Technology...the enemy?

[tridean]

Hi All,
I am astounded at the rate of technological advancements, and the cost it incurs on those using it. Long ago when you bought something it lasted many many years, however buy a computer now and as soon as you turn it on for the first time it becomes obsolete. I heard this very statement being said on an advert on TV and I immediately wondered if this was done on purpose, but not intentionally from those actually 'making' the technology. You know, like 4D beings etc influencing 3D beings.

One piece of theory I came across in the book 'Evolve your Brain' by Joe Dispenza that opened my eyes was to do with the protein our bodies produces and its direct relationship to aging. In other words, we age quicker the worse the quality of protein our body produces, and in essence, the quality of the protein being produced is in direct relation to the amount of new stimulus our brains receive AND our body cells through chemicals (feelings and emotions).

I'll reproduce one page of Joe's book here.

As the peptides "instruct" a cell, they activate the DNA to make proteins equal to the orders from our neural networks. If the orders are the same frightful attitudes or similar aggressive states of anger that we have been sending as signals to the cell over and over again for days and years, over time, the cell's DNA begins to malfunction. In other words, we have had no new experiences with a new chemical signature (in the form of different peptides) that can signal the cell to activate new genes in order to make new proteins. If the cells are getting the same chemical orders from the same emotional states, our genes will start to wear out - just like driving a car in the same gear. If the DNA begins to become overused, the cells begin to make "cheaper" proteins from their DNA.

If we think about it, all aging is the result of improper protein production. What happens when we age? Our skin sags. Skin is made of protein. What happens to our hair? It thins. Hair is protein [I'd add here that it grays too!]. What happens to our our joints? They get stiff. Synovial fluid is made of proteins. What happens to our digestion? It gets compromised. Enzymes are protein. What happens to our bones? They get brittle. Bone is made of proteins. When we make cheaper proteins, the body begins to express itself in a weakened state.

The expression of life is the expression of proteins. If we continuously give the cells the same orders from the same repetitive attitudes based on the same feelings, we make the same chemical peptides. As a result, we do not send any new signals to the cell to activate new gene expression. We are repeating the same thoughts that are either genetically wired or connected to some familiar emotional attitude from experiences gone by. If we are living the same feelings every day, rest assured that those chemicals will overuse the cell's DNA and begin to make altered proteins. The cell's DNA will begin to malfunction.

What I find interesting is the simple belief that we have been conditioned to believe is that technology makes life easier, and also prolongs life. We have been brought up to beleive this is a good thing. OK, with the prolonging of life, not many will argue that this is a bad thing, but I will aks you this; how many people do you know that are older than 50, 60, 70, 80 and so on that do not pop numerous pills on a an almost daily basis. We all know the pharma industry is huge!

But what about the simple use of calculators and computers. One of my mentors once told us that in his day if we wanted to solve a mathematical problem we had to use our 'brain', and the only tools we could use to help was pencil and paper and a slide rule. Now kids simply open their calculator and as such require less use of the 'problem solving' brain.

In fact it is obvious to me that many technologies are simply removing the need to make use of our problem solving brains, and this in turn is helping to age us quicker, and in turn making us more dependable on big pharma and big government, not to mention maybe the possible benefit to 4D STS (would this be a fair assessment?). It is making us less inclined to be problem solvers. We are a world of automatons just as G says, but we are living longer and at the same time aging quicker. There is no benefit in my view for an 80 year old person who can not see or hear, and only is able to live due to pills and a pension, who at the same time spends their whole days recounting their own pasts. Unless something bigger is benefiting.

Any thoughts much appreciated

Dean

 

[obyvatel]

IMHO technology by itself is not "the enemy". The very fact that we are networking via this forum sitting in different corners of the world is made possible by the advancements of technology. It is how someone uses technology that determines whether it helps or hinders in the pursuit of an aim.

Long ago when you bought something it lasted many many years, however buy a computer now and as soon as you turn it on for the first time it becomes obsolete.

