plantation

Philosophy of INCARNATION. Part #5. INCARNATION procedure. A Human Being and his “Self”

Posted on by Mykola Krasnostup

Thus, we take on writing of the long-awaited article that is devoted to the analysis of the most evasive part of a human being — his “Self”. Readers may conceive the information of this article like fantastic one. Therefore, it is strongly recommended for readers to follow the offered by the author materials in a strict sequence: from Part #1 to Part #5. It is all for a better understanding of this article information. It is with this sequence the author’s thoughts will be clear for readers and they could develop the full picture of the INCARNATION procedure.

The presented in the article materials give qualified radio engineers possibility to revise the author’s hypothesis and to confirm its veracity.

All information below is personal opinion of the author, i.e. point of view of the author’s PERSONALITY…

The author wrote more simply for readers better understanding of the information presented. He used all the terms in accordance with the notions that were mentioned in “The New Cosmic Philosophy” book series.

So, let’s get started.

The author published infographics of the installation process in his “Computer system and its ‘Self’” article. Any IT specialist says for sure that everything depicted there is “functional”, i.e. the part of depicted information is already “turned into reality” or can be “turned into reality” as soon as possible. Let’s try to transform a little bit this diagram by changing some of the devices for the new ones. In this case, the general view of the infographics and the general idea of the ENCARNATION procedure remain the same. Why it is so, the reader will find out at the end of the article.

And here is what we have:

 

Continue reading →

Philosophy of INCARNATION. Part #4. INCARNATION procedure. Introduction to “our” “Selves”

Posted on by Mykola Krasnostup

“You look into the eyes of your interlocutor
and realize that this entity cannot brim with a smart look.
You see the flesh, but communicate with invisible spiritual entity.”

Yuri Larichev
“The Slavic Veda. The Hermetic Philosophy in a Readily Understandable Format. The Gospel for Myself.”

Let’s realize what we say:

  • My legs, my shoes …
  • My eyes, my binocular, my microscope …
  • My ears, my hearing kit …
  • Etc.

We say everything correctly!

“My” does not mean “Self”. “My”, on the contrary, means something separate from “Self”, from “MySelf”.

PEOPLE understand that a HUMAN BEING is not only his “dense” corporeal BODY, it’s still something outside it.

Numerous amputations of the body organs, as well as their prosthetics, mean the following:

 

“Self” of a human being does not occupy any particular part of his BODY.

 

“Self” of a human being is a part of his body.

 

Many years ago, Kirlian spouses discovered the lacking (ragged before) leaf fluorescence:

This proves the idea of information storage of this leaf, as if it were an integral object, even if a part of it is already damaged or non-existent. And the whole information about the object is stored in every part of it, even in the smallest one.

It is “Kirlian effect” sets in motion researchers’ minds who have begun to argue that this corona discharge is “the very same elusive biofield”.

It is the “appearing” of a human being “Self” in the BODY is associated with a process under the conventional “EMBODIMENT” name.

Continue reading →

Philosophy of INCARNATION. Part #3. INSTALLATION procedure. Computer system and its “Self”

Posted on by Mykola Krasnostup

Over the past 100-150 years a number of modern technologies has exceeded their total number in contrast with the earlier human developments throughout the history…

Radio- and TV set, wire and wireless communication, underwater and air means of transport, space vehicles …

The widespread use of computers boosts the modern technologies development. It is already impossible to communicate remotely, to create movies, to print books, to use many equipment and devices without using a PC.

What happens next?

What turn will the modern humanity development take? What importance will be computer systems and artificial intelligence in the sphere of new technologies development of? Where is “Self” of computer systems and what is it?

This article is dedicated exactly to this subject.

Everything described by the author below will expect the humanity in the next 20-30 years … And this computer technologies miracle will be called “The Unified Computer System for the Earth.”

Some of the system units have already began to develop and popularly are called in a simple and non-intrusive way “THE CLOUD STORAGE“.

 

THE CLOUD STORAGE

Today every PC or smartphone user keeps practically all his information “in the cloud”. PC users think that this “cloud” looks like this:

cloud_1

From a customer’s point of view, the so-called “cloud” is one very large virtual server. But in fact, PC users see neither a number of “cloud storages”, nor any inner structure of them. Physically, “cloud” servers can be located geographically remote from each other anywhere in the world.

