My Religion In A Nutshell

[Jayson]

That's pretty much it.

[phyllo]

Signal to noise ratio is IT?

Blackboards are IT?

Division?

Acronyms?

Greek alphabet?

Sitting on a cushion?

Tiled floor?

Loose comfortable clothing?

[Amorphos]

I thought noise was a signal?

Anyways, please explain a little further.

[Jayson]

Let's represent life on a metric of amplitude over frequency regarding the existentially emotional experience of it and the identity to it thereby.

"Noise" is the part of the signal that exceeds the bounds of "acceptable" ranges of amplitude for "functional" signal transmission and reception for a given recipient.

So a mild noise issue would look something like:

Where the green is within threshold bounds and the red is out of bounds.

An "ideal" signal would look like:

Where all is within the acceptable range, and transmission is accomplished at the lowest possible amplitude needed to require the transmission; essentially, super efficient.
(We'll call this Buddha-like; or any such figure which has attained some kind of tranquility in a culture's mythology.)

Signal out of bounds is itself not entirely a problem; however with a high rate of frequency of going out of bounds - then it is a problem.

Where signal is out of bounds, the recipient is incapable of translating that portion of the signal into its relevant channel (the "green" area).
This acceptable range is variable depending on the transmitter and receiver's capacities; different transmitters and receivers are capable of different thresholds.

When a signal goes out of bounds, there is an after-the-fact (meaning after reception by the recipient) system in place for attempting to regulate the issue: referred to as an Automatic Gain Controller (AGC).
Essentially, when too loud, turn down input (Amplitude). When too soft, turn up input (Amplitude).

An AGC is artificial in the sense that it is not an adjustment of the signal itself, but the reception of it.
As an example of such, In Neuro-psychology, a variety of medications exist which boost or inhibit neuro-transmissions or chemical responses (the most famous self-medicated variation of this is marijuana, which acts as an inhibitor to synaptic relays by piling up fatty tissue around the synapses).

In an ideal world, the signal broadcast itself would be adjusted so that it met within range of the recipient's channel capacity, but it can be rather difficult to accomplish a societal shift to effectively adjust such existential signal regulation for a mass on a mean; considering subjectivity (though monastic societies are an example of controlling the signal itself).

This leaves either an AGC approach, or a redefinition of the recipient's channel capacity.
In the former, periodic adjustment modules are needed (for instance, meditation, church services, retreats, etc...) [essentially, respite, buffers, "counter-increasers" {increasing the amplitude of another neuro-transmission to equal capacity of another offending transmission to aid in a sort of balance or cancelling is an example of this in science}], while in the latter an overhaul of the existential identity of the individual and their identity of reality is needed (dogma, theology, "world-view", or other existential identifications of "how life is"...essentially) to change the perception of the incoming signal which was previously carrying existentially emotional amplitudes beyond their capacity for "channeling" into translatable and tangibly relatable information (essentially, changing perspective so to widen their tolerance or acceptance).

Ergo, my take on religion is essentially: "noise" control.

[Calrid]

I think that's quite a clever take on religion generally: kudos that's a clever satire. Still I wont believe in your faith, for the time being, for the most part and because of your take.

[Jayson]

Well, lol, to be fair; I don't have a, "faith".
I look at religions like exercise regiments.
My closest relative to a, "faith", would be something like secular-Buddhism...I suppose one could look at it that way.
But equally, I can flip that around and say that I would change my "religion" subjectively dependent on the need; if I had remained in the military and pursued Ranger, or the like, then I would look for increasing my capacity for higher amplitudes and increased frequencies and look to reduce inhibitors...essentially, "warrior religion", concepts.

[Dan~]

Let's represent life on a metric of amplitude over frequency regarding the existentially emotional experience of it and the identity to it thereby.

"Noise" is the part of the signal that exceeds the bounds of "acceptable" ranges of amplitude for "functional" signal transmission and reception for a given recipient.

So a mild noise issue would look something like:

Where the green is within threshold bounds and the red is out of bounds.

An "ideal" signal would look like:

Where all is within the acceptable range, and transmission is accomplished at the lowest possible amplitude needed to require the transmission; essentially, super efficient.
(We'll call this Buddha-like; or any such figure which has attained some kind of tranquility in a culture's mythology.)

Signal out of bounds is itself not entirely a problem; however with a high rate of frequency of going out of bounds - then it is a problem.

Where signal is out of bounds, the recipient is incapable of translating that portion of the signal into its relevant channel (the "green" area).
This acceptable range is variable depending on the transmitter and receiver's capacities; different transmitters and receivers are capable of different thresholds.

