The Real Matrix

[Anders]

Considering the gap between what we are allowed to know about and what actually exists technology-wise, what numbers is he using for his computation?

Ray Kurzweil has researched exponential trends for several decades. He said that individual events are hard to predict, such as the value of Apple shares one week from now, but the exponential progress of information technology is very predictable and has followed a remarkably smooth curve for a century all the way from mechanical relays to vacuum tubes to transistors to integrated circuits that will move into 3D when Moore's Law runs out of steam for 2D chips.

"Since Kurzweil believes computational capacity will continue to grow exponentially long after Moore's Law ends it will eventually rival the raw computing power of the human brain. Kurzweil looks at several different estimates of how much computational capacity is in the brain and settles on 10¹⁶ calculations per second and 10¹³ bits of memory. He writes that $1,000 will buy computer power equal to a single brain "by around 2020"[11] while by 2045, the onset of the Singularity, he says same amount of money will buy one billion times more power than all human brains combined today.[12]" -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Singularity_Is_Near" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Wouldn't anything "they" tell us about 2045 more than likely already exist?

That can very well be the case, such as:

"By way of illustration, I will relate something told to me by a scientist formerly with the National Security Agency. During a private conversation, he told me that at least some computers within the NSA were running at a clock speed of 650 MHz during the mid-1960s. Today, of course, that’s well below the speed of an entry-level PC desktop computer. Keep in mind, however, that this speed was not matched by the consumer market until around the year 2000, a difference of 35 years. Indeed, there were no consumer-market computers in 1965!" -- http://www.afterdisclosure.com/2011/04/breakaway.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Phil]

Wouldn't anything "they" tell us about 2045 more than likely already exist?

That can very well be the case, such as:

"By way of illustration, I will relate something told to me by a scientist formerly with the National Security Agency. During a private conversation, he told me that at least some computers within the NSA were running at a clock speed of 650 MHz during the mid-1960s. Today, of course, that’s well below the speed of an entry-level PC desktop computer. Keep in mind, however, that this speed was not matched by the consumer market until around the year 2000, a difference of 35 years. Indeed, there were no consumer-market computers in 1965!" -- http://www.afterdisclosure.com/2011/04/breakaway.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So then why do we pretend that anything we're allowed to know about tech is meaningful? If there was a 35 year gap in '65, with progress on an exponential pace...what's that mean for now?

[Anders]

So then why do we pretend that anything we're allowed to know about tech is meaningful? If there was a 35 year gap in '65, with progress on an exponential pace...what's that mean for now?

The quote was from Richard Dolan who has described what he calls a "breakaway civilization", a separate society who has much more advanced technology than exists on the public markets. But even if that's true, the breakaway civilization remains hidden and unless they choose to disclose their technology we have to look at the technology that exists in the public arena.

[Phil]

Isn’t that empowering the matrix (accepting lies)?

The information we are given about technology is beyond obsolete, and leads to many of these AI narratives.

What I don’t think people really understand here is that what we should fear/respect/be concerned with is not the “computational power”, the ability to think/calculate/store data…it’s the decision making beyond our programming.

Maybe this singularity concept is something different?

It seems to me that a quantum computer like Douglas Adams imagines, like you mention (billions of humans minds combined) could only be good (or bad) if the user is. The mythos of the matrix is the concept that it “learns” to make decisions contrary to its programming, not much unlike how I describe humans being able to make choices counter to the survival mechanisms embedded in our biology.

Computing power by itself is nothing, without free will choosing what to do with it. So slightly off topic: the AI narratives are essentially stories we tell ourselves of the possibility of consciousness entering/inhabiting/possessing a machine smarter and more capable of manipulating the physical (and in some tellings, spiritual/astral/aether/whatever) environment better than we can.

More off topic: The Matrix movie projects the emotional attachment we have of the “fear” survival instinct on to a consciousness that controls a bunch of metal machines, the type us consumers understand. I think that idea is beyond obsolete, and limiting…

Sorry to be all over the place here, just dropping some thoughts you are triggering in me….

[Christine]

As far as we have been able to decipher the technological or artificial construct we call the Matrix has been in place for more than "this time around". What it feels like, getting out of the mind and delving into the organic planes of Mother Earth body is that we are on a time loop and going back through the construct again, this is why it feels so familiar to so many.

