Closed Systems VS Open Systems

Anything logical is a closed system.
Nature is open ended.

~Poe

Within the boundaries of it’s box, logic is a useful tool.
The heart, emotions, and intuition transcend such boundaries.

Tags

  1. non monotonic

Comments


Holmes says
MR of group mark 2016-02-24 18:02:25 [item 20139#46728]
Maybe …. Maybe NOT! She who is Yin probably prefers Yin & She who is Yang probably prefers Yang. smug
Poe of group da 2016-02-24 18:03:30 [item 20139#46729]
Far as I know, logic is genderless, including the yin yang variety of gender.
MR of group mark 2016-02-24 18:08:51 [item 20139#46732]
Yep – you said it “as far as you know” … I have experienced that Yang can & does prefer a train of thought & Yin can & prefers a train of feelings (loa) .  A chain of action depends on the other two – yin & yang.cool
Poe of group da 2016-02-24 18:14:28 [item 20139#46735]
Okay. I’ll buy that. But that is preference of the observer or utilizer, not the system itself. The thought is about the system, where it sits in relation to nature, and what transcends it. Not about those who use it and what they prefer.
MR of group mark 2016-02-24 18:24:45 [item 20139#46737]
The feeling is not yet right for you yet & you need to continue the train of feeling  so it is now the system we are talking about.
Yes, exactly!

Holmes says
seth of group seth 2016-02-24 20:18:47 [item 20139#46746]
Just an aside … there was an interesting discussion about “Why must the web be monotonic ?” on the W3C RDF logic forum.   Interesting thread, you can see the thread view here.    I asked essentially why the logic of the semantic web “must” be closed?   Pat Hayes had an interesting response https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-logic/2001Jul/0067.html … you may or may not agree.  
I agree, but only because of one statement. Mostly all he does is use a long winded logically based argument to say “do what works”. But where he says “there is always the possibility that new information might arise from some other source” that’s all that needs to be said. We are always generating new information. It is the purpose of all that is. So since monotonic logic is logic that allows for new information, it is the only way of proceeding that applies to anything in motion, including the web. Monotonic = in motion. But really, who cares? Just do what works.

Mark de LA says
Poe of group da 2016-02-24 18:28:35 [item 20139#46739]
You may or may not know what you said there. But I do. It was very clear. And THAT is the meaning of your communication, no matter what you think it is.
MR of group mark 2016-02-24 18:35:06 [item 20139#46740]
Nice, but flawed mind-reading in the context of ignorance. laughing Enjoy the Egooooooo….
Poe of group da 2016-02-24 18:41:53 [item 20139#46741]
NLP out the window then? The meaning of your communication is not the result you get? It is only what’s in your mind?
MR of group mark 2016-02-25 00:04:13 [item 20139#46753]
Context, dude! It becomes bullshit when you pretend to read someone else’s mind & pretend to be omniscient about it. laughing
nathan of group nathan 2016-02-25 00:06:17 [item 20139#46754]
True. What if you don’t pretend but just do?
MR of group mark 2016-02-25 00:09:24 [item 20139#46756]
IDK to munged-off to make any sense out of it.  
nathan of group nathan 2016-02-25 00:11:00 [item 20139#46757]
Simple pure action. Perfect manifestation.
slogans? word-association detached from context?

Seth says
seth of group seth 2016-02-24 20:55:26 [item 20139#46749]
incidentally i think a system that does not recognize otherness is a closed system.
nathan of group nathan 2016-02-24 21:01:00 [item 20139#46750]
Of course. I have said many times I fully recognize otherness. There must be 20 comments around FBI stating that in deatail from several points of view. You are not referring to me with that statement.  That we each create our entire reality is in no way incompatible with otherness or the full and rich experience of it.
seth of group seth 2016-02-24 21:13:46 [item 20139#46751]
Your explanation does not work for me.  “That we each create our entire reality”  implies to me that there is no otherness.    if i was not able to experience what others create,  I would feel there was no otherness.   I would experience a closed system. 
nathan of group nathan 2016-02-24 21:36:44 [item 20139#46752]
Well your mainly chasing your own tail. Caught in a box of logic. There are many ways out. Many explanations. You have built yourself a logic box in which there are mutually exclusive components, but as we have been talking in this whole thread, that does not have to be the case. You could apply monotonic logic and step right out of it if you wanted to. The contradictions you are experiencing are only because you always turn at the same point and never take a different path. You can turn a different way at many points and find yourself in a whole different place, or not, your choice. But don’t accuse me of not acknowledging or experiencing otherness simply because you use non-monotonic logic in respect to otherness. It’s your choice to stay in that system.

