Greetings all. I'm new here. I've been interested in parapsychology for quite some time now, and this site seems to be a good place to discuss such topics.
The programming of constructs fascinates me. The creation of self-sustaining energy patterns has many profound implications, and many possibilities stem from it. Still, however, I believe we've barely scratched the surface of what can be done with programming, and there are several reasons for this.
From what I've read about the programming of constructs, it seems to be primarily visualization and feeling based. There has been some mention of the use of language to program constructs, but the languages mentioned have been conversational languages, which are not, by nature, terribly precise. The consequence of this is essentially a cap on how complex a constuct can be, as the more precise you try to make its function, the more prone to error you'll find it. For example, lets say you try to tie a construct to a glass paperweight that makes it heat up when squeezed, by rapidly absorbing warmth from the surrounding air. Though that sounds simple enough, there are a lot of variables. Exactly how much pressure must be applied to the paperweight before it begins to absorb energy? What is the maximum ammount of heat that can be absorbed? Should it immediately go to its maximum heat when the right ammount of pressure is applied, or will it get hotter the harder you squeeze? If the latter of the previous question, what is the ratio of pressure to heat absorbed? The list goes on. The current means of programming, in essence, is simply too qualitative.
Now, I've playing around with the idea of programing constructs with something possessing the mathematical precision of a computer programming language. Maybe introducing a "universal psionic notation" so to speak. Constructs could be planned out on paper before their creation, and the creater of the construct would use the plan to guide their thoughts when forming it. Through this method, I believe that the above mentioned paperweight, as well as things much, much more complex, could be done.
So what do you think of my idea? Has it been proposed before? (if so, whoops.) Do you think I could really be on to something, or does it show that I understand nothing of constructs? I look forward to hearing your opinions.
Was that too formal? Sorry, I sometimes go into essay mode without realizing. :shy:
Sounds like a fun idea. All these programming techniques are just different ways of conveying an intent.
Programming can be as easy or as complex as you want it. This would work just because if you were to take the time & effort to write what you wanted out of this on paper; you would really solidfy your intent in your mind.
When I create constructs, I divide each task into an individual psi-ball then combine them to form complex shapes/constructs.
example if you were to create a construct to monitor your driveway. You would make one sensor construct & one alert construct - stick them together to have a complex construct.
I agree in most with both of you. Your level of understanding of and inteligable instruction of the deep concept of constructs is a good breath of fresh air. this site has seen its fair share of fluffs and tuners that dabble in it expect to be able to create massivly powerful beings. The truth of the matter is though that when i create or rather organize a construct i first sstart by organizing and programing a few of its standalone parts such as its energy gathering parts. with just these being operational it can work is what i mean by stand alone. In order to make sure none of my random thoughts make into the programing i "diconnect" from and than begin to gather thoughts about the construct programing. I start really simple and work from there. Like what do i want it to do (ie be second pair of eyes to protect me from anything physical, etheral, astral, metaphysical or otherwise from taking me by surprise.) than i work on making sure as much ground is covered as posible on what could go wrong and fixing it or what i need it to do im more detail. i put it on paper and than when i have everything i condence it. i look through it and than condence it more. than i look through it again i condence it more. A fully operational and wel prgramed construct to do something as complex as watching my back so i never get surprised is a full 5 weeks of good long work. granted when i created this guardian i was only 12 so i can now do it better faster and make it stronger. that guardian contruct has been with me for over 12 years. It works remarkable well even still. I like how well on track you are with how i have percieved is a good way to it. Now again i side with the second post, every one has a different way to do it. I am a perfectionist and i like to be thorough. so i do it this way. everyone has a good way of doing things. Metal forever and Auegamma and others do it all differently than you me or Ianfort. anywho. thats my view.
I wish I'd checked in three months ago when this was an active topic :-\ Anyway, bravo. Organizing ideas on paper certainly a good idea, but the mathematical programming language is creative. Unfortunately it is not the most effective method of programming if you're willing to put that much work into the matter. For simple work visualization etc. are all that is needed. However for more advanced or important projects a superior method is of course preferred. Writing your ideas down on paper is a great first step, planning, using mental shortcuts, etc. is the pinnacle of fully conscious design. This allows you to organize ideas in a simple, effective and 'clean' way that hastily assembled constructs will almost always lack.
This process of writing down and perfecting ideas takes considerable amounts of time every instance you take on a new project. Creating 'eyes in the back of your head', a previously used example, required more than a month. Such a project should take no more than an hour. How? It's fairly simple, you just hand over the grunt work (diagrams, organization of ideas, condensing concepts and structures, etc.) to your unconscious mind. This is where Trances *fireworks display* come in very handy.