Ray Kurzweil is one scary dude. The idea that technology designed by spiritually flawed humans would give "us" (read the elite chosen ones) god-like capabilities is pure arrogance that for me equals pure ignorance. "shunders at the hubris."

The Matrix is the prison grid, the Simulator. "We" (one possible definition of we is covered on this thread: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=408&hilit=souless) on the other hand we could view ourselves as the assimulators of knowledge or Gnosis.

There are the laws of nature and there are laws, or more generally rules, made by humans. Natural laws are the foundation for humanity, and rules made by humans are a layer on top of the natural laws. All rules made by humans are artificial and since the real Matrix is nothing but a bunch of rules made by humans, the whole Matrix is an artificial construct. And computers in the form of things like smartphones are moving into further separation from the organic foundation of the natural laws.

The progress of information technology is accelerating and is predicted to reach something called a technological singularity only a few decades from today:

A technological singularity will, if it goes well, be an astonishing improvement of our civilization. One potential problem however is that the technological singularity is an artifact of the real Matrix. At first that might not seem like such a big deal. Why not be content with artificial intelligence (AI) with godlike capabilities? It's in the post-singularity world where we may hit a wall. Since the technological singularity will emerge out of the artificial construct of the real Matrix it will be detached from that which governs physical matter itself, the natural laws or what some people have called the Source. And as the singularity accelerates even further into the future it will move away from the natural laws, thereby missing the possibility of tapping into the Source of creation. A technological singularity may in this way end up as a bleak artificial layer on top of the much more powerful organic Source of its own existence.

No thank you to another bleak artificial layer, I don't think there is any maybes in this ... To Be or not to BE? Being Human for REAL.

[Anders]

Isn’t that empowering the matrix (accepting lies)?

But the entire world at the moment is dominated by the Matrix. And I'm not sure yet whether we should aim for working with the Matrix to transform it or to do a slow unplug from the whole construct and connect to Source directly or via Gaia/Sofia consciousness.

[Anders]

Ray Kurzweil is one scary dude. The idea that technology designed by spiritually flawed humans would give "us" (read the elite chosen ones) god-like capabilities is pure arrogance that for me equals pure ignorance. "shunders at the hubris."

I'm actually a huge fan of Ray Kurzweil and when he was asked about whether only a small elite will have access to the new technology, he replied: "Yeah, like cell phones." What he meant was that when the technology is new it's very expensive and doesn't work very well, like the early cell phones which only the power elite could afford and were large as a small fridge to carry around and zero apps! Then as the technology improves it becomes much more powerful and extremely less costly.

But a huge change for myself is that I'm now examining the possibility that a technological singularity might be the wrong way to go. Very interesting possibility and also very confusing for me at the moment.

[Christine]

Thank you for clarifying that ... brilliance of intellect can be blinding. To admit when we are confused is so beautifully humbling that I can but feel an up welling of gratitude for one who has the courage to say so.

Ray Kurzweil is one scary dude. The idea that technology designed by spiritually flawed humans would give "us" (read the elite chosen ones) god-like capabilities is pure arrogance that for me equals pure ignorance. "shunders at the hubris."

I'm actually a huge fan of Ray Kurzweil and when he was asked about whether only a small elite will have access to the new technology, he replied: "Yeah, like cell phones." What he meant was that when the technology is new it's very expensive and doesn't work very well, like the early cell phones which only the power elite could afford and were large as a small fridge to carry around and zero apps! Then as the technology improves it becomes much more powerful and extremely less costly.

But a huge change for myself is that I'm now examining the possibility that a technological singularity might be the wrong way to go. Very interesting possibility and also very confusing for me at the moment.

[Naga_Fireball]

I loved your first post here, that Morpheus speech was extremely influential; probably the most intense part of the film.

Memorized it for a drama assignment in 2004 but the final got cancelled by our moronic professor.

Thanks for the detailed and very original yet sensible view!

[Pris]

.
.
This is all... interesting. But, you don't even touch on the apparent 'con job' done to the Sumerians -- that money was maliciously introduced to enslave us (conned-Sumers). Other malicious (hierarchical) systems of control: governments, religions... Etc, and whatever...
.
.

The OP I wrote is very condensed. I briefly mentioned how monetary systems and organized religions arose out of simpler tribal rules. The simple principle of rules is key to the growth of the Matrix.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQfzwFloVqA
.
.