User Controls
all is mind
-
2019-07-30 at 9:13 PM UTCEveryone controls everything because everyone is part of the same consciousness but only a few people realize they are not only capable of controlling everything, but obligated to. Hallucinations may just be a representation of another aspect of reality and other dimensions that exists but can only be viewed once certain enhancements are removed. We are all one. This is the truth. This is how the elite vampirically control everyone, by utilizing the oneness, keeping it a secret from everyone else. If people realized they were as powerful as the elite, they wouldn't need governments to govern them. All that money and material power, and you're still just part of the same compost heap. A crackhead controls the universe just as much as a CEO is what I'm trying to get at, as an example. But I haven't smoked enough weed yet. I need papers.
-
2019-07-30 at 9:18 PM UTC"The world is my representation" - Chopin Howard
-
2019-07-30 at 9:45 PM UTCIf everyone controls everything than nobody controls anything.
-
2019-07-30 at 10:32 PM UTC
-
2019-07-30 at 11:24 PM UTCI found a paper and smoked some more. Thank jesus I had one left. I think reality is as it is imagined. It's a certain way because people subconsciously imagine it to be that way, and only a few realize it on a conscious level. In ancient times they understood that what we call magic is explained by imagination + will. You could literally imagine it being cloudy, and it'll turn cloudy. Or imagine everyone is slowing down, and they do. Just little examples. Most people aren't great at this instantly, but everyone can do it. The nature of reality is much stranger than people tend to want to believe.
But the power humans have is immense. Eventually they'll have computer brain-interface chips that allow people to amplify these abilities. Chaos will probably ensue.
EDIT: it seems consciousness may not stem from life or matter, but that matter and life may stem from consciousness itself. Then all consciousness is shared and the interconnectedness is inescapable. Consciousness I believe, can actually be used as an energy source to power machines, kind of like in the matrix, but not directly connected to any machine or living thing necessarily. -
2019-07-30 at 11:27 PM UTC
Originally posted by park police Everyone controls everything because everyone is part of the same consciousness but only a few people realize they are not only capable of controlling everything, but obligated to. Hallucinations may just be a representation of another aspect of reality and other dimensions that exists but can only be viewed once certain enhancements are removed. We are all one. This is the truth. This is how the elite vampirically control everyone, by utilizing the oneness, keeping it a secret from everyone else. If people realized they were as powerful as the elite, they wouldn't need governments to govern them. All that money and material power, and you're still just part of the same compost heap. A crackhead controls the universe just as much as a CEO is what I'm trying to get at, as an example. But I haven't smoked enough weed yet. I need papers.
Could just be sun stroke... -
2019-08-01 at 12:20 PM UTC
Originally posted by park police Everyone controls everything because everyone is part of the same consciousness
One component of the machine isn't the one who controls the machine, the operator does that, not the components. If we are all singular components of the whole machine (1 consciousness) then we control nothing, we only do our individual job/requirement.
The guy turning the crank and pushing the buttons is the controller. -
2019-08-01 at 12:33 PM UTC
Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson One component of the machine isn't the one who controls the machine, the operator does that, not the components. If we are all singular components of the whole machine (1 consciousness) then we control nothing, we only do our individual job/requirement.
The guy turning the crank and pushing the buttons is the controller.
If all events are structured by their antecedent causes, you cannot remove the importance of the behaviour of one piece on the operation of the machine unless there are redundancies, and then you can only do it to the point where your redundancies stand.
So igboring redundancies, if you take away a part and the rest of the machine ceases to operate... How much more control can you ask for than that? -
2019-08-01 at 12:34 PM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator If all events are structured by their antecedent causes, you cannot remove the importance of the behaviour of one piece on the operation of the machine unless there are redundancies, and then you can only do it to the point where your redundancies stand.
So igboring redundancies, if you take away a part and the rest of the machine ceases to operate… How much more control can you ask for than that?
Irrelevant, again a single component only aids the successful operation of something it doesn't control the operation. Control is to manipulate all the components in the manner the controller requires. -
2019-08-01 at 12:43 PM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator If all events are structured by their antecedent causes, you cannot remove the importance of the behaviour of one piece on the operation of the machine unless there are redundancies, and then you can only do it to the point where your redundancies stand.
So igboring redundancies, if you take away a part and the rest of the machine ceases to operate… How much more control can you ask for than that?
i broke my toe once... it didnt stop me from "walking" when i told my feet to lift my fattass off the couch and go get a bon-bon out of the freezer! nope! it sure d'nt!! -
2019-08-01 at 1:46 PM UTC
Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson Irrelevant, again a single component only aids the successful operation of something it doesn't control the operation. Control is to manipulate all the components in the manner the controller requires.
By that definition each piece has control of its subsequent pieces.
Also, since everything is made up of dumb little pieces, nothing has any control... But we know that's not a useful thing to regress to since we're trying to describe something specific with the word control. So control theory is more focused on constraints and degrees of freedom rather than absolute control. -
2019-08-01 at 1:52 PM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator By that definition each piece has control of its subsequent pieces.