Trances are relatively simple in theory. You break down the borders between conscious and subconscious portions of your mind/brain by exiling the ego and other natural divides between the two segments of mind through mental relaxation or synchronization. Meditation, Trance music, etc. are useful for inducing trance until you can enter a trance reflexively. http://www.psipog.net has an article on trances ( http://www.psipog.net/art-trancing.html ), and following is a segment from the article "Blank mind scanning" from this website. ( http://www.psionicsonline.net/esp-extra-sensory-perception/articles/48-b... )
============
Basic Trancing
Overloading:
Trancing by overload is a preferred method for novices. “Overloadingâ€
You can work with Thoughtforms too if you want. Its very similar to the programming you mentioned.
Cobalt.
Being an experienced computer programmer (C++, Java, C, x86 Intel ASM, JavaScript, and Python), I can say that trying to precisely describe each and every facet of a construct would become very cumbersome, very quickly. The beauty of programming constructs with more "vague" thoughts, is that your subconscious fills in the details that are intuitive to you when you think about the construct. If you want to be more precise, you can. As was mentioned above, it just takes time if you want to precisely define lots of things, which is exactly the same issue with computer programming (aside from mention debugging). Not having an explicit language gives you the freedom to use the full capacity of your subconscious to fill in little details, which is enormously time-saving.
If you want an explicit language, though, there's no real "rules" to it. You can just open up your construct, view the programming of the code as a Python script (or whatever you'd like. Your subconscious can do the conversion to at least pseudocode, I'm sure), and make changes like that.
miri:
I would have to disagree. These are inherently linguistic properties and these linguistic properties underlie all epistemic conceptualizations of any thing we use to describe the world, whether in a purely metaphysical sense in regards to conceptual objects or epistemic structures used to describe something in the physical world. Think of a physics or chemistry equation versus the innate properties of a language, itself. In other words, these proto epistemic frameworks created from ontological groupings within a language/mathematical system allow for us, as humans, to think beyond the level of your basic animals.
For millienia, mathematicians and philosophers alike have been creating formal ontological frameworks denoted via linguistic devices to note patterns and model, epistemically, properties of the world. The word table is not an actual table, but it describes a table, thus, within the context of the language, the world table is an ontological object. In the context of outside of the language, it is an epistemic object which describes the table but is not the table, itself.
Miri, it goes beyond organizing one's ideas on paper. If you noticed, mathematics is not about semantic meaning. Yes, semantic meaning CAN be extracted from mathematical structures, but, mathematically speaking, the properties of that mathematical object is in relation to the other entities involved. It can be called an inferential form of information in which things are deduced from patterns of the relations between the objects within that framework. The issue would be the morphology of the linguistic structures involved in regards to incorporating new information. This is tied to high level abstract thinking, though, and one will not suddenly acquire this skill by going into a trance. That and altered states of consciousness tied to tracing are generally state specific versus being able to do something in one's typical state. The issue, that I can think of,
RobotGymnast:
That is the whole purpose behind creating it. it is to create a system to take control over those aspects of the person's mind. In that sense, the ontological structures exists only within that context and are extrinsic to the person's mind, thus, in doing this, one does not have to allow their subconscious mind to do anything, they can consciously employ something all on their own. What you are calling "rules" are properties of syntax inwhich a lot interpretation of the information in regards to something that is meaningful. Believe it or not, even your subconscious mind has a standard of HOW it interprets things for actual meaning.
[quote]
Over the last three decades, several analyses in Information Science, in Information Systems Theory, Methodology, Analysis and Design, in Information (Systems) Management, in Database Design and in Decision Theory have adopted a General Definition of Information (GDI) in terms of data + meaning (see Floridi [2005] for an extended bibliography). GDI has become an operational standard, especially in fields that treat data and information as reified entities (consider, for example, the now common expressions “data miningâ€
[quote="wyvernkyubi"]
miri:
I would have to disagree. These are inherently linguistic properties and these linguistic properties underlie all epistemic conceptualizations of any thing we use to describe the world, whether in a purely metaphysical sense in regards to conceptual objects or epistemic structures used to describe something in the physical world. Think of a physics or chemistry equation versus the innate properties of a language, itself. In other words, these proto epistemic frameworks created from ontological groupings within a language/mathematical system allow for us, as humans, to think beyond the level of your basic animals.
For millienia, mathematicians and philosophers alike have been creating formal ontological frameworks denoted via linguistic devices to note patterns and model, epistemically, properties of the world. The word table is not an actual table, but it describes a table, thus, within the context of the language, the world table is an ontological object. In the context of outside of the language, it is an epistemic object which describes the table but is not the table, itself.
Miri, it goes beyond organizing one's ideas on paper. If you noticed, mathematics is not about semantic meaning. Yes, semantic meaning CAN be extracted from mathematical structures, but, mathematically speaking, the properties of that mathematical object is in relation to the other entities involved. It can be called an inferential form of information in which things are deduced from patterns of the relations between the objects within that framework. The issue would be the morphology of the linguistic structures involved in regards to incorporating new information. This is tied to high level abstract thinking, though, and one will not suddenly acquire this skill by going into a trance. That and altered states of consciousness tied to tracing are generally state specific versus being able to do something in one's typical state. The issue, that I can think of,
[/quote]
You couldn't think of an issue?
As is your usual approach, you have taken my suggestion out of the context of casual discussion and put it in an academic setting in which it has no place. I was not discussing the ontological value of a conceptual system as opposed to a numerically coded system. I was not trying to imply direct interchangeability, superiority, or philosophical soundness. That you bother to look for these things is more annoying than helpful as, surprising as this may be, the vast majority of the frequent users of this forums have not even graduated from high school. This is not an intellectual laziness, it is a simple matter of youth. If you desire to debate (or for that mater even discuss) philosophy, linguistics, or advanced mathematics in an academic fashion you will need to acquire an aptly educated and willing conversationalist, or group thereof. Such does not exist here. This is not a shortcoming of the community as a whole, or as individuals, as these things are not a part of the community in any way.
I will, for your benefit, describe my prior argument in a way that you will, hopefully, be able to grasp without flailing around this thread like a rabid textbook author.
The use of a consciously created mathematical "language" (such as binary programming language), is not necessary for the projects being undertaken. Such languages, due to the social conditioning, and vernacular-oriented nature of humans in general, is not helpful enough to warrant the necessary time.
As such, an alternative method for programming relatively advanced constructs is to remove the inhibitions of the conscious mind from the process entirely. This eliminates the need for any "language" as uncoded information can be transferred between the various levels of the unconscious mind without need for such packaging. One way to reduce or eliminate conscious mind interference is to enter a trance with the preconceived construct planned for construction. Once trance and basic programming methods (See article links originally provided) have become well practiced they can in turn be used synchronously, and unconsciously, to create the planned construct. You may wish to organize the ideas you have regrading the construct on paper in a visually clear way. Writing in your native language, with diagrams, should suffice. This helps in clarifying intentions for the unconscious mind. As you continue to use this methodology, you will find the schematics and semantic description unnecessary to assure your unconscious mind's cooperation.
This is to say that developing any new "language" for your purposes, is unnecessary. Further, you can achieve significant results with only the slight modifications mentioned above.
If you need it, I can include various sources, wyvernkyubi.
miri:
You missed my point entirely. Go back and re read.
[quote="wyvernkyubi"]
That is the whole purpose behind creating it. it is to create a system to take control over those aspects of the person's mind. In that sense, the ontological structures exists only within that context and are extrinsic to the person's mind, thus, in doing this, one does not have to allow their subconscious mind to do anything, they can consciously employ something all on their own. What you are calling "rules" are properties of syntax inwhich a lot interpretation of the information in regards to something that is meaningful. Believe it or not, even your subconscious mind has a standard of HOW it interprets things for actual meaning.
[/quote]
Mathematics is a branch of linguistics which utilizes the ontological categorization of entities, in regards to their relations with one another prima facie; patterns. You are thinking about the semantic aspect of the thing in regards to meaning and not the discrete set of properties which compose that object and its relations to itself and other objects. The information is held within the patterns and not necessarily the meaning. Numbers and English are both linguistic expressions, but you would not write a mathematical equation like you would construct this sentence would you? Semantic meaning holds information by virtue while numbers are used to denote the prima facie relationship between a group, class, or type of entities.
I have no idea why you keep bringing up "trances", for a person does not have to enter a trance to speak a language or write an equation. The abstract forms of mathematical or semantic structures are reified within the context of the linguistic structures, but they are spatiotemporally inert making them epistemic/descriptive of the thing they are representing thereby making it a metaphysical entity which corresponds to a "real entity". The word table is an abstraction of an actual table but it is not the table, itself, but this abstraction allows for my mind to model "table" within my mind and encode/decode/transmit this information through various mediums.
