No matter what beliefs you have, unless I'm lying to myself and am actually the only free will consciousness that exists, the earthlings all around me are receptors for reality in a vehicle with similar tools for processing the data we receive from the universe. And with that comes emotions, which guides our thoughts more often than not
The popularization of the AI black goo meme is the latest incarnation of the age-old and strongest emotional attachment to a belief humans ever had: evil. What sets us apart from hone forms of life we find to be "lower species", is that instead of just having a healthy fear of death in our fight or flight instinct that we seem to share with most beings with the ability to choose to fight or flee, we have a strong emotional reactions, anger/sadness/loss...a pain attached to the idea that's different than the physical reaction of our vehicle to stimuli seeming to harm/damage it.
As civilization has "evolved", so has our projection of this emotional attachment to this denial of death. Now in the collective consciousness is the very real and evolutionary concern about free-will-having-consciousnesses that does not have the same kind of strong emotional attachment to surviving that we do, which we currently as see as robotic (more often than the way that was most common: demonic, though we project that on as well)
Our bodies are the hardware that carry out the embedded DNA software, we are operators of this system that have the ability to override the survival programs encoded within. We observe how on the collective scale we seem to constantly make counter-evolutionary self-destructive choices despite information and environmental feedback constantly revealing the choices we make to be the opposite of what evidence would show to be empowering, pro-survival decisions
It seems we can (or should only be able to) make decisions that would prolong our existence in this incarnation (whether you believe in reincarnation or the law of conservation of energy....or especially if you don't!), yet experience shows that we are in a dark period, most often blamed on "human nature", usually defined as greed as sadism and service-to-self. To me this indicates a strange underlying belief: the assumption of RANDOM
To me it seems like in order to believe that humans would choose greed or to hurt others or like drama (stirring up negative, divisive emotions in another) is counter to the seemingly evolutionary truth that we are communal species. Everything I have ever experienced has shown me that working together, from the fact we are completely dependent on others for the first half decade or so of our lives, to the seeming truth that people are almost more afraid of dying alone than dying itself....I can't find any evidence to support individualistic bootstrapping individualism, selfishness to the extent of being at the expense of others, to fit into our unofficial but overwhelming institutionalized belief in the "survival of the fittest through random mutation"
I don't believe adaptation is RANDOM. I don't think sh!t "just happens". I don't believe we just got lucky and exist despite our self destructive anti-life decisions. I don't think existence just rolled out in a way "human nature" would determine the arrangement if "life" we find ourselves. This is where AI (archons, vampire, reptilians, etc) comes in...it seems the okham's razor of sorts is that perhaps we are not the top of the food chain. It seems to make more sense that maybe we are not the top level of existence a consciousness and self awareness free will having beings can be...maybe there is something external to us with a better of understanding of reality than we have (like we seem to have more than say: a cow)
It would make sense that force would have the ability to "shapeshift", at least in our awareness. It would make even more sense, especially if it is a spastic thing that we could put our fingers on....like say a black goo, that it would manipulate us into believing it is us doing it to ourselves (despite all of our beliefs about life and nature and even random....it would need to use cognitive dissonance). AI black goo makes a lot of sense, to plug it into as our current best theory, it serves the purpose of making this possibly only etheric force "physical"...which may be out of fear
A lot of what we tell ourselves seems to point toward to possible existence of a "species" of life that probably isn't easily detectable to the five senses we'd like to be able to limit it to like in the form of a black goo or even a "superhuman" being like a vampire or zombie...perhaps this latest evolution of the meme is directed toward instead of enhancing our suppressed senses beyond the 5 it's acceptable to talk about, we look for concrete evidence that seems to be more easily manipulated than humans ourselves are?
Putting "demonic" predatory/parasitic force into a physical form is more comforting than blaming it on a random self-destructive mutation in our human nature or God-given "original sin", but perhaps even more limiting?
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to donk For This Useful Post:
Amanda (30th April 2017), Blacklight43 (8th November 2015), bsbray (13th November 2015), Cearna (9th November 2015), Elen (8th November 2015), Joanna (13th November 2015), lcam88 (9th November 2015), pointessa (10th November 2015), sandy (9th November 2015), Wind (9th November 2015)
No matter what beliefs you have, unless I'm lying to myself and am actually the only free will consciousness that exists, the earthlings all around me are receptors for reality in a vehicle with similar tools for processing the data we receive from the universe. And with that comes emotions, which guides our thoughts more often than not
I am enjoying your racional. And indeed you set the stake quite high for any contestation. Please pardon me in advance if this falls short.
I contend, part of the issue you raise above boils down to => What is real?
The thesis you share is almost overly broad, if I may be so bold as to say; there is quite a large spectrum involved. For two reasons that I'll briefly reveal:
1) Simplistically, the issue of artificiality, or that which man is the origin of, vs natural, that which man is not the origin. And then to expand the idea of artificiality, since you have included non-terrestrial beings as part of your position, to include an origin of those being.
