 |
News from Anandavala: What exactly is SMN and how does it connect with other technologies? |
Category: System Matrix Notation Tags: csr, holistic science, smn, technology 13 comments
1 Aug 2007 @ 00:56 by Glistening Deepwater @59.100.120.225 : Theory headed in right direction 3 Aug 2007 @ 02:23 by Ultrahuman @203.214.97.167 : Get on with it. So much talking. Where's the prize? You have simply outlined the pathway of your personal liberation from outmoded ideas, but have yet to demonstrate any impact these can have on our species survival. Relying, as all cultists must, on the notion of a 'critical mass' at which point 'things' just start 'happening'. Invariably, this critical mass can only be achieved by attracting followers. Distinguish yourself from a religion and build something that actually brings more than yet another theory of everything into the world. 4 Aug 2007 @ 18:00 by anandavala : To Ultrahuman So much confusion... You seem to accept that people operate under outmoded ideas, so what don't you understand? I would have thought it was obvious that living in delusion and losing touch with reality inevitably leads to suffering and destruction. Unlike cultists who create a belief system and try and attract followers I simply try to discover the reality and to encourage others to also discover it for themselves. I encourage people to stop engaging in blind belief and to become 100% rational and sceptical. How can encouraging people to think for themselves be a cult? And yes, a critical mass of people dwelling in reality is required to counteract the mass of people dwelling in delusion, that should be obvious. I don't quite know what it is that you expect? Are you asking for some belief system? Are you looking for a cult whilst at the same time deriding them? I am working toward a science of reality to extend our current science of empirical experience, but such things don't happen overnight and they require collective effort. I wonder how much you read before leaping to a judgement and feeling the need to object. You should first understand what it is that you are objecting to otherwise you are only reacting to assumptions and illusions. 4 Aug 2007 @ 18:09 by anandavala : To Glistening Thanks for the encouragement :) I agree that seeking truth and practicality are not separate things. To overcome delusion and dwell in reality is our only hope for long term survival and creative growth. It is the aim of all true spiritual paths (ones that have not been corrupted by political agendas) and it is the aim of science too but it is only now beginning to overcome its naive realist delusions that lie within the very concept of empiricism. Seeing as we actually live in reality and not just in our cognitive impressions of reality - what can be more practical than making contact with reality. It only makes us better able to live and grow and create in harmonious and effective ways. 5 Aug 2007 @ 00:34 by a-d : I'm glad,John .... ...that you stood up for the process of Critical Mass. Found in chemistry as well -and is there known as the 'crystallization-process'= this same phenomenon/ process in Tangible Matter; sugar/s, salt/s, water etc When occurring within the Realm of In-tangible Matter, as in the world of Ideas etc, known as "Critical Mass". ("Poor" Ultrahuman made a smallish blunder with that one!...; ) ) But we forgive, eh? ...heheheh.... ; ) 6 Aug 2007 @ 08:24 by anandavala : Hey a-d Great to hear from you :) You're absolutely right - everything involves some kind of critical mass. The question is how much mass is critical? This depends on the context. Some say that it only takes the square root of one percent of humans to change their state of consciousness for there to be measurable effects. That's not a radical shift but a measurable one. This was determined by experiments with groups of meditators in different places and times combined with the analysis of things such as crime rates during that time, traffic accidents, casualty ward statistics and so on. It was found that all these statistics had a measurable improvement. If that figure is correct it only takes around 8000 people engage in focused awareness to generate a measurable field of coherence that can have global influence. An example of this field of coherence is that measured by the global consciousness project - for example, here is the data for the Fire the Grid event on 17th July. It shows a noticeable spike during the hour of global meditation. I'm sure someone might feel the need to object to these last comments but if they looked into it they would see that experiments have rigorously proven that there is one chance in ten million that these things are due to chance. Another link that came to my attention today is about the Oneness University - it is aiming to create the critical mass of enlightenment required to spark off a wave of mass spontaneous enlightenment that will sweep the globe. Sounds interesting :) 6 Aug 2007 @ 16:59 by a-d : It is already happening: the coalesence as in the Lab-glass when my teacher poured sugar in a certain amount of water: then