CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online
log in · register
Home › Society › Philosophy › Philosophy & everything else

Philosophy & everything else

Started by hollowpilot9 · · 👁 8 views · 69 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants hollowpilot9swiftcobra15Harold James9Sophia Williamsironbadger31crimsonjackal8hiddenviper9Scott Nguyen2Rachel BishopJason Johnson4
Rachel Bishop Rachel Bishop Active Member
80 messages
joined Jul 2003
#61 ·
George Washington...
It’s clearly about the matrix, but that doesn't change the reality. Not understanding the matrix—the blueprint—is no different than failing to grasp the "details" of spacetime itself... specifically regarding its "origin."

To truly understand the nature of spacetime as deeply as a designer does...
...the structural matrix of the whole, much like the blueprint for a machine, an apparatus, or a complex facility....

one would have to be the architect of spacetime itself. One would need to recognize within oneself the singularity from which spacetime—the matrix—emerges...
Which isn't the case with your prophet. He thinks too "linearly"
predicting a leap in evolution where man and machine merge. According to him, that union would be the singularity, the whole, or... God, give me a break....
And frankly... it's nonsense. It isn't a singularity, a totality, or God....
That kind of realization, that growth, that forced unification? It isn't my future. It isn't "my" wholeness. If someone else wants to lose themselves in it, fine, but it's not for me...
I still maintain that wholeness—singularity—is accessible at every point in existence... in every single person. Every individual is that singularity, the source itself. There is no need for a massive accumulation of data or some external, hybrid merging with a "machine." What's required is internal unity... being one with oneself and recognizing the INNER matrix. That requires a different kind of intelligence—the intelligence of love. This can only be achieved through expanding consciousness, and expanding consciousness is simply becoming aware
of the ONENESS—the WHOLE—that already exists (always and everywhere).

In short... unity cannot be reached
through progress, by hoarding knowledge, or by cramming information into some vessel that dreams of becoming a god. Unity is found exclusively through the INDIVIDUAL who realizes the TRUTH within themselves... who grows through love enough to become capable of recognizing the TRUTH that IS.

The idea that human capacity is "limited," necessitating the transfer of all knowledge into a larger medium, is false. Every single person is CAPABLE of receiving the COMPLETE TRUTH. Current limitations are merely a defense mechanism; we aren't ready for it. At our current level of "heart," the Truth would literally consume us.
I don't know how to emphasize enough that a shift in the human heart is the only thing that leads toward the Truth—away from any matrix. All the knowledge in this world isn't just insufficient; it's knowledge tethered strictly to "this" world, this level, and its specific matrix. It only binds us tighter, leaving no way out.
Good grief, George Washington, I don't even know how to tell you to take your own claim seriously: that the matrix is NOTHING, that it doesn't exist on its own (it's unreal), and therefore, so do we.
But the question remains: what IS actually real?.....

However, things work quite differently in non-linear perception. There, the whole is defined as a matrix—something non-existent, merely an idea, or what we might call a blueprint. Every matrix consists of a specific number of fields, one or more, which expand twice four-dimensionally within spacetime perception. Such a matrix doesn't care about details; it knows beforehand that each field holds only one specific detail, which may vary in many ways but always stays within certain constraints. This is what confuses most people, and it seems to confuse you as well.

