Beer w/Straw, DaveC426913, Kittamaru and Yazata... thank you for taking an interest in reality.
Reality is...
- Thread starter Spellbound
- Start date
The spirit of the real is the ultimate.
Subjective self-determination and the self-definition of subjectivity allows the I Am That to be found within the body.
Subjective self-determination and the self-definition of subjectivity allows the I Am That to be found within the body.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
Do you think what you wrote there means something?
If you do, please break it down for us.
Half of your posts are full of some weird kind of language, like a religious chant to the gods of CTMU or whatever it is.
Try English, for once. The aim of writing something that people will read is to communicate to them.
Wow! If Christopher Langan has the IQ of 200, maybe I could score 7,000 if I wasn't lazy.
Yet, then I wouldn't be able to have my prejudice from affecting my judgement.
Yet, then I wouldn't be able to have my prejudice from affecting my judgement.
kx000
Valued Senior Member
You wouldn't be "that." You're also not found within yourself. The nut and the shell are a single self. I dont contain that, its me.
Last edited:
Why are you sharing pictures of a naked man? Is this you? It's pathetic. I guess you probably wanted attention.
Subjective self-determination is the will of subjective or inward perception, such as that of the mind.
For instance, when one prays sincerely with the mind, its syntactic operators, the self-aware elements of the brain, cross-absorptively communicate with the cells of the body, and when effort is concentrated, healing can occur as a direct result. We call this a miracle, albeit small, but a miracle nevertheless. The CTMU does not directly explain this but rather, uses highly technical jargon that puts the whole of science under scrutiny because it attempts to view it in a top-down approach.
All of this is real.
Suppressing reality eh? Even though I used the word "real" instead this time? You really are one of sciforums' garbage.
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet... much the same, dropping a few letters off the title doesn't change the premise of the thread, and you have been advised and warned multiple times to keep it constrained to the designated thread. One should think you would be content with the fact that no infraction followed, given the over a dozen times it took to get the point across before...
I have come across an 11 year old discussion in Genius forums when the CTMU was still in the midst of becoming widely understood.
Re: Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe
by Jamesh » Tue Feb 07, 2012 12:59 pm
http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf
While this theory is remarkably difficult to understand, and I do not, those few parts that I do understand on one non-studious reading appear to be quite good.
Providing it does not get to irritating - the writer reckons his IQ is 195-210, and unfortunately he has written it to be technically succinct as possible for experts whom are already familiar with all the terms which makes - I'll have a go at reading it at least once more to see if it is worth a proper study.
I think that most of this theory is highly rational and the best I've seen of those TOE theories that include a universal consciousness, but still twisted by the "active God" and Karma outcomes he wants with this theory, as one can see in the following quote.
That the conclusions may be wrong due to religious/ego biases is not much of a problem, as I've never met or heard of anyone that I more than 90% agree with overall. I'm sure we could all learn something from it - well at least if it was not so damn frustrating to read.
"A. The first part of your "why" question is answered at the end of the above response to Celia. Since the meaning of life is a topic that has often been claimed by religion, we'll attempt to answer the second part with a bit of CTMU-style "logical theology".
Within each SCSPL system, subsystems sharing critical aspects of global structure will also manifest the self-configuration imperative of their inclusive SCSPL; that is, they exist for the purpose of self-actualization or self-configuration, and in self-configuring, contribute to the Self-configuration of the SCSPL as a whole. Human beings are such subsystems. The "purpose" of their lives, and the "meaning" of their existences, is therefore to self-actualize in a way consistent with global Self-actualization or teleology...i.e., in a way that maximizes global utility, including the utility of their fellow subsystems. Their existential justification is to help the universe, AKA God, express its nature in a positive and Self-beneficial way.
If they do so, then their "souls", or relationships to the overall System ("God"), attain a state of grace and partake of Systemic timelessness ("life eternal"). If, on the other hand, they do not - if they give themselves over to habitual selfishness at the expense of others and the future of their species - then they are teleologically devalued and must repair their connections with the System in order to remain a viable part of it. And if they do even worse, intentionally scarring the teleological ledger with a massive net loss of global utility, then unless they pursue redemption with such sincerety that their intense desire for forgiveness literally purges their souls, they face spiritual interdiction for the sake of teleological integrity.