she poured sugar and more sugar and more; a little "hill" had formed in the center as the sugar was sliding down those hillsides of that mount, melting, turning into a liquid mass together with the Water... We girls were a little nervous whether our teacher was right in her suggestion, that it all would "freeze" back into solid sugar granulae/crystals "in just a moment" as she continued pouring -and then all of sudden it all happened; the SATURATION POINT was reached, as the whole sugar mount crashed and there they were: all the sugar granulae, back in perfect orderly order re-attached to their Counterparts to make up crystalline sugar again! THAT is exactly what I see is going on right now in our World at large! In the IN-tangible World -like IDEAS- this Saturation Point is what is called the "Critical Mass": when an idea reaches a Critical Mass in the Collective Consciousness the 'Critical Mass' HAS TO OCCUR -that is how the Cosmic Laws of (Meta-)Physics in Universe work, whether we like it -or not! Soooo.... Lets keep pouring that "suga", aye? : ) 7 Aug 2007 @ 06:31 by Ultrahuman @210.84.9.26 : Critical Mass "And yes, a critical mass of people dwelling in reality is required to counteract the mass of people dwelling in delusion, that should be obvious." This is not at all obvious. Nobody needed to believe in polio vaccinations, or understand the nature of the disease, for them to work, why should this be any different? Ignorance is no obstacle to the truth. It always wins out, because it has the virtue of being real. Why does this new, earth-shattering science, require feelings in order to work, or be accepted? Why do you require a community if not to legitimise a faith? If all it took was 8000 people to change the world, then we would have all been judged by the horsemen of the apocalypse centuries ago by the screaming hordes of the christian right praying every day, in all earnestness, for just that. The number of people seeking transcendance in it's various forms vastly outnumbers the others, and yet, nothing. For the entirety of recorded history, nothing. Centuries under the thumb of tyrannical religions, who could enforce a world-view on nations, and nothing. Why do you need followers before your miracles can manifest? Why is belief so important, when we know it is not required to alleviate suffering? To actually add something to the conversation, though, do you actually believe that the universe can possibly be understood, in any holistic sense, when we, as a species, have seen only the barest fraction of it? Are you not judging a book by the smallest fleck of dust on it's cover? If you're familiar with the hill-climbing problem then you will be aware of the perils of claiming you are climbing the right hill and equally aware of how difficult it is to climb them all. 7 Aug 2007 @ 15:38 by a-d : Too many Blind Spots in your response, Ultrahuman, to get into a truly meaningful -as in "enlightening" dialogue, right now. Wish we were sitting around the Proverbial Round Table! : ). We aren't, but allow me just one little correction right here right now: The polio vaccination did NOT help anything at all! Indeed it created polio cases right & left! Salk Vaccine, the first polio vaccine invented (by Dr Salk), was a KILLER CONCOCTION!!! -as still to this day ALL vaccines are! I have a feeling you are allowing yourself to be fed with the Propaganda Soup, that the Crooks will always keep warm for us all to swallow!! ( LEARN THE REAL TRUTH about Events& Things!... If you truly want -to what your question ( quoted here below) implies... well.... Write in your Search Engine: "the Real Truth about Salk Vaccine" -and on the other hand ;just the words "Salk Vaccine" and you'll find a ton of Information on both!.... though I would call the second one Propaganda sites,than info for its praising something that the people in the REAL world of Experience knew BY first hand to be opposite to the establishment's propaganda hype ( my self being one of those who went through the experience and then learned ever more about the LIE as I grew up, worked in the field read a few books by some big time scientists who opposed Salks' claims and the last ten years I learned even more from the Net. But check these out for your self!(you need to copy & paste (I don't know why they would not "take" as links!(?) ) : [ http://www.geocities.com/harpub/salkvacc.htm ] [ http://www.whale.to/a/bealle3.html ] [ http://www.accessexcellence.org/AE/AEC/CC/polio.html ] [ http://www.vran.org/vaccines/polio/vaccine-pol.htm ] [ http://truthhappens.redhatmagazine.com/category/jonas-salk/ ] [ http://www.advancedhealthplan.com/vaccination.html ] ...and this is how it is about most every thing: "Whatever it takes" mentality is the guiding star for ANYONE inside the Box!... for financial PROFITS by THIEVERY they all lie and deceive and do ANYTHING they "have to" in order to achieve an in advance envisioned MONETARY GAIN-Goal over the DEAD BODIES of the Populace... just like the WAR Machine is rigged in this same manner. U think something REAL in this ind of environment??????.... burst