Transcription:Is Technology the Solution to Positive Evoluti

Post Reply
User avatar
Power Poster
Power Poster
Posts: 6578
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:54 pm
Location: Ocala, FL

Transcription:Is Technology the Solution to Positive Evoluti

Post by Sainbury »


• It is brutal trying to transcribe the spoken word into a written work. When someone is speaking off the cuff instead from a paper they are not concerned with verb tenses, run on sentences, dangling participles and the rest. It has been a major challenge to my punctuation skills.
• I do edit. Tom has a speaking habit of starting sentences with “so” or “well.” After typing a half a dozen of those I went back and took most of them out – only leaving in the ones that made sense to emphasize the sentence. It makes the flow of the ideas much smoother.
• I did change some verb tenses if they were incorrect with the subject.
• I did not include any false sentence starts.
• I put a few things in parenthesis that explains something and I will noted this in a blue color font to denote it was my addition. For example, Tom will go a whole paragraph saying “they” or “it” meaning the LCS. New comers may be lost at this and not understand what he is referring to.
User avatar
Ted Vollers
Posts: 11788
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia

Re: Transcription:Is Technology the Solution to Positive Evo

Post by Ted Vollers »

Those are exactly the kinds of things that must be done if the purpose of the transcription is to provide the most sense to the reader. While they are negligible in the flow of speech, they are stumbling blocks in written text.

User avatar
Power Poster
Power Poster
Posts: 6578
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:54 pm
Location: Ocala, FL

Re: Transcription:Is Technology the Solution to Positive Evo

Post by Sainbury »

Is Technology the Solution to Positive Evolution?
Daghda: Today we have with nuclear physicist and author of My Big Toe Tom Campbell. Tom, in your lectures you mention Swedish philosopher Professor Nick Bostrom who’s on the faculty of Oxford. You mention him because he put forth a virtual simulation argument but he's also deeply interested in Transhumanism. Transhumanism means – more than human. Nick Bostrom opens one of his lectures by saying that the biggest problems facing the human race are death and unhappiness. He’s saying that science is now on the way to resolving those issues.

There's a fast developing wide range of technologies that will be available that will increase lifestyle, physical and mental functionality, by artificially enhancing the human body with microchips prosthetics and new and improved vital organs. Also it is being postulated that the unhappiness problem could be solved by introducing new drugs with far less side effects than twentieth century antidepressants. There is of course a military application to this new technology. Armies with greater strength and endurance, superior cognition, better teamwork, and fearlessness are already being planned. The American government is investing and introducing laws that will protect those who may be profoundly artificially enhanced.

It has to be decided, for instance, where boundaries would lie between human and cyborg. Bioethicists are discussing the moral and ethical issues of such enhancements. Some transhumanists believe that bio-enhancement is a natural way to evolve. We’ve evolved to the point where we have the technology to enhance functionality on all these levels, and so they believe that the next step is to use it to evolve the human race. So Tom, in the light of MBT theory where self realization is the necessity to move towards increased compassion, cooperation (and quality of consciousness is the linchpin to human evolution) can you give us an MBT perspective of the impact that these emerging technologies might have on the evolution of mankind?

Tom: First of all the thing that caught my attention was, “the two biggest problems facing humanity are death and unhappiness.” That is just not so. Death is not a problem. Yes, it is a perceived problem among people, but it is not a problem. It’s a necessary part of the process of us being here. So, you don't solve a problem by creating longevity. You don't solve a problem by either slowing or stopping aging. You create a problem by stopping aging; you don’t solve one. And secondly unhappiness is not a problem; it’s a symptom. Unhappiness is not a problem to be solved. Our medical establishment has moved from focusing on causes to focusing on symptoms. Somebody comes in with an ache, or a pain, or a sore, or a rash, and they’re given a pill to take the symptom away. We don’t focus on causes nearly as much as we should.

Now of course some medicine focuses on causes but we tend to focus on the symptoms. Somebody comes in and has an ulcer. We can give them Maalox™ to drink to get rid of the stomach acid. We can do other things. We can go in and cut out parts of the intestine and sew the rest back together. That's all symptoms. The ulcer isn’t the problem; it's the cause of the ulcer that's the problem. Why do they have an ulcer? It probably has to do with stress. It probably has to do lifestyle. It probably has to do with what they eat - has to do with lots of things. And it may just be a genetic proclivity toward ulcers. It might run in the family. But we need to work on those things not on removing the ulcer - that's the symptom of the problem. Being unhappy is the result of having a low quality of consciousness. Being unhappy is the result of being fearful and having ego; ego being a derivative of fear. Also having beliefs; they’re very limiting. So unhappiness isn’t a problem to be solved. Unhappiness is a symptom that shows a problem that needs to be solved - which is low quality of consciousness. We need to become Love. We need to grow up. We need to get rid of fear. These are problems that should be dealt with. If those problems get dealt with - if we all got rid of our fear, our ego, our beliefs, and expectations - all those things disappeared. We wouldn't have unhappiness. We also probably wouldn’t have ulcers. We probably wouldn’t have nearly as much of all our degenerative diseases as we have now. So that’s the first thing that hit me. They don't understand what’s a problem and what’s a symptom. They’re confusing those two. They’re putting their focus on fixing something that is a symptom. And fixing symptoms doesn’t fix the problem.

Now, when it comes to death; death is a problem. So we want to fix death. All right we eliminate death. When we illuminate death we create a lot of other problems. This idea that technology can solve everything is a mindset that just isn't so. Technology can't solve everything. There is not a technological solution to every problem. Growing the quality of your consciousness does not have a technological solution. There are lots of problems like that that don't have a technological solution. We need to not have this one-sided approach to all problems. “We have the technology. We can rebuild can rebuild him.” It is not a technological problem.

Some of the difficulties there; if nobody dies then is nobody allowed to be born? If we have nobody dying but we have people being born then obviously our population is increasing. Well that can’t happen indefinitely. It doesn't take much of an analysis to know that the earth has a certain carrying capacity for humanity and all the other critters that are here. You can only get so many people here with each of us having one square foot of space to stand on, and we’re all shoulder to shoulder all over the dry land. Now what? Now what do we do? If we've been worried about the cause by putting happy drugs in the water, we worry about the symptoms and put happy drugs in the water, we’ll still have all that same fear and ego that we had in the beginning; which is the real problem. Well what about a whole bunch of people with fear and ego and beliefs that are standing shoulder to shoulder over one square foot of dry land? What do you expect from those people - war, fighting, and annihilation? And if we had the technology to do these marvelous things; we have the technology to kill people by the hundreds of millions. We won’t have to worry about that population thing will we? That will take care of itself. The low quality of consciousness will see to it that that we can have all the babies we want and although no one dies a natural death we can create a lot of unnatural death to take its place - because we have this low quality of consciousness. We're not able to deal with the benefits of the technology until we grow up. We’re not grown up enough for that sort of technology actually now. And probably we never will be.

Why would we want to say, “Well, you can have one child.” or, “Only every tenth family can have a child,” because nobody’s died, where everybody’s living so long, that we’ve reached the carrying capacity. Well that takes a big component of our existence away – not having children. Is that going to create any stress? Think anybody will have a problem with that? What will happen with this low quality of consciousness is the people who have the power will take the land, take the resources, and eliminate the people who don’t have the power; so that they can have space and they have all the babies they want. Because they, just a few million people, now have power now that there’s an over populated earth. So see what you’ve started? You’ve started this thing - where instead of having war to grab each other’s jewels, and land, and resources - now your grabbing space. And you're de-populating so that the good guys, you and your friends, can populate. That’s called genocide. So, it looks like maybe rapid genocide would be the result of conquering the evil of death. Replacing it with the evil of genocide wouldn’t be such a great leap forward. And I think that's where we would go. Now, if we could eliminate the fear and the ego. Now maybe we could do something better than that. You have to realize first what's fundamental - what’s basic? So that idea of living forever, and I know the people who are in that they’d say, “Well there’s going to be population problems and food problems and there’s a carrying capacity of any environment. It just is. (There is a) carrying capacity of the atmosphere, carrying capacity in food, carrying capacity in land masses.” You get the place where overpopulation is a problem. “Oh, don't worry; technology will solve that when we get to it. Everybody will be on happy pills. There won’t be any genocide because we’ll all be on happy pills.” That doesn’t sound right. That makes the book, 1984, (the book,) sound like a picnic and a happy place to live.

Technology is not the solution to all our problems. I guess that’s the main thing. Some of these other things you mentioned, (cyborgs) people who can see better, hear better, run faster - the million-dollar man. “We can rebuild him. We’ll make him into a half man half robot and he’ll perform wonderful, wonderful things. Well, okay a lot of that might happen; if we get that clever and that is technology. What happened to the six million dollar man? He crashed in a rocket, or something, and got damaged. So if you can have the technology to rebuild him why not; as long as he’s still intact as a person making decisions having a free will? Then why not rebuild him? These technological issues do you have ethical ramifications. There are things we need to think about and I applaud these guys - transhumanists. I applaud them for doing that. Let’s not wait until it happens and then try to figure out whether it's a good idea or not - because that won’t happen. By the time we figure out it’s a bad idea we’re already past the power curve of doing anything about it being a bad idea. So I agree with them. Let’s think of all these issues of what could possibly happen because of our technology.

These are technology driven issues. What could our technology allow us to do and what of that should we actually do? What of it should we maybe try to steer away from? So I think they're doing us all favor by raising these issues. Saying, “Come on guys we need to think about this ahead of time.” This technological world we’re in changes fast. And if we don't start thinking about it now and it happens twenty or thirty or fifty years from now we're going to be run over by this technology just like we've been run over by other technologies. We say, “Maybe that wasn't such a good idea.” But by then it's too late. So Nick and the group of transhumanists trying to work these issues are right on in their interest of, “Let's look at these problems now get some idea of where the most benefit is for the buck.” Steer our research into things that are going to be productive instead of the things that are going to cause us problems down the road, smart thinking - so good for them. But they don't, it seems from what you’ve told me, they don't really have a good grasp of what the issues really are; that I see.

They’re looking at all the issues. They may say, “We’re looking at everything, every possibility; we're looking at it and see where it'll go.” Well, that's fine. What do we call a human and what do we call a cyborg? Well, that sounds to me like another “ism.” I use race as my example because I lived through that in the fifties in the United States. What do we call a white man? Well there was a lot of intermixing there when black women became pregnant from white slave owners. And how white does a person have to be before they get the privileges of being white? Well, they had to have less than one twentieth or one tenth and they come up with all this stuff. Well that's not good. Now we're talking about is he a cyborg or is he a human? Well I could see academically that's a question you might want to think about. But it sounds a little scary to me in the sense of; if he as a free will and if he has enough mental function to participate then who cares what he is? It's like saying, “Well do we not let dogs vote in our elections?” Well it's not because they’re dogs and dogs don’t vote. We can generalize it like that but the reason we don't let them vote is they don't have the mental capacity to understand the issues; not that they don't have a stake in the issues. Dogs might be interested in animal rights. They might be interested in the laws concern them - just like we do.

Every law doesn’t concern us, certain subsets of laws concern us more than others; and we're kind of keen on those and we stay up with them and we vote accordingly. Well a dog could do that but a dog doesn't have the mental capacity to understand the situation and make an intelligent choice. It has free will but it doesn't have enough capacity of a sort. But if it did, if the dog did have enough capacity and enough free will and enough ability to sort out the issues to be an intelligent voter; why wouldn't dogs vote? They’ve got a stake in what happens here. It’s the same thing. Now that’s a silly one with dogs because I’m taking that to an extreme. But now we talk about a cyborg that’s half machine and half a man. And how do we tell the difference? And I’m thinking, “Why do you care? Why do you care what the difference is? What’s the discrimination here on the difference? Cyborgs live in metal cans? They’re not allowed to vote? We keep them behind barb wire fences? Well, they’re stronger, faster, better than us – what do we do? Chain them down at night – this kind of thing?” If it has a mind able to comprehend what is going on and has free will then I don’t see that there’s any need to discriminate between what’s human and what’s not. So that question kind of hit me as, “What do you want to know for? What’s important about determining whether it’s human or whether it’s a cyborg?” It sounds kind of racist – human race against not human race. It sounds racist to me. But then I don’t know all the things they’re thinking about.

Daghda: Legal issues – our laws protect humans.

Tom: Well laws should protect everybody. Laws should protect dogs and cats. Laws need to protect everyone. It’s like, will all the cyborgs have their own toilet? Maybe they don’t need a toilet but do they have to stand at the back of the bus? Can they go in the same restaurants as the humans? Why? What’s the point? We need to be treated according to our capacities and abilities. So the dogs and cats don’t have a lot of capacities and abilities intellectually so our laws take care of them. There are laws about not hanging your cat by the tail from the clothes line. That’s called cruelty and somebody will get you if you do that. So we protect those who can’t protect themselves. But everyone who has the where-with-all to participate (a mind, an ability to see what’s going on and a free will to act,) why wouldn’t they be an equal participant in anything; whether it’s where they will ride on the bus, or to what restroom they go, or whether they vote, or whether they don’t?

So that seems to me the law there shouldn’t be so discriminatory about is it a human or not a human? We discriminate on is it capable or not capable? Can it make decisions; come to its own independent conclusions? And does it have a stake in this society? Then we probably ought to welcome it in. Now if it’s a computer, let’s say just a conscious computer; it depends on what it does. It may just look things up for us. We may say, “Computer how many angels can stand on the head of a pin?” The computer goes off and comes back with an answer. So in that case, no, it’s not interested in social issues. There may not be a need to connect it to the social issues. It’s not a social thing. It sounds like a cyborg would be. A dog is a social thing but they don’t really have the mental capacity to vote.

Daghda: What we’re talking about then, (when we’ve been looking at those issues,) is that there’s a limited perspective maybe going on here; a limited perspective about death, limited perspective about consciousness maybe. Because if it’s human and it’s got prosthetics, a cyborg, it is still conscious so generally a limited perspective.

Tom: And a limited perspective about; happy pills are the solution to a low Quality of Consciousness, drugs are the solution to people being unhappy - just give them happy pills and they would be happy then. That’s a viewpoint that says the only reason they’re unhappy is because of some biochemical problem in their body. Let’s fix the biochemical and now they’re happy. That’s not the case. They’re unhappy because of their low Quality of Consciousness. And that may result in this biochemistry, true, but there’s a reason for that. If you take away their ability to get feedback concerning their own growth and being, in other words, you take away the unhappiness that’s a result of their fear; how are they going to learn to get over the fear? Oh, well, they don’t have to get over the fear. We’ll just make them blotto and then the fear won’t make any difference. You don’t want a nation of zombies, and so you see if you understand reality what we’re doing here, you’ll see that removing the symptoms is sometimes not what you want to do. The symptoms - they’re necessary. We need those symptoms. They’re our feedback that helps us grow; which is what we’re here for. So if the technology starts getting to the point that it is eliminating the value of this learning lab; you can’t learn here anymore because every body’s drugged, everyone’s in a stupor, everybody’s happy and old - then this virtual reality, (see these people don’t understand this is a virtual reality,) then becomes not so effective - not so useful. Well, if you’re the Larger Consciousness System and the virtual reality isn’t so useful; now it’s just a whole bunch of old people shoulder to shoulder all over the planet and drugged so they don’t try to kill each other. Then what good is it?

See the virtual reality, now, has failed its purpose because the feedback has been taken away. Well, if that was my virtual reality I’d delete it and start over. I’d back it up five hundred years, or something, and start it up again and figure let’s hope these guys are smarter next time and they don’t take these routes. I see what they’re trying to do, these transhumanists, is very good. They’re trying to look ahead at where we might go – and that’s laudable. But I see they really don’t understand the nature of the reality. They don’t understand it’s a virtual reality. They don’t understand that this is a consciousness evolution virtual reality trainer. They don’t understand a lot of the basics of what’s going on here. And that’s almost as dangerous; a lack of understanding than all these technologies and things that they’re trying to understand because they might be dangerous. So I kind of see the lack of understanding is as dangerous as the things that they’re trying to study.

Daghda: And if they have a limited perspective then we’ll see areas of science that have a limited perspective. So what would this mean for futurist physicists who are postulating things like warp speed and populating distant planets?

Tom: Well, it’s the same sort of thing; it’s scientists fooling themselves with the idea that technology can solve every problem. They just have this belief that technology can do anything – everything. Well, they don’t understand the reason why we’re here. Technology isn’t really the solution to much of anything that’s terribly important. The things that are really important are not technology problems. So it’s a very biased viewpoint that sees the world mostly in a Newtonian vision of a big clockwork. There’s this big machine and its clockwork and we all move according to the way the gears turn. This huge machine and if you could specify all the particles, if you could specify them completely, then you could predict where everything would be from now on - this sort of thing. It’s a deterministic reality. It’s a physical, objective reality. Well, that’s wrong - it isn’t.

That’s this issue. If you have that clockwork mentality of the universe then it’s just a matter of fixing a clock. You can make this clock be or do whatever you want. You can make everybody happy, you can make everybody live long, and you can whatever. It’s just a matter of going in and adjusting this gear and winding that spring and fixing things - and technology can do all of it; because this whole reality is just one big technical problem that’s moving on. We’ve got the science. We understand how it all works and we can fix it. The transhumanists say, “We can not only fix it, but we can stick our foot in it too. We can screw it up as well and we need to be thinking about how we might do that. How we might keep from screwing it up.” Yeah, good idea, but the fundamental viewpoint is just not good. This isn’t a big clock machine. And what’s wrong with it doesn’t have a technological fix.

Technology isn’t the thing that fixes everything. There’s things technology can’t do. And one of these that you mention is this conquering space. We’re going to spread out to all the planets, and all the galaxies, and all this - given enough time. And one of the problems with this idea, of us spreading out in all the galaxies that we have, is that our sun is not an old sun. In other words, our planet is not an old planet. Because our sun got there first and then we had planets. Then planets had to cool and get to a point where they could evolve things like us. So there’s some other sun, some other place, that’s a much older sun that should have had evolution take root and evolve things that would be hundreds of millions if not billions of years in process beyond us - older than us. They’ve been in the evolution game for say a hundred million years longer than we have. Well, were we just fast and they’re just slow? There’s no real good reason why that should be. Well then where are they? If they’re a billion years ahead of us, I mean we’re looking at doing this thing out in the stars in the next several hundred years; certainly the next century, maybe the next millennia. We don’t see it hundreds of thousands of years before we get there. We see it as in the near future – maybe two or three hundred years. Well, where are these people that are a billion years ahead of us? Why haven’t they come here and said, “Hello?” They’ve been traveling all over the universe now for a billion years, well maybe not, maybe only nine hundred thousand years. Maybe it took another hundred thousand years to get there. So they’ve been traveling around this universe for hundreds of thousands of years yet we don’t see anybody. Now there are two reasons that can explain that and it’s not that it’s one or the other. They both could be true.

One - is in order to make space travel to distant planets and distant galaxies in reality you need to be able to go faster than the speed of light - because the universe is really big. The nearest star is four and a half light years away. I shouldn’t say that - our sun is the nearest star. Outside our solar system the nearest star is four and a half light years away - Alpha Centauri. Four and half light years mean it would take light four and a half years to go from earth out to Alpha Centauri, and four and a half years to come back. That’s a nine year round trip. That’s the nearest to us other than our own sun. Now the ones that are farther away are hundreds of thousands of years - millions of light years. So light travels out a million years and it gets there and it takes a million years to come back. That’s a million light years away. Our universe is that big. It’s very, very big. People don’t understand how big this thing is.

Well, if we’re going to populate a planet that is even just ten thousand light years away, that’s a pretty near planet; that’s probably even in our own galaxy. We haven’t even gotten out of our own galaxy yet. Now I don’t know, I’m not an astrophysicist so I don’t have all those numbers on the tip of my tongue, but probably ten thousand light years is still in our own Milky Way. We’re not even out of the galaxy and it takes ten thousand years to get out there at the speed of light and it takes ten thousand years to come back. I imagine the conversation, “Helloooooo.” Twenty thousand years later it comes back, “Yes, we hear you!” It’s a long conversation if you wait twenty thousand years to answer the question. Well by the time the question gets answered the question is OBE (overtaken by events.) It’s not of any interest anymore. Twenty thousand years have gone by and whatever it was you were talking about probably isn’t relevant any more. This traveling to other places you’re going to have to go faster than the speed of light. Otherwise it’s not going to work.

Well, these scientists and technologists feel that the speed of light is just, “We’ll overcome that with technology. Someday we’ll be like Star Trek. We’ll be like Captain Kirk and we can ask Scotty to put us into warp drive and we’re going to be going faster than the speed of light.” Warp five that’s five times the speed of light. They just believe that will be true because its technology and technology can do anything. Well, it’s not like that. They don’t understand why c is a constant. Physics in general doesn’t understand why c is a constant. They know it appears to be a constant. But then technology has conquered a lot of things that have appeared to be impossible. It appeared to be impossible to take your boat and go east and come back from the west. That would have seemed like a crazy idea. Well, we can do that now because the globe is round and we can chug our boat all the way around it. But at a time we’d have said, “That’s impossible. You go far enough east; you drop off the edge.” Science says, “Well, we’ve done the impossible before. No big deal. We’ll beat that speed of light.” That’s because they don’t understand why it’s a constant. It’s a constant because that’s fundamental to the virtual reality that we’re in. It’s like this; we’re in a virtual reality that’s computed. All computed realities are called simulations. They work on a time loop - if they’re dynamic they have a time loop. Every time delta-t goes through the loop one delta-t worth of time it’s added. So here we are t = 10 seconds; delta-t goes around now we’re at t = 10 seconds + a delta-t; goes around again and we’re at t = 2· (delta-t) and so on. So that’s how simulations work.

In a simulation, just like on your computer screen, you have pixels. You have resolution in a virtual reality. The computer only computes some level of resolution. You only get your TV picture to some resolution and you just fill in all the little pixels and that makes your reality. In our virtual reality we have a quantum of volume. That’s the smallest volume you that you can have because that’s all the computer computes the reality to. This is not a continuous world. Everything is digital here. Time is digital – delta-ts- that’s the quantum of time – the delta-t. Volume is digital and one way to look at that is if your scientists out there – you have Planck’s length. It takes Planck’s length and cube it. That would give you kind of a rough order of quantum of volume. That’s as good as a guess as we have. I wouldn’t say that has to be a cube of volume. But that’s about as good as guess at what the size of the quantum of volume would be – would be Planck’s length cubed.

So, we have this quantum of volume and every delta-t in this simulation something can move from one quantum of volume to the next quantum of volume. Next delta-t it can move to the next quantum of volume; next delta-t to the next quantum of volume. Why does it have to move sequentially? Because otherwise our reality would be very crazy. It would teleport. It’s here, another delta-t; it’s someplace else. In order to make this an isotropic reality where we have things that look continuous, it appears to be continuous because our delta-t is so small; we have to move from one to the next, to the next, to the next. They all have to be adjacent to each other. They can’t skip and jump things. That doesn’t make a good design here. So you get your lowest point; it’s like your pixels; what if they only put light in every other pixel? Well you’d look at a screen and it would have a bunch of black holes in it. The whole thing needs to look continuous. Yet it is only made up of these individual chunks, but it looks continuous. But you don’t skip pixels on purpose. You skip them if there’s something wrong with your display but you don’t skip them on purpose.

So, now why is c constant? Because that’s moving from one pixel of volume to the next pixel of volume and one delta-t; because this is a virtual reality and it’s simulated. Well, that’s the nature of this reality and that’s our whole universe. You can’t move information any faster than that. That’s as fast as it goes. So there’s a big problem with scientists saying, “Oh c – we’ll go faster than c.” Well, you’re not probably going to go faster than c because it violates the basic fundamental structure of the reality that we’re in. That’s why c is a constant in the first place. Mass, I’m talking about mass now, not going faster than c. Not necessarily talking about information because information is non-physical. Information doesn’t have mass, doesn’t have weight, and doesn’t take up volume. It’s non-physical. But physical stuff, mass and matter, is not going to move faster than c because it’s the way our virtual reality’s made. Once you understand that; this idea about, “Oh, no problem. We’ll get by c. We’ll get in our little rocket ship and we’ll say, ‘Scotty Warp 5!” And Scotty will put his engines in and there we go - five times faster than light. Not likely to happen because of the fundamentals of virtual reality. So that’s one thing. And again, I’m not saying it’s impossible because I know in a virtual reality almost anything is possible. And the reason I say that is what if they (the Larger Consciousness System) change the structure? What if they change the delta-t? What if they made that smaller? That would mean things could go faster. There’s ways of getting around that so it’s not like it’s impossible – but it’s unlikely. It’s kind of impossible of us doing it. It would have to be done at the level at which the simulation is produced; not at our level – from inside the simulation. So us doing it; we’re not going to do that.

Daghda: And just to ask for a moment. When you say, “if they change,” you’re talking about….

Tom: It’s the Larger Consciousness System is what I’m talking about. This virtual reality is computed reality. Consciousness is a computer. Consciousness is a digital information field. We’ll just leave it at that. Go listen to the Calgary videos and all the science there. So that’s one thing. It’s very cavalier to think that technology will solve everything.

Daghda: Then c is constant unless the system changes. Warp speed, faster than the speed of light to get to these other planets, is extremely unlikely.

Tom: It is extremely unlikely we’re going to get anywhere. And if we do it’s extremely unlikely that anybody would have even remembered that we went. If we go out to something close, let’s say fifty light years away, it would be a hundred years later. We go out there, (its fifty years and that’s even at the speed of light, but let’s say we can go half the speed of light; it would be a hundred years to get there and fifty years for a light signal to come back) to say, “Hey we made it!” In that long do they care? Do they care anymore? You’ve been gone for three generations of humanity.

Daghda: And I’m seeing the future as physicists generally are talking about, “Well you know if we over populate this planet, and we burn through all the resources; soon enough we’re going to have this new technology that’s going to be able to take us at warp speed to other planets - where we can do the same thing.” But the idea is that we can, that we’ll be able to, do this no matter what happens here. If we do make a mess of it we can go somewhere else. Which brings us very nicely to; in this virtual simulation then, what about the concept of all these other planets being populated?

Tom: That’s the second thing that bears on this idea of populating the universe, or some part of the universe that’s populated coming here. One, it’s extremely, extremely hard to do that if you’re going to move mass in this universe, physical mass, anywhere else. And this idea that, “Well we’ll take a long time, but if we could just get to Alpha Centauri and then populate that; we could just get to the next nearest, and just get to the next nearest one.” Possibly, but you get to a point soon that communicating back here would be so problematical that it’s almost like us just off and gone. And that’s a possibility. But even that would be sending people out probably frozen so that they stopped very, very fast; they wouldn’t age as much. And years and years later they might end up someplace. That’s not exactly what they (scientists) have envisioned. They have envisioned kind of a warped speed thing. To send people out that you’ll never hear from again because it will take too long for light to go back and forth; that’s really not what they’re thinking about. That could work slowly, but it’s difficult because Alpha Centauri may not have a planet. You may have to go fifty light years to find an inhabitable planet; fifty light years, now, that’s a long time. We don’t travel at light speed. We travel at a fraction of light speed. It’s not likely we’d even travel at fifty percent of light speed. That would be difficult. Mass, I’m talking about mass now, you get mass at fifty percent of light speed; you’ve got one tremendous amount of energy for talking about a space ship. How do you slow that thing down? How do you land that thing somewhere? There are lots of problems like that that require a lot of work if you’re going to go point eight point nine light speed. You’re now talking about tremendous energies if you’re moving a bunch of bodies. You’re moving a thousand people in a big ship; you’re talking about lots and lots of mass. That’s a huge amount of energy dealing with all of that. So it’s a problem. We’re more likely to go point one of light speed or point “0” one of light speed which then is going to take even longer. It’ll take you one hundred times longer to do it than light speed.

OK, the second thing about populating the larger universe is that, yes, probability tells us that there are lots of suns that could have planets. It’s just likely - right? And that these planets could very well be like earth and biology could get started there. And if it did it here why couldn’t it happen somewhere else? Why are we so special? And there’s no reason for us to be so special. So the idea is that we’re not. And it probably has happened lots of other places. Because there are so many billions of stars there’s bound to be some of those that ended up kind of like our solar system, and life emerged on it. OK, that’s just a good bet. So then, where are they? That’s the question. Why haven’t they come knocking on our door? Well, there’s another answer to this question besides the fact that it’s not that likely that we’ll ever exceed the speed of light with moving mass.

And that is that this is a virtual reality. You know this virtual reality is meant as a consciousness evolution trainer. And it serves that function. It’s a simulation started with the Big Digital Bang; where there was this computer and it input a lot of energy, and it input a constant, and a rule set, and it expanded, and whatever. And we have our sun and we have all these other suns too – all came out of it. Now this Larger Consciousness System was looking for a learning lab – a consciousness trainer. Did this system need a million consciousness trainers? Did it want to populate all the possible places in this universe that could perhaps have evolved? Or is this one enough? Or maybe three – maybe three of them are enough. It’s not a given that evolution is taking place. Now evolution is a computation. It’s allowing the simulation to continue to evolve down that path - to calculate what happens next. There are probabilities, things happen; it’s a building of things. If you’re running a big simulation you have limited resources; you have limited needs. Here the limited resources might not want to populate a million different systems. One may be enough or, like I said, maybe three. And besides that this is just one simulation. You could do another simulation that’s a whole different universe - not this universe. But you have this universe here so you say, “Well you could use it to populate these others.” But I only need one, let’s just say I only need one; that’s all I need is seven billion people on this planet. And that’s enough for me to do what I need to do with consciousness evolution. And I’ve got other universes, other places, and other things than this one. That’s all I need. So we let the simulation work itself out in evolution in this place – earth, sun, and so on. And it works its way out and here we are. The rest of the simulation, we say, “Stop! Don’t progress that out. Don’t calculate all the ramifications of what happens there. Just hold off on that. We really don’t have enough resources, or we don’t really need that much data.” It’s a digital process. You can calculate just as much as you need. And just to say a priori (justification which is independent of experience,) “they’re all out there; they’re all evolving just like us" is because they don’t understand the nature of reality. So it maybe that this earth and this sun is the only one that the simulation let progress that far to see what happened. And again, you could guess why. Maybe that’s all they need. Maybe too many resources are required. This is enough; too many computational resources are required. Nobody computes for the fondness of computing. You compute because it meets a need.

Daghda: So it’s a likelihood that this PMR (Physical Matter Reality,) which is this universe; it’s likely that this earth might be the only part of the experiment that’s on the run?

Tom: I don’t know if I’d say, it’s likely, but I’d say, it’s certainly possible. It’s possible that this sun and this planet maybe the only one that was left to run because of either resource limitations or because of need limitations. They (the Larger Consciousness System) didn’t need any more. Or like I say, maybe there’s three or ten. But in the size of this universe and there’s three; it might as well only be one - unless all three of them are right next to each other. It’s a huge universe. It’s a big universe to lose three marbles in; particularly if they’re randomly placed, or whatever - it’s hard to say. So, it may be possible that the Larger Consciousness System is not progressing the simulation in any of them but this. And the rest of that universe out there is just background; because it needed to be made in order to produce this sun and that planet. So it kind of had to do the whole thing and when you do the whole thing then you say, “Well let’s just progress this one and see where that one goes. Let the rest of it be.” So now we look into the heavens with a telescope. Well, if the telescope’s not too good all you’ll see is points of light. Points of light are real easy to simulate. That doesn’t take but just a few bits to simulate points of light. So now we look into a better telescope, like Hubble, and we see not only points of light but all these dramatic gas fields and all the rest of it; which show us some of the process of that evolution. Now if we look into it even more we’ll see even more details.

That’s how virtual reality works. When you make the measurement you get the response. When you make the measurement you get the data. But it doesn’t mean that data is generated all the time just to be there. You just get the data when you make the measurement. That might be hard for people to understand. In other words when you look through your telescope the Larger Consciousness System has to send data down your data stream to describe what the rule set says that you’ll describe - the ruleset being all the physics. So you’ll get the data that describes what the ruleset says will be there right down to the resolution of the reality - if you look that deeply. But that’s it. Then you turn the telescope off, take your eyes out of the things, and it doesn’t have keep rendering that. It’s just rendering data to you because you looked. You don’t look – it’s just a point of light. Like I say, you can do that for a couple of bits - a point of light is easy to model. It doesn’t have to send you a lot of data for a point of light. You look through Hubble you get a lot more. If you’re not looking through Hubble that data stream goes away. If you look again you get the same one. You’ll always get that same one because once you’ve seen it one way that’s the way it stays. I’ve given other talks about how that works; how the statistical process works – the physics of the virtual reality. We won’t go into that here. If that’s confusing you, “Ah, that doesn’t make any sense;” it does make sense. You just aren’t getting the basics of it because I’m not telling you them here. So, that’s the second thing.

So one: the speed of light isn’t just something that we’re going to run over with technology – making mass go as fast as light or faster than light is a very difficult problem. Almost to the point I’ll say that if we’re doing it from the inside it’s impossible. We can’t do that because the way the reality is constructed doesn’t allow it; doesn’t allow you to do that. It’s back to the ruleset. It’s the way it works. Now maybe you could do every other point instead of having them all sequential. Or you could teleport from point to point to point or something. But you’d have to do that from the outside. The Larger Consciousness System would have to write the code so that you could take two steps instead of one every delta-t. So it’s not something we’re going to do from the inhabitants inside the virtual reality. I’m not saying it’s impossible that it couldn’t ever be done. But we’re not going to be the ones doing it. It may be enabled for us. Let’s say our technology gets so good that that’s the only thing left for us to do. Well, it (the Larger Consciousness System) may up the resolution. They may give us a smaller delta-t, or may allow us to skip steps, or something may change then in the rule set, (in the way it’s done) to enable us to do that. That’s what I’m thinking. I won’t say it’s impossible that it won’t happen; it’s just not going to be us forcing this virtual reality to let us push mass faster than the speed of light. We’re not going to do it. It would have to be re-programmed elsewhere. And there’s no guarantee, there’s no logic that says there is any other. Yes, statistics say that there should be but that’s based upon an assumption that all of them are calculating out through all the possible, the possibilities of evolution, all the planets that could possibly host it. That may not be the case. Why do it if you don’t need it? Earth could be the only one; or earth and a hundred others, or ten others, or whatever. We don’t know that. So that’s just an unknown. It’s possible that earth is the only one. So there are two good reasons: the speed of light being a constant - we’re not going to change it, and this may be the only one. Two good reasons of why haven’t we seen them. Where are the ETs (extra terrestrials)? Why haven’t they come knocking on our door? Well, there are two good answers. But they’re not mutually exclusive. Both are true. Both could be true. We might be the only one or one of a few and c is a hard limit.

Daghda: So they would have as hard a time reaching us as we would reaching them?

Tom: Sure they would have as hard a time reaching us as we would reaching them. And it might not make that much sense.

Daghda: I can hear all the people who are now saying, “What about all the UFOs? What about the flotillas of UFOs that people have seen in the past and recently?”

Tom: Yes, what about all the UFOs? You have a Larger Consciousness System that’s creating this digital reality for us and we are chunks of consciousness. Because the Larger Consciousness System is playing all ends of this game, (it’s the computer, the operating system,) it can decide how this virtual reality runs. It can do anything it wants. If it wants to put a flotilla of lights in the sky that’s not a problem. All it has to do is put that image into the data stream of the people looking at it. Doesn’t have to be little green men from a planet far, far away. The Larger Consciousness System can do that sort of thing; can make it look as if aliens are here anytime it wants. The Larger Consciousness System can produce a crop circle that covers twenty acres of ground and shows up one night without making any noise. It’s the computer. It’s the programmer. It’s not really the programmer in as much as our virtual reality is an evolved reality not a programmed one. The Larger Consciousness System doesn’t sit down and program (plan) each blade of grass. It let it evolve. And what evolved become the constraints that we as consciousness have to abide by those constraints to get into the virtual reality game; to interact, to get rid of our fear, become Love, lower entropy – so consciousness evolves. It’s all about evolution. That’s the evolution of consciousness. And we’re part of the system’s strategy for evolving consciousness. And consciousness evolves because it’s evolve or die. You either evolve or you dissipate. That’s the idea.

Daghda: The Larger Consciousness System is able to make things happen in order to make us maybe be aware that there’s a bigger picture.

Tom: Right. The Larger Consciousness System can do a little programming here; all they have to do, again, is feed the right data into somebody’s data stream. When you’re an elf in World of Warcraft the data stream from the server that’s running World of Warcraft is sent to your computer which puts an elf on your screen. It’s a data stream and you as a player have your own personal data stream. If the people at World of Warcraft wanted to send you a picture, of some sort, they could. If maybe they’re clever enough, if they know the data stream - if they could pick out the data stream that went to you, they could send whatever they wanted down that picture. They’re probably not that clever because there wouldn’t be any need to do that to access individuals. When you log on and look at their map whatever you’re looking at you get that data. You stop looking at it it’s not continuing to send that data to you. It sends you the data that you’re looking at. If you’re the only game player in the game and you look this way with nobody else in the game but you then the computer will send you the data to show you that look. You think it’s still generating data on all the stuff around you and there aren’t any other players in the game? Of course not. It only generates data to send in the data stream to a player. So if you’re not looking, if nobody’s there, if there’s not a single player in the game, the computer’s not generating any data streams. Our reality works like that too. You want to look up in the sky and see a bunch of lights and watch them speed across and do right angle turns and flippy flips and stuff – that’s not hard. That’s just five people looking at little points of light moving around in five data streams – trivial.

Why would the Larger Consciousness System want to do that? Because it would like to wake us up a little bit and say, “Wake up everybody. Reality is larger and stranger than you think.” And this idea that we come to, if we see that, we say, “Oh, people from other planets, this is ETs, these are space people, aliens are here making crop circles, aliens are here with the little points of light.” Simulating aliens is a very easy way to wake people up to our reality being bigger than what they thought. And that’s good for the Larger Consciousness System because that’s one of the tools that it uses to succeed here. We have to realize that reality is much bigger than just the physical reality, just what we see is all there is, there’s more - it’s bigger. By opening people’s minds it makes it easier for them to get even bigger pictures. Once you pry their mind open in this area, even if its aliens, it helps their mind to be pried open in other areas. It makes them more open minded if they get these things; so that’s, I think, where most of these aliens comes from.

Besides that, you can travel among reality frames with your consciousness, and you can go to other reality frames with your consciousness. Most of us do that every night when we dream. Our consciousness interacts in another reality frame – the dream frame. You can go to other reality frames and exist as a spectator, just kind of looking, (you have kind of the God’s eye view in a sense; you’re hovering and looking at what’s going on,) or you can participate. Well, I’ve done that other places. I’m sure others other places have done that here. Also people who wake up and there’s a little green man with pointy ears at the foot of their bed; he says, “Come with me.” And you get beamed up – that kind of thing. These are experiences of consciousness – again it’s data. Just like the dream reality is an experience of consciousness. It seems very real because this reality is just data. This, what we call physical reality, is just information. That reality with the little green man with pointy ears is just information. There’s no reason why it wouldn’t seem just as real as this one. And because we really don’t understand the reality, we see the little guy at the foot of our bed and we assume that it’s in this reality and not just a data stream coming to us – the player. And it’s funny how these things usually happen when nobody else is around.

Now little lights in the sky there can be a whole crowd of people around there – that’s easy. You don’t have to explain a whole lot. Mostly they happen when nobody else is around. These things are happening and they don’t have to. It’s not that hard for the system to send data streams to a dozen people or a hundred people. And it’s not that hard for it to coordinate a multi-player game so they are interactive with those hundred people with the little green man. But mostly it’s a single experience with a single person. And it is just as real as this is- just as real as this chair, and this table, and that counter. It’s just that real because it’s data; because this chair and that table are just data. So there’s no reason why it would be foggy or whatever and they say “No, I know it was real!” This is real. My dreams are real. Sometimes my dreams are foggy but sometimes they’re just as real as this – so it’s that sort of thing. These people that see it; one it’s the Larger Consciousness System waking us up. Two: it’s something that they’re getting personally, something that challenges them, something that challenges their fear, something that challenges the size of their perspective, something that they can now go on YouTube to tell people about that opens up other people’s minds – it spreads.

Daghda: And also it can be a bleed through from another reality frame.

Tom: And also it could be someone from another reality frame coming here but that’s traveling by consciousness. That’s not traveling by space ship.

Daghda: By reality frame you’re talking about this reality frame that we’re in now, (being our universe, our physical meta-reality physical universe) constrained by all of its rules. And you’re saying another one of those another reality frame somewhere else, like this but somewhere else that you can travel to by consciousness through exploration.

Tom: Exactly – through consciousness exploration. See that’s another thing why would the Larger Consciousness System have to fill out a million earth-like, earth-sun arrangements, all over this universe? It can just as easily spawn another universe and get another whole variation of the ruleset.

Daghda: Another experiment, another set of rules, another way to evolve to see how profitable that type of simulation will play out.

Tom: For the amount of calculation to populate this one, another twenty planets and suns; it could take that same computation and do four or five more universes because it’s a probabilistic simulation. It’s not a deterministic simulation. You’re doing a simulation; you’re not simulating every molecule and every particle and every electromagnetic field – every photon. You’re not simulating all that detail. You’re only sending a data stream just like in the World of Warcraft. You’re only sending the data stream for what you’re looking at. So if you’re not looking through Hubble you get points of light. If I’m not looking out the window all I get’s your wall. The wall behind me is not in my data stream; it’s in your data stream. And we both walk out of this room; it’s in nobody’s data stream. And it’s not, “You mean that the room doesn’t exist anymore? Doesn’t that leave a hole in the building?” No! See, this is a virtual reality. It only sends information to those who make the measurement; who are looking. It doesn’t leave a hole in reality. This is not a real building. This is a virtual building. These are virtual bodies.

Daghda: It makes more sense to compute more PMRs (Physical Matter Realities) rather than add to the experiments that are in here because they’d all be, if we had more planets, they would all be constrained by the same ruleset. So, it makes more sense to make a new experiment that’s constrained by other rules.

Tom: Exactly. Here would be parallel processing and maybe that’s good. Let’s say in your virtual reality trainer you might want something that would carry twenty billion individuals. Well, we can’t carry twenty billion on earth so maybe you populate a couple more. But there’s no reason why you’d want everything out there that could be. That seems like too much; that seems excessive parallel processing because it’s all the same ruleset. It’s going to come out, not exactly the same, but it’s going to come out fairly similar as far as the constraints go because it’s all the same ruleset. So the constraints are going to be similar so the products are going to be similar, and do you really need a hundred thousand things with small variations of the others perking along? A different universe from a different ruleset might be more interesting. Now see these are just conjecture though. You really don’t know about that. But there are two good reasons why ETs haven’t been knocking on our door even though we have a relatively young sun. So it’s more of the same technology’s hubris of, “We can do anything. We can solve any problem.” And their idea that this is big clockwork and the clock has to work the same all over. So if this happened here it then ought to happen all over the universe. And if it happens all of the universe then there ought to be literally thousands if not millions of things like the earth and dada dada da. Where are they?

The universe is expanding – always expanding. Actually it’s expanding at an accelerated rate. What is it expanding into? What was there before we expanded into it? How does it expand? How do you make more space? How does our physical reality get bigger – from what? How? Is there somebody making space somewhere? Well, no it’s just a number in a computer. You put a number in a computer you can have your computer compute the surface area of a sphere that’s a hundred times bigger than our universe. It’s just how many digits can a computer handle, right? If it can handle sixty four decimal places you can compute all sorts of things. It’s just a number in a computer. That’s what expanding is. It’s got an acceleration – why? It’s part of the ruleset. It doesn’t need a reason more than that. Anyway, the same ideas for those of you who are in the sciences, the same ideas explained; double slit, all those funny, weird things in quantum mechanics all fall out as perfectly rational - entanglement and the rest of it. Go look at the Calgary lecture and you’ll see all that explained.
Post Reply

Return to “Tom's Interviews, Lectures, and Workshops”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests