Ixperiencit discussion proof

File name --ixperiencit discussion proof File created date --12:31 pm Thursday, January 29 2004

There are many proofs that you experience more than just what you are presently. What is the proof that you do not experience every awarepath? There are three parts to the ixperiencit the I, the experience, and the reality, we can say that the sensepath is the reality that you experience but there is the experience that the body itself produces as well in its own functioning. The I is always in a state of change and other wise

The I can change and is defined by the structure and functioning of the brain or structure that produces the consciousness.

If we have a different I we will have a different I experience even if the experience is the same. How do we produce a different I . We can get to any I by modifying the brain to have any structure and functioning. But what about I produced by the fitoprocess? The fitoprocess is more difficult to control but still can produce a specific consciousness if the specific conditions are produced. When is one I different enough from the next that it is not you experiencing

The proof is that there are I’s that are so different that there is no original I to experience the new situation. Adding senses to a place (point) on the awarepath should not change the I enough. But the brain could be overwhelmed if too much input was produced so that there was not coherence in the awareness. There would be no picture of reality. Maybe the I is a picture of reality that has coherence over time, which it does not change to much over time. So a person that has a very different picture of reality would not have the same Ixperiencit.

So again what is the proof that I do not experience everything tat there is to experience? In the super path format it seems that you could experience what many others are experiencing. What is the proof of this? A superpath will be able to interpret the lower level awarepaths that you do not experience and put an experience to these through your enhanced you. What is the proof that superpaths you will experience? Do superpaths converge to one ixperiencit. Do I know what ti is like to be a snail? If I do not can then a superpath of me, know what it is like to be a snail-- what the consciousness is like? I may not know what it is like to be someone that does not have my ixperiencit but maybe a superpath of me could know what it is like to be an entirely different person that I am.

Different superpaths will have different view points on other subpaths. This super path could be generated in two ways first with the sensepath but then there is also the modification of how the brain works directly. There is then the connection of the sub brain to the superpath brain in some fashion to create the new superawarepath that has an understanding of the ixperiencit that he does not contain.

The argument would be that there can be you that are so different that you do not experience it on this level but then there can be the level of the superpath. I may not know what it is like to be you at my current level of awareness but there will be superpath version that will know what a totally different I or awarepaths

So we can look at the situation as awarepaths that are so different that we can not say that one is in any way able to comprehend the other or have a clue what each other experience but that a super path of either could understand the other. What if the one ixperiencit is total confusion and the super path of it is just greater pure experience and not understanding. Shear feeling with out understanding. Shear stimulation with out comprehension. Is consciousness understanding of the stimulation or change that is occurring. In a brain that is randomly firing like in a epileptic fit or seizure is there feeling with out understanding? What is feeling with out understanding? What is feeling with out consciousness? Are they the same thing? Can you be in pain and not know it? Certainly you could have injured you body and feel something but not know that it is pain but this is not what we are talking about. Can a pain that is not viewed as a pain by the brain be painful?

The superixperiencit proof is that you may not experience every awarepath directly but that many more are available through super awarepath. So understandable through greater ability of the superawarepath.

What does this mean? First the proof of this relies on if you really experience superawarepaths. If you only experience a small section awarepaths around your current awarepath your Ixperiencit will be limited. Maybe there are actually ixperiencit that are dependent on their limited ability so they never can have superawarepath or very limited ones. Imagine a snail what is a superawarepath of a snail so that the snail actually experiences its superawarepath. What if a snail has no superawarepath. It would not if it has not awarepath but what if the snail has a mentapath but not an awarepath? This means it is creating some consciousness maybe through the fitoprocess but it is not complex alone to create an awarepath.