Beyond the study of psychology
by Jon Rappoport
April 17, 2018
These are notes I made in preparation for my second collection, Exit From The Matrix:
“Psychology is essentially a reflection of the culture: it focuses on the family unit and what can happen to fracture it. It focuses on society and how an individual can adapt to it. It focuses on re-establishing norms of behavior. It focuses on a person’s past as the key to his problems. It stumbles and stutters and retreats when it comes up against the individual’s creative impulse. This impulse travels far beyond family, society, and the past.”
“Let us consider what are called ‘contents’ of the mind. Many efforts have been made to describe various items: persistent thoughts and images; so-called archetypes; symbols; memories; and so on. These and other items can be viewed as ‘helpers’ in solving problems. They can be viewed as ‘influences’. They can be viewed as irrelevant debris. They can be analyzed from different perspectives. But one thing is clear. For the creative individual, they are all fuel for the fire. They can be reworked, recombined, and, above all, transformed in the invention of some new reality. Therefore, there is nothing final or ultimate about these ‘contents’. Unless a person is merely a passive spectator who has no creative urge at all.”
“When consciousness is directed to find something in particular, it will. This is not a cause for celebration, any more than a dog finding a bone in a garden is shocking. Directed consciousness gives answers that depend on prior assumptions. Consciousness will find the kind of content it is looking for. But these answers ultimate prove unsatisfying. They exist in a bubble that has been laid out beforehand. Imagination, however, is a completely different story.”
“Imagination has the capacity to be spontaneous. Science can’t touch or analyze spontaneity. At bottom, mind control, whether imposed externally or self-induced, exists to prevent spontaneous action.”
“On the surface, it may appear that society does not reward spontaneity because it doesn’t acknowledge it. But every great work contains inexplicable leaps, when the inventor vaults beyond anything that was done and cataloged before. He spontaneously lights on something that never existed. He brings it into being. In retrospect, going back to discover ‘how it happened’ results in plausible but completely false conclusions.”
“People will do everything they possibly can to explain how a spontaneous invention or creation happened. They will say an individual ‘tapped into’ something beyond him. A field, a library, a data mine. This is an attempt to make sense out of what stands on its own: imagination. Imagination invents. It doesn’t need a field or a cosmic library.”
“Just because the overwhelming majority of humans back away from imagination and invention of reality doesn’t mean you have to.”
And here is a backgrounder:
Elon Musk and several other unnamed billionaires believe we all live in a computer generated reality—they’re convinced the universe is a simulation. Therefore, they’re funding research aimed at helping us escape.
The story, as reported in The Independent (10/5), gets even more interesting when we hear from Sam Altman, who owns Y Combinator, a company that helps create tech start-ups:
“Mr Altman…told the New Yorker that he was concerned about the way that the devices that surround us might lead to the extinction of all consciousness in the universe. He spoke about how the best scenario for dealing with that is a ‘merge’ – when our brains and computers become one, perhaps by having our brains uploaded into the cloud…’The full-on-crazy version of the merge is we get our brains uploaded into the cloud. I’d love that. We need to level up humans, because our descendants will either conquer the galaxy or extinguish consciousness in the universe forever. What a time to be alive!’”
If you’re confused and spinning, you should be. How do we get from “we’re all living in a simulation” to “we should get our brains uploaded to the cloud”?
“The devices that surround us might lead to the extinction of all consciousness in the universe,” and therefore we should merge our brains with another such device; the cloud. Our brains and some super-computer should become One, and that will solve the problem.
What??
The machines are taking over. Therefore, let’s all merge with the machines.
If you believe this is logic, I have golf club memberships for sale on Jupiter.
The underlying message here is: say anything that leads to hooking up brains to computers, even if it makes no sense at all. Just do it.
Fast-food burgers are unhealthy. Therefore, let’s all merge our brains with the cloud.
There’s a big hurricane coming. Hook your brain up to a computer.
Perhaps Mr. Altman thinks that a brain-computer interface will preserve consciousness against our own tendency to destroy ourselves. Who knows? If that’s what he thinks, I have news: connecting brains to computers doesn’t produce “more consciousness.” It just brings about a condition of slavery, in which we accept all answers and data generated by a computer.
Which is exactly where technocrats want to go. “You’re not allowed to make mistakes. Computers are flawless. Follow their instructions.”
Technocrats, to the degree their motives can possibly be construed as genuine, are always looking in the wrong places for magic. They think computers embody it. Fill a processing device with enough complexity and it comes alive. Not so. It just becomes a more complicated machine.
There is a premise these geniuses are overlooking: a brain-computer hookup actually works. Who says so? Who says that wiring connections between a brain and a machine is going to produce information, for a human being, that’s more than static and gibberish?
A whole host of assumptions are being made here. On extremely tenuous grounds. It’s slovenly thinking: a brain is like a machine and a computer is like a brain, so the two of them will get along just fine. Really?
The technocrats have seen far too many bad sci-fi movies.
Their basic problem stems from their adoration and worship of machines and systems. This leads to treating human beings as systems and nothing more. If it isn’t a system, they’re afraid of it. They want to predict and control. That’s the world they see.
Systems are, when taken too far, labyrinths. You can enter but you can’t exit. Humans generally don’t know when that line has been crossed. They eat systems. They want to think and behave like systems. This obsession spans the spectrum all the way from schools with zero-tolerance policies to metaphysical maps of the cosmos.
When elites reach the point where the population can’t even imagine what non-system thinking might be, they will have won. They won’t need a supercomputer to instruct brains. They will have created a collective brain.
Many humans just want to know what ‘everyone else’ is thinking…and after they find out, they sign up and join. The joke is, everyone else is thinking they want to be part of the collective, too. That’s the basic and bottom-line thought, and it’s passed around like an empty shell, from person to person. It’s meaningless.
“All right, Mr. Jones, we’re going to link your brain up to our supercomputer. We think this is going to work. Ha-ha, we’ll see. We hope it doesn’t fry any brain synapses. Once we make the connection, you should be receiving a whole new set of information from your brain. We hope it comes through clearly. Your job is to obey what your brain is telling you. When I use the word ‘you’, I’m not sure what I mean. That’s a mystery. There’s a lot of mystery here. We expect you to become a super version of yourself. Super-smart, within the parameters set by the supercomputer. The computer will make sure you’re a good person from now on. Ready? Take a deep breath. Here we go…oh wait a second. I see we need one more signature from you on the informed consent waiver. In case there IS a YOU separate from your brain, that YOU is not permitted to sue us for damages. Just sign on the dotted line…”
(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, click here.)
Jon Rappoport
The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.
Two interesting facts: 1. The human brain has more connections within it than there are subatomic particles in the universe. 2. The human brain has more synapses, proportionally, whose job it is to inhibit signals, than any other creature.
Our belief systems and the way we see the world are the result of filtering out much of our internal activity, without even being conscious of it. We see what we want to see, and believe what we want to believe.
Would you care to show the numbers you mean
I thought the number of connections would be at the most a few thousand per neuron and that there would be ten billion neurons
Is there something I have overlooked?
I should have said “potential” connections.
Still how do you arrive at the high figure you cite?
The highest I come to would be the number of neurons squared the 10-logarithm of which would be perhaps around 20, while the subatomic particles according to bigbang would have a 10-logaritm of which would be around 80 for material particles and bigger still for photons
The reason I dwell at it is I think the universe might be sort of a transformed view of biological life.
And it might be of interest to know whether the idea works already on the individual level.
I didn’t do the computation myself, Peter, I am citing from memory Jordan Peterson, clinical psychologist and professor. I believe he was not just counting binary combinations of neurons, but the various patterns that can be formed by completed circuits. When you get into combinatorial math, you can quickly reach astronomical numbers, but I don’t think it’s just a math trick – his point was that these combinations are not just theoretical, but that we make use of them in real life. And you have to take into account not just neurons, but molecular scale interactions of various types that enable our nervous system to work.
About the connection between life, and the universe as a whole: The imagery we have been getting in the last decade or two reveals a universe filled with filamental structures that cannot be explained by gravity and random collisions, but can be explained quite well by electrical forces and plasma. These plasma filaments connect stars and even galaxies, and you can’t help but be reminded of our own internal electrical circuits. It reminds me of the last part of the film, 2001: A Space Odyssey, where Kubrick used imagery to convey biological functions in the macrocosmic universe, and where the consciousness of the observer was at the center of everything.
@Greg
We’re getting to the truth now — you started off claiming what you said was facts. Now you have compromised your argument.
And to save face you use a term that is not definitive. Is it not?