It may become "obsolete" in the sense that a more advanced model is available in the market but the old one still works. It may last quite long as well. Personally I do not care if the computer I have is the latest and greatest in the market as long as it serves the specific purpose I use it for.

OK, with the prolonging of life, not many will argue that this is a bad thing, but I will aks you this; how many people do you know that are older than 50, 60, 70, 80 and so on that do not pop numerous pills on a an almost daily basis. We all know the pharma industry is huge!

One may need to pop pills even earlier to maintain good health - and pills may be dietary supplements and natural ingredients too. If someones body and mind is healthy by popping pills and they can use technology to gain and share knowledge even at a ripe old age - they are using technology to their and other people's benefit as well.

But what about the simple use of calculators and computers. One of my mentors once told us that in his day if we wanted to solve a mathematical problem we had to use our 'brain', and the only tools we could use to help was pencil and paper and a slide rule. Now kids simply open their calculator and as such require less use of the 'problem solving' brain.

Doing mental arithmetic without a calculator is good but in my opinion it is not "problem solving". And how is using slide rules/log tables any different than using calculators - they are all tools to be used for the purpose of calculations.

In fact it is obvious to me that many technologies are simply removing the need to make use of our problem solving brains, and this in turn is helping to age us quicker, and in turn making us more dependable on big pharma and big government, not to mention maybe the possible benefit to 4D STS (would this be a fair assessment?). It is making us less inclined to be problem solvers. We are a world of automatons just as G says, but we are living longer and at the same time aging quicker. There is no benefit in my view for an 80 year old person who can not see or hear, and only is able to live due to pills and a pension, who at the same time spends their whole days recounting their own pasts. Unless something bigger is benefiting.

I can understand that with technology daily life has become easier so that the bodies do not get the exercise they used to get in the past just by the virtue of doing regular activities. Now special time to exercise the body may be needed for those who have a more sedentary lifestyle thanks to the advancement of technology. But I do not see how technology directly makes the mind more inactive. The opportunities available to exercise the mind with proper use of technology ( internet etc) is much higher than the past. The PTB uses technology to keep people asleep - but before modern technology, there was still enough ways for the PTB to keep people asleep. We were a world of automatons long before the advent of technology and we still are. We can use technology to help us wake up or to go back deeper into sleep.

FWIW

 

[Gawan]

Hi tridean,

also in my humble opinion technology itself is not the enemy. A good friend told me some time ago: "Technology is not the problem, but the people who are standing behind the machines and using technology can be problems".

Which goes in the direction what Fulcanelli has been written:

Already, because of the multiplicity of scientific acquisitions, man cannot live without tremendous energy and endurance, in an atmosphere of hectic, feverish and
unhealthy activity. He created the machine that increased his means and his power of action a hundred fold, but he has become its slave and its victim. (…) (O)n the other hand, what does he know of himself, that is, of his origin, his essence, and his destiny? (…) Carried away by his passions, his desires, and his phobias, the horizon of his hopes recedes indefinitely. It is the frantic race towards the abyss. (…)
Finally, we will reveal nothing by saying that the greatest part of discoveries, first oriented towards the increase of human well-being, were rapidly diverted from their goal and specifically applied to destruction. Instruments of peace are turned into machines of war and we already know too well the dominating role science played in modern cataclysms. Such is, unfortunately, the final goal, the outcome of scientific investigation; and such is also the reason why many who pursued it
with criminal intent, called divine justice upon him and finds himself bound to be condemned by it.

[emphasis mine]

I am astounded at the rate of technological advancements, and the cost it incurs on those using it. Long ago when you bought something it lasted many many years, however buy a computer now and as soon as you turn it on for the first time it becomes obsolete.

It could also be of economic reasons, cause people have to be/want to be up to date on their technology, which brings money to the concerns and keeps the economic going. In most branches you often find playing with numbers: be it with computers the speed of the processor (Ghz) or in the digital camera apartment the number of pixels the camera has. To get more and to get the best, so to speak.

In fact it is obvious to me that many technologies are simply removing the need to make use of our problem solving brains, and this in turn is helping to age us quicker, and in turn making us more dependable on big pharma and big government, not to mention maybe the possible benefit to 4D STS (would this be a fair assessment?).

The C's said something about technology and why it is so much used/installed in our third density world, when I remember it right it has something to do with the transition in advance for 4d STS. But, alas, I couldn't find the particular quote. Maybe some other members can remember?

 

[Bo]

IMHO technology by itself is not "the enemy". The very fact that we are networking via this forum sitting in different corners of the world is made possible by the advancements of technology. It is how someone uses technology that determines whether it helps or hinders in the pursuit of an aim.

Exactly.

If you are looking for the enemy , you only need to look in the mirror.

Our lack of knowledge and our ignorance is the enemy.

But then you have to ask yourself, "What exactly is an enemy?'' If a man possesses a great amount of knowledge about himself, and the world regarding technology , political issues and all of that, the word enemy becomes obsolete. Then such a thing as enemy does not exist.

What exist are merely challenges for him.

 

[T.C.]

The PTB uses technology to keep people asleep - but before modern technology, there was still enough ways for the PTB to keep people asleep. We were a world of automatons long before the advent of technology and we still are. We can use technology to help us wake up or to go back deeper into sleep.

Hi obyvatel.

That is a good point, but what strikes me is the timing of it all. Modern technologies like T.V., the walkman/ipod, multimedia cell phones, games consoles etc. all lead to terrible dissociation, disconnection from life and reality, and a fear of silence and thinking to oneself. It has all come along in time to truly dumb down the last few generations of this cycle - the generations who will suffer from those effects the most.

 

[tridean]

Hi All,
Thanks for your replies and it is obvious that most would disagree with me then.

I don't agree with most of the points made back to me but it is too long to go through each one, and I suppose it matters not anyway, but I did come away from the responses from you all still concerned with the time factor. Why do we need to do everything quicker and quicker and quicker. If one has to calculate using pencil and paper, rather than using a calculator, then surely that extra time involved is good for the brain? Maybe not, it is just what I would have thought.

T.C.'s comment also struck a chord with me.

but what strikes me is the timing of it all. Modern technologies like T.V., the walkman/ipod, multimedia cell phones, games consoles etc. all lead to terrible dissociation, disconnection from life and reality, and a fear of silence and thinking to oneself. It has all come along in time to truly dumb down the last few generations of this cycle - the generations who will suffer from those effects the most.

If I agree with any point made back to me, it would be that the enemy is really us, but see how we are being turned away even more. No one likes to be 'alone' to face their own persons, and as such they plug into something. The other day I was nearly run over by my own 4WD, I had turned the key forgetting it was still in gear, but I was half out of the car because I was fixing something, and when I turned the key it took off, and I got pinned between my 4WD and my boat while the 4WD kept going and I honestly thought I was going to die. I let out an almighty primal scream and yet no one heard me. All my kids were 'plugged' in to their ipods and not one of them heard me!

But we laugh about it now, and I now have to control another part of the kids stimulus package. Controlled TV time, controlled ipod time, controlled computer time...which does bring me to another point regarding the internet.

How many here know people who spend inordinate amounts of time in sites like FaceBook? I know my wife does and one day I was confronted by a friend who knew of an issue my wife was having but I didn't. I couldn't believe it. She was sharing her 'bad moments' of the day with her cyber friends and not me, but alas I know this to be something I can work on, so it is all good in the end, but I digress..... the use of social sites like Facebook etc didn't really hit me then, it hit me when I was listening to Mark Joyner, an entrepreneur in New Zealand explain how important these sites are, and it was in a statement made by one on his team which was 'social sistes are my life', and not only did this statement hit Mark Joyner, (a very rich and successful internet entrepreneur) like a tonne of bricks it hit me too. This is what is going on now, as people are spending huge amounts of time socializing in cyberspace and this can't be good as it produces little and consumes precious time IMHO.