Maybe I have the terms backwards, they are new to me, but either way, you know what I mean. 
yep you have the terms monotonic and non-monotoic switched …. monotonic is closed … non monotonic is open.   i stumbled on that when i first encountered it too. 

it seems to me that you have also switched “you” with “i” in your paragraph.

almost every sentence you write about me strikes me as false … yet most of the sentences you write about yourself strike me as true.  ← a true sentence, do you believe me? 

bug incidentally this was a case where i edited the comment to which you replied … and this morning i cannot find my editing in what you responded to … and there was no forking warning given …. at least not to me.

Seth says
seth of group seth 2016-02-24 19:42:36 [item 20139#46742]
There are actually lots of logic games, not just one.   One of them is  called "Non-monotonic logic" …
 
non-monotonic logic is a formal logic whose consequence relation is not monotonic. In other words, non-monotonic logics are devised to capture and represent defeasible inferences (c.f. defeasible reasoning), i.e., a kind of inference in which reasoners draw tentative conclusions, enabling reasoners to retract their conclusion(s) based on further evidence.[1] Most studied formal logics have a monotonic consequence relation, meaning that adding a formula to a theory never produces a reduction of its set of consequences. Intuitively, monotonicity indicates that learning a new piece of knowledge cannot reduce the set of what is known. A monotonic logic cannot handle various reasoning tasks such as reasoning by default (consequences may be derived only because of lack of evidence of the contrary), abductive reasoning (consequences are only deduced as most likely explanations), some important approaches to reasoning about knowledge (the ignorance of a consequence must be retracted when the consequence becomes known), and similarly, belief revision (new knowledge may contradict old beliefs).

So we can play logic games which are just as open as we want them to be.   
Poe of group da 2016-02-24 19:52:21 [item 20139#46743]
Okay, and that does sound like various attempts to get logic out of whatever system, or box, it is operating within. It does not sound like what people normally mean when they say to think about something logically. In pretty much all cases, someone who is saying that is simply saying “think without emotion and intuition”. And I am only saying that when one does that, think without emotion or intuition, then they are thinking inside of a closed system.

The expanded reasoning systems above only talk about the idea that there are ways out of the box, that such must be acknowledged, they don’t really say what those things are. I do, I say it is emotional and intuitive thinking.
seth of group seth 2016-02-24 20:00:10 [item 20139#46744]
yeah i get your point.  I found long time ago when somebody says to me,  “think logically”,  or “you are not reasoning” … all they really mean is that I am not using their logic, or their reasons.   I agree, emotion and intuition are in a totally different box than the closed (or somewhat open) systems of logic.   And i you think about it, so is what people actually do … their deeds.  Nothing logical there.  Rules are made or broken at will.  And in fact almost all of reasoning is after the fact of what happens. 

…. and if fact, Bozo’s header here expresses that same attitude:  “Logic is great, survival is better” laugh
Poe of group da 2016-02-24 20:11:04 [item 20139#46745]
Yes. I am providing an additional point of view. In realizing that logic is a system, a box, then it can be chosen or not chosen, to enter that particular box. It can be very useful sometimes to enter the box and think in the logic system that operates there (even sometimes when it is just someone else’s personal system). Most people don’t see it that way though. They see logic as something you do or don’t do, not as many different systems you can choose to enter or not, depending on what outcome you want.
seth of group seth 2016-02-24 20:22:16 [item 20139#46747]
… well i am certainly with you on that yes … any logical system (regardless of how open it is) … is just a box we can choose to contain our thinking within, or not. 
MR of group mark 2016-02-25 00:07:46 [item 20139#46755]
Yep still arguing about GIGO.
hmmm …   well actually in this particular thread i think Poe and I were agreeing … not arguing. 

An open system can assimilate novel information .. and when it does it will function even better in its new context.   A closed system doesn’t do that all so very well  … maybe it then falls prey to the GIGO phenomena.  Depends on the system. 

Mark de LA says
MR of group mark 2016-02-25 00:24:14 [item 20139#46760]
Thinking systems that do not recognize something else are merely solipsism . Many encounters in the worlds of Star Trek & in nuthouses around the country laughing
pondering
seth of group seth 2016-02-25 04:28:05 [item 20139#46763]
?
Poe of group da 2016-02-25 07:58:27 [item 20139#46765]
Nut houses are full of people having very specialized experiences of their own for their own reasons. They should not be considered examples of or reasons to think a particular way or what can happen to a person if they don’t think according to a norm. So called “crazy people” have special set ups and relationships to the verses they create which are not easily duplicated by others and are not contagious.
seth of group seth 2016-02-25 08:04:45 [item 20139#46767]
?
OK so you are calling nut-cases to your explanations thumbs uplaughing & “special set ups” to your cause. Whatever you choose to believe is whatever – essentially auto-generated-solipsism. 

Seth says
MR of group mark 2016-02-25 00:18:29 [item 20139#46759]
mon·o·ton·ic
ˌmänəˈtänik/
adjective
  1. 1.
    MATHEMATICS
    (of a function or quantity) varying in such a way that it either never decreases or never increases.
  2. 2.
    speaking or uttered with an unchanging pitch or tone.
    "her dour, monotonic husband"
probably one direction down or up – negated probably vibrates or oscillates like a sine wave or something else. Abstract algebra the notion helped describe boundaries like lowest upper bound etc. Why bring it up? …. change in direction?
seth of group seth 2016-02-25 04:23:11 [item 20139#46762]
“non-monotonic logic” is a jargon term in the context of formal logics.   it is well defined in this  wikipedia article.   the definition you quote above does not apply.    I brought it up here because it bears on whether a logic being used is open or closed … which i take bears directly on Poe’s thought here.
MR of group mark 2016-02-25 08:08:56 [item 20139#46768]
Yep, I am a mathematician & the word which we use to describe abstract algebras & functions is still a root of what is being talking about. Instead of a function increasing or decreasing they & you (probably, who knows anymore?) are talking about is information, knowledge etc.  & illative force increasing or decreasing (with time) about it; an interesting thought meaning (imho) that it embraces, with time, & may even contradict earlier conclusions & in fact makes conclusions mungeable & the rwg eternal. yes Heisenberg may be a king!  What is left out of the picture is consciousness which is left out of the cognitive structure.  Nobody can really trigger or describe exactly what intuition is or does or how art becomes. 
seth of group seth 2016-02-25 08:14:15 [item 20139#46769]
ok in “monotonic logic” the information in the system never increases or decreases … hence the system is closed.
MR of group mark 2016-02-25 08:36:21 [item 20139#46773]
? which really doesn’t happen or does it.  The dictionary is a walled garden of words – a closed system! Need to get outside of words – art & intuition are.
well natural language is not a closed system … we are always adding words and terms and using them differently and reinterperting them.   a dictionary is just a snapshot of that at one particular time according to some agent. 

Such language systems only represent what “really happens”.   We humans mostly live outside of such representations already.   But if we cannot transcend these systems,  we become trapped in them.  Eg, to make a living, you must get a job ...etc.

Mark de LA says
MR of group mark 2016-02-25 00:18:29 [item 20139#46759]
mon·o·ton·ic
ˌmänəˈtänik/
adjective
  1. 1.
    MATHEMATICS
    (of a function or quantity) varying in such a way that it either never decreases or never increases.
  2. 2.
    speaking or uttered with an unchanging pitch or tone.
    "her dour, monotonic husband"
probably one direction down or up – negated probably vibrates or oscillates like a sine wave or something else. Abstract algebra the notion helped describe boundaries like lowest upper bound etc. Why bring it up? …. change in direction?
seth of group seth 2016-02-25 04:23:11 [item 20139#46762]
“non-monotonic logic” is a jargon term in the context of formal logics.   it is well defined in this  wikipedia article.   the definition you quote above does not apply.    I brought it up here because it bears on whether a logic being used is open or closed … which i take bears directly on Poe’s thought here.
MR of group mark 2016-02-25 08:08:56 [item 20139#46768]
Yep, I am a mathematician & the word which we use to describe abstract algebras & functions is still a root of what is being talking about. Instead of a function increasing or decreasing they & you (probably, who knows anymore?) are talking about is information, knowledge etc.  & illative force increasing or decreasing (with time) about it; an interesting thought meaning (imho) that it embraces, with time, & may even contradict earlier conclusions & in fact makes conclusions mungeable & the rwg eternal. yes Heisenberg may be a king!  What is left out of the picture is consciousness which is left out of the cognitive structure.  Nobody can really trigger or describe exactly what intuition is or does or how art becomes. 
Poe of group da 2016-02-25 08:19:05 [item 20139#46771]
I disagree that intuition cannot be triggered. Intuition is exactly what is operational in your vortex, in flow state, in uptime, and in some of the states Peter Ralston describes, and in the state of deep play.

We have many very reliable techniques to trigger that state, some from NLP, some from LOA like grids, and others from several disciplines old and new, including various forms of play. These things are not wu wu science. They are reliable techniques. If you do them as prescribed, you will experience a state where you have access to your intuitive processes.

