The Problem with Overunity. A different approach.

[BEP]

@Gary

My point wasn't how smart I am. It is how smart I am not. No matter what information is shared the attempt at repeating is almost always 'weak'. Why?
On previous attempts I've supplied detailed, scaled drawings along with a complete operating procedure, all in one Fed-Ex packet. It took weeks of repeating answers to questions that were already answered on the drawings before one was completed. Then it didn't work.

When RMF is brought up I think something else. Why? Because my experience tells me there is no point in rotating a measurement of something.

One of my favorites happened on this forum.
With great difficulty an experimenter shared what looked like something important. Even with photos and descriptions of materials replications failed - or seemed to fail.
One replicator boiled it down to one nail with a few turns of wire.
Until the supplier of the information is willing to share detailed drawings, lists of materials and a host of other documentation this will continue. Even then I doubt it will work because everyone has a different foundation to understand any ideas.
Most experimenters won't take the time to provide that much information because they would rather spend time on the bench, aside from an occasional break to rant, like me. That is my excuse.
I think the idea of this thread has more value than most. 

Regards,

John

[resonanceman]

@Gary,

You re totally missing the point here. Most of the people here in this thread that have joined this discussion have built devices, are building devices and and share their technical expertise in other threads.

If you don't believe me look at my own postings, they are on a number of subjects and voluminous.

There is nothing wrong with examining critically the way we think and the language and underlying philosophies that are dominating our behaviour. It is just another avenue of exploration and just as valid as building machines.

Hans von Lieven

Hans

Somebody   has totally missed the point here.

I am not saying that it is  wrong to  discuss  this type of thing .
I   know   that you  you  have done  alot of work  here  in the past .

There is a fine line  between  thought that is  constructive and thought that is  destructive.

If  we have 2 groups  of people  , and  one of those  groups  tries to make their lives  a little better each day .
The other  group  sits and talks about how  their lives need improvement all day .
Can you guess  which  groop  will  end up  with better lives?

It is  very  unlikly that  you will make  any progress  by talking about what it holding you  back .
History  is full  of  examples  of people  that  overcame  huge problems not because  they   talked  abot the the  problems ........ they overcame them because the took action and moved in the  right  direction.

If  you  take enough  small  steps in the right  direction   you  eventually get  to your  destination .
Even  if   you take  quite a few  steps in the wrong  direction ,   If you keep focused on  going in the right direction  you  will eventually  get where    you are going .


I don't think  that most  of the posts in this thread are even a small step forward .
I think most of them  are complaints about  not  being  at the  destination yet      They are about  how hard  it is  to take a  step . 

This  world  has LOTS of problems
Whining  about the  problems   will never  fix any of them.
If we are going to make progress  we need people  actually doing  something .
Whining   about  how  we are  held  back  onlly makes it more  harder to  take  action .


gary 

[wattsup]

@Hans (forgot to post this yesterday. lol)

Hope you are back for a while.

Tihs stenence wsa wrttien ot sowh yuo tath yuor mdin deos nto ndee teh wrdos ot eb slelpde teh rhgit wya.

In terms of language to hinder the creation of OU devices, we have to understand that your creative mind does not wait for the right words when it decides its time to light the bulb. This involves not words, but concepts, regardless of what your level of illiteracy may be, this has no consequence on the creative act itself.

When you have been exposed to what your life has exposed you too, when you have lived through your experiences, worked in all the jobs, seen all the devices relative to your interests, at one point or another, all this information comes together. In the NeoTech world of thinking they call it "integrating". When you have integrated enough information, regardless if it is from reading words or doing acts, once this integration takes over, it goes into another level and that is creation. But you have to have an opening to integrate and let this action happen.

So I don't know if the hindrance of achieving OU is language. When the primordial soup of actions and thoughts come together, as we are trying on this forum to make such a soup of ideas, actions and words, through the law of probability, eventually whatever will happen will happen, regardless of if it is intended or not. You can't force creation.

Also, I don't feel that you can develop a form of clinicalization (not a word) of the creative process with the hopes that using the right words will suffice. They will not. You can't convey experience only with words. You can read 50 books on spaghetti sauce but none of them will equal the first actual taste.

In our present day of exponential rates of new discovery, the challenge will not be words, but will be "word overload". The human mind can only take in so much information, process it and use it to advance the art. We are presently experiencing this on this Forum to an extent.

Another problem is the advent of specialization (which in itself is a form of global control by the power holders). Let people only see and concentrate on one piece of the pie. So people are becoming more and more specialized in their limited fields of activity. How many times have you heard someone say, "I don't know, I'm just an accountant (or whatever)". Generalists are becoming a rare breed. So if the discovery of OU required mastering and integrating a multitude of disciplines into one mind, we are becoming less and less inclined to produce the generalists required to then play in the soup of the proverbial numbers game of discovery.

On the other side of specialization, we have the ultra specialists who use their own code of language designed to keep the uninitiated out of the loop. Papers are published not with the intent to teach the world, but to teach the chosen few. Those of the emeritus league of the specialization. But what happens tomorrow if the whole world suddenly dies, leaving a handful of humans to fend for themselves and perpetuate the race. What happens to all these papers. How will they be understood? They will not.

Then there is the whole range of disinformation (more words). Academia has not delt us the real cards so we are all playing with a fixed deck, designed to make us lose in the very aspects we are pushing to win. This is the main problem. This has to be fixed.

Then there is the problem of well accepted but erroneous concepts. One example in my view may be mundane but it is very revealing. "The vacuum of space". What does this mean. I my opinion there is no such thing as a vacuum in space. There is no vacuum in space and there cannot be any vacuum in space. To make a vacuum, you need a closed box and a vacuum pump. So where are the limits of this space box and where is the vacuum pump? There is none. So there is no vacuum of space. So there is no negative pressure. And there is no positive pressure either. Positive pressure is what we have on Earth. The atmospheric pressure we live under is what keeps our cell walls from exploding, hence it is what keeps humans and everything else on the surface of the Earth intact and alive. So space has no pressure and no vacuum and no gravity. Then why do we keep saying the "vacuum of space"? Why not say the zeroness of space. lol

Good thread.

[resonanceman]

One of my favorites happened on this forum.
With great difficulty an experimenter shared what looked like something important. Even with photos and descriptions of materials replications failed - or seemed to fail.
One replicator boiled it down to one nail with a few turns of wire.
Until the supplier of the information is willing to share detailed drawings, lists of materials and a host of other documentation this will continue. Even then I doubt it will work because everyone has a different foundation to understand any ideas.
Most experimenters won't take the time to provide that much information because they would rather spend time on the bench, aside from an occasional break to rant, like me. That is my excuse.
I think the idea of this thread has more value than most. 

Regards,

John

John

You  are totally missing my point .

what you  are describing   is   simply life ............. $hit happens ........that it part of life.
Life  is not easy.   It does not  always go  the way we wish . 

my question  is .........what   was gained  in the  quote above ?

One  person   tried to  comunicate   how  a device was made .........and failed

that is life .

get used to  it .

You  also  pointed out  how one  replicator  found  out that  the  the missing knowledge  revolved around one  nail with a few turns of wire  wrapped  around it .

THAT is PROGRESS  that is another  little  step in the right  direction .

You  are focusing  on the  problems not  the  progress .


Every time   we share  something  that works  or might  help something  work we are  taking a  little step  in the right direction .
There are alot of people here taking little steps .
With each little  step  the pool  of knowledge  grows .
If  enough  people  take enough  little steps there will be  no way  to hold back the knowledge .

gary

[BEP]

@Gary,

I find myself agreeing with you.
My goal is the same as others so it seems I'll have to do the following:

1. Share, explain, demonstrate and prove the basics of my concepts.
2. Seek out those that can repeat, understand and use #1
3. Then, and only then, provide information on the culmination of #1.

I've been doing the above for some time now. I'll try to refrain from speading negativity. As you imply, that serves no purpose.

Thanks for reminding me.