Have any of you ever sat and thought about the thing you are doing at this very moment and wondered…. How many times have I done this before?
How many times have I said these words, made this mistake or achieved this goal?
And when you think of this, do you wonder…. Shall I now do something completely spontaneous or radically different? Will that alter the path I’ve trodden maybe a thousand times before or am I, in fact, simply repeating the same pre- recorded experience yet again?
How does the ITLADic Theory and subsequent awareness express itself in your lives?
63 comments:
Johar: "Have any of you ever sat and thought about the thing you are doing at this very moment and wondered…. How many times have I done this before?"
"Have any of you had signs or inklings that things ‘feel’ different this time, especially within the heightened awareness of our ITLADic knowledge?"
No.
No, I haven't!
Whether this is because of my often debated Virgin Life/Ultimate Life status or simply the result of many years of studying a panoply of subjects from Philosophy to Quantum Physics, I do not know.
But what I would say is that IF you have these thoughts in this 'recurrence' then, by definition, it means you will have already had them in previous ones, so philosophically we reach the question: What is 'originality of thought'?
Of course, you may have begun a Virgin Recording by now, whereby your Daemon has already directed you from your past life memory and you now exist as a "Bohmian Mutation" living out all the trillions of MMI/MWI lives you have already lived (as a probability density function) outside of the phaneron you believe to be "Jo".
"Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law" - Aleister Crowley
Karl,
I didn't grasp the last paragraph. I thought if you were guided away from your past life memory, it was akin to 'jumping tracks' and you followed a new thread?
Johar: You'll have to wait for Tony and I to begin publishing some of our collaborative work for a full explanation.
But if the Daemon has guided you away from your last life path then there is no new thread to "follow" as neither the Eidolon nor the Daemon has any prior knowledge of this new path (but it does exist in what Tony and I term the "Bohmian Mutation" and this is where the "Virgin Recording" would come in.
I would advise that you may enjoy doing some research into "probability density function" and I'm sure you will begin to make some connections yourself to where Tony and I are going with our Uber Theory within this area of ITLAD, knowing the way your mind works.
*smile*
Ok , Will do, Thanks X
Johar:
Assuming I do have a daemon as I have suspected, I have wondered if I have changed anything about my life circumstance. Evidence of the existence of my daemon comes from having a strong sense of what is about to happen. Sometimes
it is as if a voice is whispering in my ear, "This is what is going to happen". Other times it has just appeared in a painting without my consciously being aware of it. When I pause to think about this I do wonder what is going to happen next, and if nothing is forethcoming, I wonder perhaps this is all new.
You post has made me think of a movie I recently watched called The Butterfly Effect. Karl you probably are familiar with the scientific theory. Well the film isn't particularly brilliant. It is not on Martin's list I noticed, but it does make you think about how one changes one's life with seemingly small changes.
Ra from Ca: Yes Ruth. In fact The Butterfly Effect is actually one of the few films I have seen (although I must say that The Director's Cut is much better than the cinematic release).
Hurlyburly does mention the film in the comments to his ITLADian Film Glossary as does Tony also.
And in an earlier post it is again breifly mentioned:
Many Worlds Interpretation & Copenhagen Interpretation - Incompatibility?
[by Tony]
And the Scientific theory behind the film is discussed in the comments to the above post also.
Ra, Yes, I've seen the Butterfly Effect, it reminded me of a darker version of Groundhog Day, to be honest. It does make you think, doesn't it? Did I turn left last time, what if I turn right this time? I could drive myself twisted thinking about it!
Ah yes. This was me during my young analytical period, i developed my own thoughts about this rebellious gene of self awareness. I have metioned in several posts my thoughts on this which were very similar to the way you have explained it.
Are people ever really resposible for their actions? When they develop self awareness and refelction becomes an inward process, things get difficult to determine. If somebody such as yourself decides to do something different are they doing it because they have developed awareness or is it simply that they are pre-destined to react in such a way due to their genetic make-up? People think they are making a conscience effort to cheat their usual path of behaviour, but is this a refelction of their personality rather than some revelation?