Yes... one must exist outside the matrix to truly perceive its totality, wouldn't you agree?
The matrix itself cannot be—nor is it—the actual reality I am referencing. It isn't what interests me. My focus remains on the Architect of the matrix, the entity existing beyond all frameworks... the force by which any matrix becomes... ALIVE.
I shall repeat myself once more, for whoever needs to hear it...
A FUNDAMENTAL ATTRIBUTE of Truth is that it is (literally) ALIVE.
What does that imply?
It means everything else is utterly "dead"—devoid of significance or value—including all the accumulated human knowledge that fails to account for the "element" of life.
The implication? Even 2+2 will never equal 4 without the presence of life. Therefore, wherever we find that 2+2=4, we have encountered Life itself... and only through this can we move toward true UNION. This is that SINGLE LIFE which is simultaneously ONE MIND, ONE INTELLIGENCE, which is LOVE and SPIRIT... the very embodiment of LIVING TRUTH, which is God.
So, George Washington, it is not merely the fact that 2+2=4 that matters to us; rather, it serves as proof of the REALITY OF THE TOTALITY OF LIFE to which
we truly belong....
Sigh........😵
hollowpilot9 hollowpilot9 Active MemberOP
157 messages
joined Jun 2003
#62 ·
Adura, thanks for clearing that up, though you aren't exactly the only one pointing this out—everyone seems to be spotting this supposed "passionate pursuit," "intense energy," "persistence," or "fanaticism." But honestly? It feels like we're all missing the mark here. It’s really just a reflection—a reactionary response—to the concept of FOLLY. See, the American word "stupidity" carries a different weight than how we might colloquially describe being "dumb" back home. In English, an academic—someone highly educated, mind you—can still act out of pure FOLLY, whereas our usual way of describing it implies someone is just... well, unrefined. That gap in potential between simple ignorance and true FOLLY is basically its own kind of kinetic energy. It’s enough to make me want to say "one person plus half a person"—which might just be a joke, but then again, maybe it isn't.
hollowpilot9 hollowpilot9 Active MemberOP
157 messages
joined Jun 2003
#63 ·
Pandora, what am I supposed to do with your comments now?
First off, the matrix I’m talking about probably isn't the one you have in mind. How do we clear that up? I assume you're familiar with the concept of isomorphism. Space is isomorphic, time is isomorphic—everything within such an isomorphic space-time is isomorphic, from the grand totals down to the tiny details... My interpretations could go on forever. People criticize me for writing long posts, so maybe someone could just give me a brief, simple explanation: what exactly is a MATRIX ISOMORPHISM?
You claim: "I still maintain that the whole (the singularity) is accessible at every single point of existence... in space-time... within every INDIVIDUAL human being... because every single person is that totality and that singularity, and it wells up from within them... so NO massive pile of knowledge or external-hybrid unification is needed, let alone a 'machine'... rather, what's required is internal unity... a unity of the person with themselves and the recognition of the INNER matrix... which requires a DIFFERENT KIND OF KNOWLEDGE—the KNOWLEDGE OF LOVE, which can only be achieved by EXPANDING CONSCIOUSNESS, and expanding consciousness is AWAKENING."
Well, I’m saying the exact same thing, just with one distinction: while a machine might not be necessary for you or me personally, it *is* necessary for humanity as a whole. A single cancer cell doesn't need a "clamp," but the crab does. That’s a dimension higher than the "I"—if the cell is the "I," then the CANCER is the "THEM!" Think about that.

You say: unity isn't achievable or accessible through the development or accumulation of knowledge, nor by merging that knowledge into some vessel that aspires to become God...
That "vessel" only succeeds if it’s the "vessel shaped like human love, where the brain resides." Outside of that vessel, everything else is just garbage... I’ll agree with you on one condition: if a magnifying glass, a telescope, or a microscope is also considered garbage, and the only "real" thing is the human eye. But unfortunately, for both of us, that isn't quite how it works.

The truth is something entirely different and has nothing to do with the amount of information per unit of surface area or brain volume. The human brain might not be limited by its storage capacity for data, but it is certainly limited by the speed at which it processes that data.
My response: For the Truth, a brain the size of a ladybug—or even smaller—would be plenty!
We are discussing two different matrices here. I’m talking about the universal matrix, whereas you seem to be talking about a particular one, so let’s just leave it at that.
To wrap this up, here's a little anecdote. A journalist once asked me how it was possible that the ancient people of the Summit knew about the hexagon as a universal fractal of the universe, yet modern physics and astrophysics are only just discovering it now. I told him the question is actually much "tougher": How is it that bees, wasps, and other insects already know about the hexagon? He just stared at me and muttered, "Strange." See? Nothing is strange if you understand the matrix I'm talking about. That matrix is called the tetrahedron, and they say the tetrahedron is the universal fractal (matrix) of the cosmos. And what lies at the center—the center of gravity—of the tetrahedron?
What do you think? Was > just being foolish, or did he happen to settle right into the center of gravity—the heart of the pyramid—simply because he was also—well, monumentally fragile—as a god on Earth, as the old saying goes?
An ESSENTIAL PROPERTY OF TRUTH is that it is (literally) ALIVE.
Absolutely right, Pandora! Truth creates itself from within itself, and in biology, that's called
"an autocatalytic cycle," though I prefer to call it a four-pole polar inversion.

