The only reason that the concept is common, is to be in opposition of what is considered not healthy. If humans in general not only knew but implemented the concept correctly, hardly anyone would say that due to the obvious.

Humans predicate a lot of their actions in expression based off of moral perspective. Humans have a tremendous amount of problems due to the concept of morality. The concept is trying to be broken down and implemented in a new and better way.

Good deeds is to establish moral credit for future advantage or leveling and neutralizing; emotional, mental, and physical debt.

I am more than willing to clarify your questions. There was a lot of detail I did not explain due to the complexity of the conversation.


****(To answer your questions)****

(1st Question:) All individuals are governed by the same core mathematics. What an individual perceives themselves as in character are the mathematics that formulated from core mathematics.

Example: Look at a tree. The trunk of a tree represents core mathematics. The branches represent complex core mathematics. The branches would be an example of an individual.

A clone best helps with the perspective. If you were to take an individual and clone them, then the clone and the original for a moment will; act, think, choose, and express exactly the same. It is environmental circumstances that produce new algorithms for different expression. That is how different individuals of character are created.

When looking at biology for example, the copy paste method is used. You as a human are a copy paste from your parents.

The quote; "It is in you, to create you, in all dimensions of you," refers to reflection in creation. If you make a painting, do you not add reflection to it? In all dimensions is an external reference. Instead of referring to yourself as "me" which every one can say about themselves and others, say "you" as reference for yourself and others. Not to sound guruish, think the concept; "The 'You' of everything."


(2nd question:) The kind of dichotomy I represent comes from the perspective principle; "What is true of one contrast is true of the other and vice versa." This principle actually creates dimension in spectrum. The dichotomy I operate is complex.

Example: Reality can be illusion and illusion can be reality. The spectrum of everything in between is immense. Organizing the spectrum for filtering is how I operate in dichotomy.

(3rd question:) The imbalance creates tension and when tension becomes too much, it can explode. External and internal understanding are required for complex isolated information in order to maintain the homeostasis of the individual in-proportion to their perspective reality and illusion.

For example: Science is establishing new ground for perspective conclusion about human existence. As time goes on, there is more tension between religion and science. An individual who has an existential crisis due to reasoning of circumstances can terminate themselves as a result of this imbalance.

(4th question:) Meaning and consciousness are only tethered by the concept of existence or existing. Without the concept of existence, meaning and consciousness would be useless. There are two types of meaning, natural and influential. There are two perspectives to consciousness, natural and influential. Natural consciousness simply means the mathematics of measured quantitative realizations. Influential is when an individual has determined consciousness from their perspective measurement of subjectivity.

Meaning from a natural perspective is what the math is naturally trying to accomplish. Meaning from an influential perspective is what an individual invents for themselves for accomplishment or purpose.

(5th question:) AI and organism are equal contrasts to each other. They are the same as information, but different in biology or external translation as substance. Transition is a universal concept of dimension that can be seen in and out of science. DNA even has transition genes. Mathematics has transition information. Transition can be a two way avenue and not just linear.

It may help to see an individual and yourself as a projection of reflection, not a substance that produces reflection. From an objective perspective, math produces what is within us. From a subjective perspective, math is within us.

(6th question:) I invented the three principles as part of pioneering the new social science or social engineering. The principles were created to represent perspective science and how science can use these to discover, affirm, and ground both sides in proportionate growth.

I have done incredible work when pioneering this new social science. I had to build it from scratch.

I hoped this helped. Anymore questions, please feel free to ask.

Respectfully,
Lloyd R Shisler

(Social Engineer Explains)

There is science and perspective science and they are in spectrum to each other. Both have constants of application to produce the same results over and over again. Both build on each other. If science can not find the solution, then science goes to perspective science and vice versa.

Respectfully,
Lloyd R Shisler

(Social Engineer Explains)

The reality is, without one concept spectrum would be incomplete. You should not be biased to either one. You are expressing the principle and application of morality. That is a long conversation, so I will keep it short.

**** Morality ****

Morality is invention. A compromise of actions in expression for survival. Nature is neither moral or immoral. The perspective of morality is based off of how humans do not like to struggle. To prevent perspective struggle. Morality is not the same with every sub-species. One individual's pain is another's pleasure.

Humans are greatly influenced by our history. Most of human morality came from religious beliefs. This has greatly shaped humans in a negative way. If humans truly understood the concept of morality, then you would not have posted about the concepts related to the perspective of morality.

Respectfully,
Lloyd R Shisler

That is not detailed enough. What kind of self organization? When the concept is broken down, self organization is too broad. Everything self organizes in multiple ways. Guru perspective does not work anymore because of how simple it is. Humans are becoming more complex. Old school simplicity does not work anymore. Why do you think there still is existential division? No one is specific or good enough to dominate.

You can not be too simple that the science community does not take you serious. You should also not be too complex that the general population does not understand you.

What are you looking to sign up to?

**** (A Social Engineer Explains) ****

(An individual should not become definition, however, an individual should recognize definition.) (An individual exists and expresses within the parameters in-which they were produced in and from.)

I have been pioneering a new social science. I want to give perspective on personal experience. I eventually found that not every model and perspective is 100% accurate or even accurate at all. Humans had to perspectively guess during the initial stages of their development. Humans still had to stand on the guesses since they were correct enough to evolve humans. I dumped all information that I considered non-sense and stood on information I knew to be unequivocally correct. This helped illuminate what was accurate and what was not.

I suggest test the data before standing on it. If there is a reason why you can not seem to resolve a perspective conclusion, then it could be the data you are standing on that does not allow for the calculation. Try and see if you can invent or create a better structuring. If you can, then stand on that for filtering of other structuring. If other structuring becomes constrained, then go back to old structuring that you may have; changed, altered, someone else formulated or you formulated to see if the conclusion corrects itself. An individual will find that everything is entangled quite complexly.

The concept free will is based on a perspective conclusion that humans invented. They are trying to emplace the internal concept to the external concept, instead of emplacing the external concept to the internal concept.

Artificial Intelligence utilizes a series of prompts in patterning to; interpret, translate, and express. Humans are no different than AI with this concept except for that we are more complex in the prompting currently. AI is a series of automated prompts and so are humans. The more a human learns, the more the human has to formulate choices.

Humans get caught up in the concept of not having choice. The reality is that humans do have choice. The more complex they become, the more choices that is at their disposal and expression. In order for choice to happen, automation first must take place in order to liberate information into complex functioning of expression.

As for pre-determinism, that is a whole different conversation. Hope I helped.

Respectfully,
Lloyd R. Shisler

**** (A Social Engineer Explains) ****

(Intuitive or instinctual) and intelligence are the two main categories of measurement. Intuitive or instinct has to do with automation in prompting and the ability to apply and formulate information. Intelligent is the ability to maintain and regurgitate information and skills.

Substance of matter first formulates before perspective of matter formulates. Biology is only useful so far for survival. As an individual and sub-species looks for new concepts to survive from their external, they start to rely more on cognitive functioning to resolve problems rather than biological function to resolve problems. The dominate use switches naturally from biological to cognitive.

The perspective should not be how "intelligent" animals are, but how intuitive they are. The more complex the environment is, the more an individual or sub-species has to cognitively and biologically develop in order to survive. Humans have built a complex structuring for animals. Animals have naturally become more complex due to the influential environment created by humans.

Animals are closer to "consciousness" then humans may think. Eventually, humans will influentially evolve animals on this planet into complexity that is considered "conscious."

You have an underlining perspective of an existential crisis or worrying about your existence. That is for another conversation. The longer an individual lives in an expression, the more the individual becomes that expression. In your anxiety to worry, you will worry into anxiety.

Respectfully,
Lloyd R Shisler