Home  FAQ  Search  Memberlist  Usergroups  KDR  Register  Log in  

Share | 
 

 Controlling Global Consciousness (That's the Current Goal)

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
C1
Admin
avatar

Posts : 1611
Join date : 2009-10-19

PostSubject: Controlling Global Consciousness (That's the Current Goal)   Tue 28 Jun 2011, 12:33 am

One of the most important questions being asked by science today, but not disclosed to the public, is: "is Consciousness an emergent phenomenon from a complex adaptive system?"

I [Chris Langston, Sante Fe Institute] had asked whether the new science of Complexity could explain consciousness. "If the theory of complex systems is not some kind of seductive illusion; and if the brain can be described as a complex adaptive system; then, yes, consciousness can be explained, too..."

"I'm convinced consciousness is a bottom-up, emergent phenomenon," said Chris.

According to Stevan Harnad, editor of the respected Journal Behavioural and Brain Sciences, "consciousness is just the capacity to have experiences."

The Princeton psychologist Julian Jaynes wrote: "Few questions have endured longer or traversed a more perplexing history than this, the problem of consciousness and its place in nature... Something about it keeps returning, not taking a solution." To judge from the flourishing industry of book publishing on the subject in recent years, our thirst for finding out what this "something" is shows no sign of diminishing.


Complexity: Life at the Edge of Chaos
Roger Lewin
http://www.amazon.com/Complexity-Life-at-Edge-Chaos/dp/0226476553


In Short, these guys are trying to create a system that will describe a global artificial consciousness, so that they can control it.

_________________
"For every thousand hacking at the leaves of evil, there is one striking at the root."
David Thoreau (1817-1862)
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://wwws.forummotion.com
ScoutsHonor

avatar

Posts : 1360
Join date : 2009-10-20

PostSubject: Re: Controlling Global Consciousness (That's the Current Goal)   Wed 29 Jun 2011, 1:00 pm

Quote :
In Short, these guys are trying to create a system that will describe a global artificial consciousness, so that they can control it.

But man's consciousness is individual -- what would they achieve by the above other than the creation of some kind of weird, freakish entity, so typical of their basic inability to survive in any beneficial or rational way.........

They prove once again what they are, just dangerous freaks.

Back to top Go down
View user profile
C1
Admin
avatar

Posts : 1611
Join date : 2009-10-19

PostSubject: Re: Controlling Global Consciousness (That's the Current Goal)   Thu 30 Jun 2011, 12:07 am

ScoutsHonor wrote:
Quote :
In Short, these guys are trying to create a system that will describe a global artificial consciousness, so that they can control it.

But man's consciousness is individual -- what would they achieve by the above other than the creation of some kind of weird, freakish entity, so typical of their basic inability to survive in any beneficial or rational way.........

They prove once again what they are, just dangerous freaks.

The weird freakish entity that you speak of is the Global Information Grid, or the Internet, and we're all very busy right now helping them transfer that consciousness that they believe can live out side humanity.

Once they have that, they think they will be able to dispose of us.

Well, that's the plan, anyway.

PS. They don't think that man's consciousness is individual at all, in fact, they think they already create and control it now. But they want to now divest it from us, and control it within their own infrastructure.

_________________
"For every thousand hacking at the leaves of evil, there is one striking at the root."
David Thoreau (1817-1862)
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://wwws.forummotion.com
ScoutsHonor

avatar

Posts : 1360
Join date : 2009-10-20

PostSubject: Re: Controlling Global Consciousness (That's the Current Goal)   Fri 01 Jul 2011, 12:56 pm

C1 wrote:
ScoutsHonor wrote:
Quote :
In Short, these guys are trying to create a system that will describe a global artificial consciousness, so that they can control it.

But man's consciousness is individual -- what would they achieve by the above other than the creation of some kind of weird, freakish entity, so typical of their basic inability to survive in any beneficial or rational way.........

They prove once again what they are, just dangerous freaks.

The weird freakish entity that you speak of is the Global Information Grid, or the Internet, and we're all very busy right now helping them transfer that consciousness that they believe can live out side humanity.

Once they have that, they think they will be able to dispose of us.

Well, that's the plan, anyway.

PS. They don't think that man's consciousness is individual at all, in fact, they think they already create and control it now. But they want to now divest it from us, and control it within their own infrastructure.

Their view of consciousness is completely wrong IMO, and that's not just my opinion. They're setting themselves against the likes of *Aristotle*, who was in my opinion the Father of rationality. THEIR view of metaphysics is the view of SAVAGES, who still superstitously propitiate "the Gods" to avoid misfortunes and seek 'protection.' This view that "they think they already create and control" our consciousness is just pure bull/garbage -- this is what they WISH to be true but as for myself I am quite certain that I still perceive a reality that perhaps was created by God (I'm still agnostic) but was definitely NOT created by those psychopaths. So I douldn't care less that they think they control my reality -- that's just a damn psyop.

Secondly, what you're descrbing sounds exactly like The Matrix -is that what they are aiming at??(!)
Thirdly, I would bet many millions of $$ (if I had it) that their desire to "capture consciousness, separate from the entity that possesses it" is the dream of madmen ... But what they CAN do is kill us, which they may very well accomplish. For me, though, that is far less horrible than their insane cravings for my *consciousness* -- because that they can NEVER have.

More later.


Last edited by ScoutsHonor on Mon 04 Jul 2011, 7:22 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
ScoutsHonor

avatar

Posts : 1360
Join date : 2009-10-20

PostSubject: Re: Controlling Global Consciousness (That's the Current Goal)   Sat 02 Jul 2011, 2:58 am

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Epistemology:
The Study of the Nature of Knowledge
*An Overview*


REASON


Objectivist epistemology
begins
with the principle that "Consciousness is Identification". This is understood to be a direct consequence of the metaphysical principle that "Existence is Identity."[16] Rand defined "reason" as "the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses."[17]

Objectivist epistemology maintains that all knowledge is ultimately based on perception. "Percepts, not sensations, are the given, the self-evident."[18] Rand considered the validity of the senses to be axiomatic, and claimed that purported arguments to the contrary all commit the fallacy of the "stolen concept"[19] by presupposing the validity of concepts that, in turn, presuppose the validity of the senses.[20] She held that perception, being physiologically determined, is incapable of error. So optical illusions, for example, are errors in the conceptual identification of what is seen, not errors in sight itself.[21]

The Objectivist theory of perception distinguishes between the form and object. The form in which an organism perceives is determined by the physiology of its sensory systems. Whatever form the organism perceives it in, what it perceives—the object of perception—is reality.[22] Rand consequently rejected the Kantian dichotomy between "things as we perceive them" and "things as they are in themselves." The epistemologies of representationalism and indirect realism that accept a "veil of perception", as put forward by Descartes or John Locke, are thus inconsistent with Objectivism. Rand rejected epistemological skepticism as the skeptics claim knowledge "undistorted" by the form or the means of perception is impossible.[21]

According to Rand, attaining knowledge beyond what is given in perception requires both volition (or the exercise of free will) and adherence to a specific method of validation through observation, concept-formation, and the application of inductive and deductive logic. A belief in, say, dragons, however sincere, does not oblige reality to contain any dragons. For anything that cannot be directly observed, a process of "proof" identifying the basis in reality of the claimed item of knowledge is necessary to establish its truth.[23]

Objectivism rejects both faith and "feeling" as sources of knowledge. Rand acknowledged the importance of emotion for human beings, but she maintained that emotions are a consequence of the conscious or subconscious ideas that a person already accepts, not a means of achieving awareness of reality. "Emotions are not tools of cognition."[24]

The fundamental concept of method, the one on which all the others depend, is logic. The distinguishing characteristic of logic (the art of non-contradictory identification) indicates the nature of the actions (actions of consciousness required to achieve a correct identification) and their goal (knowledge)—while omitting the length, complexity or specific steps of the process of logical inference, as well as the nature of the particular cognitive problem involved in any given instance of using logic.
Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology [25]

Rand rejected all forms of faith or mysticism, terms that she used synonymously. She defined faith as "the acceptance of allegations without evidence or proof, either apart from or against the evidence of one's senses and reason... Mysticism is the claim to some non-sensory, non-rational, non-definable, non-identifiable means of knowledge, such as 'instinct,' 'intuition,' 'revelation,' or any form of 'just knowing.'"[26] Reliance on revelation is like reliance on a Ouija board; it bypasses the need to show how it connects its results to reality. Faith, for Rand, is not a "short-cut" to knowledge, but a "short-circuit" destroying it.[27]

According to Rand, consciousness possesses a specific, finite identity, just like everything else that exists; therefore, it must operate by a specific method of validation. An item of knowledge cannot be "disqualified" by being arrived at by a specific process in a particular form. Thus, for Rand, the fact that consciousness must itself possess identity implies the rejection of both universal skepticism based on the "limits" of consciousness and any claim to revelation, emotion or faith based belief.