Such is the economy of human existence. Much of what we have been taught by organized religions is based on the illogical literalization of metaphorical aspects of their respective doctrines. But this much of it is true: we can attain a state of grace; we can draw near to God and partake of His eternal nature; we can fall from God's grace; we can lose our souls for doing evil. In all cases, we are unequivocally answerable to the System that grants and sustains our existence, and doing right by that System and its contents, including other subsystems like ourselves, is why we exist. Sometimes, "doing right" simply means making the best of a bad situation without needlessly propagating one's own misfortune to others; the necessary sufferance and nonpropagation of personal misfortune is also a source of grace. Further deontological insight requires an analysis of teleology and the extraction of its ethical implications.
Now for a couple of qualifiers. Because we are free, the teleologically consistent meaning of our lives is to some extent ours to choose, and is thus partially invested in the search for meaning itself. So the answer to the last part of your question is "yes, determining the details of your specific teleologically-consistent reason to exist is part of the reason for your existence". Secondly, because God is the cosmos and the human mind is a microcosm, we are to some extent our own judges. But this doesn't mean that we can summarily pardon ourselves for all of our sins; it simply means that we help to determine the system according to whose intrinsic criteria our value is ultimately determined. It is important for each of us to accept both of these ethical responsibilities."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"However, due to the fact that God’s Self-creative freedom is distributed over the universe, i.e. His “Mind”, human volition arising within the universe is free to be locally out of sync with teleology. This requires a set of compensation mechanisms which ensure that teleology remains globally valid despite the localized failure of any individual or species to behave consistently with it. In part, these mechanisms determine the state of your relationship to God, i.e. your soul. If you are in harmony with teleology – with the self-realization and self-expression of God – then your soul is in a state of grace. If you are not, then your soul is in danger of interdiction by teleological mechanisms built into the structure of the universe"
Jamesh
Posts: 1526
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm
Re: Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe
by Jamesh » Tue Feb 07, 2012 12:59 pmhttp://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf
While this theory is remarkably difficult to understand, and I do not, those few parts that I do understand on one non-studious reading appear to be quite good.
Providing it does not get to irritating - the writer reckons his IQ is 195-210, and unfortunately he has written it to be technically succinct as possible for experts whom are already familiar with all the terms which makes - I'll have a go at reading it at least once more to see if it is worth a proper study.
I think that most of this theory is highly rational and the best I've seen of those TOE theories that include a universal consciousness, but still twisted by the "active God" and Karma outcomes he wants with this theory, as one can see in the following quote.
That the conclusions may be wrong due to religious/ego biases is not much of a problem, as I've never met or heard of anyone that I more than 90% agree with overall. I'm sure we could all learn something from it - well at least if it was not so damn frustrating to read.
"A. The first part of your "why" question is answered at the end of the above response to Celia. Since the meaning of life is a topic that has often been claimed by religion, we'll attempt to answer the second part with a bit of CTMU-style "logical theology".
Within each SCSPL system, subsystems sharing critical aspects of global structure will also manifest the self-configuration imperative of their inclusive SCSPL; that is, they exist for the purpose of self-actualization or self-configuration, and in self-configuring, contribute to the Self-configuration of the SCSPL as a whole. Human beings are such subsystems. The "purpose" of their lives, and the "meaning" of their existences, is therefore to self-actualize in a way consistent with global Self-actualization or teleology...i.e., in a way that maximizes global utility, including the utility of their fellow subsystems. Their existential justification is to help the universe, AKA God, express its nature in a positive and Self-beneficial way.
If they do so, then their "souls", or relationships to the overall System ("God"), attain a state of grace and partake of Systemic timelessness ("life eternal"). If, on the other hand, they do not - if they give themselves over to habitual selfishness at the expense of others and the future of their species - then they are teleologically devalued and must repair their connections with the System in order to remain a viable part of it. And if they do even worse, intentionally scarring the teleological ledger with a massive net loss of global utility, then unless they pursue redemption with such sincerety that their intense desire for forgiveness literally purges their souls, they face spiritual interdiction for the sake of teleological integrity.
Such is the economy of human existence. Much of what we have been taught by organized religions is based on the illogical literalization of metaphorical aspects of their respective doctrines. But this much of it is true: we can attain a state of grace; we can draw near to God and partake of His eternal nature; we can fall from God's grace; we can lose our souls for doing evil. In all cases, we are unequivocally answerable to the System that grants and sustains our existence, and doing right by that System and its contents, including other subsystems like ourselves, is why we exist. Sometimes, "doing right" simply means making the best of a bad situation without needlessly propagating one's own misfortune to others; the necessary sufferance and nonpropagation of personal misfortune is also a source of grace. Further deontological insight requires an analysis of teleology and the extraction of its ethical implications.
