 |
Oroborus
Past, Present, and Future, all rolled up into One
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
dnatree
Joined: 27 Sep 2006
Posts: 2703
|
 Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 12:40 am Post subject: Strange ongoing brick synch |
 |
|
Sept 3, 2007
dnatree wrote: http://oroborusforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=6270&start=50 july 13, 2007
We have had another brick synch yesterday. Pam and I went to Pt. Richmond and had synchs with "Hidden city", "hidden Vally" and many other hidden or peeking synchs related to how Spirit will uncover what is really going on behind the American Publics eyes.
Quote gospel of Thomas
| Quote: | | Jesus says: ["Know what is be]fore your face, and [what is hidden] from you will be revealed [to you. For there] is [nothing] hidden which [will] not be revealed, nor <anything> buried which [will not be raised up!"] |
Bible speaking of individuals as the stones which make up the church (world) building and that the Spirit as manifested through Jesus was the Cornerstone. I know Christians want me to say Jesus was the Cornerstone but the Spirit indicates that would be a man instead of the truth. For they (religion and society) desire a king which will only lead astray.
| Quote: | | “You yourselves also as living stones are being built up a spiritual house |
Clues, hidden, genetics, cells, bricks, what keeps the body in balance also keeps the human race as a body in balance within genetics
You are cells/bricks of a greater body/ building/ church/ assembly/ earth
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/thomas/gospelthomas5.html
Back to the brick synch we stumbled upon a beautiful night view of San Francisco after going through the Point Richmond Tunnel
Point Richmond is called the Hidden City because it is hard to find on the point on the east bay from San Francisco
http://www.berkeleyheritage.com/gallery/pointrichmond7oct06.html
We walked after dinner to the brick company building and the view of San Francisco from the beach next to it was amasing. It looks different now than the pic,, much older and fenced in and we dreamed of adding round towers and building our castle overlooking San Francisco.
http://calbricks.netfirms.com/brick.richmondpbcobm.html
I have had a mud/ brick making / self replicating structure synch going my whole life.
_________________
Don't believe me or anyone, rather ask the Spirit what the true intentions of Your heart are and believe every word that You get from the Spirit. Father, let me learn only to speak as YOU speak through me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
River
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 6904
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 3:28 am Post subject: what happened to Yellowstone |
|
|
I'm confused. I thought you were in Yellowstone.
Yellowstone..is like a yellow stone..like a brick...is that what you meant?
River |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dnatree
Joined: 27 Sep 2006
Posts: 2703
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
We did half our trip to Mammoth and Lee Vining and then came home to do some jobs that collected while we were gone and now Pam has an appointment on the 4th so we have posponed Yellowstone but I want to get there before it gets too cold.
_________________
Don't believe me or anyone, rather ask the Spirit what the true intentions of Your heart are and believe every word that You get from the Spirit. Father, let me learn only to speak as YOU speak through me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChocoChick
Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 325
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 11:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dnatree wrote: | | I want to get there before it gets too cold. |
I wouldn't worry so much about it getting cold there, Mr. Tree. Seeing as that lava bump is heating up one of the lakes and frying everything in the dirt around it.  Devilish hot! DEVILISH!
Hope that supervolcano doesn't BLOW when y'all go fer a visit! Now, that really would be a WILD RIDE!!!!!!!!!!!
Post pics! Have fun! Don't let your shoes melt! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dnatree
Joined: 27 Sep 2006
Posts: 2703
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 5:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.wunderground.com/US/WY/Yellowstone_National_Park.html
It is almost freezing at night up there now.
_________________
Don't believe me or anyone, rather ask the Spirit what the true intentions of Your heart are and believe every word that You get from the Spirit. Father, let me learn only to speak as YOU speak through me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dnatree
Joined: 27 Sep 2006
Posts: 2703
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2007 8:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
desert synchs with convection
The son of man being born to regulate processes on earth synergistically without being aware such as the pollen on the tale of the bee.
looking at the desert as a heat pump into the atmosphere and that when we cultivate we cut down on this heat source while CO2 adds to the heat through greenhouse effect.
Synch with convection oven on tv today
synch with "MY DESERTS" According to the intent a person cultivates some areas of themselves while other areas are left uncultivated.
The law and nonsynergistic effects of civilization mistakenly misunderstand this and seek to cultivate these areas within people to make all folks clones but "being gods" that we are that is a misunderstanding. We are the creators and to stifflle the dreams of others is a dis-service to the world.
These two creatures must have separate sanctuaries in order to evolve
 
Somethng different while working on this post
http://www.desertdada.com/
| Quote: | This series of dangerously improbable shoes suggest the existence of a creature who will suffer anything for beauty. Or is she Mother Nature who reminds us to use her infinite gifts wisely?
A few minor discomforts aside, this series of chairs made entirely from desert plant material look quite serviceable--if you are a lizard. Otherwise there may be painful consequences for disrespecting the desert!
|
Other synchs:
The same looking child, (like Isabella meaning devoted to Spirit) but pronounced Adabella and then the synchs changed to Philip meaning horse lover. (which means lover of lovers in my poetry) Or lover of loves like someone that loves to be passionate about a deep felt intention.)
When a couple passes on the sidewalk with a baby I always ask the name and like today we met folks with a 4month old name Philip and so I told them about I love Lucy this morning where Ricky was on the phone to Philip and she thought is was Prince Philip.
Scateboards
How everyone misunderstands when you first get synchs, that shuts You up and puts You in a place to grow, but when the fruit ripens it BURSTS out on the tree of it's own.
_________________
Don't believe me or anyone, rather ask the Spirit what the true intentions of Your heart are and believe every word that You get from the Spirit. Father, let me learn only to speak as YOU speak through me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dnatree
Joined: 27 Sep 2006
Posts: 2703
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 09, 2007 7:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Today the synch with Humans synergistic control of earth temperature seems to be the ongoing synch.
Global Dimming
Factories pollution from space - China
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_trans.shtml
As I spoke to my father about the convection synchs above a program came on tv that Pam was watching. I began to pay attention as the words my father spoke about particles in the air and then animal die offs began to coincide with the pictures on the screen though he was not watching the program.
The program centered around the phenomonon that occured for three days after 9/11 in that no comtrails from aircraft were present in the sky and the effects of global warming were more evident since global dimming was not as much of a factor.
| Quote: |
For 15 years Travis had been researching an apparently obscure topic, whether the vapour trails left by aircraft were having a significant effect on the climate. In the aftermath of 9/11 the entire US fleet was grounded, and Travis finally had a chance to find out.
DR DAVID TRAVIS: It was certainly, you know, one of the tiny positives that may have come out of this, an opportunity to do research that hopefully will never happen again.
NARRATOR: Travis suspected the grounding might make a small but detectable change to the climate. But what he observed was both immediate and dramatic.
DR DAVID TRAVIS: We found that the change in temperature range during those three days was just over one degrees C. And you have to realise that from a layman's perspective that doesn't sound like much, but from a climate perspective that is huge. |
My synchs have been about how living systems such as this earth balance out one action through the actions of another. Without knowing it the honeybee that goes about his business is being synergistically used by nature to fulfill mutual intent.
_________________
Don't believe me or anyone, rather ask the Spirit what the true intentions of Your heart are and believe every word that You get from the Spirit. Father, let me learn only to speak as YOU speak through me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dnatree
Joined: 27 Sep 2006
Posts: 2703
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 8:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Tonight Pam and I started having wonderful building synchs. It started we were having synchs about buildings and their beauty and form. We came up to a building about Edison. Pam saw us as part of a building (temple) we came up to a garden with flat metal art of buildings with doors you can walk through (will get pictures) and Pam said this is my dream of a looking glass and we stepped through and the layers (door) within this sanctuary were very nice. I noticed when I stepped outside this sanctuary garden that it was different and I liked it inside with You. A Blue building I walked through the door and it felt right. We had the synch of the building not built with hands as being the community when they have good relations at home and the synergy in the bigger picture is a synergistic house that forms from this goodwill at a grassroots level. Leaders took over what sprouts spontaniously and has naturally.
Later we went to the coffee house Pam's son told us about called the Temple. I was great. The vibes the People. Stories of really different Missionaries like we call ourselves "Tavern Ministers". LOL
We dreamed of the ongoing story we are wriiting like a Christian Contemporary novel of a real Cool Missionary with a passion for Spirit.
A Texas House cup on a ledge related to our Texas Hurricane synch.
So synchs with buildings, houses, texas, buildings not built with hands etc. And another synch of our Church like a "tavern Minister" is like this coffee house where everyone is so unique and giving off passionate interesting vibes and we are connecting with one another synergistically.
_________________
Don't believe me or anyone, rather ask the Spirit what the true intentions of Your heart are and believe every word that You get from the Spirit. Father, let me learn only to speak as YOU speak through me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
River
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 6904
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 5:26 am Post subject: here's a brick synch |
|
|
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/17/1411235
quote Naomi Klein
"Well, in Chile, on September 11, 1973, while the tanks were rolling in the streets of Santiago, while the presidential palace was burning and Salvador Allende lay dead, there was a group of so-called “Chicago Boys,” who were Chilean economists who had been brought to the University of Chicago to study on full scholarship by the US government as part of a deliberate strategy to try to move Latin America to the right, after it had moved so far to the left. So this was a very ideological government-funded program, part of what Chile’s former foreign minister calls “a project of deliberate ideological transfer,” i.e. bringing these students to this very extreme school at the University of Chicago and indoctrinating them in a brand of economics that was marginal in the United States at the time and then sending them home as ideological warriors.
So this group of economists, who had failed to sway Chileans to their point of view when it was just part of, you know, an open debate, stayed up all night that night, on September 11, 1973, and they were photocopying a document called “the brick.” It’s known as “the brick.” And what it was was the economic program for Pinochet’s government. And it has these striking similarities, Amy, with George Bush's 2000 election strategy -- election platform. It talks about an ownership society, privatizing Social Security, charter schools, a flat tax. This is all straight out of Milton Friedman's playbook. This document was on the desk of the generals on September the 12th, when they reported for work the day after the coup, and it was the program for Pinochet’s government. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dnatree
Joined: 27 Sep 2006
Posts: 2703
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 11:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Interesting River,
In that case "the brick" would be a fundamental building block of government.
Pam and I were having a discussion about "rebuilding the temple" and how there should not be a temple made by hands as that seat is not to be taken by humans. But in the proper synergy of human relations
YOU and I , husband and wife, community that tranquility at that level creates a synergistic effect that can be seen on a greater level. Like the "children of Israel" in tents "tabernacles" encamped around the "Temple/ Tabernacle" the synergy on the personal level creates something on a greater level. The Brick or Cornerstone of the Spirit through Jesus was a relationship with Your God/ higher self and in that relationship being upheld, your livelihood/ family are upheld, and then the next level is upheld. We are stones in that greater building.
So to have government at all is a lie as the synergistic effects of a single household permiates out to the universe. Following the Voice which is Your Life leads to "all things proper in each moment" and permiates up through the levels to universe. Struggles disappear when there is only YOU and I.
____________________________________________
In other news this company seems to like to read my writing.
| Quote: | ISP: CYVEILLANCE
Country: UNITED STATES
Region: VIRGINIA
City: ARLINGTON
Hits: 71
Page Views: 50 |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyveillance
| Quote: | | Cyveillance is a private Internet-monitoring company based in Arlington, VA. Founded in 1997, Cyveillance provides online risk monitoring and management solutions to large organizations. The company comprehensively monitors the Internet using its technology to deliver early warning of risks found online. The company claims to monitor the “hidden Internet,” far beyond the reach of commercial search engines, |
http://cyveillance.linuxgod.net/
_________________
Don't believe me or anyone, rather ask the Spirit what the true intentions of Your heart are and believe every word that You get from the Spirit. Father, let me learn only to speak as YOU speak through me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
River
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 6904
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2007 7:15 am Post subject: hmm |
|
|
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dnatree
Joined: 27 Sep 2006
Posts: 2703
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2007 7:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Don't be shocked, they ain't such a big deal. Cy.
Anyway, Pam and I finally got back in Sacramento to take a pic of that building park related to my synchs above.
 
The third picture was Pam next to the entrance to this building park that has the saying on the wall " Yes being inside the garden wall and knowing that you are there is to know all that there is at this moment which is all moments before."
This is related to letting go of the veil of interpretation and going back to the garden where there is only YOU and I, with no shame or blame.
View Website Arton Track
| Quote: | | O Street Mall*Artist: Lauren EwingTitle: The Garden and the CityOn the corner of 9th and O Streets, The Garden and theCity integrates several site-specificelements: architecture, paving andlandscaping, all designed by New Yorkartist, Lauren Ewing. Constructed ofpainted steel, the four architecturalelements are: The Corner House (red),The Facade (blue), The Front Porch(gray), and The Garden Wall (green).Printed across the top of The GardenWall is a message for all who pass: “Yes,being inside the garden wall and knowingthat you are there is to know all thatthere is at this moment, which is allmoments before.” Ewing calls her worka polyvocal event, combining image,form, text, and sense of place.* |
_________________
Don't believe me or anyone, rather ask the Spirit what the true intentions of Your heart are and believe every word that You get from the Spirit. Father, let me learn only to speak as YOU speak through me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laelle
Joined: 12 Feb 2007
Posts: 17
Location: France
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 5:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hey....that map with the vapour trails on it is where I live. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dnatree
Joined: 27 Sep 2006
Posts: 2703
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 6:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
laelle wrote:
| Quote: | | Hey....that map with the vapour trails on it is where I live |
Cool 
_________________
Don't believe me or anyone, rather ask the Spirit what the true intentions of Your heart are and believe every word that You get from the Spirit. Father, let me learn only to speak as YOU speak through me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dnatree
Joined: 27 Sep 2006
Posts: 2703
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 7:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.stephentree.com/stones/
_________________
Don't believe me or anyone, rather ask the Spirit what the true intentions of Your heart are and believe every word that You get from the Spirit. Father, let me learn only to speak as YOU speak through me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dnatree
Joined: 27 Sep 2006
Posts: 2703
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dnatree
Joined: 27 Sep 2006
Posts: 2703
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 8:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.molecularassembler.com/KSRM/1.htm
| Quote: | 1. The Concept of Self-Replicating Machines
For most of human history, man’s tools and machines bore no resemblance to living organisms and gave no hint of any commonality between the living and the artificial [150]. In Paleolithic times [151-158], most machines manufactured by man were primitive bone or wooden sticks, crudely shaped handaxes and flint tools [157], crudely hewn boats [156], and the like. It was not until a century of centuries after the Paleolithic era ended, following the development of metallurgy [159], the birth of agriculture [160], and the founding of the first civilizations [161], that humans first manufactured complex artifacts such as ploughs and wheeled vehicles consisting of a large number of interacting parts, and ancient Chinese crossbows [162] and locks [163]. By classical times many artifacts were quite sophisticated, including the famous Alexandrian water clock of Ctesibus [164], Archimedes’ screw [165, 166], Roman military catapults [165, 167], Hero of Alexandria’s steam engine [168] and other automatons [169], and lastly the ancient Antikythera computer [170] – a clocklike mechanism containing 31 intermeshed gears used as a calendrical device to calculate the positions of the sun and the moon.
By the 15th and 16th centuries, Western technology had advanced to the stage where machines began to take on lifelike characteristics [150]. For example, the compound microscope and the telescope, analogous to the vertebrate eye, were invented in 1590 and 1608, respectively. The air pump, providing hydraulic pumping analogous to the heart, was invented in 1654. Machines began to crudely exhibit some of the characteristics and properties of living creatures. The 17th and 18th centuries also saw the first successful attempts at constructing lifelike automata [171-175]. For example, Vaucanson’s duck (Figure 1.1), constructed and first exhibited in 1739 by Jacques de Vaucanson (1709-1782), had over one thousand moving parts and was able to appear to eat, drink, defecate, quack, waddle, and flap its wings convincingly [174-177]. Such advances raised the obvious possibility that eventually all the characteristics of life [180-186] might find instantiation in mechanical forms – perhaps even the ability to grow and to reproduce.
Self-replication is a hallmark, though no longer the exclusive province, of living systems. It is a myth, still persistently claimed by some [150], that “no machine possesses this capacity even to the slightest degree” and that “even the far less ambitious end of component self-assembly has not been achieved to any degree.” To the contrary, replication as simple mechanical component self-assembly was first achieved in the 1950s, almost half a century ago (Section 3.3), and LEGO®-based autonomous macroscale replicators have now been built and operated in the laboratory (e.g., Section 3.23). Artificial self-replicating software first appeared in the 1960s, then in later decades rapidly proliferated in the form of worms, viruses, artificial life programs, and diverse other virtual species in code-friendly environments such as personal computers and the internet (Section 2.2.1). The technology presently exists to create artificial self-replicating hardware entities, as evidenced by the numerous theoretical proposals and smattering of good engineering results achieved in the laboratory to date. A comprehensive survey of these proposals and results is a principal subject of this book.
The idea that machines might someday be capable of self-replication is at least hundreds of years old. For example, it is said [1081] that when Descartes (1596-1650) first expressed his idea that the human body was a machine* [187] to his royal student, Queen Christina of Sweden, over 300 years ago, she came up with a cogent question: “How,” she asked, “can machines reproduce themselves?”** Samuel Butler (1835-1902) gamely attempted to answer her inquiry in his novel Erewhon [188], first published in 1872, when he argued:
Surely if a machine is able to reproduce another machine systematically, we may say that it has a reproductive system. What is a reproductive system, if it be not a system for reproduction? And how few of the machines are there which have not been produced systematically by other machines? But it is man that makes them do so. Yes; but is it not insects that make many of the plants reproductive, and would not whole families of plants die out if their fertilization was not effected by a class of agents utterly foreign to themselves? Does anyone say that the red clover has no reproductive system because the humble bee (and the humble bee only) must aid and abet it before it can reproduce? No one. The humble bee is a part of the reproductive system of the clover.***
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* From Descartes’ Treatise on Man [187]: “I suppose the body to be nothing but a machine . . . We see clocks, artificial fountains, mills, and other such machines which, although only man made, have the power to move on their own accord in many different ways . . . one may compare the nerves of the machine I am describing with the works of these fountains, its muscles and tendons with the various devices and springs which set them in motion . . . the digestion of food, the beating of the heart and arteries . . . respiration, walking . . . follow from the mere arrangement of the machine’s organs every bit as naturally as the movements of a clock or other automaton follow from the arrangements of its counterweights and wheels.”
** In one version [189] of this anecdote, the Queen challenges Descartes’ proposition that man is nothing more than a machine by saying: “I never saw my clock making babies.” A related variant [190] reports that the Queen pointed to a clock and ordered: “See to it that it reproduces offspring.”
*** The promotional webpage for the BEAM Robot Games (supported by robot enthusiasts and tinkerers) offers a similar sentiment, quoting roboticist Mark W. Tilden as asserting that while “self-reproducing robots…won’t be possible to build (if at all) for years to come,” machine evolution involving successive generations of robots can occur if we “view a human being as a robot’s way of making another robot,” a process Tilden calls “robobiologics” [191].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a more modern context (Figure 1.2), astronomer Robert Jastrow [192] notes that:
The computer – a new form of life dedicated to pure thought – will be taken care of by its human partners, who will minister to its bodily needs with electricity and spare parts. Man will also provide for computer reproduction. Computers do not have DNA molecules; they are not biological organisms. We are the reproductive organs of the computer. We create new generations of computers, one after another....
About two centuries ago, William Paley [194] (once the Archdeacon of Carlisle) was apparently the first to formulate a teleological argument depicting machines producing other machines [195]. At one point in his 1802 philosophical discourse, after describing a man who finds a stone and a watch, Paley [194] asks his reader to imagine a watch capable of making other watches:
Suppose, in the next place, that the person, who found the watch, would, after some time, discover, that, in addition to all the properties which he had hitherto observed in it, it possessed the unexpected property of producing, in the course of its movement, another watch like itself, (the thing is conceivable); that it contained within it a mechanism, a system of parts, a mould for instance, or a complex adjustment of laths, files, and other tools, evidently and separately calculated for this purpose; let us inquire, what effect ought such a discovery to have upon his former conclusion?...The question is not simply, How came the first watch into existence? which question it may be pretended, is done away by supposing the series of watches thus produced from one another to have been infinite, and consequently to have had no such first, for which it was necessary to provide a cause...
The serious scientific study of artificial self-replicating structures or machines has now been underway for more than 70 years, after first being anticipated by J.D. Bernal [196] in 1929* and by mathematicians such as Stephen C. Kleene who began developing recursion theory** in the 1930s. Although originally driven by an abiding interest in biology, much of this work has been motivated by the desire to understand the fundamental information-processing principles and algorithms involved in self-replication, even independent of their physical realization [200]. Over the last two decades [197-228], it has become apparent that a convenient physical realization of replicating machinery – in particular, the molecular assembler (a manufacturing system capable of molecularly precise fabrication or assembly operations) – could also make feasible the manufacture of macroscopic quantities of engineered molecular machine systems, with far-reaching consequences for human progress [199]. But before we can explore specific designs for molecular assemblers, it is necessary to review and contextualize, in this book, the theoretical and experimental foundations for machine self-replication.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Stanislaw Ulam, a Polish mathematician who befriended John von Neumann in 1937 and later gave von Neumann the initial idea for cellular automaton replicators, recalled “sitting in a coffeehouse in Lwow in 1929, speculating on the possibility of artificial automata reproducing themselves.” [237]
** In the present modern context, the recursion theorem says that one can re-write any program so that it will print out a copy of itself before it starts running. More formally, for any Turing machine T, there exists a T’ such that T’ prints out a description of T’ on its tape, and then behaves in exactly the same way as T. Recursion theory was first developed by Stephen C. Kleene [238] and other mathematicians [239-241], starting in the 1930s.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The notion of a machine reproducing itself has great intrinsic interest and invariably elicits a considerable range of responses – some directed toward proving the impossibility of the process, others merely skeptical that it can be carried out, but almost all of them indicating an unwillingness to subject the question to a thorough examination. In discussing self-replication by automata it is essential to establish from the outset some rather important ground rules for the discussion [242]. For example, according to Kemeny [243]: “If [by ‘reproduction’] we mean the creation of an object like the original out of nothing, then no machine can reproduce – but neither can a human being....The characteristic feature of the reproduction of life is that the living organism can create a new organism like itself out of inert matter surrounding it.”
Often it is asserted that only biological organisms can reproduce themselves. Thus, by definition, machines cannot carry out the process. A related argument, reaching back at least to Leibniz (1646-1716) [244] with echoes even today [245, 246], is the impossibility of fabricating artificial automata which are the equal of divinely created life, cf. Frankenstein [247] and the Golem [248, 249].* But modern writers [199, 1269] would argue that all living organisms are machines and thus the proof of machine reproduction is the biosphere of Earth. This line of reasoning had its genesis at least three centuries ago in the writings of Descartes [187], and later was picked up by the French materialists of the Enlightenment such as Julien Offroy de La Mettrie (1709-1751) [250], Baron d’Holbach (1723-1789) [251], and Pierre Cabanis (1757-1808) [252], and also by Paley (1743-1805) [194], all of whom asserted that humans are machines. It continued in Samuel Butler’s 1863 essay “Darwin Among the Machines,” in which Butler perceived the inchoate beginnings of miniaturization, replication, and telecommunication among machines: “I first asked myself whether life might not, after all, resolve itself into the complexity of arrangement of an inconceivably intricate mechanism,” Butler recalled in 1880, retracing the development of his ideas [253]. “If, then, men were not really alive after all, but were only machines of so complicated a make that it was less trouble to us to cut the difficulty and say that that kind of mechanism was ‘being alive,’ why should not machines ultimately become as complicated as we are, or at any rate complicated enough to be called living, and to be indeed as living as it was in the nature of anything at all to be? If it was only a case of their becoming more complicated, we were certainly doing our best to make them so.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Similarly, the robots of Karel Capek’s historical 1920 science fictional play, “R.U.R. (Rossum’s Universal Robots)” [657] – wherein the word “robot” first was coined (the term, derived from the Czech word “robotnik” meaning peasant or serf, was actually suggested to Karel by his brother, Josef) – are manufactured in a factory operated by intelligent robots, but the robots individually lack the knowledge of self-reproduction [254-256]. Says one character in the story, of the robots: “All these new-fangled things are an offense to the Lord. It’s downright wickedness. Wanting to improve the world after He has made it.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, it is sometimes claimed that although machines can produce other machines, they can only produce machines less complex than themselves [3]. This “necessary degeneracy” of the machine construction process implies that a machine can never make a machine as good as itself. (An automated assembly line can make an automobile, it is said, but no number of automobiles will ever be able to construct an assembly line.) Similarly, Kant (1724-1804) [257] argued that an organism and a watch differ on the basis of the interactions between the parts of the assemblage: “[in a] natural product...the part must be an organ producing the other parts – each, consequently, reciprocally producing the others. No instrument of art can answer to this description.” These arguments fail if we accept the view of biology as machines, since a human zygote (a single cell) is capable of constructing a vastly more complex structure than itself – in particular, a human being consisting of trillions of specialized cells in a very specific architecture, controlled (at a high level of abstraction) by a brain that is capable of storing many gigabytes, and possibly many terabytes, of data (Section 5.10).* Degeneracy-based arguments are also readily overcome by recognizing the possibility of inferential reverse engineering (Section 2.3.4).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Kantian arguments regarding the differences between living and non-living things have been revived recently with discussions of the nature of life in biology, wherein it is claimed that a human, or a living organism in general, cannot be represented as a machine because of the continuous, or quantum, nature of living systems vs. the discrete, or Newtonian, nature of computers and machinery – the central argument being that life has a fractal nature which can only be digitalized through an infinite number of operations [258]. However, Luksha [128] notes that even if self-replication in living systems could not be digitalized, this would only mean that we cannot properly model this process with the “discrete” tools that we usually try to apply, including cellular automata. A self-reproducing machine would operate in the real world, thus would be subject to all laws of physical reality, and through this could produce the same non-linear behavior.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another common objection is that for a machine to make a duplicate copy it must employ a description of itself. This description, being a part of the original machine, must itself be described and contained within the original machine, and so on, until it appears that we are forced into an infinite regress. A variant of this is the contention that a machine not possessing such a description of itself would have to use itself for a description, thus must have the means to perceive itself to obtain the description.* But then what about the part of the machine that does the perceiving? It cannot perceive itself, hence could never complete the inspection needed to acquire a complete description. All of these self-referential conundrums have been addressed and resolved by theorists, as we shall see below (e.g., Section 2.3.3). For example, a simple answer to the aforementioned problem of self-perception is that the original machine could possess multiple perceiving organs, so that the perceiving could be shared or alternated. Also, there is the question of how detailed a self-description must be for the process to qualify as self-replication – an atomic-level description, a parts-level description, or an active subunits-level description? Amusingly, Eric Benson [259] asks: “How about a robot that could build an identical robot as itself with its own parts? Imagine that the robot takes off its leg, then takes off its other leg, connecting them together, and, after a long process, the robot that was built from those two legs grabs the last remaining part, perhaps the head, and attaches it to itself. What if the goal of the robot was to fit itself through a wall with a tiny hole, and therefore had to dismantle itself pretty thoroughly before rebuilding itself on the other side?” Note that a self-reproducing lifeform does not contain explicit instructions for assembly of the next generation; rather, the genes contain cellular automaton-like rules for assembly (Section 5.1.9).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Writes Hofstadter [260]: “Imagine that you wish to have a space-roving robot build a copy of itself out of raw materials that it encounters in its travels. Here is one way you could do it: make the robot symmetrical, like a human being. Also make the robot able to make a mirror-image copy of any structure that it encounters along its way. Finally, have the robot be programmed to scan the world constantly, the way a hawk scans the ground for rodents. The search image in the robot’s case is that of an object identical to its own left half. The robot need not be aware that its target is identical to its left half; the search can go on merrily for what seems to it to be merely a very complex and arbitrary structure. When, after scouring the universe for seventeen googolplex years, it finally comes across such a structure, then of course the robot activates its mirror-image-production facility and creates a right half. The last step is to fasten the two halves together, and presto! A copy emerges. Easy as pie – provided you’re willing to wait seventeen googolplex years (give or take a few minutes)....What we’d ideally like in a self-replicating robot is the ability to make itself literally from the ground up: let us say, for instance, to mine iron ore, to smelt it, to cast it in molds to make nuts and bolts and sheet metal and so on; and finally, to be able to assemble the small parts into larger and larger subunits until, miraculously, a replica is born out of truly raw materials. This was the spirit of the Von Neumann Challenge...this ‘self-replicating robot of the second kind’.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet another related objection is that for the replicative process to be carried out, the machine must come to “comprehend” itself – at which point it is commonly asserted to be well known that “the part cannot possibly comprehend the whole,” an argument often voiced in many different contexts [261] and apparently dating back at least to Epicurus (341-270 BC).* Such disputations reveal that there has historically been a very deep-seated resistance to the notion of machines reproducing themselves,** as well as an admittedly strong fascination with the concept. The Hungarian-American mathematician John von Neumann, the first scientist to seriously come to grips with the problem of machine self-replication, once noted that it would be easy to cause the whole problem to go away by making the elementary parts of which the offspring machine was to be composed so complex as to render the problem of replication trivial [262]. For example, participants in a NASA study on machine replication [2] noted that a robot required only to insert a fuse in another similar robot to make a duplicate of itself would find self-replication very simple. Similarly, a falling-domino automaton could readily self-replicate on a substrate consisting of a large array of previously edge-positioned dominoes [263] – sometimes called “trivial self-reproduction”*** [354-357] – and fire**** may similarly be considered a simple replicating entity [264]. The domino example can be regarded as a mechanical analog to autocatalysis (Section 4.1.6), another very simple form of self-replication. And Stewart [265] has suggested that “a letter [page of text] is a self-replicating machine in an environment of photocopiers.”*****
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Working from Furley’s translation [266] of Epicurus’ “Letter to Herodotus”, Kenyon [267] summarizes Epicurus’ argument as follows: “The impossibility of completing an infinite sequence of contemplation of parts is grounds for rejecting infinite divisibility....(a) We clearly comprehend a whole finite object. (b) To comprehend a whole object, we must comprehend its parts. (c) If its parts are infinite in number, then we cannot complete a sequential process of comprehending each part. (d) Therefore, we cannot comprehend its parts. (e) Therefore, we cannot comprehend the whole object.”
** Upon encountering the fully-automated robot factory on the fictional planet Geonosis, in Star Wars, Episode II (2002), the ever-talkative golden humanoid robot C3P0 exclaims: “What’s this? Machines making machines? How perverse!”
*** For example, in 1973, Herman [357] argued that “the existence of a self-reproducing universal computer-constructor in itself is not relevant to the problem of biological and machine self-reproduction. There is a need for new mathematical conditions to insure non-trivial self-reproduction.”
**** It has been proposed that the birth of supergiant stars in vast molecular gas clouds may follow a similar “replicative” process, with radiation from early stars triggering compression of adjacent cloud materials, resulting in the first crop of stars replicating a second crop in the adjacent space, and so on, until the cloud is exhausted of its material [268].
***** In situations like the paper letter which is regarded as a replicator in a room full of photocopiers, Bryant Adams [269] notes that “a paper with a $50 coupon might be a better replicator than one with uninteresting information as it induces more assistance from the environment, despite not doing much of anything itself.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reproduction vs. Replication. Sipper [200, 2430] makes a clear distinction between two terms, “reproduction” and “replication,” which are often considered synonymous and sometimes used interchangeably [262]. According to Sipper, “reproduction” is a phylogenetic (evolutionary) process, involving genetic operators such as crossover and mutation, thereby giving rise to variety and ultimately to evolution [2431]. Reproduction is almost synonymous with Luisi’s simplest definition [270] of life: “a self-sustaining chemical system undergoing Darwinian evolution.” Evolution and mutation are characteristics of biological systems and are highly undesirable in mechanical molecular assemblers [271], and so machine “reproduction” will not be extensively considered in this book. By contrast, machine “replication” can be a completely planned, purely deterministic process, involving no randomization or genetic operators, which results in an exact physical, or functional, designed duplicate of a parent entity. Most simply,* self-replication is the process by which an object or structure makes a copy of itself. Others including Sanchez et al [2432] and Adams and Lipson [272] also see a clear distinction between replication and reproduction: “Replication seeks to copy an entire system without error, while reproduction includes a developmental process that allows for variations.” [272] In the context of chemical self-replicating systems, Paul and Joyce [1372] note: “Self-replication alone is not sufficient for life unless it allows for the possibility of heritable mutations.” From the standpoint of the safety of a new technology, artificial replicators can be made “inherently safe” (Section 5.11) but most artificial reproducers probably cannot be (Section 5.1.9 (L)).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The effort to define replication in a legally clear fashion during the writing of the Zyvex exponential assembly patent [273] (an effort in which both authors, Merkle and Freitas, participated during early 2000) resulted in an explosion of claims covering numerous mechanisms, alternatives, and exceptions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This distinction apparently began with von Neumann ([3], p. 86): “One of the difficulties in defining what one means by self-reproduction is that certain organizations, such as growing crystals, are self-reproductive by any naive definition of self-reproduction, yet nobody is willing to award them the distinction of being self-reproductive. A way around this difficulty is to say that self-reproduction includes the ability to undergo inheritable mutations as well as the ability to make another organism like the original [i.e., make a copy].” The mere ability to make a viable copy, but not to undergo heritable mutation, is therefore not self-reproduction but only self-replication. Self-replication thus represents a restricted, safer form of the more general concept of self-reproduction – unlike reproducers, replicators may be incapable of acquiring any significant variations, or, if variation is acquired, may become nonfunctional.
Szathmary and Smith [2415] note that “whole genomes, symbiotic organelles, cells within organisms, and sexual organisms within societies are certainly always vehicles, but rarely replicators. Their structure is usually not transmitted through copying....Existing organisms are not replicators: they do not reproduce by copying. Instead, they contain DNA that is copied, and that acts as a set of instructions for the development of the organism. Hence reproduction requires both copying and development.” George Dyson [274] agrees: “Biological organisms, even single-celled organisms, do not [merely] replicate themselves; they host the replication of genetic sequences that assist in reproducing an approximate likeness of themselves.” For the remainder of this book, we shall focus primarily on entities that are capable of “replication,” and not “reproduction,” as herein defined. Following Sipper [200, 2430] and Dawkins [275], we define “replicator” most simply as an entity that can give rise to a copy of itself. This copy may be an extremely close copy of itself (Figure 1.3), though apparently not an exact copy at the quantum level of fidelity [276].
