(C) Lee Kent Hempfling 1996 If you were to arrive at your neighborhood discount store wanting to purchase a new television set and you offered a new video camera in payment you would be asked to leave the store. Not because you would not be wanted as a customer but because it takes something universally comparative to purchase a television set. It takes money. If you were then to sell the video camera and receive money for it you would have converted one item of incomparable value to money which has comparable value. But let us say for the sake of this comparison exercise that you needed to hold on to the money from the video camera for just a while longer and decided to place it in the bank. You would have converted an external concept (the existence of a video camera) into a relative commodity (money) that was then able to be deposited in the bank where it would take up its place with other money. Some people may withdraw the money to buy a house. Some to buy a car. Some to pay the rent. Some to buy food. And still some to splurge on useless things. The purpose of the money is not relevant to the money. Let us then say that the money you have on deposit is not quite enough to cover the cost of the television set. So you appeal to your best friend to join in and co-purchase the television set. He agrees and borrows the $100.00 dollars you need to make up the difference. That money together with the loan you took out to match your money on deposit makes a total of $1000.00. Enough to purchase the expensive set you want. Your friends $100.00 came from his labor in the form of payroll savings. Yet the money is relatable to your money regardless of where it came from as it was converted into a comparative commodity. His $100.00 is still in the bank while you receive his loan proceeds. Even though the money has its own establishment of value it can be said that the money permitted the equal evaluation of potential of dissimilar concepts when they are sold and converted into it. After purchasing the television set and bringing it home your friend decides he no longer wants to own a part of it and wants his money back. You can't cut a part of the set off and give it to him. It would destroy the set as well as have no comparative value of its own. So you manage to raise the $100.00 from another source and pay out your friend. After a while you decide food and housing is more important than a television set and you sell it for $750.00. Its value has reduced as it has become used and therefore of less comparative value. You take the $750.00 and put it into the bank to buy food and pay the rent. What has happened is that your video camera provided you with food and rent. If you had taken the money from the video camera and paid directly for food and rent you would have had the rent and more food. But you decided to process that money for another purpose first. Here is the comparison: Dissimilar objects or concepts need to be converted to a similar and comparative commodity. The converted commodity needs to be stored until it is used. When it is used it is withdrawn from storage while being combined with other values from another storage. The combined commodity is then converted back into an object or concept while the value of the object or concept becomes less with use. The lower value is then converted back into the commodity where it is then stored again for future use where it is withdrawn again and converted back into objects or concepts. Comparison comes in the mixture of the commodity from its different sources with the provider of the commodity owning a portion of the resulting combined commodity in direct proportion to the amount of the commodity provided by him. When presented with a thousand dollars years later you will remember the video camera, your friend, the food and the rent and the attempt to trade dissimilar objects. Conclusion Through the examination of the video camera we have established the object presented to the input sensor. Through the examination of the Conversion of the video camera into money we have established the process of the input sensor. Through the examination of the placement of that money into the bank we have established the concept of long term memory. Through the examination of the loans taken out to match the bank balance we have established that memory releases a copy of its stored value and not the value itself which means a memory of the original value still resides in storage. Through the examination of the purchase of the television set we have established the re-conversion of a similar commodity into a dissimilar object or concept. Through the examination of the sale of the television set we have established the conversion of the object or concept back into a similar commodity. Through the examination of the placement of the money back in the bank we have established the next level of memory storage. In this level (which is actually the third level of memory in the human) the values are not borrowed they are withdrawn. They do not remain in memory any longer than they are withdrawn. Through the examination of the final conversion of the memory (sorry, the money) into food and rent we have established not only the source of the food and rent but the fact that input determines output even though the output may not as an object or concept have any relationship to the input. The population is the count of the money. With each coin an individual citizen of that population. When science replicates the acquisition of the money to buy the food and pay the rent it can not possibly imagine that without the video camera there would be no food or rent. This process (the NTC protocol) begins with the input, recognizes its importance and ends with the output (recognizing its input source.)