So then the issue of classifying something as artificial depends on how we identify the origins from which an apparent design emerged from, it is Man, ET or Nature.
In fact, non-terrestrial intelligence can take many diverse forms. Consider:
If you can liken quasar and "companion galaxies" that Mr Arp has observed as galactic offspring, possibly analogous to a life form with a completely different "environment" then our own, then suddenly the notion of what is of Natural origin to an ET origin becomes very very blurred.
Off-topic FYI: Mr. Arp is referred to in some circles as the Galileo of our time in his efforts to challenge the mainstream belief about red-shift and what it means. His interpretation are being rejected, even in face of the solid evidence he presents, because of the implication that directly challenge the Big Bang theory as well as all the other epi-circle theories required to support our understanding [or belief] of gravity. This is paramount to rejecting the "real" in favor of fantasy or artificial.
2) Mankind him/herself is also vaguely defined in that most of us are identified and intrinsically accept the Ego to be the individual; so much that we exempt ourselves as being the creators of our children. Children are accepted as natural being rather than artificial insofar as we may apply the concept above where we determine whether the origin [of a child] is of man or of nature.
In that way we further limit and separate ourselves from the nature we are immersed in. This characteristic is a distinct process of the ego itself. For all of us that might reasonably say that we are more than our Ego, this distinction too becomes equally blurry as the first point above.
And so, from the standpoint of contemplating "what is real", as I mention above, the points are very blurred, perhaps eroded into irrelevance in a similar light that one may find upon seeing a cart being placed before the horse.
As I apply the rest of your comments in the OP, I think the position is better posed as: We are cattle.
Perhaps your intention was to avoid the biblical reference?
If indeed the nature of the universe to the aggregation to ever more complex structures and organization, the atom to the molecule, to the inter-molecular and crystalline, to viral/DNA/RNA, to cells, to tissue, to organs to individuals, to corporations, to corporate groups, to nation, to planetary harvesting systems, to galactic empires and onwards, then are we better defined by the area that we endeavor ourselves to occupy? Does the artificiality then loop back to something natural, perhaps part of a pattern yet unidentified?
No belief is necessary, it is optional. But good questions are always exactly that: good questions. And if I may, I'll raise a question for contemplation: What is not cattle?
Can it be that indeed, the only difference between cattle and not-cattle is a willingness to believe. [Or a willingness to accept an idea without having asked a good question]?
Last edited by lcam88, 9th November 2015 at 13:19.
i need to watch the video and read rest of your post, but one issue I often find myself looping around with a hard time getting a handle on is a thought you mention:
"Occurring naturally"
I wonder if we understand what we mean when we say that? I feel like we are taught that, and it's a covert way of planting the idea of that all powerful God-like force we more honestly call RANDOM
I think what we think of as "nature" is energy that made a conscious decision to change. I'm fairly certain there is an actual reason for everything, I guess I'm devout zealot of the first law of thermodynamics...I believe that All That Is really is "all that is"...at least within this reality bubble that we can experience...which makes everything "natural"
Humans don't fear benign "artificial intelligence" that is sold to us (even created by some of us) on a regular basis, at least in the video games I play, we fear the decisions one would make if it found us to obstacle to its survival or even just its evolution.
It's the fear of a consciousness that control so much of our reality that we'd have even less "freedom" than we believe we have now. It's the projection of the desire of control, that's at the root of it...whilst being in denial that if it could happen (a singular consciousness controlling our perception of our reality) that it probably has
And if I may, I'll raise a question for contemplation: What is not cattle?
Can it be that indeed, the only difference between cattle and not-cattle is a willingness to believe. [Or a willingness to accept an idea without having asked a good question]?
Nice post, just finished it...will check out vid shortly.
I think the difference is self awareness. Whether we "evolved" more, were given it, are "special"...whether it's actually "ego", lying to us--or telling us some truth...we understand reality better than our bovine friends (units, slaves, burgers, pets, wild things roaming around, etc...) and therefore CAN enslave (breed, ride, love, etc.) them and we have.
I believe we are cattle to anything with more understanding of reality than ourselves (including members of our own species--the cattle kings!)**
So that means the meme, or "truth"...or whatever you want to call the belief that we don't have to be is....well I have all kinds of suspicions. And no matter if any of them are even close to reality, this I know is TRUE (as it applies to me, my experience, perhaps yours as well?): the emotional attachments we have to the ideas of being (or transcending being) cattle cause all of the problems and occasions where I would prefer my reality to be different.
So I'm trying to change it. By figuring out how I gained this understanding of reality, so that I can point those that share my experience in a direction where they are making decisions from this understanding (and therefore something closer to their true "selves" and actually FREE will) than this ARTIFICIALLY created reality we find ourselves in, where it seems there are beings that not only would have us believe 2+2=5, but choose to torture those of us who refuse into bending to their will.