As far as describe it, maybe, maybe not. It’s hard to describe the color green to someone blind from birth, but not necessarily impossible. But what does it matter? We can experience intuition and other vibrationally based sensory information anytime, anywhere, we want. Is not the experience what is important? We can teach others to have the experience and then we don’t need to explain it to them.
MR of group mark 2016-02-25 08:32:37 [item 20139#46772]
I am little interested in your ontology & proselytizing & more into what can be demonstrated, tested & produces evidence – not lengthy explanations which may dissolve in any presumed non-monotonic future & some universe in another mind. Come up with something which says , sans your ontology, I expected or wanted this, & I did this exactly & I got this result. Any explanation hinging on belief is a religion which most of you folks seem to poke fun at. Somebody’s motto is “The Aim or Religion & the Methods of Science” above their front door.  
Poe of group da 2016-02-25 08:43:46 [item 20139#46776]
Walking on hot coals is a very real example of accessing a state one does not normally access. One that causes material world changes too, not only vibrational ones. It takes Tony Robbins several hours to shift a group of people’s belief structures to a state where they can safely walk on hot coals. But it is reliable and an example of shifting state of being.

Shifting to a state of being where one has access to intuition is similar. It is not taking a pill, it is not using a hammer, it is changing your belief structure. Belief structures are resistant to change … or they would not be useful as a realty stabilizing mechanism. It is exactly that stuff you say “hinging on a belief” that must change in order to have an experience outside your normal beliefs. If you only want things to happen inside your current beliefs, you will only experience the same thing you have always experienced and nothing new.
MR of group mark 2016-02-25 08:55:18 [item 20139#46779]
Yep, not interested in the ontology .  So TR can get people to walk across “hot coals” by … (hypnosis, ….whatever, Leidenfrost effect ) – some turn him into a religion – NLP is somewhat one … PR decries them all & says go for the direct experience – no munge of explation in/about the meta-world needed.  Beliefs are the mungeables of religion & some people’s lives.
 
yes adding more words to a dictionary just makes aliases for some combination or permutation of the ones already there – otherwise no definition is possible.  …. still a walled garden without a sense of language. 

Mark de LA says
MR of group mark 2016-02-25 00:18:29 [item 20139#46759]
mon·o·ton·ic
ˌmänəˈtänik/
adjective
  1. 1.
    MATHEMATICS
    (of a function or quantity) varying in such a way that it either never decreases or never increases.
  2. 2.
    speaking or uttered with an unchanging pitch or tone.
    "her dour, monotonic husband"
probably one direction down or up – negated probably vibrates or oscillates like a sine wave or something else. Abstract algebra the notion helped describe boundaries like lowest upper bound etc. Why bring it up? …. change in direction?
seth of group seth 2016-02-25 04:23:11 [item 20139#46762]
“non-monotonic logic” is a jargon term in the context of formal logics.   it is well defined in this  wikipedia article.   the definition you quote above does not apply.    I brought it up here because it bears on whether a logic being used is open or closed … which i take bears directly on Poe’s thought here.
MR of group mark 2016-02-25 08:08:56 [item 20139#46768]
Yep, I am a mathematician & the word which we use to describe abstract algebras & functions is still a root of what is being talking about. Instead of a function increasing or decreasing they & you (probably, who knows anymore?) are talking about is information, knowledge etc.  & illative force increasing or decreasing (with time) about it; an interesting thought meaning (imho) that it embraces, with time, & may even contradict earlier conclusions & in fact makes conclusions mungeable & the rwg eternal. yes Heisenberg may be a king!  What is left out of the picture is consciousness which is left out of the cognitive structure.  Nobody can really trigger or describe exactly what intuition is or does or how art becomes. 
Poe of group da 2016-02-25 08:19:05 [item 20139#46771]
I disagree that intuition cannot be triggered. Intuition is exactly what is operational in your vortex, in flow state, in uptime, and in some of the states Peter Ralston describes, and in the state of deep play.

We have many very reliable techniques to trigger that state, some from NLP, some from LOA like grids, and others from several disciplines old and new, including various forms of play. These things are not wu wu science. They are reliable techniques. If you do them as prescribed, you will experience a state where you have access to your intuitive processes.

As far as describe it, maybe, maybe not. It’s hard to describe the color green to someone blind from birth, but not necessarily impossible. But what does it matter? We can experience intuition and other vibrationally based sensory information anytime, anywhere, we want. Is not the experience what is important? We can teach others to have the experience and then we don’t need to explain it to them.
MR of group mark 2016-02-25 08:32:37 [item 20139#46772]
I am little interested in your ontology & proselytizing & more into what can be demonstrated, tested & produces evidence – not lengthy explanations which may dissolve in any presumed non-monotonic future & some universe in another mind. Come up with something which says , sans your ontology, I expected or wanted this, & I did this exactly & I got this result. Any explanation hinging on belief is a religion which most of you folks seem to poke fun at. Somebody’s motto is “The Aim or Religion & the Methods of Science” above their front door.  
Poe of group da 2016-02-25 08:43:46 [item 20139#46776]
Walking on hot coals is a very real example of accessing a state one does not normally access. One that causes material world changes too, not only vibrational ones. It takes Tony Robbins several hours to shift a group of people’s belief structures to a state where they can safely walk on hot coals. But it is reliable and an example of shifting state of being.