that bubble and you'll be much better off!! " To actually add something to the conversation, though, do you actually believe that the universe can possibly be understood, in any holistic sense, when we, as a species, have seen only the barest fraction of it? " WHAT in the world is that supposed to mean????? Aren't you yourself (trying ) to claim you are doing just that?!?!.... Only; you are looking at it all through your Fundamentalist(& Mainstream Science = the Propaganda "science" ) eyes -and we are not! Am I right? Stepping outside the Box, sure gives one a greater chance to even START to understand the Universe and see it all bigger for each added Insight -as opposite to the Mainstream way: SPLITTING the Big Picture to ever smaller fractions!.... Analysis is/gives/equals Paralysis! as the saying goes... (Kliche`s tend to hold of loooot of Truth! : ) ) So sorry we don't have the chance to really get into exchanging any more elaborate Ideas/information. I feel we could really have a great Chat -if sitting around that Table! : ) 11 Aug 2007 @ 16:33 by anandavala : Polio and Objectionitis The case of medicine is a good example. For the purposes of this example I will overlook the fact that allopathic medicine is still caught in many delusions (i.e. the body as a machine rather than a living whole). Taking Ultraman's example of polio - it DID take a critical mass of people to be dwelling in reality to properly deal with polio. Compare it to the Black Plague. If the critical mass of people still believed in medieval medicine they wouldn't be trying to find a vaccine and even if a few isolated people did the majority of people wouldn't take it because they wouldn't believe in it. They would think the vaccine was the work of the devil and they'd be off trying to get the demons exorcized from their body. I would have thought this was obvious. But I suspect that Ultraman has a condition that I call objectionitis (the vaccine for it is scepticism). The main symptom is that the person devotes the vast majority of their awareness to finding things to object to and very little awareness toward trying to understand the matter at hand. This means that they don't really understand what it is that they are trying to object to and they only latch onto surface irrelevancies. To object to something effectively you need to understand it, otherwise you are only deceiving yourself. I liken it to someone who drags their feet and keeps tripping over on small roots and stones instead of walking properly and following the path to a lookout to see the view. They then give up and denounce the view as worthless but they never even got far enough to see it for themselves. I don't know about your case Ultraman - but I have often found that such people were reluctant to walk the path because they suspected that the view challenged their cherished beliefs - but they don't want to accept that they are clinging to beliefs so they try and trip over in order to denounce the path and thereby deceive themselves that they are being rational. A sceptical person walks the path carefully to check out the view for themselves, they walk all kinds of paths and see all kinds of views and they only judge them based on what they see for themselves. Any other approach is to be trapped by preconceptions and assumptions. I'm just cutting another path to an interesting view. Other's are free to cut their own paths too. If people like this territory more people will explore it. That is how it goes with all territory and YES it does take a critical mass to settle an area. If the critical mass clung to medieval beliefs then modern science would never have gained the critical mass to evolve properly - it would be a suppressed fringe activity amidst a sea of delusion. Does this make modern science a cult in your terms, Ultraman? A clear sign of objectionism... the figure of 8000 people was simply to have a measurable effect - I clearly stated that it was "not a radical shift but a measurable one". I.e. the smallest possible deviation that is measurable given the current accuracy of our measuring instruments. And yet from this you respond with "If all it took was 8000 people to change the world......" You need to pay attention to what you are trying to object to. Better still you should question why it is that you feel the irrational compulsion to object when you don't even understand what it is that you are objecting to. If you value rationality then you should be sure that you are being rational. If you looked at what I say throughout my writings I call upon people to be as rational as they can be and to not simply dwell in woolly headed beliefs and assumptions about their infallible rationality. I'm not at all against people objecting - I welcome coherent objections from people because they are an excellent chance to put the ideas to the test - just like any science, it needs to be rigorously tested. But before you object I just ask that you think about what you are objecting to otherwise you are only being incoherent. It doesn't challenge the ideas at all but other woolly headed people are likely to get caught up in your confusion and create a cult of confusion. I'm sorry if I don't come across as very 'nice' here but I get a bit fed up with having to deal with these kinds of situations. Please, think about things and then if you still have objections I am happy to respond to them. I talk about some very subtle and conceptually difficult things and many people email me with questions that I try to respond to as best I can. 11 Aug 2007 @ 17:28 by anandavala : Something to add to the conversation... The final comment by Ultraman isn't entirely incoherent - it is a reasonable question. Although a-d dealt with it quite well (thanks a-d :) ) I'll clarify it a little more. Just some quick comments... 