Now for a couple of qualifiers. Because we are free, the teleologically consistent meaning of our lives is to some extent ours to choose, and is thus partially invested in the search for meaning itself. So the answer to the last part of your question is "yes, determining the details of your specific teleologically-consistent reason to exist is part of the reason for your existence". Secondly, because God is the cosmos and the human mind is a microcosm, we are to some extent our own judges. But this doesn't mean that we can summarily pardon ourselves for all of our sins; it simply means that we help to determine the system according to whose intrinsic criteria our value is ultimately determined. It is important for each of us to accept both of these ethical responsibilities."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"However, due to the fact that God’s Self-creative freedom is distributed over the universe, i.e. His “Mind”, human volition arising within the universe is free to be locally out of sync with teleology. This requires a set of compensation mechanisms which ensure that teleology remains globally valid despite the localized failure of any individual or species to behave consistently with it. In part, these mechanisms determine the state of your relationship to God, i.e. your soul. If you are in harmony with teleology – with the self-realization and self-expression of God – then your soul is in a state of grace. If you are not, then your soul is in danger of interdiction by teleological mechanisms built into the structure of the universe"
Jamesh
Posts: 1526
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm
Last edited:
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
I've never seen such passion about something that no one understands. Even the Bible makes an attempt to speak in plain language. And science only uses words where everyone agrees on what they mean. This is psuedo-scientific language made up to hide it's complete lack of coherence. It's the Voynich Manuscript of the 21st century.
Re: Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe
by Jamesh » Mon Feb 27, 2012 9:13 pm
I have not reread this theory, but my view is that he developed this theory from starting parameters generalised from the Christian myths, that they were the end result he wanted and he developed the theory to fit into that. He believes that the universe via structured feedback (intelligent design) creates the laws of nature, from which evolution of things, then life, is the result.
It seems to be a reasonable assumption. If one looks at the nature of things, of anything recognisable as a whole, then yes there is causal feedback from the whole to its parts.
Take the earth for example, and its parts. The earths shape, position in solar system, rotation speed, gravitational effect etc are not solely attributes of the parts but also of the whole. That The Sum is Greater than its Parts, is actually a logical necessity. Greater in the sense of things, means a higher level of containment. We measure things by how much energy is contained within them. When alike and then complementary things congregate, expansion to outside of those things is reduced as there is greater equalisation between each part, causality becomes contained more within. The affect of this is gravity. If there is greater containment within, and thus less external-to-the-thing expansionary push, then there is less constraint for the outside to expand, thus it pushes in at the thing. This occurs everywhere, so the affect is to push separate things together. There is always some degree of causal equalisation between things of every type, and this general interconnectedness means that expansion outside of things always has more relative power to push than between and within things.
The parts have their own overall states on a lesser scale. A whole, a thing, is the flow of a dynamic causal set through time. Things are a collection of differentiated causation, that form a synergistic set according to natures structural logic, wherein the whole set together with the parts, causally feed back to the parts. Everything is a 3 dimensional two way street, on a one dimensional time path.
The parts emit expansionary forces, such as in the electromagnetic spectrum, whereas the whole forms a *secondary* layer of inwards causation, above that of the omnidirectional primary causality everywhere. This allows stability in causal sets or patterns. The same applies to the parts themselves, as they are wholes also. There is no absolute particle, no thing is completely static, all things change, and they do so because expansion is always rising up from the past, from within, into the present.
Inward causality creates differentiation, as it creates centres. The combination of Outside, Inside and Centre, are a legitimate set, a spatial thing. The causal pressures inside a set are different from those outside the set, and where causally equidistant from the set and from each part within the set, the causal pressure will be greatest. So things have this floating centre of gravity - the centre of the overall flow. It is a causally created "point" of essentially nothingness - nothingness as it is the result of a set and has no thingness to be in turn to be a causal agent of its own. Therefore it is fundamentally different from what created it. Therefore it is the most fundamental logical differentiation that exists in the universe.
So if things do that, can the same process be applied to The Totality? Can the totality have a feed back structure that allows set causal flows to arise, in the same way that all of its parts do? Is there any reason why the natural logic we see in parts would be different at the level of the whole?
The only reason I can see is that infinity would prevent any feedback as infinity means there can be no absolute whole. With infinity no whole set can be truly formed, there cannot be the Outside segment of the set equation, and there cannot be a Centre, so structured feedback could not arise.
Personally I don’t actually believe the universe is completely infinite. I only see it as being infinite inwardly, not outwardly. I see it outwardly bound by the barrier of the speed of times expansion. If one were to freeze the totality, freeze causation, then there would be a whole, a set of everything, though it would have the same problem as any Thing - it would be infinitely divisible - you could not locate a physical centre that was a "beginning" thing. So to me there is always a floating whole, but a whole in which excludes its outward causality as part of its definition of wholeness (outward causality being times continual expansion). It is a whole due to its secondary set based inwards causality (the primary inward causality still being time itself).
As things such as the earth has natural structural logic resulting from its wholeness, this can be considered as being "intelligence". For minds, intelligence is the rational construction of concepts so that something new is created. Ie 1 + 1 = 2. The created 2 is a usable thing in its own right, it has a form of causality by the fact it can be utilised.
All the intelligence in the universe, must in turn affect the nature of the whole. Just as the earth would have a different causal flow through time were it consist only of gas, so to might cognitive intelligence. With the inside of the totality being infinite, then that almost calls out for the evolution of super cognitive intelligence, far greater than that of us humans.
So does this set of cognitive intelligence, cause the Totality to have an intelligence attribute as part of its form as a whole, an attribute that could be called a god, but one that still has an inwards causal effect on its parts. Just as a whole keeps the parts of itself in place, might there also be a feedback mechanism that aids in the development of cognitive ability to sufficiently evolved physical structures. Thus God would perpetuate itself through the endless recreation of itself via lesser consciousness such as us.
All parts emit smaller parts that leave the wholeness of that thing. Light for example is emitted, and is no longer part, of the wholeness that is the sun. The secondary internal causality of the sun no longer affects it, it is only affected by the sun outward causality.
So can human cognition via the formation of intelligence sets do the same thing. Does our awareness and intelligence creating ability unable us to go beyond that which we are, to tap into a greater external intelligent whole, by using intelligent awareness to remove as a constraint, the physical side of the inward causality of our wholeness? The physical side to be bypassed, would include all mental activity relating to human living, such as the self, ego, emotions, facts and other forms of cognitive noise. <--- ILLUSORY SELF IS EGO HOWEVER EMOTION IS UNIVERSALLY REAL!!!
There are a lot of signs that point to this. There are dreams, there are drugs that cause spiritual mental sensations, there is meditation, there are those that apparently obtain it as part of their nature via achieving a sufficient state of enlightenment about reality. There is even just plain deep concentration.
Ahh, gotta go, the zombies are after me.
Jamesh
Posts: 1526
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm
Alas, I have highlighted all of the correct interpretations by this person's 2005 commentary. A rather very deep rendering of the CTMU, albeit wrong at certain points, regarding no life after death for instance. However you must recall that this was 2005 and this person did not have any means or evidence of life after death. It is a theory about a theory. A supposed seconding.
by Jamesh » Mon Feb 27, 2012 9:13 pmI have not reread this theory, but my view is that he developed this theory from starting parameters generalised from the Christian myths, that they were the end result he wanted and he developed the theory to fit into that. He believes that the universe via structured feedback (intelligent design) creates the laws of nature, from which evolution of things, then life, is the result.
It seems to be a reasonable assumption. If one looks at the nature of things, of anything recognisable as a whole, then yes there is causal feedback from the whole to its parts.
Take the earth for example, and its parts. The earths shape, position in solar system, rotation speed, gravitational effect etc are not solely attributes of the parts but also of the whole. That The Sum is Greater than its Parts, is actually a logical necessity. Greater in the sense of things, means a higher level of containment. We measure things by how much energy is contained within them. When alike and then complementary things congregate, expansion to outside of those things is reduced as there is greater equalisation between each part, causality becomes contained more within. The affect of this is gravity. If there is greater containment within, and thus less external-to-the-thing expansionary push, then there is less constraint for the outside to expand, thus it pushes in at the thing. This occurs everywhere, so the affect is to push separate things together. There is always some degree of causal equalisation between things of every type, and this general interconnectedness means that expansion outside of things always has more relative power to push than between and within things.
The parts have their own overall states on a lesser scale. A whole, a thing, is the flow of a dynamic causal set through time. Things are a collection of differentiated causation, that form a synergistic set according to natures structural logic, wherein the whole set together with the parts, causally feed back to the parts. Everything is a 3 dimensional two way street, on a one dimensional time path.
The parts emit expansionary forces, such as in the electromagnetic spectrum, whereas the whole forms a *secondary* layer of inwards causation, above that of the omnidirectional primary causality everywhere. This allows stability in causal sets or patterns. The same applies to the parts themselves, as they are wholes also. There is no absolute particle, no thing is completely static, all things change, and they do so because expansion is always rising up from the past, from within, into the present.