Shifting to a state of being where one has access to intuition is similar. It is not taking a pill, it is not using a hammer, it is changing your belief structure. Belief structures are resistant to change … or they would not be useful as a realty stabilizing mechanism. It is exactly that stuff you say “hinging on a belief” that must change in order to have an experience outside your normal beliefs. If you only want things to happen inside your current beliefs, you will only experience the same thing you have always experienced and nothing new.
MR of group mark 2016-02-25 08:55:18 [item 20139#46779]
Yep, not interested in the ontology .  So TR can get people to walk across “hot coals” by … (hypnosis, ….whatever, Leidenfrost effect ) – some turn him into a religion – NLP is somewhat one … PR decries them all & says go for the direct experience – no munge of explation in/about the meta-world needed.  Beliefs are the mungeables of religion & some people’s lives.
 
Poe of group da 2016-02-25 09:01:50 [item 20139#46782]
Beliefs are the structure upon which experience happens. If you don’t change some part of your beliefs, you do not change the experience you can have. This may be the way some people control others, but it is also necessary to have a different experience. Not wanting beliefs to change is the same as remaining as you are and continuing your same experience. That cannot be helped. If you don’t come to terms with allowing your beliefs to change, no technique, no matter how well described to you, will bring you a different experience than the ones you have already had.
MR of group mark 2016-02-25 09:05:10 [item 20139#46784]

transcend beliefs – you can if you just do it!

Poe of group da 2016-02-25 09:06:29 [item 20139#46786]
Yes! So then do it. Stop talking about why you can’t.
I don’t thumbs down

Holmes says
Poe of group da 2016-02-25 09:05:13 [item 20139#46785]
I don't worry about others changing or controlling me. I allow my beliefs to change easily as my desires direct them to. I know deep down that I will always be more flexible and adaptive than any other trying to control me through my beliefs. The most flexible and adaptive component controls the system. I am the system and my self is the most flexible component in it.
MR of group mark 2016-02-25 09:07:10 [item 20139#46787]
I don’t worry about them either.laughing
Poe of group da 2016-02-25 09:08:11 [item 20139#46789]
That would not be clear to anyone reading what you write. It is your most common reasoning for not doing something.
MR of group mark 2016-02-25 09:09:34 [item 20139#46790]
Yep that is YOUR belief – get rid of them.
Fair enough. ?

Holmes says
M. 2016-03-12 07:25:35 [item 20139#49029]
This is an example of a quote from an identity morphed into an author that no longer exists. Take such quotes with a grain of pablum.laughing
Your not being nice. This is a great quote and will do long and lasting heartfelt service to anyone who well considers it.

Mark de LA says
M. 2016-03-12 07:25:35 [item 20139#49029]
This is an example of a quote from an identity morphed into an author that no longer exists. Take such quotes with a grain of pablum.laughing
seth 2016-03-12 07:29:46 [item 20139#49031]
You mean who said it … Poe or Tristin …. laughlaugh.   I agree … one does need to question the authenticity of such an utterance.  
Tristin 2016-03-12 07:33:45 [item 20139#49034]
Not really. That is not an aspect that really matters. All have said it in one verse or another. Which way it was said in the particular thread of consciousness you are currently drawing is of no real importance. The only thing that is important is, do you use it or not? Does it affect you in one way or another? If knowing who said it is part of what affects you, that is fine, but then it still doesn’t matter, you will be affected in the manner you come upon it no matter who is labeled.
M. 2016-03-12 07:45:19 [item 20139#49038]
It goes toward one of the fundamentals of Rhetoric – Ethos! (look it up). (the Ethos, Pathos, Logos thingy)
Frankly one would have to be present & sense ALL of nature to make such a statement – not likely. Many different senses besides the basic 5 bodily ones exist. cool
 
M. 2016-03-12 07:47:35 [item 20139#49040]
Pathos is feeling; Logos is logic (thinking); & Ethos is guidance for doing.
Tristin 2016-03-12 07:57:08 [item 20139#49041]
Interesting stuff. I don’t see what it has to do with this quote. This quote puts logic in it’s rightful place, that is all. It helps one identify the feeling place for logic in their reality, so they can choose logic by way of a feeling of when it is right for a purpose. If one uses it thusly to center one’s being around the subject of logic, then one can better choose when the tool called logic is useful for a task, and when it is not.
FYI, logos via etymology:
logos (n.) Look up logos at Dictionary.com
1580s, Logos, "the divine Word, second person of the Christian Trinity," from Greek logos "word, speech, discourse," also "reason," from PIE root *leg- "to collect" (with derivatives meaning "to speak," on notion of "to pick out words;" see lecture (n.)); used by Neo-Platonists in various metaphysical and theological senses and picked up by New Testament writers. 