So with all that said, I accept that technology is a double edged sword, but just like information that doubles at an exponential rate, this rate of progress can not be sustained and just maybe the point of singularity will one day be reached! What a scary thought! :O

 

[spyraal]

If we consider how much new technology we got during the past 100 years, (a short period even in human time scale), then one can only feel bewilderment by projecting this rate of advancement, let's say, 500 years or more in the future...
In that sense, our most advanced technology is still "childish" in a way, but most importantly, maybe we are also "childish" in our ways of using it. We have no sense of good measure, or self-containment.

I also wonder sometimes what is going to be like (provided that are given enough time...) in the upcoming era of Artificial Intelligence. Our machines are already becoming our masters by the day, and they are still "dumb"!
How long it is before machines will out-smart us for good? As long as a great and also the ruling part of humanity are "machines", maybe the day will come that the real machines will rule us by virtue of simply being better machines than the "machines" we are. If humanity does not start to grow in awareness and knowledge faster than it is currently growing "technologically", then the future might be pretty dim indeed...

I only hope for humanity, in the probable event that machines will come to match us and remove our "exclusive right" to "Intelligence", that this will serve as also a stimulus for us to discover the true nature and potential of the Soul, Consciousness and Creativity, qualities that an "Artificial Intelligence" -no matter how advanced- can only possess by imitation or calculation and not by feeling or intuition...

Ironically at the end, the machines and technology in general might serve to give us a lesson on what it is to be a human! What a funny universe....

:)

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

I don't agree with most of the points made back to me but it is too long to go through each one, and I suppose it matters not anyway, but I did come away from the responses from you all still concerned with the time factor. Why do we need to do everything quicker and quicker and quicker. If one has to calculate using pencil and paper, rather than using a calculator, then surely that extra time involved is good for the brain? Maybe not, it is just what I would have thought.

What's stopping you, or anyone, from using the brain? Just because calculators exist does not necessitate using them. The benefit of them is that when you don't want to exercise your brain but want to calculate things quickly, you now have the means. Some things can only be achieved with fast calculation - like simulating something on a computer, you need the computer to crunch the numbers. The problem with humans is that they don't like to do what they don't have to do or what's not immediately fun or stimulating. But again, it is not calculators or technology that stops us from keeping our minds sharp, it's ourselves. Our schools could very easily require learning to critically think and calculate things in our heads too, but it is the humans who design these schools who decide how much technology will be used, and how/when it is used - not the students. The students naturally will do what is easier if it is allowed. Of course, there is benefit there too - calculators allow us to focus on higher mathematical concepts without always having to spend time crunching numbers.

But from what you're saying, you could in the same manner argue that anything except a caveman-level existence is bad. When people developed writing, their memory probably worsened right away since now they relied on writing things down instead of memorizing. When they invented the wheel or farms we started getting fat because hunting used to always keep us in physical shape, that and hauling heavy objects. Now people are docile, lazy, introverted, and completely not in the moment and instead lost in their heads and imagination, have a ridiculous sense of entitlement and demand the whole world to be handed to them on a silver platter. Who is to blame?

Look, we're all grown ups. If a parent gives a kid all the candy he wants and the kid kills himself eating too much candy, it really is the parent's fault. If an adult dies from overeating candy, should candy be outlawed? An adult does - or should have some foresight and common sense, some ability to be cautious and to look before he leaps. Similarly with technology - if a kid uses it to mess himself up, its the parents' fault because kids generally speaking are not expected to know any better, they are young and their brains and ability to function in this world is just developing. But if a grown-up uses technology to mess himself up, well, then what? If we are not responsible for ourselves, who is?