I urge you all to watch the following scene Here
It's another classic scene from waking life regarding free will and such matters. Very helpful in this area.
Hurlyburly: Martin, your "genetic make-up" won't alter any in Bohmian IMAX recurrences. A hologram has no genome!
Sorry Karl... you're wrong.
I'm not sure why, how or who, but you get the point. Watch the film and then bake me a pie.
Hurlyburly: Wildly casting aspersions about someone's accuracy of statement without substantive evidence is beneath you mate!
*smile*
And I'm NOT wrong on the genome point.
To be fair karl... the bake me a pie comment should have been a tip off to my seriousness level there! I made a substantially acceptable contribution, let me have my one allocated silly response, you must pick up on the difference by now!!
Prove to me that you're not wrong by the way... with a prove it card! ;0)
Chill there young skywalker, you know i'm only messing. But you still haven't watched Hurlyburly though have you?
RIGHT! Back on point, my apologies post author!
So are you saying we don't have genetical make-up? Of any sort?
Hurlyburly: I can prove quite easily what I say about the Genome Project. If you would like me to furnish you with a few-thousand word essay and cross reference with Scientific research then I am happy to do so.
And your final question suggests you've not actually read my comment (the words in it), *smile*
I said our genetic make-up is not altered in Bohmian IMAX returns as we only exist within a holographic representation of reality, and holograms ain't got no Genome!
Of course we have an original genetic make-up, in our Virgin Life, and DNA can evolve during that life, but subsequent re-runs are mere playbacks in the MMI/MWI Cartesian Theatre. We have no materialism and thus our Genome cannot alter within them.
*do you think anyone here still believes this banter to be serious - looks around*
So... you don't have a prove it card?
Reading now sir, have you watched the scene i posted? It's only 3 minutes long ADD boy!
Hurlyburly: I'd still like to hear how you do think a hologram has a Genome?
*don't call me sir!!!*
I'll watch the scene later.
Stalemate then.... ;0)
Are you certain Johar isn't currenty experiencing the virgin life then? Can you prove that?
If this Hologram is able to make so-called subtle changes then it must have some sort of behavioural mechanism, be it gentics or anything? If what your saying is true than most of Tony's theory goes completely out the window doesn't it?
This is where you tell me i've misunderstood!
Hurlyburly: It's hardly "stalemate" if I provide evidence for my premise and you run away from yours!
Continuing the chess parlance, it would be "checkmate" against you!
IF you read previous posts and comments you will see that I have said the question that needs answering regarding the VL status is currently impossible to answer with any degree of empirical certainty, to wit:
Is what one is experiencing right now actually existant within 'reality' or within a Bohmian IMAX recurrence?
And lastly, there is no "behavioural mechanism" required for any holographic alterations from the Virgin Life. The hologram doesn't make the changes, the Eidolon does, as time dilates in the final seconds of the VL and the Bohmian IMAX is began, and ALL the myriad of potential lifelines are played out within the Everettian MWI/MMI in the subjective consciousness of the Eidolon, with the Daemon being the guide.
And YES, a thousand times, yes you have totally misunderstood that this throws Tony's theory out of the window as it is completely the other way around.
It is the very BASIS of ITLAD/CTF and whilst I thought initially that you were joking, if you are now serious then your understanding of the theory is alarmingly skewed.
I'm afraid you didn't win that game of chess as we appear to be playing different games my friend.
I meant "stalemate" with reagrds to the fact that i hadn't read your previous comments but you hadn't watched the 3 minute scene that i had posted. That kind of stalemate. But your over reaction was an abundance of knoweldge and very helpful so nevermind.
I also would have thought the fact that i anticipated that i had misunderstood you, may have earned me a slightly less aggresive response!
This however...
"And lastly, there is no "behavioural mechanism" required for any holographic alterations from the Virgin Life. The hologram doesn't make the changes, the Eidolon does, as time dilates in the final seconds of the VL and the Bohmian IMAX is began, and ALL the myriad of potential lifelines are played out within the Everettian MWI/MMI in the subjective consciousness of the Eidolon, with the Daemon being the guide."
explains things perfectly and you'll be pleased to know my skewed understanding is back on point now.
Karl you are usualy the king of patience, i think my tone is still misunderstood here. I think i shouldn't post here at the same time as posting on the View askew board, my posts you may be coming across a bit too combative when i'm usually trying to provoke through playing devil's advocate.
While i suscribe to a lot of Tony's book, i think keeping an open mind that it could be wrong is actually something which will do more good than harm.
Kiss my face... ;0)
Hurlyburly: Thank You.
But I still notice you have not given any evidence or reasoning to support your refuting of my comments or to substantiate your own!
To go back to Johar's original point, how do we know that we make a different choice? What indications are there that we are at the intersection of alternative directions? Most choices are made without conscious awareness. The apparently life changing choices we make happen infrequently and are usually accompanied by left-brain rational thinking over the pros and cons. I suppose the question Johar poses is how do we attend to the Daemon's guidance to make different choices? What are the day to day signs we may be aware of? (Or not in the case of the VL?)
Woodsprite: Yes, Di. And thank you. Good point.
I think it all goes back to what I said earlier regarding "originality of thought"
How can we "know" that by purposely choosing to do something radical is im fact radical at all, as it may have been what we actually did in the previous life!
And of course, as we can't answer the existential question I posed earlier either it all becomes superfluous.
Almost everyone here has Deja Vu/Vecu, precognition, Daemonic communication or some form of "sense" of being here before, whereby I do not.
The balance of everyone's empirical interest with my epistemological one makes for a healthy synthesis.
Oh dear...
1. When i said you was wrong, i was joking (i said i don't know why, how and who, this is grammatically incorrect! First clue!) I don't disagree with you, i thought we cleared that up already?
2. My initial response to Johar's comment "was" relevant. Watch the god damn scene, i've read your posts!
"And when you think of this, do you wonder…. Shall I now do something completely spontaneous or radically different?"
Lot's of use of the word/concept "You" here. Is it you, making decisions to change paths? We think we're making a conscious choice to "change something"
a) How the hell do we know that we actually are changing anything? We don't, we never will.
b) Even if we are, is it Daemon provoked? Shocking i've not mentioned Daemon influence so far but i think that's where my point should have leaned towards. If this is the case then "we" whatever that means aren't the ones making the changes. Or we are, but it forces us to reconsider our definition of what little voice in our head makes decisions and fuels pointless banter such as the one we're having now.
I THINK YOU HAVE TWO DAEMONS! NO WAY YOU'RE A VIRGIN LIFER!
3. My apologies if my brief comment was too superficial, it was intended as a brief comment and a link provided, i wasn't involved to the depth that you was!
Hurlyburly: Sorry Di, but I need to address this:
1. Thank You
2. I've never said your initial comment was not relevant mate!
a) That's what I have said on two occassions in comments in this post!
b) Again, I addressed that previously
I'm beginning to shift to Susan Marie's idea that I may NOT be a Virgin Lifer but in fact may be a Ultimate Lifer!
3. No apologies required on that point mate.
Hi Di,
In the case of the Virgin life, as there is no daemon the choices we make are, as you said, down to our own decisions.
I like the point you make that within the Bohmian IMAX, it is essentially the daemon that can guide us and it is this awareness we should be attending to. We can't know if we've moved away from the original recording can we? And, is it necessary to move away from it, rather than refine and evolve what already exists,in some cases?
There maybe signs such as an absence of deja vu and precognition where once it was a frequent experience for a person.
I look forward to Karl and Tony's next step in the development in this theory and their ideas on Bohmian Mutation.
Johar: Yes JoJo, you are going to be blown away by the "Bohmian Mutation" stuff we are working on.
Ok, sleep is overrated lets get into this...
I didn't disagree with you inititally, this run of posts have been quite strange! However, i've just re-read your initial response.
"Martin, your "genetic make-up" won't alter any in Bohmian IMAX recurrences."