Other English formations from logos include logolatry laughing"worship of words, unreasonable regard for words or verbal truth" (1810 in Coleridge); logomania(1870); logophobia (1923).

Some like piles of words with obsure, mungeable meanings for selfie purposes. laughing

Mark de LA says
M. 2016-03-12 07:25:35 [item 20139#49029]
This is an example of a quote from an identity morphed into an author that no longer exists. Take such quotes with a grain of pablum.laughing
seth 2016-03-12 07:29:46 [item 20139#49031]
You mean who said it … Poe or Tristin …. laughlaugh.   I agree … one does need to question the authenticity of such an utterance.  
Tristin 2016-03-12 07:33:45 [item 20139#49034]
Not really. That is not an aspect that really matters. All have said it in one verse or another. Which way it was said in the particular thread of consciousness you are currently drawing is of no real importance. The only thing that is important is, do you use it or not? Does it affect you in one way or another? If knowing who said it is part of what affects you, that is fine, but then it still doesn’t matter, you will be affected in the manner you come upon it no matter who is labeled.
seth 2016-03-12 07:41:10 [item 20139#49037]
okay.   in this case i agree with the meme … doesn’t matter to me who said it.   but that is not always the case.  that is what mark and i are highlighting here.   it is a matter of trust.   i can trust a authentic person to tell me their truth … i can not trust a anonymous geek or a shape shfter to do the same … for they can all to easily lie to me, then change their identity to avoid any consequences that entail from their lie.  i am not saying that you would do that … in fact if i know it is you i would trust you in all of your verses … that is just the way we bounce … but group 196 … er … i will do with him just as mark suggested, take him with a liberal sprinkeling of salt. 
Tristin 2016-03-12 08:07:55 [item 20139#49042]
That only amplifies what I said. Trust is not a property of a name or a thing, it is an assignment by an observer. If you are a person who assigns trust based on name, then you will assign it as you find it, and another may assign it the exact opposite from the same name label. However it is labeled as you happen upon it is how you got there. That is your experience and you will assign trust accordingly. Trust is not in a name, it is in you, and in your judgments … and the path you draw though all the possibilities that exist with your attention will be a match to those processes of yours. Let the name be as it will and let your reaction and those of others be what they come upon … then reality is what it is instead of a big sloppy game of trying to get very different experience's to agree with each other.
seth 2016-03-12 08:15:15 [item 20139#49049]
well come on now … we obviously do not assign trust to a person based upon the string of characters that we think represents them.  what kind of horseshit would that be.   seems like you trumped that up just to argue.  
Tristin 2016-03-12 08:51:44 [item 20139#49061]
I don’t think you read this right. Not much interested in untangling it right now though. This is a good quote, able to help many. It’s also good Poe wrote it … his is the right energy to happen upon for those who will sync with it. That is all I am really interested.

After all,

There are no actual individuals, there are only moments within all possibilities.

seth 2016-03-12 09:01:35 [item 20139#49063]
surprise  OMG …. “there are actual individuals,  who move within possibilities” – Bozo Faust

I get that the boundary between what is (and what is not) an individual is relative to those individuals.  But that relativity does not eliminate their distinction to the individual … except of course from the view of the entire verse … which is not the view from an individual.  
Tristin 2016-03-12 09:09:47 [item 20139#49065]
LOL … yes, it’s a pretty convincing illusion, this ability we have to tie together moments into a story, call it an experience, and give it a name. As is said in Genesis, “in the beginning was the word”.
seth 2016-03-12 09:15:09 [item 20139#49068]
well me, i do not confuse words (which merely represent to some mind) with that which they represent.   that would be the old confusion of map for territory.  i assure you to me that is not an illusion.  i can verify it with many many other people and facts.  For example try to eat the word for a pizza … see if it sustains your body. 
Tristin 2016-03-12 09:21:36 [item 20139#49069]
I have met many Breatharians from coast to coast, they survive on air alone and have even been studied by science in some cases. It’s not my story, but one could survive on words alone, for a word is an essence of vibration represented … and holding a vibration is all that reality is … check out atoms, anything but vibrating energy down there?

But that’s just peppering your statement with a shotgun blast, for it was already full of holes.
 
How do you know what you are verifying when you verify things with others? You may only be verifying your own moments with the moments you are verifying. How would you even know the difference? There would be no way to tell … the experience would be the same.
seth 2016-03-12 09:24:33 [item 20139#49070]
you are tripping.
Tristin 2016-03-12 09:29:16 [item 20139#49071]
By who's standard? In what context? Such a statement can only be valid within a framework of assumptions. Ever watch a room full of pot smokers interact while your not smoking? For them, it’s everyone else who’s tripping.  

