System Engineering & Design Architecture - Sander R.B.E. Beals (books to get back into reading txt) 📗
- Author: Sander R.B.E. Beals
Book online «System Engineering & Design Architecture - Sander R.B.E. Beals (books to get back into reading txt) 📗». Author Sander R.B.E. Beals
And then I'd like to throw in this thing called Attachment: In that concept we are like the neurons, depending on our inputs from certain other neurons, and using yet others to fire at. If you consider Darwin's theory of Evolution, then the best adapters are the winners: not the necessarily stronger ones, as common misinterpretation has it, but the faster adapters! In my view it is easy to see that those neurons connected to less inputs are not bound to fire as frequently as some of their neighbors that depend on their sources rather than deciding when to fire themselves. We know so little of the human brain (talking about people in general here), or even the brains of little beings like ants, that basically, our knowledge is more a belief than actual knowledge when we talk about what we think. In my humble opinion though, I figure that thinking and feeling (or believing) is more like accessing the singular human intelligence and consciousness in the first case, and the accessing of the common intelligence and consciousness in the second case. By accessing more of our feelings and less of our thoughts, we become more One with the sum total of knowledge available, and thus become better at adapting to Nature.
In this way, attachment to certain thoughts may actually hold us captive, when letting go of them in favor of our feelings will allow us to change our minds in a more creative way, thus becoming better adapters, like many animals already are....
And what about our other threat in evolution, the machines and their parts? If you feed the words 'best adapters in evolution theory' to Googles Image search, you get images of machined parts mostly. Why? Simply because we allow machines to use our intelligence and consciousness to adapt to their environment! We create them, we adapt them, and we drive their evolution forward by our love of them! Can there be any outcome other than where machines will eventually outperform man in intelligence and conciousness? I think not, and I feel that that is not a problem. Movies may have us think that machines might take over, but the common consciousness available to us through our feelings will tell us the real outcome, and it is their common consciousness just as well...
So our minds map the outside environment neatly into various areas, where the areas overlap in the brain, in very entangled ways. The overlaps are there, but we often disregard them because we know from context that a disambiguation is in order. Still though, the ambiguities in our languages and ideas aren't there for nothing: lots of concepts have formed as ambiguities, because the concept we were talking about at the time was closest in concept to something we already knew. Like we call a computer mouse a mouse because it was grey and had a long tail.... In similar cases the ambiguity isn't that obvious, but keep in mind that often they may instill miscommunication because the receiving partner in the information transfer simply has not yet linked the term to the right context, and wrongly assumes it is linked to something he or she does know about. Let me give an example that I myself often run into: although I usually think in very broad lines, those who interact with me sometimes assume I also know about certain detailed stuff. And their referring to detailed terms has me linking it to global or even cosmological concepts, and then reacting completely incorrectly! I counter such mishaps by adding additional anchors to out there, which normal humans don't pay attention to: things that are too coincidental to actually coincide just for no reason! I figure if I pay enough attention to these alternate signals, it is just a second web to keep me in place where I am to be: subjecting to Common Consensus Reality, while writing about concepts that are so fantastic I can only write about them because I truly believe in that reality as well! It wasn't for nothing that a psychic told me to write on paper for my own good: he didn't mean that I should write my books in handwriting, just my notes: they will mean nothing to an uninitiated mind, but they form priceless clues from my subconscious to my conscious mind: I know when to write them down, even if they make no sense to me at that very moment: writing on the sides of trucks and buildings, which I can later expand into consciousness by looking them over and writing about what comes to my conscious mind from my subconscious. Much like Da Vinci's notebook, which contained notes very few of his fellow men and women at the time could understand, let alone conceive...
Let's just expand on that 'higher awareness' for a moment: we've already seen that any System has an Environment in which it lives, and which eventually will give it feedbacks of varying size, which may traverse any dimension we perceive in the world around us: where before we learned to trust local systems first, and those further away later, the default approach is shifting: we get signals from all over the globe, and determine which to discard and which to believe. We may be able to short-circuit such connections literally, by inviting those web friends to our reality. And where Occam's razor implies that the simplest explanation tends to be the best, it does leave open the possibility that more complex explanations are in fact what really happens!