Re-reading this, i could not disagree with with this anymore if i tried! (sorry for changing my mind!) How can it possibley not alter them? You're initial life which is totaly affected by your make-up sets the mould for your returns which are goverened by the same restrictions. If you was a person that questioned everything in your first life, you'll be the same (or at least very similar) in your others.
So indirectly, of course it alters them, your abilty to question things is a key and if you have it in your first life, it leaves the clues there for the next?
Hurlyburly: "Sleep", what's that?
Wow, you are chopping and changing your opinions mid flow aren't you!
The very nature of Bohmian IMAX recurrences is that NONE of them is existant within material reality! How thus, can a Genome alter within idealism? Such is to suggest your Genome alters in dreams!
The recurrences are all playbacks within the Genome of the Eidolon which as the basis, forms the "you" that you perceives as being in reality. Aside from your Virgin Life, everything you experience is a holographic, multi--sensual, multi-dimensional IMAGE from your memories and from the MMI/MWI quantum splits. NOTHING has substance, NOTHING has reality.
You agreed with me earlier on this so I'm confused why you now do not!
Hurlyburly: But in order to preserve the sanity of other bloggers if you want to continue this off blog then email me and I will be happy to try to explain further.
Ok, maybe i need to rephrase it?
Johar making a statement such as:
"And when you think of this, do you wonder…. Shall I now do something completely spontaneous or radically different?"
Is an indication that he has a particular type of make up - not all people are this reflective (if only)
"The hologram doesn't make the changes, the Eidolon does"
but don't these changes affect what the hologram experience? Yes? Indirectly genetics ( in whatever form, not necessarily the physical concept we grow to understand), which affects the starting point HAS to effect the branches that stem fron it??
Whether it's real isn't the question at hand is it Karl? It's whether it has an influence on it?
I think this is relevant for other bloggers but am happy to if that's what people would prefere. Only just saw this after last post by the way, my apologies.
Hurlyburly: I refer you to my last comment re continuing this off-blog but:
I don't understand your question regarding Johar's statement.
And my comment on the Eidolonic origin of changes is a simple one - The Genome of the Virgin Life is the Genome of the Eidolon in every single recurrence as the material body does not change, only the memory and the holographic phaneron of the Eidolon changes.
And I again state my previous analogy that if you are suggesting that a holographic memory can amend material Genome then are you suggesting we alter oue Genome in dreams also???
Biology IS material. Philosophy and Metaphysics are idealism. Mind and Matter. Your Virgin Life Genome is still your Genome in recurrences.
Karl L Le Marcs: i refer you to my last comment about not getting yours in time!
Johars statement - Not all people are reflective, genetics predetermines this. Johar ponders all of this blog because she's designed to question her life, she will continue to do so as a hologram.
I really don't understand your objection to what i'm saying. Read the initial post, it's all about self awareness and pondering the restrictions over our actions. Some people think they're making decisions because they are controlling their future, but all i'm saying is they may be predispositioned to this act of rebellious change, they're actualy changing nothing and this is a reflection of hyper-self awareness?
I think we should finish this convesation in person, when you visit London soon, we're not going to get anywhere otherwise.
THIS:
And I again state my previous analogy that if you are suggesting that a holographic memory can amend material Genome then are you suggesting we alter oue Genome in dreams also???
Biology IS material. Philosophy and Metaphysics are idealism. Mind and Matter
...Is an awesome conversation waiting to happen!
Hurlyburly: And yet you ignore the referral!!!
Yes Johar will continue to ponder as a hologram as the Genome will not alter in any recurrence (which you argued against earlier!!)
It's difficult for me to get anywhere with this when you keep changing your premise!!
And I appreciate you see the value in my last statement and would welcome such a conversation but once again you don't put forward any evidence for refuting it, or any substantive reasoning behind an alternate view. NOTHING in my statement which you say is an awesome conversation waiting to happen, is anything but Hard Science and established consensus.
My invitation to continue via email still stands.
Problem is Karl, not everyone has the same "Good Will hunting" mind that you have.
My mind in the field of physics would be about a 23 and yours would be about a 87.
