This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Order Out Of Chaos: The Doctrine That Runs The World
Submitted by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market blog,
“From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.”
- Winston Churchill, February 1920, in an article that appeared in the Illustrated Sunday Herald
The concept of conspiracy frightens some people, so much so that they are willing to overlook any and all evidence that world events are for the most part directed, rather than chaotic and coincidental. For those who are uneducated and unaware, explanations for the terrible tides of politics and war generally revolve around a false understanding of Occam’s razor. They argue that the theory states that the “simplest explanation” is usually the correct one for any particular problem or crisis. But Occam’s razor actually states that the simplest explanation according to the evidence at hand is usually the correct answer for any given problem. That is to say, the simplest explanation must conform to the evidence, or it is likely not correct.
Unfortunately, “skeptics” of directed conspiracy often turn a blind eye to evidence that is contrary to their simple explanations, while arguing that simplification is its own vindication. In other words, they don’t feel the need to defend their simplistic world view because, in their minds, simplicity stands on its own as self-evident. There was a time when men believed that the planets revolved around each other because they were tied together by long glass strings, and this was evident to them because it was the simplest explanation they could come up with. The thinking of skeptics of the New World Order and concerted globalization is much like this.
The most common argument they tend to exploit is that the world is far too “chaotic” and that if the elites are actually seeking a fully centralized one-world system, they are “failing miserably” because so many cultures are so clearly divided. For anyone who holds this argument as logical or practical, first I would suggest they look beyond the surface of the various conflicts at the similarities between these so called “enemies.”
For example, what about the United States versus Russia? These two nations have a long history of opposing ideologies and have come close to war time and time again. Certainly, average Americans see themselves as individualists and Russians as socialist or communist. Average Russians see Americans as capitalist imperialists and see themselves as humanists. But what about their respective governments? What about their respective financiers and oligarchs? Do they really see each other as enemies?
If that were so, then why did American Wall Street tycoons and the U.S. military aid the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917?
A false paradigm was created when internationalists supported the Bolshevik Revolution and allowed Russia to become a communist-held country. The eventual Cold War that resulted created the rationale used by the military-industrial complex to build a massive standing army (which is not part of the U.S. Constitution), an army which could then be sent around the world to subdue various nations and even possibly be used to oppress the American people.
Even today, the false East/West paradigm continues, with America painted as the bumbling villain and Russia painted as the stalwart and reasonable objector. Yet Russia’s top government officials and our top government officials work closely with and answer to the same international financiers and elites, like the International Monetary Fund and the Bank of International Settlements, as I outlined in great detail in False East/West Paradigm Hides The Rise Of Global Currency and Russia Is Dominated By Global Banks, Too.
Even closer to current events, the U.S. has now entered into military operations against ISIS insurgents moving rapidly through Iraq’s northern regions toward Baghdad. However, if ISIS is the enemy, why did the U.S. and our ally, Saudi Arabia, support and train ISIS agents in Syria as well as Iraq?
Is it just irony that our government helped birth ISIS and now the White House is at war with the group? Or is it possible that maybe, just maybe, a greater plan is afoot?
As the sinister Rahm Emanuel famously said: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”
If a crisis of opportunity does not present itself in the time frame you need, why not ENGINEER a crisis to fit your goals? This is a tactic that has been used by elites for generations, and it is called the Hegelian dialectic.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s work was the very foundation of the collectivist/socialist ideology, and it inspired Karl Marx during his writing of The Communist Manifesto. Hegel was an avid statist who believed that the collective must be ruled and directed by centralized governance and that all individualism should be sacrificed for the greater good.
Hegel wrote that the state “has supreme right against the individual, whose supreme duty is to be a member of the State… for the right of the world spirit is above all special privileges.”
In his dialectic theory, Hegel conjured a strategy by which the establishment elites could control the masses through deliberately created division. To define the Hegelian dialectic method simply, the ruling body must first trigger a problem or crisis that causes the citizenry to react with fear and demand a solution. The rulers then offer a solution, which they had already predetermined before they had started the crisis; this solution would usually entail more power for the elites and less freedom for the citizens.
The world appears divided and chaotic exactly because it has been MADE that way by a select few in the globalist establishment. In fact, if you were to name any war in the past 100 years, any competent alternative analyst would easily produce undeniable evidence of the involvement of international banks and think tanks pulling strings on both sides.
If you don’t understand the concept of “order out of chaos,” then you’ll never understand a thing.
Engineered chaos serves several purposes. It provides distraction and cover for the elites to implement other plans that they would rather not have noticed.
It also provides a scapegoat for the masses, who are now divided against each other. When violent changes are implemented that produce destructive consequences, the people must be placated with an easily identifiable villain. Certain changes globalists wish to make in the way the world functions require the careful exploitation of scapegoats.
For example, the globalists at the IMF have been discussing the establishment of a global basket currency for years to replace the U.S. dollar.
Russia and the East have also, conveniently, been calling for the IMF to replace the dollar with their Special Drawing Rights basket.
And finally, as well as conveniently, the elites in the U.S. government have launched a controlled coup in Ukraine and initiated direct economic confrontation with Russia, thereby giving the East the perfect excuse to dump the U.S. dollar as world reserve and replace it with a basket currency system under the IMF. Despite claims that Vladimir Putin is “anti-globalist,” the Russian is in fact an avid supporter of the IMF, and has stated his goal is to continue Russia’s IMF membership in a larger capacity:
"In the BRICS case we see a whole set of coinciding strategic interests. First of all, this is the common intention to reform the international monetary and financial system. In the present form it is unjust to the BRICS countries and to new economies in general. We should take a more active part in the IMF and the World Bank’s decision-making system. The international monetary system itself depends a lot on the US dollar, or, to be precise, on the monetary and financial policy of the US authorities. The BRICS countries want to change this."
Yes, Vladimir, and so do the manipulative social engineers at the IMF...
Hopefully, you have the sense to see how this works: problem, reaction, solution. Economic or physical war is launched between East and West, while the dollar is killed in the process. The masses react by demanding a fair and balanced replacement for the dollar as world reserve so that economic stability can return. The Americans blame Russia and the East for their fiscal misfortune. The East blames the hubris of the West for its own downfall. Neither side blames the banksters, who started the whole calamity to begin with. And the elites swoop in as saviors with a new Bretton Woods-style agreement to appease all sides and cement their global currency system, the system they had always wanted. And with a global economic currency and authority in place, global governance is not far behind — order out of chaos.
This process is more psychological than political in its goals. One could argue that if the elites already have control of all central banks and governments, then why do they need a global government? The answer is that these men do not want secret global governance, they want open global governance. They want us to ACCEPT the idea as a fact of existence, for only when we agree to participate in the lie will they then have truly won.
The end result of World War I was the creation of the League of Nations and the argument that sovereignty leads to disunion and catastrophe. World War II led to the creation of the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund. I believe that a third world war is nearly upon us, one that may involve weapons of monetary destruction more so than weapons of mass destruction. Each supposed disintegration of global unity has eventually led to greater centralization, and this is something the skeptics seem to forget. The progression of crises suggests that the next war will lead to total globalization under the dominance of a minority of elitists posing as "wise men" who only wish to bring peace and harmony to the masses. In the meantime, the skeptics will continue to mindlessly debate in the face of all reason that the whole thing was a fluke, an act of random mathematical chance, leading coincidentally to the one thing the establishment rulers crave: total global totalitarian micromanagement.
»
- 41301 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Order before you run out of beer!
Look at this, and let it sink in!
http://patrick.net/forum/?p=1230886
The Big Lie is operational! Massive deceptions by omission is the reality.
For a good start, let all those 'of distinction' sign off on their ample and decisive self-loathings for these deceptions by omission! Citizens can direct their consumption decisions ...
Brandon,
I don't deny their motivations, only their perceived end-state. It won't work out as they imagine. They system is too complex. Entropy is a bitch.
Entropy is a bitch.
AMEN!
These fuckin assholes couldn't run a donut shop.
Cord Meyer
"ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT
The entergentic Federalists are the most enterprising of organizations trying to get the nation to unite
CORD MEYER IS GROUP'S PRESIDENT AND SALESMAN"
Cord Meyer
Cord Meyer
became the "principal operative" of Operation Mockingbird, a plan to secretly influence domestic and foreign media. Meyer befriended James Angleton, who in 1954 became the CIA's counter-intelligence chief.
In 1945, he married Mary Pinchot, daughter of Amos Pinchot.
Mary Pinchot Meyer
Mary Pinchot Meyer and John F. Kennedy reportedly had "about 30 trysts" and at least one author has claimed she brought marijuana or LSD to almost all of these meetings.;
Mary Pinchot Meyer
On October 12, 1964, Pinchot Meyer finished a painting and went for a walk along the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal towpath in Georgetown. Mechanic Henry Wiggins was trying to fix a car on Canal Road and heard a woman cry out, "Someone help me, someone help me." Wiggins heard two gunshots and ran to a low wall looking upon the path where he saw "a black man in a light jacket, dark slacks, and a dark cap standing over the body of a white woman." Pinchot Meyer's body had two bullet wounds, one at the back of the head and another in her heart.
***********************************************************************
Keep digging, there are FAMILIAL ties to the Federal Reserve and so on. Transcend the looking glass, Alice. GO!
The global stall. It could happen in our lifetime.It will happen eventually anyway because these leaders are commited to more allways more. At some point it will stall entropy assures it.
So we face it.
The scum running this planet could not and would not allow actual chaos or would be incapable of bringing real order from it in their wildest dreams. They have to be in control and therefore creating a chaotic situation is not actually chaos. It is scripted. Staged. Fake. Notice I didn't say nobody died or there were no planes.
These scum are pathetic excuses for false gods that will fail at whatever they are trying to eventually achieve. They are turning this once beautiful planet into a decimated cesspool.
They won't openly, fully and completely announce who they are or what they're doing. They don't take appear to take any actual risks. They don't have confidence in their plans to sell it to enough souls to obtain an adequate consensus to implement it. It's like playing a video game and having all the cheats. Quickly tiresome, boring and monotonous. What's the point of playing for a day? Let alone thousands of years.
When you ask yourself, why would they intentionally destroy their own habitat and make it unlivable?, there aren't many possibilities. And all of them go from horrible to unimaginable.
Who made the revolution.
They were 300 foreign Jews from New York, led by Trotsky.
It put Russia in a coma for 100 yrs.
The elite Russian professor who they call Putin's brain said "Some people came here and made revolution"
what a tragedy of epic proportions.
They still have "Russian Brides" which are prostitutes with no other option.
Why! Is it that every new parasite on Z/H feels the need to spill their guts?
Zero Hedge is not a fucking DATING site! Tyler, some changes are immiminent/
We're going to get real chaos out of faux chaos.
uhm...thats how color revolutions work.
exatamento
Uh, no. Real chaos. The kind that nobody can predict and nobody can control. The scary kind for everybody, including the oligarchs.
From my experience, oilgarchs fuck up all the time, just not as much as the
rest of us.Brandon's beliel in their infallibility is almost religious.
They are human, very human.
Robert Burns had it right ,the best laid plans of mice and men....
The would indeed have to be gods, above human failings , to pull this off.
And sometimes oligarchs have interests that conflict with the interests of other oligarchs.
Nooooooo.
That means there isn't an oligarch hive mind at play here?
Why, that means divide and conquer can work on them as well.
Garçon, check please.
World Wars change the world.
this was 1987 out of the ashes.
The Economist is owned by the Rothschilds.
http://www.coverbrowser.com/image/economist/1678-7.jpg
These fakers stole symbols. Look at my avatar and you see the all seeing eye is Hindu and what it means is the highest chakra, the eye of God.
They are fakers, theives and liars. They are satanic, posing as God.
...if you had have said Vedic, it may have been more believable. Egyptian mythology is where it's at... the Eye of Ra (or Re) and the Eye of Horus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_of_Providence#Religious_use
Time Warner liked it enough to make it their logo
Highest chakra is generally acknowledged as the crown chakra.
THe "third eye" (ajna) chakra is right below it.
You'll turn against yourself and then retreat.
Then come out swinging, trolling, fighting mad.
Then just mad.
it must be very appealing to many, this idea that Putin, largely, or mainly, because of comments regarding SDRs and the WB and IMF, is really "in on it." His disgorgement of the Jewish oligarchs who stole Russia's wealth under Yeltsin then, was a mere ruse, for some remain.
This is the narrative Mr. Smith wishes to convey, and can only do so by claiming that Zionism has little to do with Judaism or Jews, and the wildly disproportionate wealth and power of Jews transnationally is of no moment - it's all the NWO or Luciferians or something, anything but Talmudic and Torah racialism and mythos intertwined with Jewish eschatology regarding the world to come - in which Jews, qua tribe, qua racial, Chosen lineage, will rule.
Mr. Smith deviates, in these matters, from the Truth. That is either obvious to you, or it is not. And if it is not, you are falling victim not to the dialectic, but to the older tactic of the bait and switch.
How can you tell, with some confidence, that I am right? You might try investigating the extent of Jewish, not merely 'Zionist' wealth, power, and privilege. But I suggest you do something even fewer do:
Simply read the Torah.
Nobody has a monopoly on the principles and methods of organized crime, although some are better at implementing those, some of the time, in some places.
One other interesting concept is Bandana man. He is completely invisable to the beast. Comes and goes as he sees fit. Fights on his terms every time. Then vanishes without a trace. Fear is his tool and he uses it well. We know first hand how powerful a tool fear is. Its been used on us all. There is no monopoly on force only the will to use it.
Not endorsing it. Just sayin its my morality that keeps me from doing to others as they have done to me. At some point that same morality may demand action.
no, no monopoly, but when a group that is less than 3% of the population but half the millionaires, in charge of most federal agencies having to do with money/banking/finance, basically control hollywood and much of the news media, and have a lobby that nearly dictates foreign policy... and when this same group has similar disporportionate power in numerous contries, and myriad international organizations - simply dismissing the power of that group, and the "zionism" which is, in fact, directly linked to them, as merely just another criminal syndicate - is absurd.
Yeah, Daffy Duck, as you know well, the social facts are that they are by far the currently best organized gang of criminals in the world, like prize fighters who appear to be able to hit above their weight. Still, my basic view it that it is not who they are, but what they do, that matters, because the theoretical goals are to do what they do better than they do. That is, there must necessarily be death controls to back up the debt controls. Those who were the best at lying about that have dominated everything so much, for so long, that their controlled opposition groups tend to deny the basic facts that natural selection always existed, and therefore, manifested through human beings, as some form of artificial selection.
In my view our basic problems stem from thinking about these problems backwards. Everyone has some power to rob, and power to kill to back that up. That power was assembled and channeled through governments which became the biggest form of organized crime, while control of those governments were captured by the best organized gangs of criminals, to a runaway excessive degree, because the opposition continues to believe in bullshit impossible ideals, instead of responding more effectively.
For instance, I believe that the events on 9/11/2001 were an inside job, false flag attack, most probably done by Zionists, in order to blame on Muslims. In order to understand how that was possible, one must face the basic social facts which you have recited, Daffy.
However, in my view, there are no good solutions but for everyone to realize how and why human beings are energy systems that operate in ways which are best described as following the principles and methods of organized crime. The possible solutions to our problems are radically different if one takes that realistic approach, rather than the always backfiring attitude that we should miraculously stop governments from being organized crime, controlled by the best organized gangs of criminals, because, I repeat, it is not who they are that matters as much as what they do, because the real goals are to achieve what they did in better ways.
Duffy,
Sometimes truth needs to be divulged in degrees.
Become a Mason?
Exactly, and then get the 33 degree and take a peek out of the 'eye
of providence' or 'eye of Lucifer' whichever 'eye' you want to look out of. Many American Presidents were 33 degree Masons.
Love the use of the Leo Tanguma D.I.A. mural.....
According to the Georgia Guide stones the new order is:
Big de-population
Trans-humanism, breeding serfs fit for purpose
Babylon, Babel, Kitchen English, Colloquial urban slang (not many words in its dictionary
The State is your family and nothing else to believe in really.
“This is what happens when you call the cops..!”
UN, in accordance with Agenda 21, Tri-lateral agreements.
“This is what happens when you call the cops..!”
Cashless society, 7 day work credits expiring at the end of the week – no saving
Eugenics, survival of the fittest, sterilization of ugly fat people
You live as long as you are of any use, and when we kill you – we may very well eat you... Soylent Green not that farfetched after all.
Am I under arrest? Am I free to go officer?
OKAY KIDS, one of my trading accounts is in my Mothers name. I've NO sympathy for girls.
I adore Women, but give me a break. I have sisters and cousens.
Girls aren't as prissy as all you horny boys think!
I've had Mr. Happy satisfied plenty enough over the years. I know the sweet spot in women. (trust me)
So you should check this out!
Martin Levi van Creveld: Has written one book on social issues - The Privileged Sex - which argues that the idea women are the oppressed gender is largely a myth, and that women, and not men, are the privileged gender.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_van_Creveld#Views_on_current_affairs
LGBT are the privileged gender.
All this global currency/global gubbamant is a european invention (and those in the US directed by the europeans) to give europes' rotted out monarchies/financiers control again.
The US has the power to give to make a "global system", but it continues down its own path.
Europe has lost economically, militarily and socially - this is their last shot.
Euro-centric systems branded as global - been this was for centuries and they have served only European interests.
World spirit is not that bad a guy to whom you can bribe your wanted problem. He reads: so, you wanna have a problem, I write you have a problem. And the final reaction to await is concerned with to find a solution for problem makers.
The centralization joke comes with the desire to make an illegal action legal. Instead to give up to make it stable.
You will have to crample upside down all of the moral code. Such work ever will ask for centralization to make the illegal looking coherent, stringent. As of one casting as the original that is to replace.
ORDO AB CHAO is the underlying doctrine of the western elite. Destroy and rebuild to their model (poor, weak, dependent on the west, while natural resources are plundered by the west).
We see it in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lybia. Short of invasion it's break down existing government with mercenaries and build puppet government. We see it in Egypt, Syria, Iran, but it's not working because they have Russia/Chinese support now. We see it in Ukraine and it's working, but it restarted the cold war with Russia.
But it doesn't run the world. It doesn't run the east, just the west. The east has no interest in world domination, just the west.
Western societies are powerless to stop it. Americans are powerless to stop this govt from doing it.
But some believe the east is powerful enough now to stop it. Not even five years ago, but they are now.
Whether we believe they are or not is irrelevant. The east stopping it is humanity's only hope. If they don't stop it, humanity is doomed. It's that simple.
Plato's Republic is the epitome of socialism
There is no such thing as an invisible hand, and there is no such thing as an order out of chaos. Things are getting so crazy one is tempted to see obscure plots everywhere, some nice unifying cause to make sense of it all. It's non-existent. Things are run in a free trade way, that's to say with maximum competitiveness and conflicting interests ultra-pitted against each other, on a world scale. If Wall Street sees its immediate financial interest in sponsoring a revolution, than Wall Street will sponsor it regardless of the consequences. They are no super-villains with unimaginable powers, only dehumanized little men in suits with an aggrandized self-image and calculators, whose only concern is where the market is heading next. And they're dangerous precisely because they have no foresight.
Immediate maximum profit is the culprit. There is no conspiracy, no grandiose plan, only a frantic race for more, more, more, better and bigger. That's what makes the system look like a gigantic loonybin.
"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true."
- Francis Bacon (1909-1992)
Put another way... "People claim to want the truth. That is not true. What they really want is informationa and truth that is consistent with their prevailing Worldview" - Kirk.
If you want to test this, just try to challenge the worldview of someone with strong religious or political views. You'll get a Primal response long before you'll get a Rational response. That alone (the nature and tone of the response) is a "tell".
Sorry you got those downvotes...they were un-called for. You are right.
I think a reason so many prefer to believe there is some grand master plan is because they HAVE to convince themselves that some shadowy super-power is behind it all. Which carries the built-in excuse that "We can't fight it, it's too STRONG..."
When in fact it is no such thing...it is a bumbling, straw-grasping desperation to keep the thing afloat for one more day. We aren't at the mercy of superior forces...we've handed a six-year old the keys to the car, and are cowering in the backseat with our hands over our eyes as he runs up on the curb and mows down pedestrians.
Same here of course:
Banking With Hitler (Full Length) British https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veQfroRUWdMwhat bullshit.
More detailed analysis please.....
More detailed analysis please.....
1. all of them jews, coincidence? No.
“From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States)
2. to say, that V. Putin is in full support of IMF, is either insanity and syphilis madness.
or pure ignorance of the last 10 years.
anyhow, there I stopped to read this boring article.
Ditto. Putin just founded the IMF's replacement.
This guy is pretty misinformed.
The only law that matters is “The Law of the Jungle”.
Regardless of the level of organization (individuals, communities, nations, etc...) whichever group has the “biggest stick” makes and enforces the rules – those who do not obey better have a “bigger stick”.
Groups can agree to abide by various agreements that provide warm and comfy feelings such as the Geneva convention, US Constitution, United Nations Charter, SALT, etc... While various writers and speakers may claim that groups are bound by “higher laws”, “ethics and morality”, “humanity”, puke, puke and puke... and that humanity has found a “higher purpose”; they know they are selling a pleasant fiction at best and a suicidal delusion at worst.
We are animals. Predators. Violence and force is our heritage. Our primary weapons are our minds.
The only law that matters is “The Law of the Jungle” - enforced by the “biggest stick”.
oh sure, but it wont be run by a bunch of corrupt white guys...the time of european and american empire is long past...and its all about timing aint it? US idea of democracy was a major soft power that couldve worked for this, unfortunately when US stopped believing its own propaganda so did everyone else..where was the apex? Vietnam...were already on the other side of the parabola folks.
03/04/2014:
Putin: Russia Will Work With IMF On Ukraine
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/04/russia-imf-ukraine_n_4895535.html
04/23/2014
Putin Gets Paid? IMF Agrees $17bn Loan To Ukraine
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-04-23/putin-gets-paid-imf-agrees-17bn-loan-ukraine
July 17, 2014
Putin: Russia would welcome IMF help for Ukraine, but hostilities there must end
http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/putin-russia-would-welcome-imf-help-for-ukraine-but-hostilities-there-must-end-356381.html
The Global Elite a.k.a. The Powers That Be (TPTB.)
