SageTree

Enjoy them when you can Bearson!

__________________

verklingen

i wanted to share this clip if anyone would indulge me. it's a new method of graphical computing that uses a certain algorithm to render each frame according to the perspective of a given scene. all the possible arrangements of pixels exist in data, and this is a software graphics processing engine that uses an algorithm to search the data in real time and construct a frame that matches the perspective.

the developers compare it to using a search engine. google has an immense amount of data, but it uses algorithms to quickly comb it for results that pertain to your search. anyway, it's easy to see the correlation here:

__________________

“Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.”

SageTree

Care to type out a synopsis paragraph ?

Interesting ideas and it's always cool and refreshing to see cross field points of relation.

__________________

verklingen

consciousness is a perspective, and there is no discreet reality without perception. so through the very act of perceiving, consciousness creates the reality of its perspective. before perception there is infinite potential: an indiscreet cloud of data. you might say that consciousness processes a series of algorithmic functions upon the "emptiness" to produce its perspective reality. that's a fairly close approximation of what the graphics software does, at least as it seems to me

__________________

“Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.”

SageTree

What is the level of bytes in the average consciousness of Joe Society or something akin to that 'norm'?
My understanding is low on processing/ comps etc, but I think I got that understanding? That would mean 64 bytes of processing leads to more colour and details? Which would be 'a higher level/state of being' ?

Do you or did you think that was part of the over lap as well? That is, as the processing is faster more details are uncovered, opening up a deeper level of 'sight' literally on the game and multi-layered in our life.

__________________

verklingen

well that's just the thing! this way of graphical computing completely bypasses the need for immense processing power. instead of processing everything in view of the perspective individually as has been the way of it since the advent of computer graphics (determining the shape, size and position of all on-screen objects individually), this new way processes only the individual pixels that make up your computer screen (determining the color each pixel must be to generate a given perspective). so the detail isn't limited by processing power, but rather the algorithms used. the concept behind this software seems to allow for unlimited processing of unlimited graphical possibilities. it's like the instructions for a virtual particle of the massless sort that i mused on before.

__________________

“Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.”

SageTree

So they created a way to view infinitely deep with infinite ease in other words.

Rather than building a big massive math problem to achieve depth, they are solving the complex equations with simpler math, would be an apt way to look at it?

__________________

verklingen

right!!! that's a lot easier than anything i've said

__________________

“Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.”

SageTree

Good good man.... distilling takes time so thanks for cooking up a batch together!

__________________

hijabihippie

And then the resulting liquor has to be aged properly, which takes time as well...

Check out the book Metamagical Themas.

ziplock

Alright, time to tackle this sort of thinking a little earlier in the day with a slightly lower level of inebriation than last time Not much lower though...

Ah thanks, my friend Unfortunately was not too happy with my last attempt. Here's hoping this one goes better...

Emptiness is a term I appreciate and embrace most certainly. When one is intimately familiar with the terminology and how it is interpreted and applied to the observed phenomenon, or subject, then it seems quite apt and satisfactory. Eloquent, I enjoy musing over the implications and various symbolic interpretations involved in such an labels application.

My mention of refraining in it's use isn't so much for any quality of the label itself as it is simply how a person is likely to interpret it. When we remove our familiarity with the term, it starts drawing various notions that could in essence make the individual's conceptions inaccurate. For those who have not encountered the term in this sort of context, it brings forth notions of "absence" which, imo, is exactly what it's not.

The video brings up the example of a blank piece of paper, ripe full of potential. We then see our application of paint or ink as a way of materializing a potential. In essence, we're taking a blank sheet and adding to it. Through these additions an illustration is realized and takes manifestation on the sheet. This is a satisfying way of looking at it, and does manage to illustrate the overall meaning well. I do not feel it is invalid in any way. However, I submit an alternative way of viewing it.

We return to the blank piece of white paper. Mentally it is typical for one to visualize, like in the video, black ink being added, drawing the outline of something. It's typical for us to perceive this subconsciously as an addition, the ink is added onto the paper. Instead, think of it as a removal. That we took a knife and scrapped off the white, revealing black.

The fundamental difference is that in one instance, we see potential realized through the addition of ink. The potential is in an unrealized state, through the efforts, or additions, it is realized. In the other, we see all potentials simultaneously realized, and then it's a matter of what we take away, or what we ignore, that creates the image. In one, if we add enough, we'll realize it's a duck. In the other, if we take enough away, we'll realize it's a duck. Constructing a house out of lego vs carving it out of wood. In the end, the result is the same, the perception is the same, however the means to which it's reached is different.

I submit then, that the one perception in essence sees "something" get created from "nothing." To the other, "something" always exists, it's our ignorance of parts of it which give rise to ducks. We look at wave-particle duality. Unobserved, it behaves as a wave, observed it behaves as a particle. The "collapsing" of a field potential into a singular, realized, actuality. Two different frames of reference, one is subject to our experience of the universe and claim it is this quality that is existence. What is outside of this doesn't exist, or is a potential. The other is outside of our experience, sort of witnessing that all exists simultaneously. A "beyond" space-time sort of thing. What we understand ourselves to be then stands as a sort of universal point of self-awareness, or self-realization. When this point is placed at the end of the body's information filtration system, we become self-aware of it's end result, and this is understood as our reality. We can then see the characteristic changes in person, self, mind, or perception, that result from damage to the body.

This is similar to the generator vs radio example. In one we can see consciousness resulting from the operation of the generator. In the other, we can see consciousness as existing outside of the radio, and the radio tunes into this consciousness, allowing for us to hear the song. What we perceive as the song, or this consciousness, is far far different from the actual nature of it. Only through the radio does it become a song, and only when it is to a particular station will it be a particular song. Depending on the quality of the radio, the song may appear to be broken, parts missing, quite different from what we'd expect.

Let's think then of the concept of the soul. The soul is seen as basically the "I" that has awareness of many "Is" which "I" am a part of. There are then different souls, that have been believed to have gone through many different lives. If I am my soul, then what I experience in life is this particular aspect of the soul, the soul then being the totality of this and many other aspects. I experience this life as me due to my ignorance of the other lives I have been/am involved in. There is no reason to stop there, the soul of souls ad infinitum, till you reach the conclusion of an infinite oneness of existence which life takes place within. Here we see the collapsing of that "self-realized" awareness to a certain scale of ignorance in essence. Without this ignorance, we'd be unable to perceive the reality we do. This ignorance, understandably, is then a beautiful thing.

What distinguishes the different "levels" is the relative position, their awareness, a type of locality. At some point all dissolve into one, so when we make a distinct differentiation between each other, we are basically acknowledging our locality in reference to one another. Obviously this has space-time relevance, I'm in Canada, you're in ______. But it can also be applied to identities, or ideas of self. We're in essence close together, both human. We'll "come together" or "connect" on certain interests or behaviors, such as quantum physics, buddhism, and marijuana, in no particular order. If we continue connecting in essence, we'd come to a point where we'd be completely identical, or one. A sort of quantum entanglement, if you will.

It'd be reasonable to say that it is due to this ignorance, due to this narrowing of awareness to this particular scale/frequency, that I perceive any significant difference between my surroundings and myself. If I were to be aware of everything, if I were to perceive things as a wave, there would be no locality or speed as we understand it to speak of, there would be no me here on a chair, it'd be everywhere, simultaneously, at once, a force.

The forces of our existence are theorized as being carried by particles, the electromagnetic force's carrier particle being a photon for example. These particles aren't really seen as particles in the "concrete" sense though, they're seen as sort of concentrated ripples that in this group appear like particles. In other words, everything is ripples in a field, and through their interactions patterns are formed that interact accordingly with the rest, "evolving" through the incorporation of other ripples into their pattern. A transformation of energy as opposed to a creation and destruction. When we then think of a system of particles it's almost like taking a picture of traffic as it flies by you at light speed and then examining the patterns, proportions, relations, of the pieces of the picture. A particle is a snap shot of a wave, perceived as a point. Our perspective is then made up of many of these snap shots, shown in succession, which leads to this motion picture we perceive, like a movie. Our body acts as the camera. This gives reality it's "concrete" feel when in reality it's "99.999999999999 %" empty. I think it was 12 9s in that stat... Can't remember for sure...

It's through these exercises in thinking and perspective that I have hopefully led you on that I've come to integrate physics/science/etc with buddhism/taoism/spirituality/etc and reconcile the differences which there appear to not be many of. Again they are many different ways of looking at the same thing, as it appears there's nothing else to look at. In no way was I implying opposition to or invalidity of any concepts mentioned anything like that. I feel this is important to emphasize. It was just a matter of sort of transplanting our point of perception, or frame of reference. Look at it like it was a particle, look at it like it was a wave. That sort of thing.

__________________
Insanity is the only sane reaction to an insane society.

soma

If you put an orange in the middle of a stadium the outer seats is where the electron is compared to the nucleus so most of matter is empty space. Buddhism confirms this concept by transcending a personal God and avoiding dogma and theology. I feel Christianity needs to evolve to a Christian faith in a God that is related to the realization of Emptiness or consciousness in some sort of Christian Mysticism. Another way to look at the all encompassing pure consciousness, God, emptiness that permeates everything.

The Christian’s consciousness of acceptance that there is one God and that He created all things is a conceptual truth that frees the mind to think of God all the time in this permeating pure consciousness. This relaxes the emotions so we can praise everything as good because it came from God. This kind of encounter Jesus revealed to be the key to reality, a connection to God or pure consciousness that has the ability to bring into physical being that which is spiritual and ultimately real so emptiness is in reality.

kitch

great googly moogly!

__________________

SageTree

I really enjoyed that my Friend. Thanks again for sharing it.

__________________

hijabihippie

I can't help but be reminded of Kaballah, where in the Tree of Life, above Kether, there are 3 more sephiroth. One of them is called "Ain Sof", translated as "emptiness", if my memory serves.

SageTree

HAHAHA I'm feeling ecstatic right now!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAAHA

*gotta get my whirling on here soon*

__________________

soma

We try in so many disciplines to describe no-thing, nothing, emptiness, but the spiritual experience speaks volumes and puts all the pieces into place. It makes all the deciphering worth while.

SageTree

Bump it up.

__________________

SageTree

Hey Bearman... tonight I'm bumping old posts and have found a couple "I'll watch this" and thought I'd check and see

__________________

Geeno

We want verk. We want verk. We want verk. We want verk. We want verk.

__________________