Inward causality creates differentiation, as it creates centres. The combination of Outside, Inside and Centre, are a legitimate set, a spatial thing. The causal pressures inside a set are different from those outside the set, and where causally equidistant from the set and from each part within the set, the causal pressure will be greatest. So things have this floating centre of gravity - the centre of the overall flow. It is a causally created "point" of essentially nothingness - nothingness as it is the result of a set and has no thingness to be in turn to be a causal agent of its own. Therefore it is fundamentally different from what created it. Therefore it is the most fundamental logical differentiation that exists in the universe.
So if things do that, can the same process be applied to The Totality? Can the totality have a feed back structure that allows set causal flows to arise, in the same way that all of its parts do? Is there any reason why the natural logic we see in parts would be different at the level of the whole?
The only reason I can see is that infinity would prevent any feedback as infinity means there can be no absolute whole. With infinity no whole set can be truly formed, there cannot be the Outside segment of the set equation, and there cannot be a Centre, so structured feedback could not arise.
Personally I don’t actually believe the universe is completely infinite. I only see it as being infinite inwardly, not outwardly. I see it outwardly bound by the barrier of the speed of times expansion. If one were to freeze the totality, freeze causation, then there would be a whole, a set of everything, though it would have the same problem as any Thing - it would be infinitely divisible - you could not locate a physical centre that was a "beginning" thing. So to me there is always a floating whole, but a whole in which excludes its outward causality as part of its definition of wholeness (outward causality being times continual expansion). It is a whole due to its secondary set based inwards causality (the primary inward causality still being time itself).
As things such as the earth has natural structural logic resulting from its wholeness, this can be considered as being "intelligence". For minds, intelligence is the rational construction of concepts so that something new is created. Ie 1 + 1 = 2. The created 2 is a usable thing in its own right, it has a form of causality by the fact it can be utilised.
All the intelligence in the universe, must in turn affect the nature of the whole. Just as the earth would have a different causal flow through time were it consist only of gas, so to might cognitive intelligence. With the inside of the totality being infinite, then that almost calls out for the evolution of super cognitive intelligence, far greater than that of us humans.
So does this set of cognitive intelligence, cause the Totality to have an intelligence attribute as part of its form as a whole, an attribute that could be called a god, but one that still has an inwards causal effect on its parts. Just as a whole keeps the parts of itself in place, might there also be a feedback mechanism that aids in the development of cognitive ability to sufficiently evolved physical structures. Thus God would perpetuate itself through the endless recreation of itself via lesser consciousness such as us.
All parts emit smaller parts that leave the wholeness of that thing. Light for example is emitted, and is no longer part, of the wholeness that is the sun. The secondary internal causality of the sun no longer affects it, it is only affected by the sun outward causality.
So can human cognition via the formation of intelligence sets do the same thing. Does our awareness and intelligence creating ability unable us to go beyond that which we are, to tap into a greater external intelligent whole, by using intelligent awareness to remove as a constraint, the physical side of the inward causality of our wholeness? The physical side to be bypassed, would include all mental activity relating to human living, such as the self, ego, emotions, facts and other forms of cognitive noise. <--- ILLUSORY SELF IS EGO HOWEVER EMOTION IS UNIVERSALLY REAL!!!
There are a lot of signs that point to this. There are dreams, there are drugs that cause spiritual mental sensations, there is meditation, there are those that apparently obtain it as part of their nature via achieving a sufficient state of enlightenment about reality. There is even just plain deep concentration.
Ahh, gotta go, the zombies are after me.
Jamesh
Posts: 1526
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm
Alas, I have highlighted all of the correct interpretations by this person's 2005 commentary. A rather very deep rendering of the CTMU, albeit wrong at certain points, regarding no life after death for instance. However you must recall that this was 2005 and this person did not have any means or evidence of life after death. It is a theory about a theory. A supposed seconding.
Last edited:
It's funny, someone commented afterwards that this poster was drunk when he wrote it. Lol.
Let us examine a selected part of the above writer:
If there is greater containment within, and thus less external-to-the-thing expansionary push, then there is less constraint for the outside to expand, thus it pushes in at the thing.
What he is saying here is simple: when a thing or structure expands or gets bigger, there is increasingly less externalization of it, naturally and thus logically, so the lower constraint that comes from the outside must push itself inwardly - hence conspansion aka inner expansion. Reality is thus nested within reality. Hence telic feedback and recursion.
If there is greater containment within, and thus less external-to-the-thing expansionary push, then there is less constraint for the outside to expand, thus it pushes in at the thing.
What he is saying here is simple: when a thing or structure expands or gets bigger, there is increasingly less externalization of it, naturally and thus logically, so the lower constraint that comes from the outside must push itself inwardly - hence conspansion aka inner expansion. Reality is thus nested within reality. Hence telic feedback and recursion.