Good grief, surely we know that 2 + 2 never equals four, just as 1 : 2 is never a half, but instead, one Eve + one Adam always equals 4! What are we doing here? The number four in this context isn't four identical units like linear math teaches us; rather, they are four identical but mutually polar and inverse units. The difference between the first set of four units—like four bricks—and the second set of four units—like four quarters of a circle—is massive. Just massive...
I completely agree with you that 2 + 2 = 4 serves as proof of a whole, but not a "whole" defined as a set of four bricks, four beer bottles, or four (insert whatever you want here). Rather, it is proof of the wholeness of a circle, a Human, a Cat, a Walnut, or the Universe. I fear that when we use the number 4, we are trying to prove entirely different and incompatible things.
Maybe we should just call it a day on this debate—before someone actually loses their cool and starts throwing punches?
Scott Nguyen2 Scott Nguyen2 Member
18 messages
joined Dec 2002
#64 ·
Scott Nguyen2, thanks for clearing that up, but honestly, you aren't the only one pointing this out... people keep talking about this "passionate quest," or some "intense energy," or "persistence," or even "fanaticism"—but if you ask me, they're all totally missing the mark. It’s because they’re just reacting to the concept of FOLLY. See, the American word "FOLLY" carries a weight that our local terms just don't quite hit. In English, a highly educated, Ivy League type can still commit an act of pure FOLLY, whereas in other languages, that kind of word is usually reserved for someone who's just plain dim-witted—you know, the uneducated types. That difference in potential behind FOLLY is what provides the actual driving force... and that energy is what makes me want to go "this guy + half a guy," which might be a joke, but sometimes it's dead serious...

Look, I really didn't mean anything by it in a negative way. I remember being on an old message board back in the day, following these deep science debates where the FOLLY scientists were saying stuff almost identical to what the FOLLY philosophers say—it was all about the origins of life, whether everything came from matter and all that jazz.

Anyway, you've got a pretty massive "momentum" when it comes to the info you drop, and you tend to lean on analogies quite a bit, which is totally fine by me.

Just keep doing your thing!
hollowpilot9 hollowpilot9 Active MemberOP
157 messages
joined Jun 2003
#65 ·
Adam Smith, I didn't take that negatively at all—if anything, you just gave me the nudge I needed to get those thoughts down. You’ve hit the nail on the head, though; I tend to lean heavily on analogies during serious debates, which is funny because so many people don't even count an analogy as a valid argument, right? It's my go-to move. I actually love playing with the connections between micro and macro phenomena—it's fascinating. It’s just a shame I can't seem to find a conversation partner who can actually follow my train of thought associatively... say, someone who could grasp the parallels between microscopic cellular structures and the macro structure of a human being.
Are you suggesting my posts are getting too long? Maybe you could step in and help explain to the rest of the group why it’s physically impossible to describe a sphere in a single short sentence, whereas describing the circumference of a circle is perfectly doable. It honestly baffles me how people fail to make that distinction.
hollowpilot9 hollowpilot9 Active MemberOP
157 messages
joined Jun 2003
#66 ·
Jack, I just sent over a reply to your DM. Sorry for the delay—I’m still getting used to how people actually use private messages around here.
Jason Johnson4 Jason Johnson4 Active Member
130 messages
joined Dec 2003
#67 ·
obelix said:Alright, we’ve drifted pretty far off course with all this talk about God, haven't we? Let's reel it back in and get back to the actual topic at hand...

Honestly, humanity has always been obsessed with finding some kind of way out—you know, those grand schemes to escape the physical body altogether. And honestly? I can’t really blame us. Why wouldn't we want to?