You're getting a bit too annoyed with me and you should have realised by now if my opinion has fluctuate a fair bit it's not on purpose or merely for the purpose of upsetting you which is progressingly seeming to be the case in your opinion. Stop getting at me to provide evidence when all i'm doing is trying to reduce my opinion to the simplist form possible, i have no evidence but it's my opinon so unfortunately that's that isn't it. Maybe over time, talking and debating i'll learn more and my opinion will change (again!). But i'm becoming less inclined to bother when after 2 hours of this you keep getting at me like i havn't made every god damn effort to explain my opnion to you, sorry if it doesn't make sense to you but i'm beyond frustrated now and i'm going to bed after i try one last time
"Yes Johar will continue to ponder as a hologram as the Genome will not alter in any recurrence (which you argued against earlier!!)"
Did I? If i did it may have been misexplained or interpreted. The hologram makes no changesm i agree with that, but the initial life affects what the hologram experiences and how it reflects on it's existence
According to Anthony we make subtle changes in our repeat lives. If Johar continues to be self refective as a holgram that means the hologram has been affected by the genetic make-up wether the change came from within or outside the IMAX. Hey ho, there you go...
night mate love you lots in a totaly cool man way.
Hurlyburly: Yes you did argue against it, then you agreed, then you argued against it again:
I'll re-quote for you:
" Karl L Le Marcs said...
Hurlyburly: Martin, your "genetic make-up" won't alter any in Bohmian IMAX recurrences. A hologram has no genome!
Hurlyburly said...
Sorry Karl... you're wrong."
Then:
"Hurlyburly said...
This however...
[Karl L Le Marcs] "And lastly, there is no "behavioural mechanism" required for any holographic alterations from the Virgin Life. The hologram doesn't make the changes, the Eidolon does, as time dilates in the final seconds of the VL and the Bohmian IMAX is began, and ALL the myriad of potential lifelines are played out within the Everettian MWI/MMI in the subjective consciousness of the Eidolon, with the Daemon being the guide."
explains things perfectly and you'll be pleased to know my skewed understanding is back on point now."
And then:
"Hurlyburly said...
[Karl L Le Marcs] "Martin, your "genetic make-up" won't alter any in Bohmian IMAX recurrences."
Re-reading this, i could not disagree with with this anymore if i tried! (sorry for changing my mind!)"
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And now you agree again that "the hologram makes no changes, I agree with that" !!!!!
And throughout all this I have said that it is the Virgin Life and its Genome that is reflected in the holographic recurrences.
You seem to be tying yourself up mate, rather than having that Tiawanese lady do it!
*smile*
Still happy to continue off-blog if you still can't see the point.
Love you too, but in a less manly way!
*wink*
Although i have misunderstood a lot and changed my understanding, a bit of what you have quoted there is completely wrong and out of context.
Shall we!:
I'll re-quote for you:
" Karl L Le Marcs said...
Hurlyburly: Martin, your "genetic make-up" won't alter any in Bohmian IMAX recurrences. A hologram has no genome!
Hurlyburly said...
Sorry Karl... you're wrong."
I do believe i explained that that initial comment was a joke before i had even read your comment, many times.
hurlyburly said...
To be fair karl... the bake me a pie comment should have been a tip off to my seriousness level there!
My geniune apologies to you Karl, here's where the confusion lies.
The hologram makes no changes and has no genome, ok, i agree with this. But this:
"Martin, your "genetic make-up" won't alter any Bohmian IMAX recurrences
ONE TWO LETTER WORD THAT MY FEEBLE BRAIN SKIPS OVER!!!!!
I know it won't alter you maniac!! I read this as
Martin, your "genetic make-up" won't alter any Bohmian IMAX recurrences
That's why i was so mind-boggingly confused!!!!! Your make up effects what you experience in the IMAX, that's all i've been saying!! Honestly!!!!
MY APOLOGIES EVERYONE FOR THIS EXAMPLE OF HOW ONE TWO LETTER WORD CAN STEAL 3 HOURS OF YOUR LIFE!!!!!
Hurlyburly: So you mis-read my comment!
*thud*
And if you had read it properly you would have agreed with me!
At least we got you there in the end mate.
Martin, your "genetic make-up" won't alter in any Bohmian IMAX recurrences
UN Be lievable.
Nice to know we're on the same page now! I'm at fault for misreading but can you see why i was getting so frustrated? So, of course genetic make up affects your life and IMAX experience! ALl i was saying! Crazy! I'm surprised my explanations didn't tip you off!! Actually no i'm not, that must have looked a mess!
Weird thing is, i was actually with you all the way, we both didn't realise though. The word "IN" so crucial! Night!
But before i head to sleepy land!
My original post, where in there did i imply the make-up "changes" in the IMAX? I'm 99% sure i didn't accidentaly and 110% sure i didn't intentionaly
"Are people ever really resposible for their actions? When they develop self awareness and refelction becomes an inward process, things get difficult to determine. If somebody such as yourself decides to do something different are they doing it because they have developed awareness or is it simply that they are pre-destined to react in such a way due to their genetic make-up? People think they are making a conscience effort to cheat their usual path of behaviour, but is this a refelction of their personality rather than some revelation?"
OH that does it MR marcs! Did you read my comment properly!!!!!? We can have the actual debate now!!
Hurlyburly: Yes, I got your point even with the typo!
I can see your frustration now you've admitted you didn't read my comment properly, of course.
And I would hope you now see my frustration, in your agreement, then disagreement and journey back and forth when all the time I was saying the same thing!
Yes, your comments did look a mess, and believe me I went easy on you because I know you, and I suspected you DID know what you were on about even though in your comments you appeared not to.
Next time, please read ALL the words in my reply, to avoid the confusion.
*hugs*
Hurlyburly: *shakes head*
"where in there did i imply the make-up "changes" in the IMAX?I'll quote AGAIN!"
I'll quote AGAIN!:
"Karl L Le Marcs said...
Hurlyburly: Martin, your "genetic make-up" won't alter any in Bohmian IMAX recurrences. A hologram has no genome!
Hurlyburly said...
Sorry Karl... you're wrong."
AND
"Hurlyburly said...
[Karl L Le Marcs] "Martin, your "genetic make-up" won't alter any in Bohmian IMAX recurrences."
Re-reading this, i could not disagree with with this anymore if i tried! (sorry for changing my mind!)"
TWICE you disagreed with my comment that the genetic make-up will not alter in Bohmian IMAX recurrences. If you disagree that it won't alter then you are suggesting that it will change.
Which in you latest comments you now DO agree that it won't change, which is what I said all along!
Ok, now you're definately at fault for misunderstanding (aside from posting that "you're wrong" post AGAIN!!!!)
Listen carefuly where i did not.
I posted this:
"Are people ever really resposible for their actions? When they develop self awareness and refelction becomes an inward process, things get difficult to determine. If somebody such as yourself decides to do something different are they doing it because they have developed awareness or is it simply that they are pre-destined to react in such a way due to their genetic make-up? People think they are making a conscience effort to cheat their usual path of behaviour, but is this a refelction of their personality rather than some revelation? "
You imediately replied with this:
Karl L Le Marcs said...
Hurlyburly: Martin, your "genetic make-up" won't alter any in Bohmian IMAX recurrences. A hologram has no genome!
17 June 2008 21:21
You failed to answer my question but choose to go though all of the following posts which were laced with confusion.
What i clearly asked you was, where in that original post that i just posted did i imply that the make-up changes in the IMAX? Enough for you to respond telling me it doesn't which i do agree with by the way.
Oh dear Karl!
Hurlyburly: *shakes head*
You're smarter than this Martin!!
I've never said I had any issue with your original post at all!
My issue came when you disagreed with my comment (jokingly or not, as you then disagreed with it a second time again later, as shown in the TWO quotes) which you have now acknowledged was a result of you mis-reading what I actually said!
Oh dear Martin!
Dear oh dear karl, i'll take the fact that YOU still havn't answered MY question as some sort of weird misreading, this part on your side.
"I've never said I had any issue with your original post at all!"
Err yes you did Karl, right about here, when you imediately posted this:
Karl L Le Marcs said...
Hurlyburly: Martin, your "genetic make-up" won't alter any in Bohmian IMAX recurrences. A hologram has no genome!
17 June 2008 21:21
I'll repeat the question a third time
What i clearly asked you was, where in that original post that i just posted did i imply that the make-up changes in the IMAX? Enough for you to respond telling me "Martin, your "genetic make-up" won't alter any in Bohmian IMAX recurrences. A hologram has no genome!"
I've admitted my mistake but you don't seem to acknowledge what i'm asking you now?
Hurlyburly: It is no use proclaiming "dear oh dear"s as a cohesive form of discourse.
It might work on the other forum you frequent but it doesn't in this company.
And your, again, misunderstanding it plainly obvious.
Where do I say that I disagree with your original comment?
If, as you have now twice said, you DO agree with my first comment in response to yours then why are you still banging on about it and highlighting the fact that you mis-read it !
And I shall answer your re-posited question again the way I did previously (which presumably you also haven't fully read) so I would suggest you re-read my previous answer.
And for a third time, I offer to continue this off-blog as your confusion will mean this post is now unlikely to generate any other bloggers comments, which is a shame to Johar.
Oh so it's ok for you to defend yourself when i made a mistake but i can't do the same when you've made one too?
"If, as you have now twice said, you DO agree with my first comment in response to yours then why are you still banging on about it and highlighting the fact that you mis-read it !"
Listen, i do agree with your first comment.
Now listen some more.
Why did you write your first comment? You wrote it as a criticism of my post
"Martin, your "genetic make-up" won't alter any in Bohmian IMAX recurrences. A hologram has no genome!
I'll try a fourth time, because i have every right to defend my position
What i clearly asked you was, where in that original post that i just posted did i imply that the make-up changes in the IMAX? Enough for you to respond telling me "Martin, your "genetic make-up" won't alter any in Bohmian IMAX recurrences. A hologram has no genome!"
I misread one word, you've misread an entire post so please be careful about what you say. I have no desire to argue with you and have nothing but respect for you Karl, i really do, but you're dodging my question frantically and i think we know it's because you made a mistake.
Hurlyburly: I've made no mistake to defend!
My comment was in relation to Johar's question of whether we evolve a feeling of determinism or free will. Including your comment about the development of self-awareness or a genetic predisposition led me to posit that genetic make-up doesn't alter in recurrences, whereby self-awareness may well do.
If you had the courage to go back to the beginning and read all this with your now acceptance that you initially mis-read my comment (and now agree with it) I'm sure you will see the problem.
Blindly re-stating a question that you KNOW has been answered is becoming petulant!
And your antagonism and erroneous assumptions are not appreciated.
Nowhere in that first post does it imply that genetic make up would alter in the imax. My comment clearly points out some personalities are prone to refelction. I then talk about how and possibly why (genes) people think they're making changes, people making changes doesn't equate to genetics changing, not in the slightest. I'm implying exactly the opposite, people are doing what they are perhaps meant to and comfusing it with self awareness.
Hurlyburly: Yes, I know that in your first comment you don't imply that it would. As I said before, it was on the TWO later occasions when you DID disagree with me that was the issue (owing to you mis-reading it)
Hurly, This is what you said in your first comment:
"If somebody such as yourself decides to do something different are they doing it because they have developed awareness or is it simply that they are pre-destined to react in such a way due to their genetic make-up?"
Now, do you mean pre-destined to react in such a way because of the initial Virgin Life genetic make-up?
In which case I understand your question but can see where Karl may have thought you meant the genetic make-up within the IMAX, which doesn't exist as you've already agreed.
Johar: Thank YOU !!!!!!!!!
Your welcome Karl.
I really must go to Boots now I've run out of Genetic make-up and I feel naked without it!!
*giggle*
I'll pick you 2 up some handbags whilst I'm out!
*grin*
Johar: *giggle*
"Genetic make-up" FABO gag!!
Yeah, sorry about all that!