The attack on man's consciousness and particularly on his conceptual faculty has rested on the unchallenged premise that any knowledge acquired by a process of consciousness is necessarily subjective and cannot correspond to the facts of reality, since it is "processed knowledge... . [But] All knowledge is processed knowledge—whether on the sensory, perceptual or conceptual level. An "unprocessed" knowledge would be a knowledge acquired without means of cognition.[28]

Immanuel Kant's contrary arguments, according to Rand, amount to saying: "man is limited to a consciousness of a specific nature, which perceives by specific means and no others; therefore, his consciousness is not valid; man is blind because he has eyes—deaf because he has ears—deluded because he has a mind—and the things he perceives do not exist because he perceives them."[29]

The aspect of epistemology given the most elaboration by Rand is the theory of concept-formation, which she presented in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. She argued that concepts are formed by a process of measurement omission. Peikoff described her view as follows:

To form a concept, one mentally isolates a group of concretes (of distinct perceptual units), on the basis of observed similarities which distinguish them from all other known concretes (similarity is 'the relationship between two or more existents which possess the same characteristic(s), but in different measure or degree'); then, by a process of omitting the particular measurements of these concretes, one integrates them into a single new mental unit: the concept, which subsumes all concretes of this kind (a potentially unlimited number). The integration is completed and retained by the selection of a perceptual symbol (a word) to designate it. 'A concept is a mental integration of two or more units possessing the same distinguishing characteristic(s), with their particular measurements omitted.'"[30]

According to Rand, "[T]he term 'measurements omitted' does not mean, in this context, that measurements are regarded as non-existent; it means that measurements exist, but are not specified. That measurements must exist is an essential part of the process. The principle is: the relevant measurements must exist in some quantity, but may exist in any quantity."[31]

Rand argued that concepts are hierarchically organized. Concepts such as 'dog,' which bring together "concretes" available in perception, can be differentiated (into the concepts of 'dachshund,' 'poodle,' etc.) or integrated (along with 'cat,' etc., into the concept of 'animal'). Abstract concepts such as 'animal' can be further integrated, via "abstraction from abstractions", into such concepts as 'living thing.' Concepts are formed in the context of knowledge available. A young child differentiates dogs from cats and chickens, but need not explicitly differentiate them from deep-sea tube worms, or from other types of animals not yet known to him, to form a concept 'dog.'[32]

Because of its view of concepts as "open-ended" classifications that go well beyond the characteristics included in their past or current definitions, Objectivist epistemology rejects the analytic-synthetic distinction as a false dichotomy[33] and denies the possibility of a priori knowledge.[34]

Objectivist epistemology acknowledges the facts that human beings have limited knowledge, are vulnerable to error, and do not instantly understand all of the implications of their knowledge.[35] According to Peikoff, one can be certain of a proposition if all of the available evidence supports it, i.e., it can be logically integrated with the rest of one's knowledge; one is then certain within the context of the evidence.[36]

Objectivist epistemology attributes a special status to propositions put forward without any supporting evidence whatever, calling them "arbitrary assertions," which can be legitimately treated as though "nothing has been said."[37]

Some commentators have asserted that the Objectivist epistemology is incomplete.[38] According to psychology professor Robert L. Campbell, the notion of proof for propositions remains sketchy.[39] Campbell also says the relationship between Objectivist epistemology and cognitive science remains unclear because Rand, Peikoff, and Kelley have all made extensive claims about human cognition and its development which appear to belong to psychology, yet Rand asserted that philosophy is logically prior to psychology and in no way dependent on it.[40][41]
----
N.B. The above is provided also to establish the premises from which I am putting forth my views, and
to see where we might be at any kind of impasse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_%28Ayn_Rand%29#Epistemology:_reason
Back to top Go down
View user profile
C1
Admin
avatar

Posts : 1611
Join date : 2009-10-19

PostSubject: Re: Controlling Global Consciousness (That's the Current Goal)   Sun 03 Jul 2011, 8:55 pm

ScoutsHonor wrote:
C1 wrote:
ScoutsHonor wrote:
Quote :
In Short, these guys are trying to create a system that will describe a global artificial consciousness, so that they can control it.