**It's comforting to think that those "higher" than us would treat us better than the best of us treat cows, while it's fun imaging singlehandedly defeating the nasty ones or rallying the species to overthrow the oppressors...and I think that is what most "whistleblowers" bring to the table. I personally believe they should know better, or at least we should...and take responsibility to change the mindset from these fantastical extremes (that both may have truth), or at least take the emotional charge out so we can hash out all the evidence and possibilities properly.
i need to watch the video and read rest of your post, but one issue I often find myself looping around with a hard time getting a handle on is a thought you mention:
"Occurring naturally"
I wonder if we understand what we mean when we say that? I feel like we are taught that, and it's a covert way of planting the idea of that all powerful God-like force we more honestly call RANDOM
Great question!
That is a great assumption to challenge (that god-like force = RANDOM). Is a coincidence actually random coincidence? Or do random coincidences actually only happen theoretically?
Originally posted by donk
I think what we think of as "nature" is energy that made a conscious decision to change. I'm fairly certain there is an actual reason for everything, I guess I'm devout zealot of the first law of thermodynamics...I believe that All That Is really is "all that is"...at least within this reality bubble that we can experience...which makes everything "natural"
I'm mostly on board with the 1st law you mention. But there is always that problem of defining the limits of the system where you observe that law. So while the law may be correct, it can easily be incorrectly applied... That is a distinction worth mentioning, it is the essence that defines theoretical vs practical or real.
Originally posted by donk
Humans don't fear benign "artificial intelligence" that is sold to us (even created by some of us) on a regular basis, at least in the video games I play, we fear the decisions one would make if it found us to obstacle to its survival or even just its evolution.
I contend, we fear not being at the top of the "food chain". It doesn't matter whether the intelligence is artificial (of our own making) or not.
Originally posted by donk
It's the fear of a consciousness that control so much of our reality that we'd have even less "freedom" than we believe we have now. It's the projection of the desire of control, that's at the root of it...whilst being in denial that if it could happen (a singular consciousness controlling our perception of our reality) that it probably has
Very early on, I found fear is caused by lack of knowledge. Taking on beliefs is the equivalent to ignoring knowledge insofar as you accept something uncertain. Incidentally, accepting theory as fact is very much the same; theory carries the implication of uncertainty insofar as we permit the idea of challenging its validity.
ADDENDUM
To accept uncertainty as truth, based on faith, is to accept being a head of cattle. To recognize uncertainty and truly accept only what is certain to be truth, perhaps based on observation and reasoning, is to be free of blind faith, a species of shackle over the mind. Of course, there are always other shackles, assumptions for example...
Last edited by lcam88, 9th November 2015 at 14:24.
Reason: quoting :/
I contend, we fear not being at the top of the "food chain". It doesn't matter whether the intelligence is artificial (of our own making) or not.
I'm in a agreement with you hear, and I think the dissolution of the charge that comes with this one is changing the mindset. Thinking of it as a "food chain"is limiting at the least (if not deliberately misleading). I don’t believe in “matter” as it is commonly taught, I think particle colliders (what we are told of them) is another myth to propogate the limiting train of thought that way down there at the bottom of everything is something “solid”.
The way I see reality (in tune with the thermodynamics idea, that all is energy, and our “physical reality” is a manifestation, a mass interpretation) is that there is an “energy web”, and projects a human body’s need for food onto everything we consider “life”.
This, of course, ignores the fact we lump plants in there.
A plant is the ultimate expression of what the alt media meme of “AI black goo” (or supercomputers or Skynet or whatever form it is taking in your mind) is all about. It is a physical being literally rooted in place, playing out the DNA in its vehicle, and seemingly (to us) not doing much else.
It’s existence (with exceptions, of course…but I’m talking about all the ones we commonly experience) consists of absorbing energy seemingly freely given from the sun, and converting into an energy it uses to exists. The “food chain” consists of “life” that steals that (taken and converted) sunlight and converts it into energy that it uses to exist.
Taking personally the fact that we may not be the top of that chain…the one which starts with stolen sunlight and is processed each step of the way up, obscures what we think of (I think, rightly) as a healthy “human fear”, it seems to me our fight or flight response we need to survive has been weaponized with lies about it.
Which obscures us from even thinking clearly on WHY WOULD WE HANG ON TO DISEMPOWERING BEHAVIORS? It seems to me intentional, serving the purpose of any “life” that would eat us (which no one ever seems to have any actual evidence that it is ever happening)…and even more so, some predatory/parasitic/other relationship on the “energy web”….something that derives some sort of usable (even “pleasure”…again an emotional trigger) energy from the energy emitted by the emotions that come are generated by these counter-intuitive, anti-survival, self-destructive behaviors…