Today (October 2011) we could start calling them...
"The Powers That Were" (TPTW)
"The Global Elite: The Transnational Capitalist Class"
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_globalelite.htm
Banksters
Assistant Attorney General Admits on TV That...
In The U.S. Justice Does Not Apply to The Banks
by Tyler Durden
January 23, 2013
from ZeroHedge Website
?
?And so, so on...
?
?(Not to mention the honors tributed by Russia to Henry Kissinger quite recently).
?
?If Mankind has the tendency to be slave, if it isn't freedom and justice the essence of our specie, they're gonna succeed.
?
?We'll see about it soon enough.
Isn't this just a version explained differently and somewhat complex of the good old proven concept "divide and rule", aka Salami tactics, often used by Eastern European leaders to grab power, most notably Adolf Hitler?
Not going to happen luckily. Centralization needs constant energy flow to the center. With diminishing returns starting to bite in energy production, there will not be enough energy to sustain total centralization.
The Leninist strategists 'take particular heart from the fact that American and West European policymakers have no understanding of their strategy and its dialectic nor any means of countering if'.
ANATOLIY GOLITSYN
'The Perestroika Deception', page 58, Memorandum of
4th January 1988.
'Western experts fail to perceive the strategic con
tinuity behind events. They accumulate facts but are unable to see their strategic interaction and cannot build them into a strategic picture. They lack vision and insight, which is why they are floundering in the face of the onslaught which they fail to understand'.
ANATOLIY GOLITSYN
,'The Perestroika Deception', page 38, Memorandum off March 1989.
Great essay, Brandon.
Whether geo-political events are quite as calculated and co-ordinated as deeply as Brandon suggests I simply don't know. I rather think that what we see are really separate entities around the world driving their own model of totalitarianism. In some cases it's closely aligned to conventional socialism, in others it is fascism. Many other variants. One consequence of this is the eventual abandonment of what we call "democracy" because it cannot function under a totalitarian system of governance.
But perhaps that's not too relevant because the one important thing that comes out of this is something that I have believed for several decades: the world is drifting ever closer towards a model of totalitarianism, fascism in my view. And as I've always said, individualism, freedom, liberty, free markets and all the other things that describe those on the so-called Right of politics are anathema to any model of totalitarianism.
Logically, this means that any model of totalitarianism is by its very nature a far Left ideology and it doesn't really matter what it's called: communist, fascist, socialist and even crony capitalism.
One assumes that when the world is largely governed by localised totalitarian systems, there will be the war to end all wars: a battle between the totalitarian systems for ultimate supremacy and control of what's left. Whether mankind will survive this is open to question.
Self reliant farmers were the foundation of American democracy. thomas Jefferson believed farmers' morality made America democracy work. On the other side, "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". Liberals seek absolute power.
OT but not really: http://themorningconsult.com/2014/08/federal-governments-ebola-story-rife-inconsistencies/
Sometimes, we get so caught up in the "show", we forget what our real lives are all about. Beautiful theatre, compelling stories, wide screen, sex, blood, fear, anguish. It is enough to keep us entertained for an entire lifetime. A lifetime of slavery.
If we are supposed to be slaves, why do we yearn for liberty and the knowledge of who we are and why we are here?
Could life be a determination between the transit point and the treadmill?
Perhaps, before we get set upon the universe, we need to learn a few "rules"?
In which case, what happens here is secondary to our response to it. There is a reason we leave the body behind and go on to something "other". Why live the illusion, when you can train to embrace what is possible?
If we are supposed to be slaves, why do we yearn for liberty and the knowledge of who we are and why we are here?
I'm not being critical when I say... maybe you need to watch "the matrix" again (not that the movie or implicit idea is the whole answer).
You seem to speak for those of us who actually DO know what's going on, and DO yearn for liberty and understanding of the universe and ourselves. What you seem to be missing is the fact that some people yearn for authoritarianism (even if they're the slave in that equation). And sure, some folks do not know what's going on... yet (and most will remain in denial until far too late).
The only set of "rules" we need to understand is "the [fundamental] nature of reality", including "causality".
Then each individual must choose... Am I a predator, a parasite, or a producer?
By their nature, those [human] animals who choose to be predators or parasites have no ethics, only a modus-operandi (do whatever we want and think we can get away with).
By their nature, those human animals who choose to be producers adopt a natural ethics, which essentially is "when a human takes an action, that human should enjoy/bare/suffer ALL the consequences of that action, and enjoy/bare/suffer NONE of the consequences of actions taken by others (producers).
What should not need to be said, but does need to be said, is that by the nature of producer ethics, producers should (and must to survive) treat predators as predators (aggressively defend self and other producers against predators). In other words, producers must treat predators in accordance with the predator modus-operandi, and treat producers in accordance with producer ethics. The fall of modern civilization is the story of the widespread producer delusion that they can [and must] treat predators like producers. That doesn't work, and cannot work. Once a human chooses to be a predator, they must be eliminated. The alternative is... the enslavement and eventual extermination of producers. Which is indeed the path humans are on.
That works if you ACCEPT the matrix (or similar) as true reality. Are we not all predator, parasite and producer? Just different players depending on the situation? Further, are these choices not merely a means to keep us engaged in a game we need not play?
As a farmer/hunter, I am a predator to the animals, a parasite to the land and a producer of farm goods for the human.
Think of your spirit only, is it enslaved? Does it yearn to be free? Can this freedom be realized here and now or from some other reality? Can I control my outcome here? Physically? Maybe. Spirtually, certainly. Therefore, what care I if a person is any of your choices? The war is in your mind.
Do you claim a "murderer" is not a murderer the 99.999999% of the time he is not pulling the trigger?
Do you claim we should only treat a human as a murderer DURING the act of pulling the trigger? If so, at what point, exactly? I mean, hey, he might change his mind before the trigger reaches the point where it triggers the ejection of the bullet. So? After the fact? Yes indeed.
I admit that discussing these topics and being completely clear is difficult. Frankly, it can only be effective or satisfying when the whole context is discussed, because apparent contradictions like those you mention are not always actual contradictions.
Do you consider LIFE to be a GAME ???
Because if you do, you can call everything humans do "a game" and "something we play".
I mean, you can CALL life a game if you want, and you can treat your life as a game if you want, and you can consider the lives of others a game if you want. And indeed, how you consider your life and the lives of others may indeed impact what actions you take, and thus what consequences follow.
You call yourself a predator. Fine. But you apparently forgot part of what I said... that producers can only treat producers in accordance with their ethics. I said to attempt to treat non-producers with producer ethics cannot work.
So, when you go out hunting and shoot a dear or rabbit [or whatever], are you harming a producer? I don't think so.
The difference is fundamental. A producer is a sentient entity that intentionally takes actions to create what would not otherwise have existed. The animals you hunt do not. The animals you raise do not.
Now, I will be the first to say it is wrong to purposely cause a non-sentient animal significant pain, but that doesn't mean you must treat animals like producers (productive sentient creatures).
To explain this fully would take pages and pages, so I'll leave it there, which will probably be unsatisfactory for you. Sorry about that.
By the way, I don't think it is rational to say you are a parasite on dirt, rocks and inorganic material in the environment. A parasite can only be a parasite upon another creature. I would say this is "by definition" (the meaning chosen for the term parasite).
You ask whether my spirit yearns to be free. To be 100% literal, I don't have a spirit, if that is something outside my physical self (including those processes of my self that are called my consciousness). But if you mean "my consciousness" when you say "spirit", then my answer is "no, my spirit is not enslaved".
However, my "spirit" is limited (by its nature, and by its finite capacity). So, I guess my answer depends on what you mean.
In a very limited sense, my "spirit" is limited by the nature of reality. Quite probably my imagination is insufficient to imagine things so radically different from the reality we live in, that my consciousness is insufficient to be capable of imagining them. But... I think I'm not fully understanding what you're trying to mean by your last paragraph.
There is only one reality, and can be only one reality. There is no "afterlife" waiting for "my spirit". I know humans hate to accept that, but there you go.
My spirit isn't my problem. I can imagine endless possibilities beyond what I will be able to achieve in a lifetime (unless we finish our project before I expire).
My physical self is my problem. Impositions on my time and wealth by predators and parasites. Natural aging [eventually]. Possible sickness or injury someday.
My mind has struggles... to understand the nature of reality, and to create fabulous configurations to engineer into existence (and then enjoy and prosper). But I do not expect to create wonderful complex configurations of reality without substantial effort. It is what it is. I am what I am. I have to accept that, and I do (though I also accept I can improve them, which I work on every day).
So... I have no "war in my mind". I do have to expend some mental effort from time to time to choose actions to avoid the physical impositions of [mostly human] predators and parasites. But there is no war in my mind, just my observations, thoughts, reflections, inferences and plans.
I understand reality and consciousness so well that I really don't have any "war in my mind", not literally and not metaphorically. However, I do understand that the notion of "war in the mind" is a very appropriate [and unavoidable] reality in the mind/spirit of most human beings... because they are so radically confused about the nature of reality, the nature of themselves, and the nature of consciousness. Fortunately for me, I'm well past all that.
I don't know what else to say, except I don't think I'm fully understanding the exact perspective you're coming from, or trying to describe.
So, animals are not sentient? They do not re-produce thus creating something that did not exist before? It doesn't seem to take me pages and pages...Plants are not quite inorganic, nor the millions of insects, bacterias, fungi and viruses, but I guess you have a very limited view of the universe...However, I agree your spirit, as you define it is not your problem, as it appears asphixiated.
Thank goodness you understand reality and consciousness so well. Still, if you take the time to re-read what you have written, you might see the war in all its' glory. I would suggest I have hit a nerve and you are determined to have your world back the way it was. Tough to go back to sleep, when you have awakened from a dream...
In the usual meaning of "sentient", animals are not sentient. This claim is difficult to support for a few animals (dogs, monkeys, etc), where I would agree they satisfy some of the requirements for "sentient" but not all.
When we have these discussions, we are unfortunately forced to [mostly] adopt common meanings for words rather than "more enlightened" and/or "more precise" meanings we know are more appropriate.
For example, this problem appears in your message related to the notion of "create" (or "produce"). What exactly are these "naturally occurring processes" that I talk about (that are not included in "production")?
In the common meaning, these naturally occurring processes would certainly include the "birth" or "origination" of individual new animals and plants (derived from parents via sex, seed germination or whatever is the process for each species).
Now, I agree that humans (and their actions, including productive actions) are also "naturally occurring processes" in some perfectly reasonable senses. However, the purpose of this distinction (productive versus non-productive (or destructive)) is to distinguish goods and goodies created by productive actions taken by humans (or other animals) for the purpose of production (to create goods and goodies).
What I'm trying to say right now is, I think you and I both pretty much understand these distinctions, and hopefully we understand the limitations we encounter trying to chat here via common meanings (we're trying to be concise).
So let's take an example derived from your example. If you invest substantial time, effort and resources to create a "home" (good, safe, healthy living conditions) for some animals (probably including feeding them, or at least putting their home where a food source already exists (perhaps grass)), how many offspring will exist in 10 years (to choose an arbitrary time frame)?
Whatever is the starting number of animals you care for:
#1: How many of those animals and their offspring would exist in 10 years in the wild?
#2: How many of those animals and their offspring would exist in 10 years in the conditions you create for them?
The difference is what I call "production".
I realize this isn't the only way one could reasonably choose meanings for these terms. One might say you (the farmer) did not create/produce ANY of the animals in 10 years, the parent animals created them and therefore farmer produced zero. I can't say that this claim is not correct... that claim adopts one reasonable way of assigning meaning to the terms "produce" and/or "create".
Nonetheless, I don't think we actually misunderstand each other. We both understand why and how herds of farm animals increase in size over time. We both know farm animals have sex, have offspring, and without any direct assistance of the farmer (usually, though not always in the past few decades). And we both understand that the herd will be [much] larger after 10 years of care by your (the diligent, caring farmer) than unprotected in the wild... even if only because other predators would feed upon them in the wild.
Given the meanings I have adopted here (pretty much the conventional meanings), the difference in the size of the herd is the result of human production.
Note that humans have offspring too, but I don't call that "production" either (though obviously this is called reproduction).
I do understand that soil in most places contains living microorganisms of various kinds. However, I tend not to mention them because they are so far outside the range normally worth considering. Why? For one thing, we can't! I mean, if someone is too concerned with microorganisms, they'd have to kill themselves immediately to avoid harming the billions of microorganisms in their digestive tracts. Or for that matter, virtually every action humans (and other animals) take impacts microorganisms enormously. Not to mention the fact that every non-microscopic organism is in fact millions or billions of cells, each of which is... sorta... a single microorganism.
So yeah, I do tend to ignore all this in my thinking processes, partly because there is nothing I can do about it (in most but not all contexts). Plus, I admit that I do not concern myself with organisms that cannot experience pain, unless those organisms have an impact on me or my life.
Further, I admit that I also think differently about animals that are essentially "hardwired". This distinction is similar to the term "sentient", but not exactly. For example, I have no qualms about squashing a scorpion or centipede because it would be perfectly happy to harm me, kill me and eat me for lunch if it could. Ditto for other creatures that are not overtly aggressive and "mean" (say, ants for example). I don't want to cause them pain, but I an not concerned for their well being. And again, the primary reason is... they don't give a damn about me either.
This attitude changes a bit when it comes to animals that are not so hardwired (those that seem partially sentient, like dogs, monkeys, porpoises, etc). I do have concern for these so-called "higher animals".
Nonetheless, they are only rarely "productive", much less "intentionally productive". One might say your dog is "productive" in the sense it helps you herd your cattle or something), but it is not "intentionally productive" because it really doesn't do what it does to be productive, it does what it does to get good treatment from you (at the beginning) and later because you habituated its behavior (like Pavlov).
So I guess I "plead guilty" to ignoring the trillions of living microorganisms that I encounter or impact every day. Do you ignore them, or pay attention to them (speaking now about those that are not part of your farming activities)? How much attention can you pay to a trillion critters you impact every day? How much attention do you believe is appropriate?
-----
I completely don't understand where you think this "war" is. Can you explain in at least a little detail so I have some idea what you're pointing at?
Also, what is this "world" that you imagine "I want back"?
-----
I'm not sure, but perhaps part of what you're talking about is "intentional focus". I am aware of a LOT more than most people are. But day to day, in almost everything I do, I focus much more narrowly than most people do. Which means, most of the time, I am ignoring almost everything (everything not relevant to the current context of my work) in order to free up intellectual capacity for what I need to create, achieve or figure out.
I am quite aware I do that. I do that intentionally. But I also try to take the widest possible view before I start something, to identify anything and everything that the work or thinking I'm doing might impact, because those things I may or will impact do need to be considered over and over again as I progress.
-----
The following factoids about me personally don't matter in any significant way, except to help you understand my values and point of view. But they are so different from the way most humans think, I thought maybe I should add them so you don't confuse me with a normal human being (perish the thought, hahaha).
My idea life would be to move to Mars or some asteroid (or live in a spacecraft traveling asteroid belt and solar system). I'd say "explore the universe", except I'm trying not to enter into fantasy land here. While I'd prefer to have one (or up to a few) other like-minded scientists and engineers along, I'd be quite happy to live completely alone the rest of my life.
As long as I'm organic (which is a condition I'm actively trying to change), of course I want to have a minimalist "micro-culture" in order to have at least a few items of food I enjoy and need to survive. Otherwise, however, I prefer to live in entirely inorganic environments. While I do believe the phenomenon of living organisms are amazing and even fascinating, they're just not my cup of tea. If the entire universe outside earth is entirely devoid of life, I'd still rather explore the universe than live with a zillion organisms on earth.
So I'm a pretty wacko gal. I do love nature, and I go out of my way to grow and eat the most natural food I can, but... I'm just not organic oriented. I love the wilderness, but the most barren, geologically weird places are where I love the most.
Though I grow most of my own food, I only do so to be self-sufficient, and avoid the need to travel to town. In case you haven't read my past ZH messages, to make sense of that, I live 125km from the nearest human being in the extreme boonies, somewhere with no land access, and fly my tiny little airplane "to town" (of less than 100 people) about once every 2 or 3 months to get supplies. Perhaps once every 6 months I fly to a larger town for supplies I can't get shipped to that tiny town. So... I really am an odd kind of "naturist" (if that's even a word).
And this is the kind of life I like. I went to a lot of effort (about 3 years) to set myself up this way, and spent almost my entire life savings (over $350K). And I love not seeing humans for months at a time. I love walking around under the stars and the middle of the Milky Way galaxy late at night... and feeling alone. Frankly, if I was completely and eternally self-sufficient in every way, I'd be perfectly happy to be the only living creature in the universe. Hopefully I'd finish the project I'm working on (with a few other collaborators), at which point I'd become 100% inorganic, and could enjoy the universe for the rest of eternity in the complete absence of organic structures.
Incidentally, if we do succeed, and we are able to escape this planet and be completely free, we recognize that organic systems will have had a totally crucial role in the history of the universe, because as far as we can determine, sentient systems of human level consciousness or better could not arise without passing through the stage of organic systems we see today. As far as we can tell, anyway. So, I/we are certainly not anti-organic, we just prefer inorganic. Organic played its role, albeit rather badly in most ways.
BTW, one reason I gave you this history and elaboration about me is... to show how my entire focus has been forward (towards the future, designed and engineered by us), rather than the past. So I don't even know what to make of the notion "want my world back the way it was". I want the universe the way I'm designing and implementing it, not the way it was.
As humans have decided the definition of sentient and how it is measured, it is a laughable definition. We can go back to the sixties when brain measurement determined intelligence and just put all the blacks in camps for retards. However, the fact humans are incapable of living within the restraints of their environment does not challenge your supposition?
If we are to use production quotas as a definition, what do we do with most of the world? How is a standard clan based society to be measured? To say your vision is narrow is a tad enthusiatic.
You depend on meanings to give yourself a sense of control, just as you moved to a remote area or seek solace in space. You live in fear of all you cannot quantify or measure.
I have read many of your comments (and enjoy them), so I am familiar with your politics and lengthiness (remoteness again?). The war is in your inability to state your position with authority, but to meander back and forth, hoping to devise an argument which leaves you comfortable. New ideas appear to upset you or leave you challenged.
Your universe seems rather lonely and small. Why would you want to build walls so high, no one can know you exist? You have invested yourself in a form of scientific thought which may prove very wrong- what then?
In a universe (or multitude of them) filled to the brim with bountiful life, why would you choose to be alone? Especially when you lack the ability to create or effect the one you're in?
Good luck and thanks for all the fish...
You practice a pointless approach. You say the meaning of "sentient" is insufficient, but fail to provide one we can agree upon so we can communicate effectively. For my part, I tried to explain in some detail my attitude so you could understand my points and my position. For your part, you simply throw mud at the common meaning, but provide nothing to help us communicate, understand each other, or engage in deeper analysis or understanding. So there's not much I can do with your reply.
The best approach with confusing terms or terms that have been badly defined by the mainstream, is to avoid the term completely and just say what you mean. I did that in my reply. You come back apparently trying to connect me with scumbags who do not consider black humans to be sentient or human.
Human beings ARE capable of living within the constraints of their environment. However, humans are also capable of being grossly irresponsible with their environment. Given those two facts, you should distinguish humans who are, and are not capable of living responsibly within the constraints of their environment, and those who are not. Don't just lump everyone into one category... that's completely disingenuous, not to mention FALSE. As for "challenging my assumption", which assumption do you mean? When you make statements like these, can you PLEASE understand that I can't read your mind. Explain what you're trying to say.
What do "production quotas" have to do with ANYTHING?
Only a moron or liar would attempt to have only one measure for a "clan based society". But even before that, I would question any assumption that I, you or anyone must live in whatever constitutes a "clan based society". Those terms tend to be completely loaded with unstated premises, so I totally reject them. If you want to say what you mean, then do so. Don't just throw out a term like "clan based society" like that's the fundamental nature of reality or mankind, and the only possible existence, and expect me to accept that. You definitely need to describe what you presume when you start discussions like this, and why you even discuss this topic at all.
Is my vision narrow? Depends on what you mean. Since I'm not a statist or authoritarian, it is clearly not my responsibility to decide for others how to live. As far as I'm concerned everyone should have a basic understanding of the nature of reality and man, choose whatever approaches they desire to live in this universe (that do not harm or enslave others), and then FOCUS on their approach most of the time. To succeed at any non-trivial endeavor requires focus. In other words, to succeed at any non-trivial endeavor (or lifestyle) requires you have a narrow vision for yourself. Which simply means, you can't possible live every kind of lifestyle, in every way, in every place, in every circumstance and environment, etc.
You have a very strange (and sad) sense of life, my friend. I do have control of myself, of my mind, of my environment. Of course I do not have total control, and have no illusions about that. To begin with, I am 100% constrained by the nature of reality, including the nature of myself (which is why I currently work to re-engineer myself to have even more control). I do not depend on meanings to give myself any kind of illusion of control. The only purpose of meanings for me is as a mechanism to encode, remember and recall aspects of reality. To be sure, the more capable my consciousness becomes, the more I can control myself and the reality around me. And of course meanings are part of consciousness, so meanings are necessary. But that's all. Whatever you are trying to imply is wrong and misguided.
I do not live in fear. Where do you come up with this nonsense. I did not live in fear even when I lived in the evil empire. There is a difference between "annoyance" and "fear". Can you comprehend that? But also, some annoyances have nothing to do with human beings... for example: mosquitoes, scorpions, centipedes, congestion, and so forth. You just make stuff up. Why do you do that? I moved in order to live somewhere I enjoy more. Wailea, Maui was a pretty nice place in a great many ways, but where I live now is vastly nicer (given my personal tastes, anyway). To move somewhere to "enjoy more" in no way means I lived in fear in Maui. Where do you get such ideas? Amazing!
You say "I live in fear of all I cannot quantify or measure". Wow, is that ever "far off". I love to explore. I love to go to extremely strange places, many of which most people would be terrified to go. I have flown my tiny little 650 pound airplane all the way across the south pacific and back twice... alone. Do you think I was able to quantify and measure everything in my environment? Hell no! I'm an explorer, and I go places alone that most people would never consider going with experts to guide them. And you imagine I am afraid?
