Ideas: NEON and The 'Consciousness'

This post has some pretty cool  ideas in them including: storing data in the 'air', an organic network that runs on atmospheric electricity, possibly storing data in what we perceive to be as 'time', and storing data in either the 'Consciousness' or the 'collective unconscious'.

The work and aims of scientists within the 19th and 20th Centuries, specifically Nikola Tesla, allow us to walk into a new era that holds potential for neo innovation. The world is ready for an explosion of some magnitude, but that all depends on the catalyst. Based on where my studies have lead me in the past 6 months, the ultimate factor behind the spark of a technological revelation is related to finding a practical paradigm for the systematic utilization of what we perceive to be and call by name, the 'Consciousness'. In this draft, I premier an invention and idea, a proposition for an 'organic' network relying heavily on the knowledge from the past, but holding stead fast for the ultimate plan to sync with a factual 'Consciousness'. 

┌──────────┐
│ Evidence │
└──────────┘
The evidence below makes up the general science behind the inventions / ideas that follow and support our need to define 'Consciousness' and map out its structure.

'Earth-magnetic' Fields and the human EEG:
Earth's magnetic field, in slow or drastic flux, has little some effect on the human EEG. The fact that Earth also has an EEG, and that it is similar to a human's, proves that the entire universe has an electric 'pulse': this being evident through even the most amorphous objects, including the air.

Resonant Frequency:
The theory of transmitting energy via identical 'frequencies' specifically allows for the transmission of electrical energy from one device to another. This has not been perfected as of yet; practical applications are limited to within 0 to 100 ft. However, there is a use for it in an organic network that is based off of local interactions (Image Broadcasting / Projection Theory), as opposed to connecting nodes that are thousands of miles apart.

Propagation Delay:
Propagation delay, or the time it takes for an electromagnetic energy to be sent to a target, could be used for unorthodox purposes, such as literally using time, or the perception of it, to 'store' electromagnetic energy, or data, until it is requested to be retrieved. This poses a problem: the data that is transferred may have a predictable 'turn-around' rate, or PD, but that does not mean that a node in the network will not request for it at any time before or after the data's predicted PD. This is not practical because a node is most probably using the network for random access. There are two suggested solutions to this which I will not go into. Somehow, we have to be able to know when the node will request for retrieval of the energy at the time they send it, even if they are using it for random access. The second option would be to somehow 'fake' the time component of PD. Meaning, the energy actually simulates going on a voyage and utilizes time to store it, but in actuality does not go anywhere. This differs from storing the energy locally because it requires time, the energy is actually sent on a path, whereas storing the energy locally means that it is physically in reach. This is interesting... (tbc.).

Atmospheric Energy:
According to various sources concerning Nikola Tesla, he may or may not have been able to utilize the properties of the atmosphere to produce free electrical currents. I haven't read his bio yet, just seen and read many things about him, and there was a documentary that purported that Tesla did in fact create a device that utilized the static in the atmosphere, as he demonstrated with an electric car. The use for such a device is multiplicitous. On the one hand, the device could be perfected to such a state that it is as tiny as a blue-tooth device: everyone could be connected to the network, the device would power their connections. On the other hand, the device could be used for other purposes not limited to producing electricity, including retrieving / converting other types of energy.

┌──────┐
│ NEON │
└──────┘
NEON, or Neo Electromagnetic Organic Network, is almost exactly as it's name implies. It is a network that is organic in nature because it is conducted via information that is is transmitted, broadcast, or stored through the atmosphere, or 'air', using a form of electromagnetic resonance and 'retrieval'. There are two ways through which it can do this, the latter involves propagation delay.

┌────────────┐
│ Scenario A │
└────────────┘
The first scenario shows a design for the network that would allow it to be void of unwanted physical conglomerations, making it more efficient. There would be no need for the systematic placement of massive radio towers. There are no cords and no computers because the network is stored in the atmosphere, or 'air'. Any modification to information is done before it is transmitted, or broadcast, into the 'air' (sent to the network). The sending or transmission of information is viable through possible future technological advancements in electromagnetic resonance, which would allow a carrier, node, or person in the network, to 'vibrate' the information into the air. There is a problem with this however: air cannot record / store anything but heat, and it is always constantly moving. The solution to this is to set up a network that is only local. This means that only the nodes or people in your area will be able to interact with your device. There would literally be a circle around a node, about a radius of 3 to 290 ft., showing the 'interaction range'.

┌────────────┐
│ Scenario B │
└────────────┘
The second scenario is a wider network with the scope of who ever is connected to the atmosphere. So this means most likely the country or bordering countries, it would depend on how much the atmosphere could be tinkered with. I'm not saying it is, but I would like to entertain the notion that maybe it could be possible to somehow store data in the 'static' of the atmosphere, or essentially in air. If we cannot do it via the 'static' of the atmosphere, I have a hunch that delving further into the 'Consciousness' question will open us up to new insights. (tbc...).

┌───────────────────────┐
│ A Crude Demonstration │
└───────────────────────┘
A light bulb is connected to a large copper coil, coil A, ready to interact with it's brother, coil B, which is 3 feet away and has no electric current running through it, via 'a resonance'. A person flips a switch and an electric current runs through coil B. Coil A then 'picks up' that current and the light bulb ignites. This lasts for one second. A person then retracts the switch and an electrical current ceases to flow through coil B. The light bulb turns off. The number '1' has been successfully broadcast.

Now, imagine if there were 29 light bulbs in the room. This would mean that every time the switch was flipped, all of the light bulbs would share the 'resonance' within the 'interaction circle / range' and would ignite. This might mean that the energy would be dimmed for each light bulb unless each light bulb itself retrieved FREE energy from the atmosphere, basically acting as a sender and receiver. As each light bulb is a node it is able to broadcast to other nodes around it (not going too deep into this). Of course, the real 'organic' network is more complicated than that.

┌──────────┐
│ Problems │
└──────────┘
A problem that pops up is, "Why would someone go through all this trouble when we can just use radio waves...?" Good question. I think some great things can come from this. And moreover, once the 'Consciousness' is broken down and we can use it, the main problems that have kept occurring while creating this idea would be solved. For instance, if we found out what the 'Consciousness' was, this might lead us to find what the 'collective unconscious' runs on, and we would definitely be able to store data in it for random access by anyone at any time (more on this idea later... tbc.).

Well, that sums it up.

-XJ

Thoughts: A Failed Idea

INTRO
It seems ideas keep getting longer and harder to explain as time goes. Today, as I was conjecturing on the nature of evil, I actually stumbled upon another interesting idea, although I'm fairly certain someone else has thought of the likeness of it. If not a new realization, it would add to the evidence suggesting that  knowledge is a substance, but moreover, my conclusion is that enlightenment, or heightened states of consciousness that occur when we 'learn' something new, can be induced via a (the only way I could call it) lineup of pockets of 'representational objects' or 'images' being assimilated or entering through one or more of our five senses and evoking each separate meaning, or "feeling", sequentially that, together, add up to a new 'feeling', or insight. What I am getting at here is that the pockets can be assembled via formula that is unique to what we want to learn and in a fashion that is relatively faster than what we have to go through today to achieve enlightenment or 'learning'. Get it...? Ultimately, I think I failed on this one but you can read through the rest if you want.

HOW I CAME TO THIS CONCLUSION:
At the start, I wanted to find out what evil was. Based on my own philosophy and several other philosophers, for the sake of this idea alone, I chose to expand on the idea that evil was the lack of the 'substance' called Truth, or Knowledge which allows men to do 'good' things. What is this substance...? Perhaps it is a 'conscious' or the 'one-conscious' that is freely out there pervading the air. We don't know what it is yet, but we know that in order to become more enlightened, we have to 'uptake' the substance. I'll just call it substance K from now on. If substance K is a substance, how is it taken in...?

How do we normally 'learn' or gain insight...? The answer is, indirectly, through our 5 (6,7...) senses. But it is in a way that is minutely convoluted. When a person reads a book they look at the surface quality of the information first. The surface quality or property covers the meaning that hides underneath it, similar to how our bodies are the surface representation, but our 'minds' are out of view. Right now, the surface properties, or image, only have an underlying meaning if we have been conditioned to be alerted by them. Hence, the word 'Art' in English will have a different meaning to someone who doesn't read English. That being said, every time we read a word, or look at some symbol, or take in stimuli through any of our 5 (6) senses, if we are conditioned to it, our minds are evoked from the connection that is made and responds accordingly. I think that each of a human's 5 senses operate on their own at any given time. Come to think of it, words are weird. Words are just like numbers, in that when we think of the number "11", the Alphanumeric representation pops into mind. When, the 'image' representation of "dog" could be the word, dog, or an image of a dog or both.... (hmmm, although this idea failed, I think I have another one.) Strictly for this idea, now knowing that certain words can evoke a 'feeling' in us, and that learning something new requires evoking all of the feelings connected to the surface properties of the words, it can be assumed that we can 'push' the learning process, or 'insight', through the systematic placing of words in a formula so that the resulting playback of the feelings correlating with those words lead to the desired result.

So basically, the problem is we need to uptake substance K. This process allows us to do it faster, I think. Consequently, I'm pretty sure it has already been thought of. But my argument is, it's not about the surface properties of the image it is about the "feeling" that comes from it: it's about the "feeling" of enlightenment. Before there was logic, there was "feeling". That being said, images that do not have a strong underlying "feeling" or 'meaning' component to them would not be good candidates to evoke the "feeling" in the participant.