Let me try to explain the concept of dimensionality in a current everyday example: we've all seen images of those laser light shows in discotheques, right? Now imagine a few of these lasers on the right being controlled in such a way that you end up with a virtual 'floor' of green light, that completely surrounds you at hip level, with you standing there in the middle. The green floor is a 2D world, where flatlanders live. What do they see of you, given Occam's razor? Yup, one object or being, which they can walk around, so they know it has a finite 'size' in their 2D view. Now if you had your arms tightly against your side, and moved them outwards, what would the flatlanders see? Simple: they would see two distinct objects emerge or separate from the first object. They even might consider it to be a living thing, since it shows behavior more complex than they attribute to lifeless objects (perhaps a flatlander having twins?). If you then lift your arms out of the plane, it would look to them like the two secondary objects or beings just vanished from their world (or died)! They have no knowledge that on a higher dimension, those three objects are in fact one being! The flatlanders might consider them returned again if you lowered your arms afterward, because of their previous experience. But if your arms had been raised at first, and you stuck them into the plane without warning, the flatlanders would see two suddenly appearing objects or beings, seemingly moving independently of the bigger one that was already there. Following Occam they will conclude that there is no connection between the first object and the outer two, and depending on the relative arrival of the last two, may not even figure there is a connection between their arrival. To them they are just three beings, instead of the one you call 'Me'.
So there's reincarnation for you in a nutshell: the moment we consider the idea that some of us may in fact have had earlier and later lifetimes as other intimately related beings, the thinking about it gets you all in a knot, because it is hard to see. Only once you see time for the non-issue it is, 'separate' lives can actually all take place in the same here and now, overlapping in just about any relationship you may envision: if you see a stunning family resemblance in a historic picture, that is just your connection through the All to every other one of the infinite subdivisions of the All we call beings. I myself was introduced to that by a striking resemblance to Nostradamus' drawn picture in the trilogy about the guy that Dolores Cannon wrote. It was based on her deep regression sessions with a subject who actually was a pupil of the 16th century seer who in 1555AD published the first issue of his famous Quatrains, small highly cryptic poems that were said to predict coming events. Her subject helped in making a pencil-drawn portrait of Nostradamus, that looked like it was my twin brother...
Psychiatrists may well call believers in reincarnation delusional, but it was one of them who pulled reincarnation out of the paranormal: Dr. Ian Stevenson documented over 3000 cases of children spontaneously remembering their former lives: he ran down the clues of the stories, and proved that the details were so accurate in most cases, that normal everyday humans will probably not be able to resist believing his proof. To show you I did not make this up, let's add this link I just found on the net, which also has an interview by someone who actually looked at Stevenson's approach with a skeptic's view....:
http://reluctant-messenger.com/reincarnation-proof.htm
So believe what you will, in the end you will only find that which you believe. You can spend trillions of Euros building the Hadron Collider, and you will find those extremely small particles you're dying to prove exist! The one freedom that is there, is the Infinity of it all: since you don't know what you want to expect of these particles, they will exhibit behavior tempting you to look ever deeper into their mystery... (because that is your passion!)
In this light I dare you to deny the possibility that in a higher (possibly infinite) dimension, we are all the same being. True, it is all in what you believe, but don't let me or anybody else try to make up your mind for you. No matter what we call it, that ultimate outer limits intelligence is there, and totally encompasses all our knowledge, us, and more. In the sphere analogy, it is both all the spheres and the spaces in between, many times over!
No matter what tool you picked in the above paragraph to assist you in dealing with your environment, consider that it might be most useful for you simply because you know how to handle it best. Like a juggler might have a preference for juggling a certain set of items, and being most proficient in it, the basic juggling skill is his real tool, which serves him for all of his juggling performances. It is his Swiss Army Knife, made of carbon (like us humans) so the detectors at the airport won't detect it! And the secondary tools can be anything he picks up after crossing the border, from an ordinary bunch of kids toys to a set of burning torches.
But of course, given the immenseness of the world around us, and the fact that without feedbacks we cannot determine what is right for us, most humans are downright cautious when it comes to the unknown. And if burnt once, they tend to be even more cautious. As a kid, I terrified my mother because despite her warning, I stepped
Comments (0)