Physical reality is a complete mess right now. If you look back at some of the earliest "religious" artifacts—think Neanderthal burials deep in the dirt—you can already see the faint outlines of a belief in immortality starting to take shape. It’s wild when you think about it. All modern religions, basically everything that came after the Paleolithic era, seem to carry this underlying Gnostic skepticism, or even just an outright hostility toward the physical body and the material world we live in. But then you look at contemporary "primitive" tribes, or even just folks living simple lives out in rural America, and they still hold onto these concepts of immortality and out-of-body experiences—what the Greeks called ecstasy—without necessarily having that intense, obsessive hatred for the flesh that the organized stuff tends to lean into.

Gnosticism tends to creep up on you—kind of like how arsenic works, where those tiny, incremental doses don't kill you right away, they just build up until things become pathologically broken. It’s this intense dualism that shifts everything we value away from the physical body and pours it all into the "spirit." Honestly, I think that specific mindset is what defines our whole concept of civilization. You can see a similar trajectory if you look at how war evolves. Take hunter-gatherers, for instance—some groups like the Yanov people still practice a sort of ritualized combat. There’s an old Indian custom where a young man has to defeat his rival without taking a single hit. It's highly structured, almost theatrical, which is a far cry from the mindless chaos we see today.

If you ask me, "real" war is just religion and economics—which is really just politics—repackaged as a different kind of tool. Historically speaking, it didn't even kick off until the Neolithic period when priests basically invented the concept of "scarcity" and gave rise to the whole warrior caste thing. I’m totally throwing out the idea that war is just an extension of hunting; that just doesn't hold water for me. To my mind, World War II was the last "real" war we ever saw. After that, we entered the era of hyperreal warfare. It started back during the Vietnam War with the arrival of television, and it reached its most shameful peak during the Gulf War in '91. This hyperreal version of conflict isn't about economics anymore, and it certainly doesn't serve the survival of the country.

Think about how we fight. There’s this ritualized kind of brawling that’s basically intentional but totally non-hierarchical—think of those temporary skirmishes where commanders are just passing through. Then you have actual war, which is always mandatory and strictly hierarchical. But then there’s this third thing: hyperreal war. That one is purely psychological and imaginary; it’s what some call "Pure War." In the first scenario, you're risking your body. In the second, you're sacrificing your body. But in that third one? Your very sense of physical existence just... vanishes. It's an idea borrowed from Paul Claster's work on the archaeology of violence. It’s funny how modern science is taking this weird anti-materialist turn, too. When you look at the dialectical fallout between science and religion, they’ve sort of merged into this singular entity that functions like a religion itself. Science is supposed to be the study of material reality, right? But paradoxically, it ends up dissolving the materiality of reality. Honestly, science has always functioned like a priesthood—just a specialized branch of cosmology used to fuel ideology and justify "the way things are." This deconstruction of reality we see in post-classical physics really just mirrors that vacuum of non-reality that makes up the foundation of any state.

Once upon a time, there was this wild concept of a true Paradise on Earth. But looking at how things work today, it feels like the country has morphed into nothing more than a massive exercise in managing data points and digital imagery. We aren’t really a "power" in the traditional sense anymore; we’ve become this disembodied pattern of pure information. It reminds me of how ancient Babylonian cosmology was used to justify their grip on power back in the day. In the same vein, the inherent limitations of modern science serve as a convenient tool for the Final State—that post-nuclear, purely "information-based" version of America. At least, that’s how the New Paradigm would frame it if you asked. And the funny thing is, almost everyone just accepts the axiomatic premises of this New Paradigm without a second thought. It’s all very "spiritual," if you want to call it that.

Even the New Age crowd, with all those Gnostic leanings they love so much, is totally buying into this "New Science." They’re finding all these little snippets of data that act like divine proof for their specific spiritual worldview. It’s wild how meditation and cybernetics are basically becoming best friends at this point. But let's be real: if you’re building this kind of "information state," you’re still going to need a massive police force and a prison system so overwhelming it would make even Nebuchadnezzar look tame—something that would send those old-school Moloch priests into a complete panic of pure terror. And don't get me started on "modern science." They still can't quite wash the blood off their hands from that near-successful attempt at "conquering Nature." It was really the ultimate civilizational victory over the physical body, wasn't it? Just a total triumph of the mind over the flesh.