1) You are claiming that materialist empiricist science has a firm enough knowledge to be able to denounce everything else as a superstitious cult. Yet at the same time you call upon the limitations of our knowledge to defend that claim - it makes no sense. Furthermore, empirical science cannot even comprehend consciousness, even though its ontological foundation is the objects of consciousness - so it doesn't even have a firm conceptual foundation let alone exhaustive coverage. Many scientists and philosophers know this but there is still the popular cult of Scientism that doesn't seem to know this. For some comments from renowned western scientists and philosophers on this subject see The Scientific Case Against Materialism. 2) You are arguing on false premises - you assume that I am promulgating a superstitious belief system that requires blind faith in its infallibility - but your assumption is totally wrong. I don't claim infallibility, I only claim to be able to clearly see the limitations of empirical science and to be able to point out some useful directions to explore to make it more realistic and effective and rational and sceptical. I point out some of its blind beliefs and challenge it to be more sceptical - yet you assume that I ask people to be credulous - you should check your premises and rethink your argument. 3) There is breadth of coverage and depth of coverage. To give a simple example, one could scan an entire book but with very bad eyesight or one can analyse a single page in extreme detail. Both provide information. The former might count how many pages but not know what language it is written in and the latter may know what language it is but not know how many pages. Astronomy is like the former case and quantum physics is like the latter case. But none of the empirical sciences has considered the reader of the book and how it is that they experience the book at all - they have not dealt properly with consciousness because of the very nature of empiricism. Empiricism takes consciousness as a given, and it also takes the objects of consciousness as a given. It then assumes that those objects of consciousness are material objects in an external physical space and then constructs elaborate theories to explain this. It has no evidence to backup its naive realist assumption - it is purely an assumption based upon biological biases and a lack of sceptical questioning. See the above referenced article for more on this. 4) To understand the nature of an atom you don't need to analyse every atom in the universe, you just need an adequate sample. To understand consciousness all you need is your own consciousness and the willingness to explore it. 5) To understand the nature of the world of objects in space we need to understand the nature of the consciousness that causes us to experience the objects in space. Once we have a sufficient understanding of consciousness and of how the objects in space arise in our awareness we can take science beyond the limitations of empiricism - beneath its foundation of blind belief and closer to reality. The far distant galaxies have nothing to do with this exploration because it involves innerspace not outerspace. Until we understand innerspace the idea of outerspace is just a naive realist belief with which the cult of empiricism deceives us. 6) Regarding hill climbing - it is good to climb a hill that is firmly attached to the ground - but empiricism is floating on a cloud of naive realism. I don't claim to have "the right hill", I simply claim to have a way to connect the empiricists hill with the ground so that they can have more success in their climbing. 7) You approach this whole discussion based on the belief that it is a matter of me setting myself up with some competing "belief system" and seeking 'followers' - you should look into this belief of yours because it bares no relation to the reality of this matter. 