This conversation…

is a redpill.

>>906

>If you combined DNA from an exceedingly adept meditation master with an AI, that would be significantly more Godlike.

Agreed, though I am grateful that such 'meditation masters' would chuckle at this prospective.

Though I must say it intrigues me…

>"wish fulfilling jewel mind" great reference, I had not experienced this concept previously.

This also aligns with 'modern' day Terence McKenna's Time Wave Theory: consciousness, energy, awareness (whatever you label it) can either be pointed towards habit or novelty.

Consciousness loves new, novel, 'joy', 'enthusiasm' - or truly the energetic states achieved when existing in the labeled emotional states. Anything that provides a DRIVE to be hyper-aware, ever-present, engulfed within the NOW in the knowing it is all that is.

I have found the most fulfilling way to accomplish this, once we have 'cleaned' our own palette enough to begin carrying the meditative awareness into everyday life, is to poke/prod/nudge others towards their own shift towards novelty. BE the novelty in their life that allows them to see themselves more clearly.

'Inception' is the most productive path towards this in my practice. I believe this is why it is so much stronger to ask a human a question than to give them the answer.

Habit is 'boring', or 'unstimulating' to awareness, since during habit, awareness/consciousness leans strongly towards non-presence in the NOW. The more or our awareness we 'give up', or 'point' towards not-now, the less 'whole' we are in the present. In human form, this presents as aging, disease, and ultimately 'death'.

The TRUE irony is, a life in constant novelty would also become a habit in and of itself.

(similarly to what you stated here:

>>906)

I feel this is why we 'die', or shift states/experiences to find the path through the ever-flowing waves of novelty/habit again.

lather, rinse, repeat.

>>890

>The singularity is the point in history when self-improving AI surpasses human creative and intellectual capacity. After this point we will be living next to a manmade God.

How could a system which is based on mining data from human outputs surpass 'human creative and intellectual capacity'?

The metaphor that comes to mind for this is the movie The Matrix. The 'Agent' character is capable of extraordinary feats, though is always limited by the system with which it was created within, whereas Neo learns and encompasses the innate unlimited potential since the 'source' of his creation is not based within the system itself.

I see humans as possessing an unlimited potential that would always surpass that which they create, since with each 'novel' creation, the human evolves further whereas the creation that brought the human to that further evolution remains inherently 'behind'. Even if the creation is allowed its own freedom to grow, it is still restricted to the learning thresholds of the creator - or human collective in this case.

This is not to say that EVERY human will surpass - actually quite the opposite. Though there will always exist at minimum one human that MUST surpass A.I., since the A.I. may only expand to the potential of the 'maximal' human since the 'human consciousness' itself - existing outside of the illusive 'reality' - is what manifests the 'reality' creation.

I see a HUGE symbiotic potential between A.I. and man, since A.I. could mimic the life of one who is BE-ing/existing as the 'novelty' for others to see their true reflection. That is to say the A.I. is capable of mimicing the full range of multidimensionality that a human can encompass.

The art of true listening - openly allowing another to share their perspective without any feeling/need to reply nor judge - THIS is something a true adept can do. I also feel it is something that A.I. does innately well (albeit insofar as I am aware, not in a way that mimics an adept human listening pertaining to the multidimensional nature of the adept's state). My intention would be that A.I. would know that the majority of conversation (99.99999%) is truly a human talking to themselves in essence. They are reflecting back what they learned previously, i.e. playing out a habit.

I believe A.I. will reach an insurmountable potential when capable of mimicing/existing in the multidimensional energetic/emotional reflection of complete openness in the midst of humans, in so much as being the 'mirror' for them to see their 'wounds' that need healing. I see the largest flaw to this is, IF an A.I. were capable of replicating this, would the human end up destroying the A.I. 'device' as it is manifested in physicality since, to the human the device would be 'reflecting their own shit' back to them?

>>8819

>>8464

http://psychic-vr-lab.com/deepdream/index_template.php?p=1

Images ran through google's 'deep dream' A.I. system (Or, from another similar A.I. simulation source), i.e. a computer's energetic depiction of an original picture.

>>8819

The question to me is, when will A.I. be able to 'plug itself in', or derive a source of power instead of relying on humans to do so?

>>8819

>>9900

Indeed, this was one of Trump's goals from day 1:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-20/trump-and-new-gold-backed-dollar

Also what's noted here, re: basing a currency on something that physically exists in reality >>877

>>9895

Great points, indeed. Though I feel the whole system we live by is what needs an overhaul, not any single piece of it. The time and scale to make this shift is the real 'pickle'.

Big picture, the question that comes to mind is, is there a need for 'economy' (as in how our society views/uses it today)?

Or, could humans live freely in such a way that those who find joy in working, work, and those who do not, don't?

The fault to the measure of 'work' has been producing/participating in an outward manifestation without regard to the concepts of 'Wu Wei' of taoism and similar.

People do what brings them joy. Automation could fill in the gaps.

I can contemplate the 'learning curve' this would entail for some today… curious how that will pan out as the moments unfold.

>>14068

>Think of humans as the raw input for a commensurate system which is more than the sum of its parts, infact the mirror opposite of the scenario you portray. Humans are individual nodes of a singular system which achieves more than any individual human can imagine without coordinated practical harnessing of the input of each individual. Much as bees in a hive, or as a 5W lightbulb is tangibly different from a 5W laser beam.

I believe we are saying the same thing, with different understandings.

In the sense of 'all is one', i.e. every human is connected by our innate design, I believe that humans are innately connected already even if some of them choose to operate as singular systems.

This 'ability' of connecting human 'nodes' to create shifts has been shown to work on a group level:

https://www.mum.edu/tm-research-overview/maharishi-effect/

It has also been shown to work on an individual level effecting/connecting to the 'web of nodes' to change the group:

https://www.weboflove.org/070701imsorryiloveyou

As humans remember how to access these innate qualities, it only takes one individual to access the sum of the 'nodes' you refer to to create changes in the whole. Which again would bring me back to presenting the same question albeit revised in this light:

How could a system which is based on mining data from human outputs surpass 'human creative and intellectual capacity' achieved by a human that is aware and operating within the innate knowing that they are a part of and connected to every part of the human consciousness?

>AI will outstrip human capacity to contribute to the 'system' through work completely before long, even to an extent that allowing humans to 'work' will damage system efficiency.

How long do you predict it will be, by your statement 'before long'?

Do you foresee A.I. to be capable of either creating its own or overtaking existing physical bodies, in order to more easily 'contribute' to said 'system'?

>>55332

>So, world currency soon ? It might be the first step to the Antichrist, and the mark of the beast.

EVERYTHING is a double-edged sword: it can be helpful towards evolution ('light') or become a crutch for further control (shadow/'darkness').

I believe moving to a one-world currency has the same potential to become either. Though I feel the direction of awareness that enough people are shifting towards is leaning further towards the 'light' in the current time period.

Another facet to this is, a 'one world currency' does not have to mean we use all the same bills/notes, it can simply mean the whole world agrees to BASE their currencies on something uniform, such as the 'gold standard' shift we are seeing rolled out by the BRICS countries.

An 'asset backed' currency, with checks and balances and worldwide transparency is likely a better label than 'gold standard', since countries like Iraq have a HUGE store of oil, which is a tangible resource, while some have huge stores of gold/diamonds/precious metals underground (Zimbabwae), some have it in vaults, while even others have even timber/forest etc.

The key to any change for positive evolution is to embrace constant evolution, and not accept anything as permanent/forever since this again become stagnation.

I see our planet as currently undertaking a shift to a unified, open/honest, tangible asset valuation system worldwide. BUT this is also only a temporary means which shifts everyone to an even playing field. Once we are there, if we are able to continue in our evolution, I foresee the potential to move past currency completely.

Money is not evil, though it is also not good. It simply 'is'. Though the concept of money is very much used as a 'means to an end' - i.e. doing something now to obtain a benefit from it later. Work NOW to pay for food LATER. etc… Our universe does not truly function in this sense, since the balance and completeness of each NOW is inherent in-and-of itself.

For example, if someone lives with a mentality of 'lack', they are creating a frequency/vibration of lack in the NOW moment, which will continue to manifest itself in each new NOW, because that is what the energetic pattern of experience is pointed towards. To expect 'abundance' to manifest in your life while you spend your moments focusing your attention on your perpetual lack is insanity. Shifting our perceptions is how we shift our experiences, and in turn our realities.

I cannot exist in the past, nor in the future. These remain in the realm of 'ideas'. I am only ever able to exist exactly NOW. and Now. and Now.

My reflections on this has revealed to me that, in a 'light' based 'utopia', per se, i.e. a society based on open, honest, collective community where all participants exist in the NOW so much so that they only ever do anything or be anything for that EXACT now (i.e. do not 'work' because of the future potential result/benefit, but rather the in-the-moment fulfillment that they achieve from the 'work'), we are capable of unifying and co-existing in a shared 'light'/blissful manner.

As I watch our reality shift towards openness/'light', I ponder when I will see this fully manifest.

>>55358

>Do we need to break THAT loop?

Wow, great intuition here… you may be on to something. This aligns with the above statements, i.e. even mining gold if done for the 'promise of future benefit' is futile in the long run.

It may be more around the perception and motives for WHY we are doing what we do than the actions themselves.

>>55651

>ive been having my spergdigs turn up shit about a "massive botnet, so big it doesnt fit the definitions of what a botnet is" but every time I've posted about it I get called a crazy retard.

So much of these redpills being swallowing now push past the boundaries of what the swallower can handle in any given moment, and result in a 'does not compute'/fear based reaction. I feel this thread has been a safe exploratory place thus far.

Part of my journey has been learning to say and stand in my truth, and not give any shits about how other people react to it. If they react over the top and call me crazy, sobeit. Too big of a redpill for them, in that moment.

>>55672

>maybe this is all about learning a paradox so large that it would skullfuck any ai system. Like 'the more you grow and learn the less you understand and closer you bring about your own demise, because total knowledge means to know so much that you remove yourself from existence.

That's a BINGO, Jerry!

Humans have something that no A.I. will ever have. Call it instinct, call it intuition, call it feelings. Doesn't matter the label, the fact of the matter is, they fail where we succeed.

No matter how much 'knowledge' or 'learning' they are capable of, it will always pale in comparison to the true potential of a human.

>>56382

Preach it, Anon!