If people tend to fall and hurt themselves should we make the ground soft? How about they watch where they are going instead? The universe is a dangerous place. The restrictions you put on your kids are awesome, I wish more parents would do that because kids really don't know any better and we cannot expect them to. They need to develop more basic things like being able to have fun without TV etc before they can develop more abstract and advanced faculties, so that's understood. But putting restrictions on grown ups because they refuse to grow up and take responsibility for their own minds and actions isn't doing anybody any good. Forcing people to use their minds and bodies does not help them grow as beings really, because anybody will do something when they have no choice! The only way you can grow is when you DO have a choice. That's what separates the men from the boys, literally and figuratively. Sure, humans are taking advantage of not needing to do things and allowing their minds to rot (and in the process allow all those psychopaths to take advantage of such a lovely environment for total control). But that's ok, because we are grown ups, and we should be allowed to have the option of entropy and failure if that's our choice. Those few who consciously choose the other path are telling the universe who they are, not who they are forced to be.

It is the same thing Gurdjieff talks about. He says, "So long as you are good to a man he is good to you. But what will he be like if you scratch him a little?". If you want to see what someone is really made of, give him a choice! So how can the universe see what any of us are made of if we are not given the choice to make something of ourselves?

 

[T.C.]

Hi SAO

But from what you're saying, you could in the same manner argue that anything except a caveman-level existence is bad. When people developed writing, their memory probably worsened right away since now they relied on writing things down instead of memorizing. When they invented the wheel or farms we started getting fat because hunting used to always keep us in physical shape, that and hauling heavy objects. Now people are docile, lazy, introverted, and completely not in the moment and instead lost in their heads and imagination, have a ridiculous sense of entitlement and demand the whole world to be handed to them on a silver platter. Who is to blame?

Look, we're all grown ups. If a parent gives a kid all the candy he wants and the kid kills himself eating too much candy, it really is the parent's fault. If an adult dies from overeating candy, should candy be outlawed? An adult does - or should have some foresight and common sense, some ability to be cautious and to look before he leaps. Similarly with technology - if a kid uses it to mess himself up, its the parents' fault because kids generally speaking are not expected to know any better, they are young and their brains and ability to function in this world is just developing. But if a grown-up uses technology to mess himself up, well, then what? If we are not responsible for ourselves, who is?

I want to know if what you're saying above is right or not, because I don't know and want to give my impression.

It seems to me that you think adults here on Earth are responsible people, with the knowledge of what is good and bad for themselves and their children. The overall idea in your post is that people have a choice, that they have free will - the "informed-ness" that allows free will.

But I'm not so sure. I always get stuck on the subject of responsibility so that's why I'm interested in what you're saying. Aren't the majority of people just unconscious reaction machines, incapable of doing and choosing? I lean towards the idea that people aren't responsible for their actions because of how they've been brought up and programmed. I don't know if that's true or not - I know that saying it makes me uncomfortable. Even when people are shown the truth: that "x is bad because...", since they have been conditioned in a way that has atrophied their emotional centres, that truth has no impact.

putting restrictions on grown ups because they refuse to grow up and take responsibility for their own minds and actions isn't doing anybody any good. Forcing people to use their minds and bodies does not help them grow as beings really

I agree with this. But the problem is the restriction already in place: knowledge restriction. One only has free will when one can truly choose, and one can only truly choose when one has knowledge of other options. Do people really have this knowledge of options?

People don't know about dissociation, that they are effectively sleepwalking towards the edge of the cliff. If this became common knowledge, if people "felt" the truth in this, THEN they would be able to choose between vegetating or being, because they would know of the consequences. They would be informed.

Sorry if I missed the actual point of your post, or if what I wrote doesn't make sense.

 

[Oxajil]

I agree with this. But the problem is the restriction already in place: knowledge restriction. One only has free will when one can truly choose, and one can only truly choose when one has knowledge of other options. Do people really have this knowledge of options?

People don't know about dissociation, that they are effectively sleepwalking towards the edge of the cliff. If this became common knowledge, if people "felt" the truth in this, THEN they would be able to choose between vegetating or being, because they would know of the consequences. They would be informed.