Honestly, who even cares anymore? Everything is just "relative," right? I guess we’re all just stuck waiting for that moment where we can finally transcend our physical selves through some kind of massive quantum leap. But until then, we're being suffocated by this constant media interference. It’s like the news cycle is designed to drive us further away from our own skin, constantly yanking our focus toward endless streams of data instead of letting us actually *live* and experience things firsthand.

In that sense, the media acts almost like a priesthood, doesn't it? It feels like they’re offering us a way to transcend our physical selves by redefining the spirit as pure information. The whole point of this "information" is the Image—this sacred, iconic cluster of data that hijacks our physical existence. It tries to take precedence over the actual, messy process of being embodied, replacing it with this incorporeal, indestructible kind of ecstasy.

Consciousness becomes something you can just "download" from the web, something you can clip out of the matrix of our animal nature and immortalize as raw data. We aren't talking about mind-in-the-machine anymore; it's more like machine-as-mind. The machine becomes the Holy Spirit, the ultimate middleman, supposed to ferry us away from our heavy bodies toward some shred of pure Light. In this view, virtual reality is basically cybernetic enlightenment.

Log in, sign up, and leave Mother Earth behind forever. Every branch of science seems to be pushing for this kind of universal applicability—not just in the lab, but in how we live our lives. Classical physics was what gave birth to Capitalism, Communism, Fascism, and all those other Modern ideologies.

Now, post-classical science is throwing out a whole new set of ideas meant to be applied to society: relativity, quantum "unreality," cybernetics, information theory, and so on. Aside from a few outliers, there’s this massive trend toward making everything more... ghostly. You have certain black hole theorists who end up sounding like literal Paulist theologians, while some folks in information theory are starting to sound like true Manichaeans.

Socially speaking, these paradigms provide the perfect cover for this rhetoric of weightlessness. It’s the kind of talk that wouldn't embarrass a hermit from the 3rd century or a 17th-century New England Puritan, yet here we are, hearing it expressed through the language of post-industrial, postmodern, consumerist madness.

All our conversations are infected by these underlying paradigmatic assumptions. They’re really just monolithic assertions, but we treat them like they’re the fundamental logic of Reality itself. For instance, because everyone assumes computers represent a giant leap toward "artificial intelligence," we somehow fall for the idea that buying a better computer will actually make us smarter.

So, what do you guys think? Are we actually going somewhere? 😉😁

Obelix

You forgot to include the citation;

Hakim Bey; The Information War - from Temporary Autonomous Zones and other essays - p. 97, New York, 2003;

Published by Penguin Books

Edited by: Sarah Miller

Processed by: Bezobraz Kosovac – Obelix Karamustafa

🙂
ironbadger31 ironbadger31 Active Member
79 messages
joined Jan 2008
#68 ·
Sitting Bull said:ironbadger31

You actually missed a few things here;

Hakim Bey; The Information War - from autonomous zone and other text - p. 97 f. New York 2003;

Jesenski & Turk Publishing

Edited by: Katarina Peović Vuković

Processed by: Bezobraz Kosovac – Obelix Karamustaf

🙂

😁
Everything is accounted for—and just to be clear, I never claimed this was my own text😉.

Here’s the link. Honestly, the author has some really sharp insights, and it's definitely worth diving into this "palimpsest"😉... This specific snippet fit our discussion perfectly...

Cheers LD, and please, hang out with us in the philosophy section more often!
hollowpilot9 hollowpilot9 Active MemberOP
157 messages
joined Jun 2003
#69 ·
I’m not entirely sure if it’s even worth reopening the whole debate about AI intelligence at this point—or is it? I mean, does anyone actually have anything new to add, or are we just circling the same drain?
I hope this actually counts for something, so here’s my two cents on the matter—a topic that feels genuinely relevant and, honestly, one of those heavy-hitting philosophical questions we're all facing in the modern age.
Hopefully, I'll manage to keep the typos to a minimum this time around—fingers crossed.

