Amronoeia Revisited by Menemeides

amronoeia revisited by menemeides:

as by chance the pair happened upon one another again, for the idea that they should never revisit the stage did not occur. Otheustra played upon the stage musing thus that the social gravity there was enough to ensure this. was it by design on her part?

again they split drawn away by others who could not see clearly, for the illusion they cast went wide. many imagined them upon the stage.

they were lent favour by those who wished to attend. it meant something to them.

when near seems far and far seems near, and dismal thy outlook, perchance meeting come.

CLEARCHARGE

The Metachemistry of Food

the metachemistry of food:

eating food of a variety that satisfies is, as most would agree, a healthy thing to do. it relieves hunger and provides energy. the introduction of food into the mouth releases tastes and digestion alters the feeling in the body.

to relate food to a chemical construct, suppose it is as classical chemistry would have it, made up of elements such as iron, magnesium, phosphorus and sodium. to state thus is to posit that such forms of matter are common to us all, and each food item relates to a certain configuration of such elements.

the digestion of food releases energy as a stream of particles, changes in states of least bits of matter copied across space, fast moving, that effect changes in states of least bits of matter of other forms of matter.

CLEARCHARGE

Animus, Change and Affect

animus, change and affect:

let us begin with an aside, as to the schizophrenic patient who "hears voices", when he has calmed down, been released from mental hospital, it would seem that medical science, in the form of a patient psychiatrist, who it seems, always loves to ask the question, "do you still hear voices?" at every meeting, explains that the "wiring" in your brain has misfired or such, and that these are, in fact, hallucinations, not that you actually hear anyone else really talking to you. well, in retrospect, this just smacks of a form of solipsism, it is put that you couldn't possibly be talking to anyone else, it's all in your own mind, well, by induction, how could i possibly be talking to him, or her? what if the psychiatrist is just a "hallucination"?

i have posited, repetitively, i'm afraid, about the fundamental fixed, motionless solidity of reality, least bits of matter, which i will refer to as a "bit" henceforth, and so on. the sense of time is derived from the changes of state that bits "experience". change is fundamental, time could be described as an "experience". again, as i have repetitively stated before, "time" can thus flow in many directions at the bit level, "forwards", "backwards", "left", "right", etc., a bit can "re-experience" a previous state, e.g. a visual bit has been red before, it isn't now, but it will be again, just blink.

but to call it "matter", i have realized, is to convey as sense of "non-person". what if, so to speak, everything is "alive", has an "animus" or personality? do we all like each other? do we not copy those whom we do and refuse to mimic those we do not? when my neighbour was likeable, i copied him, when he wasn't, i didn't. so thus, sometimes, when a neighbouring bit of the same type is agreeable, its "affect" on the bit's change of state is powerful, when it is alien, or hostile even, its affect is not and the bit doesn't follow its neighbour's change of state. that is to say, bits possess a type of personal reaction to their neighbours.

CLEARCHARGE

How to Interpret the World as Simulation

how to interpret the world as simulation:

a priori, we know that physical motion is not real. we do not really move. what we see is our surroundings move relative to us. we do not actually move relative to our surroundings. we each are a fixed point of consciousness inside each our own vision orb, so to speak.

the universe is not real.

it is naïve to think that what it seems is actuality. how would moving vision orbs not collide with each other and not suffer the injury of entangling vision? how could they occupy the same space, for that matter?

as for the problem of other minds...

a priori, what is far away is not me, as far as my point of consciousness is concerned. whether each person's consciousness is made of same matter is another question. are there different forms of consciousness?

a priori, propagation of states of matter exists. a priori, computation exists. a priori, magnification exists.

we are billions of points of consciousness, forever fixed in real space. this natural computer of reality sorts out all the images of what we see in the world and sends them to us through the viaducts of real space in miniature form and through the workings of our own minds, these are expanded and rendered in our own vision orbs.

"i'm not really standing 3 feet away from you. i'm 3 trillion light years away! what you see is a hologram 3 feet in front of you."

CLEARCHARGE

Errors in the System

errors in the system:

"i'm schizophrenic, i've been locked up in mental hospital three times, i'm officially crazy. i know i'm a crank. the weird things that have happened to me, the errors in the system, started the year after i got out of hospital for the first time. for long periods, things are normal, but then odd things happen now and again, which throw me off, and start me questioning everything again."

"you mean things like the Mandela Effect?"

"that's not the weirdest, but my version of that is i remember different actors being in movies i saw a long time ago, but i can't be sure that my memory is not faulty."

"what are the weirdest, the most unbelievable things?"

"teleporting is definitely one of them. there are two kinds, one obvious, when the surroundings suddenly change and you're somewhere else instantly, but then there's the not obvious one you're only aware of later, you have teleported, but the flow of the surroundings is continuous, it doesn't look as though you've suddenly changed location, as if geography had temporarily been altered, one street has slided over, if you like."

"what's the next weirdest?"

"time slips. when you wake up one morning and it seems you've lost days and the calendar has jumped. but i mean it's not like these things happen to me all the time, but they have happened, so i had to have a big think. all these things, it probably hasn't helped my mental health, to be fair, you can't take life seriously enough anymore."

"you can't be sure what's real. but perhaps it's made you sane in a way that a person who lives a completely normal life, where nothing out of the ordinary ever happens, is not."

"yeah, but too much shock isn't great either."

"anything happen recently?"

"i don't know if errors in the system are correlated to how mentally unstable i am, maybe they are. what happened the other week, i was in a mall, this was in the food court, i walked past a sign and thought i was at a certain restaurant and turned the corner to order at the counter, i was at another restaurant. i walked back and the sign had changed."

"i suppose what bugs you every time is you keep wondering what really happened."

"exactly. every time an error happens you wonder if you're losing your mind."

"but no system is perfect, right?"

CLEARCHARGE

Points of Power in Time

points of power in time:

was there ever an all-powerful god, or even goddess perhaps, that created everything? now this is a simple concept, no doubt that is why everyone here has asked this question before. but such simplicity of thought is perhaps lacking in application to translating what reality is and how to understand the world. and really, if there were one person so powerful, wouldn't we know more about him or her? how could such a god be so anonymous?

i think it could be argued that a person born on earth is made, in the sense that it has been altered from its original state, has been given a human form, and the use of machinery, so to speak, to function in the world, that is, to see and to hear and to interact with others. it is a soul, so to speak, that has been hooked up to the world.

posit, however, that there were many responsible for what the world is, which leads to endless questions, then who supplied the human face, who owned the first orange tree, who ate the first apple, and so on? what is more prosaic to consider is that there was no one person who gave everyone else everything, but thousands or millions or billions who contributed parts of what the world is today.

a lot is possible in a very short time. if we assume there are many souls, each having contributed to what the earth is, doing their creative bit, we can see, assuming there was a wealth of things even in the beginning, how the world might have come to together in short order. connectivity, wealth, creation, speed. however, we feel small as individuals, that others have given us so much, because there are, in fact, many. if this were a reality of few people, we would not live in such a complex world.

so, to continue this argument, we live in a world of lesser gods. who were the gods of language? who had the original face? who first ate? at each inflection point in time, someone did something or gave something of themselves to the wider world. they exerted their power at that point in time that would last for ever after.

CLEARCHARGE

Shy is Relative

shy is relative:

to label someone as shy as though it were a fixed, immutable trait is misleading. people are variable. everyone has moments when they are stuck for words. likewise, there are times when they have a lot to say. compared to their most talkative, sometimes people are relatively shy.

it may be that with some people we find it difficult to talk. we do not feel we relate to some people. with others with whom we have a lot in common, we find it much easier to talk.

also, i suppose, in every relationship, one is relatively shyer than the other. usually someone is the dominant person in the relationship, who takes charge of the conversation. not always, but in many cases.

CLEARCHARGE

Illusion in the Simulation

illusion in the simulation:

posit we do meet real people in this simulation of earth. posit also that we meet mere simulants of people too. who are these simulants, these illusions of people? they are illusions, because they are not the real people themselves but shallow versions of them. are they true copies of real people? most probably not. and are many simulants just a mix of several people, randomly put together?

if they are derivative copies of real people, how similar are they to the real people they are clones of? perhaps we never meet a lot of real people but we meet a lot of their copies in this simulation. perhaps the name is the same, they look similar and behave in a like manner but they are imperfect copies of the person with a different biography. nevertheless, for some moments, it is just like meeting the real person.

with the young earth theory an assumption, this simulation was put together in a hurry. therefore, it often seems like some random mix of personality and conversation that we encounter.

