A few comments inserted below
On 10/26/2014 03:31 AM, justcamel via AGI wrote:
I assume that you got a background in software engineering like most
people on this list do?
Probably not exactly like most people on the list, but yes I consider
myself geared toward software and programming. I'm an old guy who
dabbled - modem in to DEC, Sinclair, 8080 coding, commodore 64,
Heath/Zenith PC, Visual Basic 1.0, C, Clips, Java. Still have several
copies of Byte magazine.
I spent several years at Microsoft in tech support. We had access to
the source code for our products (Microsoft Mail, Exchange Server and
Outlook Client.) I used the source code in my troubleshooting, but we
didn't have any "high level" docs that explained the structure of the
product. And, the original coders moved on to other products and were
not available. Stepping through code was pretty inefficient, but I had
the patience to slog through it for hours. I solved a few problems.
This is where I learned the importance of getting the bigger picture of
what is going on. The best teacher was the source code for an X25
gateway. It was produced by one programmer who put each function in
it's own file. That' fine, but the function names seemed to be related
to the file structure and were not descriptive of the purpose of the
functions. I don't believe anyone but the programmer was able to repair
the code. If you want to make the code difficult, use nonsensical
function names. There was no translation document to refer to.
Just think about how you would set up a virtual reality with the
purpose of entropy reduction/spiritual growth. Growth is the result of
a positive change of your intent.
So, entropy is a measure of the energy "unavailable" in a closed system
per N Webster (one of the definitions.) Then to reduce entropy I need
to make more energy available in the system. I'm having trouble
connecting the dots.
"Growth... a positive change of your intent." Does this mean that my
intentions get better so I have grown? Who judges the "better" of my
intentions?
You would need to provide the individuated pieces of consciousness
with a _somewhat_ consistent virtual reality in which they can use
free will and in which their decisions will result in a feedback (bad
decisions and attachment with the physical world leads to suffering).
So, the teaching mechanism that will better all these pieces of
consciousness is essentially a negative feedback - if "suffering" is
negative and if pieces of consciousness can suffer.
I also have questions about ego being bad, but I should do some research
first. I'm not sure I will ever be able to wear one of these
"enlightened people" hats.
Stan
-------------------------------------------
AGI
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