The thing that I don't understand is WHY would I want my unconscious mind to do something that can be consciously done? We can see that people get angry and nothing happens whereas some people get angry and a book gets thrown. This makes it OBVIOUS that the doing mechanism is correlated with mental states but is NOT the mental state itself, thus, the thinking/feeling and the doing are carried out by two different but conjoined things. The conscious and unconscious and/or subconscious mind are part of an over arching thing we can call Self which is part of the mind, thus, the "doing" aspect of psi and the unconscious/subconscious aspects of the person are NOT one in the same. Sending something to your subconscious won't, by virtue, result in any type of psychic functioning. That being said, I have no idea why you would rather send something to your subconscious mind instead of learning how to consciously utilize it. Information in trance states are often state specific. In other words, it can not be understood, recalled, or utilized outside of that state of mind or triggered at will unless one enters that trance state at will.
Yes, you can include sources, but I would like sources on the philosophy of metaphysics and not OEC articles. To provide additional reading information for you:
[quote]
But computers are not so much machines as they are mind amplification tools (“bicycles for the mind,â€
wyvernkyubi:
My post had no true intentions of defending my earlier post against your mercurial onslaught of nebulous words tenuously made relevant to my own points. I simply wished to convey that your method of communication is both entirely inappropriate and utterly useless in this setting, rendering your points, as thought out as they may be, completely ineffectual and meaningless. I apologize if this was unclear in some way, however your vernacular, writing style and attitude present a pompous and arrogant front, difficult to listen to, much less respect. You maim your own logic through overwrought presentation befitting this forum.
Even more unfortunate is an inability you display to grasp that a difference of opinion does not mean a lack of ability or wit in your contemporary forum users. In fact a difference of opinion is simply a difference of opinion, as there is relatively little scientifically backed research into these phenomena. Anecdotal evidence is, often, more relevant than anything else when it comes to defining this field of practice. External logic, arguments, organizational methods, metaphors, and other assorted argumentative objects are largely irrelevant, leading more often to logical fallacies than truths.
I request, simply, that you not present yourself as above any others here, particularly not through a use of speech that is, innately, inappropriate to this setting. Express any opinions you wish, please just stop acting like an aloof asshole when doing so, as I'm sure you are only acting the part, of course.
Thanks,
Miri
[quote="miri"]
In fact a difference of opinion is simply a difference of opinion, as there is relatively little scientifically backed research into these phenomena. Anecdotal evidence is, often, more relevant than anything else when it comes to defining this field of practice.
[/quote]
Ontology is a branch of metaphysics and abstractions are metaphysical entities within themselves that are epistemic. In mathematical branches, it is postulated that these epistemic entities correspond to "real" entities the same way that the word table is an abstraction of an actual table that corresponds with an actual table. That being said, I did not bring up the subject of empirical sciences in this thread; I was discussing the metaphysical components of the subject, so I do not see how that is relevant at all to this thread. [b]Furthermore, the author did not ask about trances nor did he ask about your opinion on formal and/or informal ontologies. The author asked for how to create a formalized ontology that can be compiled into a programming language of sorts in which, within my points, I provided sources to how he could do this. To me, your responses would be more appropriate in a thread about trances instead of a thread that a person wrote in regards to constructing ontological frameworks.[/b]
[quote="miri"]
I simply wished to convey that your method of communication is both entirely inappropriate and utterly useless in this setting, rendering your points, as thought out as they may be, completely ineffectual and meaningless.
[/quote]
[quote="miri"]
I request, simply, that you not present yourself as above any others here, particularly not through a use of speech that is, innately, inappropriate to this setting. Express any opinions you wish, please just stop acting like an aloof asshole when doing so, as I'm sure you are only acting the part, of course.
[/quote]
I am sorry if you perceive me as such and I am sorry that my writing style brings you so much discomfort, but if you do not like it, simply do not read what I type. You can't expect me to change my personality nor how I type because you do not like it. How I come across to you, or others, is out of my control because it is their perception of me; therefore, it is something that is not mine and ultimately out of my hands. I don't live by how others see me, others perceptions of me, or others expectations of me. I live life, act, and speak how I want to. If people don't like me, so be it. If people don't respect me, so be it. You are entitled to your opinion, Miri, and your perception, but that is your opinion and that is your perception which does not mean I have to agree or change my behavior. If you feel that way, simply don't read what I have to say.
welcolm psi_tk32, i too have a similar story with the past and have recently joined... Hopefully the site will benifit your continued learning. catch ya the forum... [img src=\"style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/smile.gif\" style=\"vertical-align:middle\" emoid=\":)\" border=\"0\" alt=\"smile.gif\" /]
insight.
Add new comment