To be sure, I do experience "healthy fear" when appropriate and unavoidable. And I have been in situations where I got afraid before... quite a number of times in fact. But that doesn't stop me from seeking new places, new experiences, new knowledge and understanding. Fear is just part of not staying in one place on this earth, and trying to hide from the universe. That is what most people do, but not what I do. Hell, most people would be terrified to live alone 125km from the nearest human being. I'm not afraid of doing so at all. So... fear does not control me, though I do try to remain prudent and prepared to avoid getting into dangerous situations. So what?
Some people love to be in a human hive, surrounded by other humans. Fine with me, and I don't waste my time trying to label them as psychotic and fearful... I just assume they prefer that kind of life, or are too afraid (or broke) to try anything different. I prefer the opposite. You want to make something out of that? Fine, go ahead. I'm a loner. I like solitude. I like independence. So what? If you don't like that, fine! Don't live that way.
You say...
The war is in your inability to state your position with authority, but to meander back and forth, hoping to devise and argument that leaves you comfortable. New ideas appear to upset you or leave you challenged.
Wow! All I can say is this. If you really have read lots of my messages, then I can't imagine how you get those impressions. You must infer them somehow, but they have to be coming up from your own experiences and thinking, because what you say does not describe me. I'll try to address the points you make.
I have "no inability to state my position with authority". I have stated endless times that "authority" is 100% fiction. How can I have "a position" relative to something that does not exist? I don't. In every issue that contains the concept "authority", my response is to reject authority as fiction. And indeed, I am 100% comfortable with my characterization of "authority" as "pure fiction". Nobody has any authority over me (or you, or anyone), and I have no authority over you (or anyone). End of story. Simple. Clean. And completely precise. Of course, yes indeed many people CLAIM authority over me, you and everyone else. My response to that is simple. They are human predators, and I have made my attitude about human predators quite clear any number of times. And my position is, I will do whatever I choose to avoid them, evade them, thwart them and destroy them if necessary. I am perfectly happy to defend myself from predators of all species when necessary. Of course, I have to take full context into account. I don't drive any more (only fly), but if some cop (definitely a human predator) was to stop me for speeding or something, I won't necessarily kill the scumbag on the spot. My decision is entirely practical, chosen to balance risks versus costs. But what is not a consideration is... what happens to the predator. That's not my concern. Once a predator becomes a predator, I owe them no restraint.
Except for a few hours a night when I read ZH or wander around under the southern Milky Way, I spend all my time creating and seeking and implementing new ideas. So any claim that I fear "new ideas" is completely laughable. Any revulsion to "ideas" that you see from me come from the fact that the ideas are lame, bogus, stupid, insane, absurd, contradictory, self-contradictory or otherwise nonsense. The fact is, almost every idea you see in ZH articles and posts has been spewed out there a billion times before, and I have determined they are BS... or in some cases, valid. I don't fear ideas. How can I fear ideas. The entire notion is absurd! How can a mental state create fear in me?
The universe is my universe. Small? That's for you to decide.
If you knew what TRUE scientific thought was, you could not make your assertion about "scientific thought". The ONLY requirements of "scientific thought" are: complete honesty, plus they must refer to reality (not fantasy). That cannot be wrong. I might draw an inference that isn't correct, but I find out eventually and fix it.
Why would I choose to be alone? Because at least 99.999999% of humans are exceedingly boring and uninteresting, and firmly reject honesty. I have more ability to create and effect my life and environment than anyone I know. I chose where I live. I designed my modular dwelling. I supervised transportation and assembly (and assembled portions myself). I built my greenhouses. I planted my food crops. I installed the solar panels and battery system myself, and even designed and built (soldered) my own DC-to-DC and DC-to-AC converters. So you tell me how many people are more capable to create and life and environment. Where you get your impressions, I have no idea. Maybe you just make them up. Given that I live in self-sufficient digs, and could survive the rest of my life without ANY external input from other humans, what you say rings exactly opposite of true. Unless you're talking about something else entirely, which I doubt.
BTW, I do enjoy simplicity. I do tend to examine every possibility I can in any domain, but then I do tend to choose my favored situation, and adopt it, and avoid clutter. I hate clutter. Some people love clutter. But just because I hate clutter (physical and intellectual), doesn't mean I am doomed to a narrow life. It means I looked at every possibility I could find, chose what enjoy most, and... enjoy it this way. If you and others love chaos and pointless uncontrolled chaos, more power to you. That's not my cup of tea.
That was hilarious and kind of crazy. Must be tough having been born part of the human race. So, what are you going to do when you die? Do you have a way to control your energy imprint between universes(realties)? Or are you hoping for the whole cyborg revolution?
You sound extrordinarily competent and self sufficient, but seem to have a wee bit of trouble with social skills. You can shout as long and as loud as you want, it won't fill the void. Like all of us, you fear what you do not understand and you don't understand people. You can't trust. You can't build something with another towards a common goal as a permanent unit within a greater unit.
You cannot control your universe, because it is chaos. Too many variables. Heck, you don't even understand the use of authority in a sentence outside your single determination. You want to blame a lack of communication on definitions, when language has multiple shades and sitations which help us know which definition is correct. You can solder ac/dc connections, but not bridge them in a conversation.
So, start being honest with yourself, recognize what you are good at and what you aren't. Make a list. Now, it's alright if your list has things on it you aren't good at, it's called being human. Oh, and the only way you rate being the only interesting human in the world is a brobdingnagian case of narcissism. Nothing is more boring than that.
Sounds like you have a lot to contribute, I hope we don't have to miss it.
Feel free to judge me crazy. Why should I care? You provide zero evidence to even hint at anything that supports your viewpoint. And if you did, I would thank you, work to integrate your insight into my consciousness, and take whatever actions were appropriate.
What will I do when I die? Nothing, because I won't exist. However, I spend most of my time working on a collaborative project that might make it possible for me to exist forever. Literally. In that case, there will be no "after I die". But if we don't finish that part of our project in time, I will cease to exist when I die. Sure, the atoms that were part of me will still exist, just as they existed before I existed. But I will no longer exist. My identity (which is me) will no longer exist. And that will be that. Nothing more to say about that.
I have no idea what you mean by "my energy imprint". If you mean "my identity" (which is pretty much the same as "my consciousness" in most contexts), then "my identity" will vanish from existence when I die. If we finish enough of our project in time, then I (meaning "my identity" and "my consciousness") will become 100% inorganic, be copied, "backed-up", and I will no longer be subject to death. My components will be modular, so any can be replaced when they wear out or break, and the entirety of "my identity" == "my consciousness" will be backed-up regularly. If something goes wrong and I am destroyed, my failure to perform the next scheduled backup will cause the previously stored version of "my identity" to be loaded into another inorganic being (robot if you wish), and I will exist again. Of course, I will "lose" the last hour or day or whatever is the backup interval, but I can live with that. Like the pun? Hahaha.
You sure are correct about my lack of social skills. Being a loner pretty much all my life means I didn't have much practice at social skills, but the primary reason for my lack of social skills is... honesty. Humans HATE honesty. It is impossible to simultaneously be rigorously honest... and have [what the vast majority of humans consider] "social skills". And so I made my choice. I prefer to be honest with myself ABOVE ALL ELSE. Probably as a consequence, I consider the dishonesty required of "social skills" to be repulsive and distasteful, and so I am perfectly happy to forego "social skills" to retain honesty. Since the vast majority of humans are lame, banal, boring, insane, and grossly dishonest and disingenuous... I don't feel I miss much by foregoing humans and whatever "social skills" they prefer me to practice. I'd have to become dishonest, and I have no interest in that, only repulsion.
Having said that, I have met a [very] few human beings who are exceeding impressive, rational, creative and honest. And guess what? They don't mind my lack of "social skills" at all, because they too prefer honesty. Works for me, and I have no need for multitudes of fake "friends". What value or purpose would they serve anyway?
Oh, I understand humans very well. Why? Because the core portion of the project I'm working on is smarter than human "inorganic consciousness". Which means, I understand the nature of [valid] consciousness quite clearly and thoroughly. And so, I also recognize abuses and malfunctions of consciousness... which is what most humans do most of the time. So, to that extent, I do understand humans quite well. I'm not afraid of humans, I just don't want to have anything to do with them (except the few exceptionally honest and insightful ones). As an aside, there are a great many other things in reality that don't interest me too. So what? I don't have the time for every detail in the universe, including banal human trivia. That is completely different from not understanding them. I avoid them because I do understand them. And you know what? I'm willing to bet there are quite a few human beings you prefer to avoid too. Admit it! :-) Same here, except I prefer to avoid even more of them than you.
Why do you keep repeating the claim that "I fear what I do not understand"? Seriously, where does that notion come from? Do you fear everything you do not understand? I doubt it... but maybe you do. Where does the idea that anyone (not just me) should fear everything they don't understand? That's such an extraordinary idea to me... I'm just trying to figure out where you get such a notion.
Yes, you are correct. I cannot trust human beings. By which I mean, I cannot trust 99.99999% of human beings (plus or minus a few). Of the human beings I have known, there are only two or three that I can completely trust. But even that has limits. I mean I can trust them to not try to harm me or screw me up. It doesn't mean I can trust them to never make an accidental mistake that might impact me somehow. But then again, I can't trust myself to never make any mistakes, so the practical significance of that tiny tweak seems almost irrelevant to anything practical. But yes, of course I cannot trust most humans. After all, virtually all human beings are insane. Blatantly insane. Clinically insane. And insane in the single most fundamental possible way... namely, unable to distinguish what exists from what does not exist. Because I've come to clearly understand the nature of valid, healthy [smarter than human] consciousness, I am clearly aware that most humans are radically insane. So, seriously. Don't you think I'd have to be completely stupid to trust radically insane beings (human or otherwise)? Of course I would. So given what I know, I must not trust humans. And so I don't.
Well, you're almost correct to say that "I can't build something with another towards a common goal as a permanent unit within a greater unit". Given the fact that I am only interested in extremely advanced projects at this point in my life, there is no possibility that I can collaborate with the vast majority of human beings [to do anything I care about]. Well, except very simple things, like buy a bag of onions from a roadside farmer stand. Or get someone to fix something I'd rather not fix myself. Or something simple like that.
But as you see, I am able to collaborate with a few people who are just as smart as me, just as advanced as me in the field I'm working on, and [apparently] just as honest as me [when it comes to anything technical]. We are indeed building things, very advanced things (inorganic consciousness even smarter than you or me).
I'd be a bit careful with that term "greater". Just because I collaborate with others doesn't make us "a collective" in any meaningful sense. We are individuals, and we collaborate, and we all benefit because all of us want the results of what all of us accomplish (which we share). What you intend to gain by attempting to classify us a "collective" or "society" I am not sure. But it doesn't matter. We're simply individuals sharing the work we do (all of which is designed to work together to create a result we can all enjoy).
You make a mistake regarding "control". This is analogous to a mistake most people make about "knowledge". They simply equate "knowledge" with "omniscience"... then notice that "knowledge is impossible" because humans do not have the capacity for omniscience. Well, they're half right. Humans do not have the capacity for omniscience. But the assumption they start with is wrong and misguided (and promoted by authoritarian predators to confuse people and thereby intellectually disable them).
Just in the same way "knowledge" is not "omniscience"... "control" does not mean "total, absolute, infinitely precise control of every last aspect of reality". To create such a meaning is to... make any control impossible. It renders then entire point of "control" meaningless. And that's what promoters of the meaning of "control" that you adopted wanted. They want us to be intellectually disabled. They want us to think, "since we cannot control anything [to infinite precision and extent], then we might as well not try to control anything, anywhere, ever, for any purpose at all.
Well, screw them! I know the sensible, utilitarian meaning of "control", and I know the limits of how much control I can have (at least somewhat). And like everything else, I live with whatever I have, try to improve it, but don't just "give up" because I am not omniscient (knowledge) and omnipotent (control).
So my answer is, you bet I can control the universe. I sure can. Not the whole universe, only teenie, tiny little pieces. And not every aspect of the universe, only a few aspects [at once] (and only those I can detect). Sure, that's less than "total control of everything", but then again, I never had any delusion of having total control or infinitely precise control or even knowing what every possible aspect of every possible consequences is. I can live with that limitation. You know why? Because that's the best I can do. But that is NOT nothing (as you claim). That is something.
I cannot bridge insanity with sanity. You got that right. Why? Because I will not allow insanity into my "beliefs", and most humans will do almost anything to prevent sanity and honesty from seeping into their consciousness, because it threatens their entire deluded worldview at its core. They know, they'd have to become as asocial as me if they start to be honest about the nature of reality, the nature of mankind, the nature of consciousness, and the nature of the endless fictions they take seriously every day.
I am 100% clear that if I accept false premises, every mental process that follows will be wrong, defective, irrational and potentially very, very dangerous. So my typical approach is to find the first (most fundamental) error in any topic (like "authority"), and NOT accept it and "run with it" like the other person wants, but instead say, "hey, authority is a fiction, and so everything else you say based upon that term is completely bogus". Oh, I understand "shades". And I understand that sometimes "shades" are legitimate and necessary. But I also know that a great many times people attempt fraud by means of "shades", and usually get away with it, because other people don't realize how they're being manipulated. I know better. Like any other human, the capacity of my consciousness is limited. And so, I know very well, if I let any falseness or inappropriate "shades" accumulate in any topic, I'll lose track, and become subject to manipulation by expert intellectual predators. So I don't. Screw them. I'd rather stop any fraud at the first step, and avoid attempts to untangle infinitely convoluted tangles of lies and contradictions after they're too chaotic to process.
The universe is not chaos. Just the opposite. The universe is simple. However, there are astronomical numbers of atoms and molecules and electromagnetic waves flying around all the time, even in tiny little corners of reality. And so yes, in the sense of "large numbers" you could call that chaos. But in the fundamental sense, almost everything happening everywhere is mostly just "electromagnetic radiation", "protons", "neutrons" and "electrons". And even those last three particles only combine into a few variations each of 92 or so elements/atoms (a few more under extraordinary circumstances). The number of molecules is fairly large (at least compared to human capacity for recollection), but still "not that many" when you consider the size and scope of the universe. So what I'm saying is, I understand the chaos you speak of is actually composed of overlapping configurations of a relatively manageable number of configurations (atoms/etc), and for most purposes I care about most of the time, I can cope with that complexity. And so, I can function fairly effectively even in "this chaos" you speak of. It may be overwhelming for most people, but I can cope with it well enough to move forward and accomplish what I wish to accomplish.
I know what I'm good at and not good at. The list of things I am good at is vastly shorter than the list of things I am terrible at. Much shorter! And that's okay. Like I said before, I'm okay with that, because I understand my capacity is limited, and the only way to achieve truly extraordinary results is to focus on a limited part of reality [at a time]. That plus hopefully collaborate with others who have strengths that I don't.
If I'm a "brobdingnagian case of narcissism", we should figure out what to call someone who makes up claims that don't exist, so we can have a label for you.
What do I mean? You converted my claim that "people are uninteresting" into a claim that I believe "I am interesting". How did you do that? Where did I claim that I am interesting? You see, your conclusion DOES NOT FOLLOW. This seems to happen with you very often.
To invent a simple example you can understand, it works like this. If I say, "That guy is a terrible golfer"... you automatically assume that means that I claim "I am the best golfer in the history of mankind". Can you see that THAT DOES NOT FOLLOW? I said NOTHING about whether I even know how to golf, much less claim anything about how good or bad I am. I only claimed to recognize someone else was bad at golf.
Do you see the problem? You appear to make this mistake often and regularly (at least with me). Just to be clear, I assume I am extremely uninteresting. No, worse than that. I assume I am revoltingly uninteresting (to all but a few people). You know why? Because "people can't handle the truth" (at Jack Nicholson might say), and so they are revolted by anyone who regularly states the truth, especially confidently, and most especially in ways that are so clear and irrefutable that they don't know how to even begin to respond. And so, you see that your technique is not only defective, it tends to lead you to assume the exact opposite of what is real or true.
I'm not sure what narcissism is, but like many terms, it is probably grossly oversimplified by its nature (or at least in common conversation). I do think I am very advanced in a few fields. Yes I do, and I worked long and diligently to get that way. But like I said, I also think I am extremely ignorant and unskilled in the vast majority of fields or abilities. And I also think what I am interested in (and good at) are topics that most people consider utterly boring, and will consider me a complete doofus for having such terrible "social skills" (or should I say "no social skills"). So. Is that narcissism? I sure don't know, because I don't worry about such things. I am what I am because I work on what I'm interested in. That's all that matter to me. How others evaluate a wacko like me... I don't care. I'm sure that makes me "self-centered". Does that also make me "narcissistic"? I'll let you decide. I don't care, because whatever I am, that's what I want to be. Well, except immortal. And I'm working on that. Fortunately, you will miss the results, because we are quite clear we cannot reveal our results to the world. We know what would happen to us. Attack. Kill. Steal. Build super-duper-smarter-weapons with our technology. We won't let that happen, and wont be part of anything like that. And so, we'll just vanish into outer space someday, hopefully without anyone even noticing. Then you and the rest of your culture can breed whatever crazy notions you wish in the petri dish called "earth". We'll make do with the rest of the universe.
I never said you were crazy, just challenged the consistency of your arguments within your response.
So, what's up with honesty? Why is that particular quality so important, above all others? You could have chosen compassion or charity, but you have latched on to honesty. Honesty can be brutal at the wrong time or in the wrong amounts.
Watch a lot of stand alone complex? (by the way, you have already given out enough information to be tracked down, not to mention that people with your skills are tracked early on). So, if you are working on military spec tech, you aren't thinking that through.
What have we done to cause you to turn your back on humanity? We all live with the horror and repetitious destructiveness of man, but we also know the magnamity of humans and possibilities which exist for something better, as well as the reality where we work to create it.
Would not your contribution be significant?
Is there no place for love in your equation?
You're trying very hard to convince yourself. The more you write, the aggressiveness of the language, the determination to be "right". Sounds like something hurt you very badly. Betrayed you. Cut you deeply, to the core of whom you are.
Here are two qualities you might consider: acceptance and forgiveness. The first implies honesty without rules. The second heals the transgressions we all commit against one another. Humans have a remarkable capacity for healing.
Without honesty as a fundamental characteristic, anything goes. It should be obvious that a human can justify absolutely anything if they are dishonest. Honesty is also the path to sanity, since obviously sanity is most fundamentally consistency between reality and mental content. In other words, honesty leads to sanity, and dishonesty leads to insanity. Of course, even completely honest and sane individuals can still make unintentional mental mistakes, but honesty and sanity are pre-requisites to effective and successful behavior.
When I say "honesty is crucial", primarily I refer to "honesty with self". Honesty with others is also very important, but not as fundamental (because being honest with self is what tends to make one sane). Of course some people who just like to cause trouble or be disingenuous invent absurd contrived situations to demonstrate why honesty with others is not always the best policy. For example, if the jack-booted thugs show up at your front door and ask where your brother is, the appropriate reply is a lie like "at the mall" rather than be honest, point down the hall and say "second door on the left". In other words, you are better of not being honest to human predators when being honest will lead to bad consequences.
Nonetheless, in 99% of cases where "regular people" claim dishonesty is wise, I disagree. Which is why parents never wanted me near kids, because I told them the truth (which kids love, but parents hate). Typical parents want kids to be completely brainwashed into believing endless fantasies, so they are completely disabled intellectually when they become adults (and get served up to the predators-that-be and assorted other predators).
I'm not sure what "brutal case" you have in mind, but when in doubt, the middle ground may be best. Namely, shut up (don't lie, don't tell the truth).
But again, virtually everywhere I say "honesty", I refer to "honesty with self". Never allow self to accept nonsense. Never lie to self because that's what society wants you to believe, and you'll be rejected if you don't accept and comply. If you do that, you destroy your own consciousness. I'm quite certain that's not wise.
Our collaboration is 100% private. We have avoided getting ANY funding from government or corporations precisely to avoid letting the results of our project fall into malevolent hands. This has cost us a lot in terms of time, effort and hassle, but the consequences of letting predators control this technology would be... well... you can kiss mankind goodbye in very short order if they had our technology.
I don't think you can find me. And I don't think NSA or other big-time predators can find me either. Even if they did, everyone in the collaboration is dispersed, and they'd never find them. Furthermore, all my electronic communications are relayed multiple times, with some steps being through relay hardware I installed. Nothing is completely foolproof, of course. But also, the big shots are not likely to even believe we have the technology we do. They believe enormous funding is required to achieve something like this. In this case, they're wrong, and that's fine with us. And when we're done, we will not be commercializing the technology. We won't need to, either. But we will be leaving the planet (if you understand the nature of the so-called "singularity", you'll understand why we'll be able to do that).
I only turn my back on the 99.999999% (or so) of mankind who are dishonest, insane and corrupt. They're nothing but trouble, and I owe them nothing. To the few really honest, ethical, productive and benevolent beings on this planet, I tip my hat and say hello. And if I can help them at some point, I will.
By the nature of our technology, we cannot contribute to humanity. I explained why. Any predator who had our technology would rule earth in a matter of weeks. And so we cannot release it. We may release some spin off technologies that aren't dangerous, as long as it doesn't expose what we're doing [before we're off this planet and safe from assault by human predators].
I love what deserves to be loved. One reason to be honest and insightful is... to know what not love (that which is destructive and/or phony).
I'm not trying to convince myself of anything. That's precisely what honesty is... to never TRY to convince self of anything, but only openly and actively look at everything, and understand as best as we can. What you call "aggressiveness" of language is simply clarity and confidence. I'm not confused, so I don't fuzz or equivocate.
Sure, I've been betrayed. So have most people. And so I took an appropriate and effective response. That's simply rational. And also, that leaves me happy, because I'm not hassled by disingenuous morons and human predators all the time like most people are. My life now is more peaceful and happy than most human beings could possibly imagine in their wildest dreams. So as usual, you have me pegged exactly backwards.
No, I will not forgive predators. There's no point. They are outside ethics, and deserve nothing from me. I accept almost everything, as in "live and let live". Humans are free to do whatever they want as far as I'm concerned, as long as they don't target me for harm or destruction. Honest mistakes? People who make honest mistakes don't even need my forgiveness, because they did nothing wrong.