When a signal goes out of bounds, there is an after-the-fact (meaning after reception by the recipient) system in place for attempting to regulate the issue: referred to as an Automatic Gain Controller (AGC).
Essentially, when too loud, turn down input (Amplitude). When too soft, turn up input (Amplitude).

An AGC is artificial in the sense that it is not an adjustment of the signal itself, but the reception of it.
As an example of such, In Neuro-psychology, a variety of medications exist which boost or inhibit neuro-transmissions or chemical responses (the most famous self-medicated variation of this is marijuana, which acts as an inhibitor to synaptic relays by piling up fatty tissue around the synapses).

In an ideal world, the signal broadcast itself would be adjusted so that it met within range of the recipient's channel capacity, but it can be rather difficult to accomplish a societal shift to effectively adjust such existential signal regulation for a mass on a mean; considering subjectivity (though monastic societies are an example of controlling the signal itself).

This leaves either an AGC approach, or a redefinition of the recipient's channel capacity.
In the former, periodic adjustment modules are needed (for instance, meditation, church services, retreats, etc...) [essentially, respite, buffers, "counter-increasers" {increasing the amplitude of another neuro-transmission to equal capacity of another offending transmission to aid in a sort of balance or cancelling is an example of this in science}], while in the latter an overhaul of the existential identity of the individual and their identity of reality is needed (dogma, theology, "world-view", or other existential identifications of "how life is"...essentially) to change the perception of the incoming signal which was previously carrying existentially emotional amplitudes beyond their capacity for "channeling" into translatable and tangibly relatable information (essentially, changing perspective so to widen their tolerance or acceptance).

Ergo, my take on religion is essentially: "noise" control.

I think that each realm and being has its own unique range for things like energy and frequencies.
I really wish my range was better but there's not too much I can do about that yet.
I'm still lucky though, in some ways.

Jayson you remind me of one of my psi friends.
I have not read many of your posts yet.

[Jayson]

I'm not too clear on what "realm" refers to, but with what I was writing; it specifies to emotion; which is a very large sensory system in human beings and runs in rates of amplitude and frequency.
Adrenaline during perceived danger, for example, is a massive emotional response that raps heavily upon the system.
The "stress" upon the system for someone living daily with the possibility of death, such as local families in the rural areas of Afghanistan (some really terrible stories going on there atm; one fellow was burying his 8th child and only had one left who is already getting sick which risks her chances of survival greatly in their situation), is racketing.

On the flip-side, if you are from a society of general accommodation and relative luxury, then your religion may focus on provoking exhilaration, rather than inhibiting it.

Other systems that have been used encourage exhilaration in means of rivaling dystopian impressions of ones society; "providing joy", as some call it, rather than inhibiting a given set of emotional sensations, or boosting others in their absence.

In America, secular (meaning, regardless of theological roots) adoption of a variety of meditation systems into religious practices is growing as more people continue to take part in these practices outside of their religious settings and find them effective in providing a moment of calm or respite in a society that is currently on overdrive for activity of any given individual within any given day.

Japan cites the same, and is now strongly investigating employing secular (same meaning as previous use) meditation facilities on mass more than is currently present as their own university research has shown to them that their people respond by lowering suicide rates (a pretty substantial issue currently) in districts where such are established and individuals quickly draw to these locations regularly after the work day before heading home to "reset", as it were.

[Dan~]

I read you wrong.

Hopefully no harm done.

Thanks for showing me those details.

[Jayson]

No worries at all.

[James S Saint]

That's pretty much it.

Wow, a kindred spirit..

A Contemporary Philosophy/Religion

Tethered by reality;

There is the ongoing cause of all that is (a.k.a. “The God”).
There is the order and chaos brought about by that cause (a.k.a. “The Universe”).
There is the adversary to every life (a.k.a. “The Devil”).
And there is you.. an instance of life (a.k.a. “You”).

The rest is just noise…

_______________

Amongst all the noise there are many entities great and small, all vying for attention and ultimate influence – “God wannabes”. Some are mindless formations propagating through their circumstances. Some are forms of life, temporarily struggling to survive, not really knowing why and certainly not how, but merely presuming a purpose, need, and desire. Most all merely adding their bit to the noise.

_______________

Coming up next;
THE Unified Field Theory/Law and Grand Unified Theory/Law
– The now proven and demonstratable law/s that govern ALL noise.

[Jayson]

Well neat indeed.
You seem to be adding a layer of poetics on top of the metric as well.

[James S Saint]

_______The Religion of All Religions______

SNRPs10.jpg (126.46 KiB) Viewed 594 times

Now you not only have A religion, but The Religion of all religions.
The God (the actual/real Creator of all entities) is in the equation.

[Calrid]

SNRPs10.jpg

Now you not only have A religion, but The Religion of all religions.
The God (the actual/real Creator of all entities) is in the equation.

Can someone explain the variables here? And why is there a differential in the range of + and -1? Or am I reading it wrong?

[James S Saint]

Po = Initial Perception
Ps = Signal Perception
The Bar | = limit from -1 to +1

The signal to noise ratio is a function of the initial perception, Po.
A feedback effect takes place exponentially enhancing the SNR as a function of the perception (raised to the power of P).
But nothing is possible until something is impossible;
There is a maximum positive or negative SNR, +1,-1

An entity begins sorting the noise.
Depending upon the sum effect of the noise, its own perception chooses; positive, negative, or neutral biases.
The entity is stable once the maximum has been reached and prejudiced to remain as it formed (hysteresis).
Thus Catholic will always be Catholic, Judist will always be Judist, Muslim will always be Muslim, and so on (the entities, not the people).
A person who has reached the maximized perception of their religion cannot change because they cannot see anything any other way.

[Jayson]

The signal to noise ratio is a function of the initial perception, Po.

If you meant that as a function, shouldn't the Po be in the form of SNR(Po), considering a standard function is f(x)=z, for the function f of x input produces z output?

And if I understand your wording,

A feedback effect takes place exponentially enhancing the SNR as a function of the perception (raised to the power of P).

Shouldn't that Ps be SNR^Ps(Po), so that Ps is an exponent enhancing SNR and not Po?

[James S Saint]

The signal to noise ratio is a function of the initial perception, Po.

If you meant that as a function, shouldn't the Po be in the form of SNR(Po), considering a standard function is f(x)=z, for function of x produces z output?

If I was merely saying that the SNR is a function of Po, then SNR{Po} = ... would be standard.
But I spelled out what the function was, not merely that there is a function there.
The initial perception, Po, is a biasing scalier, thus "+ Po".

And if I understand your wording,

A feedback effect takes place exponentially enhancing the SNR as a function of the perception (raised to the power of P).

Shouldn't that Ps be SNR^Ps(Po), so that Ps is an exponent enhancing SNR and not Po?

The power of Ps is parenthetically enhancing the entire SNR, not merely the Po nor merely the ratio.

"SNR^Ps(Po)" would indicate that the perception is raised to a constant, Po. That isn't the situation.
The situation is that the varying function called SNR is the mean signal level divided by the standard deviation, but it always begins with a bias which is an determined by the initial condition of its perception, Po (its initial ability to detect signal).

But the perception changes as signals and noise filter in and thus there is a Ps, perceived signal.
Once a signal is perceived, the ability to perceive alters in the same direction as the signal, enhancing the perception of the signal and reducing the potential of the noise (listening to only what you already decided was worth hearing). That effect, a type of positive feedback control causes a hysteresis that amplifies agreeable signals compared to all else, "the noise". That amplification is expressed as a raising to the power of the Ps.

[Amorphos]

Jayson wrote: Where all is within the acceptable range, and transmission is accomplished at the lowest possible amplitude needed to require the transmission; essentially, super efficient.
(We'll call this Buddha-like; or any such figure which has attained some kind of tranquility in a culture's mythology.)

This also sounds very much like the Egyptian notion of ma’at, or balance. The idea is to keep from extremes and also to keep order, the pharaoh’s job was a top down hierarchy to this end [which only worked if pharaoh himself had achieved ma’at]. You’ll notice that many indeed most Egyptian statues have a facial expression that’s neither happy nor sad but straight faced. Happy/sad in extremes are dualistic in a sine wave fashion, one creates the other cyclically [where each waves -/+ folds into a cycle].

The noise analogy is a good one, rather than attempting to arrive at a straight line which would be stifling imho, one just cuts the noise or extremes out. I think this is also within the concept of ma’at, but this contemporary language makes it clearer.

In an ideal world, the signal broadcast itself would be adjusted so that it met within range of the recipient's channel capacity, but it can be rather difficult to accomplish a societal shift to effectively adjust such existential signal regulation for a mass on a mean; considering subjectivity (though monastic societies are an example of controlling the signal itself).

Well yes its far better to self regulate as like those monastic societies, as any manner of signal control would be unethical [mind control] on a societal scale. Its probably better taught. Monastic societies aren’t necessarily run how we’d want the whole of society to be run, it would be too slow and inefficient, not to mention it kinda stifles life ~ the ‘living’ of.