Let me just recap what I laid out in my first post—right after Asterix asked that question:

Knowledge and intelligence—it’s really just two sides of the same mental coin, isn't it? One feeds the other. Knowledge acts as the catalyst that actually triggers the process.
Intelligence isn't exactly the same thing as knowledge—though people love to lump them together—and that distinction actually carries through the entire biological spectrum. It’s a nuance that gets lost in most conversations, I suppose. Why do we assume they're interchangeable? They aren't. One is about processing, the other is about the data itself—it’s a subtle but massive gap.
From spider webs to human anatomy—it’s all just one big, messy structural evolution, isn't it?
Artificial intelligence—it’s basically just sitting there, existing outside of biological beings. It exists entirely apart from the human experience... or at least, it’s designed to. Is it actually "thinking," or is it just a very sophisticated mirror reflecting our own logic back at us? It’s an external thing—detached from the messy, breathing reality of being human.
The way our brains can basically stretch out its own mental and cognitive capacity—it’s like this internal, deep-seated expansion of what we can actually process. It isn't just about raw intelligence, really... it's more about that inner bandwidth, that latent ability to push the boundaries of how we think and perceive things from the inside out. Is it an innate limit, or just something we haven't fully tapped into yet? Who knows. But there's definitely something happening under the hood.
The structure of an artificial brain is actually pretty much analogous to how a biological one works—at least in theory. It contains...
Passive memory—we’re talking about files here—is basically just a digital version of those old-school paper libraries you see in places like Chicago or Boston. You know, the kind where everything is physically sitting there, just waiting to be dusted off? It’s essentially that same concept...
Active RAM—you know, that sweet spot where all the actual thinking happens. It’s basically the digital headquarters for intelligence.
The evolution of artificial brains is basically just following the same playbook as biological ones—it’s all happening in parallel. It makes you wonder, though... are we actually building something new, or are we just painstakingly recreating the same old patterns we see in nature? It feels like we're just retracing our own steps, one line of code at a time.

Artificial intelligence is essentially split into two camps—you’ve got the local stuff running on your own PC, and then there’s the global side of things, the massive internet networks that power everything else. It’s funny how we talk about "AI" like it's this one singular entity, when really, it's just different layers of processing power scattered across the web and tucked away in our own hardware. Is it all interconnected? In a way, sure—but they operate on entirely different scales.
I don't know—maybe?

The evolution of artificial brains is hurtling toward a singularity—which, if you think about it, is kind of terrifying? We’re basically building something that might eventually outpace us entirely. It’s one of those things where you start looking at neural networks and wonder how much further this rabbit hole goes before we hit a wall—or more likely, before the machine decides it doesn't need us to hold the flashlight anymore. Is it inevitable? Probably. Is it happening faster than anyone actually wants to admit? Almost certainly.
It essentially marks that specific intersection—you know, that theoretical "sweet spot" where the human brain and the machine finally start speaking the same language.

So, those were the five core points I laid out when answering that question—you know, the one about whether buying a computer actually makes you any smarter? In my initial response, I also mentioned this:

Owning a PC doesn't exactly make you a genius—it’s just hardware, after all—but if you actually use that machine as a gateway to the internet—that massive, structural web of interconnected computers that unspecified calls the GLOBAL BRAIN or a SUPERBRAIN—then suddenly, intelligence starts to scale. It scales based on how you apply it to solve a specific problem. So, yeah, a person definitely becomes smarter and more capable through this process, simply because they can tap into the collective sum of human knowledge while simultaneously plugging into the live, moving dynamics of countless other minds working on the same issue. It’s a total paradigm shift in human evolution—and if you ask me, it’s basically the digital equivalent of a human fetus developing its brain and nervous system.

Where are we actually landing on this today? No one is out here arguing that a computer isn't just a passive memory machine—it’s incredibly good at shuffling data around, whether we're talking about banking systems, government databases, massive warehouses, or just endless digital files—but people get real skeptical when you suggest a computer might actually become intelligent like a human brain. You know, the idea that it could autonomously tackle complex problems without some person hovering over it? A lot of folks think we'll never get there—that it's basically an impossibility simply because the human brain is such a complicated mess of biology. Is it even possible to replicate that kind of complexity? Who knows.