But not the whole machine or the pieces that came before it. The OP clearly stated "but only a few people realize they are not only capable of controlling everything, but obligated to. "
As firecrotch eloquently stated, a failure of one piece doesn't necessarily mean loss of control or operation of the whole machine. -
2019-08-01 at 2:28 PM UTC
Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson But not the whole machine or the pieces that came before it. The OP clearly stated "but only a few people realize they are not only capable of controlling everything, but obligated to. "
As firecrotch eloquently stated, a failure of one piece doesn't necessarily mean loss of control or operation of the whole machine.
If a machine fails to perform partially, that means the machine as a whole is not operating well, even though most of its pieces are.
If my car's front right wheel decides to fuck off while I'm going 80 mph, I will spin out and die due to a factor that was dependent on the wheel system.
If that wheel system had been serviced, it might not have happened. Mill's Method Of Differences tells us simply that that means the wheel system is responsible for the crash, meaning the behaviour that proximally lead to the crash.
I (as the ostensible controller) am constrained exactly as much in controlling the car by the behaviour of the wheel system, as that wheel system is constrained by the effects of me... If not more.
The time I'm not is when the rest of the system behaving well is a given. But without that as a given, you can't even begin control theory. -
2019-08-01 at 2:34 PM UTC
Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson As firecrotch eloquently stated, a failure of one piece doesn't necessarily mean loss of control or operation of the whole machine.
This. And how can one piece even "fail" in this sense? The machine is running, everything is affecting everything else but with no inherent purpose or goal, so how do you define failure or success? Everything is doing exactly what it does. If something does fall apart that is still a part of the system operating the way it operates. -
2019-08-01 at 2:44 PM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator By that definition each piece has control of its subsequent pieces.
Also, since everything is made up of dumb little pieces, nothing has any control… But we know that's not a useful thing to regress to since we're trying to describe something specific with the word control. So control theory is more focused on constraints and degrees of freedom rather than absolute control.
back-peddling. -
2019-08-01 at 2:44 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe This. And how can one piece even "fail" in this sense? The machine is running, everything is affecting everything else but with no inherent purpose or goal, so how do you define failure or success?
How do you define failure or success for anything? It doesn't depend on anyone knowing the reasons why one is defined one way and not the other.
The cuckoo chick tries to knock competing eggs out of the nest and steals food from the other chicks so they starve, in order to survive.
None of the organisms on the system really have any idea what's going on (to the best of our knowledge), the chick is pretty much acting on straight instinct, it doesn't know that the bird above it isn't it's real mother or the other eggs are competitors. But they don't need to, for the cuckoo's gambit to be successful for the reasons that it is.Everything is doing exactly what it does. If something does fall apart that is still a part of the system operating the way it operates.
How do you know success conditions aren't built into the system by necessity? -
2019-08-01 at 2:45 PM UTC
-
2019-08-01 at 3 PM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator How do you define failure or success for anything? It doesn't depend on anyone knowing the reasons why one is defined one way and not the other.
The cuckoo chick tries to knock competing eggs out of the nest and steals food from the other chicks so they starve, in order to survive.
None of the organisms on the system really have any idea what's going on (to the best of our knowledge), the chick is pretty much acting on straight instinct, it doesn't know that the bird above it isn't it's real mother or the other eggs are competitors. But they don't need to, for the cuckoo's gambit to be successful for the reasons that it is.
How do you know success conditions aren't built into the system by necessity?
I don't really know anything, but you have no control over the growth of your hair. Whether your hair grows straight, or curly, or if it maybe all falls out, none of those are really successes or failures but really just the system performing the way it performs. And in response maybe you will straighten your curly hair, or curl your straight hair or maybe you will wear a wig on your bald head, and again none of those are inherently successes or failures but rather just the system operating the way it operates. You have no control over the beating of your heart and if it stops beating you will die. Again this is the system operating the way it operates. And maybe someone will try to resuscitate you, but whether they succeed or fail, again, is just the system performing the way it performs. -
2019-08-01 at 3:03 PM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator First, it is "pedaling".
Secondly… What? Do you even know what that word means? Cuz you can't even spell it, and your grasp on its semantic meaning seems to be tenuous.
i give no fuqs..
-about semantics or spelling for most of you chumpfuckers on here.
I beg you to differ,
..don't you think for a split second mf, that I'm some unedjumacated idiot bitch who doesn't know how to fuq'n spell or know when to use appropriate English. 😎 -
2019-08-01 at 3:28 PM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator If a machine fails to perform partially, that means the machine as a whole is not operating well, even though most of its pieces are.
Irrelevant. Again as firecrotch stated she had a broken toe and yet still performed perfectly the task of walking to the fridge and getting 2 gallons of ice cream.
Again a single component doesn't control the whole device, it only controls the next component(s) that are directly in line with it...it's job is then done. It has no further input on the operational state of any of the other components downstream of it's direct "neighbor". And as stated it certainly had no control on the components before it which are controlling it...
Another analogy with be a single worker ant in an ant colony...the singular worker ant does not control the colony. It's loss will not result in the collapse of the colony or stop it's progress in any significant way.
