Bringing it Home
Are you trying to tell me that you cannot comprehend how someone could find being described as a "freak" as a little less than polite?
For your reference from here on: I am no longer going to respond to your debate tactics (and this is exactly what it is) in which you again turn the direction in the way you wish it to go, rather than address the explanations I am now giving you. The operative word was "control", and being a controls expert I have begun to describe to you how the control loops of your non-physical self are structured. Instead, you choose to focus on the modifier of the operative word, in an attempt to show how "impolite" I am. Refer to several posts much earlier in this thread to see I have told you I don't really give a flying flip if you think I am rude. Those who are constantly bothered by such things are not yet over their ego. That ego is part of your soul, which leads us to:
I don't deny that I have a subconsious.
Oh really? Given that we cannot directly experience our subconscious, I would really like to know upon what evidence and/or "proof" you base this belief? And please don't employ the same tactics you did with OvrLrdLegion. I am asking for your logical proof that tells you that you possess a subconscious.
Your theory here seems to be that if I deny that I have a soul (whch I do, indeed, deny), then my consious mind cannot have any control over my actions - that I cannot kurb my baser instincts.
This is absolutely not what I am talking about. And it is not a "theory", it is a technical fact of nested control loops. An inner loop (in this case your conscious mind) is isolated from the outer loop. That inner loop has a natural range of capabilities (called frequency response). That inner loop can even be "intelligent" in that it can self-modify its frequency response of its own loop. However, until it becomes "aware" of the outer loop that drives it (and that means acknowledging it, by applying feedback to it, and that involves having information about that outer loop's outputs) your inner loop cannot apply control of that outer loop. In technical terms of your case, you are "open loop" at the level of your soul.
Now let's review this technical concept, as I don't want you going down some errant path again, and then saying "I didn't understand".
1) Your conscious mind is an "inner closed loop" that does have control of its outputs.
2) Your conscious mind is stimulated by inputs from an "outer loop" called your soul.
3) In order to be able to control the input stims from the outer to the inner loop, you must close that outer loop with state information (feedback) from that outer loop's outputs (which are not the same as your inner loop outputs).
4) You will not be able to gather state information (feedback) for something that you do not believe is there. Because you do not believe it is there (for lack of evidence) you would not know what to measure to use as feedback.
5) Without feedback, your outer loop cannot ever be closed, and that makes it open loop. The best you can do is apply limits to your inner loop, but this still does not give you any information as to how such limits affect the output of your outer loop.
I do not believe that anything called a "soul" exists. Yet, I can control my behaviour and am not ruled by my subconsious.
Your first error is that you do not understand that the classic description of the human subconscious is but one portion of the soul. Freud only deduced that portion of the soul that manifested as readily accessible states (information) from short-term extant outputs (from the inner loop of conscious mind). There are other states induced by your soul, and they are not directly accessible to your physical senses (which are state information gathers of your inner, conscious loop). Those output states of your soul are very low frequency, long wavelength states. The time constants are from months to years, which is why direct senses cannot glean information about them. Feedback schemes must be synthesized by recognizing what is created in your life (and the people that your soul draws to you) over these long periods. Most important in sythesizing this information are what we know as "coincidences". These are physical resonances occurring at the frequency of the soul. A "coincidence" is nothing of the sort. It is a purposeful output resonance state that was created by your soul. However, since you do not believe in the soul, you do not see them as such.
That you even say this clearly shows that you do not know the "real me" half as well as you may like to think that you do.
You say this, but how can you know? I am aware of an entire level of you that you do not even admit to being real. I respect the fact that you do not believe in that which you cannot experience for yourself. What I am telling you is that I have experienced, directly, this level of our non-physical being. How else would I have come to figure out that our soul creates extremely low frequency resonances, which appear to us as coincidences?
I'd have thought that would have been obvious from the fact that I'm debating some of the claims you have made about yourself. Of course I don't know.