I’m not going to get bogged down here detailing the whole laundry list of things that point toward autonomous intelligence—you know, the stuff already running in the background of modern industry like sensor-driven interactive systems, robotics, and cyborg tech. Or even looking at the military sector, where we’ve already deployed incredibly complex interactive systems that act autonomously the second they pick up a signal that essentially functions as an "execute" command for their own independent operations. Instead of wandering down those rabbit holes, I’ll try to unpack Kurzweil’s thesis regarding exponential growth—the idea that we are inevitably hurtling toward a singularity. He argues that technological progress follows a pattern similar to biological evolution, where every step forward produces a level of capability that is more powerful than whatever came before it. Now, if we accept that this is just how biological life evolves, that part is pretty straightforward—it's common sense, really. But is it equally true for human-made technology? Is every single new tier of tech necessarily more potent than the one it replaces? That’s the question. If you look at the logical implications of this evolutionary principle, every new level seems to serve a dual purpose. One side of the coin is dedicated to maintaining and renewing the current state of a being—just keeping the lights on, so to speak. The other side is focused on transcending that state—on creating a higher, newer version of that being. Honestly, without grasping how these two processes—the maintenance of the old and the creation of the non-existent new—work in tandem, it’s almost impossible to wrap your head around Kurzweil’s argument that the Singularity isn't just possible, but inevitable.

What are we supposed to take away from all this?

It’s not just one thing—it's more like everything in human history, every single era, every bit of joy or misery we've endured, serves two distinct purposes. They have two meanings and two goals: first, there's the survival of our species (think basic biological drives) and the sustenance of life itself (food and
work); and second, there's the act of creation—working toward the emergence of a NEW HIGHER BEING on the evolutionary scale of the internal universe. If this evolutionary hunch holds water, then from that perspective, it becomes necessary for a new brain and a new nervous system to emerge—one that is higher, stronger, and more capable than the level currently producing it; basically, something more advanced than us. All my analysis points toward the idea that this higher level we are building is actually the Internet—in other words, it's the level of the SUPERBRAIN. For this superbrain to serve the very level it is being built for—humanity—it has to encompass all the functions and abilities of a human brain, just scaled up to handle the complexities and problems of the entire human race. Since this can only be a machine-based brain rather than a biological one, it raises a question: Will this SUPERBRAIN become empowered and start living autonomously as a mechanical phenomenon, independent of humans? It’s a bit like asking if the human brain could become empowered and function independently of its own cells. Hopefully, the answer is obvious to everyone! The brain exists to maintain a constant, interactive relationship with its cells, but it can also become empowered and detach from them—leading to the stupidity of suicide, or the killing of others. In the same vein, the superbrain is being created to function for humanity. It should ideally stay in constant interaction with us, but it could very well go rogue and make decisions regarding the self-destruction of humanity, or the destruction of some other civilization. What I mean is, the skeptics' fear regarding Artificial Intelligence is actually justified. We need to realize that humans are creating a power and a force far beyond ourselves—we are creating an inter-cosmic monster that, for now, is called humanity, but in the future might be called HOMOTERAS. The artificial memory and intelligence of this cosmic giant—which Jewish tradition refers to as the GOLEM—is absolute from our earthly perception, and it is inevitable. We can see the implications already today, and in the near future, they will become dramatic, because every person connected to the SUPERBRAIN (the INTERNET) WILL KNOW AS MUCH AS HUMANITY KNOWS, AND WILL BECOME ONLY AS INTELLIGENT AS THE SOFTWARE ALLOWS, AND AS POWERFUL AND FAST AS THEIR CURRENT PC WAS.

Anyway, that's my two cents.
swiftcobra15 swiftcobra15 Regular
305 messages
joined Dec 2002
#70 ·
Sitting Bull said:My buddies are hanging out in the branches...

Great Bear, welcome back! 👋 👋 👋

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads