TED Community » Kevin Brian Carroll

More About Me

I'm passionate about

The true nature of reality and the human being's accurate relationship with that reality.

An idea worth spreading

The sub-structure of physical reality is comprised of only two indivisible unitary forms of physical existence - the event unit and the unit of information. Material (corporeal) existence is the human mind's interpretation of matrixed (layers of contextually associated assemblies and sub-assemblies )event trajectory wholes that we perceive in their "umbrella" trajectory form - basically the linear carrier event trajectory that grants singular and inimitable existential identity to all event units within each trajectory (either linear or redundant in manifestation, or matrix of both) that has come together to create that "umbrella" event trajectory. We perceive ourselves as material, and so - of course - we translate everything that resembles us (right down to the particle) as being material. This is why we can't answer the mysteries of quantum physics. We're studying particles, when we should be studying event trajectories and the information clusters they initiate.

Talk to me about

Metaphysics, Reality, The Eternal Human Being, Contextual Ramification, Existential Structure

People don't know that I'm good at

Listening and learning from other people.

My TED Story

I have no TED story. I presented a theory concerning the nature of reality to a progressive (underground) hip hop writer/performer, and he gave me this website and told me to pester those folks with my notions.

Comments

• TEDCred score: +3.00 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.

• A comment on Conversation: How do you turn a seemingly impossible idea into reality? Where to start?

  Mar 27 2012: It depends on the idea. If it's a product or service idea, then the steps are fairly well established, although you'll want to make sure you've accessed the very latest version of what those steps are. In the publishing world, the steps seem to change dramatically every 6 months or so, so it's going to depend on the industry you're approaching as well. That said, there are plenty of people making good money publishing roadmaps to success in literally every kind of endeavor you decide to take on. Just Google around and make sure you check the date of the article or blog. Anything over a year old should be avoided.
  
  If your idea isn't a product or a service, then you need to determine whether anyone else can ever make a dime off it for themselves. If not, then forget enlisting any help with your idea. Seriously. If something can't make someone else money, save them money, make them popular, make them prettier or more handsome, or help them take off the pounds and keep them off, then it can't be sold. And if it can't be sold, then walk off on it.
  
  I literally uncovered the true substructure of physical reality and through that, accurately revealed the true nature of humanity and it's place within physical reality, and while you'd think that publishing this information would have the world beating a path to my door, the truth is that there's no money to be made off this information. In fact, it threatens a multi-trillion dollar global industry, and directly challenges the basic belief system of every person on this planet - from religionists to physicists. So it's completely worthless as an idea - even though it's got all the bells and whistles you'd ever want any idea to have.
  
  This is a consumer driven world. If it won't sell, then it's worthless. You can claim that it's priceless, and maybe it is, but worthless is the same as priceless if no one will pay for it.

• A comment on Conversation: The richest people, bill gates, warren buffett are all introverts. What do you think makes introverts successful over extroverts in life?

  Mar 18 2012: Introverts aren't more successful. Yes, you can find a few introverts who've succeeded, but the western society is ruled by salesmen for the most part. The average extrovert greatly outperforms the average introvert in this hyper-competitive environment. Hell, if you can't sell it, it's worthless, and that includes everything that exists.
  
  And I'm not an extrovert who's rooting for the big mouths to rule the world. I'm one of the folks who's gotten the short end of the stick because of the extroverts and their innate capacity to redirect attention to whatever it is that they've got for sale.
  
  I'm kind of surprised that anyone would be asking this question, to be quite honest.
• +1

  A reply on Conversation: Shall We Pity the Entertainment Industry?

  Mar 18 2012: I tried the solo acoustic thing for a little bit and ended up customizing a one-man 3-piece power trio act (with a DR-880, a Digitech VL4, a Vox ToneLab and the whole thing managed by a little mixer on a music stand) where I programmed my own live show again and fit it into acoustic size spaces. I just couldn't do the strum and sing thing for very long. I needed the open road that a rhythm section gives a guitarist. I'm retired now (focusing on writing and changing the way humanity understands itself) but I still have a soft spot for music writers, players, and performers.
  
  I wish there was a way to help out, but the devaluation of their craft has become too ingrained within the American psyche for anything to be done about it. It's spread to the craft of writing too. I wrote articles for Helium.com for a few months until I saw one of my articles appear on Yahoo.com's news feed and realized that Helium had taken it and sold it to Yahoo without even letting me know they'd done it. We writers were competing with each other for stars on the Helium site, while Helium was shopping our articles to news feeds. Hell, they didn't even edit my piece, and it matched up word for word with my original submission. Sloppy of them, that's for sure.
  
  If music is free (worthless) now, then we'll all eventually get what we pay for in the end. I enjoy playing my newer music, and have no desire to share it with the public. I give song recordings to my friends and my daughter for special occasions. I don't bother making the recordings public anymore. I know a lot of songwriters who have stopped making public music, and who are okay with keeping their songs for people they care about only. It's becoming a trend from what I understand, and a way to show someone that they're special to the artist. Let the civilians have the corporate drivel running through their heads. They can take away our careers, but they can't have our music. I don't care if it matters or not to anyone at all.
• +2

  A comment on Conversation: Shall We Pity the Entertainment Industry?

  Mar 17 2012: I worked in the music industry (as a sideman and having my own bands) for 30 years. We didn't have to write commercial jingles to get a record deal, but that's the only way bands get deals now. Check out the new pop/rock bands being signed to any bigger labels now and you'll see that it's on the coat tails of a song that'll be introed in a TV commercial before it ever gets officially released. The corporations that make stuff for younger people to buy are in charge of what you get to listen to for free on radio (unless you're into classic hits and CW), and that's because the only way that any label makes money now is by shopping songs to advertising firms for licensing deals.
  
  The other revenue streams are gone, so any band that doesn't have a song that seems like it can be shoehorned into a car commercial, a Target store commercial, an i-pad commercial, a feminine freshness commercial, or whatever is being sold by way of TV ads, may as well pack it in and get the members on their way to careers as insurance underwriters. Hell, freecreditscore.com even got a lousy pop band to directly shill for them with 30 second jingles that they lip sync right on the commercials. I bet those idiots think they're stars.
  
  Yeah, free music is great, but why would anyone with any integrity ever bother with what's become of that industry anymore. And if that carrot (being able to make a living) is gone, then what stick exists to force anyone to share their music with you? There is no stick to force them, so in the end, you lose. Take the carrot away, and what have you got? Free crap from attention-starved self-promoters who never would've made it past the 1st cut within a healthy music environment where serious people felt that an actual profession was possible. That's all gone now. It's just about selling cheap crap to people who sell cheap crap to everyone else. And that's at the very top of the industry. It's much more pathetic at the street level than even that.

• A reply on Conversation: If we do not establish and enforce fundamental reality anchors, we will never survive as an intellectual species.

  Mar 17 2012: The truth is that proving what many of us "feel" to be true is very different, and requires much more work, than simply asserting that what many of us "feel" to be true is - in fact - true. That essay is only 8,000 words, and while it does make assertions, it also states where (specific established theories and research) those assertions came from (assuming that one might have the ambition to go check out those sources if one actually cared enough to do so). In short, it's an essay, not a dissertation. It certainly isn't meant to prove anything, and I state that very clearly throughout the essay itself. I offered it to you as proof that I am not a reductionist, and as nothing more than that.
  
  You are an obvious psychological predator, and a very fragile person. You need to take a moment to examine your powerful urge to take other people down a peg, and what forces you into action when you run into anyone who seems to have any capacity whatsoever. You were correct in realizing that your previous post was abusive, but you need to realize that you were not able to prevent yourself from typing it out and hitting reply - and for you, that's a much more important issue to examine. Especially if you want to have any shot at achieving your goal of building a healthy, capable human being as your eternal expression.
  
  I made my points and I'm satisfied with what I've shared in this thread. My goal in life isn't the same as your goal and that's fine with me. We don't agree and I'm satisfied with that. I hope you can be satisfied with that as well.

• A reply on Conversation: If we do not establish and enforce fundamental reality anchors, we will never survive as an intellectual species.

  Mar 16 2012: By your definition of Fate, Jesus battled against Fate his entire ministry until Fate nailed him to a cross and killed him. Gandhi absolutely worked against his own Fate until finally someone took him off the planet entirely. The soldiers who took the beach at Normandy were certainly violating their pre-determined fate when they stormed the guns and got ripped to shreds in the process. Hell, everyone that's ever accomplished anything in defiance of oppression and withering opposition has been uselessly wasting their lives in pursuit of their own ego-driven delusion concerning what their lives were all about.
  
  Really?
  
  Achieving serene mental clarity is not the only reason that the human brain is gifted with sentience. In fact, a lot of crippling delusion can parade as mental clarity, but that's something that only life can teach anyone. I certainly can't make that case in 2000 characters or less.
  
  Here's a link to an essay that I wrote on the nature of human consciousness. It's online and at 8,000 words (8 pages - check the menu button at the bottom), it makes an argument concerning the physical nature of the human brain's production of dynamic sentience. I'm just starting to populate that site with more substantial material, and maybe this piece will show you that I'm not a true reductionist when it comes to the human being and how it develops during the corporeal stage.
  
  http://www.takingdownthecurtain.com/#!__essays
  
  I believe in intuition, but I don't believe that it's primordial or universal. I am very familiar with the basics of your view set, and it's not as if I have never investigated its validity.

• A reply on Conversation: If we do not establish and enforce fundamental reality anchors, we will never survive as an intellectual species.

  Mar 16 2012: So much of what you've posted here is based on absolutely nothing whatsoever.
  
  "it's not unheard of for people intoxicated by psychedelics to walk in to each others minds."
  
  What does that even mean?
  
  "How can you conclude that a 500 year old oak doesn't have a consciousness? I'm interested in the reasoning here."
  
  That's patently ludicrous, since the damn thing hasn't got a brain. Sentience isn't a casual byproduct of longevity. If it was, then rocks would be the most brilliant things on the planet. Then again, maybe you think they are. Hell, I can't understand how this last post of yours could be anything other than a joke, so I'm going to let it alone. If you want to believe that you "won" then whatever makes you happy, y'know?
  
  As it stands right now, there's no available platform here for continuing this exchange. It's just devolved to the point of there being no basis of communication whatsoever.
  
  Have a nice spring.

• A reply on Conversation: If we do not establish and enforce fundamental reality anchors, we will never survive as an intellectual species.

  Mar 14 2012: The basics are what matter, and the basics are definitely determinable. Here's a quick list of reality basics.
  
  * Time exists and while it can be perceived as malleable, in reality it isn't. Planck's Constant established the consistency of progression, and by direct logical inference the stability of Time.
  * Logic is the yes/no development foundation of reality's necessary structure and consistency.
  * Ramification can't be "unwound", which means that Time's forward progression can't be reversed by anything that exists as physical in nature.
  * Perception (human consciousness) is an isolated experience that can only be entered into by one human mind.
  * Consciousness, in general, is not primordial, but is the result of an epitome level of progressive development within a contextual environment.
  * Truth exists, even if it generally serves as a relative qualifier.
  
  So, what is the problem with these basics being agreed upon? What's the problem with their vetting as accurate and immutable anchors? If you can prove any of these assertions to be inaccurate, then have at it. And be sure to include links to responsible (peer reviewed) arguments that definitively support your disagreement with what I've listed above.
  
  None of the above violate anyone's freedom to fully express themselves or act in a way that they want to act. No one is restricted from doing or being anything that they can actually do or be. And that's the point I'm trying to make here. Reality only allows a specific latitude when it comes to what can and can't happen. Impossible isn't just a word.

• A reply on Conversation: If we do not establish and enforce fundamental reality anchors, we will never survive as an intellectual species.

  Mar 11 2012: By the way, Stephen Hawking's IQ is only 160. Not 200+. It took less than 30 seconds with Google to determine this to be true. Just a heads up for future debate exchanges. Don't offer facts that can be debunked quickly and definitively if you want to succeed in defending your larger points. Most debaters will eviscerate your credibility by targeting careless assertions like that.

• A reply on Conversation: If we do not establish and enforce fundamental reality anchors, we will never survive as an intellectual species.

  Mar 11 2012: Regardless of whether we can establish the full nature of objective reality, what can be established is that reality is objective, and what constitutes the objective nature of reality. That can be accomplished, with the value achieved that what is easily determined to not be real can be qualified as such to prevent such fallacies from being introduced within debate and/or examination in the future.
  
  Case in point - the claim that "energy cannot be created nor destroyed" being introduced within a debate concerning the eternal existence of the human consciousness or of consciousness in general. The issue here is that the statement (in quotation marks) is not being accurately applied to the argument under examination. This is an objective fact, since Newton never made that statement in reference to the physical existence of energy being eternal or primordial, but made it in reference to energy production within the confines of a closed mechanical system (1st Law of Thermodynamics). How its improper application is revealed is the logical implications inherent within the nature of ramification, with all relative emergence requiring impetus and incident. Energy is measurable and has a dynamic effect upon that which is physical and relative, therefore it can't posses an absolute being state (or be infinite, which is what is being suggested). Simply put, the statement's improper application is immediately exposed when a very broad and well established reality anchor is applied as an objective comparison/qualifier.
  
  This is what objective reality reveals by inference and how it does it. The establishment of objective staples will allow this sort of logical inference to stabilize even the most subjective interpretations of what is and what simply cannot be. Why this is something to be objected to is beyond me.