Our discussion of machine replication in this book briefly reviews the foundations of classical machine replication theory (Chapter 2), then describes specific proposals and realizations of macroscale kinematic machine replicators (Chapter 3) and specific proposals, realizations, and naturally-occurring instances of microscale or molecular kinematic machine replicators (Chapter 4). We then close this discussion with a brief summary of selected issues in machine replication theory including minimum replicator size and replication speed, closure engineering, massively parallel manufacturing, the exponential mathematics of replication, and most importantly a comprehensive new overview of the kinematic machine replicator design space which is presented here for the first time (Chapter 5). The book ends with a few thoughts on motivations for undertaking design studies to develop molecular-scale machine replicators, including molecular assemblers and nanofactories (Chapter 6).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last updated on 1 August 2005 |
_________________
Don't believe me or anyone, rather ask the Spirit what the true intentions of Your heart are and believe every word that You get from the Spirit. Father, let me learn only to speak as YOU speak through me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dnatree
Joined: 27 Sep 2006
Posts: 2703
|
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 5:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://oroborusforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=100501#100501
Another self replication thread on Oroborus
_________________
Don't believe me or anyone, rather ask the Spirit what the true intentions of Your heart are and believe every word that You get from the Spirit. Father, let me learn only to speak as YOU speak through me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dnatree
Joined: 27 Sep 2006
Posts: 2703
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 7:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
On a recent trip to Pismo Beach we came upon a small road off of hwy 41 to a tiny town called Creston. We had been talking as we traveled about how we wanted to garden and other related home ideas. We pulled into the little town and right away I saw this yard with a wonderful garden very much like the ideas we were talking about and the systems that we would like to build. As I looked at the garden the owner stepped out and invited us in. The synchs were amazing in that his name was Tom just like my father in law and he kept a pocket calendar just like Tom does. Then his sons are the same name as my brother and I and many things related to his son with my name matched me. We were interested in the building of his home and of the Post Office which were made out of bricks they formed on site. Some of the materials were very interesting as well like the donkey dung and how lite the bricks were.
Notice the calendar in the pocket
Here is a pic of my Tom with his calendar. TwoToms complete with Calendars
The garden layout
_________________
Don't believe me or anyone, rather ask the Spirit what the true intentions of Your heart are and believe every word that You get from the Spirit. Father, let me learn only to speak as YOU speak through me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dnatree
Joined: 27 Sep 2006
Posts: 2703
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 6:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Our latest adventure in synchs was related to the Story on CD "Alice through the Looking Glass". Because in that story Alice was confronted in her dream with many mysterious things like the King covered in Ash, and the checkerboard landscape in particular. We bought the story to listen to from the dollar store for 50 cents.
I began to dream more about my self replicating structures while we visited the South Tufa's at Mono Lake.
I was taken by the way the deposits grew from the material left behind from the springs.
http://www.placenames.com/us/p275821/
We also then found ourselves at many DOME sites such as Obsidian Dome And the half-dome at Yosemite.
Here we are at Obsidian Dome
http://www.virtualmammothlakes.com/mamAttOD.htm
We met some Airstream campers at Obsidian
One of them was the same design as a miniture on my table/altar
Camper Miniture on left of table
Also we had a synch about our camper we wanted as I had a miniture of the camper we found there
We were taken by the Tablelands as we had been to Bishop many times and never knew about these until taking a little detour. Then when we went to lunch the climbers were talking about the tablelands which we had not been to before.
http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/bishop/volcanictablelands_caso.html
We found picture graphs and hawk nests and many other wonders while dreaming alone up at the Table Lands.
The synchs also want me to mention the table as an altar for what is on the heart. http://www.dnatree.us/table.mp3
The table was also prominant in the dream of Alice throught he Looking Glass.
Tablelands
View while up on the plateau at the SADS [the climbers call these formations the Sads and the Happys]
This is where I found the picture graphs
View from the top of the TableLands
Walking on the Plateau
I found this nest while climbing on the rocks "Synch with nest as little more than a womb" Humans should see home as "where You are at" not as the coffin called a house. Verse from Bible "They shall build houses but not live in them"
It was funny that Sacramento and Co. had "Table Talk" on their program this morning and the "Tables being Turned over" by nature as I predicted on prophecies some years ago being all relationships related to money and not "true intent of heart" would be overturned.
Our experience at Tamerak Campground in Yosemite was more about the energy that creates form such as the TABLE and the BRICK shape.
Pam and I playing on the brick shaped stones and wondering about the Organising principle behind them. We began to dream of soapstone and sprinking it while holding it in a vibration to etch away a form.
Our car and my shoes were covered in ash while at Obsidian Dome.
Major synchs that came true to date.
All the ones about "They would follow a lie" meaning the religious right would follow the lie of Bush and this synch started as early as 2001
http://www.stephentree.com/crime/
http://www.stephentree.com/lie/
Stockman comin and he take it all away [the financial meltdown]
http://oroborusforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=7938&highlight=
http://www.stephentree.com/stockman/
The big hurricanes coming as written in 1993
Hurricane Erin blew off only the roof to my daughter Raine's Bedroom. Great passion to reach You "everyone"
http://stephentree.com/predict1.htm
http://www.stephentree.com/whirlwind.htm
http://www.stephentree.com/wind.htm
The train synchs with what feed or track are You on and is it leading to destruction. Latest posted on Aug29 was vision related to Sept 12 train tunnel crash.
http://oroborusforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=12913&highlight=tunnel
http://www.stephentree.com/christmas/
http://oroborusforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=12452&highlight=tunnel
http://oroborusforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=5767&highlight=tunnel
The Coming Fires and the poetry of their meaning
http://www.stephentree.com/change/
http://oroborusforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=8569&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=
Many more at http://www.stephentree.com/new.htm
_________________
Don't believe me or anyone, rather ask the Spirit what the true intentions of Your heart are and believe every word that You get from the Spirit. Father, let me learn only to speak as YOU speak through me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
River
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 6904
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 2:23 am Post subject: Ash |
|
|
The King covered in ash, and ash on your shoes.
River |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
