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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.