Sorry if I missed the actual point of your post, or if what I wrote doesn't make sense.

fwiw:

All there is is lessons as the C's say. If we assume you have a soul and that you've lived more lives than this one; then were you not ''sleepwalking towards the edge of the cliff'' in one of those lives? How come you discovered all of this in this life, perhaps because you chose..
Many people walk with their eyes closed (not saying I am not), but I think that even in that ''condition'' there are experiences from which they (can) learn.

Technology comes with 3d STS density, it's a part of our existence perhaps. Natural maybe?

In the very old days we were too busy finding food. Now we have more open doors, we can study DNA, read papers from all around the world: do research. So many options and so much to read and discover. Would this be possible without technology? I guess it depends on how you ''use'' it... (like other members have put it)

That is a good point, but what strikes me is the timing of it all. Modern technologies like T.V., the walkman/ipod, multimedia cell phones, games consoles etc. all lead to terrible dissociation, disconnection from life and reality, and a fear of silence and thinking to oneself. It has all come along in time to truly dumb down the last few generations of this cycle - the generations who will suffer from those effects the most.

Not per se. I used to play a game too and I learned one of the most important lessons from playing that game. It was actually a lot more safer than IRL (for me to learn that specific lesson). Perhaps it's different with people who are addicted to it, but is it any different from people who are addicted to playing soccer all the time or hanging out or going into the woods and go hunting. I think the lesson is what matters.

(I'm glad ''we'' 're not that power-hungry like the Atlanteans .. I think)

Q: (T) Was it necessary for them to have power gathering stations
on Mars and the Moon. Did this increase their power?
A: Not necessary but it is not necessary for you to have a million
dollars either. Get the correlation? Atlanteans were power hungry
the way your society is money hungry.
Q: (T) Was the accumulation of this power what brought about their
downfall?
A: Yes.
Q: (T) Did they lose control of this power?
A: It overpowered them the same way your computers will
overpower you.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

It seems to me that you think adults here on Earth are responsible people, with the knowledge of what is good and bad for themselves and their children. The overall idea in your post is that people have a choice, that they have free will - the "informed-ness" that allows free will.

I meant that although humans are dumb and mechanical, it is nobody else's responsibility to protect us from our own ignorance, to protect us from ourselves. We'll never develop that responsibility if we're not allowed to experience the pain of ignorance and entropy. Although humans are not choosing to take care of their own being and soul, it is nobody else's responsibility to take care of it for us either. It's like having a job but neglecting to do it. It is still your duty/responsibility, you just happen to be irresponsible and lazy and don't do it. Similarly our evolution is nobody else's responsibility but our own, even if we choose to neglect it.

I agree with this. But the problem is the restriction already in place: knowledge restriction. One only has free will when one can truly choose, and one can only truly choose when one has knowledge of other options. Do people really have this knowledge of options?

I agree we are surrounded by an insane amount of limitation - most of which is due to the constant bombardment of lies. But whose responsibility is it to wake us up? Knowledge comes from first having the motivation/desire to seek it, to express an interest in at least questioning if another option exists. Most people just don't care, and until they reach some level of moral bankrupcy that makes them dissatisfied with their current existence, they tend to be perfectly happy with the way things are.

Although there are probably people who may be interested but for whatever reason don't have the initiative/ability to actively look for truth on their own, but they could if they just came across the right thing that made that "click" in their mind happen. But that's only those who aren't aware that there are options, but part of them already wants out. Then there is the droves of those, who are probably the majority, who don't even want out and even if the truth jumped up and slapped them in the face they would not see it or care for it. But that's ok, to each his/her own, we just must be careful not to throw pearls before swine as we go along.

 

[tridean]

A: It overpowered them the same way your computers will
overpower you.

I wonder what was meant by this? Are they saying that the point of singularity will indeed occur, which in many ways could be seen as the end, or are they saying that our dependency on technology will become so great that we can't live without it. Or maybe something else all together.

 

[PepperFritz]

I wonder what was meant by this? Are they saying that the point of singularity will indeed occur, which in many ways could be seen as the end, or are they saying that our dependency on technology will become so great that we can't live without it. Or maybe something else all together.

I think the context in which they made that statement makes it a little more clear (see fuller excerpt below), but not crystal clear (no pun intended). They agree with the questioner that this "overpowering" is "similar to" (but not literally the same as) computers taking on a "life" (and independence of action) of their own.

I think that the comparison between our society's obsession with money and the Atlanteans' obsession with power is a big clue. Our financial system has been getting more and more complex and convoluted, to the degree that very few people (if any!) can decipher its byzantine workings; and the current financial crisis can be seen as the monetary system "taking on a life of its own" and "overpowering" those who have sought to control it. In the same way the Atlanteans perhaps developed their "power" technology faster than their ability to "control" it, to the degree that they lost control of its use and mis-use. In the same way, once computer CPU speed exceeds the speed of the human brain (predicted to happen in the next couple of decades), we may lose "control" of certain computer-run aspects of our society.

In all of these examples, the unbridled lust and demand for more power, money, and speed, dictates increasing complexity that is not matched by the human ability to regulate, control, and ultimately, understand that complexity.

That's my take on it, for what it is worth....

Q: (T) Who created the structures on the moon that Richard
Hoagland has discovered?
A: Atlanteans.
Q: (T) What did they use these structures for?
A: Energy transfer points for crystalline power/symbolism as
in monuments or statuary.
[...]
Q: (T) Was it necessary for them to have power gathering
stations on Mars and the Moon. Did this increase their
power?
A: Not necessary but it is not necessary for you to have a
million dollars either. Get the correlation? Atlanteans were
power hungry the way your society is money hungry.
Q: (T) Was the accumulation of this power what brought
about their downfall?
A: Yes.
Q: (T) Did they lose control of this power?
A: It overpowered them the same way your computers will
overpower you.
Q: (V) Is it similar to them gaining a life and intelligence of
their own?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) You mean these crystalline structures came to life, so
to speak?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) And then what did they do?
A: Destroyed Atlantis.
[...]
Q: (T) Are the crystals still active?
A: Bermuda triangle.
Q: (L) I thought that was a myth?
A: No.
Q: (L) And what does that crystal do? Is it continuously
active?
A: No. Erratic.
Q: (L) Is it still active in the sense of being a conscious or
sentient entity?
A: No.

 

[obyvatel]

In the same way, once computer CPU speed exceeds the speed of the human brain (predicted to happen in the next couple of decades), we may lose "control" of certain computer-run aspects of our society.

Hi PepperFritz,
I can kind of understand when you say that when the complexity of the systems designed by humans exceed the understanding of humans, we may lose control of it. But I could not understand how the CPU speed exceeding human brain speed could be a kind of marker indicating the onset of this process of losing control. Can we really calculate the speed of the brain? From what I have read, people try to get a measure of brain speed from the measurement of the average firing frequency of a neurone and then extrapolating it by different methods. The methods I have read about involve a lot of assumptions. Also in the Work sense, we have multiple brains - moving, instinctive,emotional,intellectual. The automatic processes in the body governed by the instinctive center happen quite fast, whereas the intellectual center operates the slowest. I may be mistaken here but in this context the intellectual center operation seems relevant as that is the part that is mainly being used to design computers. As per my understanding, the intellectual center "speed" if it could be measured is perhaps already much slower than the CPU speeds today. After all the computers are "programmed" by humans to do repetitive work at very high speeds. There are neural networks and other complex computation methods but they are still conceived/designed by the intellectual centers of the human brain. TIA

 

[vinny]

In the same way, once computer CPU speed exceeds the speed of the human brain (predicted to happen in the next couple of decades), we may lose "control" of certain computer-run aspects of our society.

Hi PepperFritz,
When you say that the CPU speed will exceed speed of the human brain - what exactly do you mean?

I think what PepperFritz is probably referring to is something that has been called the 'technological singularity':
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

but I think we have already lost control of certain 'computer-run aspects of our society'! Not least because they are under the full control (augmented through technology) of humanoid machines called psychopaths that the vast majority of humanity have no idea how they operate.