CLEARCHARGE

Young Earth Theory to the End

young earth theory to the end:

do you believe the universe is real as it seems? do you believe even in physical motion? i do not.

can things not change instantly? how long does it take the imagination to foment a virtual world such as earth? was earth not created suddenly after gestating in the collective subconscious for a few hundred years? imagine what it must have seemed to lonely individuals before it came, a world where everyone lived and could meet, instead of being alone perhaps in a world of your own as at the start of time.

posit that this earth is only a schizophrenic-born dream world. that King George III was really the first king. or was it King George II? and earth began in 1700s England with a cast of virtual people with one single, solitary soul, the first-born on earth. posit too that the real year is only 447. only a rich imagination and certainly, metaphysically, a great potential for life and technology could have created such an earth, a world where much is possible, or perhaps not, in reality, if it is indeed only a 200+ year old simulation.

note that the Gregorian calendar recently seemed to jump 8 days in mid-April. it's not the first time it seemed to jump. i doubt i was asleep for 8 days somehow! it seemed to jump one day in 1995 but i am not certain. this is only further proof that the earth is not what it seems for such an error to occur. if you reckon there was once a 67 day difference in the Gregorian calendar from the original calendar, still kept off-earth, the original calendar being earlier, there is now a 75 day difference. it is today, 8 May, 2018, on the Gregorian calendar. that would make it 22 February, 447, today. next year, 448, will be a leap year, so there will be a 76 day difference until the Gregorian year, 2020, when it will return to 75 days on 1 March after 29 February. but i digress.

how did we all know about the earth before it came? was it shared voices? was it shared dreams and nightmares? the collective subconscious works in mysterious ways.

and how will the earth end? will we return to our own world in a dream exit? we can only hope for the best.

computers came. that you read this is proof of the evolution of technology and the possibility of programming. is there something in this technology that could save us from this artificial madness and write us all a good ending to this story of life on earth?

CLEARCHARGE

For the Earth in Practice

for the earth in practice:

frame the argument for why we're here
you're there get the Cups for the litter
an Ashtray, loads of light picture that and
the czar of train, automobile and transport
helicopter that and we're away again
all in a Days Game

CLEARCHARGE

Song for a Nerl

song for a nerl:

something to say and dance a whirl
the song begins and the music plays
what a time for all of us
all of us here
what a nerl i was but a woman tonight
here i am
JIA YOU! JIA YOU!
sing a song if you dare
say something
dance without a care
let's go the night away

CLEARCHARGE

All in a Day's Madness

all in a day's madness:

it's the right week for it but again i think i just have to do it. it's yet another compulsory event.

i'm not here for all that. what was that all about, i wonder.
the West End, all those business shows, the City, the Line.

i think it's highly competitive around here but,
turn left at the base marker

he reckons he's it, he fancies himself, innit
get a rose have it

CLEARCHARGE

The Precepts of Triangularity

the precepts of triangularity:

YOU THE OBSERVER AND IT

two meet, the watcher sees and hears it. now everyone has their own opinion of what happened and their own thoughts about it. the truth of 3 points, much like a triangle of perspective.

NOT AIM FOR THE OBSERVER

the truth between yourselves, whether it meant it or not, between two people you need its opinion on what happened.

CLEARCHARGE

Of Interest Past in Examination

of interest past in examination:

how much was fate and how much was want realized by force, is of interest to us all. to speak of the person as a cohesive whole is to establish identity. but more simply, what was done?

the ego demands clarity in such. what little explains the ego is natural intention. of course, in a populated world, it may be very little ever becomes clear. like reinforces like is a base metaphysical assumption. a stream of particles secreted by any person to another, the secrions, to give them a name, what of their taste? a hint of how different decisions may be.

what is personally unique presents a division that identifies a person. tables, numbers, examples, indicate quite a lot.

CLEARCHARGE

You're Not Here

you're not here:

"hey, what do you think's going to happen next, man?"

"i think he's going to go over there and talk to that person in the next ten minutes."

"shit! you're right. how did you know that?"

"maybe it's all happening closer to me. i just guessed."

"what do you mean closer to you? we're all in the same place."

"look, you're not here. there is no here. you see a lot of projections of humans around you, but you're not here. like physical motion is not real. nobody moves in space."

"so it's like the matrix. and we're plugged in. what are your conspiracy theories? i mean, like the real government and so on."

"i don't know. there are bad people, sure. but can bad people really group together? there have got to be some trust issues, right? or do they just tacitly approve and do their little bit for some evil agenda? but you know what i'm really thinking about now? sometimes, i imagine someone out there, actually several people, huge, off-Earth, you know, bored, nothing to do, plenty of spare time on their hands, they know what's going on, they're watching, and somehow they have power over the system, i mean they can send illusions of people into like, the theatre of Earth, and these illusions, they're not real people, they're sort of versions of themselves that they can manipulate like a puppet, and i keep meeting them. how crazy am i?"

"that's far out, man! but what do you think about the universe? what is it really? i mean, is it infinite or...?"

"yeah...the universe is infinite! but the universe is not real! it's just a theoretical model."

"you mean, like, what we see, when we go around, geography, it seems like there is a universe, but there isn't really?"

"exactly."

"but what are off-Earth people? how do they know about the Earth?"

"fuck, everybody knows about the Earth!"

"quiet, man, you don't want anyone to hear this stuff."

"yeah, i guess you have to be careful what you say, especially names."

"yeah, i mean, you don't know who can hear you, right? you think you're alone, you can say anything you want, but is that really true? you know what i mean?"

"i think about who my real neighbours are in space. you can't change who your neighbours are. i think i live in a peaceful part of space. i mean, some people, they just seem like they're really billions of light years away in reality, you know?"

"i don't know, man. how much can anyone really know? that's the entire problem. epistemology is a fucker, right?"

Birth on Earth

birth on earth:

consider the Earth, this world that we share, that joins people together in a mutual system, think of it as a phenomenon, that started out small but spread throughout real space, connecting more and more people together. now as an Earth person, we may be far apart in space in reality, yet we meet others very distant from us. we have some kind of machinery in common and a link that exists between us.

in truth, we might not be able to separate what is real and what is hallucinatory with any conviction. we have the simulation theory of the Earth. but an alternative theory is that to be a human on Earth is to possess a virulent kind of schizophrenia, if you like, in that we are surrounded by hallucinations all the time. now some people we meet may be real, but many might be not. and this altered mental state persists all the time we are on the Earth.

consider that the Earth existed before we were born on the Earth. it started elsewhere. let us use the analogy of a virus. now what i'm saying is that the Earth is a mass contagion that exists across space. posit that the first person on the Earth had, at the time, a new form of extreme schizophrenia, and that it was mostly, or perhaps even all, a complete hallucination at the time. now this was something that spread to other people.

this Earth virus contains genetic material that alters your world. let us go through the steps. first it arrived unnoticed. then the dreams of Earth came. parts of the machinery that allow you to experience life on the Earth were being assembled all around you in your personal bubble space. the link was solidified. the physics arrived. now all this gestation may have happened without you being aware of it. a period of lethargy, feeling tired all the time, sleeping more and more, until you fall asleep for days. what is you is being altered so much, and you are asleep for so long, so that when you are finally born on the Earth, you don't remember much.

you may remember the sequence of dreams of an early life on Earth, waking up in the final dream, seeing your Earth family.

CLEARCHARGE

Inducing Change

inducing change:

the least bit of matter, as discussed before, indivisible, packed together with its neighbouring contiguous least bits of matter, going through uniform, discrete changes in state. at the fundamental level time is discrete. real space is composed of least bits of matter chained together, forever fixed in position.

of course, there are different divisions of matter. you could almost consider each in their own dimension, so to speak, even though different types are actually mixed together, space is variegated. and i suppose like affects like, generally speaking.

change in state of a least bit of matter may affect change in state of neighbouring least bits of matter to a greater or lesser extent, though perhaps not at all in some cases. it may effect similarity. it may be a forceful steer, not inducing a similar series of changes in state, but definitely altering what theoretically would have happened otherwise if it were not present. some states may be so powerful, so energetic, if you like, that they induce a whole ripple effect of change.

states can, if you like, vibrate in space, as if they were a fluid moving object, or gently flow around, unless disturbed or dissipated.

a least bit of matter may revert to a past state. if you like, time is going forwards and backwards all over the place all the time, at the fundamental level. it may be that the reversion happens on its own, so to speak, in some cases.

sometimes, something new, or relatively new, is required in order to disrupt a stasis, so to speak, that exists in space. it is breaking free a prisoner of time, if you like.

the strength of affect may be related to how different the states are becoming and how fast the changes are happening.

of course, posit that some least bits of matter may never change state at all. they serve as a time anchor, if you like.

CLEARCHARGE

Incredible Simulation

incredible simulation:

the concept of the Earth as a simulation comes as a shock to the materialist. what is a tree, anyway, really? what is food? that i taste something, that i can be sure of, but what else? is that all there is to life? my senses suggest things that are not real, or rather not what they seem.

the feat of teleportation immediately breaks the belief that physical motion is real. seeing things instantly change in front of you, like a train timetable, breaks the belief in a stable material world.

however another surprising aspect of simulation is that some other people whom you see and interact with might not be real, in that they are not conscious, but programmed beings. how did this come to be, if it were true? now the non-solipsistic view, there are many real people, but the simulants, the simulated virtual people, also exist in the population. if virtual people greatly outnumber real people, the danger is to slip to near solipsism. the virtual people, of course, look like and behave like real people. the answer is in this. they are derived from, based upon real people. you might never have met a certain real person but you've met a simulant just like them. posit that the Earth computer contains memories of real people, what they look like, what they have done, what they have said, and just plays a like version in the case of a simulant.

the inevitable question, how do you tell the difference? if you were able to manipulate to a greater degree how another person behaves, clearly they are not real. are virtual people made up of a rather ordinary, general palette, so to speak, so that a real person seems so much more of an individual, has its own unique personal light or quality that comes through that is perceptible? are real people more shocking, in the sense that virtual people are little more standardized, more regular, more predictable? do real people change the atmosphere or mood? do real people seem more emotional? do simulants sometimes not make sense in that they are poorly programmed? are real people more responsive then?

