3685
  • Karma:
    138
    • View Profile
Rayn, did you even read what I wrote in the opening post?

Im not overcomplicating anything; what I've proposed is incredibly simplistic.

And a few of the suggestions you've made are already part of the project: for instance, the construct does only kick in when someone needs help.

~Steve
Mastery does not occur when you've performed a feat once or twice. Instead, it comes after years of training, when you realize that you no longer notice when you're performing a feat which used to require so much effort. Even walking takes years of training for a human: why not everything else?

December 18, 2015, 01:53:03 PM
Reply #7

Rayn

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1248
  • Karma:
    -18
  • Personal Text
    <insert something cynical and sarcastic>
    • View Profile
    • Noein
Im not overcomplicating anything; what I've proposed is incredibly simplistic.

I did, and what I said still stands; what you have proposed is too complicated to be practical. Versus looking at it from an organic sense, and already using what is there, you are adding a bunch of extras. The thing about telepathy is that proximity and the strength of links is determined by how closely associated things are. This means, in a cultural sense, people are already closely connected and linked where that cultural construction can thus be treated as a construct. Since the experience of the culture is inter-subjective relative to identity, there already exists a network. If I strongly identify as an employee of a particular entity, and this entity has a particular culture, my identity, and experience, is going to be inter-subjective relative to others. By building on this, one can start to create a framework that is more efficient and elegant than what you have proposed. That web is why metaphysical practices can pull things from cultural archetypes. Via localizing that idea, one can simply build on it in a way that is more organic. Versus creating it from scratch, one can simply expand and build on what is already there. This is why your plan is not elegant. Furthermore, because they are part of the culture, it will have more of a rapport than if you did things from scratch.

And a few of the suggestions you've made are already part of the project: for instance, the construct does only kick in when someone needs help.

No, you did not. I attached a qualifier that places the judgment of whether or not they need help or information on them and not you.   

You can argue back and forth with me and not listen and be less effective, or you can listen to someone who has done this many many many times to create something that satisfies your goals and is ethical. The choice is up to you. What you want to do can be roughly summarized as wanting to create a system of information exchange for when people do not know what to do in such a way that they can carry out their jobs effectively; however, the problem is that you are attempting to present tacit information imperatively where you can present this in a way that is not imperative. You are also placing judgment on you versus their conscious, or subconscious, judgment that they need help. This is not intrinsic to the design. You can remove that and thus ethically do what you intend to do. I see no reason why you cannot. You can give people the tools, and knowledge, to do their job versus literally being in their head dictating what they should do with it. The ethical objection I have is in the nuances and not really the overarching concept in that you are over reaching, broadly, and not taking into consideration other people's judgment. Ironically, that is the sign of an incompetent person in that such a person is likely to disregard the valid judgment of people with more experience.

It is not really practical because the weaker the association, the weaker the link, so if your construct is dissonant with the people you work with, it will fall apart. You can get around this via creating a resonance which would be tied to utilizing the cultural construct already established.

Your myopic focus on energy paradigms made it so that you are not very experienced when it comes to phenomenal frameworks which are more conductive to these sort of things.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2015, 02:17:21 PM by Rayn »
Noein - A Resource on Psi, Science, and Philosophy
but sorcery refuses to be a metaphor for mere literature--it insists that symbols must cause events as well as private epiphanies. It is not a critique but a re-making. It rejects all eschatology & metaphysics of removal, all bleary nostalgia & strident futurismo, in favor of a paroxysm or seizure of presence.

December 18, 2015, 03:15:24 PM
Reply #8

Steve

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3685
  • Karma:
    138
    • View Profile
And now that I've eaten and had another coffee, I'll reply to the rest of the stuff. This is also why I said leave ethics out of this: it's a side topic that adds nothing of value to the current topic.

Quote from: Rayn
That is the language of Science.
Statements like that always make me chuckle.

Quote
You are speaking of an arbitrary social construct
Your use of the term arbitrary is incorrect.

based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
"his mealtimes were entirely arbitrary"
synonyms:   capricious, whimsical, random, chance, unpredictable; casual, wanton, unmotivated, motiveless, unreasoned, unsupported, irrational, illogical, groundless, unjustified; personal, discretionary, subjective
"an arbitrary decision"
antonyms:   reasoned, rational

Unless you want to go back to a more ancient definition, where the definition seems more in line with the antonyms of today's definition.

late Middle English (in the sense ‘dependent on one's will or pleasure, discretionary’): from Latin arbitrarius, from arbiter ‘judge, supreme ruler,’ perhaps influenced by French arbitraire .

So no, it is not an "arbitrary" construct/project in the sense of being whimsical or random or purely personal choice. In fact there are more deeper reasons for it than I've gone into already (someone recently got fired for breaking the rules, and management is on a small crackdown where at least one or two other people could get fired if they don't follow the rules a little more).

Quote
so while it is a solution, killing half the planet to help free up resources is also a solution
Are you high? You're blowing this WAY out of proportion.

Quote
Your problem is that you have a way you want it to be which is causing you think about it in one way which is leading to solutions which are not practical, unethical, and are in the box.
So firstly, the solution is entirely practical. It's not unethical. And the box doesn't matter in comparison to whether it works; solutions in the box and work, and solutions out of the box that work, are all solutions that work. Some other things that the project is: long term, simple, easy to set up, and modifiable in case I need to.

Quote
Ethics aside, you have overly complicated this idea where there is a very elegant way you can implement this.
You can't honestly think this little thing is complicated unless there's something going on inside your brain that's causing you to add all sorts of complexity that doesn't exist in the project as it's been laid out.

Quote
There are common-sense fixes to this
Yes, like getting people to reread the SOPs and discuss them. Which we are supposed to do at least once a year (guess how often it actually gets done?). The problem with many "common sense" fixes, especially the kind you seem like you'd want to espouse, is that they require both conscious buy in and require a level of perfection that isn't going to happen with these people. The majority of my coworkers are not intelligent people, and unlike what you're concerned over, I'm not trying to influence them (to change themselves in order to become better people, for instance).

Quote
which makes me think you get a psychological kick out of controlling people
Manipulating, not controlling. And yes, a little bit, but that's not why I'm doing this. I'm doing this for many reasons that have already been laid out, and which you would be privy to, if you'd bothered to read any of them.

Quote
You can pretty much treat the construct as a place to get the information where people intentionally go and get information.
Requires conscious buy in, which means you're not taking into account how much effort it would be in order to firstly openly tell people at work that magic is real, and then get them to buy into it (especially given that many people have religious beliefs that would cause them to stop talking to me entirely if I were to talk about this stuff), and then train them to use it properly (and that's not even taking into account how much I'd have to talk to my own family members and the communities that some of them are involved in, for openly saying that I practice metaphysical things). And make sure they use it WHILE IN A SITUATION THAT'S ALREADY HINDERING THEIR MENTAL ACUITY TO THE POINT WHERE I'VE STATED THAT THEIR CONSCIOUS CHOICES CANNOT BE ACTIVELY RELIED UPON. So, you know, that option is out. Completely. Your so-called "practical" solution is anything but. If they were going to consciously attempt to get more information, they'd use their radios to request help; they don't. That's the problem.

Quote
Have it watch for this desire
I am doing that part.

Quote
where it presents the information intuitively in such a way that when a person decides they need the information, it is there intuitively.
That's one possible solution, getting them the information directly rather than connecting them to a network with one another, but I'm not doing it that way for reasons that I won't go into here.

Quote
You pretty much have it automated to kick in, regardless of their choices, in an invasive way, when you don't need it to.
But 1) it is their choice to kick it in, even if it's a subconscious choice rather than conscious, and 2) they do need it to. The only part they're not getting a choice in, is whether they're getting this installed; that's my choice, and I'm owning it.

Quote
If there is no desire for more information, it can be designed to not interact with anyone.
That's how it will be set up. No need = no activation. Need = activation. It will interact with people, rather than pulling the information up directly, because that's the route I've decided to go.

Quote
When it does interact with them, it can present the information tacitly such as giving a person knowledge how to draw, intuitively, without telling them what they most draw. The ethical issue is that you are seeking to present information imperatively where you can present information tacitly without being imperative.
No. Once again, read the project again. It will not be forced upon them (they are activating the network by indication of their need for it), and the information will be presented tacitly rather than obtusely/absolutely/unavoidably/commandingly/etc; they will be requesting the information subconsciously, and it will be presented subconsciously as a hazy suggestion of how to proceed rather than absolute rules for what to do, and will be entirely ignore-able if the person decides they don't want the information after all (or worse, if their immediate situations demands their immediate attention without distractions, such as the person they're dealing with suddenly pulls a knife).

Quote
I have a series of constructs that people with no metaphysical ability can use. It is designed to lock onto their intention to use it, or get information, in such a way that it becomes a non-invasive tool. You can apply that concept.
I could apply that concept, or I could apply my concept. Just because there are different paths to take doesn't mean I *have to* take yours just because *you* prefer it. You could have come in asking questions to gather more information for why I'm doing it the way I am, rather than coming in and demanding I change it just because you have your own preference. So why didn't you do it the way I'd have preferred you do it? :)

Quote
The constructs make the judgment and start everything versus someone making the judgment themselves via explicitly stating that need more information to themselves where things start happening.
Read the opening post.

Quote
You want people who have sound judgment. If their sound judgment, which is better, is overridden by something else's judgment, which may not be better, you may get a result that was worst than what you would have gotten.
Read the opening post.

Quote
I think you should aim for presenting information, tacitly, when there is an internal desire for it in such a way that is not imperative.
Read the opening post.

Quote
The thing about telepathy is that proximity and the strength of links is determined by how closely associated things are. This means, in a cultural sense, people are already closely connected and linked where that cultural construction can thus be treated as a construct. Since the experience of the culture is inter-subjective relative to identity, there already exists a network. If I strongly identify as an employee of a particular entity, and this entity has a particular culture, my identity, and experience, is going to be inter-subjective relative to others.
All this stuff would actually make it more complicated because if I build it from scratch, I create it how I want it to be. I don't have to get into the complexity of how each different person views each subjective icon in their mind relating to the various aspects of various cultures (we are multi-cultural here, with people from all the different continents, and widely different cultures).

Instead, I create from the ground up in a way that doesn't have to touch upon iconography or symbolism or culture or identity or any of that. My way will be much simpler. I'm not concerned with your ideas of elegance.

Quote
I attached a qualifier that places the judgment of whether or not they need help or information on them and not you.
So. Did. I. If you'd read the project you'd see the part where I specify that "their own internal realization that they need help" is the trigger. I could die after putting this in place, and it should still work properly (assuming I set it up properly). I wouldn't be needed, but I will still be there to monitor and fix/improve as necessary.

Quote
versus literally being in their head dictating what they should do with it.
That's not what I'll be doing with the project. That's something I'm already doing with less than a handful of people. Read. The. Project.

Quote
and not taking into consideration other people's judgment. Ironically, that is the sign of an incompetent person in that such a person is likely to disregard the valid judgment of people with more experience.
Read the project. Taking other people's experience and judgement into account is what the project is about. An incompetent person is going to disregard all that anyway, and never activate the network in the first place.

NOT SURPRISINGLY, (and maybe I didn't make this clear enough in the opening post) I'm going to decide beforehand who I create the construct in, and I'll be actively disregarding anyone who already ignores the more experienced staff (ie, temporary guards). This isn't a project for the outliers: this is a project for the core staff who want to do a better job and at least subconsciously realize they need help sometimes more often than they ask for it. There will be at most 15 people involved, and more likely only 10. It's a small project.


And we're done. On to the other thread, where I've copied a bunch of stuff from this thread that had to do with ethics and philosophy and general off topic stuff, and I'll reply to them there.

~Steve
« Last Edit: December 18, 2015, 03:19:15 PM by Steve »
Mastery does not occur when you've performed a feat once or twice. Instead, it comes after years of training, when you realize that you no longer notice when you're performing a feat which used to require so much effort. Even walking takes years of training for a human: why not everything else?

December 19, 2015, 09:00:52 AM
Reply #9

Rayn

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1248
  • Karma:
    -18
  • Personal Text
    <insert something cynical and sarcastic>
    • View Profile
    • Noein
I am choosing to not reply to what you said in the previous post, because, to be frank, it is nonsense. You are also derailing your own thread. Ironically, you have derailed your other thread, too, so the response I would put in that one I am putting here, since criticisms over actual design. For the record, this is what I meant by you being myopic.

Either way, you don't seem to get that your views of ethics are of no consequence to me, so you continually saying "unethical, unethical, unethical" doesn't matter (especially when you're not being very clear on which parts, in your mind, are unethical, versus which parts are simply poor project design). If you wish to use communication to change my mind, do so with statements like what you said about re-purposing cultural symbols that already exist; that will at least have a chance of influencing my project, as opposed to just saying it's unethical.

I originally was not going to respond, because since you do not listen, there is no point in talking to you, but other people read this forum. Say there is a dictionary. Say that a person picks a word to sense from that dictionary. What they will sense, generically, is the concept that is associated with that word. That concept, that is associated with that word, is a concept about the meaning of that word which is associated to that word. That can be treated as a construct. Not only can it be treated as a construct, the construct is derived from a cultural framework, for language is intrinsically cultural. Now, if I were to draw a symbol, and intentionally link that symbol to a construct, it would be the same thing except versus drawing from a larger cultural framework, it would be drawn from a framework I created. Now, here is the thing. You can say that you move energy about with your intent, but intentionality, which forms the core of the intent as utilized in metaphysics, is what carries the information that describes the causal nature of its actualization which is contained within that concept. In other words, language, which is cultural, can act as the information which starts the process of moving energy in a particular way. This property is why a person can create "fire energy" from a symbol of the fire element. The symbol is associated with particular concepts and the concepts describe the properties that this energy is supposed to have, but is really arbitrary, so any framework can be utilized.   

It goes deeper than that. Humans are social beings where large chunks of our identity are intersubjective, or part of how we reason to ourselves about our identity and our experience is derived from an over arching cultural concept, so how you model your experiences and thoughts have associations with the overarching framework you are a part of in such a way that weak links are formed. In other words, you can say people are nodes in a larger telepathic network. The links are not tethers, though. The place where you work has a work-culture where such connections exists more closely between the people there than those who do not work there. You can use that. An approximation of a shared framework which is utilized to reason about their work experience is suffice and that exists in the work culture of where you are at. The SOP, for example, is a set of standards which tells them what they should do in case of a particular event. That is a cultural framework creating a type of paradigm which says what they should do if they experience so and so written from the experience of so and so.

For the record, this is no hypothetical or theoretical. What I have said also has empirical evidence behind it, too. So, not only have I practical knowledge on it, there is empirical evidence to support the idea that the proximity of telepathy is correlated with how close cultural associations are(see Rupert Sheldrake). This concept is also not original. See, what you intend to do is employed all the time by people involved in magic. Their approach is typically what I just mentioned, so in terms of how people routinely, and consistently, implement what you want to do, they do it like how I proposed.

As is, your project is likely to be not be very effective, but that is no surprise. When given suggestions as to how you can over come limitations and be better, due to cognitive dissonance issues, you ignore them thus making your performance mediocre. Because of this, in my mind, this places this into a conversation about theoretical things since the project is not likely to have a significant enough outcome to warrant worrying about realistic implications so there is no urgency to interfere. It is a what if.   

There are also other little nuances that you are missing. Telepathically, it is hard to interact with someone you don't have a rapport with. You can say you are further apart or that the potential for there to be a link is reduced; however, if something is designed to be more like that person, the potential for there to be a link is greater and they are closer together. The people at your job already have a rapport with the culture of where you work, so if you utilized something derived from that framework, it would be closer. It is likely that whatever you make without using that would be dissonant with them where it is likely too weak to cause an impact. There are a billion other nuances, in mechanic, you are missing because you routinely assign some extraordinary attribute to the subconscious mind. For example, the people you want to include, and not ignore, may still not get it because the link is too weak to have an impact because it is too dissonant where something culturally closer would resonante.

I could go into actual details that you can use to implement what I have said, but I feel that is a waste of my time. Not only that, what I have said is helpful enough for anyone else reading this.

In the mean time, I think you should read this:

Quote
The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which relatively unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than it really is. Dunning and Kruger attributed this bias to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their own ineptitude and evaluate their own ability accurately.

Dunning–Kruger effect

I have figured you will be where you are, and have been, for years. This is for other people, mainly.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2015, 09:08:13 AM by Rayn »
Noein - A Resource on Psi, Science, and Philosophy
but sorcery refuses to be a metaphor for mere literature--it insists that symbols must cause events as well as private epiphanies. It is not a critique but a re-making. It rejects all eschatology & metaphysics of removal, all bleary nostalgia & strident futurismo, in favor of a paroxysm or seizure of presence.

December 20, 2015, 06:44:28 AM
Reply #10

Steve

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3685
  • Karma:
    138
    • View Profile
Cutting my reply back into this thread from the other one, so that the "others" that Rayn is talking about don't get confused.

EDIT: I deleted the longer reply I had because it doesn't matter. I'm talking about something completely different than you are, Rayn, and you don't get it because you're too myopic yourself, seeing only your own ideas and not anyone else's. I'm trying to do it my way, and you're trying to say I have to do it a completely different way just because it suits you. I've replied over and over regarding your "concerns" and "suggestions" and noting how many of them have already been covered in the original project post, but you aren't listening. You're too self-centered and only care about your own views.

Quote from: Rayn
I could go into actual details that you can use to implement what I have said, but I feel that is a waste of my time.
Don't bother. In fact, don't bother replying at all unless you're going to read the project page first and claiming I'm missing things that are already built right into the project. Because your replies now, are a waste of my time.


EDIT 2: I'll even go one step further and give you a parallel to show you what you're doing.

I say: I'm going to start a project. I'm going to wash my car by hand. Here's the steps I'm going to take.
You say: What? That's stupid. Look, I have a *shit ton* of experience in taking my car to the car wash. Trust me, take your car to the car wash, it's easier. It's a cultural norm. We already have all the facilities set up. And it's easier to boot because of all these reasons that have nothing do with washing a car.
I say: No, I'm washing it by hand. That's the point.
You say: That's stupid. Take it to the car wash.

I'm doing it my way, not yours. I'm not asking for advice or suggestions about your way.

~Steve
Mastery does not occur when you've performed a feat once or twice. Instead, it comes after years of training, when you realize that you no longer notice when you're performing a feat which used to require so much effort. Even walking takes years of training for a human: why not everything else?

December 21, 2015, 06:51:23 AM
Reply #11

Rayn

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1248
  • Karma:
    -18
  • Personal Text
    <insert something cynical and sarcastic>
    • View Profile
    • Noein
I'm talking about something completely different than you are, Rayn, and you don't get it because you're too myopic yourself, seeing only your own ideas and not anyone else's. I'm trying to do it my way, and you're trying to say I have to do it a completely different way just because it suits you

I am not rehashing this with you. The methodology I laid out is close to the objective mechanic in terms of how telepathy works. I am saying you should do it a different way because it is closer to how it works; therefore, it is more likely to be better. Whatever point I would bring up I have already brought up in the past. I am only directly quoting my responses from threads in the past for others interested. For the record, so this thread does not get cluttered up, your objections to that point, and the resulting discussion, are also scattered in that thread. Also, since then, I've gone over the issue you had with my below point, conceptually, with others in academic settings and with engineers via showing them a redacted version of the argument(while keeping the main points). They thought you were being silly. 

From a biological stand-point, one sees many forms of biodiversity where there are many many different ways organisms develop different functions. But, here is one thing that you see. While there is no homologous link among the wings of an insect and the wings of a bird, there is an analogous link(this is in the context of convergent evolution) in terms of the aerodynamics that allow both to fly. There is not a different set of physics for the flight of a bird and the flight of an insect, and in terms of flight, you get a similarity in design which can also be extended to the aerodynamic design of say any tool or piece of technology that humans use to fly. What this implies is that there is an objective set of mechanics where diverse ways of going about facilitating these mechanics are possible; however, the many different forms will always have functional similarities where there are certain elements which are the most effective for that function where there are certain elements which are not effective for that function which get weeded out over time. So, while one gets diverse entities, these entities will always have analogous similarities, on a basic level, which always lead to the same result. Like the ability to fly found among insects and birds. The result, with both, is flight where both species are diverse where there evolutionary traits are not homologous yet they have similar things in common that facilitate the ability to fly.

Practically speaking, in the context of the pragmatic application of metaphysical practices, one has a particular set of techniques predicated by a paradigm. One has a similar thing with the creation of tools. So, one can make link between how we create tools and the way techniques are created in that there are particular techniques for creating tools which have a corresponding paradigm. Now, there are more optimal ways of creating tools which means there are optimal, more effective, and more optimal techniques for creating these tools where how effective these tools and techniques are build on top of each other and thus better designs are selected and reinforced. So, the evolution of human tools and technology parallels biological evolution where one can model metaphysical practices as tools, but, as I just said, while there is an enormous diversity of life on the planet, one still gets similar designs for similar functions in convergent populations that lead to the same result.   
« Last Edit: December 21, 2015, 07:05:38 AM by Rayn »
Noein - A Resource on Psi, Science, and Philosophy
but sorcery refuses to be a metaphor for mere literature--it insists that symbols must cause events as well as private epiphanies. It is not a critique but a re-making. It rejects all eschatology & metaphysics of removal, all bleary nostalgia & strident futurismo, in favor of a paroxysm or seizure of presence.

December 21, 2015, 06:41:20 PM
Reply #12

Steve

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3685
  • Karma:
    138
    • View Profile
I thought we both agreed it's a waste of time for you to post here.

Also, if you think symbolism is the final say in telepathy, then you probably aren't doing real, direct telepathy.

And going back to that comment you made "These are from observations based on past interactions months old, so you might have improved.", and similar other comments you've made concerning your "assessment" of my ability: you haven't even felt a fraction of what I'm capable of. I've been doing a pseudo form of telepathy since I was 16, and the real thing since I was 18. I'm turning 34 next month, so that means that in just a few short months my fake telepathy will be 18 years old, old enough to be its own adult in Canada.

So no, Rayn, you don't know as much about me as you'd like to think you do.

~Steve
Mastery does not occur when you've performed a feat once or twice. Instead, it comes after years of training, when you realize that you no longer notice when you're performing a feat which used to require so much effort. Even walking takes years of training for a human: why not everything else?

December 21, 2015, 09:24:41 PM
Reply #13

Rayn

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1248
  • Karma:
    -18
  • Personal Text
    <insert something cynical and sarcastic>
    • View Profile
    • Noein
I thought we both agreed it's a waste of time for you to post here.

No, I feel like this bit will help others who are reading the discussions. I feel like the below points are meaningful bits of information for anyone generally interested. I am working under the assumption that you will not change your mind, so my goal is to point out the flaws for other people.

Also, if you think symbolism is the final say in telepathy, then you probably aren't doing real, direct telepathy.