The fact that people can be tripping, and even doing it together, only goes to show that there is truth in what I say. It’s all moments, and we choose the moments and how they string together.
seth 2016-03-12 09:39:16 [item 20139#49072]
well all assumptions are not equal or arbitrary as to which are believed.  me, for example,  … i will not believe an assumption that contradicts my sensual observations.   confusing a word with what it represents would contradict my sensual observations … so i try as best that i can not to get confused about which is which.  i observed you confusing the two … hence i informed you that i believe you are tripping. 

fun trip though … been on many myself … some good trips… and some of bad trips.  
Tristin 2016-03-12 09:42:29 [item 20139#49073]
How do you know your sensual observations are not built upon your base assumptions? Your beliefs? Would not all be exactly the same in your experience if that were so? Except that you could include those new aspects into your experience now that you are aware they are part of it? Are under it?
seth 2016-03-12 09:44:37 [item 20139#49076]
my experiend it is a combination of the two … my beliefs and the sensual signals from outside my skin.
Tristin 2016-03-12 09:51:17 [item 20139#49078]
“outside” is an assumption. Just where you happen to be looking from with your awareness. A point of view.
seth 2016-03-12 09:53:32 [item 20139#49079]
well for me it is a sensual signal.  
Tristin 2016-03-12 09:55:13 [item 20139#49080]
LOL … well I don’t know if you have ever actually meditated, but that little old things is really easy to change. How to change perspective on your sensual signals is like meditation 101.
seth 2016-03-12 10:06:25 [item 20139#49082]
i change the perspective i take on my sensual signals all the time … actually probably more that you do … (interesting how i could know that) …. but what i cannot change is my perspective that the sensual signals that i get are from that which is not inside my skin … and if i ever do change that perspective, please do assist me with my health.

But if you can change that perspective inside yoursel,  well then fine ....  eat words like “pizza” all you want.  

but there is actually no problem here that needs to be resolved … that we have different assumptions that we change or not is just the way this ball is bouncing … and it is bouncing just fine ← my judgment.  
Wolverine 2016-03-12 10:12:49 [item 20139#49083]
Okay. Then ...

There are no actual individuals, there are only moments within all possibilities.

it is quite true.
seth 2016-03-12 10:16:32 [item 20139#49085]
yes, from a perspective  to which it is impossible for me to change.  i do believe i covered that point.
smug

Seth says
M. 2016-03-12 07:25:35 [item 20139#49029]
This is an example of a quote from an identity morphed into an author that no longer exists. Take such quotes with a grain of pablum.laughing
seth 2016-03-12 07:29:46 [item 20139#49031]
You mean who said it … Poe or Tristin …. laughlaugh.   I agree … one does need to question the authenticity of such an utterance.  
Tristin 2016-03-12 07:33:45 [item 20139#49034]
Not really. That is not an aspect that really matters. All have said it in one verse or another. Which way it was said in the particular thread of consciousness you are currently drawing is of no real importance. The only thing that is important is, do you use it or not? Does it affect you in one way or another? If knowing who said it is part of what affects you, that is fine, but then it still doesn’t matter, you will be affected in the manner you come upon it no matter who is labeled.
seth 2016-03-12 07:41:10 [item 20139#49037]
okay.   in this case i agree with the meme … doesn’t matter to me who said it.   but that is not always the case.  that is what mark and i are highlighting here.   it is a matter of trust.   i can trust a authentic person to tell me their truth … i can not trust a anonymous geek or a shape shfter to do the same … for they can all to easily lie to me, then change their identity to avoid any consequences that entail from their lie.  i am not saying that you would do that … in fact if i know it is you i would trust you in all of your verses … that is just the way we bounce … but group 196 … er … i will do with him just as mark suggested, take him with a liberal sprinkeling of salt. 
Tristin 2016-03-12 08:07:55 [item 20139#49042]
That only amplifies what I said. Trust is not a property of a name or a thing, it is an assignment by an observer. If you are a person who assigns trust based on name, then you will assign it as you find it, and another may assign it the exact opposite from the same name label. However it is labeled as you happen upon it is how you got there. That is your experience and you will assign trust accordingly. Trust is not in a name, it is in you, and in your judgments … and the path you draw though all the possibilities that exist with your attention will be a match to those processes of yours. Let the name be as it will and let your reaction and those of others be what they come upon … then reality is what it is instead of a big sloppy game of trying to get very different experience's to agree with each other.
seth 2016-03-12 08:15:15 [item 20139#49049]
well come on now … we obviously do not assign trust to a person based upon the string of characters that we think represents them.  what kind of horseshit would that be.   seems like you trumped that up just to argue.  
Tristin 2016-03-12 08:51:44 [item 20139#49061]
I don’t think you read this right. Not much interested in untangling it right now though. This is a good quote, able to help many. It’s also good Poe wrote it … his is the right energy to happen upon for those who will sync with it. That is all I am really interested.

After all,

There are no actual individuals, there are only moments within all possibilities.

seth 2016-03-12 09:01:35 [item 20139#49063]
surprise  OMG …. “there are actual individuals,  who move within possibilities” – Bozo Faust

I get that the boundary between what is (and what is not) an individual is relative to those individuals.  But that relativity does not eliminate their distinction to the individual … except of course from the view of the entire verse … which is not the view from an individual.  
Tristin 2016-03-12 09:09:47 [item 20139#49065]
LOL … yes, it’s a pretty convincing illusion, this ability we have to tie together moments into a story, call it an experience, and give it a name. As is said in Genesis, “in the beginning was the word”.
seth 2016-03-12 09:15:09 [item 20139#49068]
well me, i do not confuse words (which merely represent to some mind) with that which they represent.   that would be the old confusion of map for territory.  i assure you to me that is not an illusion.  i can verify it with many many other people and facts.  For example try to eat the word for a pizza … see if it sustains your body. 
Tristin 2016-03-12 09:21:36 [item 20139#49069]
I have met many Breatharians from coast to coast, they survive on air alone and have even been studied by science in some cases. It’s not my story, but one could survive on words alone, for a word is an essence of vibration represented … and holding a vibration is all that reality is … check out atoms, anything but vibrating energy down there?

But that’s just peppering your statement with a shotgun blast, for it was already full of holes.
 
How do you know what you are verifying when you verify things with others? You may only be verifying your own moments with the moments you are verifying. How would you even know the difference? There would be no way to tell … the experience would be the same.
seth 2016-03-12 09:24:33 [item 20139#49070]
you are tripping.
Tristin 2016-03-12 09:29:16 [item 20139#49071]
By who's standard? In what context? Such a statement can only be valid within a framework of assumptions. Ever watch a room full of pot smokers interact while your not smoking? For them, it’s everyone else who’s tripping.  

The fact that people can be tripping, and even doing it together, only goes to show that there is truth in what I say. It’s all moments, and we choose the moments and how they string together.
seth 2016-03-12 09:39:16 [item 20139#49072]
well all assumptions are not equal or arbitrary as to which are believed.  me, for example,  … i will not believe an assumption that contradicts my sensual observations.   confusing a word with what it represents would contradict my sensual observations … so i try as best that i can not to get confused about which is which.  i observed you confusing the two … hence i informed you that i believe you are tripping. 

fun trip though … been on many myself … some good trips… and some of bad trips.  
Tristin 2016-03-12 09:42:29 [item 20139#49073]
How do you know your sensual observations are not built upon your base assumptions? Your beliefs? Would not all be exactly the same in your experience if that were so? Except that you could include those new aspects into your experience now that you are aware they are part of it? Are under it?
seth 2016-03-12 09:44:37 [item 20139#49076]
my experiend it is a combination of the two … my beliefs and the sensual signals from outside my skin.
Tristin 2016-03-12 09:51:17 [item 20139#49078]
“outside” is an assumption. Just where you happen to be looking from with your awareness. A point of view.
seth 2016-03-12 09:53:32 [item 20139#49079]
well for me it is a sensual signal.  
Tristin 2016-03-12 09:55:13 [item 20139#49080]
LOL … well I don’t know if you have ever actually meditated, but that little old things is really easy to change. How to change perspective on your sensual signals is like meditation 101.
seth 2016-03-12 10:06:25 [item 20139#49082]
i change the perspective i take on my sensual signals all the time … actually probably more that you do … (interesting how i could know that) …. but what i cannot change is my perspective that the sensual signals that i get are from that which is not inside my skin … and if i ever do change that perspective, please do assist me with my health.

But if you can change that perspective inside yoursel,  well then fine ....  eat words like “pizza” all you want.  

but there is actually no problem here that needs to be resolved … that we have different assumptions that we change or not is just the way this ball is bouncing … and it is bouncing just fine ← my judgment.  
Wolverine 2016-03-12 10:12:49 [item 20139#49083]
Okay. Then ...

There are no actual individuals, there are only moments within all possibilities.

it is quite true.
seth 2016-03-12 10:16:32 [item 20139#49085]
yes, from a perspective  to which it is impossible for me to change.  i do believe i covered that point.
seth 2016-03-12 10:20:24 [item 20139#49086]
btw it is possible for me to represent that view in my experience … usuall momentarilay … fun that experiience … i believe Buddah called it Nirvana.   But please note again, i try not to confuse my representation with the thing represented.
Wolverine 2016-03-12 10:24:29 [item 20139#49088]
Perhaps it is really the other way around. You may be confusing a thing as being something other than your representation. A thing may only be a reflection upon the surface of your experience.
yep … apparently we have these switched between us … the way the ball is bouncing … me, i am not switching mine.   no problem.