************* The following message is relayed to you by [email protected] ************ Hello Pete,
You’re right :) I’m still thinking in the terms of MEST… And AI (robot, you name it) is better deal with physical universe than body of flesh and blood :) Off topic: Perhaps only me have this issues, but it’s very inconvenient (whining :)) to read and reply messages: 1. All apostrophes are replaced with question marks 2. The font is really small 3. Sometimes it says “the message was scrubbed, go to website to read it” 4. Not always easy to understand where is the quoted message and where is a new text Sincerely, Sergei Akshentsev http://www.sergeiakshentsev.com [email protected] > On 16 Feb 2017, at 19:45, [email protected] wrote: > > Send TROM mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of TROM digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Processing and thoughts :) (The Resolution of Mind list) > 2. To Ant's Other Valence "master of going off-topic" ; -) - > Re: TROM Digest, Vol 148, Issue 19 (The Resolution of Mind list) > 3. Re: Processing and thoughts :) (The Resolution of Mind list) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 16:06:46 +0300 > From: The Resolution of Mind list <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: [TROM1] Processing and thoughts :) > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Dear All, > > I know that this it not related to TROM directly but it showed up during > doing processes - some interesting thoughts :) > Please do not take them as an insult :) > > First chapter :) > > For a long long time average lifetime for a human body was about 30-40 years, > but for the last hundred years it?s skyrocketed to 70 years, also there were > about 1.5 billion people before 20th century and now - 7 billion. > > Long long time ago we got used to respect aged people. Why? Firstly, a > hundred years ago and earlier a human was needed to have not only extremely > good health but also an extremely good luck to became an aged person :) > (grand-ma/pa etc.). Secondly if you have lived a lot of years you became > wiser and have seen two iterations of children (I mean your children and your > children?s children) and how they interact and grow. > > Everyone during the last hundred years still was respecting aged persons. > And now they are themselves got aged and expect to receive respect to them in > return - but now they are not ?scarcity? what resulted in that they are now > considered as old folks who just annoying us and not wise or useful anymore > :)) (that also affects pension systems around the globe) > > Many of our life problems came from that fact - we are limited in time, and > very strictly limited. > > Second chapter ;) > > What if we could create something that doesn?t need to die? - for instance - > artificial intelligence? > It could learn faster > It could remember longer and more > It could analyse faster > It could easily create new parts (limbs?) of itself for new purposes (a human > body needs evolution) > It doesn?t have to die - doesn?t have to reproduce itself - doesn?t have to > teach its kids how to survive > > Third chapter. > > Perhaps in the beginning there were no life -> then carbon life emerged -> is > now silicon (digital, AI) life a possibility or our evolution? (Is artificial > intelligence really artificial or this is our evolution?) > > We used to consider ?a living something? as a separated part - a human body, > a bird, an insect, etc. But why it should be a whole? It may be torn apart - > while been watching an anthill and ants I got a thought - that ?the body? is > the anthill and ants are just cells of that body. Human body consists of > cells - and these ?bodies? have the same principle, but our cells more firmly > tied together than anthill?s :) > > So a new form of life doesn?t have to be something as a one part, a whole > (one computer, one program), it rather could be scattered throughout the > world :) > > P.S. Perhaps even an anthill is not a body, but an organ and the body is much > bigger - just remember flying ant day :) > P.P.S. Nevertheless we are already semi-cyborgs using all that digital > devices as extensions of ourselves? (Elon Musk said that phrase) > > Sincerely, Sergei Akshentsev > http://www.sergeiakshentsev.com <http://www.sergeiakshentsev.com/> > [email protected] > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <http://lists.newciv.org/pipermail/trom/attachments/20170216/8ef80d1d/attachment-0001.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 17:38:31 +0100 > From: The Resolution of Mind list <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: [TROM1] To Ant's Other Valence "master of going off-topic" ; > -) - Re: TROM Digest, Vol 148, Issue 19 > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed; > delsp=yes > > Come on Ant, you're kidding :-) > > You really trying to sell me the idea that definitions are > second-rate by means of using a definition here!? > > When you have finished your cleansing-ritual, perhaps you > try again ;-) > > Best wishes > > Robin > > ----- > > On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 13:00:03 +0100, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Send TROM mailing list submissions to >> [email protected] >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> [email protected] >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> [email protected] >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of TROM digest..." >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. Re: On the wording of auditing questions >> (The Resolution of Mind list) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 08:25:38 +0100 >> From: The Resolution of Mind list <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [TROM1] On the wording of auditing questions >> Message-ID: <[email protected]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; Format="flowed" >> >> Thank you Robin, (sent by *[email protected]*) >> >> But it's a bit of a stuck valence. >> >> "IN SESSION, the definition of in session is interested in own case and >> willing to talk to the auditor. When this definition describes the >> session in progress, then of course the PC will be able to as-is and >> will cognite. (HCOB 26 April 73 issued I)" >> >> And the yardstick is whether good indicators are in (or indicators are >> improving). >> >> I'll go and have a bath and see if I can wash the *instructor valence >> *off. >> >> All best wishes, >> >> Ant(ony). >> >> >> *[email protected]* >> >> www.antology.info >> >> *Jernbanevej 3F 4th* >> >> *DK 2800 Lyngby* >> >> Telephone: (+45) 4588 8869 >> >> >> >> >> >> On 16-02-2017 07:47, The Resolution of Mind list wrote: >>> >>> Dear Ant, >>> >>> your wish shall be granted - I give you (and me ;-) a break. >>> >>> Best >>> >>> Robin >>> >>> P.S.: In the meantime Marcus, who as "a thetan basically knows", >>> being PC, auditor and case-supervisor in personal-union >>> will find out for himself the 'modus operandi' which is >>> most beneficial and effective for him. >>> >>> ---- >>> >>> On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 05:59:44 +0100, <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Today's Topics: >>>> >>>> 1. Re: On the wording of auditing questions - (Re: TROM Digest, >>>> Vol 148, Issue 15) (The Resolution of Mind list) >>>> 2. To Robin: Re: Help L4 - Update (The Resolution of Mind list) >>>> >>>> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> Message: 1 >>>> Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 18:45:42 +0100 >>>> From: The Resolution of Mind list <[email protected]> >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Subject: Re: [TROM1] On the wording of auditing questions - (Re: TROM >>>> Digest, Vol 148, Issue 15) >>>> Message-ID: <[email protected]> >>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed" >>>> >>>> Dear Robin et al. (this is originating from >>>> *[email protected]**)*) >>>> >>>> Is there something more basic than definitions? (By the way I like the >>>> first sentence in the last definition you give here.) >>>> >>>> There is something more basic than definitions (in my humble opinion). >>>> Purpose is more basic. >>>> >>>> I regard the purpose of auditing (certainly in my universe) as to >>>> relieve the preclear of charge so that he can have more fun and a >>>> better >>>> game. >>>> >>>> It might not be a bad idea to let the PC "roam around in his mind". I >>>> started a new preclear recently. I started by running the first >>>> straight >>>> wire question "Remember something". I didn't really have a chance to >>>> clear the meaning of the question/command as all good robot auditors >>>> are >>>> supposed to. I told him that the process I wanted to run was: "Remember >>>> something". And he was off. I was a little bit flummoxed by this, >>>> remembering the principal that inflow and outflow should be roughly >>>> equal for optimum communication. Anyway to stop me feeling guilty I >>>> occasionally said "Thank you. Remember something". This went on for >>>> about 50 minutes and the preclear was in a very high state, in very >>>> good >>>> communication and we chatted about this and that for the next half >>>> hour; >>>> you couldn't keep him down! What he was doing was Itsaing. >>>> >>>> There is a part of Scientology which is probably forgotten or unknown >>>> to >>>> most people. In short it's called Indicators.*There are Good Indicators >>>> and Bad Indicators. **An auditor should know what the indicators are >>>> and ** >>>> **continue a procedure as long as the indicators are good until you >>>> get an ** >>>> **endpoint. * >>>> >>>> Once upon a time I was an HPA course instructor (this was before >>>> instructors were were forbidden, being replaced by supervisors who >>>> answered your questions by saying "look it up in your materials"). >>>> >>>> Robin must stop making statements which jog me into my instructor >>>> valence. I will never get anything done if he goes on like this. >>>> >>>> All best wishes, >>>> >>>> Ant(ony). >>>> >>>> >>>> *[email protected]* >>>> >>>> *www.antology.info* >>>> >>>> *Jernbanevej 3F 4th* >>>> >>>> *DK 2800 Lyngby* >>>> >>>> Telephone: (+45) 4588 8869 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 15-02-2017 11:10, The Resolution of Mind list [an alias Robin uses >>>> ;-) ] wrote: >>>>> ************* >>>>> The following message is relayed to you by [email protected] >>>>> ************ >>>>> Hi Ant, >>>>> >>>>> as always one must use discernment. I agree as far as the >>>>> concentration >>>>> on wording and interpretation of meanings can be overemphasized. >>>>> There must be a healthy balance between session control and granting >>>>> the PC freedom for his own interpretations. If you would extrapolate >>>>> the >>>>> idea of granting freedom to its extreme, one would not be allowed to >>>>> use process commands at all. Just let the PC roam around in his mind >>>>> and let him talk on whatever his attention and interested is leading >>>>> him. >>>>> >>>>> Some key sentences out of the definitions for Processing and Auditing: >>>>> (The full definitions are at the end for reference) >>>>> >>>>> *The purpose of the auditor is to give the >>>>> preclear certain and exact commands which the preclear can follow and >>>>> perform.* >>>>> >>>>> *the principle of making an individual look at his own existence, and >>>>> improve >>>>> his ability to confront* >>>>> >>>>> *the action of asking a preclear a question (which he can understand >>>>> and answer)* >>>>> >>>>> *directing the pc?s attention on his own case* >>>>> >>>>> **the process of bringing a balance between freedom and barriers. * >>>>> Auditing is a game >>>>> of exteriorization versus havingness. (Abil 25)* >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Best regards >>>>> Robin >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> PROCESSING, 1. called ?auditing? by which the auditor (practitioner) >>>>> ?listens and >>>>> commands.? The auditor and the precle ... >> >> -------------- next part -------------- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: >> <http://lists.newciv.org/pipermail/trom/attachments/20170216/5c9dd9b1/attachment-0001.html> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> TROM mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom >> >> >> End of TROM Digest, Vol 148, Issue 19 >> ************************************* > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 08:45:09 -0800 > From: The Resolution of Mind list <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [TROM1] Processing and thoughts :) > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Interesting thoughts Sergei > So which is it? Is the self aware conscious being a byproduct of the nerve > activity of the brain that will fade away at death or is the self aware being > a separate life form and the body just a physical avatar used to play the > game. Or better yet is the whole universe from bodies up to galaxies just a > mock up, a simulation that is produced from our agreed upon postulates that > it is there in order to create the field we play games in and if the beings > all leave the mockup will fade away to nothing, that is cease to exist? > > If the beings create the bodies by postulate then how is an Artificial > Intelligent being even possible. The scientists can creat a robot but a self > aware being will have to decide it would be interesting to play games with it > and move in. > > > > Sincerely > Pete McLaughlin > > Sent from my iPad > >> On Feb 16, 2017, at 5:06 AM, The Resolution of Mind list >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> ************* >> The following message is relayed to you by [email protected] >> ************ >> Dear All, >> >> I know that this it not related to TROM directly but it showed up during >> doing processes - some interesting thoughts :) >> Please do not take them as an insult :) >> >> First chapter :) >> >> For a long long time average lifetime for a human body was about 30-40 >> years, but for the last hundred years it?s skyrocketed to 70 years, also >> there were about 1.5 billion people before 20th century and now - 7 billion. >> >> Long long time ago we got used to respect aged people. Why? Firstly, a >> hundred years ago and earlier a human was needed to have not only extremely >> good health but also an extremely good luck to became an aged person :) >> (grand-ma/pa etc.). Secondly if you have lived a lot of years you became >> wiser and have seen two iterations of children (I mean your children and >> your children?s children) and how they interact and grow. >> >> Everyone during the last hundred years still was respecting aged persons. >> And now they are themselves got aged and expect to receive respect to them >> in return - but now they are not ?scarcity? what resulted in that they are >> now considered as old folks who just annoying us and not wise or useful >> anymore :)) (that also affects pension systems around the globe) >> >> Many of our life problems came from that fact - we are limited in time, and >> very strictly limited. >> >> Second chapter ;) >> >> What if we could create something that doesn?t need to die? - for instance - >> artificial intelligence? >> It could learn faster >> It could remember longer and more >> It could analyse faster >> It could easily create new parts (limbs?) of itself for new purposes (a >> human body needs evolution) >> It doesn?t have to die - doesn?t have to reproduce itself - doesn?t have to >> teach its kids how to survive >> >> Third chapter. >> >> Perhaps in the beginning there were no life -> then carbon life emerged -> >> is now silicon (digital, AI) life a possibility or our evolution? (Is >> artificial intelligence really artificial or this is our evolution?) >> >> We used to consider ?a living something? as a separated part - a human body, >> a bird, an insect, etc. But why it should be a whole? It may be torn apart - >> while been watching an anthill and ants I got a thought - that ?the body? is >> the anthill and ants are just cells of that body. Human body consists of >> cells - and these ?bodies? have the same principle, but our cells more >> firmly tied together than anthill?s :) >> >> So a new form of life doesn?t have to be something as a one part, a whole >> (one computer, one program), it rather could be scattered throughout the >> world :) >> >> P.S. Perhaps even an anthill is not a body, but an organ and the body is >> much bigger - just remember flying ant day :) >> P.P.S. Nevertheless we are already semi-cyborgs using all that digital >> devices as extensions of ourselves? (Elon Musk said that phrase) >> >> Sincerely, Sergei Akshentsev >> http://www.sergeiakshentsev.com >> [email protected] >> _______________________________________________ >> TROM mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <http://lists.newciv.org/pipermail/trom/attachments/20170216/c4692d4f/attachment.html> > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > TROM mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom > > > End of TROM Digest, Vol 148, Issue 20 > ************************************* _______________________________________________ TROM mailing list [email protected] http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