we all know calculation and programming are real by now. some of it is natural. some of it is man-made, artificial. the computer exists. in stealth, things develop unseen, the potential for things to manifest rises. the components of the Earth existed long before it began. growth happens. mutation is real. things spread. and there is that element of chaos in creation.

about the numbers and the ratio of real to virtual people, what can we say? what is the line of least resistance in thought? the overall numbers purported are large, the population certainly seem large, so the real population of the Earth is probably large, definitely large enough so that it might seem at one time that everyone were real. how many general types of people are there? a lot, hundreds at least, maybe thousands. you make guesses about the ratio. how could so many books and films and TV exist if there were not so many people? is it even possible for books to be created without a real author? if you assume that unconscious artificial intelligence is great then the ratio of virtual people to real people could be huge. it is easy to believe that artificial intelligence is growing certainly but is it that great already? the ratio could be 400:1 and the Earth might still seem normal. if you entertain the possibility of a million to one, then the world seems a very strange place indeed. really, only about 65 real people in the UK? it seems highly unlikely all things considered. if only every other person were virtual, it would seem almost negligible. of course not everybody is at the Earth, and certainly not at any one time. what if the population of the Earth were 40 million, plenty of people to seem a busy place, but not enough for everything to seem quite right?

if the Earth is a simulation, then are seemingly ordinary, mundane things even possible or advisable? are there parts of the world that seem to exist but don't, if you like? are there things that no one has really done? you would be the first to undertake exploration, generate new experiences. am i foolish to think if i turn up to the railway station, the train will arrive? are certain countries even real, does anybody really live there? do you have the requisite program files from someone else who has done things, seen places? and to continue on a slightly paranoid basis, do you want to avoid real people, or do you want to avoid simulants?

in actuality, real space is a fixed network of people, an unmoving chain of personal bubble spaces. it is huge. and we only know of other people from what comes down the chain. are there fixed cables in place across the chain, is it a proper system, do parts float rather freely and more slowly sometimes down the chain of space? is part of the Earth computer where we ourselves are running slightly independently or are we completely dependent on a constant feed from elsewhere? is it a decentralized system? can we, if we strain our senses, detect when something is possible? does the opportunity come to mind? by shiva, parts have arrived!

CLEARCHARGE

Natural Calculation

natural calculation:

because the world seems stable, in that actions can be repeated, things like dropping a ball to the ground and it always falls more or less the same way, that such laws of motion apply, and the common sense view is that there are indeed natural laws present. but what is a natural law? posit that it is actually an intelligent calculation process that affects what we see in the material plane, that there is an unseen computational process at work, there are, if you like, immaterial computers running the system.

in the beginning was it always so? perhaps not. but then this Earth did not exist either in the beginning. when you dropped something in the dawn of time, this motion perhaps was not always consistent. imagine the old world, where nothing is quite consistent, there are no consistent seasons, where the model of planet and sun does not quite hold, where life seems a bit more random.

there is a remarkable thing that we would have to admit suggests that calculation is present. what is the material anyway? what is definitely true is that we can see it and touch it. it may not be as much as it suggests. now what we see shifts all the time and presents a virtual motion experience. if only it were not so convincing we would never entertain the opinion that all was as it seemed. we are fixed in real space. now what we feel as our bodies vibrates and shifts, what we see moves in harmony, to present the concept of physical motion, whereas of course we do not really move. to put it simply, we do not move with respect to the room, the room moves with respect to us, in actuality. therefore, we can only wonder about the system, the processes involved, that work this 3D virtual motion experience around us all the time, that puts these images of the world in front of us and coordinates the virtual motion.

what can we say about it? there is projection at work. and there is the ability to rotate or shift what we would recognize as the same material object. could this be done without calculation? it seems unlikely in a stable, repetitive world. now perhaps some of these calculations are natural and eternal, part of the fabric of reality. though perhaps later scientists have created and enforced man-made calculations to make the universe even more mathematically coherent, they have made what was once only theoretical actuality.

CLEARCHARGE

Mood and Consciousness

mood and consciousness:

what is it that expresses mood in a facial expression? do you find that even non-facial images or even letters of the alphabet, mere squiggles, for example, carry a kind of mood? why is what we see not just neutral colours, devoid of mood or any kind of emotion?

so let us assume we can indeed see moods. is it a form of consciousness? does my consciousness extend beyond my head into my field of vision? or is what is in my head a special, heightened version of consciousness while i am surrounded by a kind of low level consciousness around my head? in any case, what is the difference between thought, mood, consciousness and emotion? is it that there are in fact in the middle elements in between these categories, where one becomes another?

and what can i say about myself, my consciousness, my person? apparently, i was always viable for Earth, as i am now clearly living on Earth. i can imagine a whole series of diagnostics performed by the system on my person pre-Earth. "test subject X5405/A11...all senses required, check...virtual motion engine, check...comms link to system, check...voice test, check...all parameters in range...subject is viable for Earth...scheduling on..."

let us assume for the most part that the system works, and life, in regard to meeting people, is what it seems. real people meet real people. a communication link is established across space. but if some people are not real, are actually simulants, although derivatives of real people but not quite real themselves, how does that work? are there, if you like, personal essences or energies that travel across space to jack the system, so to speak, into misfiring into producing plausible, functioning fictional people that we interact with on a daily basis?

when supernatural experiences happen, something happens in the mind that, if you like, breaks the system, even if only briefly. terms like altered states of consciousness, special emotional states, these have been talked about before, and it makes sense, for the out of normal experience to happen, first your mental state has to be out of normal.

CLEARCHARGE

The Odd Things

the odd things:

are you that normal about life on Earth? has anything odd ever happened to you?

odd things have happened to me. i've teleported. i've seen a railway timetable change instantly in front of me. i've seen a railway map of a completely different Britain in a train. i've reread a book, sure a passage i remember had disappeared. and more besides.

of course, even as a child, before i had teleported, i had problems accepting the 3D mechanical motion theoretical model. i can see quite far, my field of vision extends far in front of me. it's not a flat image in my head, my eyesight. how could someone really be where i see them, without my eyesight, if you like, the actual material structure of the images of my eyesight in front of me, knocking them over when i move? so people are never really there where you see them. it's just a hologram representing a person. and nothing really "moves".

what i learned from these odd experiences was that the world is not as stable as you think, things can change instantly which suggests the discrete nature of change and time, that the system does not work perfectly, and records or memories of the past may mutate so as to become inaccurate or even false.

of course the world is a simulation in the sense that it's simulating a universe where the 3D mechanical motion theoretical model holds. physical motion is not real.

if the world has an unreal quality, and an inherent instability, it leads one to ask, can the simulation be hacked? can we control what happens? now when most of these odd things happened to me, i was in a florid schizophrenic state. for when your mind is unstable, your world is unstable. we have to sense what is possible first, then concentrate on that. it's all very well to say we manifest what we think about, of course thought precedes much of what happens, but we need to know what is probable first.

CLEARCHARGE

Why Are We Here?

why are we here:

i remember the start of my life on Earth, there was a dream sequence, which lead to waking up in a dream. that is how it began, dreams became waking reality. i don't remember what came before. how long was i dead? i think people do not really change much, so i suppose i am the person i was before, and guess that i must have some vestigial memories of my previous life.

so that answers in short why we are here on Earth, that we dreamed our way here. it raises doubts about the reality of Earth. is it some kind of dream world? are some people not real? is it a simulation, that is, it has false elements? if it were a simulation, can we hack the simulation? the idea that we have to be careful about what we think about or imagine may be true, that we have to govern our thoughts because they might influence the world.

what can i piece together about my previous life? that i already understood language at birth is clear. i was familiar with houses in general too i suppose might sound strange to mention but is true also. so this was not the true start to life.

because i had been a young child who grew to adult, and experienced changes in body and face, i know that the body and face we could have is variable.

on Earth itself, there are two things to consider, the number and proportion of real people on Earth, and the number of versions of Earth. there may be many real people living on Earth but each on a slightly individual version. i know what is normal to assume, that most people on Earth are real and that they are living in the same version of Earth. alternatively, i could consider that i have met few real people on Earth, most people are simulants, and only 60% of the facts and history and people of my version matches a common version. just to say, let me speculate here, what if my version of Earth were properly called Earth 1.31 Version E, that were five general versions of Earth, etc.

logically, even if some people are simulants, or simulated people, they are based on real people. how did it all happen, if the world is really like this, some people are not real, people live in different worlds, etc? well, it requires a lot of communication to unify the world. if communication is less than perfect, we have this resulting confusing mess. how is it that everything is copied perfectly and carried on? how likely is it that everything works perfectly?

CLEARCHARGE

The Matter Mix

the matter mix:

what is a person? an entity that can think, see, hear, speak, and so on. the consciousness in the head is surrounded by light and sound. this projection field allows the materialist mechanical motion theoretical model to come alive, so to speak, to seem true and physical motion to seem real.

but it is not. it is an illusion formed by light and sound. nothing really "moves". if we examined the space in front of us, where we can see and hear well, we would find a dense mix of different kinds of matter, lots of light matter, that is coloured matter, sound matter, and kinds of "data" matter that can carry information on type of light and type of sound that trigger changes in light matter and sound matter, so that we see and hear, and they enable smooth projection. it is remarkable that it all "works". why are we not simpler, like still statues seeing and hearing random lights and sounds in a world where physical motion does not seem real, why does the mechanical motion theoretical model seem so true?

how well are people connected? does space for the most part look like a dense sea of matter, where a person is directly connected to many other people, or is it more sparse, more chain-like, where a person has few neighbours, or both?

