Author Topic: Subconscious TP Construct Network idea  (Read 4469 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

December 15, 2015, 02:15:21 PM
Read 4469 times

Steve

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3685
  • Karma:
    139
    • 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, 06:20:16 PM
Reply #1

Steve

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3685
  • Karma:
    139
    • 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 #2

Steve

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3685
  • Karma:
    139
    • 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 #3

Steve

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3685
  • Karma:
    139
    • 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, 12:42:29 PM
Reply #4

Steve

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3685
  • Karma:
    139
    • 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, 03:15:24 PM
Reply #5

Steve

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3685
  • Karma:
    139
    • 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 20, 2015, 06:44:28 AM
Reply #6

Steve

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3685
  • Karma:
    139
    • 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, 06:41:20 PM
Reply #7

Steve

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3685
  • Karma:
    139
    • 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 22, 2015, 09:21:03 AM
Reply #8

Steve

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3685
  • Karma:
    139
    • 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?

December 22, 2015, 11:13:38 AM
Reply #9

Steve

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3685
  • Karma:
    139
    • 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, 03:17:17 PM
Reply #10

Steve

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3685
  • Karma:
    139
    • 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 23, 2015, 02:27:49 PM
Reply #11

Steve

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3685
  • Karma:
    139
    • 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, 08:13:58 PM
Reply #12

Steve

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3685
  • Karma:
    139
    • 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 #13

Intrepid

  • New Member

  • Offline
  • *

  • 7
  • Karma:
    1
    • 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 #14

Steve

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3685
  • Karma:
    139
    • 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?