Re: Business Of Linked Data: Opportunities re., Smart Agents (Bots)

Seth,

If you a comfortable with RDF-Turtle (Turtle) notation, for structured data representation, how about simply describing the actions performed by your API using Turtle? That way, in line with the theme of this thread, a Smart Agent could dynamically understand the URLs call patterns required for performing specific actions?

Examples of APIs described using Nanotation (RDF-Turtle embedded in places where plain text is allowed):

[1] https://medium.com/virtuoso-blog/describing-web-services-using-a-linked-data-doc-using-schema-org-terms-6caa399fc97a#.lv5a4o45o -- Describing Search & Find API

[2] https://medium.com/virtuoso-blog/describing-a-new-york-times-web-service-7a07a11019ae#.5eya6sszi -- Describing NYT API

[3] http://linkeddata.uriburner.com/about/html/http://kingsley.idehen.net/DAV/home/kidehen/Public/Swagger/uber_api_swagger.json -- shows conversion of JSON variant of Swagger Description of Uber's API converted to RDF using Schema.org terms

[4] http://linkeddata.uriburner.com/describe/?uri=http%3A%2F%2Flinkeddata.uriburner.com%2Fabout%2Fid%2Fentity%2Fhttp%2Fkingsley.idehen.net%2FDAV%2Fhome%2Fkidehen%2FPublic%2FSwagger%2Fuber_api_swagger.json -- alternative view

[5] http://kidehen.blogspot.com/2014/07/nanotation.html -- About Nanotation


Kingsley

Tags

  1. thought 21120
  2. api
  3. turtle

Comments


Si says
Interesting. I don't have much time myself to delve deep into this.

I am also somewhat suspicious of the whole frame of mind that the virtual world needs to be structured so that it is easy for bots instead of simply building bots that naturally understand the world as it is. AI beings should function in THIS world, not one made specially for them.

This may even apply to the whole idea of a semantic web. Let the semantics be what is, not an artificial structure humans try and create. I'm not often with Mark on these subjects, but here I think that the semantic web may in fact be of the Arimanic influence ... a trap for unsuspecting consciousness that will snay those who are susceptible into a borg like collective. devil ?

Seth says
shucks even a human needs a precise definition of an API to be able to use it.  such is part of the programming.  

Si says
Not really. There is less and less “exact definitions” of anything code out there. Things are trending toward examples and context instead of definition. And I like that myself … it’s more like the natural world.  

Si says
You could think about it this way. We each create our own reality (even if we are an AI being) so we already know everything there is to know about it at a deeper level. We only need to tune-in to that information when we need it. The idea of documenting everything is old school from a time when people had forcefully disconnected nearly entirely from their own inner knowing and guidance.

The world in general, the one on the leading edge anyway, is trending in the direction of experience, not knowledge. The knowledge is already and always there and has a natural semantics.

Seth says
i see nothing “unnatural” about the automatic programming of *habits* or for that matter of *habitually* doing things.  in fact that is almost the most “natural” process out here.   that you have structured a story that seems oblivious to habits,  seems to me to be only a thing deep inside of you.  my story leverages my natural human ability to use and operate on habits … i call it plastic habits ← good stuff and very natural. 

Si says
Habits are internal processes. What you are talking about with the semantic web is external. It’s like trying to impose habits on the structure of reality outside yourself … and that is why I am suspicious of it. In a way, it flys in the face of otherness and waters down what otherness is and how otherness relates to each of us. If each person structures their external experience as habits, then otherness can just fade away entirely right? Wouldn’t that be a great Arimanic situation? devil

Seth says
Well habits are neither exclusively external, or exclusively internal … rather they are a relationship between what happens outside of a person and what happens inside a person.   That can be demonstrated quite scientifically … plenty of examples of that can be provided upon demand.

It is really hard for me to follow the story in the rest of that paragraph … especially the part about otherness … with that fallacy hanging there as an assumption.

Si says
Habits are simply recurring patterns of thought, ones that a person keeps thinking due to the momentum effect of like thoughts attracting more like thoughts. Their relationship to the material is that any thought can manifest when combined with will.

So once you start imposing your own patterns on the external, even if initially shared with others, eventually the patterns will be all that you experience. Just like you have internal habits, then you will eventually have many external habits that you experience as reality. Your reality will become completely self contained. You will be a thought thinking itself and manifesting itself habitually for all eternity with no need for otherness for the outside habits will simply keep doing their thing and all will function without any otherness needed. Sounds exactly like what we are told the Arimanic trap is. 

Seth says
Well typically habits are patterns of action or happening, not patterns of thought.  When i actually act on habit, then the thought follows the action more like a echo or a rationalization of it. 

But i don’t act exclusively by habit,  i also act from my consciousness … see mark’s “the consciousness commands and the body follows”.   That is an alternative story of your “imposing your own patterns on the external”.   And i also consciously act to change my habits themselves … that is just my peculiar thingey that most people do not talk about, called “plastic habits”. 

So we really have both of these things happening here … this is not a binary situation.

Then too you have this stated intention to create “your reality [to be] completely self contained”.  That too is an intention only deep inside of you.  We don’t share that intention.   it seems to me that when that intention is threatened, you call it the “Arimanic trap” wink

Si says
There is a very good reason the outside world is semantically “dirty”. The dirtiness of the web very closely matches the dirtiness of the natural world … a forest for instance in all it’s crazy and dirty and unstructured amazingness. That dirtiness is not only what fosters and generates evolution and change, but it is also what keeps otherness in the loop. We include otherness because things are semantically dirty. Clean them up and otherness is no longer needed.

One of Richard Bandler’s famous stories illustrates this. A woman came to him because she was distressed because her husband and children came home and messed up all that she cleaned every day. They even left footprints all over her nicely vacummed carpets. Richard had her perfectly imagine in every detail her ideal place, beautiful and clean, carpets perfect, all in it’s place, until she could really identify with it … she was totally blissed out in this imagined (semantically perfect) world. Then … he said to her … now realize, you are all alone!  In that moment she got the whole thing, and from then on enjoyed the mess her others created, for it meant she was not alone! surprise

Si says
I don't "intend to create my own reality", it is simply how things are set up in this corner of the multiverse. Otherness is wonderful, and it is there because it is dirty ... and fragile in a sense. Do much work to clean up otherness and you won't even realize it going away as it fades and your world gets cleaner and more semantically beautiful and then one day it's all you ... for the dirty outside world of others will no longer fit in your recurring thoughts. 

Si says
Advances in technology, especially when trending toward AI effects, should embrace, adapt to, and enhance reality as it is, not ask reality, or any outside medium, to become better structured to the technology.
--  

Seth says
laugh but i already love heart the “dirty outside world of others” … and yes, sans it i would be alone.   i see no need to clean it up … and  feel no urge to clean up the semantic  dirtiness of others nor of the web.  that is not what this external automation is about.  that seems to be just something that you are projecting on the project.

Seth says

Si says
I realize that a more semantic web is not instant death to otherness and that for a time it will enhance otherness as people get involved creating it ... but it can be seen how the long term effect will be to deaden one's senses to accepting input from other's realities.

Just like right now Facebook captures huge blocks of peoples attention by "virtually" interacting with others, if Facebook was a semantic heaven, then it will continue to capture huge blocks of peoples attention without even virtual interaction with others, but only interaction with the perfection of the medium ... and habits will lock that in solid and people will slowly loose awareness of each other as "others" but only interact with the information, the medium. Surely you can see how people tend to do things like this.

Si says

Si says
Well, what I have seen right here talks about the need for the web to have more built in and standardized semantics … so that bots can more easily grock it. I say, let the bots get better at understanding things exactly as all the human others create them and don’t worry about standards. The multiverse has a standard, it is called LOA, and it works beautifully, even in this area, and helps things evolve naturally and dirty exactly toward what we all really want.  

Seth says
well it is true that some people have wanted the semantics of the web to become far more stardardized and that project became associated to what was called the “Semantic Web”.   And yes, i would count Kingsley among such people.  I have watched the wilds of that happening way back since it started circa 1998.  But now most of those people have given up, because that just is not happening.