Many users do not even know what do the terms “cloud” or “cloud data storage” mean, where is exactly this information, what is the principle of this information recording and readout, as well as the direction of this information from its multimedia device to the” Cloud “and vice versa. Nobody knows the answer to all these questions now. The reasons for it are not a bad schooling or a bad study at the institute, but:

  • Today the number of data recording and data reading principles is huge. These are HDD disks, SDD disks, CD & DVD disks, etc. I specifically used abbreviations that are known to readers. But technologies are in rapid evolution… More advanced technologies are already used in the “cloud”…;
  • The number of “cloud storages” is growing every day, and the storage location of information is determined by algorithms of the “cloud” functioning, and not by the user wishes. User data can be duplicated to different data centers, to different servers, to different media … The purpose of it is to facilitate user’s access to information and to exclude the possibility of losing the data;
  • Let’s try to answer the question like “How does a signal pass from the user’s computer (smartphone) to the Google.com web site and back?”. This question cannot be answered on principle … Firstly, a signal can pass through the “twisted pair” cable inside your apartment, then through the optic fiber to the internet provider in your location, then through the underground backbone fiber cable, then through the satellite channel or the transoceanic cable and so on. But you are not interested in it. The only important thing for user is to get answer to his search query. This is reality. And after all, if there is a slightest damage of almost any element of this path, a signal will automatically pass through another workable at this time route. This network was originally created to ensure unbroken connection between military infrastructure facilities in the period of nuclear war…

Do you still believe that you know what the “cloud” or “cloud data storage” is and what is the working principle of your device with it?

But only one of many “cloud” components of the Facebook already looks like this:

 

cloud_facebook_ireland

google-data-center-servers

Continue reading →

Philosophy of INCARNATION. Part #2. OBJECTIFICATION procedure. TV set and its «Self»

Posted on by Mykola Krasnostup

Once I had a dream containing the information of the OBJECTIFICATION procedure.  I made good use of the knowledge received. Little by little, I will try to deliver this information to my readers in the form I received it. I hope that not only radio engineers would be interested in this article…

“There was a working television (a modern TV set) in my dream. I don’t remember what kind of a telecast was shown on it but stream of consciousness (a process of information systematizing) went on rather quickly…


tv_set

I immediately realized that a nonmaterial object under the conventional “television program” name OBJECTIFIED into a material object (a complex of different materials parts under the conventional “TV” name). This process was very “tricky” one. The “TV program” object could multiply, in other words, it could OBJECTIFY in a huge number of “TV sets” (could copy many times without decreasing in “size”). Besides, it also remained in a working “TV tower” as a “television program” recording on a modern carrier of information.

I also understood that practically every viewer can get in touch with a “TV tower” and receive identical copy of a “TV program” that was already “objectified” in the “TV sets” before. If a viewer has “good friends” in the “right places” (TV towers), he will be able to gain access even to the “TV programs” being not “objectified” in “televisions” before that.

The most interesting thing is that different TV programs could be SIMULTANEOUSLY OBJECTIFIED in different TV sets. …

Different TV programs could also implement in one and the same TV… But only in sequence…

Besides, the “TV” was of material nature just as “TV programme” was nonmaterial object.

The “recollections” about Karlsson, a cartoon character, immediately “jumped” to my mind. I remembered the episode where he contemplated about “a man who get into such a small TV” and spoke with his “talking head” …

 

karlson_2 Continue reading →

Philosophy of INCARNATION. Part #1. EMBODIMENT procedure. “Implementation” into a body.

Posted on by Mykola Krasnostup

BODY

A BODY is a part of an object limiting by “interface” from its environment.

Men use developed by them BODIES of the objects as their identifications during a cognitive process.

 

FLESH

A BODY is distinct only in its “consistence” level. This was the reason for early Slavs to express their worldview by the word FLESH.

FLESH (BODY) is a part of an object (essence, creature), which differs in a “consistence” level from the environment.

 

VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE objects

All objects can be divided into two categories according to specific person’s perception: “visible” and “invisible”.

VISIBLE is a subjective characteristic of an object whose FLESH (BODY) existence a person can assert, in other words he can touch (“see”) it.

INVISIBLE is a subjective characteristic of an object whose FLESH (BODY) existence a person cannot assert, in other words he cannot touch (“cannot see”) it.

This division into visible and invisible objects is conventional, because one and the same object can be as visible as well as invisible one for different people.

I would like to draw the attention of my readers to the fact that many psychics say: I “see”, I “saw”, etc. But it would be better to say: I “perceived”, I “felt”, etc. Since the term SEE is usually applied in a rigid connection with the eyes of a human being, here it is written in quotes …

 

«BODILESS» objects

If a person “sees” (touches, asserts the existence of it) an object, it means the existence of the “interface” limiting it from the environment; so called FLESH or BODY.

This is the reason to claim that

BODILESS objects do not exist!

Nobody can “see” or “feel” a BODILESS object, since they do not exist! Nevertheless, what is meant by the term “BODILESS”, which is so often used in the pseudoscientific literature?

BODILESS is a subjective characteristic of an object whose body existence a person cannot assert because of many reasons.

 

Continue reading →