Erm, have I answered your initial question anyway?
LOL
What question was that?
It was soooo long ago!
Oh yes, your reply to my rather ruminative question was great thanks, with the tantalizing promise of more to come!
Although the idea of being a Mutation doesn't sound very attractive!
Sounds like something from Total Recall
Ta
Johar: *smiles*
I do think the title of your post has become somewhat ironic given the numver of attempts I made to bring that *LightBulb* moment we often talk about.
Anyway, finally got there in the end, which is the main thing!
And ah! Yes, much, much more to come! You should hear Tony and I discussing these matters! Now THAT will make your eyes pop out!
And you could never be a Mutation, JoJo
*smile*
Maybe it's the 3 hours sleep but if you are now saying the following:
Karl L Le Marcs said...
Hurlyburly: Yes, I know that in your first comment you don't imply that it would. As I said before, it was on the TWO later occasions when you DID disagree with me that was the issue (owing to you mis-reading it)
How can your immediate reply telling me
Martin, your "genetic make-up" won't alter any in Bohmian IMAX recurrences. A hologram has no genome!
...have any relevance or jusitfication to me if it was directed at comments that i hadn't even made yet!!!!??????
You start the with Martin so you're clearly talking to me!!??
Things got a little bit heated so i'll apologise again (as i never have a problem doing), but my position hasn't changed one bit, in fact now i see your reply telling me your reply was directed at comments which came afterwards, i'm now 1000% sure i am making complete sense!
How can you be replying to something i havn't written yet? If you know i wasn't implying the gentic make up changes then why did you write that??? It makes NO sense!!!!!
Hurlyburly: Very little of what you've been saying on this makes sense!
If you read the comments of myself and Johar from a few hours ago, it is the hope of this blogger (and so it seems from email many more) that you will simply accept this, as everything in that last comment has again previously addressed and answered.
Thank you.
Johar wrote:
"Now, do you mean pre-destined to react in such a way because of the initial Virgin Life genetic make-up?"
Yes Johar, yes i do.
"In which case I understand your question but can see where Karl may have thought you meant the genetic make-up within the IMAX, which doesn't exist as you've already agreed."
Exactly, so in summary, i didn't say anyything that wasn't clear as you have understood what i was arguing, Karl misinterpreted (wether it was a harmless mistake is not the point) my post as i later did his, all i asked several times is why did he imply that i had said such a thing, i know i didn't because i wrote it! Nothing more, nothing less, it took me repeating the question four times (but pretty much 5) to get this reply:
"Yes, I know that in your first comment you don't imply that it would"
If this is the case and he knows that i never implied it, why did he write that response? Karl has changed his position if any of you look at it carefuly. Misunderstandings are fine, i make them all the time but don't imply that it stemed from my original post because Karl agrees (now) that i was perfectly clear!
I've re-read the entire post..
I'm 80% at fault and got extremely confused, i whole heartedly admit that and i apologise Ok!!!
But the whole thing pretty much stemed from the initial misinterpretation from Karl,
Karl, again i admit afterwards i got myself in such a muddle i completely understand why you have replied in the way that you did, you were right to ok?
But the first 2 posts between us is all i'm talking about, ignore EVERYITHING ELSE!!
All i wanted was for you to admit what you have admitted, that my first post makes sense, if this is the case and you knew that at the time, which you clearly didn't (probably because of how i followed up on it) than you wouldn't have written the intital reply, this is where you still don't make sense. If you thought i made sense at the time, you wouldn't have written it.
Going to be a long day for me at work now!
Hurlyburly: To repeat (yet again) and apologies to everyone else:
At 01:54 I said:
"My comment was in relation to Johar's question of whether we evolve a feeling of determinism or free will. Including your comment about the development of self-awareness or a genetic predisposition led me to posit that genetic make-up doesn't alter in recurrences, whereby self-awareness may well do."
Now, some 6 and a half hours later you still seem fixated on me NOT answering your question, which I plainly have.
And I certainly do NOT agree that you are anywhere near clear!
Hurlyburly: I hope this is now an end to this matter.
Post a Comment