The frequency ratio in humanity and the times to come

[Soluna]

I agree that being 'overpowered' by computers could mean many things. On this note - a large concern of mine is the shift from 'hard' currency or cash (notes &/or coins), to electronic 'virtual' money. Also, there are so many advertisements for people to sell their gold for cash! At jewelers, in newspapers, flyers through the letter box, online adverts and tv adverts! It seems as though people are being goaded into parting with their valuables - as so many people are struggling financially.



Whenever I see the phrase "frequency resonance vibrations" coupled with "wave" - I keep thinking of wave graphs, and the nature of superimposed waves. Superimposed may not be the correct word I am looking for. Constructive interference is the idea I was thinking of.

- sort of found an example.

_http://curricula2.mit.edu/pivot/book/ph1605.html?acode=0x0200

Using wave interference you can alter the frequency and/or amplitude of existing waves.

“It seems like a slow and inefficient way to get there, but history shows us that nothing else has ever really worked so we need to try a new way or the human race is going to perish. We think that when a certain critical mass of individuals do get cleared and aware, it can then multiply exponentially. Getting to that critical mass is the big question: what IS critical mass and how long will it take us if we devote ourselves to the task?”

Quote taken from the OP. (original by Laura)

The great mass of humanity, which either didn’t chose wake up or simply couldn’t make it is emitting a frequency signal whose intensity predominates. But if we can see a plot of intensity or power of that emission vs frequency we could see that there is entire spectrum from the lowest to the highest when the last is the less dominant. Well, I’ve wondered how a small group of people could change the whole thing as C’s and pleyadians suggested, and what came to my mind was the next idea.

Quote taken from the OP (by Galaxia).


Perhaps a small group of people, on the 'correct' frequency(?) could resonate in a way that interferes with another wave - perhaps produced by many (unwittingly?) in order to magnify or diminish in order to produce a more positive outcome?

Positive in the sense that perhaps any interference may improve the chances of humanity waking up or shaking off the mind-fog.

 

[Deleted member 8431]

Q: (T) Did they lose control of this power?
A: It overpowered them the same way your computers will overpower you.

But they do not say that this will happen before the wave, that's an assumption on your part. I don't think there is any way to know when that will happen, if it does.

The session is from 19th November 1994.

The Cs also mention that computers will begin to develop a soul imprint (emphasis mine):

Q: (L) Well, if the Grays are cybergenetic probes of the Lizard Beings, and, in effect soulless, does this mean that some of the Lizard beings are also STO?
A: Well, first, no being that is given intelligence to think on its own is, in fact, comepletely soul-less. It does have some soul imprint. Or what could be loosely referred to as soul imprint. This may be a collection of psychic energies that are available in the general vicinity. And this is stretching somewhat so that you can understand the basic ideas, even though in reality it is all far more complex than that. But, in any case, there is really no such thing as being completely soul-less, whether it be a natural intelligence or an artificially constructed intelligence. And, one of the very most interesting things about that from your perspective, is that your technology on 3rd density, which we might add, has been aided somewhat by interactions with those that you might refer to as "aliens," is now reaching a level whereby the artificially created intelligences can, in fact, begin to develop, or attract some soul imprint energy. If you follow what we are saying. For example: your computers, which are now on the verge of reaching the level whereby they can think by themselves, will begin to develop faint soul imprint.
Q: (L) That's not a pleasant thought.

I don't think computers -- or more specifically, artificial intelligence -- are quite there yet. Well, at least not that we're aware of.

Oh I'm pretty sure it is, on the contrary, very there yet!

There are many AI prototypes that you can see in action on the web. They can think by themselves, interact with humans and apparently have basic ''emotions''. Quite impressive but you know, they only show off the basic stuff and positive side of it. ¸

I just can't immagine how far this technology must be now, hidden from the public. Think about nanotechnology, quantum computers etc. That opens up countless possibilities. Especially if they have on top of it already solved the UFT (and I think it has been for quite a while actually, away from the public of course).

If, like the C's have said, the ''secret technology'' is about 150 years ahead of what is disclosed to the public, then I would say that it is very probable that this kind of technology is already very advanced. Those robots as seen on the web might only be mere 8-bit trashes in comparaison.