CLEARCHARGE

Time Discrete or Continuous?

time discrete or continuous:

time is reflected by changes in state in least bits of matter. if time is discrete, any change in the state of a least bit of matter is a discrete change. a least bit of matter "jumps" from one state to to another.

the concept of continuous time is far harder to think about, and perhaps therefore is false. in this concept there are infinitesimal time intervals for each state and therefore as the time interval tends toward zero, this means, in a sense, that a least bit of matter never has a "still" or definable state, does it not? which is not easy to imagine.

now, even if time is discrete, it may seem "continuous", because the time interval of each state is very little.

CLEARCHARGE

Consciousness

consciousness:

"it's like, i read about consciousness, and the articles have questions like what is it and so forth, but i mean, surely to a conscious person, it's pretty obvious what it is, right? it's thought. it seems weird, it's like they deal with the subject as though it's like a non-conscious person is writing, who really doesn't know what it is. it's not that mysterious, right? i mean, i know what it is, it's what's inside my head, doing the thinking, it's a part of the person that is me."

"yes, it's a bit like people who believe in materialism, they can't therefore explain what consciousness is, if all that's real is physical atoms or whatever. it's where materialism fails, i think."

"right. that's the problem. materialism can't be reconciled entirely with the fact that consciousness exists."

"also, i think consciousness being an invisible thing. it's something that scientists can't exactly measure, while obviously as a living person, it's obvious it exists."

"with all the interest in simulation theory, i think the tide has turned against materialism, you know, that all there is is physical atoms and so on."

CLEARCHARGE

Person and Matter

person and matter:

philosophical idealism puts that reality is a mental construct, while philosophical materialism puts that it is a material or physical construct. materialism may seem plausible but there is no denying that it is still the senses which would tell us about such a material world. idealism puts that we cannot know of anything other than that which we perceive.

when we see a material object, of course, we can touch it, feel its hardness and shape, but is that all it is, a visual construct and the sensation we have when we touch it? the simulation theory would have that there is no true external, material world, and that that is all it is, thus a virtual reality. however reality allows us to manipulate visual objects and so it is easy to believe that they are "real" as they seem. but what is a material object is it is not what it seems? it is certainly a kind of construct, a configuration of sorts.

if materialism is not true, then do we turn to idealism? but surely not everything in reality is strictly mental? that a person may only be aware of itself, its own mental parts, its thoughts, senses, emotions, etc is fine, but perhaps there are things that exist that might not be classified as mental? but because a person is a mental thing, it is less aware of these things, that does not mean they do not exist.

perhaps many common material objects are derived from a fixed source. perhaps for example there is a fixed tree that exists, if you like, a "statue" of a tree that exists fixed in space somewhere, the source from which variants of such trees are derived that we see as material objects. these things, these objects, are not exactly mental, or not parts of a person, but they may exist.

CLEARCHARGE

The Mix of Design and Random Mutant Manifestation

the mix of design and random mutant manifestation:

people are creative. there are a lot of things in the world of Earth that were by design obviously, all the things that humans have made, and built, but was the creation of Earth itself by design? or was it an accident of fate?

if life on Earth is a simulation, in the sense that some people are not real, and are actually simulants, that is, what we see as a human might not be truly representative of a conscious other being, how were they created? were they gestated in the great unconscious, built from the memories and subconscious imagination of all involved? fragments of conversations, actions, a dose of personal spirit, randomly mutated and mixed together, become manifest in the world of Earth?

perhaps some things that you might suppose were created, were not, and existed always from time zero, like human itself, trees, houses, etc. if we suppose that material objects are actually only mental constructs in actuality, and by the fact that physical motion is not real, the whole mechanical motion in a material universe, this model, it could only be a virtual construct, does that not lead to the possibility that things could be altered very quickly? how fast does the mind change? perhaps so fast that it is, in a sense, out of control, not unlike a dream.

and if the simulation were completely by design, wouldn't it be a better simulation?

CLEARCHARGE

The Shape of Space

the shape of space:

real space is not empty. it is composed of least bits of matter joined to each other fixed in position forever. and space is porous. it is inconceivable that it is fully densely packed throughout, that all of the surface of least bits of matter make contact with other least bits of matter.

there is the question whether a chain of least bits of matter could be in the shape of a loop with a vacuum in the middle where nothing exists. i think this is highly likely, as it is hard to imagine the case where this does not exist, space would look more like a tree's branches then.

certainly the zone containing consciousness, and the field of vision, seems dense. perhaps on a larger scale some parts of space are similarly dense, fields containing many points of consciousness, in other parts, more chain-like or like a tree, with obviously less connections. it is not much of a leap therefore to guess that where space is denser, commonalities occur, a common language comes about, etc. and so, to imagine it, one end of space is like, say, a field of poppies, joined by a tiny path to an orchard of apples, which in turn is joined to elsewhere by two other paths, say.

another question is whether some parts of space are so distant, that they have been little influenced by elsewhere, that there are points in space effectively independent of each other.

CLEARCHARGE

On Virtual Motion

on virtual motion:

posit that physical motion is not real, that it is actually virtual motion we see. everyone knows the 3D mechanical motion model. by now, it's hardwired in, so to speak. what things seem, that such motion looks as if it is happening, people moving, material objects moving, is not real, is not true. now this opens up a lot of sceptical ideas of course. am i a brain in a vat? what else is not real? etc.

but how does the actual projection of images in your eyesight work? when you walk forwards, objects move towards you. when you swing right, objects move to the left, and so on. posit that this 3D mechanical motion model was there right from the beginning, is eternal, then we didn't need to invent it, we always had it in mind. that would explain why it works so well, and how easily it operates. we could always imagine it, therefore it works.

so visually, objects move relative to us, not us to them. as a digression, speaking of relative, am i sure i actually grew several feet in my childhood? what if the material world actually shrank relative to me? maybe i grew a little, but in actuality, everything and everyone i saw became smaller as i aged to adult? perhaps not.

it seems a stretch to suppose that my eyesight, my projection field, is mapped by some kind of invisible computer, and that everything i see is computationally projected to precise coordinates as i move around. would this computer hold a micro image of everything in my range of sight and project this to my field of vision?

and what actually composes what is immediately in front of my head? we know we have the senses of sound and light, but obviously there is more than sound and light out there. again, calling all that exists matter, how much matter in front of me is actually light? 40%? 10%? 1%? say per clump of matter in front of my head, there are 100 parts, of which only 40 parts might be light or akin to light, 5 parts sound, but that leaves 55 parts we're not sure about. there are invisible least bits of matter we are little aware of surely? that that can be sensed is only so much.

CLEARCHARGE

On the Concept of Simulated Humans

on the concept of simulated humans:

let us steer a middling course between the two extremes, of one, the solipsistic nightmare where no other human you see in your world is real, is in fact simulated, and the other, that everyone you meet is a real person, that what you see and hear, in person, is an accurate representation of another person somewhere else in reality. so we have a situation where some people are real, some are not, we are dealing with a confusing world where both cases exist.

what would you call a simulated human anyway? an illusion, a simulant, a robot, what? in any case, you cannot escape the conclusion that even though a simulated human may not be real, it is probably in some or most part just like someone real however. though perhaps some simulated people are what some people merely imagine a person could be like and that no one is really like that?

if we could categorize type and made a careful study of different personalities, well, we might say this simulant is a lot like so and so, who is real, and a little like someone else too, and partly like someone's imagination. maybe some simulated people are completely like someone real, yet we never meet the real person on whom it is based. it's like meeting a proxy of a real person, is it not? and how many types of personalities are there? maybe we could then guess or have an idea of how many real people there are.

the recent expansion in computing suggests perhaps there is more order than there is in reality. we can deduce that because computers now exist, there is something "computer" about reality, and always was, as a base assumption. however, that this whole concept of simulated humans is so strange, so weird, so not ideal, suggests that there was no orderly power behind the creation of all this on Earth, that there is something of chaos extent in the world.

of course, it is interesting to guess the numbers. what is the ratio of real to simulated humans? if it's extreme, it would not be that confusing, it would be like either they're all real, or they're all simulated! but what if it were 1:1? or 1:10? how do we work out who is real and who is simulated? if we assume Earth is more false and the ratio is more like 1:10,000 then we might never meet anyone real in our lifetime on Earth, yet they still exist!

CLEARCHARGE

The Range of Assumption

the range of assumption:

everyone is familiar with the normal assumptions about Earth, of its age and population, that is, it is billions of years old with billions of people living on it. maybe its comforting to assume that everything is very old and there are lots of people to depend on, but what if it isn't and there aren't?

a metaphysical question, how fast could appearances change? well close your eyes, now you see nothing. how fast could what is presented on the computer screen in front of you change to something else? very fast. so we conclude that change in light could happen instantaneously. so you could reasonably be sceptical about the age of reality. once the elements of a fully populated Earth came about, the languages, the arts, the look of Earth, who is to say it was not created overnight and is only, say, two hundred years old? if Earth is to some extent populated by simulated humans, the first real human born on Earth would have been the only one at some point?

what if i can see a very long distance in front of me? yet my head is little in comparison to the distance i can see. what is my true size? and what composes me? do i assume that that is not conscious is not truly a lifeform? what about the hard to describe but apparent mood or expression or spirit or personal flavour we can see in objects, people and images?

of the population, i think you could assume it was large, certainly large enough to produce this much culture and language. there is something of an argument that the population must be very large to have produced so much but what if consciousness was not the engine of production of culture or a lot of thought even? what if the unconscious is very powerful, much larger, and is the main driver of everything? what consciousness is is clearer, but what the unconscious is is much harder to grasp.