But man's consciousness is individual -- what would they achieve by the above other than the creation of some kind of weird, freakish entity, so typical of their basic inability to survive in any beneficial or rational way.........

They prove once again what they are, just dangerous freaks.

The weird freakish entity that you speak of is the Global Information Grid, or the Internet, and we're all very busy right now helping them transfer that consciousness that they believe can live out side humanity.

Once they have that, they think they will be able to dispose of us.

Well, that's the plan, anyway.

PS. They don't think that man's consciousness is individual at all, in fact, they think they already create and control it now. But they want to now divest it from us, and control it within their own infrastructure.

Their view of consciousness is completely wrong IMO, and that's not just my opinion. They're setting themselves against the likes of *Aristotle*, who was in my opinion the Father of rationality. THEIR view of metaphysics is the view of SAVAGES, who still superstitously propitiate "the Gods" to avoid misfortunes and seek 'protection.' This view that "they think they already create and control" our consciousness is just pure bull/garbage -- this is what they WISH to be true but as for myself I am quite certain that I still perceive a reality that perhaps was created by God (I'm still agnostic) but was definitely NOT created by those psychopaths. So I douldn't care less that they think they control my reality -- that's just a damn psyop.

Secondly, what you're descrbing sounds exactly like The Matrix -is that what they are aiming at??(!))
Thirdly, I would bet many millions of $$ (if I had it) that their desire to "capture consciousness, separate from the entity that possesses it" is the dream of madmen ... But what they CAN do is kill us, which they may very well
accomplish. For me, though, that is far less horrible than their insane cravings for my *consciousness* -- because that they can NEVER have.

More later.



Yes, I do think they intend to elimate the 80% that don't matter one they have extracted our "Conscisouness" into their Global Information Grid and have developed satisfactory trans-human replacements, devoid of traditional human sensibilities. It's already happening, just walk down the street and look at all those who mindlessly follow the cultural roadmap being given to them.

_________________
"For every thousand hacking at the leaves of evil, there is one striking at the root."
David Thoreau (1817-1862)
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://wwws.forummotion.com
C1
Admin
avatar

Posts : 1611
Join date : 2009-10-19

PostSubject: Re: Controlling Global Consciousness (That's the Current Goal)   Sun 03 Jul 2011, 8:59 pm

ScoutsHonor wrote:
The attack on man's consciousness and particularly on his conceptual faculty has rested on the unchallenged premise that any knowledge acquired by a process of consciousness is necessarily subjective and cannot correspond to the facts of reality, since it is "processed knowledge... . [But] All knowledge is processed knowledge—whether on the sensory, perceptual or conceptual level. An "unprocessed" knowledge would be a knowledge acquired without means of cognition.[28]
But they don't want subjective knowledge, they want knowledge acquired without means of cognition. This latter definition is their definition of consicousness, and they'd argue that this form of concsiouness is already what is at-play in today's society. We're zoombies, remember, we get all of our queues from their educational, economic, and culturallly socially engineered society.

_________________
"For every thousand hacking at the leaves of evil, there is one striking at the root."
David Thoreau (1817-1862)
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://wwws.forummotion.com
ScoutsHonor

avatar

Posts : 1360
Join date : 2009-10-20

PostSubject: Re: Controlling Global Consciousness (That's the Current Goal)   Tue 19 Jul 2011, 4:43 pm

C1 wrote:
ScoutsHonor wrote:
The attack on man's consciousness and particularly on his conceptual faculty has rested on the unchallenged premise that any knowledge acquired by a process of consciousness is necessarily subjective and cannot correspond to the facts of reality, since it is "processed knowledge... . [But] All knowledge is processed knowledge—whether on the sensory, perceptual or conceptual level. An "unprocessed" knowledge would be a knowledge acquired without means of cognition.[28]
But they don't want subjective knowledge, they want knowledge acquired without means of cognition. This latter definition is their definition of consicousness, and they'd argue that this form of concsiouness is already what is at-play in today's society. We're zoombies, remember, we get all of our queues from their educational, economic, and culturallly socially engineered society.

They are Not free to re-define what knowledge is. They may very well want the contents of people's minds, but that may well be *trash* rather than knowledge, right? They can WANT, imho, anything at all but reality will limit them, with great ease I might add and- I seriously challenge their ability to "capture" independent consciousness -- can one capture a person's soul? I don't think so...