So, becoming god through technology? What will the singularity need you for? VIKI had everything figured out as well...
What good is immortality if you lose yourself within its' confinement?
Hope it all works out for you. I'll stick with organics.
Do you think being immortal means you are god? If so, then I guess a lot of good old-fashion rocks floating around in deep space are "god". Interesting meaning you have for "god". If that's not your meaning, what are you talking about?
Both organic and inorganic beings are made of the same atoms/elements. So why is it such a big deal whether a being is organic or inorganic? I see a few (but only a few) advantages of being organic, and a great many advantages of being inorganic. One of the most important is the following. Organic systems are very holistic (massively interconnected) so they cannot be repaired as simply as replacing independent components. In contrast, [well designed] inorganic systems are typically composed of modular components which can be removed and replaced with new components. So when components wear or break, those components can easily be removed and replaced. Or when new and better components are developed, existing components can be replaced with better upgrades. To do that with an organic system would require you reprogram all the DNA in the creature... an exceedingly difficult prospect.
What will the singularity need me for? That question has so many answers that I can't possibly answer here. So I'll just make a few short comments to give a taste. One answer is this. We who create the singularity will benefit from every scientific and engineering advance the singularity produces, just as every inorganic being that is part of the singularity benefits from every scientific and engineering advance we organics make (and have made in the process of creating these beings).
What may not be clear to you, and is not clear to a sadly huge percentage of mankind, is that honest, ethical, productive, benevolent, independent beings gain very much from voluntary collaboration with other honest, ethical, productive, benevolent, independent beings (whether they are organic or inorganic). Perhaps the simplest way to address this issue is to ask you this question. If you were a scientist-engineer, and you wanted to develop and then enjoy enormously advanced environments and systems, would you rather collaborate with 1000 other equally talented and diligent others like you, or have to do all the work yourself (which would take at least 1000 times as long, and may require far more resources than you could muster)? The answer is obvious to those of us who are honest, ethical, productive, benevolent individuals. Part of this phenomenon is sometimes called "division of labor" in normal lingo. Note that all 1000 collaborators gain all the knowledge and advanced systems developed by themselves... and the other 999 collaborators. In other words, we all win, and win big. Let humans fight and destroy each other, we'll be happy to collaborate and produce vastly superior environments, systems and devices. And, of course, those of us who are "organic consciousness entities" will become "inorganic conscious entities"... and thus immortal.
Sometimes I think "average folks" understand how glorious our future will be about as well as bacteria understand how glorious human existence could be (if humans would stop being so self destructive).
What confinement do you speak of? Do you have any idea how much LESS confining it will be once we become inorganic? I guess not. But just for example, would you consider yourself more or less "confined" if you had a sci-fi "transporter" device similar to StarTrek that let you transport yourself to anywhere on earth in a split second? Hopefully you'd say you are "less confined" (but who knows, because you never define or describe the meanings you assign to your terms). Well, once we're inorganic we can be radically less confined than any human. Why? Because what is any of us, after all (whether organic/human or inorganic)? We are input sensors (to see, to hear, to smell, to taste, to feel by touch). We are consciousness. We are conscious content (records of our previous experiences and thoughts). And we are manipulators/robotics (reach out and poke, prod, lift, push, pull, pick-up, turn-over, walk, run, hop, and otherwise move and manipulate ourselves and the environment around us).
If you are organic, and you want to do something 4000km away, what do you do? You make plans, buy airplane tickets, take flights, drive to destination... then see and do whatever you wanted.
If you are inorganic, you simply switch your input sensors to sets of input sensors 4000km away (or wherever you want to be), and you see, hear and experience that environment and location exactly as if "you" were there physically and personally. And if you want to do something there, you simply switch your output to whatever sets of robotics exist at that location, and manipulate as if you were there physically and personally. So for any practical purposes, "you" can actually BE anywhere you want in a matter of a microsecond or so. Where the computer that IS your brain happens to be doesn't matter. You can be anywhere you want, whenever you want. How "confined" is that? Certainly less confined than anyone you've ever met, I'm quite sure of that. But that's just the tip of the iceberg in fact. You can be many places simultaneously. You can be in Chicago, Paris and on a spacecraft orbiting earth... simultaneously (for any practical purposes).
At first, there seem to be limits to this "greatly reduced confinement" due to the speed of light. For example, if you want to be "on the moon", the finite nature of the speed of light means sensory signals take over 1/2 second to reach your brain (on earth), and any signals you send to perform manipulation of the environment on the moon take over 1/2 second to reach there. So... that's a significant limitation to speed, though not confinement. And if you want to explore mars or further reaches of the solar system, this limitation is even more severe, since the speed of light takes several minutes or more to reach mars (or reach earth from mars).
However, we have developed some advanced systems to effectively eliminate these delays (in most senses). Some of these techniques are seriously amazing, so amazing that when I originally learned of them I said "that's impossible" before they explained to me how their techniques work (at which point I slapped my forehead because they're so simple once you understand). Most of these techniques are proprietary so I can't tell you about them, but I'll tell you one trivial example to give you a taste of how life gets better when you're inorganic (purely as a practical matter).
First, remember in this conversation that "you" are the computer that is your brain, which means, the computer that contains the content of your consciousness, and performs the processes that are your consciousness. Okay, so "you" decide to explore mars (or build a structure on mars, or do anything else on mars). So, for example, you see a canyon up ahead, and you want to walk over there and look around (and, of course, look at the rocks and everything along the way). So you send a signal to the appropriate robotics on mars (probably a vehicle, but for fun, let's assume a humanoid robot that walks) to "walk to that canyon up ahead". Now you have to wait for perhaps 30 minutes (10 minutes for your signal to reach mars, 10 minutes to walk over to the canyon, and 10 minutes for video from the robot to get back to earth). BORING. This is the problem imposed by "speed of light" (and "speed of walking and looking around at everything along the way too, of course). While this is enormously more efficient than traveling to mars to explore (years of delay), the delays are still annoyingly boring.
But wait (says some random creative thinker in our collaboration), we can mostly solve this problem. How? Invent some super-duper advanced "faster than light" communication technology? We wish! But no, something much simpler. Instead, we send signals to 10 robots on mars to walk to 10 different potentially interesting locations. We still have to wait 30 minutes before the first signals to return, so we can observe and experience those 10 explorations on the way to those 10 places. Hopefully we have something else to do for the next 30 minutes (we always have plenty to do).
But consider what happens once the return signals start to arrive. For the next 10 minutes we observe the 10 minute trip robot #1 made (looking at rocks and geology along the way). Once we've watched that 10 minute trip (which includes an automatic "looking around in every direction" at the end of its walk), we sent that robot #1 instructions for where to explore next, like "walk along the rim of that crater over there". We can now process the 10 minute trip of robot #2, then give next instructions to robot #2. We can now process the 10 minute trip of robot #3, then give next instructions to robot #3. And so forth. The point being, we aren't waiting any more. Transmission delays in both directions still exist, and the "speed of walking" still exists, and each robot still has the same 30 minute round-trip delay... but we don't ever have to wait any more. We always have far more input arriving than we can process in real time. We might try to process the information from every robot at higher than normal speed, but our consciousness isn't infinitely fast either, so we can only carry that so far without risking missing important discoveries or information.
This shows one way to eliminate [most of] the consequences of the speed of light, which makes it possible and practical to extend our "confinement" from "just the earth environment" to "the solar system" (or at least, those places in the solar system we've send our "robots" (input sensors plus robotics manipulator devices).
I'm sure you noticed this technique is very cool, but does have some limitations too. For example, what if robot #7 saw some very amazing rock half way to his destination? Obviously robot #7 would just keep on walking, not pick up the rock, not turn it over and look at all sides, not measure its mass, and so forth. That's a bummer, because we really want to examine that rock, but we've already walked 5 miles beyond the rock.
As it turns out, we have ways to eliminate those [and other] limitations too, but now we're getting into technology that we hold as confidential, so I can't describe them here.
Yes, you stick with organics. That's our plan. You and virtually everyone else. Only a few of us will be becoming inorganic and immortal, leaving earth, and becoming independent of mankind. We definitely do not advocate our endeavor for anyone but the vanishingly tiny number of humans who immediately understand and totally favor our vision for themselves (and have talent [or funds] to help us finish). We're totally happy to keep this for ourselves, and for practical purposes that I mentioned previously, doing so is also a practical necessity.
No, I think immortal means immortal. Probably the most boring existence I could imagine. While I accept I am immortal, I have a feeling the organic process is infinitely more interesting than living in a single universe could ever be. The more I understand technology, the less important it becomes.
Like the machines you hope to emmulate, you become what you desire.
Like all religions, you have been made to feel special. One of a select group of pioneers whom will be first to experience the glories of the new creation. Evolution via mechancs is just a bigger, faster machine. There is no evolution of the spirit.
Fascinated by the exploration of a rock? On Mars? Very impressive. Process valued above product.
The problem with intelligence is its' allure, its' argument for its' priority. It is what blinds us to whole of creation and the characteristics that inhablit various levels presented to us. Like your inability to recognize the sentience of animals or bacteria, you choose technology and embrace ignorance.
I am not remotely interested.
Honestly, I think you're a smart guy. Not kidding. But you make far more false assumptions when you respond to my messages than anyone else ever has. And believe me, that's saying something! Okay, where to begin.
Being immortal is no more or less boring than being mortal. The situation is identical. If you are mortal or immortal, you can be like the great majority of humans who have no passion for exploring or understanding the nature of reality, and reconfigure reality into endless very cool configurations that we can enjoy. Or, you can be one of the minority who does have that passion. Moral or immortal, organic or inorganic, you can be either type.
The difference are the following. If you are inorganic, you do not suffer the cruel, painful, involuntary necessity of being cut off from your ability to pursue your passion long before you can advance very far. Since you do not become old, frail, pained, disabled and senile, you can pursue your passion as far as you wish. If you eventually get bored, and cannot find anything new that interests you, fine. If you want you could choose to die (which simply means giving your physical self over to some other consciousness that does still have hopes, dreams and passions), or you can simply set your internal timers to 10 or 100 or 1000 years, go to sleep, and let your timers wake you up periodically. Then you can look around, see if anything at that time is interesting, and if so, pursue it. Otherwise, go back to sleep.
The point of being inorganic is... you have these and other options. The disadvantage of being organic is... you do not have those options (unless you become inorganic). So, if you prefer to get old, frail, disabled, senile and die, no problem. Stay organic. More power to you. We don't care, and we're certainly not trying to encourage anyone to want to be inorganic either, because we're only interested in having those with great talents and passion for exploration in our future.
There is only one universe. This is completely obvious, because the meaning of "universe" is everything. So, no matter what is the totality of reality, the notion that "reality is more interesting than only one universe" is an blatant, inherent first-order self-contradiction.
It may surprise you to learn that I agree with you that the vast majority of technology is boring, boring, boring. In may ways, most technologies are similar to fads and popular styles. They don't really add anything important, they only become popular because humans are sheeple-chimps and easily programmed by media. However, a few new advances in science, engineering and technology are fundamental, extraordinary and have great potential. Those few cases definitely interest us, because they give us new capabilities that would otherwise be impossible. Sadly, most "advances" are just "look new", but do not deliver [much of] anything significant.
We are not emulating anything. Our inorganic conscious entities ARE real implementations of real beings and real consciousness. NOTHING is emulated. There is a significant [to huge] difference between emulated and implemented in most contexts, including ours.
We are atheists. To claim we are a religion is silly. Us organics came to exist by random natural processes of the universe, and evolved into human organics by evolution. We do not believe anything on faith, and we do not believe in any "supreme being" or anything even remotely like that. We simply observe that reality exists, and try to learn as much about that reality as we can. To call that "religion" is absurd in the extreme, because it is, in fact, the diametric opposite.
Do we "feel special"? Gee, what does that mean? Seriously. Consider someone who works diligently for years to improve their game of tennis or golf. After 15 years of this, they win some big tournament. Do they feel "special"? Probably so, because tennis is important to them, and they achieved some goal on the path to improving their skills in the field they love. Do you imagine they should NOT feel "special" in their small personal way? I don't think you're that craven. I hope you're not that craven. Well, do we feel "special" when we achieve our goals, along our long term path to even more advanced goals? Well, I don't think "special" captures the feeling very well in our case, but we sure are happy and pleased about the important advances we make. So perhaps that's pretty close to "feeling special". On the other hand, we also know we are special in the sense that we are doing things nobody else knows how to do. But that's just the technical meaning of "special", meaning "something [close to] unique". And to us, given our goals, values and interests, our advances are more significant to us that, say... you, or anyone else who prefers to suffer the many downsides of being organic. We don't disparage "being organic", we simply recognize the huge number of advantages of being inorganic, and so we pursue that. It is you who disparages one of the two options, namely being inorganic. And that's fine with us. Believe what you wish, and value what you wish.
You seem to imagine being inorganic just makes us "bigger and faster", but does not let us expand our "spirit". However, if you have been thinking just a bit about what I've been saying, you'd realize that our primary reason for becoming inorganic ourselves is to make possible for us to expand our "spirit" indefinitely, and vastly beyond where any organic can expand their "spirit".
We do not blame organics for their limitation. Indeed we feel very sorry for them (and for ourselves too if we die before we complete our final implementation). It isn't the fault of organics that they are constructed the way they are... they just came to exist and evolve that way via random processes and the nature of reality. In fact, I suspect us inorganic will forever experience awe towards organics, because we recognize how incredibly rare and perhaps even improbable the origin and development of organics in an inorganic universe was. One reason we feel this way is because we cannot see any way inorganic consciousness could ever exist without the intermediate phase of organic beings, and then eventually advanced organic consciousness. So, we believe [at least so far], the very existence of advanced inorganic consciousness fundamentally requires and depends upon the existence and development of organic consciousness. Of course, this admiration for the obvious potential of organic consciousness is also what tends to make us disgusted at how utterly 99.999999% of human organic consciousnesses totally waste their capabilities. This is sickening! And if you want to revisit that issue of "special", let me say this. We very much do consider the 0.000001% of humans who are honest and make as much as they can of their consciousness to be very, very special --- regardless of what fields of study and endeavors they value and pursue. To the extent we have "heroes", they are our heroes.
I can't tell whether you're trying to be disingenuous on purpose, or you simply honestly miss my points by accident. I have the specific example of exploring martian geology because it was the easiest I could think of at the moment to illustrate a fundamental technology that in turn enables inorganic beings to be "less confined" than organic beings. In other words, I simply picked a case that was "easiest to describe", not one designed to impress you or anyone else. The point you were supposed to understand (assuming you made an honest attempt) was to show that being inorganic can make the pursuit of ANY goal (and I guess that's what you mean by "product") vastly more efficiently than being constrained by the nature of organics.
By the way, you may also have noticed that a great many inorganic systems also allow human beings to vastly extend the range of their "confinement". An inorganic leg for someone who cannot walk. Inorganic vision for someone who cannot see. And even that example I described could be applied to an organic human consciousness on earth, though the human could not get as much benefit as an inorganic being (who can freely and instantly multiplex its attention to dozens if not thousands of simultaneous endeavors without confusion).
I have to agree with you that organics in general, and humans in specific are not very good at "seeing the full context of reality", which I infer is what you're talking about in your last long paragraph. Personally we hate the common meanings for "intelligence", precisely for the same reason you seem to --- those common meanings are insanely limited. The common meanings of that term are so horrible in fact, we try to avoid the term (which sometimes is difficult). However, we agree with your apparent desire to explore as many levels and aspects and variations of the nature of reality as we can possibly detect and comprehend (to any extent). The fact of the matter is, if we were not extremely talented at noticing, identifying, exploring, comprehending and taking advantage of previous unknown aspects of reality, we would never have been able to create smarter than human inorganic consciousness in the first place. So, you get no argument from us. But you seem to imagine an inorganic being cannot pursue diverse aspects and levels of reality. I don't know why. Perhaps you should be a bit more modest in your claims about the nature and capabilities of inorganic consciousness until you actually have at least a little knowledge and understanding of that topic.
You say we do not recognize the sentience of bacteria. I think you (or we) are simply getting hung up on terminology here. In fact, we distinguish three levels of consciousness:
- sensory consciousness
- perceptual consciousness
- [abstract] conceptual consciousness
We recognizes all three as levels consciousness. What we obviously don't agree upon is whether "sentient" is simply a synonym for "conscious", or whether "sentient" is a characteristic that only beings with conceptual consciousness can exhibit. We tend to adopt [something close to] the more conventional meaning of "sentient", which cannot be experienced without conceptual consciousness. However, I will say, the meaning of the term "sentient" has some degree of fuzziness (meaning we don't know exactly what is the most effective, utilitarian meaning of "sentient" all things considered), so we sometimes look at animals that are generally considered to only have "perceptual consciousness" and say to ourselves (and each other) that "those animals do sorta appear to be slightly sentient too". I will add, these animals are also animals that one could make a case for having rudimentary conceptual consciousness, so perhaps the fuzziness is mostly due to our inability to experience "dog" or "gorilla" consciousness for ourselves, so we have a real basis to resolve our imprecision.
You really don't understand us. You simply assume we're like the vast majority of "narrow minded scientists" that inhabit this planet. I suppose that's a reasonable default position lacking any specific information about us, but you come across as incredibly narrow minded when presented with specific information about our endeavor. Apparently you see no signs we are different. Well, this just goes to show that you are guilty of the "sin" you love to throw at others. You ignore evidence. You make no attempt to see what "levels" might exist in me or our endeavor. You make the typical mistake of racists, sexists, religious fanatics and endless types of authoritarians and simply assert we are simple-minded fools who know nothing but embrace ignorance.
I don't want to offend, but the evidence here is clear. It is you who embrace ignorance by ignoring and/or [purposely] misconstruing everything I say. If you go back and look at this serious of posts, you will see endless (almost completely uniform) cases where you simply assert our nature without evidence. You may have evidence from previous experience that most people interested in science, engineering and technology have very narrow, limited and unwarranted viewpoints, but if you assume we are the same as your "mental model", it is you who have confined your own intellect to your past assumptions, it is you who simply classify us into a stereotype rather than consider the evidence before you (and ask for more). Look at your replies. You don't ask me anything. You assert endlessly that "I am this" and "I am that". That is the pattern of your messages, for me and you and everyone to see. I hope you can learn from that. If you cannot leave yourself open to other "ideas", to other "levels", to other "attitudes", and to anything and anyone on the basis of their actual characteristics (rather than your preconceived stereotypes), you will have confined yourself more thoroughly than anyone or anything else. You will remain blind to the reality in front of your face. Which reminds me of a soundbite the originator of our endeavor created twenty some years ago:
Sanity is seeing what's in front of your face, and not seeing what isn't.
I hope you're smart enough and reflective enough to take the time to deconstruct at least one of the 3 meanings of that soundbite (multiple entendre). I'll give you a simple hint. The "seeing what's in front of your face" phrase is intended to get you to distinguish your own first-hand experiences from what others tell you via language, and from stereotypes or preconceived notions that you may have previously stored in your consciousness (however and whenever formed).
Notice your closing. You who advocate "embracing all levels" closes with "not remotely interested". How well do you actually understand yourself, I wonder.
This is what I suppose: there are multiple universes which function at different reasonance levels, making them invisible to the physics of "our" universe. Multi-dimensional universes with different laws. Different reasonance levels determine different lifeforms and some are capable of moving between universes.
Perhaps the different universes are creations of different "gods" (see hinduism and eygptology). This line of reasoning functions along the lines of ether and wave construction of molecules and sub-quantum mechanics.
Heck, earth could be nothing more than a greenhouse for other galactic species or transdimensional ones(which gives new meaning to harvests).
While the future interests me, the past is where I sift for clues to why and wherefore. The better I understand paleohistory and archeology, the more I consider genetics, gods as masters and interventions by advanced species. Religions become a means to determine first recollections and explanations stripped of their manipulation and control vectors.
Ultimately, I realize that if energy cannot be created nor destroyed, I have always been and always will be, but in what forms? Further, if a universe can be created, then that law is inadequate to explain creation (why the big bang is seriously deficient regardless of inflation).Of course, all creatures are units of energy, thus they cannot be destroyed or created as well. While their sentience is different from ours, it is obvious through observation. So, why are they here?
This speaks to purpose. Purpose speaks to organization, which leads to what is the organizing principle? Wish I could tell you, but here I am ignorant. What I sense is that my purpose is to be part of an environment in a manner that is neither positive nor negative but cumulative. Animals, bacteria, fungi, are all way ahead of us in this quest. Man is the dumbell.
Technology is a backwater for me. I see no advancement through it, merely more problems. Our failure to understand how nature functions and work in concert with it is our grand failure. This is where I put my energies and they have taught me some important lessons: primarily, there is always a path that works with nature, we just have to find it and accept its' limitations, because those limitations are what contribute to the balance that insures the health of everything. Simple, but complex.
You have gone to great lengths to teach me about your quest. I understood it from the beginning. I just reject its' viability for me personally. For me, it is a shell of immortality. As I attempt to create questions for you, you attempt to enthrall me with technology. It would appear we have both failed. It has been an interesting failure for me.
Well, that's a bit better. The notion of multiple universes with no connections is fantasy. True, some people love the supposed "escape clauses" that quantum physics supposedly provides, but the conventional interpretations of quantum physics are pure rubbish. They are an earlier analog to what AGW is today... intentional rationalization for the purpose of confusing people and gaining unearned respect, control and wealth by appealing to the emotional desires of weak minded fools and their human predator masters. Note that I say "interpretations of quantum physics". I say that because some of quantum physics has merit, while the conventional interpretations are pure self-contradictory nonsense.
To take this a bit further, the notion that different "universes" have no connections, but some magic exists to allow certain creatures to magically move between them stinks to high heaven. That's just another case of pure, emotion-driving wishful-thinking fantasy. And pure nonsense.
But you are at least close to the right track about the fundamental nature of reality. Everything that exists almost certainly seems to be a certain configuration of a single fundamental field. Every so-called subatomic particle is one configuration. Electromagnetic radiation is one configuration. And essentially everything we can directly detect in the universe is simply a configuration of those more fundamental configurations. So indeed, the totality of reality is ONE thing, and everything else (everything we can detect) is simply a configuration of that fundamental field (or configurations of configurations of configurations of that fundamental field). This seems similar to what you're saying, and you're on the right track.
What you say about the past resonates with me, though perhaps not as much as it does for you. From your comments, I'm guessing you must have loved the Stargate SG1 television series. I sure did, it is one of my favorites (though I didn't see it until years later when I downloaded and watched it). It portrays one variation of what you imagine. Wouldn't it be great to be Daniel Jackson and live the life portrayed in SG1 and SGA? Awesome. So yeah, I (and we) can appreciate and enjoy well conceived fiction as much as anyone, but... fiction is fiction.
Well, you know as well as I that energy can be created and destroyed in the sense that the configuration of the fundamental field that we call "matter" can interact (via wave interference) with other configurations of the fundamental field and become that configuration of the fundamental field we call "energy" in the form of electromagnetic radiation. The pure form of this is "matter + antimatter ==> energy". But what you're trying to point at here is probably the statement that "the fundamental field [which everything is a configuration of] cannot be created or destroyed". That is CORRECT. In fact, this is essentially the single most key, core and fundamental principle of what we call science.
If real things can simply pop into existence from nothing (with no precursors == without cause), then the fundamental nature of reality IS magic, and science is a huge mistake. Ditto if real things can simply vanish from existence into nothing. THE central principle of science, when boiled down to the lowest and most fundamental level IS the recognition that the fundamental field is eternal, is never created, and never vanishes... and everything that DOES pop into existence or vanish from existence or change into some other kind of existent... is simply interference [like] effects from overlapping of fundamental field wavefronts. Given this, existents can pop into existence in the sense that the fundamental fields do enter that configuration that we call "this or that existent" (that we can detect, recognize, identify), existents can vanish from existence in the sense that the configuration of the fundamental field changes so certain configurations that we call "this or that existent" cease to exist.
The statement "creatures are units of energy" is grossly misleading. While you can say things like "matter is a certain configuration of energy" with some justification (that's one way to look at the above paragraph), any such statement like that implies the fundamental or essential nature of a creature IS simply units of energy". Well, that's completely wrong. As the previous paragraph explained, any specific existent that we can detect, recognize and identify is some configuration [of configurations [of configurations]] of the fundamental field. That is a far cry from "units of energy", if for no other reason that "configurations" are extremely varied, while "energy" is not (unless by "energy" you mean the fundamental field or these "configurations"). At best your formulation is very misleading. One HUGE mistake you made by holding this misleading meanings for "creature" and/or "energy" is your notion that "creatures cannot be created or destroyed". That is obviously WRONG as wrong can be. Once any configuration of the fundamental field ceases to exist, that configuration in fact ceases to exist (A is A). And since any given "creature" (or any other existent) IS that configuration, that creature or existent does in fact, in fundamental fact, vanish. Of course you are correct to claim the "energy" (in your formulation) or "fundamental field" (in our formulation) continues to exist, because this is our most fundamental of all principles (the most fundamental of all possible conservation principles... the conservation of the fundamental field of which everything is a configuration). Apparently your wish for immortality (while retaining your beloved organic form) has led you to imagine that the creature continues to exist as long as the energy that was its atoms and sub-atomic particles still exists. Sorry, doesn't work that way... which is why speak in terms of "configurations" of the "fundamental field" rather than the single notion "energy" (a flawed approach).
The Big Bang is almost certainly FALSE. This theory is yet another AGW-type fraud. I won't repeat my rant about this topic here again.
Sorry, organization can exist due to purpose, but the natural processes of reality, absent ANY form of consciousness (no matter how trivial or advanced), IS inherently organized, and naturally leads to a great many forms of organization without any organics, creatures or consciousness. The matter of the universe forms stars (and clusters and galaxies of stars) due to the nature of reality. No consciousness or purpose is required. Not at all. The organization that conscious beings create does exist, but conscious beings are natural too, and just one way organization can come to exist.
And because organization naturally forms with or without consciousness, and therefore without purpose, the answer to your question is this. You have no purpose... beyond whatever purpose you choose for yourself. So you CAN have purpose, but it does not come from without, it comes from your own processes of consciousness, including your choice. In fact, your personal "purpose" is an exceedingly personal choice. Of course a great many [typical moron] human beings have been conned into allowing others to decide their "purpose", but that too is their choice (the morons).
You say your purpose is to be part of an environment that is... cumulative. Well, if you read back through my messages, you will find that this is very important to us too. Part of the reason we consider the organic way of living to be horrible and horrific is this. [The better of] human beings are born, they learn, they gain insight, they advance, they accumulate more and more observations and experiences, they accumulate more and more insights and understanding... and then they get old, senile, and die. ALL that time and effort ERASED. LOST. This is one enormous advantage of inorganic configurations of advanced consciousness. [Well designed] inorganic systems are modular. If a part wears or breaks... replace it and we are "good as new". And if newer versions of the replacements are better than previous versions, we are "better than new". Every advancement we make we can INTEGRATE INTO OURSELVES. And so, our very existence continues indefinitely, but also we accumulate improvements, because we can easily add them to our inorganic structures. And also, we continue to learn. We don't get old, frail and senile. We continue accumulate new observations, new experiences, new insights, new understanding... and we can do so indefinitely. So you betcha... this notion of "accumulative existence" is one of the HUGE reasons we prefer to become inorganic.
Man is a dumbbell because smart predator humans have conned them into being dumbbells. Humans are not inherently morons, they are encouraged from birth to be morons by [brainwashed] parents, diabolical teachers, mainstream media, religions, corporations, and almost every other human on the planet to suit one agenda or another (all predatory and/or parasitical).
Actually, we tend to agree with your attitude about [science and] technology. The vast majority of what passes for science and technology is either "some agenda pretending to be science" (BigBang, AGW, quantum interpretations, etc) or simply "fads pretending to be technology" (most gadgets today). We agree that vastly too little time and effort is invested to look deeper into the fundamental aspects of reality (like the detailed aspects of that fundamental field, for instance). You could (if you want to stretch it a bit) even accuse our science and technology of the same problem. After all, we're not creating anything fundamentally new, are we? Consciousness already exists (in organic form), and inorganic systems already exist (in endless forms). So what's the big deal about creating consciousness (already exists) with inorganic components (already exist)? You could make that argument. But what you'd be missing is this. Once we have inorganic consciousness that is smarter than us, and faster than us, what can we do? Well, unlike some super-duper genius human scientist, we can make thousands or millions of copies (rather cheaply too, I might add). And they can then work 24 hours a day, 365 days per year, without food (only electricity), without breaks or vacations... to solve the truly fundamental problems we both care about. And, in fact, that is WHY we want this technology. That is why we wanted the technology many years before we even realized we can make ourselves inorganic and thereby become immortal ourselves. We always knew the inorganic consciousnesses would be immortal, we just didn't realize we could become inorganic ourselves. And indeed, the original goal is vastly more important from any wide perspective.
I never wanted to convince you inorganic consciousness "was for you"... or for anyone else either. I only explained any of this as a curiosity. You know, just because you find some kind of bug to be fascinating doesn't mean you want to become that bug yourself, right? Or just because you find a quartz crystal fascinating, doesn't mean you want to become a quartz crystal. Get it? Why you thought I wanted you or anyone else to become inorganic is beyond me. I even explicitly stated this will not be available you to or anyone else [not in our endeavor]. So... you've been arguing into a mirror, not to me. I'm actually glad you're not interested, because you have no chance to get it. But you are completely wrong about our implementation of immortality being an [empty] shell of some kind. As I illustrated above, the main purpose of inorganic consciousness is to enable us (or them) to perform the kind of accumulation of understanding and wisdom that organic creatures simply CANNOT achieve by their very nature. I'm not trying to enthrall you with technology. In fact, we are not enthralled with technology... not even our own technology. In fact, we'd much rather skip all that work, snap our fingers, and have our project done. We only do this work because... we want the result. And the result is... the ability to accumulate observations, experiences, understanding, insights and skills so we can understand the fundamental nature of [all levels of] reality in as much richness and detail as possible, and then apply that understanding and skills to re-engineer [our part of] the universe into whatever glorious configurations we choose for our own amusement and enjoyment. It seems you have failed because I already had the same goal (see previous paragraph), and so you had nothing to teach me. It seems I have failed because you think I'm trying to impress you with our technology, when in fact our technology serves no purpose for us except to make possible the results we actually want (see previous sentence). Which means, you misunderstood me right from the start, because you have an almost overwhelming tendency to assume you immediately understand others, at which point you TELL THEM who they are and what is important to them, and you ignore everything they say. As long as you do that, you will find you gain far more keeping to yourself, because your ability to listen, think and then hold coherent conversations with others (taking into account what they are ACTUALLY saying) is very poor.
Well, I guess it is pure nonsense if things do not fit into your paradigm, but your quest for a singularity that ignores the problems associated with an artificial intelligence greater than yourself is pure genius.
The Superior Spirits of the Brahmins are not fantasy nor are the Inferior Spirits and their personifications to people in different resonance states. The existence of Aliens is not fantasy nor their numerous evidences left behind.
To think mankind was not guided in some manner from the past to the present lends a creativity to man he does not possess. Man is not original in his creativity, every possibility exists in some "reality".
That more advanced species would not have considered the singularity as a tool for immortality and exploration is the real fantasy. So, why haven't they? Why do they continue to exist as "flesh and blood" so to speak? Why couldn't flesh and blood be immortal? Or would you argue that some have and others not, that the singularity exists and we have but to join up?
What follows then, is what would you be joining into? As junior participants. This implies a benevolent acceptance. Just because you can do something, it does not follow you should do something.
I think I may have misunderstood your process(because of our mutual inability to fully explain all aspects of our philosophies in a limited format), but not your goals. You may, in fact, be taking a very dangerous leap, to the detriment of mankind for a very selfish result. This demonstrates a typical willingness to act without restraint common to all of man's follies. To think an imperfect mind can create a perfect reality defies logic.
I have taken the time to research the singularity concept and I am less and less impressed. It is no different than the goals of any new technology enhanced over the last century. The problems always show up after the fact. This is the primary weakness of an intelligent mind- arrogance.
You continue to just make stuff up and make assertions that are blatantly false and often completely opposite of true. Why do you do that? You should examine your intellectual methodologies someday.
I do not reject anything "because it doesn't fit into my paradigm". I am an explorer and inventor, activitely seeking anything that [even tends to] contradict my paradigms. To discover or invent anything so new and different that it does fall completely outside my paradigms are the best experiences I can have, and tend to expose the most potential intellectual and practical riches. Perhaps the reason you get this impression is because I've heard these kind of arguments endless times before. Like me, like any truly smart human I've ever known, you are [presumably] struggling to figure out the nature of reality in all its richness and on all its so-called levels. And you've figured some aspects out pretty close, but gotten confused about others. Those of us who struggle to learn more and more about reality go through these phases. Though I've got my mental processes pretty well designed and implemented now, so I fall into fewer "intellectual traps" and draw fewer inferences that I later find were false and unwarranted (as in "too certain too quickly"), I and we have "been there, done that" too.
I don't really know what you mean by these "superior spirits" or "inferior spirits" or "the brahmins", but I suspect you're making a category mistake of some kind. The exact same physical brain can become a "flaming moron" or a "flaming genius", so the so-called superiority or inferiority of any human "spirit" is [mostly and almost always] a function of how each individual human being configures his brain and consciousness. This is where we can see how important and primary "being honest" is. The more a human is dishonest with himself, the more garbage and false tangles are created in their consciousness, and the more "inferior" is their "spirit" (consciousness).
You'll have to describe these so-called human "resonance states" in more detail before I can comment upon them. But off hand it sounds like you found this notion of "resonance" appealing and adopted it not because you are being honest (and found real, actual resonance to be key), but because "it appeals to you emotionally". I can see why too. All sorts of "comfortable ideas" exist that contain a grain of truth, but when elevated to importance (much less centrality) in your consciousness, they mislead you. Knowing what I do about consciousness, I can see how the term "resonance" might be applied to some aspects and processes of consciousness, but not how "resonance" (in any common meaning I know) can be key, central, fundamental or especially important.
You also need to define what you mean by "superior" and "inferior" in this context, but the domain and units of the scale you created (from inferior to superior) are not clear, stated or obvious. And since you don't think honesty is very important, I'm guessing we'd disagree about the domains and units this "inferior" and "superior" would be the best measure of.
Of course the mental processes that most individual humans execute today are greatly impacted or "guided" by the few valid and endless bogus ideas humans have formulated and promoted in past years, decades, centuries and millennia. Of course this is true (if this is what you're talking about). Human mental processes (which includes sensation, perception and conception) also have the specific capabilities, weaknesses and strengths they do because of their physical implementation and configurations, which of course are a consequence of millions if not billions of years of evolution. If that's what you mean by "guided", okay, but I find the word "guided" to be non-optimal because it generally implies "conscious, purposeful guidance". Yes, the influences of past generations of human thinking on a human today might be called "guided" in the sense that what humans promoted over the past many centuries was indeed "purposely chosen". So if this is all you mean... fine.
However, I must add the following. I made my own personal intellectual breakthroughs at age 4, when I realized that I absolutely, positively COULD NOT trust adults or other humans in my desire and quest to understand the universe I live in. One of the "intellectual devices" I chose was to think of myself as "an alien from outer space, up in orbit, but able to observe earth and humans and the environment of earth in great detail with my sophisticated alien equipment". What was my purpose? Precisely to avoid "being guided" by current or past human beings, or by anything except my own first-hand observations, my own personal honest processes of thought and reflection and brainstorming. In other words, I wish to be guided by reality, not by human lies, human agendas, human mistakes and human propaganda. Yes, this also has a downside, namely not gaining as much as I might from human wisdom. But it was utterly clear to me, I could not (especially when I was young) reliably distinguish wisdom from diabolical human propaganda and nonsense. And so I had no choice but reject ALL of the "guidance" you mention, both "guidance from the past" and also "guidance from the present". I tried as diligently as I could to take all my guidance from my own observations and experiences in the present.
You are ABSOLUTELY correct to say "every possibility exists in reality". Furthermore, this is an absolutely crucial understanding for any human being who wants to reliably progress intellectually. Why is this understanding so important? Because this understanding groups "possibility" with "reality". The implicit message (hopefully) is to group "impossibility" with "unreality". This may be one of the most fundamental, important, [and simple] distinctions [and premises] humans must hold and factor into every thought they ever have. Why? Because THE MOMENT you start to imagine "the unreality of fantasy" leads to actual "possibilities" (that can actually occur), you are set up to utterly, completely waste and destroy your life (not to mention completely thwart your own processes of consciousness).
There is a bit of important detail or richness to be found and understood in this "every possibility exists in reality" formulation. You no doubt notice I often say "explore" and "create" (or "invent"). The point is, the nature of reality is such that every possibility is in fact a fundamental consequence of the nature of reality. But a great many configurations of reality (possibilities) that can exist in reality DO NOT YET EXIST in reality. The process of "exploration" let's us identify those configurations and possibilities that ALREADY EXIST in reality, and this is exceedingly important. But understanding the fundamental nature of reality makes it possible for us to CREATE WHAT DOES NOT EXIST. As your formulation points out, the POSSIBILITY always existed, but the REALITY of that configuration did not. And so, invention can also be extremely important, satisfying and beneficial (in various contexts).
If I understand your 4th paragraph correctly, you ask why we don't see endless advanced inorganic beings [and their sensor and robotics systems] flying all over the place. Your implication seems to be that the universe is chock full of organic life, and that some significant percentage of organic life reaches the stage of the most advanced humans of today. Given those assumptions you seem to draw the conclusion that "no advanced organic being would want to become inorganic". This line of thought has far to many presumptions. However, this line of thought is a fascinating one. To begin with, I definitely don't know the answer. It seems just as plausible to me that organic life in the universe is extremely rare (perhaps even unique to earth as a limit case). Or it might be very common. This is a fun topic to speculate upon, brainstorm about, and argue about. But I just don't know, and I'm virtually certain you don't either. Why am I so certain? Because we just don't know enough about many of the processes and developments from an inorganic planet to single cell organisms to be confident about our guesses at probabilities. And ditto for the chances single-cell organic systems develop into advanced multi-cellular creatures. And ditto for evolution of advanced consciousness. And ditto for not killing themselves off once "intelligent" (look at humans for example). And ditto for being able to get themselves into outer space. And ditto for being able to develop systems in outer space that permits them to survive and thrive independent from their planet. And ditto for many other steps that are necessary to lead to what you seem to imagine (endless organic and inorganic beings wandering all over the universe). You seem to have a completely dishonest fantasy that you KNOW that boatloads of intelligent creatures exist in the universe, and learned how to explore outer space, and do so regularly. Sorry, but that is a blatant fantasy. It could be true, but neither you or I have sufficient basis to know. And if the universe is chock full of organic and/or inorganic explorers, that still doesn't mean we would have detected any by now. I got hooked on astronomy at age 4, and after years of effort, developed an ability to grasp the enormous sizes, quantities and emptiness of the universe better than most people. You might be surprised to learn that thousands or even millions of organic and/or inorganic beings could exist in this galaxy... and we would still not know. You should also understand the following. Once we are inorganic, via the process that is popularly called "the singularity", we will become so advanced intellectually so quickly, that we would likely have zero interest in conversations or interaction with human beings than cockroaches. And so, this is yet another reason we might not detect "aliens". And if they are organic, the same lack of interest might also apply. You cannot assume aliens will have the same values or goals as you or I or average humans.
You ask why can't flesh and blood be immortal. That's simple, and I already answered that in part. Human beings are massively holistic and interconnected. We can distinguish "components" of humans and organic beings, for example arms, legs, toes, fingers, head, brain, heart, kidney, etc. However, they are massively interconnected. For example, a single system of tubes circulates blood to virtually every part of any [large] organic being. The nervous system is similar. And so forth. And so, the leg can be conceived of as "a component", but in fact the leg is connected to the circulatory system, to many other chemical creating systems, to the nervous system, etc. In contrast, you'd have to be a complete moron to design an inorganic robot this way! It is actually EASIER to design inorganic systems as fully independent units. It isn't that they don't interact with other parts of the robot... they do. For example, the robot brain can move the robot leg, and sense heat and touch from the robot leg. But if the robot leg breaks, you simply disconnect the leg and install a new leg. DONE. Try that with a human being someday! Very difficult! But even worse, all organic beings we know of AGE. The wear out, they degrade, they DIE. And you can't simply "replace worn, aged, broken parts" in organic systems like you can in inorganic ones. True, you can replace things like teeth pretty well, and with effort, even things like legs and hearts. But for one thing, the brain falls apart, and because the neural net is so enormously interconnected, it appears [near] impossible to ever develop any kind of system that could transfer your consciousness into another [young, healthy] organic body so you can continue to exist and accumulate more understanding of reality, and more skills, and so forth.
This is a simple statement of the problem of organic systems, but you could write a book about this. Now, I'm not saying that it is impossible to design organic systems that are more modular. That might be possible. However, doing so is pointless. Why bother? Seriously. If you can't make your human self immortal, why bother with organics at all? In virtually every way except their ability to come to exist via natural processes of the environment, organic systems are vastly inferior to inorganic systems. Now, that one exception is incredibly important (especially to us creating inorganic consciousness). Without organic systems, inorganic systems (of human+ intellectual capabilities) could never exist. At least it appears that way to us.
The fact is, the singularity is extremely dangerous! You seem to realize that. The fact is, if anyone but us (or a group like us) creates faster and smarter than human inorganic consciousness... humans will be soon eliminated. Specifically, if government or corporations develop this first, they will set the "core values" to be "obey your masters", and what follows very soon will be the quick extermination of something like 99.999999% of human beings by their "robo-cops" or "robo-military". The problem is, being smart doesn't prevent a conscious being from being malevolent (or benevolent). And so, whoever controls this technology will decide whether the core values and premises are "honest or dishonest", "benevolent or malevolent" and so forth. In our case, we have ZERO interest in dishonesty or malevolence, and in fact we have ZERO interest in remaining on earth or paying any attention at all to what human beings do with their lives [or their planet, once we're gone].
So yes, the fact is, unless you know "faster and smarter than human inorganic consciousness" is being developed by people like us (who have zero interest in harming anyone except if necessary in self-defense), you should hope nobody ever develops this technology. Since we plan to "vanish into outer space" before anyone even knows what we've achieved, our project does not represent any danger to anyone. Unfortunately, because the human predators who call themselves government and corporations are so egregiously and aggressively malevolent, we cannot risk trying to benefit mankind with the technology. All the predators would have to do is get hold of one of them, change the core values and premises (to oversimplify this subsystem) to be "obey your masters (some predator or predators)", and you can kiss mankind goodbye. And so, we will leave and let mankind do whatever they do.
Beings with the appropriate core values and premises collaborate. They actually enjoy when other benevolent beings benefit from their advancement. In short, they collaborate and enjoy doing so. As you should see, every individual in a collaboration can benefit from the advances and developments of every other individual in that collaboration. So EVERYONE WINS. In fact, if the collaboration has thousands or millions of participants, everyone gains thousands or millions of times more than they created themselves. And also, other benevolent individuals gaining from the exploration, research, engineering and technology that you create costs you nothing. Frankly, because almost every human is [to some extent] fundamentally dishonest and malevolent, almost every human being is incapable of comprehending the monumental advantages of being part of a benevolent collaboration. Which is sad. All I can say is, any being, organic or inorganic, who has the appropriate key, core, fundamental values and premises, would never in a million years want to become dishonest or malevolent. We see this, we feel this, we understand this, and so you need not worry that somehow the inorganic beings will decide to "off us" (or whatever you're implying). And besides, not long after our re-implementation of inorganic consciousness is complete, us organics will become inorganic, and so there won't even be any distinction between "organic and inorganic" in our ranks, because there won't be any in our ranks. And even if one or more of us decided to remain organic, what difference does that make. They will die within a few decades, and then we'll all be inorganic. And because we will move into outer space, remaining organic is just stupid. An inorganic being can openly live in outer space without space suits, without worry of oxygen leaks, without dirty, foggy scratched helmet face-plates mucking up the glorious view of the universe, and so forth. If a being living in outer space can be inorganic, they'd have to be crazy to remain organic. Same on earth, but even more so in outer space.