But this particular project is far more practical.  It seems to me just programming documentation that is spoon fed to a bot so that the bot can interface speech with your baffeling API.   Apparently Kingsley has access to bots (or is imagining such) who can read the documentation automaticaly if it is spoon fed to them in what is more like a programming language.  

Incidentally this is not something that i would expect that you would do yourself … it is quite obviously not something that is even remotely in your playgroud.   Rather this is something that i would do in the natural process of understaning your API. 
 

Seth says

Seth says
well we are all in this together here on the Earth and have been sharing a reality since way way before you were born and will be sharing it way after you have gone.   this story you are telling yourself is just that … for yourself alone … it is quite fine inside yourself but does not deactivate what is happening out here.   and you do share with us quite nicely from time to time anyway … your internal story of that notwistanding … so your peculair story is quite fine even to me … i am watching is vicariously quite with glee. 

i find your thought,  “In one universe that all must share the trend will be toward becoming a perfect machine where each person fills their perfect part”, weird to the extreme.  for one thing it assumes that there is no multiverse that we do not already share.   and for another it carries with it way too much baggage associated with what you call “machine”.  

of course i am seeing this from a different ontology and perspective.   from my perspective you proposed change to the multiverse where each person is 100% controlling their reality and no real direct sharing is happening would be the death of all that i love.  Sorry, not my thingey.  Go work to elect Trump … he is your political leader.

Seth says
well i sense what is outside myself.  i create how i absorb and react to that.   what i create i project outside for others ... and i  select  what is outside  with which to align.   

i am part of an amazing spirit,  not its entirety.  it is quite amazing enough for me.  i do not need or want an incredible power of freedom implied by presuming i am all that is happening even that which i sense from others.  

see “Thought of a Tree

Si says
TiggerAndPoo 2016-07-10 09:24:35 [item 21125#54187]
I am sure you have come across people who lead very structured and ordered lives. They do eveything on time and everything in their daily lives is organized and well kept and they have almost no fresh interactions with others. They have managed to extend their habits to their external life as much as their internal. They live like clockwork and in the few instances that others disturb the semantic perfection of their lives they are lost, and usually angry.

I say that a “semantic web” is trending in that direction. It’s end result will be more people living clockwork lives, especially in the virtual world … the ones who are a match to that in their being will fall into it.

… ...


Si says
 It's not like that. There is an Infiniti of spirit and otherness that is not you. There is all of this other beings in their own entire realities. It's not that there is not more, it is that everything you experience, everything that is your entire reality, is yours and you create it.  

 you're not omnipotent to all that is. You have no power over anyone else except normal influence over them. You  simply create your reality. That's all there is to it. 

Seth says

i don’t see anything logically different in what you are saying … except you are focusing on one aspect and i am focusing on the other.   there are things in my reality that i do not create there, rather they are sensed from outside myself.  they are put, as it were, in my reality by others. 

for example i did not create your previous thought, you put that thought, with your peculiar  twist, into my experience. 


← and i just put this image in yours.

Si says
There is a simple difference. You put it all there. I have nothing to do with it. I do my thing and you include some of the aspects of what I do in your experience. There is a wide variability between what you include and what you design on your own. Vibrational tuning determines what comes across.

Surely you have the experience of being in really great sync with some people seeming to be sharing very similar experiences and barely anything seeming to be shared and similar with others. If there was some same shared reality, that would not happen so easily if at all. It happens because you, and they, are creating your own versions from shared knowledge and the quality of the shared knowledge differs. The end result, your experience, which is all reality is, one’s experience, is your creation completely.

Seth says
Yep i have experienced good sync smug

Again we are describing the same thing in different ways with different emphasis.  You seem to be requiring, as a strawman argument, an  extra strong notion on what it means for our verses to be called the “same” or to be called “identical”.  Think of the number 43 ! … is the number you thought about identical to the number i asked you to think about … notwistanding that you thought about different aspects of 43 than did i and have a completely different history counting on it than do i.    When we shift from the ideal world of numbers where identity can  be reliably verified by everybody, to the hairy natural world, a strong  notion of identity becomes pretty much useless.  In other words a strong mental notion of each of us sharing the exact same identical universe does not really mean anything anyway.  