A symbol can be thought of as something that represents what it is not. A thought about a plate is not a plate in itself. A thought about a cat is not a cat in itself. Rather than being these things, they reference and point to them. This means that all thoughts are symbolic in themselves. Not only that, we can call something a cat that has things similar enough for it to be grouped as a cat. In other words, it can be abstracted per their associations as well. So, we can think of concepts as abstractions. People reason to themselves about themselves and the world per abstractions such as these. In other words, consciousness can be viewed abstractly where these abstractions reference things symbolically. In terms of telepathy, these references can create links. If a person experiences a cat, for example, their mind will model that experience to themselves, when they think about it, as that cat. This cat is not an actual cat, but the experience of thinking of that cat references it. Thoughts are pretty much abstractions, and an abstraction is pretty much a group of closely related and associated things that references other things, and since they reference those things but are not those things, they are symbolic in nature. Say, for example, you pick up a thought from a person. If you were to observe that thought, one can see how that thought interacts with, is associated with, and is comprised up of smaller ones all bundled up. That can be thought of as an abstraction where how closely the associations are make them all stick like that. Of course, this need not a physical representation or symbol. For example, if a person were to think of another person, and I picked up that thought, I could use that to link to said person because the original person's thought symbolically references the second person. Consciousness is an abstraction where the thoughts that occur within that abstraction are symbolic(perception is a symbolic modeling of reality because the perception is not the actual object that is perceived in itself). This means that telepathically interacting with the consciousness of a person means that one is interacting with an abstraction that is filled with all sorts of symbolic links and references. Heck, thinking of I is an abstraction of everything that I can say is me along with an abstraction of everything that is not me in order for me to discern the difference, so in understanding I am me and you are you, I am abstracting things and using a set of symbols to apprehend my state of being.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2015, 10:48:41 PM by Rayn »
Noein - A Resource on Psi, Science, and Philosophy
but sorcery refuses to be a metaphor for mere literature--it insists that symbols must cause events as well as private epiphanies. It is not a critique but a re-making. It rejects all eschatology & metaphysics of removal, all bleary nostalgia & strident futurismo, in favor of a paroxysm or seizure of presence.

December 22, 2015, 09:21:03 AM
Reply #14

Steve

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3685
  • Karma:
    138
    • View Profile
Yep, I was right. You don't do real telepathy. You're missing something very fundamental about it all, Rayn.

Regardless of the symbols and associations, a thought is still a thought in itself. If I perceive someone else's mind and perceive a thought itself, then I can analyze the thought to try and figure out all the different aspects of it, including the stuff that isn't symbolic of, or linking to, anything real. For instance, for people who think about String Theory, there is (likely) no real world thing for their thoughts to point to; they are entirely thoughts within the person's own mind. No need for symbolisms. No need for associations. No need for links.

For this project, I don't need to touch upon symbols of real world things. I just touch upon the thoughts within a person's own mind. The minds of the very people who will be part of the network will do the rest themselves. It need not be as complicated as you think it should be.


EDIT: I just thought of a clearer depiction to use.

If I'm setting up a network between different peoples' computers, I only need to install three things: 1) the modems, 2) the lines between the modems (whether wired or wireless), and 3) the software. The software communicates to the computer, and retrieves the response from the computer to send to the other modems. The software does not need to recreate the entire insides of the computer nor go delving into the depths of the various bits of information within the computer; the OS on the computer can already do that itself.

OS1 says to Software1: "I need a 5 of spades."
Software1 is programmed to pick up on that and says to Modem1: "Ask if anyone has a 5 of spades."
Modem1 broadcasts to each other modem: "Hey, do you have a 5 of spades?"
Each other modem to each other Software, "Hey, do you have a 5 of spades?"
Each other Software to each other OS: "Hey, do you have a 5 of spades?"
Each other OS to each other Software: "Go Fish."
Each other Software to each other modem: "<This guy> said Go Fish."
Each other modem to rest of network: "<This guy> said Go Fish."
Overall network traffic sends 9 "Go Fish", and 1 "Yes" to Modem1.
Modem1 says to Software1: "9 no, 1 yes."
Software1 to OS1: "Someone has a 5 of spades."

Note that a purposefully inborn limitation is that I don't care who has the 5 of spades, since that's not quite what the network is about.

~Steve
« Last Edit: December 22, 2015, 10:02:22 AM by Steve »
Mastery does not occur when you've performed a feat once or twice. Instead, it comes after years of training, when you realize that you no longer notice when you're performing a feat which used to require so much effort. Even walking takes years of training for a human: why not everything else?