How ya doing anyway Greg, haven’t talked to you in while…
“I am a great artist”
“I am potentially a great artist”
Can you see the difference Greg, the second term, implies I am modest and not quite sure of myself lol.
I hope you taking all this in good humour?
Potential in a stricter sense, means it hasn’t happened yet.
Are you saying that the human brain will have many as many connections as the Universe has sub atomic particles. In some future.
Or are you going to admit right here right now, in front of all these people, that you can’t count that high.
The sophistication of the brain can’t be appreciated by simple counting, Michael. I am simply repeating what I heard a well-known clinical psychologist, Jordan Peterson, claim in a talk he gave. Whether it is absolutely true in a strict sense, I respect his assessment that our nervous system is the most complex thing in the universe.
Your skepticism serves you well when applied thoughtfully to the right subject, Michael, but I always remember what C.S. Lewis said,“You can’t go on “seeing through” things forever. The whole point of seeing through something is to see something through it. To “see through” all things is the same as not to see.”
Perennial skeptics seem to think that the Truth (with a capital T) is what you are left with when you have debunked everything else. I’m with Nietzsche when he questions the motive behind anyone who seeks to define Truth, agreeing with him that the philosopher has motives that he is not even aware of – he is “after” something and he chooses his facts and perceptions so that he gets the explanation and worldview that he is after. Not that such a person is dishonest, but just human.
Your looking at a fish and claiming you understand what the ocean is…
Nice try 🙂 Thats ok I didnt intend to be picky I wanted to make sure there wasnt something I had missed. Forget about it.
There’s a bit of a misdirection going on in the corporate schtick; people already are plugged into the corporate computer net and conditioning system more efficiently than is possible by invasive technology. Trying to come up with some tech plug in will be more expensive and less effective than what’s in place now.
People are plugged in via eyes and ears etc. Peoples minds and brains are dominated by vision and hearing (and their guts, hunger etc). The propaganda system of Hollywood, Madison avenue, Tinpan alley, and the ‘Cake & Sausage factory’ is the ‘artificial intelligence’ plug in. The system isn’t ‘yet to come’ its already here.
I can only speak for myself…being an artist and musician
…but, there is seeing. And then there is SEEING. The same would apply for music. I can agree with you to point
What I wrote lacks some balance as I didn’t write about artists, creators, inventors…
“The human brain has more connections within it than there are subatomic particles in the universe.”
First off — have your ever seen a sub-atomic particle Greg?
Second — “more connections within it than…”
The whole thing is fallacy Greg. But I do get your intent, nice try!
As soon as this meat suit perishes I’m moving on to greener pastures, I bought a little planet on the other side of the galaxy. A cute little place. Wonderful beings live there. They haven’t even evented the wheel yet — I’m thinking, I could live there a few hundred reincarnations. Find some cave wall, do some good painting. Add to the library of me.
Subatomic particles in my brain, yeah ok Greg.
My comment was short enough that I had hoped it would be read to the end, and someone would find the conclusion interesting. Maybe I should simplify:
1. The human brain has lots and lots of connections. 2. It has a high number of inhibitory neurons, higher than any other creature’s brain.
Conclusion: Part of the brain is always telling the other parts to shut up. Many of our belief systems mimic this activity at a higher level, suppressing new ideas that are deemed offensive or too strange.
Jon
In a sense Musk “and others” are correct. Reality is “holographic”. I cam close to completing an article that will discuss the ancient Atlantis “Tamarian” concept (“scientists” would discern this simply as the “quantum layer” I would imagine) at https://exopolitician.wordpress.com.
The mistake science/psychologists make is to presume that “consciousness” is a function/effect/symptom of the brain, which it is not. Its spontaneity is the evidence supporting its external influence of the body (a feature of Atlantis wisdom surrounding the Tamarian).
We disagree on one fundamental point which I hope one day we will agree on. That is “randomness” is in fact “scripted”. Some theorise time lords have the ability to manipulate the script. This would potentially have an impact on psychology of those targeted, particularly if the remote planners had vested objectives incongruous with the normal effects of natural order. Were these supernatural time lords located beyond the realms of sensory perception, only [psychological] effects would be noticed by those grounded in “reality state” with good sense and observation powers.
How can that which is beyond sensory perception be “justified” in material terms? Psychology is the Damocles Sword, an important Damocles Sword if it was SINCERELY understood.
Best
OT
This is going to spark so many long conversations with my husband! Very interesting, thanks!