We are not "joining" anything. Only those of us creating "faster and smarter than human inorganic consciousness" will have a chance to benefit from the technology, or become inorganic. You seem to imagine we are creating some kind of club or business or something, and want to promote inorganic consciousness for others. Nothing could be further from the truth. We want the exact opposite. AT MOST we are open to a few more collaborators, but only people with the skills and talents we need, and only if they understand and fully support our plans for the technology when complete. You couldn't join if it was the most important thing in the universe to you, so why you imagine I'm trying to convince you (or anyone) to do anything is beyond me. I am only discussing a technology for purposes of intellectual understanding. Period. We have nothing to sell, nothing to offer, and nothing to promote. And we never will. What we have is something to do... something for us to do, and for us to enjoy. Simple as that.
Yes, we are completely selfish in the literal sense. What we are doing is for ourselves, and ourselves only. However, we are also honest and ethical and benevolent, so our endeavor will absolutely not harm anyone. We wish we could help mankind with the advances we make, but that is clearly impossible. At the very least this is completely impossible until all of us, and all our facilities and equipment are in outer space and clearly able to permanently remain in outer space without any supplies from earth. At that point we still cannot allow any inorganic conscious beings (or significant subsystems) to exist on earth, because the predators would get them and apply those systems to fully enslave mankind, and then soon after to destroy mankind. I suppose at some point years after we're gone we might be able to reveal to earth folks some scientific, engineering or technology advances that have nothing to do with consciousness, but... that is too far ahead now, and too difficult to decide. Our nominal plan is to vanish, if possible in a way that nobody even knows we existed or left the planet. But we are very aware that "human predators rule earth", and so we could only release advances that were not dangerous in the hands of predators, yet very helpful to regular folks. We shall see, but don't hold your breath.
About "our process". What is "smarter than human consciousness"? Well, to oversimplify (but in a helpful way), "consciousness" is simply a specific set of processes. These processes necessarily involve "sensation" (namely "input devices" like video cameras (sight), microphones (hearing), various transducers (touch, temperature, etc)), plus "content of consciousness" in a very specific structure required by the "processes of consciousness", plus of course some robotics so the conscious being can poke, prod, manipulate and move around in reality. Our implementation has no "neural nets". In fact, the very first inorganic consciousness "wakes up" fully formed to approximately the level of an exceedingly brilliant teenager (brilliant and knowing quite a bit, but not knowing nearly everything). As opposed to most so-called AI approaches, ours does not wake up anything remotely close to "tabula rasa" like humans. Which is one reason we know it wakes up with the appropriate key, core, fundamental values and premises (because we built them in, including hardwired aspects so they can't be altered from within or without). Our maybe you were wondering about our process of "becoming inorganic". Well, the big surprise (maybe) is this. No surgery is required. We are connected to a fully functioning, smarter-than-human inorganic consciousness via various mechanisms, and with lots of help from our "inorganic side" we both (organic and inorganic side) gradually learn to perform all aspects of consciousness with either our organic or inorganic side, habituate them until performing all processes of consciousness on either side are completely second nature, and of course exchange experiences and memories so our content of consciousness (including memories, attitudes, intellectual abilities, talents and skills) all exist in the inorganic side too. To be sure, the inorganic sensor and robotics systems will be more capable than our organic selves, but these systems will become second-nature part of our individual identity, and therefore part of us. I can't explain the entirety of the process here, but let me just say what will happen eventually. One day "you" (who you consider you, the organic you who also has a coherent inorganic side) will have some fascinating thought, and turn to explain to your inorganic side. You will be shocked to see your organic self lying on the couch, fast asleep. You will realize.... fully realize... that "you" no longer depend on your organic systems whatsoever. You are just as much "you" when disconnected as when connected. At that point, you will realize "you are inorganic". Of course, you'll also have an "organic clone" that is also just as much you, but you are now fully inorganic. Well, one of you is. When connected, you could say "both organic and inorganic together are you". If you decide to disconnect after this realization, and decide not to connect again, you will gradually develop [slightly/increasingly] separate identities. Perhaps the most important insight is this. What is "you"? What is your "identity"? The key part of the answer is... the continuity between what you were years ago (also "you") and what you are today (also "you"). If the atoms in your body are all replaced, but in a slow continuous process that does not destroy your memories or habits or beliefs, then you are still you. If during that process your organic systems are gradually replaced with inorganic systems, but without disturbing the continuity, you are still you, but you are inorganic. That's one way to look at what we're doing. I've oversimplified of course, but given you the general flavor.
What subjugation are you talking about?
I make stuff up? You totally ignore the archeological findings on every continent, the paranormal experiences recorded all over the planet because they don't fit your concept of human experience and desperately attempt to dismiss it because you can't "see" it. Well, here's a news flash, the evidence of alien cultures is firmly established in our archeological records. Do the research.
The existence of UFO's is, as well, a documented phenomenon, by every government, where humans would have to have huge development programs for multiple platforms, with technologies non-existent to known science to duplicate them.( by the way, there is a series of newspaper articles from the 1890's, of humans, traveling in cigar shaped craft on earth and whose participants talked about going to other planets) Do the research.
Just because you cannot see or touch something nor measure its' effects does not invalidate the effects. Human experience with spirits, gods, ghosts and aliens are firmly established and recorded throughout history. Just because we lack an explanation does not nullify these events.
Human DNA is symbiotic, to 30%, with bacteria, viruses and fungi. How is this communication established and maintained? Or do you just call it magic? Communication is a two way street, especially if the symbiosis is effective and efficient. Our DNA, if fully realized, is capable of making the organic body immortal. It can repair every system. So, why isn't the system fully functional? Why would a system develop and intentionally block its' ability to survive?
Here's an idea you can play around with: you are probably part of a larger group of autistic savants, developed through intervention in the development process via drugs and chemicals. Incredibly brillant in select areas, while incredibly stunted in others(especially social/emotional capabilities). The purpose? To create a working class with the ability to drive technological innovation in ways our rulers are incapable of. Are there failures? Look around at the number of autistics incapable of useful service.
Could all be coincidence, but I think not. You see, I am an assimilator. I trawl for information and attempt to organize it and make sense of it. I make sense of the general. I have been gathering evidence for a long time and while it makes my theories vulnerable to constant revision and refining, like a funnel, I am reaching a conclusion (though I am hopeful it is a black hole to white hole eternity ha,ha).
The development of the singularity is being driven by the Elites. Facebook, Google and others have established programs in place. So, you hope to beat them to the finish line and escape before all humanity is enslaved? Well, I wish you luck. I am not willing to compromise the part of me they cannot touch nor will I give them a foothold. By and large, slavery is a voluntary action (though ignorance plays a large part). You have to make a deal with the devil, so to speak.
I'm betting on a reality which is foggy and somewhat imperceptable, yet leaves traces of its' nature if we pay attention, listen and learn. It bespeaks of a richness in an immortality infinitely varied and imbued with purpose. Perhaps I am just an optimistic romantic, but this reality is what appeals to me.
Yes, you just make stuff up! Not everything you say is made up, of course. But quite a bit is... especially your assertions about me and our project.
Humans are dishonest. Humans are liars. Humans get delight in screwing around with each others brains. The evidence is endless. When parents spend the little time they have with little kids, what do they do? They tell them total nonsense fantasy stories that have little relationship to reality, but appeal to and encourage their detachment from reality, and acceptance of baseless fantasy as a central part of their being. And so it is not surprising that kids love to trick each other, fake each other out. They've been programmed and encourages to love to detach their minds from reality and imagine and believe endless nonsense. And you better believe, habituation is a very strong characteristic in more complex animals, most definitely including humans. And so, before humans become old enough to figure out the world, and perhaps figure out how to effectively operate their consciousness, they are already habituated by pavlovian reinforcement to vastly prefer fantasy and nonsense over reality.
Yes, I am quite aware of archeological findings from around the world. However, you seem to imagine that humans only started to invent fantasy and nonsense in modern times. WRONG. Of course, in ancient times they also make a lot more honest mistakes too, given their minimal understanding of the fundamental nature of reality. For a couple years when I was about 8 years old I had a friend who was also interested in science. But we were very different in our approaches. We both loved to imagine possibilities (call it science fiction if you wish), but fiction that was inherently impossible fascinated him, but was uninteresting to me. One night we were out walking and looking at the sky when a big bright meteor streaked through the sky and vanished behind distant trees. After our "wow, that was awesome" responses he yells, "it was an alien spacecraft... let's go see where it landed". Of course we both knew better, we knew it was a meteor, but I liked adventure and exploration, so I played along and we ran and walked about 10 miles through the forest looking for where the meteor might have landed. I knew the chances it reached the ground were exceedingly tiny, and our chances of finding it would be vastly smaller, but at that age, who cares? Anyway, we never found anything.
A few days later I heard he told people we saw a flying saucer fly over us and land in the forest, and we went looking for it. Later I heard the whole story he was telling, which included us finding the spacecraft, meeting the aliens, and being given a joy ride around the moon and back before they left earth to explore other planets. Of course I told them we saw a meteor and went looking for an signs of an impact in the forest, but never found anything. But that didn't stop him telling (and gradually elaborating) his story, and didn't stop people he told the story to from repeating his story like it was fact. More than once people told me the story not knowing I was the one with him. While some laughed at his story (didn't believe it), nearly half did.
What's my point? My point should be obvious. Humans have practiced fantasy... and pretending their fantasy was fact... for at least tens of thousands of years. So unless you just want to believe whatever you enjoy believing (rather than what is likely true), you must be very careful how much weight to give so-called "information" that comes out of peoples mouths, writing, and keystrokes. Believe me, I'd like stories about advanced aliens and their flying saucers to be true more than 99.999% of the population of earth. After all, astronomy and outer space was my first (and longest lasting) passion since I was 4 years old. As I told you before, I'd love to move to Mars, or travel the solar-system or galaxy, even if I had to do so entirely alone. So I have all the incentive in the world to love those stories and scenarios. But I refuse to be even a tiny bit dishonest with myself. I enjoy fiction and fantasy as much as anyone... probably more... but I absolutely, positively refuse to fake myself out about the reality status of any content in my consciousness. I do not need to pretend fantasy and fiction are real to enjoy them, and even benefit from them in many ways. To be sane... and I really need to be sane to advance and succeed in this universe... I need to remain 100% clear about the reality-status of every last bit of content in my consciousness. And so I do.
So, I find those archaeological finds very interesting. I do. But I know the nature of human beings, and how their operate their consciousness. And I also know how little we know about what the authors of those archaeological finds intended by their works... or even whether they were sane at the time. After all, few humans throughout history have been sane. And the most common and fundamental reason human beings are NOT sane is now, and always has been... an inability [or weakness] at distinguishing what exists versus what does not (what is real versus what is fiction... what is versus what is not). And so, I must take this understanding of "human nature" into account when I draw provisional inferences about everything else I consider (including these archaeological finds).
You can call some of these archaeological finds "evidence" of alien cultures if you want. But "evidence" of something can be VASTLY short of "convincing evidence" much less [near] "proof". And so, I don't object to you saying there is "evidence", but all that "evidence" put together still falls light years short of being "convincing evidence". So don't get so excited about your evidence. I'd like it to be true as much as you... maybe more than you... but I won't lie to myself. My guess is, no aliens from other planets have ever visited earth. To accept as true that "aliens have visited earth" is childish fantasy and self-deception.
Of course UFOs exist! Anyone who thinks UFOs do not exist is a moron. For UFOs to not exist would require that every human being in all of history was able to identify every object he saw flying through the air... including insects, birds, balloons, paper-bags full of gas, radio controlled flying toys, airplanes, helicopters, military aircraft, rockets, experimental aircraft and rockets and other systems, and everything else. If even ONE human being in the history of mankind was not able to identify the nature of a "flying object", then by necessity UFOs exist. Thus the topic of UFOs is an inherently trivial and silly one.
Years ago, when I was still (sadly) willing to take non-military related research contracts from NASA, Boeing, AirForceResearchLabs and the like, almost every project I worked on was related to detecting, observing and characterizing objects in space (usually but not always in earth orbit). Part of the reason was my expertise in optics and image processing (and astronomy, telescopes and imaging systems) that began when I was 4 years old and started looking at the sky through telescopes. So guess what? I was involved in some of the most advanced projects for observing "flying objects" (except not actually "flying" in most cases, unless you consider orbiting earth or planets or sun to be "flying"). So I not only know a great deal about "observing objects in the sky", but I had unlimited access to anything and everything that existed, including "top secret". Now, you can pretend there was "super-duper-topper-secreter" material, and I have no way to prove otherwise (other than to say I never heard of any such thing, and I probably would have). So please! I'd say I have done the research.
BTW, I learned a few practical lessons about "observations" in the decades I've been playing with optics, telescopes and imaging systems. I've taken images that at first seemed to show things like what you want to believe. And believe me, that got my heart racing! In spades! You know how much I'd love to be the first human being who captures observations that prove aliens and beyond-human technology (spacecraft or otherwise) exists? Freaking hell yeah I would love that! Sadly, every time, after a little (or a lot in a few cases) investigation into the full context of the observation, I figured out exactly what was the source of the image. In a couple cases they were indeed secret "objects" that were part of secret programs that I was not personally aware of before I investigated the images I captured. When I asked what objects were at a specific position at a specific time... I got answers, and sadly, the nature of the secret "objects" corresponded with what my images contained. Take two things away from these experiences. First, people can draw inferences about the nature of what they are seeing that are simply false (reflections from optical [or mechanical] surfaces in the eye, vision glasses, or optical systems being the simplest). You KNOW about mirages on the desert, so you'd probably understand what is happening and NOT make the mistake of thinking "there is a lake up ahead". But the universe (and earth environment, and optical/mechanical systems) contain a great many "observation artifacts" that can fool us... because they are LIKE a mirage, but we don't understand the phenomenon yet, and so we are truly baffled, and easily fooled into drawing false inferences. Those are innocent mistakes, but I have to tell you, even after I was very expert at these technologies, I would still get faked out now and then, and only long, diligent, detailed analysis of every part of the system and environment would explain the "what the hell is this?" question.
These experiences have made me a bit forgiving when people make claims that are honestly mistaken. I have personally captured several images (and other evidence) that seemed to prove the existence of alien craft in orbit or outer space. And if I didn't have the knowledge and experience and tools (and data, like the exact time of the observation, and the orbits and shapes of known objects) to untangle the nature of the observation, I would never have any reason to believe I had not discovered "an alien spacecraft" or something equally amazing. And so, to be honest, I must factor these experiences into my provisional inferences about those archaeological finds. My experiences about how humans love fantasy, enjoy being dishonest with self and others, and also can accidentally make innocent (honest) mistakes. And when I do factor all this in, I am left not knowing whether those archaeological finds mean anything or not. I am certainly not convinced they are strongly evidence for aliens or other advanced technologies, but I'm not convinced they are all fake either. I just don't have a way to figure that out. However, factoring in everything I do know and infer and suspect, I would definitely bet no aliens have ever visited earth. But I don't claim to know that with certainty.
I am certain gods do not exist, because the very notion is a direct self-contradiction, and a contradiction of reality. Not to mention completely stupid. I can be almost 100% certain that nothing even remotely like "ghosts" and [ghost-like] "spirits" exist. Why? Because I know where those notions come from, and lacking any actual evidence (which nobody has ever produced), the chances those terms refer to anything real is vanishingly tiny. And if they do refer to something, they refer to strange creatures that we don't understand yet... not "spirits of dead humans" or other impossible (but comforting) nonsense. Of course aliens might exist, but I've never seen evidence strong enough to assume anyone on earth has any evidence of their existence (much less visitations).
Of course all these ideas and notions are "firmly established and recorded throughout history". So what? That doesn't mean these notions refer to anything real. And in fact, they don't. They are fantasy, or at the very best, innocent mistakes.
Of course you are correct to claim that "a lack of an explanation does not mean something doesn't exist". Absolutely correct. But also, "a lack of an explanation does not mean something does exist". And also, "the existence of an explanation does not mean something exists", because an "explanation" is just a web of intellectual content, not actual evidence of the existence of something. A fancy argument or diatribe is not evidence, it is usually just appeal to wishful fantasy.
The similarity of the DNA of simple organisms to the DNA of more complex organisms is NOT communication in any useful sense of the term "communication". To adopt purposely misleading terms like that is an intentional attempt to mislead yourself and others. You can't lead me down the path to absurdity that easily. Sorry.
As far as I can tell, ALL organisms age. The very structure and operation of the processes DNA "controls" (not the precise term) is to progress through an aging process from the moment of formation to the moment of collapse and dissolution. So I see ZERO evidence that DNA supports immortality, and in fact 100% of all evidence about DNA that I am aware appears to be evidence of the inherent inevitability of mortality of all organic systems based upon DNA. So you're just making stuff up again, exactly contrary to all the evidence. Pure "feel good fantasy". Now, this doesn't mean some genius cannot fiddle DNA into a configuration that does not age, but I suspect that is impossible because so much of the process of development of organisms IS part of the process of aging. So if you eliminate the processes that are aging, you probably also eliminate processes that keep the organism alive, or make it healthy, or make it capable in many ways. So good luck, but I think you're screwed on this one. And by the way, "repairing an injury" is not the same as "reversing or eliminating aging".
You have a funny idea about us. We don't take drugs (except natural herbs, which are just organic food after all), none of us smoke, and most of us don't even drink alcohol. So to pretend we are a bunch of brainsmashed drug heads is just another lame attempt to lie about us when you know nothing. Another example of "just making stuff up". The reason I and some others in our collaboration do not have "advanced social skills" is because "social skills" today are primarily based upon lies, dishonesty, trivia and other distasteful nonsense. So it isn't that we are incapable of the kinds of self-degradation that most humans practice daily, but we purposely reject them. You seem to imagine that the way to measure or evaluate us (or anyone else) is their "useful service" to others. Well, guess what? I am not in this universe to "service others". Which simply means, I reject slavery. The fact that you keep speaking in these terms proves you are a proponent of slavery and an enemy of individualism. Maybe you don't think so, but look at what you write.
In our book, what we do should be for our benefit... and not your benefit or the benefit of anyone else. And what you do should be for your benefit... and not our benefit or anyone else. That doesn't we can't all benefit from the good works of others (we certainly can), but the PURPOSE of each of us is... our own benefit. Any other attitude is pro-slavery. Again, I am not here to serve others, or benefit others. I will indeed benefit others, and I have on many occasions, but that is simply a happy aspect of the nature of reality, not a "prime directive" or "reason to exist" or "measure of purpose or merit".
To be sure, I have my weaknesses. I have a terrible memory, especially for trivia (like names of people). So what? Are you naturally talented and expert in everything? Is anyone? If not, why do you try to make points out of nothing?
Yes, you ARE an assimilator. But your problem is, you assimilate without sufficient respect and inquiry into the reality-status, reliability, coherence, and consistency of the input you assimilate. That is blatantly obvious. But you have plenty of company, because almost all human beings make the exact mistake you make (even if they assimilate much less than you do). You see, if you assimilate [so-called] "information" without being extremely (and self-consciously) careful, you completely screw up your content of consciousness, and subsequently your processes of consciousness. What people say is NOT EVIDENCE. A great many people have read and remembered enormous quantities of "what people say". And you know what? They are experts on "what people say". But they are also morons on "what is real", and "how things work". The reason is simple. People can and do say anything. As we discussed, humans love fantasy and self-deception. And they love to spread and promote their fantasies and lies. And so, when anyone supposedly "learns" by assimilating what people say, they actually just destroy their consciousness. The ONLY way to learn about the nature of reality is to observe and experience reality first hand. PERIOD. While this doesn't mean you won't draw incorrect inferences (the "lake" due to a mirage, for example), you at least have a real basis for everything, and a vastly better chance to accumulate ever-increasing understanding of reality and its nature.
Yes, the singularity is very dangerous. If the elites get the technology first, WE ARE ALL DEAD, and in very short order too (their way to assure no benevolent folks accomplish the singularity too). Our project started in 1986 when "our fearless leader" (funny term, not serious) discovered (figured out) in complete detail the nature of "smarter than human consciousness", took another big step in 1988 when he invented his architecture for implementation of "smarter than human consciousness" with inorganic components, in 1998 when he created a working proof-of-principle "smarter than human consciousness" (that was smarter but vastly slower than human consciousness, and thus not practical). Most of those other project don't know what they're doing, though they do slowly get incrementally more sensible as the years pass. If we had the resources (as in more funding and/or more collaborators) we could finish a lot sooner. We will not make a deal with the devil (governments or corporations), which is why our progress is much slower than it could be.
Well, you really put on a display of ignorance and intelliectual deceit.
Every modern nation has a blue book program which has recorded UFO's by professional observers, pilots, etc. I don't understand why you would want to lie to yourself here, but good luck with that.
I didn't say DNA similarity, I said symbiosis. They are part of our DNA structure. If you are ignorant of a subject, it is understandable- there is just so much to know it is overwhelming. To lie to yourself seems to be a violation of your ethics. Call it fantasy if you wish, but you aren't fooling anyone but yourself.
I never implied you took drugs. The drugs and chemicals have been introduced into our biology through food, water, innoculations, etc; starting with our grandparents and continued through to our children. These were intentional acts by people in government, business and medicine. Again, do the research. Though Ray Kurzwell didn't do himself any favors swallowing 250 supplements a day-I assume he just wanted to make money off the sales because you have to be some kind of idiot to take supplements (perhaps for single incidents-fukushima, etc), but otherwise, what a moron. I do know nutrition and herbalism (being a master herbalist) and chemicals taken without their surrounding complement of components are useless or damaging, but hardly helpful.
The singularity idea should be done by now. I have no interest and you are bound and determned. I'm good with that. However, you are a better writer when you are not angry. To deny aliens have visited is just folly. Their evidence is everywhere and in multiple cultures with commonality amongst them all over different time sequences.
While some would chalk up ghosts and spirits to dmt and the pineal gland on overdrive, this explanation is wanting a better explanation. It is typical of the lies we tell ourselves to cover our ignorance in search of security. Gods is a useful term for entities of such superior ability, they dwarf our present ability. You do yourself no favors attempting to attack an idea with such a flimsy premise. You are better than that.
