I think I was pontificating. I get excited and bring in all sorts of stuff not necessarily related to the original query. My answer isn’t really a reflecting on your phrasing: I just “go off” when I get inspired.

I think I was pontificating. I get excited and bring in all sorts of stuff not necessarily related to the original query. My answer isn’t really a reflecting on your phrasing: I just “go off” when I get inspired.

 

 Thank you for the recalibration. I lose my focus so easily.
Ok, I understand better: how difficult/easy is it to discern between a vacuum pulling one down a hallway and one’s choice to travel down that hallway?
===
I’ve been working on a ‘thing’ since about April 2013 which is why I end up off elsewhere a lot, trying to answer a lot of questions simply , finding my authentic voice and stance in things.
But I try to speak with that voice – not entirely knowing what it is at the time – WHILE I’m trying to find it as well.
So, sometimes I seem a jumbly mess. 
===
Thanks  I was searching for a computer program that could simulate a circle of doors with hallways and different pressures behind them.
I found a few physics toys and was playing around. Made a few videos, wasn’t happy with the results. But I’m definitely toying with it in my head even if I can’t simulate it on the computer well enough.
play is definitely core to me.
  • I appreciate the interactions when they come. I’ve been enjoying what you’ve helped spark – — you make fantastic prompts — while most of my part is train of thought, knowing you’re ‘out there’ has prompted me just let it come out and worry about organizing later (if at all). It’s hard getting it out as the impetus has to be there.
    So in this case, the door to you was open and I want to outpour writings. Is it a vacuum pull towards you or a push from within myself?
    Perhaps it is a cooperative situation, a bit of push and pull but not really fixed as it’s a messy, ambling about process.
    ====

===

 

 what’s tricky about using physics modeling is that physics doesn’t have a free will component to it.
So the limitations of the modeling environment automatically takes away free will. This is a common issue I notice in places such as Neurolaw: David Eagleman is fantastic for pursuing this direction but the limitations of neural modeling is what prevents him from finding free will. So he takes the logical step of declaring there’s no free will. But the limitation is in his modeling.
So, me using these physics toys will not show free will — it can only show things that limit free will.
However: most critically: these models aren’t constructing themselves. 
===

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


− three = 5

Leave a Reply