This leaves either an AGC approach, or a redefinition of the recipient's channel capacity.
In the former, periodic adjustment modules are needed (for instance, meditation, church services, retreats, etc...) [essentially, respite, buffers, "counter-increasers" {increasing the amplitude of another neuro-transmission to equal capacity of another offending transmission to aid in a sort of balance or cancelling is an example of this in science}], while in the latter an overhaul of the existential identity of the individual and their identity of reality is needed (dogma, theology, "world-view", or other existential identifications of "how life is"...essentially) to change the perception of the incoming signal which was previously carrying existentially emotional amplitudes beyond their capacity for "channeling" into translatable and tangibly relatable information (essentially, changing perspective so to widen their tolerance or acceptance).

What does that mean in real terms? What frequencies are being changed ~ those in the mind of a given individual who would otherwise need medical treatment? So that would be a replacement for drugs.
Or are you thinking of having emitters everywhere keeping everyone’s minds on a noise free level?

Again I wonder about the ethics, and the possible radiation/health concerns of the latter. Do brains simply act according to a set of frequencies inputted? …especially over long periods of time. I would think that the consciousness and its network would attempt to overcome this, especially as one would expect recipients to be primarily willing in experimental conditions?
perhaps DNA would chemically overwrite electrical input?

Oh and as a former punk I rather like noise

Interesting stuff!

[Calrid]

Po = Initial Perception
Ps = Signal Perception
The Bar | = limit from -1 to +1

The signal to noise ratio is a function of the initial perception, Po.
A feedback effect takes place exponentially enhancing the SNR as a function of the perception (raised to the power of P).
But nothing is possible until something is impossible;
There is a maximum positive or negative SNR, +1,-1

An entity begins sorting the noise.
Depending upon the sum effect of the noise, its own perception chooses; positive, negative, or neutral biases.
The entity is stable once the maximum has been reached and prejudiced to remain as it formed (hysteresis).
Thus Catholic will always be Catholic, Judist will always be Judist, Muslim will always be Muslim, and so on (the entities, not the people).
A person who has reached the maximized perception of their religion cannot change because they cannot see anything any other way.

Madre de dios! Thanks.

Does this though take account of someone who abandons faith. I can't see anyone with bias having any other way than to go into a "positive". The feedback must be somewhat variable no? SNR suggests only that the individual filters out the noise according to his bias, it does not take account of people who either are atheists suddenly converting, or religionists suddenly de-converting? Are we destined by bias to eventually filter out all that we find irrelevant because of our bias? Or do some people actually change their minds? A somewhat difficulty thing to predict given a non neutral bias.

[Jayson]

James, thanks for the clarification; now I see why you arranged it as you did.
Quentz...I'll get back...gotta get some programming done at work (slaaaacking )

[James S Saint]

Madre de dios! Thanks.

De Nada

Does this though take account of someone who abandons faith. I can't see anyone with bias having any other way than to go into a "positive". The feedback must be somewhat variable no?

What happens involves the level of noise interfering with positive signal. Satan's menions versus Christian missionaries, Nazi propaganda versus Judistic guile, or similar. A single individual, unless he represents the very core of the entity, is persuadable and more so, the younger or less previously biased. The effort of all propaganda is to ensure more of the "proper" signal such that eventually all else is discarded as merely objectionable noise.

SNR suggests only that the individual filters out the noise according to his bias, it does not take account of people who either are atheists suddenly converting, or religionists suddenly de-converting? Are we destined by bias to eventually filter out all that we find irrelevant because of our bias? Or do some people actually change their minds? A somewhat difficulty thing to predict given a non neutral bias.

All entities as a truly universal principle convert noise to their own internal harmony, else they perish. My particular stance (religion) is that of the "Neutral Perception". I convert everything I hear by intentionally (though I don't need to try any longer) looking for the potential of the opposite of what has been presented without discarding what has been presented. It takes more thought and effort so it is far more rare, but the objective is simply to keep alert to the accurate potential of hope or threat by creating a bias (an insistence and habit) of seeking out the entire picture regardless of where the information is coming from = neutral hysteresis.

Those who are converted from whatever they were to anything else, were simply hit by more opposing signal such as to flip their inner harmony/paradigm and thereby altering their perception to the new bias. As I stated, the "particle" isn't actually stable until it reaches the maximum possible potential. Before that maximum is reached, anything can be converted into anything else depending merely on the momentum involved.

All of this is exactly true of sub atomic particles, religions, and any physical entity. As a physics particle is beginning to form, in effect, it chooses whether it will become positive, negative, or neutral. But it is not locked into that decision until the seed of the particle has reached its maximum potential. At that stage, any noise approaching is literally converted, positive to negative or negative to positive, and even charged to uncharged (my neutral perception). That is what causes particles to be particles and remain stable. When you eat, you do the same thing. You convert what you are eating into something harmonious with what you are.

Rejection comes into play by something not being able to be converted. If the body cannot digest the substance, it has various means to get rid of it. If it cannot get rid of it or isolate from it, the body is in jeopardy of dieing. Cancer is an example wherein the body cannot identify that the cell is not of the body and thus does nothing to get rid of it. But anything that is not participating in the functioning of the body (or mind for that matter) is necessarily getting in the way and preventing greater momentum to the harmony.

Electrons don't crash into protons specifically because the affect of the proton cannot convert the core of the electron and thus once the electron gets too close, it is repelled and remains being attracted, yet never accepted, thus orbiting in futility. Abramic religions do that same thing when they have specific requirements that forbid certain types of people to ever reach the top. The person might be highly interested and devout, but perhaps due to their race, they could never hope to be a Jewish or Muslim leader. Thus they are forever stuck futily "orbiting" what they desire. A poor person often ends up in that same position when they long for items such as a particular car, or the sexy babe. The car is defended by its price tag... as is the babe. If the person wants either, he must convert from being a poor person.

There are ways to get around the simple filtering mechanisms, but I don't want to get into that. There is more than enough manipulation going on all around you already, biased signals hidden within the perceived signal and obscured by the noise.

[Jayson]

What does that mean in real terms? What frequencies are being changed ~ those in the mind of a given individual who would otherwise need medical treatment? So that would be a replacement for drugs.
Or are you thinking of having emitters everywhere keeping everyone’s minds on a noise free level?

Neither.
What is changed are the tolerance and sensitivity to varying emotional sensations from the existential interaction of living.

It would be a bad idea to replace neurological treatments for spiritual practices.
I only brought the drugs into view to show the conceptual mechanic by which emotions function adjustably into observation.

The emitters are possible; in fact, we've discussed this previously regarding Stone Hedge acoustics and shamanic African tribal drum circle acoustics and their physical effects upon the biology, and more specifically, the neurology of the body.
I've even played around with the conceptual architectural design of specific visual, auditory, tactile (moister saturation of the air, for example), and olfactory manipulations.
That said, I would think it a good idea to make these features a known feature; not a hidden one.

A waterfall pool in the natural environment, or a coastline...they have these variables to these senses and therefore potentially variable in impact to your neurology.

Do brains simply act according to a set of frequencies inputted?

Yes, but not only to; but can also duplicate and replicate many things from external completely without the external; only the internal mimicking.
Ear hairs can move and create sensations of sound that are not present in reality.

[Amorphos]

Neither.
What is changed are the tolerance and sensitivity to varying emotional sensations from the existential interaction of living.

It would be a bad idea to replace neurological treatments for spiritual practices.
I only brought the drugs into view to show the conceptual mechanic by which emotions function adjustably into observation.

The emitters are possible; in fact, we've discussed this previously regarding Stone Hedge acoustics and shamanic African tribal drum circle acoustics and their physical effects upon the biology, and more specifically, the neurology of the body.
I've even played around with the conceptual architectural design of specific visual, auditory, tactile (moister saturation of the air, for example), and olfactory manipulations.
That said, I would think it a good idea to make these features a known feature; not a hidden one.

A waterfall pool in the natural environment, or a coastline...they have these variables to these senses and therefore potentially variable in impact to your neurology.

I see. Well certainly natural or artificial environments can change our neurology, I have no problem with that ~ as you say it would not be covert. So really we are talking about changing societies in terms of how stressful they are, and removing the noise in a natural hueristic way. I am all for that, so is the druidic society and indeed has built centres for such things, so your theories will be very helpful to many such cultures. My wife goes to a gym with yoga classes etc so I expect that’s also an area where such teachings can be employed. It would be kinda cool if churches changed their ways a bit; they could start by being comfortable areas as like temples, not that there aren’t many efforts by Christians too, it would just be good to get it into even small villages too.

Capitalism is something of a block to all that imho, it makes us work too hard and creates much of the noise. Sry cant really avoid politics if we want to change societies.

[James S Saint]

Sry cant really avoid politics if we want to change societies.

Oh, you might be surprised.

Although society is the way it is by political design, by proper display, designs get changed.