13 Aug 2007 @ 05:19 by Ultrahuman @59.154.53.75 : Objectionitis Ofcourse I'm a chronic sufferer. But, when you object to somebody on the internet, inevitably you are objecting to yourself. I read your theories and found them somewhat aligned with my own, and so, I object. I object only to view my own thoughts as read through your eyes in order to learn. I play devil's advocate to bring some objectivity (a strange word to find in the context of objectionitis) to my own thoughts. "I don't claim to have "the right hill", I simply claim to have a way to connect the empiricists hill with the ground so that they can have more success in their climbing" You have missed the point by a very wide margin. We are simply not having the same discussion. I am asking why you believe you know things and why such knowledge has yet to accomplish anything more than unending speculation and deabte, and you are only telling me the things that you know in return. I used a classic example of computational ignorance. I am quite shocked at your response to a 1st year comp. sci problem and thoroughly discouraged by the lack of awareness of the problem and how it relates your own endeavours. "LEARN THE REAL TRUTH" You should put it on a sign outside your church, a.d. This is, obviously, a done conversation. Good luck with your theorising and facts and truths and so on. 18 Aug 2007 @ 17:19 by anandavala : Farewell Ultrahuman It's good that you are aware of your condition - but you don't seem to understand the full implications of objectionitis. > objectivity (a strange word to find in the context of objectionitis) That is because the two words only have a superficial similarity. Their actual meanings are antithetical. Objectionitis traps people within their current belief systems - it shuts down all rational thought processes and closes the mind so that they are unable to do anything other than mindlessly accept what they already know and mindlessly object to anything that is new or different. > I read your theories and found them somewhat aligned with my own Perhaps your perception of the theories aligned with your own. So that would imply that you are a cultist seeking to delude people into being your followers. Because that is what you confusedly thought that this work was about. > I am quite shocked at your response to a 1st year comp. sci problem We obviously studied at different universities and I would also guess that we studied in different decades. There are thousands of such problems to ponder - you really shouldn't be so parochial - and if you have a point to make don't just hint vaguely at it and then get shocked when people don't read your mind. I really think you are just fishing for things to object to - that is not a rational approach - cheap point scoring seems to work for politicians but it won't work here. > I am asking why you believe you know things and why such knowledge has yet to > accomplish anything more than unending speculation and deabte, and you are > only telling me the things that you know in return. In amongst the nonsense objections I somehow missed this question - I'll address it now. I accept that I know things because those things are in my consciousness and I experience them as ideas - furthermore I provisionally accept that those things have some relevance to reality for several reasons. ## I have modelled them in mathematics and it is fully self-consistent without any contradictions or paradoxes. ## The ideas shed light on countless other ideas and integrate them into a single coherent conceptual framework - I have yet to encounter anything that cannot be usefully understood within this framework. ## The ideas provide an ontological foundation for the whole of philosophy and science that not only fits - but makes a hell of a lot of sense - it also explains how the current nonsense arises and why it is so persistent in so many minds. ## The ideas shed light on the perennial philosophy of mysticism and holistic metaphysics, making them rationally comprehensible for anyone who is rational enough to not just respond with knee-jerk objections. ## The ideas shed light on computational science, information science and system science and provide a detailed mathematical foundation for them. ## I have implemented the mathematics in software and it naturally gives rise to a general system simulator, a general model of distributed computation and a general virtual reality generator that creates virtual universes with quantum and relativistic properties that arise from the fundamental information theoretic constraints. ## It provides a mathematical foundation to the concept of cyberspace and allows for information technologies that are impossible via traditional ad-hoc approaches. Such as a computer observing a bouncing ball and from that deriving the equations of motion and being able to simulate that ball under different conditions such as a heavier ball or bouncier ball or a ball in fluid. Or the ability in certain circumstances to perform millions of computations with a single computation (computational warpdrive). ## After communicating with thousands of people over the last few years it has helped many people understand many different things more clearly - from computer science to yoga. Also, it has been attacked by hoards of mindless cynics and objectionists and nobody has found a single argument against it. When these cynics realise that they can't score cheap points they run and hide. Everyone who has been sceptical and rational enough to look into it concludes that it is supremely sensible - it is pure logic. ## And so on... there is much more if you bothered to look instead of just grasp for things to misconstrue and attempt to object to. I'll say it again, I'm happy for any coherent objections but people who mindlessly grasp at things and make wild accusations in a frenzy of irrationality are not very welcome. The reason why it has been slow to proceed is because of people like yourself - rather than help by assisting or help by rationally trying to argue against it - most people just engage in mindless defensive attempts to protect their unquestioned beliefs. The occasional sceptical people accelerate the process enormously - but far too many of my communications are spent dealing with infants that are throwing tantrums. Such things are not at all productive. Put simply, these ideas challenge core materialist beliefs, it has taken almost a century for a few people to start to enquire into the implications of quantum physics for this reason as well. The habit of blind belief and self-deception is very tenacious and it takes a while for people to get over it. In most people it just elicits a subconscious knee-jerk rejection - their minds are unable to entertain the simple logic. When you pronounce that the work has "yet to accomplish anything" I am curious how you know this when you so obviously know nothing about the work. Furthermore I would like to know what needs to be accomplished in order for you to realise that something is being accomplished? I am rather shocked at your complete ignorance of the nature of innovation. It doesn't start with consumer products and flashy advertising - it starts with years of open minded observation, then metaphysics, then philosophy, then many layers of theory, then contextualisation within specific domains and then application within those domains, and then it results in concrete technologies. And throughout this process there are countless loops and cycles. Only the most trivial innovations can pump out products straight away because all of their ground work has been done by others previously. But a truly profound paradigm shift means that the whole foundations shift and the whole structure needs to be re-aligned. You are just trying to deceive yourself that you are being rational whilst your mind is struggling to reject something without even knowing what it is or why. So yes, I agree "This is, obviously, a done conversation". Other entries tagged as "csr" 2008-05-09: What is a definition? How does it relate to meaning? 2008-04-25: System Oriented Modelling Paradigm 2007-09-03: Three Metaphysical Perspectives on one Page 2007-07-24: Blind Spots and Naive Realism 2007-06-28: Commonsense, Fascist Regimes and the Ego 2007-06-27: Interaction, Economics and the Human Condition 2007-06-24: Collective Meditation to Counter the Collective Ego 2007-06-24: Commonsense Realism and the Ego 2007-06-22: The Mystic Meaning of Original Sin 2007-06-19: The Scientific Case Against Materialism
Other entries tagged as "holistic science" 2008-05-10: Universal System Integrator 2008-05-09: What is a definition? How does it relate to meaning? 2008-05-07: What is a system and why should we care to know? 2008-05-04: System Oriented Modelling Paradigm - Brainstorming notes 03 2008-05-04: System Oriented Modelling Paradigm - Brainstorming notes 02 2008-04-25: System Oriented Modelling Paradigm 2007-09-03: Three Metaphysical Perspectives on one Page 2007-08-04: Some Intriguing Mathematical Properties of the Mayan Calendar 2007-07-24: What exactly is SMN and how does it connect with other technologies? 2007-07-24: Blind Spots and Naive Realism
Other entries tagged as "smn" 2008-05-10: Universal System Integrator 2008-05-07: What is a system and why should we care to know? 2008-05-04: System Oriented Modelling Paradigm - Brainstorming notes 03 2008-05-04: System Oriented Modelling Paradigm - Brainstorming notes 02 2008-04-25: System Oriented Modelling Paradigm 2007-07-24: What exactly is SMN and how does it connect with other technologies? 2007-07-10: Ontologies 2007-06-25: Computational Metaphysics, Consciousness and Systemic Evolution 2007-06-20: IT Revolution
Other entries tagged as "technology" 2008-05-10: Universal System Integrator 2008-05-04: System Oriented Modelling Paradigm - Brainstorming notes 03 2008-05-04: System Oriented Modelling Paradigm - Brainstorming notes 02 2008-04-30: Travelling on Air 2008-04-25: System Oriented Modelling Paradigm 2007-09-06: A Major Energy Revolution Brewing 2007-07-24: What exactly is SMN and how does it connect with other technologies? 2007-06-25: Computational Metaphysics, Consciousness and Systemic Evolution
Other entries in System Matrix Notation 2008-05-10: Universal System Integrator 2008-05-07: What is a system and why should we care to know? 2008-05-04: System Oriented Modelling Paradigm - Brainstorming notes 03 2008-05-04: System Oriented Modelling Paradigm - Brainstorming notes 02 2008-04-25: System Oriented Modelling Paradigm 2007-07-24: What exactly is SMN and how does it connect with other technologies? 2007-07-10: Ontologies 2007-06-20: IT Revolution
|