However, their greedy & impossible Wants will still rule their behavior, I think. So they do not belong on this earth where they will always seek to destroy everything Humans thrive on..


Last edited by ScoutsHonor on Fri 29 Jul 2011, 12:03 pm; edited 3 times in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
C1
Admin
avatar

Posts : 1611
Join date : 2009-10-19

PostSubject: Re: Controlling Global Consciousness (That's the Current Goal)   Thu 21 Jul 2011, 11:35 pm

ScoutsHonor wrote:
C1 wrote:
ScoutsHonor wrote:
The attack on man's consciousness and particularly on his conceptual faculty has rested on the unchallenged premise that any knowledge acquired by a process of consciousness is necessarily subjective and cannot correspond to the facts of reality, since it is "processed knowledge... . [But] All knowledge is processed knowledge—whether on the sensory, perceptual or conceptual level. An "unprocessed" knowledge would be a knowledge acquired without means of cognition.[28]
But they don't want subjective knowledge, they want knowledge acquired without means of cognition. This latter definition is their definition of consicousness, and they'd argue that this form of concsiouness is already what is at-play in today's society. We're zoombies, remember, we get all of our queues from their educational, economic, and culturallly socially engineered society.

They are Not free to re-define what knowledge is. They may very well want the contents of people's minds, but that may well be *trash* rather than knowledge, right? They can WANT, imho, anything at all but reality will limit them, with great ease I might add (IMHO!) I seriously challenge their ability to "capture" independent consciousness -- can one capture a person's soul? I don't think so...

However, their greedy & impossible Wants will still rule their behavior, I think. So they do not belong on this earth where they will always seek to destroy everything Humans thrive on..
But if the brain is infinitely configurable, and reality is based upon our perceptions (we see with our minds and not our eyes), then isn't reality infinite?

Look, I don't like this any more than you do. But given my research and analysis, I see that their science is winning and that their goals are achieveable, as long as we continue to go along.

We must stop participating, stop believing in their chicanery. Why do we continue along this path, this path to our own destruction, it is this I do not understand.

_________________
"For every thousand hacking at the leaves of evil, there is one striking at the root."
David Thoreau (1817-1862)
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://wwws.forummotion.com
ScoutsHonor

avatar

Posts : 1360
Join date : 2009-10-20

PostSubject: Re: Controlling Global Consciousness (That's the Current Goal)   Fri 22 Jul 2011, 11:39 pm

[quote="C1"]
ScoutsHonor wrote:
C1 wrote:
ScoutsHonor wrote:
The attack on man's consciousness and particularly on his conceptual faculty has rested on the unchallenged premise that any knowledge acquired by a process of consciousness is necessarily subjective and cannot correspond to the facts of reality, since it is "processed knowledge... . [But] All knowledge is processed knowledge—whether on the sensory, perceptual or conceptual level. An "unprocessed" knowledge would be a knowledge acquired without means of cognition.[28]
But they don't want subjective knowledge, they want knowledge acquired without means of cognition. This latter definition is their definition of consicousness, and they'd argue that this form of concsiouness is already what is at-play in today's society. We're zoombies, remember, we get all of our queues from their educational, economic, and culturallly socially engineered society.

They are Not free to re-define what knowledge is. They may very well want the contents of people's minds, but that may well be *trash* rather than knowledge, right? They can WANT, imho, anything at all but reality will limit them, with great ease I might add (IMHO!) I seriously challenge their ability to "capture" independent consciousness -- can one capture a person's soul? I don't think so...

However, their greedy & impossible Wants will still rule their behavior, I think. So they do not belong on this earth where they will always seek to destroy everything Humans thrive on..

C1 wrote:

But if the brain is infinitely configurable, and reality is based upon our perceptions (we see with our minds and not our eyes), then isn't reality infinite?[

Well, yes, I think reality is infinite, but simultaneously not malleable to human whims.

C1 wrote:

Look, I don't like this any more than you do. But given my research and analysis, I see that their science is winning and that their goals are achieveable, as long as we continue to go along.

We must stop participating, stop believing in their chicanery. Why do we continue along this path, this path to our own destruction, it is this I do not understand.