The rest of your statement after this were fluff. More of your attempts to skirt the real issue. All I needed was the yes or no, and I already knew that you did not know. I am now going to tell you, and I am quite sure that this will invoke your normal routine where you will want proof or evidence. But as Godel has told us, not all things can be proven in a closed system of logic. Are you ready?
You are debating with yourself. Specifically, you are debating with your soul. Since you do not acknowledge its existence, and since a soul needs to be acknowledged by its "inner loop" in order to continue to advance along the spiritual path we are all on (again, whether we believe it or not), your soul invoked me as a resonance. It is absolutely no coincidence that I came here before you, and no coincidence that we are having this "debate". My soul has created resonances in the form of the many people I have interacted with here. EVEN CREEDO has taught my soul something that it needed to learn.
If not, my offer remains open - tell me you do not with to debate with me, and I will respect those wishes completely.
But it is quite clear that, by your continued use of tactics to try to harm my ego (which really cannot be done), that this is not what your soul really wants. It is driving you to continue in this, in order that you might work through this. And quite honestly, my soul is doing the same. The difference is that I am collecting and synthesizing the output states of my soul, as I am aware that I called you here.
Hmm, I think this needs a little clarification. How did my soul call you forth, exactly?
I have given you the "big picture" technical details above. There are some books that can explain this in more "flowery" terms, which you have expressed a penchant for. In fact, I have mentioned two of these books in another thread, just recently AAMOF.
Whatever, I like the new, altruistic spin you've given this conversation.
It's nice that you think so. But in reality I am also doing this for totally selfish reasons. That is because all human relations (there are those relationships again!) are two-way. There is a "purpose" on both ends of a human interaction. We cannot help but exchange information with each other. Whether we recognize or use that information, consciously, is another thing altogether. So I am drawing on and applying a good deal of information from this interaction. For the sake of closing the loop of your soul, I would hope you are doing the same.
I'm really not sure that you do, certainly not half as much as you think.
That is because you are only viewing this on the superficial level, and this response infers I am only debating with you. I am debating with myself....with my own soul. You are simply a surrogate that allows me to hold this debate here in our extant world.
I don't know. What is intended? And how come you don't know?
Oh, but I do know what is intended for me. However, since I do not have access to the long-term states that your soul has created over your life, I am not privvy to what the intent is for you. You will have to take stock of the coincidences in your life where you have run up against people like me. What I can guarantee you is this: People like me will continue to cross your path until you "get" the intent, and incorporate it as feedback to temper your soul. You do not have to believe it, but I am telling you this because (whether you believe it or not, and whether you like it or not) you want to know this.
You were talking about the context of it with reference to computers. What is the "given physical state" that has uncertainty reduced in that context?
This is the last question along this line I am going to answer. For you are doing the same thing here that you did with my "off the cuff" comment on human/DNA. I want you to focus on where this statement came from, and that is my point about the relationship between energy and information (which you have, for at least the 5th time, managed to avoid). Here is your answer, and I would appreciate you dealing with the facts and evidence I have given to you:
The computer is only the processor of the physical state information. In the case of any control system, the information of the given physical state comes from observation of that state which is created as an output of the control system. In the case of your soul, there is state information available to you that you are not using to "close the loop" on your soul. But now, I have given you more than sufficient evidence that there is a clear relationship between energy, information, and the ability of information to control entropy (the organized use of energy for a purpose). I would now like you to either acquiesce or refute the statement that has been lingering in this thread for at least 2 months now.
I don't think it's being "stuck in the past" to wish for extraordinary claims to have at least a little bit of evidence to back tham up.
And once again, you are wishing to engage me in a discussion of "proof" for a statement that was never intended to be applied in that manner. If anything, I am guilty of following you down your path that lead away from the point I was making, and trying to "prove" a statement that was only made as an analogical observation that DOES support my case. Namely: The vastness of ourselves with respect to our universe has, indeed, made it difficult for us to identify any easily-discernible evidence for a higher-level creative system context. The self-similar vastness of scale between our DNA and our body could reasonably result in our DNA not being aware of the evidence for ourselves...yet here we are and we are aware of our DNA. Yes, this argument does assume our DNA is aware, but given the inverse relationship of size, it is also reasonable to assume that we may not be able to detect the awareness of our DNA, especially if we are applying our own view of awareness to our DNA. Here we see another point that I have made that has been lingering, without a direct response from you, for months. I will no longer follow you down paths that "run away" from the point I am making. I will keep re-posting my points until you address them (and not the point you want to make)...just like you continued to do with Chronohistorian.