CLEARCHARGE

If Earth is a Simulation

if earth is a simulation:

first an argument about the word "simulation", a simulation, as opposed to what? a material, physical world where mechanical motion is real, that matter, the stuff of reality, really changes its spatial position, isn't that what they mean? well that is not real, so it is a simulation, because nothing really "moves", correct?

that is one aspect of the concept, one easily dealt with, the other is far weirder, that some people are simulated humans, they are not really 100% representatives of specific other, real people! i mean, to say it's a simulation because physical motion is not real is one thing, but maybe forms you see of other humans could represent real other people somewhere else? maybe not, and this possibility is one in which reality could be something of a strange, chaotic mystery to all.

assume the calendar is not really that far advanced, reality is actually only a few hundred years old. the problem we have is that there was a lot to begin with, humans, plants, trees, houses, all existed at the beginning, say, and because sudden changes can happen, and the unconscious is so large, it is always in motion and chaotic, it created Earth suddenly, as it is.

that dreams are chaotic is undisputed, a product of the unconscious, and are the portal to life on Earth, and i suppose the exit. that Earth is not quite what it seems, is not entirely normal really, the suspicion happens because of the existence of dreams principally.

on the question of simulated humans, if we assume that some of the people we meet are that, it does not mean that they are unlike any real people, the probability is that they are like someone real or several real people, because they must be based on someone! their speech, their actions, are derived from real people's. they may be a composite of several people plus some random factor, who knows? if we assume that the proportion of simulated humans to real humans is high, how high? 10000:1? that would mean there are only a few thousand real people around in any country! and in any case, the truth of reality becomes a confusing in between of belief in "normality" and a near solipsistic case. it would be naive to assume the extremes of one or another, actually, it's all real, simulated humans and real humans!

the interesting question becomes, how can you tell the difference between a real human and a simulated human? are real humans more coherent, more responsive? are simulated humans poorly programmed, if you like? do real humans have more of an aura, a presence? do they look different? do they have a unique glow? who knows?

and as for the ratio of real to simulated humans, how many real humans, the baseline from which these simulated humans are derived, does it require to produce the variety of people we see today? tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands? it would be tending toward solipsism if you came up with a low number, surely? that would mean the collective unconscious of all real people was huge to produce the variety of people and the amount of media found on Earth! i do not doubt that the unconscious is large and capable but does it really dwarf the conscious minds of all of us? it seems unlikely that the number is low.

CLEARCHARGE

The Random Inflated Simulated World

the random inflated simulated world:

to begin with, the world as a whole, or the universe, or reality, was much simpler, people were alone, if you like, but communications, the propagation of sounds and images, and later meetings, rapidly inflated the world, or the unconscious at least. if i state that i began alone, but met several people the first day, and lived eventually on earth, with a purported population of millions, you can see the course of history.

if we consider that earth is a simulation of some kind, that all is not quite as it seems, it is not quite "real", that some facts are not true, that indeed some people are not true, what of these people populating it? now false facts are easy to manufacture, the imagination works constantly, people are crazy, to be blunt, and dreams happen, and to acknowledge that birth on earth began itself as an awakening from a dream about earth, it is therefore easy to be sceptical about much of earth and the people populating it. what makes up a person or what represents them? a certain personality, emotions, and things they've said or done, their own personal light and sound perhaps, and what you might call a certain flavour or mood to a person, indeed how do we recognize people in dreams if we see them but indistinctly if not by the flavour they give off? if we posit that not all people we see and meet are representations of real people then what are they but random composites of real people, saying and doing things that real people have done plus perhaps some random causal factor? they are not "real" but they are just like someone real or several real people. perhaps some of these people have a biography, they are consistent, or perhaps some people, that we only see for a minute say, walking past us on the street, never appear again, and have none!

assume that the general speed of the world is fast, change can be almost instantaneous, communication is not perfect, for errors and mutation exist, giving rise to the random nature of the universe, and our own eyesight and hearing, or our projection field, is prone to inflation and errors too, all give credence to this argument of a simulated world. it wasn't meant to be this, but this is what happened.

CLEARCHARGE

Alternate Dimensions, Other Worlds and Partial Correlation

alternate dimensions other worlds and partial correlation:

it is most likely naive to assume that everyone lives in the same world, with all the same people, also that when people meet, true correlation is the case when most likely it is not, that what is transmitted from another person regarding it, is not exactly received or that the signal carrying the data is not accurately interpreted about that person, that what we sense about another person does not correspond exactly to what that person is all about. real distance in space, and mutation of signal, signal loss, and inaccuracies in interpretation to replicate what is going on at a distance, mean that true correlation may be foolish fancy. that the system in place in this reality is well engineered is an assumption that must be undermined.

in the beginning, certainly, we were not in the same world, not by a long shot actually. constant communication and even rapid advances in communication in recent times still does not mean that we all live in the same world now even. indeed, we may still assume that everyone is still in their own world, an earth-like version, and though it might seem that two people are in the same world, one might be in an alternate dimension to the other, even though they meet. to apply numbers, for example, two people who meet may both believe they are on Earth, but the correlation figure for their two worlds might only be 86%, that the geography might not fully agree is one point, the other is that the two sets of the people in both worlds might not is the other point.

to give an example, two people might both walk along the same street in a busy city, but one sees fewer people than the other, and also sees people that the other does not see. we must admit that the sets or networks of people that the two are in may be different. why should they be the same in any case? social networks are formed by forging links between people in real space, are they not, and if we assume that this task is more difficult, that the system is not fully connected, then are individual networks not different?

that the system is far from perfect and that individual projection fields that render what we see and hear are prone to confusion and inaccuracies means that we cannot assume that we see and hear people truly. there are the factors of random application and inflation to consider also. that the signal must pass through all the personal zones between two people and in all probability must be flavored, if you like, or mutated, to take on that of the people in the middle or those closest in the most perhaps.

the plank underlying this argument is partial correlation, that errors exist in data transmission, that some data is not transferred, unrelated data is applied, and rendering or replication is an inexact science, so indeed, how could we all live in the same world with the same people?

CLEARCHARGE

Social Dynamics: The Gang of Four

social dynamics the gang of four:

given that it is far from rare, and that the median social group is often thus, let us then examine the dynamic that exists between four people, although even transient it may be, and let not how it came to be, this gang of four, trouble us, rather so how it functions be the operative question. why four? is two or three not enough?

a gang, a party, an expeditionary force, to expedite matters in life or business, renders the individual qualms about being on your own, to rest, the total of a gang of four is more than the sum of each member parts, which is why! role playing, even board games, these things don't function for the player in isolation, not only are other people required to operate such, to state all gain from such! we need someone physically capable, we need someone cerebral, we need a wizard mayhap, we need someone adept, maybe we need more in this crew!

skills that contribute to the welfare of the party, for the mission in life, to the bitter end if need be, make up the set of talents core to the group. primary to the cohesive nature of the gang is a facility for easy interaction, an agreement on secular matters at least, there are a range of issues to debate over time.

why not less? why not be alone? and so searching for something, best described as moving toward a common goal is what molds the group and holds it fast.

a common identity becomes them. what trace the gang of four leaves remains within them.

CLEARCHARGE

A Metaphysical Trap

a metaphysical trap:

for several times today, yet i feel myself again and for now, this once, i can do what i want! and i can do whatever i please. you know what i mean? what's new in my life? what's it like to have it all? why do i have to do this, this thing of mine, surely it could wait. the next level up!

o dear! what have we here? a reminder, shard. i can't believe it! why so sudden?! what's happened of late. surely i can escape the past? it's overrated, redress you me!

blocked ways, and for the guilty and the innocent, one mistake leads to another! when it happens, it seems it all happens at once! a sort of paranoic haze envelops the mind, in which it is difficult to escape. the paranoid mind is a trap in itself, to be honest, the mind just boggles! but what are the clues? to be meta about it!

a true 3D guide, we would conspire to get it! therefore avoid traps in general, not a downer, yet eventually we could learn to reflect upon life better and away from that.

what of it? what is it? where is it? how? cards we play, castles we love, and marriage, prosperity, serenity, tranquility, and friends forever, the life beyond mortality, the proving chamber, the track of life upon which we sweat our lives away. yet what of abandon, what of longing, and yet what of hope?

CLEARCHARGE

Alles Ist Zehn auf zu Wissel Zehn hein

alles ist zehn auf zu wissel zehn hein:

"Heute..."
"Reis und Schein...auf dem...Hören die Welt...aus Geben...Du dar...Was Ist denn Los...aus!"
"Sie Kommt." "Welken Sie Bäde."
"Alles Ist Zehn auf zu Wissel Zehn."
"So Ist Denn Fahlen...Was Ist Los?"
"So Friede Seinen!" "Helga...Was Ist Los?"
"Hein!"

CLEARCHARGE

On Size and Weighting the Issue

on size and weighting the issue:

the key issue in the future is whether anything continues or not so that what is not apparent might not happen at all. this is to say that that that is not well remembered may not even exist metaphysically and so that there is no need to dwell on it. what is past may recur only slightly in the future as a shaded repeat like an alternative timeline.

who is she? what will she do next? what is real and what is apparent is that she continues to say the least.

the size of the problem illustrated by the past for decades yet is what concerns mental convolutions. that is to say that i can yet still remember, whether fortuitously or not. lack of sufficient memory blocks further thought sometimes and only fragments of voices or mood of the past may remain.

weight that large then and the alternative nothing. am i prepared still?

clearly the size of mental capacity is what concern. what of my physical dexterity and emotional tolerance? who i am is clear to me. very much is the case that i do not dwell on the future but mayhap my present is certainly not wondrous to think of.

CLEARCHARGE

The Rank of the Norm

the rank of the norm:

the machine, the electricity that flows, the switch, the button, and what you see? take for example, the miniature plastic rubber doll, with heavy duty batteries, see it move, see it dance, hear it sing, a trophy doll in the presentation package.

persistent stress, persistent strain, peristrait in bed. what next? once i get out of bed, i need to level up!

emotionally speaking there is fear, anger, hate, love, want, happy, sorrow. not in any particular order. normal, what is it? the capacity to cope in the situation. however we are also guided by other forces, other emotions, other electric parts of ourselves. what of longing, what of hope, what of funny, indeed what new terms can there be?

electric, then perhaps lecre and ectra could explain motivation in life, if you know what i mean!

suggesting that emotions might be more important that reasoning, that some will not be held back by any logical argument preventing them from proceeding with their planning for life.

CLEARCHARGE

Alternative Timeline and Theoretical Time Travel

alternative timeline and theoretical time travel:

just like the past. fill in the gap. now onward. i sense something. don't get mixed up. streaming it. pulling it. don't slip. we are just sampling the past. the present. the future. fill in the pattern.

CLEARCHARGE

The Corona Stakes

the corona stakes:

on this day...this great occasion...

POOR IN MERC
DRESS CORVAIR
VERY WELL JOGGING
SAN CRISTOBAL
VENTRILOQUIST

at the post...

CLEARCHARGE

The Paradigm of 3

the paradigm of 3:

1 and 2 and 3
then 3 went on to 6

and 9
and 10

now 5 is preceded by 4 is it not
and 7 followed by 8

and 11 by 12

round to 8 again
5 sides
besides 9
how to get to 10?

well 10 divided by 5 is 2 is it not?
add 8 to get to 10 which is
besides 9 or rather
beside 9 which is
beside 8

iff or if and only if you start at the end
which is 10

and it starts with 1 or zero

CLEARCHARGE

QVORVM EX REBVS RERIS AD VIENDO LOQVOR VT LAVDIBUS TE MAGNA CENTRIA MAREILLIO

QVORVM EX REBVS RERIS AD VIENDO LOQVOR VT LAVDIBUS TE MAGNA CENTRIA MAREILLIO:

which happened afterwards, all those things that we did, left behind in the past, to the town fair we went, i spoke, praising such, and show to you, behold this large event.

CLEARCHARGE

Theory Has Constraints

theory has constraints:

post partum in excelsis, motive interest can be explained by short term demand which naturally expires, in short success or solution might be adequately provable by equation or formula over time.

in the event that nothing can explain duration, only that the past prevails and becomes more significant over time, not that time explains everything but which that happened.

to sense what is not observable exactly is a criteria of existence and what is it all about anyway?

Se + Li + So + Re < WHOLE

CLEARCHARGE

Constraint in Hyperbolic Potential

constraint in hyperbolic potential:

other theoretical motions indicate possibilities that can only be discounted by applying constraints, for in total consideration, not everything is observed to be in contact.
time in motor situation seems different from static and is not often memorable.
when situational change is not observed theoretically space is not stable and the line of travel indistinct.

CLEARCHARGE

Amylase Peptides Na Cl Salts

amylase peptides Na Cl Salts:

enzyme path reaction reduces complexes after relieving emitting pulse radiation and focus on NaCl in particular. route of particles from A to B through a close network of atomic structure of Na and Cl reduces chemicals. enzymes such as amylase and other peptides react with salts to produce such a chain reaction. now further study of reactions involves ketones, amino acids, platinum and ferric oxides, pentoxides, and aluminium, and sulphates, and a conceptually new chemical element varium and its trioxides and pentoxides. oxidation releases oxygen and reduction into equilibrium.

CLEARCHARGE

What is a Person

what is a person:

where personal gets close is where person begins.

what reason to be personal? and what is a person? how to behave? have a go, fuck it, do something. now the past prevails surely? if ever if became a concern, you must study past behaviour, surely it explains somewhat the present situation? get up and go, and start! what put this idea in my head, put a person on top? errors in the past restrict the future, indeed limit the present, why did someone not do?

have you seen the part where you noticed something and then it became personal?

CLEARCHARGE

Selling to Latent Demand

selling to latent demand:

LD > 0 ; LD = W + T

what latent demand is about in general is clear. what is wanted to been seen and heard, already thought about, to be experienced in real life. the tourism business flourishes, people travel around the world.

the business makes decisions. they know it will sell once available. promotion helps.

imagine it this way, you will see that, and this is the start of the process...

D < LD

when demand is smaller than supply, business becomes poor. whether this is because people take advantage of knowledge of latent demand and are quick to supply is another question. when supply for latent demand is realized, it is rarely at a price that is just right to clear the market immediately.

CLEARCHARGE

Name and Number: Julie

name and number Julie:

examine theoretically, an instance where 4 girls, name Julie, meet for a day out in London and eventually go their separate ways after lunch. they are at the same school and this is their day off.

what happens after lunch they visit a museum and shortly afterwards, one leaves to go back to school, and then two leave together, leaving the last one not knowing what to do exactly.

at school they sit in the same class, one in the front, one in the middle, and two together at the back.

why could this happen like this? suggest first that the two who pair off sit at the back together anyway and the situation becomes clearer.

whether the Julie who leaves first is the one at the front or the back is the question?

posit the Julie in the middle is probably neither very social nor very studious, the Julie at the front the most serious about class and therefore serious about the day out in London.

CLEARCHARGE

Schizophrenia: Loss of Affect

schizophrenia loss of affect:

what is schizophrenia? how did it become 99th percentile measure? strange thoughts, hearing wild, what? your world unstable, you have, in a sense, disconnected, so well, what's the building like now, where am i?

how self aware are you? how do you, as a person, affect other people? some may never say to your face, they even know what you're thinking and what you're going to do, yet they not let slip...

and what were you like before? actually, you've lost something of yourself, perhaps you are inactive now, loss of affect about you.

qualms about the world, and, not coming up with any answers, after such happened and, it all goes quiet, what disturbs the mind means loss of affect?

CLEARCHARGE

De Joue Vous en Prix

de joue vous en prix:

en quoi de vouloir, c'est quoi de choisir, surtout vous en prix, un jeu d'amour, ce qu'elles voient, mais en prix, de langue, et l'enfant, ce qu'il demande, quoi de chose?

de penser, et de comment, parce qu'un départ pour, par exemple, de marquis de Capet du Dionne, c'est un choix de vie, il y a beaucoup de choses, pour l'homme, pour la femme, pour choisir, peu de baisse, un peu de forte. qui est-ce et ce que quoi?

merveilleux et magnifique, la pointe, c'est de la gloire, remercier, toute de rapidement.

ce qu'on voit, c'est parce qu'ils aiment de quoi, pour le choix, pour la femme, de joue vous en prix.

CLEARCHARGE

And That Done the Frame

and that done the frame:

how to frame the argument? we find truths that we are certain of and we put them together and make conclusions and then act upon them. is it not a leap of faith to go on anything thought about? would only disaster strike prove the theory wrong?

we try to cover all aspects of the subject, search for clues from experience, and then we move to extrapolate perhaps and theorize and categorize data and information.

at times we are hard pushed to further the frame when a ton of distraction lies in our way and often it is hard to bang on down the line and not digress from the topic. it is rather hard to concentrate, to fully attack the problem and win.

lay out the grid, try further categories, what other examples are there? expand on it. do give it a go!

CLEARCHARGE

The Key to Unlocking the Mess

the key to unlocking the mess:

you're in a mess, what can you do about it? not much you think, but still, what could the cloud of culture particles tell me? here i sit, soaked in the atmosphere of town life, the computer and the internet environment, but the world is unstable, much has passed and gone, and i'm stuck in the past about many things.

where does it come from? what does it mean? i can imagine much, but truth be told, i don't know. without force, i think of many things, but it goes around in a loop.

what is it all about? something pop culture, something life experience? anyway, just sitting here, www on, me thinking away... how does this make sense? need the keys to unlocking this, what idea, what concept could, if it occurred to me, would explain what the atmosphere, the cloud, here, all around me, is about?

is it travel? a car, a train, a boat, a ship? what? thought lies in the difficulty, usually. does it explain any parts i hadn't thought of already?

generally, turning on the PC, hooking up to the internet, and so on, inevitably you think about the social network, the business network, even programming, switches in electronics, current terminology, trendy themes in the media, buzzwords as they are called, now it's global or not, globalization, standards met, so on...

working on the blog, being regular and all, need ideas, fresh out of ideas, what do you do? go out, stew indoors, what exactly?

CLEARCHARGE

Schizophrenia Type I: An Intro to Life

schizophrenia type i an intro to life:

walking in the mist, pebbles and stones beneath feet, turning, around the bend
a figure crouched by a tree, a meeting, an instance, a precedent
now i see more, much more, the sun is rising, the colours bloom, irradiating my world
in the dusk, when i close my eyes, i still see yet
schizophrenia has begun
a rainbow swirl of colour in my world

CLEARCHARGE

Affect and Change

affect and change:

least bits of matter, adjoined to their neighbours, porosity of space a concept, that is, gaps in between where nothing exists, when each least bit of matter changes state, it affects its neighbours.

what is space but a heap of what looks like prickly gems connected to each other? when it changes, like it's saying become like me, or the same, speculatively, if a group of neighbours become similar, at the border, affect is less from the central least bit of matter, and what is beyond is affected by some other least bit of matter or is in itself experiencing sharp change.

the illusion of free movement, physical motion, shift, swivel, pull towards, push forwards.

CLEARCHARGE

Establishing Protocols

establishing protocols:

entry server, combine, swell the cloud, target server, release, recombine, rebuild.

step by step, in stages, that's how it works, how the computers move before processing anything. really, how do computers interface with other computers, or printers, just for that matter? that was the question, and yet still is, although later it was certainly about the server and the internet, support for the server, addresses and IP.

could a computer replicate from the server? how does it interpret the signal?

technically speaking, is wireless radiation through space method of transmission? can it be embargoed or blockaded? what about the permeability of space, that the signal copied down the line, up to the server, is the same thing at the receiving end? is it a wide receiver, like a giant all band radio receiver? response time loading a page from the world wide web or www, for short, on the internet is critical in judging many things, not only the permeability of space, whether a signal can flow, how fast also, but also the distance of the server.

by random
e.g.
0086 KKBF
protocol
server

what would make life confusing? probably not the virtual reality helmet and all round treadmill to give the illusion of physical motion, but the 3D graphics generator for the ultimate PC, don't you think? could a computer do all that with the light? could it really talk? is the computer same as a human? here's a thought experiment, the basic player venue simulated on your PC, only to be delighted by the processing of speech bubbles! how my PC played me!

e.g.
your move
processing...
clear
strip
consolidate
respond
your computer move

CLEARCHARGE

Kere An Hour Away

Kere an hour away:

so, let's imagine you've just bought your ship for 4,000 credits, your basic starter starship at the dealer, and you've settled into the seat, you're the driver! check all the controls that adjust the view, the steer, for roll, up down for takeoff and landing, left right for turn, and throttles, check, navigation console, check. dunno how it happened, really, but with the starship they had to expand the rules of physics!

the motor car or automobile changed Earth! about moving parts, friction, heat, gauge, worn and torn parts. closed box system, how real are moving parts in the darkness?

now Kere, what system is this? why not Afik? or Edim? it seems brave, doesn't it, to jump to another system, based on a readout from a navigation console?

to think carefully on how hyperdrive works, perhaps the windows or observation panels contain image layers of arrival points to effect arrival from hyperspace, with the radio channel tuned in to destination.

well, is it dangerous? the voyage to somewhere else always carries inherent risk, even crossing the road is dangerous, why would you want to do it? as someone who went all the way buying a ship, that is a bit obvious. but can you really fly? how many times before you passed your atmosphere driving test? the advanced planetfall course?

Kere, lush forest, sandy beaches, rolling green hills, huge city. why not?

CLEARCHARGE

It's a Type

it's a type:

and you pass through a place in London like Oxford Street, you have the buses, the taxis, tourists, a crowd of people that remind you that you are not alone. in the bus from Victoria Station, it is nice, Hyde Park Corner, Park Lane, then onto Oxford Street, everyone seems lively, a lot to say. if everyone is in a world of their own, perhaps here is where they meet.

where does the Earth population, growing, where's it come from? now Earth is one world, if you like, there was an alternate life before.

what does it seem? posh, worldly, experienced. and education is so expensive nowadays. people have a presence, what is that about, light, sound, accent, what?

i think everyone has heard of the Great Exhibition of 1851 and so London has continued, the streets a parade of people, everyone wondering what the latest thing is.

CLEARCHARGE

True Aspects of Solipsistic Notions

true aspects of solipsistic notions:

so it's true, it ain't no one man reality, my human ego is not that big. there are others, how many lifeforms could there be?

they say two is company, three's a crowd, one man two women or one woman and two men, but it ain't that kind of reality either so what can one say?

that sometimes nobody could help you, you're on your own, just seems true. that you could never be someone else with their individual senses is also true. like who saw what and when?

what's the polar opposite of solipsism? is it dependency without sense of self?

CLEARCHARGE

From 1986 to About Now

from 1986 to about now:

in '86, it was a fine time to be in London. it all seemed to be happening in most parts, in the East End, at Middlesex Street Market near Aldgate, the City of London, in the West End, though, it was much more quieter than now, the streets weren't heaving with bodies like Oxford Street now on a busy day.

I read The Guardian, The Times, the opticians were professional. later on, I spotted The Tatler in a newsagent in Charing Cross Road in Chinatown, a kind of highly detailed guide of what makes snob in England, interesting at first, fresh and new, but I couldn't keep up with my subscription much later on.

to me, London prices were cheap, I was so impressed by that, that prices have gone up times three or thereabouts in my time influences me.

Bromley, one of the other two, the other being Croydon, in the East and the South, is much changed. they place a large shopping mall in town, The Glades, it makes a lot of difference.

CLEARCHARGE

Instead of All That

instead of all that:

"what i wanted to say to you, was, i thought you had something, not what i expected, but it worked out in the end."

"thank you for saying that."

"you were prepared. i thought you didn't have it in you at first, what you managed to do, was fantastic. i'm sorry if i offended you."

"it's all right."

"you're a nitpicker, you've got an eye for detail, obviously."

"do you need any more help?"

"i'll be all right. thanks."

CLEARCHARGE

I'm Right by You

i'm right by you:

in space, proximity or distance matters, always. the chain, the network, the group.

i'm right by you, i'm with you, and sometimes nothing else matters. the groups out there, they are so busy sometimes, and so are we too as well, sometimes.

well, i heard it man, and it seems true. in the meantime, guess what, i got a lot of things going on here, and good luck to you too!

we just started here, got a thing going on. thank you!

CLEARCHARGE

Play Or Not

play or not:

"well, there's the question, have i had enough of this? and you know, maybe there's a limit to everything, really how far did you want to go with this, anyway."

"go on, i mean, i have an idea how serious i am..."

"the question is, am i playing or not. let's get off this. i'm gonna introduce a new word, quodity, what is that about? really, you have to ask yourself, what does it want out of me? you know, when the girl or guy starts asking personal questions, you know they're interested. you're a commodity, i don't know about what."

"meaning what? is it like, this is just a game or when i walk out the door, i'm gonna find out how serious it is?"

"that's exactly it, there's an audience there, you know it. so you're thinking, what just happened? and i mean, really, if you're willing to go all the way, you want the universal ideal, it could happen pretty fast."

"yeah!"

"i'll come back to it again. explain yourself to yourself first."

CLEARCHARGE

The No Motion Argument of No Connection to Separate Realities

the no motion argument of no connection to separate realities:

let the null hypothesis be that separate realities hook up every night or day for some time and then leave eventually only to return again and again making a nonsense of universal time and space.

is this falsifiable? really?

note that this is reality where physical motion is not real. anyone who likes thinking about this might conclude that where physical motion is not even real such collisions and contact made are impossible.

CLEARCHARGE

On Packing in Space

on packing in space:

on drawing speculative diagrams of what space might look like, considering the possible arrangement of least bits of matter, there are clearly two broad types of chains, single width and multiple width, judging on number of points of contact.

on macro scale, that is scaling up, personal space bubbles can so be considered as well. and why do we know so little about other people? because each personal bubble space is a zone of space where there is self involvement to a great degree, least bits of matter in the zone affect each other rather more than interact with external space. the field of think is closely connected to the senses and you can only know what you think. what happens further away you sense less, it is about proximity, just as eyesight declines at a distance. containment is the concept, obviously it is not total or we would never know anything about other people.

single width chains are perhaps rare, a blockade of transitional change or flow may occur easily. where there are multiple chains or rather where least bits of matter are tightly packed communication is freer as there are several routes of flow.

it seems that there must be vacuums in space, where matter does not exist. least bits of matter do not make complete contact with their neighbours. it is an interesting question whether chains could form a ring of least bits of matter with a vacuum in the middle, perhaps not.

as for personal space bubbles, a large one may contain personal space bubbles within itself. how alone do you feel? it is not easy for someone surrounded by other people in real space to experience solipsism you would think.

CLEARCHARGE

Conscious Think

conscious think:

it is apparent that the conscious person is, if you like, in the driver's seat in life. you have, in fixed real space, an immobile clump of matter, call it consciousness, or think, surrounded by light, sound, in a working system, and consciousness manipulates the field around it. "brain in a vat" is quite a material description, and what is material, after all? light makes illusion and what seems material is in some sense a trick of the light, the material can be seen, first of all. indeed, the material involves light and its rules and the sense of touch. in reality the think matter in your head is surrounded by different matter, least bits of matter connected in a numerically huge network, all chained together.

you might think that consciousness is special, as it is the driver. it seems the field around it is all for the driver, so to speak. or you could think that the consciousness has a job, a responsibility, as it has control. but really, what can the consciousness know but its own consciousness first of all, is that why consciousness is special?

what is thought? well, you can think about light, sound, that is, other types of matter, very real things, or it could become abstract. why do we use language? what is the power of certain words? unique words change the think crystals in our heads a certain way, we arrive at something abstract. posit that our native languages are not truly learned with any effort, that such a language with its words naturally lead to certain states of meaning in our heads.

the question becomes what is the limit of abstract thought? it is noticeable, asleep, we have thoughts that we cannot define or easily explain, a general mood often being the only explanation. while we are awake, the think is less abstract, we often think about light and sound, that's where the bias is. asleep, it is more abstract.

what is the original state of consciousness? is there a cycle in which reset to the original states for each think least bit of matter happens? well, can we remember time zero? what is the original balance between real and abstract thought?

CLEARCHARGE

To Give Lie to History and Its Ornamental Exposition

to give lie to history and its ornamental exposition:

to any student of history, contradictory or alternative accounts bring into the mind a certain dissonance, and thus doubt. is such history true record or merely rather abstract, imaginative collections of themes and stories that blend detail with archetype, action with motive, paranoia with ambition, event with hyperbole, and so on? are these myths or legends, are these historical characters alive all around us, and in us even? and do we play up to history?

i mean, if we assume that the worst, which we all think about in our most paranoid state, does not actually happen, what then? is this an existential problem? a lot of bad things don't happen to us personally, but could they be real for other people? war is a series of motions, to be quite neutral about it, but i digress. and exaggeration works to stimulate interest, and symbolism and imagery impress the reader.

now this is a world of complexes, this is a metaphysical truth, there are, if you like, bundles of ideas and words and images that come together, either without much conscious effort, or with. to lie down and let your imagination wander happens to everyone. to deconstruct and interpret the most gaudy work of history, we should recognize the ornamental nature of its exposition. imagine the bright, colourful illustrations, the portraits, the weapons, the machines, the vehicles, the maps, the treasure, the clothes, the food, the banquets, the marriages. it would deal with the themes of rivalry, war, romance, ambition, failure, birth, life and death, family, travel, religion, politics, and change. now all these things affect everyone. how much are you like anyone in history? how much of history is true about you?

to be philosophical, the truest record of history that you could truly know, without contact with anyone else, would be your own diary, if you kept one. also, that people think about false things is without doubt. that a crazy mind might see and read false things is the next logical step. and that any record is perhaps unstable and liable to mutation is also true, as time means change.

CLEARCHARGE

The Porosity of the 3D Audio Visual Projection Field

the porosity of the 3D audio visual projection field:

"so i think about my eyesight and hearing...we're audio visual animals, but i'm sure i'm not entirely what i see and hear right? there are other things, invisible to me, around me...the whole computer thing now, the cloud, i'm surrounded by an invisible cloud of information, and there's the whole machinery of everything that connects me to Earth, that controls what i see and hear, right? what do i call it, my eyesight and hearing? i think i'll call it the 3D audio visual projection field. and maybe everything you see exists in micro form, and it's encoded too, and then it is projected somehow in front of me, i can see it, and you know of course we can see what others see too."

"that's how we live in the same world, Earth."

"right. the problem i have is how does it seem so solid, what i see, that it seems like that's all that's there? i have a focus, i see what i focus on, the rest not so clear, but how can there be anything else that's there, in the focus area?"

"here i think we have to deal with the porosity of the field, what you see seems solid, seems a contiguous image with no gaps, but it's simply not true. the 3D audio visual projection field, the 3DAVPF, is porous, there are gaps."

"right, so maybe it seems there are no gaps, but an image that seems planar, seems contiguous, it's still projected at various distances so only seems non-porous."

"right. the question is how much of matter is used at the focus to render images and sound in the 3D audio visual projection field? 20%? 70%?"

"you know it seems most of it. it's ridiculous that it seems 100% of course. how much power does the 3DAVPF use, if we thought about it terms of electricity, like an electrical machine? i mean no wonder it's exhausting to be awake for a long time, it uses so much electrical power."

CLEARCHARGE

Elements of the Tragedy of Menemeides and Amronoeia

elements of the tragedy of Menemeides and Amronoeia:

what of love lost, a failed romance, to scar forever the hearts of the couple involved? and from heartbreak to the death of romantic feeling, Menemeides and Amronoeia turned away from each other, both abandoned, a vacuum where love once grew, now empty.

perhaps only the capricious in heart could fall in love so easily, for just as unaccountable as the end was when it came, so too was the premise of this romantic adventure. Menemeides, in temperament, was not a proud man, nor one for excessive vainglory in life. Fate placed the couple together, and for a time, it was wondrous in experience. Menemeides thought Amronoeia very nice and he validated her sense of self. Amronoeia was loquacious and had an easy charm about her. however she, and perhaps Menemeides too, in his own way, were both judgmental in nature and placed value in conversation.

now easy words from loose tongues turn, when angry, confused and frustrated, and in haste, and when enveloped by the toxic atmosphere of prejudice and envy, to harsh words. that a couple should come together, that two worlds should be connected, is not an unobserved event. perhaps the goddesses watch, perhaps there were antagonists at work? that Menemeides always hoped perchance to impress with his words, that it seemed Amronoeia cared not came as a cruel blow to him. that his pride suffered is not true, for he was not proud, and do very proud people ever fall in love, truly? he felt only sorrow. and his silence seemed to Amronoeia that he now cared little or nothing.

now the audience may judge that Menemeides did not feel respect adequately, neither for himself first of all, for his sorrow lessened his faith in his own capacity distorting his self opinion to a grotesque caricature of inadequacy, and of course secondly, for Amronoeia. he simply could not forgive nor accept Amronoeia for what she was, someone who makes mistakes she regrets. of course Menemeides was capable of more. he could not see himself as the provider of comfort or a person of responsibility. Amronoeia, searching for signs that his love was not killed by one instance of a horrible malefication of words was heartbroken by the seeming absence of his love now.

it should be stated that for anyone to hold the spoken word as important, always risks the chance that it will turn tragic for just as free thought is out of our control sometimes, so is the spoken word or speech.

CLEARCHARGE

To Give Expression to Another

to give expression to another:

on meeting it is often somewhat surprising what transpires sometimes, is it mere exchange of words, a glance in the direction of another's face, or rather, much much more? what exactly is given? it is a fallacy that light is all the same, it is a fallacy then, much more obviously, that all words sound the same, that words may be delivered in an accent unique to the individual, is plain to all. a person has its own light, it may have its own sound, to remove the concept of the personal unique from science is a grave omission, is it not? what matter is here may not be what matter is elsewhere, it may not be the same or even similar in quality.

an emotional expression, often realized in the face of another, or cast in an aura that stretches across space, is not exactly easily definable, perhaps, but rather evident sometimes. what is it? is it about the other person's emotions, of want and happy perhaps, or their light, or some complex of thoughts and ideas, or a mixture?

it would be remiss of any final form of science or metaphysics, to make an omission of this, to refuse to deal with this subject at all. that we are affected by others' emotions is not to be refuted. the original state of people's minds and their emotions and thoughts is not to be neglected. modernity, meeting, change, all these things conspire to transform, what people originally were may be shocking, the unreconstructed form of the person at time zero.

on the obvious, most meetings are about exchange of words. we could muse whether we hear exactly the sound at the other end of the audio stream, the voice of the other person, but this seems futile. we attach great import to what is actually said, more than what they think. but why? people do not necessarily say what they truly want to say or believe. in an angry moment, they might make a complete nonsense of speech, and live to regret what they said.

emotional expression, hard to qualify, but easy to recognize, is rather a volatile condition, certainly at target distance. even for yourself, it is somewhat of a delicate balancing act.

CLEARCHARGE

Historical Legend and Effect

historical legend and effect:

history may seem remote, it may seem dense, somewhat impenetrable, almost irrelevant in its obscurity, sometimes. with the advent of historical fiction, gross revisionism, and the change of focus in the media, what is history and what is legend, or myth, remains a matter of some confusion. how the historian deals with facts and figures of note, how he or she fashions it into a work of history, ready to be read, is a question that many have. the answer is that the historian writes about what is important or clear to him or her, in his or her own mind, primarily.

that truly the world population is static, or that the population of the universe never really changes is a concept. all the people that ever were, still are, and always will be. do people really change?

English history, with the Anglo Saxons, with their short, monosyllabic words, and halting style, the historical legends that everyone has heard of, Merlin the wizard, King Henry VIII and his marriage troubles, Robin Hood, the Magna Carta, and the English sense of fairness, in fair play, in a fair deal, and the Court of Elizabeth I and the favourite, Earl of Essex, and the Court of James I and the favourite, Duke of Buckingham. in all these historical legends, there is the faintest sense of failure in all these accounts. personal relationships are key, what is one without the other? how did the man who became Duke of Buckingham catch the eye of James I? and without the king, what of Buckingham?

that history itself survives is a testament to its relevance. types persist, circumstances repeat themselves, though granted, it is most shocking to see history replay itself in public!

CLEARCHARGE