And basically this just explains what is already out there. Nothing new here. I guess this idea is a failure. But the trick here is to NOT force people to become conditioned to an 'image' so that they WILL 100% respond, but to find out what people are conditioned to already, and work from there.

-XJ

Past Thoughts: You are the Source of Light

This is interesting. These thoughts suggest that the properties of light are fabricated within the 'mind' or  within our consciousness. Basically, light doesn't exist unless we are aware that it exists because we create the view of our world. This leads me to believe that the awareness and/or existence of some things is and is not independent of our consciousness. Here it is:

"I was looking at the river one night and was wondering why the light reflects off of the water the way it does. How come the reflection always follows the eye...? I mean, how come when we move the light reflection does not stay in position that would denote change...? The light reflecting off of the water always reflects towards the eye, in comparison, a shadow does not  stay in a position relative to the eye, as we are able to tell based upon the change that occurs in its shape as we move around the object that creates it. No matter where I move to, as I look on the North side of the bridge towards the lights on the Union street bridge, the light emanating from it, reflecting off the water, always stays relative to my eyesight. when I move to the left or right, but continue to look towards the reflection, it does not curve or change shape."

Thinking about this I knew that this would be the same for each person. No matter who you are, the light will always reflect towards YOUR eyesight, not someone else's point of reference. From this I came to the conclusion that the source of light must come from within each of us, because if it were an outside source, the reflection of the light would change it's shape or point of reference when we changed our position, but instead it always stays constant. This lead me to conclude that YOU ARE THE SOURCE OF LIGHT! That somehow, biologically, there is something in the brain within each of us that allows us decode the light. But this also meant that the light reflection for each of us could be unique. I might note that the premises to this argument are valid, although the conclusion might not be true."

Hmm, interesting. I thought I was incorrect in assuming that the properties of light were fabricated.

-XJ

A Brief Thought: The Master Idea and the Mono-Conscious

Before I tell you the idea, I'll tell you what lead up to it. Why was I thinking about this...? Oh yeah. First, let me say that it only makes sense that our bodies are made up of a matrix of atoms. But what people tend to think is that 'atoms' are somehow a concrete substance, and that it is impossible for them to be amorphous in nature. Based on my current research, no atom is what we perceive to be as 'rock solid'. It is only a group of closely knit parts held together by something, meaning that there is a 'void', a 'silence', if you will, between two 'noises'. Please correct me if I am wrong when I say that I think this is what Raymond L. Bridgman meant when he expounded upon the 'silence between two noises' in his beautifully written book, 'The Master Idea'. I have not heard of it anywhere else.

Actually, I got the phrase messed up. Pay no attention to what I just said. I still don't know what Raymond means. Maybe I'll find out later.

Anyways, being that every thing is spaced apart, there is space between every atom and that the arrangement of atoms is in a formation, something must hold them together or produce that formation, apparently being the 'conscious', or so say the experts on a video I watched on YouTube (see below).

This is very interesting when they say 'conscious'. The other day I was thinking about what to think about and the Master Idea popped up again. I visualized a blooming flower, which I have used because of the striking shape and 3D structure that is conjured when building the image in memory. It has a certain formation that occurs every time it is produce, almost exactly the same every time it is produce. Now we have to wonder what is the determining factor for the structure of the flower, the molding of the atoms. You could say, "the electromagnetic spectrum" but that doesn't explain WHY the flower is shaped the way it is, in an intelligent design, NOT SUPER intelligent, but intelligent none-the-less. I think soon we will have to break down what we think of as intelligent. But what I mean when I say 'intelligent' is not 'I beat you at chess' intelligent. When I say a flower blooming is intelligent design, I mean that it is produced in such a way that only a blue print would allow for anyone else to replicate the design. What is that blueprint...? The Master Idea.

Now to my next thought. Tonight I was thinking about one of my other theories, that the past is actually carried around with us, where ever we go. It is stored in our atomic structure, but vibrates at a different frequency. Therefore, if our 'conscious' were to vibrate at a higher or lower frequency, we would be able to experience that past. But this has a problem: people are only allowed to experience their past and would not be able to go into any one else's. I know what you're thinking. "Hey, what about those good old stories with time travelers who visit Abraham Lincoln." Well, this would not be feasible under that theory, UNLESS (here comes the good part), UNLESS the 'conscious' was outside of our personal atomic structures and was stored in a universal or mono-conscious, meaning we all share one conscious. This has some problems though as well, basically meaning that if we wanted to go to the location of where Hawaii is in 33 AD, the problem is that no one has been to Hawaii in 33 AD because it wasn't inhabited. In this theory your conscious can't vibrate to pasts that have never been encountered by any other conscious or the collective conscious. This  is not to say that we can't astral project (that is in the present) in order to widen the mono-conscious. To solve this, adding to this theory, we could say that even inanimate objects are part of the mono-conscious so perhaps we can reach outside parts of the human conscious.

So basically, there could be this mono-conscious, but there could also be the plural of the 'conscious', many of them, that all come from the Master Idea.

Now for a semi related note: What we have now is the laws of physics. That is the pattern that explains the blueprint of why a flower blooms in the shape it does. But once we find out what this Master Idea is or what it is made of, we could be able to manipulate it to essentially change the laws of physics itself. We're talking about changing the blueprint of the conscious of the blooming flower and possibly everything else!

Just some stuff to think about,

-XJ

'Paper-code': A 'Drawing Language'

Going to make this short. Here is my idea or solution for the recurring problem I have with conventional programming and its techniques.

PROBLEM:

When artists want to create something, programming languages restrict their creativity and prohibit their drive because of the length of time it takes to gather the appropriate resources or the amount of concentration required to think through the problems and translate the idea into a reality. Ultimately, this takes energy away from the purpose to actually create the idea.

Again, artists like me tend to initially draw the idea on a piece of paper first. But the problem exists because we have to transfer the idea from the paper, to our minds, and after a significant amount of time figuring out how to efficiently represent this in code, put it into the computer, by typing it character by character, one line at a time. Seems tedious doesn't it...?

SOLUTION:

This is where 'Paper-code' comes in. Instead having to take extra steps to transfer and translate idea to code, the drawing on paper should be the last step a user has to do before their idea is executed. With 'Paper-code', the drawing is recognized through the camera or other device and is directly translated into computer code for the user, or artist.

'Paper-code' is basically a "drawing language" or an object and stroke recognition for images including lines, colors, text, handwriting, etc. An example would be a user drawing a diagram, adherent to 'Paper-code' drawing language, of  a simple "Hello, world!" html page. Each part of the html page might succeed from top to bottom and the <divs> might be enclosed in drawn out boxes. For javascript animations, the 'Paper-code' might require symbols that denote change from one state to another.

ERRORS (Syntax, etc.):

You might say, "What about errors...!" I thought about this as well. We could use a dry erase board to put in front of the recognizer (camera / scanner). That way the image can be erased, but if it were successful it could be saved on the computer in computer code.

OTHER THINGS:

Another thing I didn't mention is that it could also be used to recognize drawing language done in photoshop.

Another thing I forgot to mention is that "drawings" or image-code can be placed on top of each other, meaning the subsequent drawing will add to the previous compiled 'Paper-code'. Changing or editing the computer code could be as simple as erasing a part on the original drawing and having the recognizer realize which part was erased and apply changes.

-XJ

Theory: Time is Actually Distance*

Just to make a note I did actually spell parallel wrong in the illustration. That's what happens when you rush.
I'm kind of tired. I'll explain later.

(tbc.)
-XJ

Documentaries: Icing on a Cake and the NEO Soundtrack

NO MUSIC in my first movie.

I have realized while watching A SIGNIFICANT amount of documentaries, about conspiracies and such, that music plays a very important role in getting the point across. Does it work? SOMEWHAT-YES. It depends, but I think in various cases it is a charlatan practice, exuberant since the invention of movies with sound, that limits the message from achieving it's highest audience saturation. There is another way we can do this, a better, more moral way. Let me explain.

Do you like frosting...? Most people do. Music is just like that. It is the icing covering the entirety of a cake. It is a "sweets" at the top of the nutrients pyramid. It is a device used to jump-start and push the intentions of the author (and is also used to hypnotize, but we'll cover that later). This doesn't apply to ALL documentaries, but it is insulting to be considered less educated. Why do I say this...? The authors may not recognize what they are doing, but that is the reason why music is used in their documentaries: because less educated people are more susceptible to believe or be persuaded when their emotions are evoked through music.

Of course I have the choice to NOT watch the documentary.

Why put icing on the cake if the cake tastes fine by itself...? NO. Sometimes we have to take the cake as it is, even if it is bitter. The Truth need not icing to be comprehended, only the willingness of the audience.

By using 'icing' or music to set the tone of a documentary the author obviously is using a tactic to aid in the broadcasting of his intentions, but it is also 'dishonest'. Just give the audience the cake as it is, tell the truth without ornamentation or distraction.

If you don't believe me about the effects of music, watch a documentary about a conspiracy. Then, imagine that documentary without the music. You'll probably agree that it makes a big difference in how we perceive the message. In my opinion, this is ethically wrong.

To solve this dilemma, I have considered (this is just an idea right now) of using a new type of soundtrack with my first documentary that is NOT JUST inspired by the events but actually directly results or is a byproduct of the events. How will I do this? I'll think of something.

This needs more time in the oven.

-XJ