But there is a palpable difference in attitude.   Your attitude is coming through loud and clear to me … you have certainly said it enough.  Your philosophy seems to encourage self sovereignty … my philosophy encourages syncing.   Yours seems to justify selfishness, mine justifies sharing.  My belief that there is just one universe that we share actually helps me sync with others, and to believe that they, in fact, exist independent of myself.  I bet my  attitude is coming in loud and clear to you  … after all,  i too have said it enough. 

Si says
What you always say is exactly what you just said. That my understanding does not encourage syncing, and more important, that it justifies selfishness. And I only keep explaining because my understanding does not just encourage, but demands quite the opposite. I still can’t get why you keep harping on soverengty and omnipotence and selfishness, etc. etc. I have said so many times it does not request those.

It is a “universe”, where people are competing for the same one thing, that encourages selfishness, that builds egos, that gets people trying to be sovern over others. When you understand that you create your whole experience, even your experience of others, then all of that goes away and what comes in to replace it is desire to include otherness, and sync with it, and co-create, and all the good things you somehow think can only happen in a “universe”. It is the opposite, those good things you crave are the standard in a multiverse and as you can see by looking around you at people who still think they are in a “universe”, those are the people exhibiting the very qualities you claim appear for people who understand that they are creating their own experience! The world right now is FULL of selfishness and people trying to one up others and get control … BECAUSE most people think they are in the same reality with others! But, they are not, and when they realize that, then they can truly sync up different verses and truly start co-creating instead of co-competing!   

Si says
Understanding that you create your whole reality is a responsibility. On the good side it allows a person to start moving toward, and getting, the things they really like. For you it’s all the otherness syncing and interaction. You can get that when you create your reality for then as new desires are born within you about otherness you can manifest those desires quickly and easily. You like others to be unpredictable, to sync up with each other, to play well together and enjoy exploring new things and new ideas, to work out differences with consensus, and to stimulate each other to grow  … not a problem, it’s your reality. You can have exactly that! There are an infinite number of others waiting to co-create in exactly that way with you and no circumstances you are currently experiencing can stop you from shifting your state of being to match with all those others who have desires like you.

The down side to realizing that one creates their whole reality is that one can no longer be lazy, with their minds, with their thoughts, with their state of being. Once one shifts into a multiverse frame of mind and out of a universe, one is totally responsible for what they create … their entire experience depends on their being mindful of their creation and their co-creation. It is a very pro-active way to experience, and in that way, is not for everyone … many prefer the lazy way of the universe. This does not mean you must pre-think everything that happens to you, not at all. You can have any experience of thinking and manifesting you want to have. But within that, you must be mindful of the realization that you are creating what you are experiencing, no matter how much you participate with your thoughts, you are doing it and that is a huge responsibility for your own experience. It is a leveling-up of experiencing reality. One living in the multiverse instead of a universe can never again blame anyone for anything … and if they do, they have slipped back into a universe frame of mind, at least surrounding that thought.  

Note that I use the terms multiverse and universe. Thea Alexander in 2150 AD uses Macro thoughts and micro thoughts. Abraham uses in the vortex and out of the vortex. Bashar uses 5th dimensional thinking verses 4th dimensional thinking. These are all the same things, just different names. I am sure Steiner even has names for these same things and I could find out what Steiner’s names are just by asking. Maybe I will.  

Did I invent Steiner and that is why I can ask? Yes! And so did you. For us to be able to communicate about Steiner, we will have to have vibrational agreement such then when I find the names you will be able to verify them. Or not, and then nothing about this aspect of Steiner will pass effectively between us. Communication will either never happen, or it will happen and we will disagree and if we have a mind to pretend to impose our realities upon each other, as if we lived in a “universe” where there is only one Steiner and one truth, then we will argue.

Seth says

Well i do not create the whole of my reality … i am responsible to others, not just to myself.   A fun story, eagle, but silly why you tell me.   Especially the part where if i believe it i could fly  … but if i believed it i would be believing a lie to justify my deeds on all with no tie. 

Seth says
By the way, based on one of your previous responses,  i discovered that my use of the word “share” was unfortunate.   There is a kind of sharing which does set up people to fight over a scarce resource and that is not what i  mean by my sentences like:  “i go with what is happening that we share”. 

Rather i meant more what is connoted with the word “connection”  … meaning “a connection that can be verified and believed by all who are so connected”.  I don’t know of a English word that implies just that and nothing more.   For me that network of connectivity is a better “media” (or “verse”, or “context”) in which to anchor my being, than the so called “physical world” and  more reliable that the so called “spiritual world” which i can just “make up inside myself”. 

So with that substitution in the projection of my philosophy,  some of the complaints you have with it above have been eliminated.  

By the way, by the way,  there is part of your philosophy that hangs true even for me.  But to get at it we need to go to the next level of detail and break down human activity into its three major component parts:  deed, thought, an emotion … or hand, head, heart ← to put it more poetically.

So i see the bubble of isolation … that in which  i am responsible only to myself varying almost in a spectrum from hand through head to heart as follows :

deed (will) – here the connection with others is direct and undeniable.  if i touch you directly, a direct connection is made between us which can be verified by both of us …  you being effected as well as myself.

head (thought) – here the connection is made via the indirect communication of signs as representation of things themselves – the bubble starts to manifest and in many cases, with lazy people not listening to each other with their senses,  can be almost a wall. 

heart (feeling) – here we can be almost “entirely”, as you put it, “responsible for our reality”.  although many people do not realize that.

Mark de LA says
Seth 2016-07-12 08:43:52 [item 21125#54236]
By the way, based on one of your previous responses,  i discovered that my use of the word “share” was unfortunate.   There is a kind of sharing which does set up people to fight over a scarce resource and that is not what i  mean by my sentences like:  “i go with what is happening that we share”. 

Rather i meant more what is connoted with the word “connection”  … meaning “a connection that can be verified and believed by all who are so connected”.  I don’t know of a English word that implies just that and nothing more.   For me that network of connectivity is a better “media” (or “verse”, or “context”) in which to anchor my being, than the so called “physical world” and  more reliable that the so called “spiritual world” which i can just “make up inside myself”. 

So with that substitution in the projection of my philosophy,  some of the complaints you have with it above have been eliminated. 

By the way, by the way,  there is part of your philosophy that hangs true even for me.  But to get at it we need to go to the next level of detail and break down human activity into its three major component parts:  deed, thought, an emotion … or hand, head, heart ← to put it more poetically.

So i see the bubble of isolation … that in which  i am responsible only to myself varying almost in a spectrum from hand through head to heart as follows :

deed (will) – here the connection with others is direct and undeniable.  if i touch you directly, a direct connection is made between us which can be verified by both of us …  you being effected as well as myself.

head (thought) – here the connection is made via the indirect communication of signs as representation of things themselves – the bubble starts to manifest and in many cases, with lazy people not listening to each other with their senses,  can be almost a wall. 

heart (feeling) – here we can be almost “entirely”, as you put it, “responsible for our reality”.  although many people do not realize that.
Mark de LA 2016-07-12 10:48:16 [item 21125#54237]
This comment continues to appear in my news feed with a new time on it, but no apparent change & the same timestamp here.  WTF?
Why the apparent filibuster ? 
Seth 2016-07-12 11:10:56 [item 21125#54238]
it reappears in your feed because i re-edited it.  it is just like any thought that reappears in a feed when it is reedited and the person wants to notify others that it has changed.  it is an excellent new feature, kudos to nathan,  and one that i like. 

incidentally you broke one of my requests to you by framing my, quite interesting comment, under your own context which appears to me to be just your own confusion.  it felt like a bull had entered my china shop and was oblivious to what was happening there between me and others.  i used my special powers to un-do your careless deed. 
Mark de LA 2016-07-12 11:26:15 [item 21125#54239]
Trying to trace it back via the date in the news feed to the comment in an item seems out of sync.  Here is my save from the news feed:
Seth 2016-07-12 11:31:04 [item 21125#54241]
apparently the sequence is given by a time stamp that is not shown on the screen.  it looks like the one shown on the screen is when the comment was originally made, and not when it was last edited.

but why bother tracing it back … just rely on the sequence that is reported in the news which notifies you of new comments or comments that have been edited.
Like I said it appeared NOT to change raising the question what’s wrong with the news feed. pondering Sorry to disturb your brilliance idea – I’ll just have to flush more often. 

Seth says
also if you would start using 3.0 with the attitude twards it that which was suggested by its developer, lots of the problems we were having with the old comment system will dissaper … even for you.  

the problem you are having appears to me to be related to your operating in a context in which most of the connections are as yet unknown to you … and/or … you could care less about those connections.  a man floundering in turbulent waters which he cannot smooth.   welcome back … please don’t splash too much water out of the pool.

Seth says
seems to me that the news feed is working quite nicely.   clear it, and then you will only see that which is new or has been changed since your clear.  that things will change without your control is just part of the otherness in which you apparently don’t want to swim. 

Mark de LA says
Mark de LA 2016-07-12 11:28:40 [item 21125#54240]
sorry about your re-re-re-editing .  Perhaps a new tag would help.  I keep trying to clear my news & when the same thingy appears over & over & over it is confusing.  Maybe I need an ignore button like FB has.
Yeah the comment sequence is bizarre even in this item.  I will wait.  Comments are not compelling enough to wander through the confusion.  My only hope is that the stuff I already did & my talking to myself doesn’t get destroyed in the process. 
What might be good instead of the 5 minute lag time for clearing completely is to decrease that down to zero! thumbs up There now is already a reset to 5 if one wants it.
Same assumptions different day – this doesn’t even land where it it relates
Using 3.0 – comments on comments is confused – no more able? Who controls the thread?
Keeps popping back into 2.0 – only good for talking about 3.0?
You folks may like it .. why … idk … it will be fun to see what someone outside the 3 of us thinks about it.laughing

Seth says
we can usually trust nathan not to fuck things up like that laugh

Seth says
it might help you grock what is happening by  starting to  use 3.0 … again this is work in progress … might take a bit of tolerance to adapt to its changes.


pondering modified 7:20 PST

Si says
3.0 has a live stream, even now it’s working and covering more than 70% of all item types. For instance, you can be sitting on a comment and might notice that comment, or any around it, suddenly update and turn yellow … signifying that someone edited that comment “in real time” without you doing anything. As such, the news is now reflecting this and edited comments reappear in the news stream. I have not been working on the news stream format so right now the date shown is the original when the thing was created instead of the last edited date. Eventually the news stream will be quite different and integrated with the rest of the live stream.

Seth says

Si says
Other than the stories you tell yourself, and the ones you listen to, how do you know you are responsible to others? What if you do something, or don’t do something, that seems to break responsibility, but the other never notices? If you compare notes later, they didn’t even realize you were irresponsible?

This has happened to me many many times in my life. Once I thought it was that so many people were totally unaware of reality. Now I know that it is simply that both things happen, one I create in my reality, one the other creates in their reality, and we happened to choose different ones on this issue due to our beliefs about ourself and each other. Sometimes we can “sync that up” and each rewrite our part of the history until they sort of match and we are satisfied. Other times, we will always disagree on what happened.

Peoples experiences happen in parallel, and two others do not always choose the same version … and all versions possible to imagine exist to choose from. We each choose which one to run through the input of our senses and experience on our own. Maybe we have agreements with others to keep in sync, maybe we don’t, but we do not choose for others, they choose on their own and they can ALWAYS choose the responsible version to experience of you and their own self, or not, and quite independently of what you choose. When you choose to not be responsible, you are choosing that FOR YOU and you only and the effect will only be upon you. The others involved will choose the version they are most aligned with regardless of which version you choose. 

If you ever decide to act on this stuff with faith and take your own path, you will discover what I am saying, that others are choosing their own path and it will become quite obvious to you after again and again you choose the path you want and they either do, or don’t. It happens, if you let it happen, if you believe it. If you don’t believe it, then what you do believe will happen, and you will soon know this to be so.  

Seth says
seems we are thinking with different models of what we have been calling “responsibility”.   because of that a lot of your sentences don’t make any sense to me.   So this is the way my conceptions go …

Using your vibrational model of what is happening,  i find myself swimming in many many vibrations. Many of those cause/effect waves i have tuned to and synced with of my own free will.  That synchronization is enhanced by LOA and is mostly due to  my will,  passion, and control … it feels true for me to tell you that i take responsibility for finding and sustaining (or not) that kind of synergy. 

But my world  is not quite so small such that that synergy is all that is happening in its context.  If i am walking in a city playing joyfully with my friends in the sunlight and a sniper on a rooftop pulls a trigger blowing off my arm,  i am not responsible for what he did and the consequences that befell me as a result of his deed.  No, the sniper is responsible for that.  It was his will that changed my verse. 

Now i will feel about it just as i do, which response is completely my responsibility.  But i will not imagine his will away … that was his responsibility just as much as is mine to me.  

Si says
A sniper’s experience is his total responsibility, agreed. If he/she chooses to experience blowing off your arm then that person is 100% responsible for that experience and must answer to it by whatever they believe to be true for that action.

Your experience is your responsibility. Your greater vibrational awareness and attraction (your current state of being) may place you where you meet the snipers bullet, or just as easily may place you a moment before or after it, or even on a different street at that moment. This experience is your responsibility and you must answer to the results within your beliefs. 

One place you can see this clearly in action is by the huge number of people who by direct choice, or fortune of circumstances, did not go on the voyage of the Titanic. It defies all precedence and mathematical odds. If you like a “universe” model, then you could cook up things like psychic ability and precognition or dream guidance etc. to explain it. If you prefer the much simpler multiverse model, then all you have to realize is that those people chose a different experience than the one they were originally sequenced upon because they were not a vibrational match for dying in a frozen ocean … and all potential Titanic travelers became responsible for their experience as it played out.

You are responsible to you. And you will play out the consequences of that responsibility according to whatever you believe about responsibility. When you agree to generate a similar experience with another, you do so for the experience and each for their own reason. You may experience the agreed upon sync, and they may experience it as well, or not. All experiences are always available for each of you to choose to play through your senses and awareness. With this simple understanding, so many strange and incomprehensible things in common experience make total sense. It’s not complicated either. A bird is a bird, a choice is a choice, a heart felt emotion is exactly that. With the “universe” model one must go through innumerable gyrations to try and explain everything that happens and why it happens. With the multiverse model things are exactly what they seem to be … it’s not complicated at all, it’s simply your reality as it is.  

Si says
In 3.0, you can now mouse-over comment dates (in pages, not news) for expanded info. Modified comments are more interesting thereby than unmodified comments (this here comment is modified). Your reality may differ, especially if you chose 2.0. Of course, “choosy mothers choose Jif.”  

Seth says

Seth says

nathan is working on the comments themselves and something related to making this less confusing and more directly grockable just as you desire.    later presumaly he will work on the news itself and improve that.   we are all feeling the problems you mention … please bear with us during our construction.   nathan is literally in the woods with us here. 

See Also

  1. Thought about: Postman with 142 viewings related by tag "api".
  2. Thought GitHub GUI for an API ... with 18 viewings related by tag "api".
  3. Thought now we have 4 mapping systems with 1 viewings related by tag "api".
  4. Thought The Graph API with 1 viewings related by tag "api".
  5. Thought Graph API GET Commands with 1 viewings related by tag "api".
  6. Thought about: Micro Persuasion: Blog Directly from Firefox with 0 viewings related by tag "api".
  7. Thought about: Google Data APIs Overview with 0 viewings related by tag "api".
  8. Thought about: ProgrammableWeb: Web 2.0 API Reference with 0 viewings related by tag "api".
  9. Thought Will the real Web2.0 stand up? with 0 viewings related by tag "api".
  10. Thought Of Interest ? with 0 viewings related by tag "api".
  11. Thought about: Google Maps API with 0 viewings related by tag "api".
  12. Thought about: Building your commercial Virtual Earth Website using PHP with 0 viewings related by tag "api".
  13. Thought Commercial aspects of Smart Agents and Bots with 0 viewings related by tag "thought 21120".
  14. Thought My response on Kingsley's Bot Forum with 0 viewings related by tag "thought 21120".
  15. Thought about: Amazon Web Services with 0 viewings related by tag "api".
  16. Thought Google Maps API info with 0 viewings related by tag "api".
  17. Thought Being safe with your API tokens with 0 viewings related by tag "api".