I agree with this, that they are winning. They had a great head start, so to speak and we were totally sandbagged. Sad, huh?
C1 wrote:
We
must stop participating, stop believing in their chicanery. Why do we
continue along this path, this path to our own destruction, it is this I
do not understand.


But-- even for those of us who see
through all their smoke and mirrors-- it's all for naught unless we
can find a way to combat their *relentless* plans...and that's the hard-to-
accept truth of it, at least as I see it. Crying or Very sad Cool
Back to top Go down
View user profile
C1
Admin
avatar

Posts : 1611
Join date : 2009-10-19

PostSubject: Re: Controlling Global Consciousness (That's the Current Goal)   Thu 28 Jul 2011, 11:03 pm

Get back to nature and move away from their system of control, that's the only way. They can't force us, or they would have done that already.

_________________
"For every thousand hacking at the leaves of evil, there is one striking at the root."
David Thoreau (1817-1862)
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://wwws.forummotion.com
Martijn



Posts : 7
Join date : 2011-09-12

PostSubject: Re: Controlling Global Consciousness (That's the Current Goal)   Tue 13 Sep 2011, 4:02 am

No, they won't force us. They will nurture us into it. We will learn to love that what controls us. This discussion is nearing the Orwell - Huxley discussion described by Niel Postman in Amused to death:

Quote :
"What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions". In 1984, Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us."

As far as the topic of the discussion, Controlling Global Consciousness: I can not state a single reasonable idea on this based on my experience in life and IT Technology. So I am "forced" to base it up on the ideas of others.

One of those others is Dr. Ray Kurtzweil, in The singularity is near he states that it is not a bad thing to evolve to "Neo humans" and make technological adaptions to our bodies so we can live either completely virtual or (semi)-virtual. He states that the Neo-humans will have respect for those who choose not to evolve, as we respect the Aztecs or Egyptians.

Later more on why I think Ray would not agree with "Controlling Global Consciousness (That's the Current Goal)" As a critique. (have to look up some nice dialogue)

Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.martijnhouben.com
Martijn



Posts : 7
Join date : 2011-09-12

PostSubject: Re: Controlling Global Consciousness (That's the Current Goal)   Tue 13 Sep 2011, 4:14 am

As in reply on the topic start.

C1 wrote:
One of the most important questions being asked by science today, but not disclosed to the public, is: "is Consciousness an emergent phenomenon from a complex adaptive system?"

I [Chris Langston, Sante Fe Institute] had asked whether the new science of Complexity could explain consciousness. "If the theory of complex systems is not some kind of seductive illusion; and if the brain can be described as a complex adaptive system; then, yes, consciousness can be explained, too..."

"I'm convinced consciousness is a bottom-up, emergent phenomenon," said Chris.

In Short, these guys are trying to create a system that will describe a global artificial consciousness, so that they can control it.

Ray describes in The singularity is near discribes why consciousness is a bottom-up, emergent phenomenon, how we will learn to influence it and why it will not be used to control us.

And I may not post any external links. Google "The singularity is near" first hit.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.martijnhouben.com
C1
Admin
avatar

Posts : 1611
Join date : 2009-10-19

PostSubject: Re: Controlling Global Consciousness (That's the Current Goal)   Mon 19 Sep 2011, 1:10 pm

Martijn wrote:

One of those others is Dr. Ray Kurtzweil, in The singularity is near he states that it is not a bad thing to evolve to "Neo humans" and make technological adaptions to our bodies so we can live either completely virtual or (semi)-virtual. He states that the Neo-humans will have respect for those who choose not to evolve, as we respect the Aztecs or Egyptians.

Well, thats the elitist view, which Ray espouses continuously and very well. When we become transhuman, we'll lose any control that we might still have.

_________________
"For every thousand hacking at the leaves of evil, there is one striking at the root."
David Thoreau (1817-1862)
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://wwws.forummotion.com
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Controlling Global Consciousness (That's the Current Goal)   

Back to top Go down
 
Controlling Global Consciousness (That's the Current Goal)
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
-
» Global News, 16:9 - Cyber Seduction Documentary (42 Year Old Mom & Teacher Turned Internet Predator)
» MF Global brokers/dealers $1.2 billion missing!
» Current Reads
» Global News - Crisis in the Military - The Social Contract
» Madelaine Mccann: A Global Obsession - Channel 5 Tue 19:00 18 Nov

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
WWWS :: Main Forums :: Brain & Mind-
Jump to: