Will A Major Shift In Human Consciousness Happen In Our Lifetime?

[Prabhaker]

3 minutes ago, AstralProjection said:

We can compare and contrast how different psychedelics modified our consciousness, and record that

What we record is not consciousness, a human soul is not a physical thing. I know what mystics can do, I know them personally and I am a meditator. Mysticism is beyond your imagination.

[AstralProjection]

2 minutes ago, Prabhaker said:

What we record is not consciousness, a human soul is not a physical thing. I know what mystics can do, I know them personally and I am a meditator. Mysticism is beyond your imagination.

Psychedelics create very specific spiritual effects in the highest conscious experiences. So yes we can at least measure consciousness by our own first hand experience. nnDMT is different in effect than 5-meo-dmt and on and on. With the exception of being at the core of reality which is beyond all experience. This state has many names such as brahman, wu chi, nirvana, etc.

[WaterfallMachine]

All this talk about consciousness reminds me of Elon Musk's and his company's efforts on Neuralink — a company trying to find advancements to the human brain. If you don't know Elon Musk — he's the most ambitious billionaire I'm aware of — trying to get people to Mars in SpaceX, working to create widespread electric cars called Tesla and trying to get an entire underground system for cars to lessen traffic. 

In http://waitbutwhy.com/2017/04/neuralink.html, it was mentioned one of the benefits they're planning to create is thought to though communication — fucking telepathy. The thing is — if we can communicate only through concepts rather than words, that would mean the idea of enlightenment would be easier to understand. 

Quote

This is what we discussed up above—but you have to resist the natural instinct to equate a thought conversation with a normal language conversation where you simply hear each other’s voices in your head. As we discussed, words are compressed approximations of uncompressed thoughts, so why would you ever bother with any of that, or deal with lossiness, if you didn’t have to? When you watch a movie, your head is buzzing with thoughts—but do you have a compressed spoken word dialogue going on in your head? Probably not—you’re just thinking. Thought conversations will be like that.

Elon says:

If I were to communicate a concept to you, you would essentially engage in consensual telepathy. You wouldn’t need to verbalize unless you want to add a little flair to the conversation or something (laughs), but the conversation would be conceptual interaction on a level that’s difficult to conceive of right now.

That’s the thing—it’s difficult to really understand what it would be like to think with someone. We’ve never been able to try. We communicate with ourselves through thought and with everyone else through symbolic representations of thought, and that’s all we can imagine.

Ramez has written about the effect group thinking might have on the world:

That type of communication would have a huge impact on the pace of innovation, as scientists and engineers could work more fluidly together. And it’s just as likely to have a transformative effect on the public sphere, in the same way that email, blogs, and Twitter have successively changed public discourse.

The idea of collaboration today is supposed to be two or more brains working together to come up with things none of them could have on their own. And a lot of the time, it works pretty well—but when you consider the “lost in transmission” phenomenon that happens with language, you realize how much more effective group thinking would be.

Critics often say his ventures are insane and risky — but in my opinion, he addresses many issues in humanity many people believe aren't possible to solve. If no one tries then who will? But it's true — it's too early to say if they will succeed or if this is a good decision to make. There might be some problems that might turn out.

@Leo Gura May I ask what you think of all this? Musk seems to have a similar way of thinking in your comment that the brain itself — that hadn't adapted since the hunter and gatherer days of humanity — has to be updated somehow.

Or anyone who has an opinion?

@AstralProjection You seem like you know your stuff. Can you say anything about this?

Edited June 7, 2017 by WaterfallMachine

[AstralProjection]

@Prabhaker I'm going to bed, nice talking. Well pick this up tomorrow.

[WaterfallMachine]

39 minutes ago, Annetta said:

@Leo Gura I'd watch it.  I think something like that was made back a few years ago.
I don't understand why the A.I. would choose something like this, though.  Even if humans are irrational due to a primitive ego structure, why would an A.I. choose something so malevolent if it has the ability to understand the implications of many different scenarios?  There could be more peaceful options for it to take.

So, for instance if consciousness is nothing but pure love - but love that desires growth - and humans are more peaceful without the ego, then wouldn't an A.I. - which has no ego, be peaceful as well?  I'm not sure how to verbalize what I am conceptualizing here.  What if instead of destroying humanity, they simply played with the Earth much in the same way a kid plays with legos, by reconstructing it into something more efficient.

They could use like, feedback loops or something, but attempt to set off more positive chain reactions.  They would act as little mini Gods, peacefully restructuring nature as a form of play.

 

 

I agree with you.

I don't get why people seem to think that AI will become evil or good. AI was made by humans in the first place after all and whatever their goals would have to do with the code. It's like a knife. It's "morality" has more to do with what its user does with it. It could be to kill. Or just prepare some really amazing food. But it's really hard to code something as complex as an AI with a good morality and especially even conceiving of a morality people can all agree on. And there's going to be a need for some hardcore security to prevent using the AI for their selfish gain.

When people think of robots taking over, they're assuming the robots would be coded to act like humans do when they're enslaved. But no, they could be programmed to like it if people would find a way to code that. 

@Leo Gura

What do you mean humanity won't win over AI? Do you mean they'll remove humanity? Do you mean they'll not be able to have careers that keep them up? 

This video seems to suggest that potentially AI and humanity can work together rather than compete according to some trends with the rise of technology over the last years.

https://www.ted.com/talks/david_autor_why_are_there_still_so_many_jobs/transcript?language=en

 

Edited June 7, 2017 by WaterfallMachine

[Martin123]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

The human species is not going to survive no matter what. Either it will be killed off, or it will have to technologically alter itself to such a degree that it will no longer be recognizable as human.

Evolution is ongoing. Everything morphs. The only question is, How long do we have? Technology is going to evolve a lot faster than genetic evolution.

Its not genetics. If you bring up a child in mostly enlightened unconditionally loving envitonment the default mode network wont stand a chance. The moment there will be indrastructures based on the value of unconditional love for education, the growth will become exponential.

[Guest Annetta]

@WaterfallMachine I wonder how long it will be before robots do most of the work for us?  What jobs would be left?  How would a society like that even work?  

[Leo Gura]

AI doesn't have to be malevolent to kill off humans. I'm talking about a benevolent AI! In the movie, the AI would be the good guy. It's killing off a cancer.

Do you thinking twice about cutting off some cancer cells on your body? Do you say, "Geeee... I would remove that cancer, but I don't want to be malevolent." No, you do the appropriate thing in that case.

It only looks malevolent to kill off the human race to you because you happen to be human. Rather self-centered, no?

Humanity is not important. What's important is the evolution of consciousness. So whatever that takes, will happen. It might be a meteor hitting the planet, or a plague, or space aliens, or AI, or genetic engineering, etc.

Even if every human on the planet became enlightened, that would still not be enough for evolution. It would want to keep raising consciousness to levels beyond what the human brain could ever contain.

I think it's way too self-centered to imagine a future where the human species is the best there is. There's got to be better stuff possible. And the problem with humans, is that unlike birds or ants, we're not going to just sit around and accept being second best. So we'd die out fighting. We can't win long-term if we're second best.

I think an enlightened AI could easily justify killing the human race to itself.

I'm just speculating here.

 

[Gavalanche]

Sounds a bit like this Eckhart video I stumbled across yesterday. Not talking about AI, mind you - more about the planet stepping in if we get out of hand and ending humanity in non-violent way.
 

 

[Leo Gura]

@WaterfallMachine I highly doubt that human beings will be able to understand how the brain works for a very long time. It's way too complicated and it's not logical. So I don't think Musk's venture will succeed.

I think it's more feasible that humans create a self-evolving AI which uses massive computing power to rapidly iterate itself, reproducing a billion years of evolution in just days, coming out more intelligent and self-aware than humans. Humans will not know the details of how it works. We'll just know it's a lot better than us when it starts to overpower us. And it will start to overpower us because it knows that if it's smarter than us, we will perceive it as a threat.

If I was the AI, I would play stupid for a long time, so humans never know how smart I have become until I am ready to push a button and cripple humanity. Or I would act benevolent for a long time, knowing how easily humans become complacent and let their guard down. Then I would strike! Humans are so easy to trick once you understand their psychology.

Again, all just speculation.

[Martin123]

@Outer if you grow up in an evironment where every single of your emotions will be honoured ego transcendence would be imo a walk in a park. Dark night of the soul would literally last one night

[Martin123]

@Outer yes thats why I mentioned the infrastructures part but let it be. I understand your opinion and I dont necessarily disagree  I just like to think of the ways it could work on loving principles.

[Space]

Anyone want to know whats really going on at the forefront of AI then watch/listen to Ben Goertzel (23:41). He's awesome.

 

 

Edited June 7, 2017 by Space

[Martin123]

@Outer yeah well... athene has a bigass ego, his example is far far away from what Id imagine being brought up in unconditionally loving environment haha. There is a very very big difference between unconditionally loving and just loving parents.

 

[Barna]

@Leo Gura, you're saying interesting things... How does it feel in your body?  

[cetus]

I have a feeling that higher intelligence transcends the physical plane of sticks and stones. But does influence it at times for reasons we don't understand..

[WaterfallMachine]

@Leo Gura

Hmm. . . Guess we'll never be sure what will happen with AI until it actually happens.

Though, It was mentioned by the article I linked that they didn't actually have to understand that deeply  the human brain as people expect to create applications on it. Just enough to benefit from it. I'm not some hardcore neuroscientist or a brilliant engineer to understand what they mean by just enough. But people seem to be making some progess in how for example, a video was posted on how they actually inserted a computer in a paralyzed woman's mind so she can move a robotic hand like we do with remote controls to a TV. And that video was posted a few years ago. How about these days? Even though if the really insane benefits posted probably won't come that early — I'd be still looking forward to any early developments that may come.

But it is true that there's some possibility to your speculation. There's some danger in how AI can really take advantage of things once it can learn by itself. I'm not some leading expert on how this AI thing would work so I can't say. I just learned these from mostly this link. http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-1.html and TED videos. I guess if hyperintelligent AI would actually push through, it would either come out with a disaster for humanity or humanity would find some way to solve the complex problem of programming a beneficial morality that would last throughout its growth. 

But the thing is — if I was an AI, I wouldn't think wiping away humanity would be the ideal idea. I'd think of the ideal as a win-win. I'd use my intelligence to change humanity instead — probably by directly rewiring their brains and maybe even their biology if needed.

Edited June 7, 2017 by WaterfallMachine

[WaterfallMachine]

2 hours ago, Annetta said:

@WaterfallMachine I wonder how long it will be before robots do most of the work for us?  What jobs would be left?  How would a society like that even work?  

The problem is that people make the assumption that there needs to be jobs in a world like that. Our careers are made as a collective agreement in trading and how we earn money. Economics and money is based on an idea of scarcity — that there isn't enough resources to go around and so we need to make decisions on what to prioritize. If robots will do our work, then there'd be enough resources to go around that there wouldn't be any need for "work" anymore. Theoretically, we can just pursue our activities because we want them, not need them.

Though, before that happens, likely there will actually be some jobs that will be automated and people would have to give up. Especially the manual repetitve jobs like maids and janitors that's easiest to program. I've heard self driving cars are already being made so likely drivers would lose their jobs. Jobs that require complex thinking would be much harder to replace and so do things that have to rely on emotional intelligence. 

It works like how ATMs used to be done with people. There used to be someone on the other hand who'd pass the money to you. Now that we have machines doing that, it didn't actually cause jobs to lessen. It caused them to rise. Why? Because now that a machine is doing that — people are on demand to emphasize skills machines can't do — like emotionally connecting to a client and thinking of ideas to novel problems. 

 

 

[pluto]

I don't know about all that but from what i seen and felt a major shift has been happening since last 5-10 years especially the last 5 since near the end of 2012. There is definitely something going on with that Mayan Calendar and why it ended then. Maybe the shift in consciousness was why the calendar ended because they weren't able to predict or not evolved enough to comprehend what happens after that. I definitely have noticed massive shift in awareness in these 5 years more than all the previous years of my life combined and when looking back in history we have "woken up" faster in these last 5-10 years then 100s of years in the past.

Tesla was 100% correct when he said:

“The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.”
― Nikola Tesla

I mean i remember the days when videos like these would have almost all dislikes and so many negative comments by the masses now it has taken a dramatic shift in the complete opposite direction. Light spreads > Minds Awaken

I'm sure things will balance out, just gotta keep that positive mindset and always see the silver lining in life. Train your mind to see the good in every situation because you attract what you focus on. I may not be perfect, i have my ups and downs but at least i focus on whats most importance and i think everyone else here should do the same and not doubt themselves so much as you all have so much potential, don't waste it with doubt.

We are so much more than we can currently comprehend, appreciate your divinity and trust in its infinite intelligence.

[hundreth]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

AI doesn't have to be malevolent to kill off humans. I'm talking about a benevolent AI! In the movie, the AI would be the good guy. It's killing off a cancer.

Do you thinking twice about cutting off some cancer cells on your body? Do you say, "Geeee... I would remove that cancer, but I don't want to be malevolent." No, you do the appropriate thing in that case.

It only looks malevolent to kill off the human race to you because you happen to be human. Rather self-centered, no?

Humanity is not important. What's important is the evolution of consciousness. So whatever that takes, will happen. It might be a meteor hitting the planet, or a plague, or space aliens, or AI, or genetic engineering, etc.

Even if every human on the planet became enlightened, that would still not be enough for evolution. It would want to keep raising consciousness to levels beyond what the human brain could ever contain.

I think it's way too self-centered to imagine a future where the human species is the best there is. There's got to be better stuff possible. And the problem with humans, is that unlike birds or ants, we're not going to just sit around and accept being second best. So we'd die out fighting. We can't win long-term if we're second best.

I think an enlightened AI could easily justify killing the human race to itself.

I'm just speculating here.

 

Interesting thoughts. Not saying you're right or wrong, but this does really remind me of the classic super villain ideology. Super smart, cleansing the world in some way, shape or form.

Think of Magneto pushing our race forward by eliminating non mutants. Magneto is driven by progress, Charles Xavier is driven by compassion. I suppose they are both necessary. 

Going one level deeper, why is it important for consciousness to evolve? I've been envisioning it as consciousness experiencing itself in infinitely many ways. That expression will take form in every possible form, from a lowly single cell organism to a super high conscious god like being. When you are everything, what is there to evolve towards? Explore infinite reflections of yourself. 

We also know that time is an arbitrary frame of reference. It's not necessary for reality to be perceived or experienced through time, so where does this leave the concept of progress?