Author Topic: Subconscious TP Construct Network idea  (Read 3661 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

December 22, 2015, 10:19:22 AM
Reply #15

Rayn

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1248
  • Karma:
    -18
  • Personal Text
    <insert something cynical and sarcastic>
    • View Profile
    • Noein
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.

I just explained how thoughts are intrinsically symbolic... For example, when I read the word String Theory, that phrase pretty much was associated with and linked to things within my mind that referenced it in such a way that I could recall it. The links and associations are internal and reference internal meaning and internal concepts. The different aspects of a thought you are referring to can be described as dimensions of an experience where experience can be treated as a type of vector; however, these dimensions represent things as a signifier and are utilized and networked as abstractions. A thought is not a thought in itself, for a thought is an abstraction of an experience where the different aspects are different dimensions of that experience. Human thoughts are not basic. When one understands this, this allows one to create more and more advanced telepathic techniques.

Consciousness can be thought of a reflexive framework that processes and models information to itself about itself and other things in such a way that it can make choices. As such, it is a large abstraction where things within that abstraction are specifically utilized and accessed per how things are referenced, associated, and linked together.

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.

This is intrinsically contradictory and irrational relative to your goals(though whether or not it references things that exists outside of one's mind or entirely within one's mind does not matter), because you seek to reference other people, who are real things, people's relationship to people, who real things, and events people may find themselves, which are also real things. The construct would intrinsically utilize abstractions per your intention in however it would function. But, as I said, my intention is not to change your mind.

Edit:

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."

That is analogy is intrinsically flawed, because people's computers are not conscious, so setting up a network for different people's computers is not like setting up a network among different people's consciousness. It is like saying a cat is to a paw as a dog is to wings. As I stated, consciousness can be thought of as a reflexive framework that models and processes information, reflexively, in such a way that it can execute things. You are approaching something complex in a simplistic pattern which is causing you to create things that won't work very well and are overly complicated. These computers and the operating system have no reflexive such layer. 

Also, the knowledge I am demonstrating is per my formal education combined with my telepathic experience, so I would say the difference in us is constituted by my formal education on top of my experience with telepathy.

To speak frankly, you labeling things as fake, real, direct, and psudeo is just a silly, and stupid, way of approaching things. Conventionally speaking, parapsychology treats any information that is derived from a mental source as telepathy. Casting different forms of telepathy under different paradigms is like labeling different kinds of psychokinesis.   
« Last Edit: December 22, 2015, 10:59:56 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 22, 2015, 11:13:38 AM
Reply #16

Steve

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3685
  • Karma:
    138
    • View Profile
Quote from: Rayn
I just explained how thoughts are intrinsically symbolic
They are not "intrinsically" symbolic. They are heavily symbolic, but not intrinsically. The symbolism can be seperated out.

For example, in the example of the 5 of spades, I don't need to know the various symbolisms for "Spade", such as shovel or any of these stupid things http://www.fleurdelis.com/symbols.htm I don't even need to know a symbol at all, and neither does the network. They just pass the thoughts around to each other, and the brains of the people themselves do the majority of the leg work without me needing to reproduce it in the constructs.

Quote
The links and associations are internal and reference internal meaning and internal concepts.
They are both internal and external. You could associate the word red with only other internal thoughts and concepts; but for real world meaning, you need to have seen the colour red in order to link the concept to the visual. If you've somehow miraculously never seen the colour, for instance with colourblind people, you will still likely have heard the term many times before in a culture that utilizes colour; in that situation you'll have an internal concept of what red is, based primarily on a bunch of external references but where none of those external references are an experience with the actual colour itself.

OR you could create a fairly unique concept in your own mind, which has no external references, or merely piecemeal a bunch of other thoughts together where in the end you still end up with a truly unique thing: ie, Trogdor. But then as soon as you put that down somewhere to communicate it, now you have the external link necessary in order to link to a real world example of the originating thought. In most cases, however, humans are not creative and instead are reconstructive, such that we see the real world first and think of ways to fracture it and refashion it in unique ways that merely seem original. This is the reason why most thoughts are not unique, and are heavily influenced by real world symbolism and links; not because thoughts are inherently so, but because as babies and toddlers our brains perceive the world and interact with it long before our conscious minds form in order to understand any of it, and by that time the "damage" is already done.

Quote
A thought is not a thought in itself, for a thought is an abstraction of an experience where the different aspects are different dimensions of that experience.
It can be, but for the reason I explained above, I will merely agree that in the vast majority of cases, a thought it not a thought in itself because of how the human brain and mind typically work.

But it doesn't matter, because the network isn't about interpreting the thoughts. It's about passing them along and letting the brains of the people involved do their own legwork.

Quote
Human thoughts are not basic.
Some of them are. If a person is starving, their thoughts tend to start receding pretty quickly towards basic thoughts of acquiring food. Stupid people also tend to have more basic thoughts, and have trouble piecing together more complex thought processes or concepts.

Quote
When one understands this, this allows one to create more and more advanced telepathic techniques.
Again. You're so obsessed with complexity, that you've failed to see the simple. If you want to a topic about the mechanics of telepathy, why not go start your own thread and talk about it there. This should not be the thread for that.

Quote
This is intrinsically contradictory and irrational relative to your goals
No, it's not. You just constantly demonstrate that you don't understand my goals.

Quote
That is analogy is intrinsically flawed, because people's computers are not conscious, so setting up a network for different people's computers is not like setting up a network among different people's consciousness. It is like saying a cat is to a paw as a dog is to wings. As I stated, consciousness can be thought of as a reflexive framework that models and processes information, reflexively, in such a way that it can execute things. You are approaching something complex in a simplistic pattern which is causing you to create things that won't work very well and are overly complicated. These computers and the operating system have no reflexive such layer. 
Jesus Christ. Are you really so imperceptive. No shit a computer isn't reactive, unless it's properly programmed to be, but then it's an analogy for a reason and the example I used intrinsically assumed the OS has the reflexive capability of the human intellect that we're talking about. That's why I left that stage as what it was without delving deeper into the details; because the deeper details are entirely irrelevant, despite your continued obsession with the idea that they should be because you think I'm trying to do something other than what I'm doing.

Quote
Also, the knowledge I am demonstrating is per my formal education combined with my telepathic experience
Formal education with telepathy? Or with biology? Or are you now taking a course in psychology? Hey, I took courses in psychology too, way back when I got my bachelor's degree. You know what that formal course taught me most of all, along with god knows how much extra study and information gathering I've done on the topic of formal psychology in the world today? Formal Psychology as a field is still in it's teenage years.

Quote
To speak frankly, you labeling things as fake, real, direct, and psudeo is just a silly, and stupid, way of approaching things.
And you constantly telling me I'm going to fail just because I'm not doing things your way is a likewise silly and stupid way of approaching things.

Quote
Conventionally speaking, parapsychology treats any information that is derived from a mental source as telepathy.
No. It traditionally treats it as ESP.

Telepathy requires communication between multiple minds/brains/people/whatever. Clairvoyance, for instance, is not telepathy unless clairvoyance picks up on information from another mind. One mind creating a construct designed to cause people to do something that gains them information (such as reading a certain book to learn about a certain topic) is not telepathy, unless that information is transmitted mind to mind.

However, there is a big difference between real telepathy and pseudo telepathy. Something I learned when I was using energy sensing on other people to such a fine-tuned degree that I could "read their minds" to such an appreciable degree that I could easily pick up on their very thoughts. But when real telepathy hit me, and I saw other peoples' minds directly, that was a big difference. It's like the difference between using any form of real of pseudo telepathy, versus just using cold reading to ascertain someones' thoughts. If you've never experienced it, though, then it's a lot like trying to tell a person who was born without arms and legs what using arms and legs are like.

Quote
Casting different forms of telepathy under different paradigms is like labeling different kinds of psychokinesis.
No. Because the different childish labels for psychokinesis were based on the variety of objects that the singular set of mechanics was working on. Versus, this being two truly different sets of mechanics. Ie, driving a car versus riding a bicycle; there are similarities, and the end goal is that they still both get you there, but there's a hell of a lot of differences for the mechanic who goes under the hood.

And if you want to go back to that biodiversity comment again, as "proof" of anything, then I can just as easily come back with two things: 1) "group think", 2) Oh, you associate yourself with other similar-minded people? Who'd have thought you would do that... Because seriously. Any real group of real scientists worth their reputation will not just all agree on the same thing all the time. There will be differences in opinion; so if all your friends are just agreeing with each other, then I think you should restudy your psych text book a little harder.

And now I off to go watch movies.

~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 22, 2015, 12:41:46 PM
Reply #17

Rayn

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1248
  • Karma:
    -18
  • Personal Text
    <insert something cynical and sarcastic>
    • View Profile
    • Noein
Quote from: Rayn
I just explained how thoughts are intrinsically symbolic
They are not "intrinsically" symbolic. They are heavily symbolic, but not intrinsically. The symbolism can be seperated out.

For example, in the example of the 5 of spades, I don't need to know the various symbolisms for "Spade", such as shovel or any of these stupid things http://www.fleurdelis.com/symbols.htm I don't even need to know a symbol at all, and neither does the network. They just pass the thoughts around to each other, and the brains of the people themselves do the majority of the leg work without me needing to reproduce it in the constructs.

Nonsense. Pretty much you are arguing that thoughts need not be symbolic by using an example of an abstraction where abstractions are symbolic ways for a lot of different bits of data to be modeled and mapped generally. We can make table like so that is one-dimensional. Not to mention the general set of rules you are utilizing are abstractions as well. You knowing what a Spade is without going into the specific symbols and instances of a Spade is called abstraction.



In this table, we can consider Spade as the row and the columns of that row as vectors of a Spade. In other words, the other two names for a Spade are a vector for Spade where Spade is an abstraction of digger and spud. The abstract category would be the row; Spade. In other words, in such a one-dimensional matrix, it does not matter if we speak of digger or spud, for Spade still points to and references either one in such a way that Spade is associated with all of them. 

Formal education with telepathy? Or with biology? Or are you now taking a course in psychology? Hey, I took courses in psychology too, way back when I got my bachelor's degree. You know what that formal course taught me most of all, along with god knows how much extra study and information gathering I've done on the topic of formal psychology in the world today? Formal Psychology as a field is still in it's teenage years.

While I do have a Genetics degree, I also hold another lesser degree in Information Technology. I am in the process of completing a dual-degree in Computer Science and Engineering, though, from two different schools(I am pretty much at least year away from completing it). It is not a major or minor; rather, it is going to be a Bachelors of Science in Computer Science and a Bachelors of Science in Engineering where the program is focusing on a highly highly highly rigorous mathematics program. A lot of the courses I've taken; however, have delved deeply into the area of abstraction where the program I am part of are very very mathematically rigorous(this also includes robotics). The terminology I have been using has greatly been mathematical mind you. I am pretty much describing consciousness as a reflexive and abstract framework. In this framework, experience is a vector where thoughts are pretty much abstractions of dimensions of that experience. When I say dimensions, I mean something like a multi-dimensional version of that table above where changes occur relative to a type of vector of experience where thoughts are just large abstractions of dimensions. The paradigm I am thus operating within is thus not a psychological one; rather, it is a blend of phenomenology and math. Furthermore, in terms of structure, consciousness is a stochastic and dynamical system wrapped up in layers and layers of abstraction which is analogous some genetic structures and processes. For example, a sierpinski triangle algorithm can be utilized in terms of computational biology; however, I have also been able to make use of a fractal pattern like that in terms of an infinite regression of experience and perception to create a telepathic amplification. For example, if a telepath senses another telepath sensing them, it can create a type of self-symmetrical pattern that is like a fractal. By encapsulating telepathy into a mathematical paradigm, I can formally model and experiment with things. It is not really about psychology, though. 

Quote
Human thoughts are not basic.
Some of them are. If a person is starving, their thoughts tend to start receding pretty quickly towards basic thoughts of acquiring food. Stupid people also tend to have more basic thoughts, and have trouble piecing together more complex thought processes or concepts.

This is nonsense. Something basic is something that cannot be broken down any further. Human thoughts are always emergent of human experiences; therefore, human thoughts are not basic, because they can be broken down, for as I keep saying, they are abstractions. Intelligence speaks of the complexity of thoughts. That is pretty much like saying that because an atom is not a molecule, you cannot break it down into protons, neutrons, and electrons. This means that a human thought is not a thought, in itself; rather, it is predicated by  and emerges from the experience. To explicitly state it, if two people think the same thought, their experience of that thought would be different; therefore, these thoughts are not identical due to not being similar on a lower level of experience.

Now, my next responses to the rest would simply be me repeating what I have said, and since this a forum and earlier responses can be referenced, there is no point. I have argued so far because I feel this is useful information to others.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2015, 01:03:17 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, 03:17:17 PM
Reply #18

Steve

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3685
  • Karma:
    138
    • View Profile
Quote
Human thoughts are not basic.
DO OVER:

You obviously haven't met my ex.

Sadly, I didn't think of that till after I'd left the house :/


EDIT:
Quote
have delved deeply into the area of abstraction where the program I am part of are very very mathematically rigorous
That would explain the obsession.

You know what abstracted thoughts (or abstractions) can't do, however? Save you from a bear attack. Yet there has to be some sort of connection between abstract thoughts and real world actions that *can* save you from a bear attack. Oh right, that part of humanity that is not purely abstract.

Quote
The terminology I have been using blah blah blah
Or another way to say it, thought web
http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/atlas/LessonPlan_Html/NS_9-12_Crisis%20or%20Opportunity_files/image003.jpg

Simple. Easier. Symbolism is strong.

Quote
For example, if a telepath senses another telepath sensing them, it can create a type of self-symmetrical pattern that is like a fractal. By encapsulating telepathy into a mathematical paradigm, I can formally model and experiment with things. It is not really about psychology, though. 
It kind of is really about psychology, because an elementalist is going to focus on teh elements until they realize the underlying aspects of elementalism. Thus, you deciding to go with one paradigm to explain things (that's the psychology part) doesn't mean that the thing being explained necessarily works that way in reality. So, your paradigm of telepathy being enmeshed wholly in symbolism is just a paradigm, though one with quite a lot of truth to it, but not the entirety of it.

Oh, also, that's not what all telepathic perceptions of one another feel like. Sometimes it's like two bubbles becoming one combined bubble, and other times it's like being welcomed into someone else's space. And other times, it's just a pressure on certain parts of the head.

Quote
This is nonsense. Something basic is something that cannot be broken down any further.
Depends on the definition of "basic" that you use, and the topic you're using it in, because "basic psychology" is a real term yet does not cover stuff that cannot be broken down any further. (Basic also means something like "a great starting point for new people, before learning much more advanced stuff")

Quote
therefore, human thoughts are not basic, because they can be broken down, for as I keep saying, they are abstractions.
That's not what makes something an abstraction. Go back. What's a proper abstraction again?

1.
the quality of dealing with ideas rather than events.

2.
freedom from representational qualities in art.

3.
a state of preoccupation.

4.
the process of considering something independently of its associations, attributes, or concrete accompaniments.

5.
the process of removing something, especially water from a river or other source.


Pretty sure we're going with definition 1 (cause definitions 2 and 4 completely kill your argument, and you're not describing 3 and 5), which means ... what's that called again? When a term basically defines itself? "Thoughts are abstractions ... are ideas... are abstractions..."

Quote
Intelligence speaks of the complexity of thoughts.
Depends on which definition of intelligence you want to use, and that's something that's still a HUGE debate.

Quote
To explicitly state it, if two people think the same thought, their experience of that thought would be different; therefore, these thoughts are not identical due to not being similar on a lower level of experience.
Yeah. No kidding. That's like me seeing two bunnies; each bunny is distinct from the other. That's like me seeing another person; I'm not that other person, eventhough we're both human. Me seeing someone else's thought, is the same thing; it's their distinct "instance" (definition from programming) of a thought that I'm perceiving.

Quote
Now, my next responses to the rest would simply be me repeating what I have said, and since this a forum and earlier responses can be referenced, there is no point. I have argued so far because I feel this is useful information to others.
So you keep saying. I'm sure if other people are even bothering to read these threads they've noted that over and over again. Was it you or Akenu who used to keep saying that you don't like repeating yourself?

~Steve
« Last Edit: December 22, 2015, 03:40:23 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 22, 2015, 04:06:33 PM
Reply #19

Rayn

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1248
  • Karma:
    -18
  • Personal Text
    <insert something cynical and sarcastic>
    • View Profile
    • Noein
That's not what makes something an abstraction. Go back. What's a proper abstraction again?

1.
the quality of dealing with ideas rather than events.

2.
freedom from representational qualities in art.

3.
a state of preoccupation.

4.
the process of considering something independently of its associations, attributes, or concrete accompaniments.

5.
the process of removing something, especially water from a river or other source.

Pretty sure we're going with definition 1 (cause definitions 2 and 4 completely kill your argument, and you're not describing 3 and 5), which means ... what's that called again? When a term basically defines itself? "Thoughts are abstractions ... are ideas... are abstractions..."

No, we are dealing with this:

Quote
Abstraction in its main sense is a conceptual process by which general rules and concepts are derived from the usage and classification of specific examples, literal ("real" or "concrete") signifiers, first principles, or other methods. "An abstraction" is the product of this process—a concept that acts as a super-categorical noun for all subordinate concepts, and connects any related concepts as a group, field, or category.[1]

Conceptual abstractions may be formed by filtering the information content of a concept or an observable phenomenon, selecting only the aspects which are relevant for a particular purpose. For example, abstracting a leather soccer ball to the more general idea of a ball selects only the information on general ball attributes and behavior, eliminating the other characteristics of that particular ball.[1] In a type–token distinction, a type (e.g., a 'ball') is more abstract than its tokens (e.g., 'that leather soccer ball').

Abstraction

I have used abstraction properly. I have even given you an example in a table. An abstraction is a general collection and categorization of something. A thought of an apple, for example, is associated with round, red, fruit, edible, so on and so forth; therefore, apple, in a person's mind, would be an abstraction that can narrow down into recognizing that a specific object is an apple. These things, within that abstraction, and associated with and linked together. As I said, consciousness is an abstract and dynamical system. This is the conventional way among academics that it is discussed.

I will give you an example. I can give you a collection of events current, and in the past, that are real events that can be called war. In saying that these events are wars, I am abstracting all of these events. These are real events that reference concrete things. Steve, if I speak of you as a man, I am abstracting you to something we can generally call a man. Again, you are real as are men.

So you keep saying. I'm sure if other people are even bothering to read these threads...

People have contacted me and told me how they enjoy my contributions to threads because they like the logical, empirical, and Scientific way that I approach things. Even if people are not participating, this does not mean that they are not reading or benefiting from it. When two people who have opposing sides debate with one another, the strengths and weaknesses in either side are exposed and discussed. 
« Last Edit: December 22, 2015, 04:30:40 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 23, 2015, 02:27:49 PM
Reply #20

Steve

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3685
  • Karma:
    138
    • View Profile
Well, yay in that you used a normal definition, rather than using specific field definitions. SO good on you for that.

However,

Quote
Not to mention the general set of rules you are utilizing are abstractions as well. You knowing what a Spade is without going into the specific symbols and instances of a Spade is called abstraction.
Not quite correct. Because as your table so illustrated, those things have nothing to do with a 5 of Spades. Show a kid a 5 of spades, and never teach them the other definitions or concepts of spades, and their entire understanding of 5 of spades is going to be the visualization of the card you showed them. They're not going to think "I have 5 shovels" or "I have a number of spuds" or anything along those lines; they'll visually recall the card you showed them and think that singular sole thing is the 5 of spades.

It's through extra experiences and reasonings that we attach more concepts to one word, or to other concepts, but those can be seperated out easily enough. Plus, this still has nothing to do with the original concept.

My original network doesn't give a flying fuck about what kind of information is being delivered, and it doesn't process the information at all. It just passes it back and forth, between the various minds of the people involved. That's all. So no need to get into symbolisms or abstractions or links or any other buzz words.

Quote
People have contacted me and told me how they enjoy my contributions to threads because they like the logical, empirical, and Scientific way that I approach things.
Yeah. I can impress 12 year olds pretty easily with my big noggin too. *thumbs up*

Also, you can't possibly mean this thread because this conversation is shit. It's fractured and all over the place, and only barely still holding ties to the main topic. I mean, after all, we both already agreed it's not worth our time, so that's showing pretty strongly.

~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 23, 2015, 03:06:22 PM
Reply #21

Rayn

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1248
  • Karma:
    -18
  • Personal Text
    <insert something cynical and sarcastic>
    • View Profile
    • Noein
Quote
People have contacted me and told me how they enjoy my contributions to threads because they like the logical, empirical, and Scientific way that I approach things.
Yeah. I can impress 12 year olds pretty easily with my big noggin too. *thumbs up*

Also, you can't possibly mean this thread because this conversation is shit. It's fractured and all over the place, and only barely still holding ties to the main topic. I mean, after all, we both already agreed it's not worth our time, so that's showing pretty strongly.

This thread is abstractly about the design of a telepathic construct that acts as a network. I am discussing the mechanical aspects and key concepts of telepathic networks. I also loosely mentioned a method that can be utilized to create such a network. Just because you disagree or don't want to do it because it is my way and not your way, that does not mean the conversation is not meaningful others. Maybe someone reading this likes the way I proposed something and decides to build on that. Certain routes of discussion are a waste of my time to address in this thread. Some are not. For example, abstraction is an important point when discussing telepathic networks; however, the definitions of arbitrary or normative are trivial; therefore, I did not pursue that route. If you read my responses, you will notice I am selective in what points I address, for not all of them are addressed. Since the bit about abstraction was important, I made sure to clarify it and supplement the clarification with a visual example.

Also, you are not the arbiter of what everyone should find as "shit". You are not in control of that. The conversations I find less than enlightening, I stay out of all the while recognizing that people have the right to choose what they want to read, entertain, and find meaning in. Including you.

My original network doesn't give a flying fuck about what kind of information is being delivered, and it doesn't process the information at all. It just passes it back and forth, between the various minds of the people involved. That's all. So no need to get into symbolisms or abstractions or links or any other buzz words.

The intention to interact with a particular person, telepathically, is a type of signifier. The intent in your consciousness is not the actual person; rather, it references, points to, and links to that person. Any telepathic network you do will work on that basic mechanical concept(this means a certain level of abstraction is intrinsically built into how telepathy functions), so the details of your network are irrelevant, because the error begins at your understanding of such things to begin with. Furthermore, minds are abstractions, so in dealing with the minds of people, you are intrinsically dealing with an abstract framework
« Last Edit: December 23, 2015, 04:53:49 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 23, 2015, 08:13:58 PM
Reply #22

Steve

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3685
  • Karma:
    138
    • View Profile
Quote
This thread is abstractly about the design of a telepathic construct that acts as a network.
No, it's about the concrete design of a telepathic network using constructs. You might be trying to turn it into a generic discussion about the mechanics, but that was not the original purpose.

Quote
I am discussing the mechanical aspects and key concepts of telepathic networks.
From your own perspectives and experiences. But the universe is much grander than the totality of experiences of one human, or even the whole of humanity. That doesn't mean, of course, that we can't say something "is" or "isn't" something, but when two people disagree on something yet they both have experience in the subject matter, one should consider the possibility that the mechanics are more varied than either knows.

Quote
I also loosely mentioned a method that can be utilized to create such a network. Just because you disagree or don't want to do it because it is my way and not your way
I think you need to reread what you wrote. You flat out told me, many times, that I'm going to fail because I'm not doing it your way. You didn't portray it as "a" method, but as the only plausible method, again and again.

Quote
that does not mean the conversation is not meaningful others.
You could also go start a different thread entirely, as well. Not that I haven't hijacked a number of threads myself. But just saying.

Quote
If you read my responses, you will notice I am selective in what points I address, for not all of them are addressed. Since the bit about abstraction was important, I made sure to clarify it and supplement the clarification with a visual example.
Yes, so it's not purely random. But if you read back on the progress of the discussion, it does not exactly follow an easily followed path for a new comer.

Quote
Also, you are not the arbiter of what everyone should find as "shit". You are not in control of that.
But I'm still allowed to say this conversation has been fairly shit, compared against how the conversation could have been. Not because of the topic, but because of the progress of the discussion; ie, the meandering topics and the lack of depth to the arguments, and the lack of resources and etc etc. It really shows when people stop caring.

Quote
The intention to interact with a particular person
That's not the intention. I'll be installing the constructs directly in the minds of the people, and they will directly interface with the minds of the people. The constructs will then communicate directly with each other.

Quote
The intent in your consciousness is not the actual person; rather, it references, points to, and links to that person.
No, no, I will be directly invading the minds of the people I will be dealing with. This isn't an indirect methodology like doing a ritual is indirect. This is a direct methodology like punching someone in the face and twisting their arm till it breaks is a direct methodology.

I will not be working solely within my own mind. I will be reaching out and touching upon, and directly influencing, the minds of the people I work with. I already do this, without constructs.

Quote
because the error begins at your understanding of such things to begin with

Quote
Furthermore, minds are abstractions, so in dealing with the minds of people, you are intrinsically dealing with an abstract framework. 
That's about as meaningful to me as saying that punching someone in the face is dealing with an abstract framework; it isn't meaningful.

~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?

May 29, 2016, 03:03:24 AM
Reply #23

Intrepid

  • New Member

  • Offline
  • *

  • 6
  • Karma:
    0
    • View Profile
I am greatly amused to see that some things never change :biggrin:  are you still working on this?

May 31, 2016, 04:58:56 PM
Reply #24

Steve

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3685
  • Karma:
    138
    • View Profile
No. The one person that I was specifically doing it for changed his view so that he no longer cared what I, or anyone else, has to say. Everyone else learned/changed when management basically said "remain 'hands off', always be polite and professional".

I've decided that if the one person really wants to do things his own way without listening to anyone, then so be it; he's free to do so. Consequences will be what they will, if he's caught doing something too bad.

~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?