Again, wanting evidence for claims is not "tactics", unless every scientist on the planet uses the same "tactics". You sometimes have a very odd and disparaging choice of words.
Stop the charade. The "tactics" I am talking about are your debate tactics where you try to twist what I am saying to get me in a different discussion so you can "win" the debate. This is totally separate from the scientific pursuit of "evidence". I took debate in high school and college. Just because I am not as "good" at it as you fancy yourself to be does not mean I do not know the tactics used to "win" a debate. Your tactics are open for all to see in the way you tried to steer OvrLrdLegion away from a question that was very obvious. He was better than I in that he did not follow you down your path.
And is he content to accept your claims without any corroborating evidence of any kind?
Debate tactic. That is not my point. It is not about how Sarfatti and I get along, or whether he accepts my claims. In fact, the reason I brought this up is because his equations, which are attempting to explain dark energy based on extending Einstein's GTR, acknowledge that our non-physical components of self are just as important to the "final theory of everything" as is the physical stuff we perceive around us. He supports and uses John Archibald Wheeler's theories on information, its relation to energy, and "IT from BIT" where matter is directly given its marching orders by mind. Mind controls Matter via the self-observing, self-regulating universe (a controls problem). Since you do not appear to accept these parts of his work (and my own investigations into Qabalah's application to this), I would find it interesting for you to try your debate tactics on him. If you think I am entertaining, there would be great entertainment for all to see you speak to him like you speak to me.
It is, at the very least, patronising to claim to know what I will believe in the future.
First of all, I did not say "believe" I said "understand". You can understand something but still not acquiesce to belief in it (just as you understand the dual nature of light, but do not believe it). Secondly, it is in no way patronizing if I am aware of something that you are not aware. I do know something that you do not, and that is because I have had experiences that you have not. I have correlated these experiences with the coincidences of my life, my study of Qabalah, and the goals I set for my life long ago. I have a complete picture, and you are not yet there. That is not patronizing, it is simply a fact of which you are not yet aware. The very fact that you cannot accept this, and find it patronizing, is another sign of your ego that cannot let go. When (if) you shed the burden of your ego, you will no longer see it as patronizing.
And, are you really saying that if a large number of people believe something, then that something must be true, in one form or another?
Debate tactic. That is not what I said, and you know this is not what I said because of the example I gave. My point was related to "critical mass" of people required to create some future event, not whether something was true or not. This all dovetails in with my continued discussion of the functional aspects of God, namely the ability to create.
Sure, there were most likely issues of funding which couldn't have been achieved without public support, but public support wasn't necessary for the completion of the project.
It is not the public support I was referring to. It was simply knowing that it was possible. The people tasked with the technical challenge were the ones who internalized the belief that this end state could be created. Without this, it would not have been created. Again: The athletic high jumper analogy is appropriate. If s/he does not think they can do it, the probability they will do it is very low.
Over here in England, pretty much the entire country was against the building of the Millenium Dome. And yet, there it is. The vast majority of the country were against us being involved in the invasion of Iraq. And yet there we are.
Irrelevant to the point. Neither of these things were under debate as to whether they could be done. Any person of average intelligence knows (stronger than just belief) that these could be done. Such things do not require a "critical mass" in order to manifest. Such things manifest quite easily. However, there were a large number of people who did not think it was possible to send man to the moon and return safely. In fact, there are still people to this day who do not even believe we have done it, and that it was all a hoax. Critical mass of belief is, indeed, required in order for mankind to make the major leaps in our evolution of our creative powers before they will come to pass. France's failure at the first attempt at a Panama Canal is a perfect example. Not only did the people doing the job not have the faith that they could pull it off, but neither did the people of France. So they failed. Americans came in and "did the impossible". This is a character of our country that is borne of our way of life....which it seems many people in the world do not understand these days.
