Saturday, August 16, 2008

Going Meta

  1. If you live in a one dimensional world and go meta on that world, then you imagine what a second dimension must feel like by making conjectures about how occurrences in one dimension may have repercussions on that one dimension based on calculations that involve a hypothetical second dimension
  2. Similarly, if you live in a two dimensional world and go meta on that world, you imagine a third dimension where things are happening in the two dimensions based on effects/occurrences within the third dimension
  3. If we consider time to be the fourth dimension. Then going meta on the current state of our three dimensional world is merely taking time into account as we make our calculations of current state as a function of time.
  4. We could take time into account for our calculations of a one dimensional world or two dimensional world. It is possible to go meta on any non-apparent dimension for any existing model of current state because meta is merely taking a dimension into account that has always been there whether it is perceived or not
  5. Perception is in the eye of the beholder. Reality is what you choose to believe. We all live in our own delusions whether we believe that or not. The simulation model of current state is merely a delusion that we choose to believe based on stimulus and perceptual filters. We need a simulation model in order to predict states as a function of imperceptible dimensions
  6. We have the option to deal with the complexity of personal relationships by "going meta" on them. We can do this by believing in a personal model that is congruent with our current stimuli and perceptual filters:
    • We have, within each of us, the ability to broadcast signals that can be absorbed by others
    • We absorb signals generated by others
    • Signals we absorb will influence future generated signals from ourselves
    • All of us are universal broadcasters, capable of broadcasting signals that we have never absorbed, but major factors that determine the broadcast probability of a specific signal are...
      • Proximity of the receiver to the sender
      • Past absorption of that particular signal within the sender
      • Frequency of past instances of signal broadcasts from the sender
      • Sender's awareness of the signal potential
    • Every signal we are capable of broadcasting can be involuntarily broadcasted in a way that conflicts with our intentions. This occurs most often when the sender is not aware of the signal's existence or does not comprehend its potential repercussions
    • There are no absolute good signals or bad signals... those definitions come entirely from the receiver based on the receiver's personal reality which derives its criteria from past stimuli and perceptual filters.
    • Although the sender's criteria for positive and negative may conflict with the receiver's criteria, neither criteria can be said to be more valid than the other as they are both derived from personal delusions of potentially equal conviction.
    • Existing in a bubble without any outreach to society means that you will not affect society in any way, which means that you will not generate signals that enter the societal consciousness of signal flow, which means that the burden of acknowledging your existence falls solely on the self... if you were to exist within a self-contained bubble
    • Survival is not enough: The self is an insufficient validator of existence. Our species is hard wired to be externally motivated. Thousands of years of societal breeding have favored humans who are willing to do things for other humans. To give ourselves a reason to wake up in the morning, we are compelled to validate our own existence by generating signals within the range of valid receivers so that we can feel a sense of agency in the world that goes beyond just mere survival.