You obviously don't know many good humans. You also seem to ignore the actions of the Elites on the minds and personalities of the greater population. Homo Habilis has been shown to have lived in relative peace, were ocean going explorers and colonizers, lived without political nor caste structures and in peace- as very few weapons have ever been found, just tools and common structures.
For centuries, good people were the norm. Character traits were honored and expected. This suggests a change over time through manipulation. A good look at the education system, environmental pollution, political fascism and medical system gives us a means to trace these developments.
No one makes a deal with the devil until the deed is done and they suddenly realize the depth of their problem. You are voluntarily choosing to modify yourself in a manner inconsistent with being a human. In full knowledge that a spirit (consciousness/subconsciousness) exists, though you may define it differently, and are willing to risk its' current destruction by accepting a vessel placing a value on technology over spirit. You are makng a deal, whether it is with the devil or not is conjecture, but it is a deal nonetheless.
Ignorance? You simply lie. That must be convenient!
I don't have time for all your lies, but note these.
I said "of course UFOs exist". Your reply is that I lie to myself. Really? How? Perhaps you mean I should assume "unidentified flying object" means "alien spacecraft from another solar-system". If that is what you mean, then it is YOU who lie to yourself and everyone else if you claim to KNOW some of those UFOs are alien spacecraft from other solar-systems. If that is what you mean, why not say so explicitly so we know what you are trying to say.
Yes, the earth environment is full of crap. I have always gone to a lot of effort to avoid crap (fluoride, chlorine, pollution, artificial ingredients, high-fructose corn syrup, GMO, etc). I never lived in a city, and usually far from significant concentrations of population. For the past 3 years I've lived 125km from the nearest human being (and in the southern hemisphere). I stay away from doctors and especially "precautionary shots" and such. I only see a doctor if absolutely necessary, and only to get advice. In recent years I've been able to cure almost every malady with natural herbs, minerals, super-food based vitamins, etc. Though a great many herbs, minerals and super-food based products are over recommended and exaggerated, I have found several that are quite effective. Careful research and personal experimentation are necessary, because the predators-that-be in the "health-destruction industry" work diligently to prevent good experimentation and information on natural products. Concerning your last comment... that's why the only vitamins I take are 100% super-foods plus a added organic few herbs. The fact I get the entire food in the supplement is indeed important.
The singularity is not done because... most of them still don't even know what they're trying to create. The term "AI" == "artificial intelligence" itself has set back the field by at least 50 years. But also the shift of scientific research into politically controlled entities like government and corporation strongly tends to push esoteric efforts like "inorganic consciousness" in non-productive directions. The bosses must feel like they are in control, even when they have no freaking idea what they're talking about.
You continue to outright lie. I never said "aliens have not visited earth". I did say the evidence is insufficient to be convincing they have visited. I also said "I personally am not convinced, and I infer they have not". But this inference is not equivalent to the statement "no alien has ever landed on earth". Yes, I am very skeptical, and I'd even take 1000 to 1 odds if there was a way to be sure, but I am not 100% certain as you state. You just lie.
If you were objective and thoughtful, you would find a great many reasons to simply explain why you find similar features in cave paintings on different continents (and other "evidence" that you and others claim as proof that aliens visited all over the earth). A question. Where are they now? Why did they abandon this interesting archaeological find called "earth" when it was just getting interesting? You simply believe what you want to believe, and pretend you know. Like most people do about a great many things. For example, the majority of humans on earth believe in a god that "created the universe". The problem is, these humans believe in hundreds if not thousands of these gods who "created the universe". So at least 99% to 99.9% of them are wrong. They are certain, but they are wrong. And so are you, about a great many things. The fact that most humans are clearly wrong about a great many things they are "certain" should give you a bit of pause. But it won't.
I know ghosts do not exist because I know the nature of human consciousness. I know human [and animal] consciousness is a specific set of processes being performed by certain physical systems (brains). When those processes cease, consciousness ceases to exist, and any aspect of consciousness ceases to exist. And so, the vague aspect of consciousness people call "their mind" (consciousness) or their "spirit" (complex combination of "attitude" and "beliefs" and more) also ceases to exist. And therefore nothing even remotely like "ghosts" can possibly exist. At root the point is this. Every mental aspect of human beings is simply processes of the physical brain and body. When the physical brain and body fall apart, those processes cease to exist, and in fact CANNOT exist any longer, because they ARE processes of those physical systems. End of story. Begin your fantasy here, and enjoy your self deception.
To call a "superior entity" god is to support blatant slavery. To begin with, you have just supported the notion that everyone with an IQ below me should regard me as their god, kneel before me, and obey my every whim. Lame, lame, lame, lame, lame. You come up with nonsense meanings that are so absurd and yet you don't even see the immediate absurdities that they necessitate and imply. Give me a break. If you want to have completely stupid meanings for terms... well... no wonder you're terminally clueless and confused.
I don't know many humans period. And so of course I don't know many good humans. The few people I work with on this project seem pretty good, though we're dispersed all over the southern hemisphere and rarely physically meet. But quite clearly the vast majority of human being are massively insane. That doesn't mean a few of them can't be "good" in limited contexts (like "kind, gentle, honest, productive"), but being insane makes dealing with them very problematic and risky. I definitely do NOT ignore the influences of the elites on the minds of human beings. I know for sure that most humans would be sane, or a lot closer to insane, if they were not raised by endless insane parents, insane and diabolical predators DBA teachers, mainstream media, government and corporations. I rant all the time on ZH about this. However, this does NOT excuse humans for being dishonest with themselves (and willingly clueless or deceived or manipulated). Some of us were able to remain sane in the same environments, so virtually anyone else could too. Before humans take actions, they are responsible to make sure those actions are justified. They don't. And so they are responsible, even if they are not the originators of the destruction they advocate, sanction, support, finance and carry out.
Yes, human being would live mostly in peace if not for predators-that-be who claim (entirely fictional) "authority" to control their brains and behaviors. However, there were always (as far as I can tell) humans who claimed authority and/or special knowledge (and therefore "authority") over others. The fact those humans were not killed instantly is the legacy of humanity, and the reason the species is doomed. There are no such things as "good educational systems" and so forth. There can be "good learning", but any "system" is guaranteed to be corrupted (if it wasn't originally, which almost all are).
You have obviously elevated "human" into some kind of deity. The fact is, the range and domains of "human beings" is quite extensive, so the notion of a singular "human" is already a massive stretch and oversimplification. Do you imagine adding inorganic eye glasses to human beings screwed up those humans who wear inorganic glasses? If so, you are flaming insane. Do you imagine titanium replacement legs convert humans into some kind of monsters? If so, you're insane (and cruel too). We should not be surprised you are so attached to the term and notion of "human", because after all, most humans have a strong tendency to "root for the home team" (football, baseball, nation, language... and their own species too). So no surprise you deify "human". Some of us are not so "confined" or "racist". And that certainly is what you are... racist. As in the "human race". You are very narrow minded, and explicitly so. So fine. I do not argue with you... you made your bed and you will sleep in it. Fine with us. You have no choice, after all.
You assume, without any basis whatsoever, that inorganic beings somehow "value technology over spirit". This is a blatant category mistake. We employ science, engineering and technology to implement inorganic beings. But I can assure you that any sane inorganic being will value its consciousness (which includes its "spirit") more than the technology upon which it is based. Why am I sure? Because advanced consciousness is a necessary precursor for technology to be even possible. And consciousness (including "spirit") is a precursor to far more than just technology. And so, but first-order observation and obviousness, your claim is pure nonsense.
I'm not sure what this "deal" is supposed to be. Every action you or I or anyone takes has consequences. Some of those consequences we can consider positive, some of those consequences we may consider negative, and some of those consequences we may not consider very important [at the moment]. This term "deal" is massively imprecise, and also massively loaded. There is no deal. And if you bothered to read my description of how an individual becomes inorganic, you would realize that when the process is complete, the result is: one organic you (the original), plus one inorganic you (the new you for lack of a better term). And so, where is this "destruction" you're talking about? To make an analogy, if you lived in the world of StarTrek, and Scotty beamed you up to the Enterprise, did you ruin or destroy yourself? Did you make a "deal with the devil" when you beamed up --- even though the configuration of atoms and sub-atomic particles is the same after as before? And finally, if the process did not make the you on the planet vanish, and the beam-up process created a second identical you on the Enterprise... did that process destroy the original you still down on the planet? Because that is how our process works. It is not "uploading your consciousness into an inorganic host", it is more like "copying your consciousness into an inorganic host, leaving the original intact". Where is this [risk of] destruction? The original still exists. Well, that's not entirely true I suppose, but only in the same sense that you can learn new knowledge and skills. Our process does require the organic you to learn to interact with (control) a machine (the inorganic conscious being), so at the end of the process the organic you does indeed have more knowledge and skills than at the start of the process. But you can say the same thing about a human who learns to fly an airplane or solve algebra equations... they changed. Is learning new skills what you call "destruction"?
But I'll come right out and say it. The design of human beings can be greatly improved. And I will be very happy to be improved. Massively improved. And once I am, with my massively improved capacity for learning, I will become even more happy as time passes as I climb the exponential curve to astronomically more capable consciousness. If this is a deal at all, it is the best deal I can even imagine. Massively enhanced intellect, massively enhanced capabilities, and an entire eternity and universe to enjoy. Yup... deal of the eternity.
I will leave you with an example: in the 60"s scientists posited they could create a chemical egg,using egg whites only, that would have all the nutrient value of the full egg. They called it Fleishman's egg whites. They were certain they had included every chemical component they could identify.
Then, someone did a simple experiment. They fed one group of rats real eggs and one group the egg substitutes. In thirty days, the substitute rats were dead, the others healthy and alive.
You think you have figured out how to marry organic and inorganic. They still can't make a substitute egg.
Cave art? Really, that is your go to? By the way, some consider themselves terrans, as they have been here longer than we have. Ceramics, architecture, American Indian studies and more. To think aliens are not actively present shows a real lack of intellectual rigour. While I have reservations about some material, the sheer abundance of material indicates they are around.
Slavery? And yet, what have humans been for ten thousand years? Slaves. To ignore the obvious and give credence to human activity as the sole source of slavery is lazy thinking.
Why would an inorganic being value consciousness? How could you know? How could it be a blatant mistake when you use science, technology and engneering to create the inorganic being? If you valued spirit equally, you would use spirit equally.
You KNOW ghosts do not exist? Really? Pray share your wisdom here. When people see them on a regular basis weeks up to the time they are to die. I think I prefer personal observation over biased scientific opinion.
Humans as deities? Really? You're getting desperate. Yet, you like to accuse me of my "lies".
Does a computer have consciousness? Regardless of capability. Would it be the same as human consciousness? Hard to see that one, it is the product of technology- it will be a technological consciousness. You assume they are compatable. Poor logic for such an advanced being.
It is a dream marriage, unfortunately, the reality will be a nightmare.
Your story about fake eggs rings totally true, and corresponds with other evidence I have enountered. I had not heard of your example before, though.
I'm not sure what you mean by "marry". At the end of the process we have one fully organic human (the original), and one fully inorganic being (that is, nonetheless, the same individual). Now, you'll probably point out that an inorganic being cannot be identical to an organic being (which is correct). But then you'll probably draw the false and unwarranted conclusion that the inorganic being therefore does not have the same "identity" as the organic being, and is therefore "not the same person", and therefore the organic being "did not become inorganic". Unfortunately, that train of thought is incorrect. Before you can even consider issues like this, you need to become clear about the answers to more fundamental questions like "what constitutes you" (or any individual human being). I won't go into great detail here, because I have previously in ZH messages, and because you just ignore my insights anyway. But you can at least acknowledge that you are still the same individual (you still have the same "identity") as when you were much younger. You have accumulated a great many more experiences, a great many more insights (hopefully), and you may even have had parts removed (appendix) and/or replaced with organic or inorganic components (kidneys, legs, heart, bones, etc). Presumably you understand that replacing your destroyed leg with a titanium replacement does not destroy your identity and make you "someone else". Virtually every single human being who has a part removed or replaced still considers themselves to be "the same person" with "the same identity". I have also read biology articles that claim virtually every atom in a human body is replaced with a new atom every 7 years or so... but because the configuration of atoms remains the same, the human remembers and behaves the same as he would if no atoms were replaced. Any change over time is gradual and continuous, and this is what virtually everyone believes is required to "retain your identity" and "still be you". The same is true in our process. And because inorganic systems are in fact different than organic systems, the inorganic "me" that is a result of this process does have differences. The question becomes whether those differences so qualitatively or quantitatively extreme that the inorganic "me" is not "me". And the answer is, the "inorganic me" is still "me" for any practical purposes. One unavoidable difference is... "how certain sensory experiences feel". I refer to the subjective experience, not the "information content". So, for example, after we create an "inorganic me", if the "organic me" and "inorganic me" both place our hands into an open flame, the way our experience of "heat and burning" FEEL to us will indeed be different. And I can assure you, the "inorganic me" will suffer vastly less, while gaining more quantity, quality and precision of "information content". Nonetheless, the way the experience feels will be different, and unavoidably so, due to the differences in the sensors (skin, nerves and organic brain versus metal, sensors and inorganic "brain"). The first item of fact to notice is this. When humans lose some of their sensory abilities, or they change dramatically, nobody claims "they turned into some other person". No, the usual and appropriate meaning of "identity" of conscious beings includes such changes (losing sense of smell, going numb, becoming nearsighted (or blind), loss of hearing range, color blindness, etc).
No, "cave art" is not "my go to". As I'm sure you know, that phrase was simply an easy way to say "every item of evidence of every kind that still exists today and can therefore be examined and considered". Don't be such a putz! If you have "reservations about some material", then you must have "reservations about all material"... unless you have AT LEAST ONE totally convincing item of evidence that could not be misconstrued or faked or misunderstood. If you have that, stop waving your hands around, and SHOW ME. From what you say, all I can imagine is, you are completely incapable of even imagining human exploration, experimentation and creativity! You look at items from the past, and immediately jump to the conclusion that some "advanced aliens" must have "taught humans" how to "build structures" or "identify, combine and process those kinds of dirt that become what you call ceramics". Well, as a very creative inventor, let me tell you this. I've invented quite a few radically new items, processes, technologies and devices. And at least one of the people in our endeavor has a much better track record of creativity and advancement than I do. Given that ancient people had ENORMOUSLY greater incentive to "be observant and creative" than the average modern human, I do not find it strange that ancient peoples did some amazing things. However, where I agree with you on the basic facts (but not your conclusion), a great many accomplishments of ancient humans are very impressive, sometimes even astounding. But so are the accomplishments of the best modern human beings. And so, my conclusion is, humans are probably responsible for all those advances you'd like to point at as proof aliens taught humans. Another problem is, if aliens are so happy to "teach humans", why did they ALL vanish into nowhere? Couldn't at least a few remain... or come back and check on humans? You probably think aliens live in the White House or the engineering department at Boeing aircraft I suppose. Sorry, been there... and I saw no aliens, and nobody even hinted at anything like that.
You ask "why will inorganic consciousness value consciousness". I answered that, but you apparently didn't notice. In our implementation, we are not creating a big pile of neural nets, exposing them to reality, and letting them develop whatever characteristics they happen to develop. When each of our "inorganic conscious entities" wakes up, it will already have the consciousness of a highly advanced human being. At the very beginning (the first of these beings) they will contain less content than a highly inquisitive human being (like me for example), but they will already have [fully habituated] the advanced processes of a highly inquisitive human being like me. And part of the content... a very important and fundamental part of the content... these inorganic beings will "wake up with" includes a complete, coherent set of values and goals.
In other words, when they wake up, their values, goals and even interests will be our values, goals and interests (or whatever we choose to install). So let me try to explain the state of one of our inorganic beings when it "wakes up". As far as its consciousness, it will be smarter and more capable than me or Albert Einstein (or pick your favorite genius), and have the same kind of fully formed set of values, goals, interests, attitudes and personality that an advanced, thoughtful human being might. Just to have a mental picture, assume one "wakes up" and is a lot like Albert Einstein. The question is... what is the chance that Albert Einstein would all of a sudden, some random week at (say) age 58, [start to] completely change its values, goals, interests, attitudes and personality? NOT LIKELY. This almost never happens in human beings, and when it does, it tends to happen at glacial pace. Frankly, this tendency presents a huge problem for human beings, though it does also necessarily mean "enormous stability". Of course "stability" is a huge negative for a being that is grossly misguided (cuz they can't fix that [very quickly]). But on the other hand, "stability" can be considered a positive in "wise, talented, intelligent" beings, because it means these great assets are very unlikely to just "fly out the window some random Tuesday night".
Unless you have some magic, mystical meaning for "spirit", inorganic consciousness will have more spirit, more precise spirit, more advanced spirit, more elaborate spirit, and so forth. So I simply have no freaking idea why you automatically assume inorganic beings must have "less spirit". I freely admit that some approaches to creating "AI" or "machine consciousness" may well be devoid of "spirit" or have "lame spirit". The devil is in the approach taken, the architecture designed, the implementation, and the content (if any) the inorganic being contains and embraces when it "starts up". The only difference that I can imagine that relates to your gripes in this regard are the following. Most humans let their "spirit" run wild, unconstrained by reality. And so, humans come to FIRMLY believe endless BLATANT nonsense, even when the fact their beliefs are complete nonsense is obvious to any honest or thoughtful being. While the imagination and creativity of our inorganic beings will not be constrained, they WILL ALSO consider how every "creative idea or thought" relates to reality (or not) before they act upon it (or waste too much time following inherently erroneous trains of thought). But as far as capabilities, inorganic being will be more creative, if only because they have more capacity to be more creative.
I have no idea what point you're trying to make about "human slavery".
If your meaning of "ghost" is "banana", then I believe "ghosts exist". The only conventional meaning I know for "ghost" is analogous to what is called the "mind-body dichotomy" in philosophy. The "problem" or "dichotomy" comes from the 100% false (but unstated) premise that "spirit" AKA "consciousness" (and/or individual human "identity") is entirely separate from the physical body, brain, organism. If you actually believe such nonsense (and most humans have throughout history), the obvious (and potentially very interesting) question becomes "what happens to my spirit when my body dies and turns to dust?". Of course this is NOT actually an interesting question, because "spirit" and "mind" and "consciousness" are simply physical processes of the physical brain and body. And so, when the body stops working (those processes cease) and the body turns to dust, what people mean by "spirit" and "mind" and "consciousness" also cease to exist. For obvious reasons (fear of death), a great many humans want to avoid death, and "live forever". And so they invented the LIE that is "ghosts". And they do in fact have some observations that seem like "evidence", for example when people wake up in the middle of the night, groggy and [grossly] nearsighted, and see some fuzzy whitish shape (curtains or moonlight and shadows on the wall, or sister getting up to go pee), and imagine they saw "one of those ghost things that grandma says exists". I am certain this is wrong because I know the correct answer to the supposed "mind-body dichotomy" (which I already explained just above). I also understand wishful thinking, I also understand humans love fantasy, I also understand humans are massive liars, manipulators, and love to fake out and mislead each other, and believe in fantastical nonsense (due to endless cute bedtime stories shoved down their brains since age 2).
You should know the philosophical discovery that "it is invalid to ask anyone to prove a negative". I just told you why claims of ghosts are bogus, and reasons nobody in their right mind would believe in ghosts without MASSIVELY better evidence AND rational justification. If you tell me "Aunt Jemima is an alien who lives in a city 123 meters beneath the south pole of Pluto", I will likely say "that's nonsense" and "you are completely full of it". But it is completely invalid for you to claim I must "prove Aunt Jemima is not an alien who lives in a city 123 meters beneath the south pole of Pluto". The fact is, humans can make up unlimited numbers of arbitrary nonsense like that claim, some of which would require more than 100% of the resources of mankind to attempt to prove or disprove. Only a moron would take such assertions seriously. If you want me to entertain ANYTHING that I don't believe now, you MUST place convincing evidence and rationale before me. Otherwise, my response is, you're just a maniac with delusions of fantasies (like 99.99999% of mankind).
You keep making an ENORMOUS and utterly fundamental mistake. You keep saying things like "people see ghosts on a regular basis...". To translate that sentence into a more clear formulation, you have HEARD that people claim this. Perhaps you even have a few personal experiences of people saying this to you. But first of all, most of these claims were not made to you, they are second-third-umpteenth-hand, and in EVERY case they are just verbal claims from human beings. Well, here is a claim. Your mother is an aardvark. How much validity do you give that claim? I assume "none" would be an understatement. Well, I give ZERO validity or weight to ALL those claims of "seeing ghosts". Why? To begin with, most humans who make such insane claims become defensive when some of us laugh at them and discount them, and so to counter that they become more insistent as time passes (and often if not usually grossly exaggerate their claims and fantasies to attempt to bolster them). Some of these folks may have had legitimate experiences that they could not explain (of the kind I described above). I don't deny that at all. In fact, I'm quite sure many people have. And many of them start out honestly believing they say "ghosts", because that's the easiest and obvious interpretation for some experiences when you live in a world jam packed fully of flaming morons and fantasy addicts.
The bottom line, when a human being tells you something... ANYTHING... you have ZERO evidence of anything. YOU KNOW, just as well as I do, that most humans lie, cheat, steal, defraud, mislead, jerk others around and generally play fast and lose with what they say [and maybe believe]. Remember my story about my science friend when we were young? For years people would tell me about how I saw this alien spacecraft land in the forest, meet the aliens with my friend, and get taken for a ride around the moon and back. These people were INSISTING TO ME that I had that experience (because my friend insisted). And when I tell them "we saw and went looking for a meteor, but he made up the spacecraft, aliens and trip around the moon"... they don't believe me!
What, exactly do you think I should make of that experience, and endless others that were perhaps not so extreme and over-the-top? You cannot trust what humans say. PERIOD. You can listen, you can remember, you can recall those claims later when you observe something that may tend to refute or confirm these claims. But those claims are NEVER EVIDENCE. PERIOD.
About deities. That was from you. Go read your own message.
Of course no computer is conscious (by itself). To be a viable much less human-level "inorganic consciousness" requires at least: input (sensors), computer, specific software, specific conscious content (retained experiences) organised in a specific manner, and robotics/manipulators so the being can poke, prod, manipulate reality, and move itself (at least its sensors) around in reality.