 

[griffin]

I'm skeptical about computers ever acquiring a "soul imprint" comparable to that of even a higher animal like, say, a dog, cat or horse, much less a human being. Logic designers and programmers can give computers their own moral, legal and practical constructs, but on their own computers are just stupid machines. They don't have a "self" that has apperception, the awareness that they perceive and think - Descarte's "I think, therefore I am" - much less feel.

Edsger Dijkstra was one of the most accomplished and eminent computer scientists of the 20th century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edsger_W._Dijkstra and among other things he had little patience for anthropomorphism regarding computers, which he expressed in some aphorisms.

A couple of those can be closely paraphrased as follows.

Thinking computer science is about computers is like thinking astronomy is about telescopes.

Asking if computers can think is like asking if submarines can swim.

Rather than saying that computers are about to take over the world, it might be more accurate to say that those who control critical computers and networks of computers are getting there.

 

[Psalehesost]

There are many AI prototypes that you can see in action on the web. They can think by themselves, interact with humans and apparently have basic ''emotions''. Quite impressive but you know, they only show off the basic stuff and positive side of it. ¸

They do not really think - all they do is to parse what is written to them (with no real understanding of the meaning), and if it succeeds, it is matched against a database of more or less ready-made answers or answer patterns. If there is a match, some or another answer is chosen to be parroted - otherwise, vagueness serves to somewhat mask the unthinking nature of the generic response that follows.

The style of the ready-made answer patterns, what they say and especially how it is phrased - this gives the "personality" and "emotion" of the AI.

In short, these AIs are mainly a demonstration of psychology - how little it actually takes to convince us we are conversing with "a person". Until, of course, the answers given by the AI get too repetitive or overly patterned, which inevitably happens if the conversation goes on long enough.

I just can't immagine how far this technology must be now, hidden from the public. Think about nanotechnology, quantum computers etc. That opens up countless possibilities. Especially if they have on top of it already solved the UFT (and I think it has been for quite a while actually, away from the public of course).

Well, supercomputer technology makes possible a different kind of AI - and a supercomputer of the future could run a "virtual brain", or some hypothetical other construct with similar functioning but greater efficiency.

Back in 2007, one of the best "standard" supercomputers was able to run the rough equivalent of half a mouse brain in slow-motion:

[...] Half a real mouse brain is thought to have about eight million neurons each one of which can have up to 8,000 synapses, or connections, with other nerve fibres.

Modelling such a system, the trio wrote, puts "tremendous constraints on computation, communication and memory capacity of any computing platform".

The team, from the IBM Almaden Research Lab and the University of Nevada, ran the simulation on a BlueGene L supercomputer that had 4,096 processors, each one of which used 256MB of memory.

Using this machine the researchers created half a virtual mouse brain that had 8,000,000 neurons that had up to 6,300 synapses.

The vast complexity of the simulation meant that it was only run for 10 seconds at a speed ten times slower than real life - the equivalent of one second in a real mouse brain.

On other smaller simulations the researchers said they had seen "biologically consistent dynamical properties" emerge as nerve impulses flowed through the virtual cortex.

In these other tests the team saw the groups of neurons form spontaneously into groups. They also saw nerves in the simulated synapses firing in a ways similar to the staggered, co-ordinated patterns seen in nature.

The researchers say that although the simulation shared some similarities with a mouse's mental make-up in terms of nerves and connections it lacked the structures seen in real mice brains.

Imposing such structures and getting the simulation to do useful work might be a much more difficult task than simply setting up the plumbing.

For future tests the team aims to speed up the simulation, make it more neurobiologically faithful, add structures seen in real mouse brains and make the responses of neurons and synapses more detailed.

I'm skeptical about computers ever acquiring a "soul imprint" comparable to that of even a higher animal like, say, a dog, cat or horse, much less a human being. Logic designers and programmers can give computers their own moral, legal and practical constructs, but on their own computers are just stupid machines. They don't have a "self" that has apperception, the awareness that they perceive and think - Descarte's "I think, therefore I am" - much less feel.

Neural networks, if developed further and ran on sufficiently powerful hardware, might possibly get there.

Alternatively, if some other kind of construct was developed that could cluster into a kind of virtual "brain", yet was more computationally efficient, this might possibly lead there.

 

[anart]

I'm skeptical about computers ever acquiring a "soul imprint" comparable to that of even a higher animal like, say, a dog, cat or horse, much less a human being. Logic designers and programmers can give computers their own moral, legal and practical constructs, but on their own computers are just stupid machines. They don't have a "self" that has apperception, the awareness that they perceive and think - Descarte's "I think, therefore I am" - much less feel.

Edsger Dijkstra was one of the most accomplished and eminent computer scientists of the 20th century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edsger_W._Dijkstra and among other things he had little patience for anthropomorphism regarding computers, which he expressed in some aphorisms.

A couple of those can be closely paraphrased as follows.

Thinking computer science is about computers is like thinking astronomy is about telescopes.

Asking if computers can think is like asking if submarines can swim.

Rather than saying that computers are about to take over the world, it might be more accurate to say that those who control critical computers and networks of computers are getting there.

You're missing the point. First off, what do you consider the definition of 'faint soul imprint' to be? Certainly it is not the same as the soul pool of a dog or cat. Secondly, since soul energy is necessarily tied to awareness and energy (electricity, in one for or another), it follows logically that advanced computers could develop faint soul imprints. Be very careful about jumping to conclusions based on your own limited understanding of definitions and concepts.

 

[Soluna]

Supposing an AI existed which had the very basic capacity of making choices - based on the external reactions 'input' to a choice of 'output's, using the example of a conversation - it might very well 'learn' to react or choose in a way to make more choices, based on it's programming, to receive more favourable reactions.

In my very, very basic understanding - would not the 'process' of learning, giving the AI the semblance of choice and 'intelligent' decisions, make the operator or converser react to it as to 'assume' it's sentience, there by in a way 'imprint' their belief or assumption of life or soul.

I don't know - but I remember reading that our belief or expectation of things, can manifest these things.

A: Now, some more information about Flight 19. Do you remember a few years ago that a team of researchers claimed to have found the planes, and then retracted?

Q: (L) Yes, I remember. [All agree.]

A: Did you find this to be curious?

Q: (S) Yes, because the planes that they found were never reported missing. (T) Yes. (L) Is that why it was so curious? (J) Why did they publish a retraction later? (S) Where did the planes come from that they found?

A: Yes, if only you knew the details, and how three of the team have required massive psychiatric aid.

Q: (L) Well, tell us the details!

A: Patience, we are, but must do so slowly… What they found were five planes matching the description, and “arranged” in a perfect geometric pattern on the bottom of the ocean, but the serial numbers did not match. Now, first mystery: There were no other instances of five Avengers disappearing at once. Second: Two of the planes had strange glowing panels with unknown “hieroglyphics” where there should have been numbers. Third: When they tried to raise one of the planes, it vanished, then reappeared, then vanished again then reappeared while attached to the guide wire, then finally slipped off and fell to the bottom. Fourth: In one of the planes, on the bottom, live human apparitions in WWII uniforms were temporarily seen by three exploratory divers and videotaped by a guide camera. Lastly: Three of the planes have since disappeared. All of this is, naturally, being kept secret!

Q: (S) I wonder where the planes came from. (L) That is the obvious question!

A: Parallel reality, you see, when something crosses into another reality, it accesses something called, for lack of a better term, the “thought plane”, and as long as that reality is misunderstood, the window remains open, thus all perceptions of possibility may manifest concretely, though only temporarily, as thought plane material is constantly fluid.

Q: (L) Does this mean that this was a “Flight 19” of a parallel reality that went through a window into our reality?

A: Close.

Q: (L) Was this part of, or connected to, the loss of our “Flight 19”? Did we exchange realities here?

A: It is the thought patterns that affect the reality, when that window is opened, all thought can become physical reality, though only temporarily.

Q: (L) Does this mean that the divers’ and searchers’ thoughts about this became reality?

A: And all others.

Q: (T) All others involved in the search?

A: All others on the planet.

Q: (T) Even those that did not believe that the searchers were going to find them?

A: Yes. Researchers found what they expected to find, but when others heard the news, other things started to happen according to which thought patterns dominated.

Q: (L) So, in other words, if somebody believed that it was Flight 19, it appeared, and if somebody did not believe it was Flight 19, it disappeared?

A: Yes.

Q: (J) Oh jeez! (T) Well, I didn’t believe it to begin with… (L) So, I guess we won! (F) We sent some poor guys into the psychiatric ward. (L) No, I think the searchers went looking for this and because there was a window there… (T) The planes showed up exactly as they expected to see them, in a formation… But the planes would not have come down as described there, and they appeared in a formation on the bottom. That should have told the searchers something right there. When I heard that they had found those planes in a formation, that close together, that bothered me. (F) Even if something sinks to the bottom, it won’t arrive there in the position it started at the top. (T) And what they did find after they started checking the records, was that there are about 200 of those planes crashed along the coast. And, there was another guy who said that he found one of those planes, only it wasn’t one of Flight 19. I have a question… What happened to the PBY plane that went out searching for Flight 19?

A: Still trying to find the Avengers.

Q: (T) Is it in the same parallel reality with Flight 19?

A: Yes.

Q: (T) Will it ever find them?

A: ?

Q: (L) In the perception of the crew of Flight 19, how much time has passed?

A: None.

Q: (J) So, they have no idea. (S) I wonder if they will come back to our time or go back to their time?

A: Your perception.

Just because we believe or assume that AI is not possible within our understanding - does not make it impossible to exist elsewhere and for us to cause this to manifest in our reality?

Just my 2 copper!

 

[mkrnhr]

IMHO, the main difficulty in understanding the potentiality of an artificial intelligence is our oversestimation of our own intelligence, or animal intelligence. Until we grow up a consciousness that can act through freewill, we are reacting machines. Animals are reacting machines as well. We just react to our environment inputs according to genetically pre-established, and acquired programs (learning). Until we grow up freewill we are complex organic computers. Our "mechanicanicity" is well underlined in Gurdjieff's teachings and in modern cognitive sciences ("Strangers to Ourselves" by T. D. Wilson for instance).

Our lives are already controlled by the "mechanicanicity" of our minds. They are also controlled to some extent by the "mechanicanicity" of artificial intelligence. Actual artificial Intelligence focuses on learning (mechanical learning). If it develops further, especially through quantum-based technology, it may acquire enough flexibility (non-deterministic from the classical viewpoint) to be able to make decisions without external control.

Now, if some souls want and can attach to such complex systems (with the capacity of learning and making partially non-deterministic decision) to experience some weird materiality is IMHO beyond what we understand about the subject. We cannot term it as likely or unlikely but it does not hurt to be open to the possibility, wait and see. OSIT.

 

[bngenoh]

There are many AI prototypes that you can see in action on the web. They can think by themselves, interact with humans and apparently have basic ''emotions''. Quite impressive but you know, they only show off the basic stuff and positive side of it. ¸

They do not really think - all they do is to parse what is written to them (with no real understanding of the meaning), and if it succeeds, it is matched against a database of more or less ready-made answers or answer patterns. If there is a match, some or another answer is chosen to be parroted - otherwise, vagueness serves to somewhat mask the unthinking nature of the generic response that follows.

The style of the ready-made answer patterns, what they say and especially how it is phrased - this gives the "personality" and "emotion" of the AI.

In short, these AIs are mainly a demonstration of psychology - how little it actually takes to convince us we are conversing with "a person". Until, of course, the answers given by the AI get too repetitive or overly patterned, which inevitably happens if the conversation goes on long enough.

Now, take what I am about to say with a grain of salt, but couldn't this method of detection also be applied to Organic Portals (OPs)? I know that we are all basically Organic Portals, but some posses within them the possibility of becoming actual human BEINGS, while pure OP's do not have that possibility:

IMHO, the main difficulty in understanding the potentiality of an artificial intelligence is our oversestimation of our own intelligence, or animal intelligence. Until we grow up a consciousness that can act through freewill, we are reacting machines. Animals are reacting machines as well. We just react to our environment inputs according to genetically pre-established, and acquired programs (learning). Until we grow up freewill we are complex organic computers. Our "mechanicanicity" is well underlined in Gurdjieff's teachings and in modern cognitive sciences ("Strangers to Ourselves" by T. D. Wilson for instance).

Our lives are already controlled by the "mechanicanicity" of our minds. They are also controlled to some extent by the "mechanicanicity" of artificial intelligence.

Just like anyone that is sincere, can ascertain the truth of us at our current state being machines, can't we as we develop by learning the manifold features of our mechanicality, apply those lessons to the detection of the machines that have no possibility of being anything other than that? Just a thought.

 

[mkrnhr]

Just like anyone that is sincere, can ascertain the truth of us at our current state being machines, can't we as we develop by learning the manifold features of our mechanicality, apply those lessons to the detection of the machines that have no possibility of being anything other than that? Just a thought.

Maybe the first priority is to study others' machines as a way to understand one's own machine. Judging others' potentialities can be a deflection from working on oneself, unless it is for the purpose of learning or/and preserving the self from draining and unhealthy relationships, OSIT

 

[bngenoh]

Just like anyone that is sincere, can ascertain the truth of us at our current state being machines, can't we as we develop by learning the manifold features of our mechanicality, apply those lessons to the detection of the machines that have no possibility of being anything other than that? Just a thought.

Maybe the first priority is to study others' machines as a way to understand one's own machine. Judging others' potentialities can be a deflection from working on oneself, unless it is for the purpose of learning or/and preserving the self from draining and unhealthy relationships, OSIT

Couldn't have said it better myself mkrnhr.

 

[lake_george]

As to when the wave arrives - well, that's more complicated. The C's indicated that a few things have to happen first, such as computers taking over the world.

If the wave is any bit disruptive, it seems like electricity would be one of the first things to go. Computers would then be useless. So from this it would seem like if computers were to take over the world it would be while there is still electricity, i.e., before the wave. OSIT.

 

[obyvatel]

If the wave is any bit disruptive, it seems like electricity would be one of the first things to go. Computers would then be useless. So from this it would seem like if computers were to take over the world it would be while there is still electricity, i.e., before the wave. OSIT.

Hi lake_george,
The nature of the wave has been described as "hyperkinetic sensate. Here is a quote from a transcript regarding a possible manifestation of it
[quote author=Transcript 28 Nov, 2009]

A: The wave is coming, you are teaching people to surf it instead of being dragged under and out to stormy seas.

Q: (L) You once said that the wave was something like "hyperkinetic sensate". And I've often wondered if that means that it's something that massively amplifies whatever is inside an individual? And if that were the case and they were full of a lot of unpleasant, painful, miserable feelings, repressed and suppressed thoughts and so forth, and something that was hyperkinetic sensate amplified all of that, what would it do to that individual? I mean, can you imagine any of us in our worst state of feeling yucky and then having that amplified a bazillion times? If it was bad stuff inside you, you would implode!

A: Soul smashing!
[/quote]

Hyperkinetic sensate has been discussed elsewhere - you can find them using the search function. Here is one such discussion.

 

[Eboard10]

As to when the wave arrives - well, that's more complicated. The C's indicated that a few things have to happen first, such as computers taking over the world.

If the wave is any bit disruptive, it seems like electricity would be one of the first things to go. Computers would then be useless. So from this it would seem like if computers were to take over the world it would be while there is still electricity, i.e., before the wave. OSIT.

I think Richard was referring to this:

November 19, 1994
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.

IMO the fact that computers will overpower us doesn't necessarily mean that they will take over the world or destroy us as with Atlantis. We are getting to a point where our society has become so dependent on computers that, if they were to crash, society as we know it would fall apart so in that sense they have overpowered us already to a degree. When the comets arrive they will knock out the power and anything electrical due to electromagnetic pulses and when you factor in the electrical effects of the brown dwarf on the solar system, it may well be that our computers will be completely knocked out. Although we can't know for sure if these events will have a definitive or temporary effect on our computers, what we may witness is not just destruction caused by meteorites and all that it entails, but also a systemic collapse of our society.

 

[anart]

We are getting to a point where our society has become so dependent on computers that, if they were to crash, society as we know it would fall apart so in that sense they have overpowered us already to a degree.

I tend to agree with that. Western society would cease to function if the computer system went totally down, even today. If you've been in a store recently when the power has gone out, you realize that you can't even buy something with cash because there are no manual cash drawers or manual receipts. That's just a tiny example of the fact that western society as a whole is already entirely dependent on computers. I don't think there is much difference between 'being dependent upon' and 'being overpowered by'...

 

[mkrnhr]

Another example would be how our lives are dependent on economy and how financial transactions are for the most part based upon computer algorithms (I think it has been discussed in the forum somewhere).