No, I think that, on the whole, things happen, and they don't care if you believe in them or not.
Not the difficult things. Not those things that people insist on "proof" that it can be done before they believe it can be done. Faith in one's ability to do something that no one has ever done is a critical ingredient in manifesting that effect. Take Mars. I can guarantee you that America will be the first to place a man on Mars. I know this because I work with a great many people who share my belief that it can, and will, be done.
So why, rather than saying this at the time, did you start talking about Phi and the Fibonaci sequence?
Because I got wrapped-up in your debate tactic that took us off this path. This is one thing that my soul is learning from this interaction... to stay on topic, stay on my purpose, and not allow people to sidetrack me from that primary purpose.
I was merely trying to show how the example you offered didn't seem to me to strengthen the point I thought you were trying to make.
Oh but it did. You merely tried to alter the point I was making. See above. It is quite reasonable given our scale of observable horizons within our universe.
So, once and for all, is Phi relevent to the scale of DNA relative to humans, and if not, then why on Earth did you bring it up as if it was not only relevent but highly significant in that discussion?
I don't know because, as I stated, I have not done the studies to determine their precise relative scales. The point is observational horizons, and the size of them not being conducive to observe effects of an external creative entity.
why not try assuming that they've genuinely misunderstood your intention, rather than that they're deliberately trying to be a smart-arse?
Because I know your level of intelligence is high enough to understand what I am saying, and that you are simply choosing to "test the waters" to see if you can swing the discussion. As I said, this is patently obvious in how you chastised OvrLrdLegion for not restating his question for you. It was quite simple what he was asking for, and you don't need a college degree to understand what he was asking for. You were simply looking for wiggle room, and he gave you none.
I can re-post the dissection of your maths, if you like.
Debtat tactic. Those maths are not the maths of my profession, which are time and frequency domain response of physical control systems. So I will just cut and paste my statement again (the whole statement, not the part you took out of context to attempt your trick) as it is still valid:
The minutia of my job involves time and frequency domain maths for closed-loop control systems, as well as systemic relationships between system and subsystem. I've yet to see how you have shown me lacking in these areas.
Furthermore, I would much rather see you address the points that I have made, that you have continued to ignore for lo these many months. It is only fair, since these points I made preceded the departure away from my conjecture (which again, was never claimed as "proof", and you even admitted to this).
Indeed, it's another statement I wouldn't have bothered making, but for the beer. The basic point is that I believe that the best reason for the invention of the LPF is that of resonance and harmonics. An entirely irrelevent aside.
Debate tactic. I am going to nip this one in the bud right here at the start. I don't care if you were drunk, you made the statement, and I posed some direct questions to you that are highly related to this statement. Now you wish to ignore it, and I would infer you are doing this because you do not wish to engage in this conversation, perhaps because you might be shown lacking in these areas. This has shades of the "I can't read PDF files" argument, whose subject you still have not addressed. So while you are busy addressing my old points that I would like addressed, you can also provide some answers to the questions I posed to you on resonance and harmonics. Seeing as how long this response is, I will even go to the extra trouble to repost those questions....for your convenience:
Clearly, the harmonics and resonance of sonic energy are two major factors in humans finding beauty in a variety of musical expressions. Now... if you are amenable to the fact that fractal self-similarity does appear all over nature, and that wavelet transforms are based upon fractal self-similarity in the frequency domain... do you think it may be possible that self-similar applications of harmonics and resonance in the luminal energy ranges could reveal to mankind a whole new form of beauty and appreciation? And also in a self-similar vein, we have seen that harmonics and resonance of sonic energy have wide applications for scientific devices (the sonogram used for monitoring fetal development being just one). Do you see the possibility for advances in luminal harmonics and resonances that could drastically change how we interact with our universe?
Thank you, and good night. Please tip your waitresses...they work hard for you.
RMT