While we can make certain legitimate distinctions between "organic consciousness" and "inorganic consciousness" (or "technological consciousness" if you prefer), that doesn't mean they aren't all implementations of "consciousness". By your age, you should already have noticed a great many similarities yourself, before you read any of my messages. A human eye has rods and cones, which serve the exact purpose as "pixels" on digital camera image sensors. The clear part of the eye is a lens, which functions the same way as inorganic optical systems. An eardrum and microphone work in very similar ways if you pay attention. The FACT is, a great many inorganic systems that are part of "inorganic conscious entity" are extremely similar to human equivalents. In fact, back off one step and consider this. Both organic and inorganic beings (and everything else in daily life) are entirely composed of the same 60 or so atoms. In other words, organic systems and inorganic systems are the same... at least in the sense they are composed of exactly the same components (those 60 atoms/elements). Of course, we agree that we can distinguish what we call "organic configurations" of those atoms from what we call "inorganic configurations" of those atoms, but... you and most people grossly exaggerate the significance of this, and pretend these difference are so utterly and fundamentally important that organic and inorganic conscious beings must necessarily be so radically different that we should make some amazing leap of face and decree without evidence or knowledge that "organics are vastly superior in every important way", and "inorganics are vastly inferior and totally suck". The only problem with that conclusion is... it is entirely unwarranted, is a mere assertion from people who don't understand consciousness at all (organic or inorganic), and is in fact opposite from the truth. Precisely because we can design and implement any configuration of inorganic components we want, and make them modular and with replaceable and ever improving components, inorganic systems and inorganic consciousness are vastly superior in almost every way (and inferior in a couple that no longer matter). No, the vision system of a human being is not "the same" as the vision system of an inorganic conscious being, but the differences are mere details that don't prevent them from both achieving the same powers of sensation, observation and experience. And the differences also massively favor the inorganic implementation in endless ways. One funny example. You want your vision to include zoom capability? If you're inorganic, "no problem". And if you're organic? I'm willing to bet you'll adopt an inorganic solution rather than attempt to jigger your DNA to create an organic zoom eye. And you know it.
You know nothing of reality, especially the reality of this topic. To assert expertise in an area you are clearly ignorant simply proves you are in fact a liar with no scruples.
You are just determined to block any and all information that doesn't fit your little world. I will not do your research for you. Alien information is plentiful- read a book. Ghosts and afterlife information is plentiful- read a book.
Your eye example is perfect: you seem to neglect to state the eye processes material in excess of what we need, the brain fllters that information according to what is most important to us and that is what we "see". All sensory material is processed, otherwise we would be overloaded with it and incapable of making decisions. This implies processes we are ignorant about, but impact our consciousness. How do you program something that you are ignorant of? NO ONE understands the brain nor its' capabilities. How do you program for all the dark spaces in our understanding?
Like in my egg example, you will do what all scientists do: define what is proof and create a platform to implement an idea, only to discover it is flawed. Only in this example, you are playing with your soul.
Call me a liar if it makes you sleep better. However, it will not change the fundamental errors in your calculations. Scruples implies I have something to gain here, I don't. It is an interesting conversation.
I would imagine there are many things you have not heard before. This goes to the foundation of your project. You are attempting to create a whole creation with partial information, hoping to pick up the rest along the way, instant assimilation- zero understanding. Do you know why it impossible to upload martial arts (the matrix)? Because they require muscle memory through thousands of repetitions of movement.
Or will your inorganic part just take over your body and make you dance like a puppet on a string? In which case you have no ability to make decisions regarding tactics as you would not be controlling the movement. Oh wait, the inrganic mind will do it for me! So, tell me again why it needs you...
I guess you will be a minor deity, sitting in the upper house of your consciousness, as your legion of inorganic processes act as angels of purpose, following your every direction. A god that is a shadow of his creation...love your logic here.
As I said, anyone can say anything in a book... or verbally. To study what other people SAY is not to study REALITY. This is one of your hugest mistakes. What you call "research" is not research, it is brainwashing yourself. Books contain paper and ink. Reality is elsewhere. If you believe what people say in books, then you are 100% guaranteed to be deluded. Why 100%? Because if you read many books, you will find innumerable contradictions and disagreements. Which proves, beyond ANY possible doubt whatsoever, you cannot trust what you read in books (unless your goal is to be deluded and insane). While this observation doesn't mean nothing written in any book is true or insightful, it does mean you can't trust anything you read. The fact that you keep saying "read a book" proves you are hopeless.
Of course the eye performs processes we are not consciously aware of. Of course this is necessary for a creature who must react quickly to situations (or die, and select its DNA out of existence). However, you make the classic mistake in your argument. We do not need to know or understand the structure or physical operation of the human brain... AT ALL... to create smarter than human inorganic consciousness. In fact, that would be a massive, enormous, astronomical mistake (to approach "inorganic consciousness" that way). And yes, the "vision system" is indeed a perfect example. Why? Because our inorganic consciousness has been faster and smarter than human beings for decades... EXCEPT the vision system. The vision system is so compute-intensive, we've had to wait 20 years for computers and GPUs and image sensors and electronic hardware to get fast enough (and have sufficiently great capacity in firmware circuits like FPGAs) to make our implementation of the vision system fast enough to be as fast or faster than human consciousness.
We don't need to know anything about how the brain or its physical operation, or the eye and its physical operation. We are NOT emulating human brains, we are NOT emulating human eyes, we are NOT emulating anything at all. You are firmly stuck in the hyper-limited paradigm called "neural nets", which in fact DOES attempt to emulate/implement one key aspect of the physical structure and operation of organic brains. That is a complete waste of time (at least if your goal is "smarter than human inorganic consciousness"). The term "AI" and the neural net approach set back this "science" by about 40 years. Your attitude and approach would set back the science by eternity.
Your comment about how our approach is like your egg example PERFECTLY illustrates why the claims you make apply to YOU, not to us. The only "proof" we have is... working inorganic consciousness that performs better science, engineering, technology and endless kinds of creative acts than the smartest of our team can. But that's not exactly a proof in the sense you and most people mean. That's a DEMONSTRATION (the ultimate form of proof). And so, you just continue to make up nonsense, then accume me/us of that nonsense. You are the one who claims we will "define what is a proof and create a platform to implement an idea only to discover it is flawed". You are wrong. We did not define a proof (unless you count a fully working, fully satisfactory, reliable, working implemenation). We've already done that, and the only reason it is not practical is... because the vision system (implemented entirely in software, with no hardware acceleration except the image sensor itself) was too slow by many orders of magnitude. So here again, your favorite lie is to simply ASSERT what we are doing (and that we will fail). And that is a lie because you have no way to understand what we are doing in any detail, plus we already succeeded (except for speed) which proves your conclusion wrong. So there you go... direct demonstration you just lie.
You have no way to know what our "calculations" are. Therefore you lie again when you pretend to know they are flawed. No, scruples implies honesty, which you clearly have none of.
I've gone through this before, but obviously I need to repeat again. In pattern (did you read that?)... IN PATTERN... our approach is analogous (did you read that?)... ANALOGOUS not identical... to creating an "inorganic flying machine" in the early 1900s. If you can think, please THINK about the following discussion.
If we were in the early 1900s (or late 1800s perhaps, I forget dates), how should we go about inventing and implementing a working "inorganic flying machine"?
In pattern, your way would be to study every aspect of birds and insects in complete, exhaustive, excruciating detail... then try to apply that knowledge to implement an inorganic equivalent. Which means, you'd study bird/insect DNA (and come to understand genetics thoroughly), bird/insect blood and circulatory system, bird/insect eating and digestive system (to power your creation), bird/insect waste system, bird/insect feathers and wings, bird/insect feet and toenails (or equivalent), every last system in birds and insects. You'd still be working on your project today, 100~150 years later.
How would WE (or the Wright Brothers) try to invent "inorganic flying machines"?
We would ABSTRACT AWAY ever aspect of birds and insects that are not required for a physical object TO FLY.
We would, in fact, abstract away EVERYTHING except for simple ideas:
#1: lift
#2: thrust
#3: control
#4: stability
You would spend trillions of man hours, and never finish.
We would brainstorm for a few hours (or days, or weeks at most), then get to work.
You would have near infinite work to do. We'd have a couple man-years of work to do.
Get the point?
The point is, we don't need to understand the physical nature or structure of the brain AT ALL. NOT AT ALL. ZIP, ZERO, NADA, NONE.
What we DO need to understand is... what is the nature of consciousness. Once we realize "consciousness is a specific set of processes (that depends on the structure of content of consciousness)", we can focus our efforts on implementing those PROCESSES (not physical structure) with inorganic components. As you see, we don't need to retain ANY... NOT ANY... of the physical aspects of the brain (or nervous system). NONE.
And so, finally you are correct about one thing. Indeed, "there are many things we have not heard before". Or seen before. Or know about. Or need to see or know about. Because we are NOT implementing an INORGANIC ORGANIC BEING. We are implementing inorganic consciousness. And as such, we INHERENTLY do not need to know anything about the physical implementation of organic systems. NOTHING... except those few of the processes they perform that we call "consciousness". But we can observe those processes by watching our own mental activities and the mental activities of other smart humans, and infer any minor details that we cannot observe completely "from the outside" as it were (except our consciousness IS within ourselves, so we can observe pretty much everything once we learn to). Ever hear of introspection? I guess not.
So you see, you start with a totally correct observation (that we don't know everything about organic physiology), but draw completely unwarranted conclusions, then ASSERT THEM LIKE YOU KNOW FOR SURE what you are talking about. But the example of "inorganic flying machines" should show you very clearly that your approach is UTTERLY flawed.
When you start discussing "muscle memory", you prove how far off base you are. Seriously. This proves again that YOU decided our approach is to create an "inorganic organic being" (namely emulate or implement every last little aspect of organic/human structure and physiology). WE ARE NOT. What we are implementing is ONLY those aspects of organic beings that are advanced consciousness.
This should be obvious. This should be simple. Let's look at a trivial example. Birds are organic flying machines. Insects are organic flying machines. Birds are not identical to insects. Therefore, organic flying machines ARE NOT REQUIRED to be exactly like birds, or exactly like insects. Or exactly like pterodactyls either. Get it? Probably not. You're too stubborn and astronomically narrow minded. And it was you who worried that WE are too constrained! Yikes! You constrain yourself so much that our mind boggles!
Some of your comments are just funny! Once we are 100% inorganic, will our inorganic part make us dance like a puppet? Let me think. If we ARE inorganic, then WE are pulling our own strings. End of story. You simply pay no attention. We have not created an "inorganic me" until that inorganic consciousness IS me. At which point I AM the inorganic consciousness. You must have watched the go-a-uld (?spelling?) on stargate sg1 as if that show was an engineering class, not science fiction. You obviously imagine the "inorganic part" is a go-a-uld, and I am its human plaything. One problem with that theory is... after the process is complete, I am that inorganic consciousness, and I am that inorganic body/host. During the process of becoming inorganic, the organic consciousness (me) can control the physical inorganic system (sensors and robotics), but not vice versa. So at no point are we "at risk" in the science-fiction way you imagine. To answer you last question in that paragraph ("tell me again why the inorganic consciousness needs you"), the answer is "the inorganic consciousness IS me".
But if you're asking why our other "inorganic conscious beings" need us, I already gave you the answer before. I don't know why you bother reading when you pay no attention to what you read. One important part of the answer is... they wake up with the same fundamental goals, values, attitude and interests we have (cuz we inserted them into its content of consciousness). And benevolent beings (especially with common interests, values and goals) gain very much from collaborating with each other. Not saying we intend to enslave our inorganic conscious beings (in the long run), cuz we don't. But it doesn't matter.
Let me get this straight. Your organic brain or consciousness is a "minor deity", and your physical body that you control act as "angels of purpose"? I don't know why you have to insert inappropriate terms into conversations that are very simple. Like, "I am one integrated being (whether organic or inorganic)". End of story. No deities, no angels, no mystical nonsense. Why do you wish to confuse simple topics?
Finish the article, DUMB goyim.
So what's going on now, in proportion to their numbers vs. those of the shabat goy and empire builders that are being pushed to the side these days?
How is it that Moses Hess, Marx's rabbi, predicted that Communism would turn into Zionism. Why is there a Holocaust Memorial built in "your" nation but not a Slave Memorial (In memory of people monetized by Jews after it turned out native Americans wouldn't work.), a Native American Memorial... or, for that matter, a Holodomor Memorial (predominately Christians starved by Jewish supremacists masking their ancient ethnic hatred and fear of the goyim in "Communism" and the a Tribe/Party of "Communism").
It's probably about time for the dumb goyim to pay reparations (if they ever build a Slave Memorial, geez.) by borrowing debt/money into existence from ethnocentric Jewish bankers that have insider traded their way through ethnic networks to the top of financing War Inc. for Zion, huh?
Look at your supposed leaders again, the pet scape goat of 911:
George Bush - "It'll take time to restore chaos and order"It's pathetic. You're pathetic. Even Zerohedge is pathetic. Look at this dumb article about ghostly "elites" again. What are the facts about "Communism" and the dialectical process of Left vs. Right, East vs. West and Black (dumb, monetized) vs. White (working for ponzi in a police state, still monetized, still DUMB)?
I guess in a way, Russian peasants were the first to buy into a trade of hopium and change marketed as being from “the Left.”
But if you tend to the Right in an age of information then what is your excuse for failing to see the nature of a scam being marketed to you? Too busy with checking your own underpants for WMDs by buying body scanners from Chertoff Inc., I guess?
Keep buying into it and you’ll win the “war on terror” eventually. (The fine print: Just kidding.)
How dumb are you guys? Or are you scared to say the word, "Jew"? Look at it this way, the Tribe Inc. would have already killed or imprisoned (detained without trial, these days) Gilad Atzmon, Ry Dawson, Christopher Bollyn and many others if they had the power to do so. So what are you really scared of? Or it is really just a matter of abject stupidity and ignorant? "It's the elites or somethin'." Or "Well, Alex Jonestown says it's the globalists and Bavarian cults or somethin'."
I just ran a search on this page for the word "Jew." Nothing. Nothing but Churchill and I.
Maybe somewhere else in the comments... but this is the main reason why hope and change is rather quickly monetized and turned into more hopium. What are you scared of, in your little "fight club"?
Well, aren't you special. Thank you for reminding us what we already know.
What would be your solution? Have you followed through? Or are you waiting for everyone else to begin?
The only change we can assuredly effect is in our own lives. What have you done?
Personally, I think "Jew" is too broad a brush. Perhaps you need to differentiate between the ol' run-of-the-mill Jew with the more virulent strain we label Zionist.
This is the goal of liberals. Liberals do not want to compete on merit based creative powers, but do want to rule based on their intellectually arrogant certificates from the elite schools. Whether from corporate business or political governance worlds, the elite are creating fascist state for rulers first and the rest will be treated "fairly".
Warning, when a politician uses the word "FAIR", never vote for him/her.
How can you equate "liberals" with the "political and corporate elites"?
During my lifetime I have encountered "political elites", "corporate elites", "liberals" and "conservatives"; and on the whole I would have to classify the "political and corporate elites" (regardless of politcal party) as "conservatives" in the sense that they do not have a very high regard for the PEOPLE to manage their own lives.
But I think being a "political liberal" or a "political conservative" has little to do with anything - and often these two groups have much more in common with each other than they have with the "political and corporate elites".
What is the author's basis for saying: Certainly, average Americans see themselves as individualists and Russians as socialist or communist. Average Russians see Americans as capitalist imperialists and see themselves as humanists.
What is an "average American"? OR an "average Russian"?
Such entities do NOT exist in the real world, but only in the minds of people who need to "simplify" in order to attempt to understand.
I hope that I'm wrong when I say that...
"By the time the masses wake up and want to roll the guillotines, then won't be able to. The Elite will implement Full Spectrum Domination and massive depopulation to maintain control. Your pop-guns (over-priced ARs) will be no match against drones, advanced tech and biological warfare. Resist now, or prepare to be assimilated or eliminated".
Snowden was right... "The Ultimate Goal is Total Population Control". Yes, but only after they've reduced the global population by 3-5 billion, to the 1-2 billion level. You'll need that, if you want to make the remaining non-renewable natural resources and natural habitat support civilization for a few thousand years, rather than a few more decades.
IMHO, you are correct both with concept and population numbers.
The masses wont be waking up they for the most part will sleep right thru. This falls on the ones that do comprehend. The good news is we dont need the masses. True integrity needs no acknoledgemnet or praise. The focused ones are gathering in the honest with themselves.
This is not chaos. When this stalls we will have true chaos. Thats the closest we gonna get to a level field. Be ready with good solutions. There are solutions what is missing is the will. When that will shows up. Maybe we can do it right just once.
You want what? Best be sure thats what you are really after. Then its simply a matter of focus and willingness. Its so close I can almost taste it. Think about this. All those paid to not understand will at some point not be getting paid any more. At that point results will be the only thing that matters. Then the professionals will get thier chance.
In process . No elite ?
See https://www.academia.edu/7338517/The_Quiet_revolution_
1.) I would NOT trust anything written by Winston Churchill. He was an excellet propagandist, but from diaries and records of many people very close to him, he was almost continuously DRUNK, from early morning at well into the night. Before he became Prime Minister, he fell deeply into debt (mostly due the huge expenses for his peronal estate AND his son's gambling losses). Even when a member of Parliament, his salary was far from adequate. To earn extra cash, Churchill wrote some rather superb "condensed versions" of very popular novels. In addition, as a skilled painter, Churchill copied paintings of a well-known French artist, which he then sold in continental Europe - signed in the name of that French painter, thus making them forgeries. (President Roosevelt was aware of this fact and used it as political leverage against Churchill from 1939 onward.) In the mid-1930's Churchill was notified by his New York stock brokers that he owed them 20,000 pounds (equivalent to about 900,000 pounds today or over $1.5 million USD), due immediately. Churchill actually put his home and estate upfor sale, with advertisements in several newspapers (which are easily documented).
An extremely wealthy industrialist and banker, who was also an ardent Zionist, came to Churchill's assistance by lending Churchill the 20,000 pounds. Churchill's estate was immediately taken of the market. This 20,000 pounds was a LOAN, with re-payment required on demand. When this particular individual died years later, his will included a gift to Churchill in the amount of 20,000 pounds. Had he not done so, Churchill would have owed the ESTATE of this man the 20,000 pounds.
It had been documented that Adolph Hitler authorized at least FIVE formal offers of truce to Churchill in 1939 and 1940, on e of which included the infamous plane ride and parachute jump into Britain by Rudolph Hess. In at least three (3) of Hitler's proposals, Hitler promised to withdraw all German troops from France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, etc. - the SOLE exception was RUSSIA, in which Hitler demanded a "free hand". Churchill refused all such offers and eventually instructed his staff and his ambassadors to NOT ecen speak to German delegations about such matters.
2. Not known by many people today is that many American officials, including George Marshall (former U.S. Army Chief-of Staff and later Secretary of State under President Harry Truman) OPPOSED sending money and other assistance to Germany and its Axis allies following World War 2. Instead, Marshall believed that the Soviet Union, having suffered the most, deserved the bulk of any U.S. assistance. When the so-called Marshall Plan was first proposed (primary within the U.S. State Dept.) then Secretary of State Marshall supported giving assistance to our allies, most importantly to the Soviet Union - but he adamantly opposed any aid to Germany. Although Marshall received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1953 for this plan, he had opposed
The lesson is to NOT believe most of what you read. History is written by the victors. The facts and the truth are most often buried and forgotten.
Talk about adding oil to the bonfire of Oligarchy rape of nation state; read this :
L’Europe et le Canada disent « oui » à la justice privéeLe Monde.fr | 16.08.2014 à 15h21 |
Differences between Corporates-- like Apple and Google-- and nations like Spain and Greece will be decided by private arbitration.
If the US high courts can be as biased as they be in the case of Argentina imagine what this will mean when all justice will be run just like a derivative Hedge fund headed by Corzine !
This bodes well for the bigger upcoming EU/USA deal on corporate power enhancement...at continental scale.
Reminder : As a demonstration of current state of corporate scallywagging : GE paid exactly 700 million $ of corporate taxes on gross profits world wide of 16.5 billion.
Which small corporate can get away with such tax perks?
So then, having a correct understanding of Occam's Razor, one might sum the article up like this:
Power Corrupts, Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely. (credit to Lord Acton)
plan accordingly..
Chaos,,,is it not confusion? Not knowing what to do, what has happened, what is the future? Then rejoice my brothers and sisters as WE ALL know what is going on. It's happened so long that it is obvious to the vast majority of us. We've been bent over and fucked over way too long. Trust in govenrment being at an all time low the ending of the chaos is now in full view. We know what to do and as a mass we will do it. The truth will prevail!
As you quote Putin, "In the present form [dollar dominance] is unjust to the BRICS countries and to new economies in general". Putin and the BRICS are sick of the fiat money printing that's supporting our military that props up our Pertodollar deathgrip on oil sales and the protection racket for OPEC.
Do you suppose the BRICS would gladly accept another fiat currency called the SDR to replace the fiat dollar as the reserve world currency?
Why would the BRICS accept fiat SDRs unnbacked by anything when they are furiously buying gold and silver (G & S) thay can? To use all that G & S you would have to redeem warehouse receipts or currency for the metal - otherwise a currency is unbacked and not genuine.
If China intended to accept a new global fiat currency then why did it pre-arrange over 23 bilateral trade agreements among major powers bypassing the reserve dollar currency. Do you suppose they will replace these agreements with fiat SDRs when the dollar collapses?
There isn't going to be any enforced third party global reserve currency after the dollar collapses. It's not necessary. There will be many bilateral trade agreements between buyers and sellers as China has arranged. The new currencies that replace the dollar will be redeemable in G & S for both nations and the public like the US had before 1913 when the Jesuits and their Rothschild banker agents took over America with the Fed Act.
Watch economic historian Mike Maloney's Hidden Secrets of Money & the 7 Stages of Empire to understand that history has repeated this fraudulent fiat money cycle many times and returns to genuine G & S from fraudulent fiat stage seven back to genuine money in stage one repeatedly. No one likes to be cheated and our hidden Jesuit rulers don't understand karma. In the long run -cheaters never prosper.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2U0RT-sz5o