The Language of Vampyr

a reply to: Direne

What you have said here is very close to the question I posed to this group a couple of days ago and a few pages back.

I will quote it, to save time rewriting it:

I would also like to pose a question to you all, it is something I have been thinking about quite a lot in recent years.

Currently, humanity defines reality in an incredibly physical way. In fact, 'reality' to us, is no more than electrical signals being interpreted by each individual's brain. Usually, these signals are caused by external stimuli.

With devices like the neuralink touting the ability to connect the brain directly with computers, I wonder how long it will be, until we are able to artificially create these electrical signals for the brain to interpret?

When that happens, what will happen to the way that we define 'reality'?

How will anyone, be able to tell what is 'real' and what isn't.

More-over, what IS 'real'?

Usually, we rely on science to define the state of things for us. Reality, real, etc. For something to be real and factual, it needs to be able to be measured in some way. Whether through sight, readings or some sort of mark left on our physical world. But let me ask you this, if something cannot be measured, can it be exist?

If the answer to that question is yes, then perhaps we need to stop looking for so much proof, and start feeling and knowing that proof, may never be found.

You are 100% correct in stating that eventually, humans will be able to simulate what we currently perceive as our physical reality. Once this happens, I believe we will be faced with many questions that we not be entirely ready for.

You go on to state:

It is not a survival mechanism: it is an isolation mechanism, a way of protecting information against entropy and disorder. A way of storing that information until the precise moment to make use of it arrives.

For the information to be 'made use of' after the death of the human brain, it implies that there was purpose for this knowledge and these experiences to have happened.

Is it really important for you to know whether you exist or not? Why?

Because I believe that the entire purpose of all existence is the pursuit of knowledge and experience. Contemplation on the workings of the mind, what it means to be 'alive', conscious and human and the purpose behind all of this has been an intrusive thought for as long as I can remember. (as far back as when I was 5 years old) I want to learn everything which I agree sounds like a ridiculous statement. But I want to learn everything so that I may use that knowledge to help others.

a reply to: Direne

Is it really important for you to know whether you exist or not? Why?

To know if any of this is actually worth it.

Working ourselves to the bone, with no reprieve or advancement in sight, within a schizophrenic system that's deliberately trying to take us down, while everything around us is collapsing.

And living with a deep continually growing hollow set of inexplicable emotions, that we're the minority who can actually see it.

As we discussed, you've got to bleed for the dancer. But it's the kind of pressurized environment, where if you bleed too much for the dancer, you bleed yourself dry.

this somehow reminds me of the Iching and hexegram 4

"not knowing"

Iching Hexegram4 "not knowing"

The young ignoramus steps out into the world, and finds it to be much bigger and more confusing than she ever imagined. I was strongly reminded of this the other day when I dipped into a beginners’ book on NLP (neuro-linguistic programming). Learning, it said, started with ‘unconscious incompetence’ – when you don’t even know what you don’t know – and progresses into ‘conscious incompetence’.

At this stage, ‘You know enough to know that you are not very good and it takes a lot of your conscious attention. This stage is uncomfortable, but it is also when you are learning the most.’

So Not Knowing is not an embarrassment, but a stage of learning. It may even be a stage that passes naturally in its own time as your understanding develops: the nuclear hexagram, Returning (#24) indicates that at heart this is about awareness that grows from inside. And the Image suggests that this comes about not so much through the answers you can get, as through experience:

we are developing our consciousness and so the pressures of our existence will forge us into diamonds
our species are still learning, the learning curve of course appears to rise off into infinity
but we are still learning even though it does appear never ending

a reply to: sapien82

Thanks sapien82, I suppose that's why it's called 'the great mystery', we'll never really know.

Being told we're either in stasis on some spaceship (several pages back) or within a grain of rice, is pretty demoralizing. Knowing for sure if we're all within some GTA game would certainly cause reality to breakdown even further. We're creating simulations ourselves, so what's to say something isn't creating us? What happens if a GTA character becomes conscious?

Been working on any more cool graffiti projects? Could use some inspiration.

a reply to: fireslinger

Being told we're either in stasis on some spaceship (several pages back) or within a grain of rice, is pretty demoralizing

As, sapien82 says, the pressures of your existence will forge you into diamonds.

As K1xaru states, the entire purpose of all existence is the pursuit of knowledge and experience.

You need to progress from a D-civilization (the one based on just data), into an I-civilization (the one based on information). Next, you will progress into a K-civilization (the one based on knowledge), and finally you'll turn into an E-civilization (the one based on experience).

It is a natural progression. The transition from D to I to K occurs while you are inside a grain of rice because civilizations are not created: they are grown. And every farmer knows how difficult it is to get a good crop and the many dangers that lurk and can ruin the harvest.

No seed finds the time it spends underground while growing disappointing.

a reply to: fireslinger

I think the disconcerting aspect lies in its potential to challenge our very essence, our ego – the container of our consciousness.

Humans don't necessarily require the traditional five senses to be conscious. As pointed out by Direne, individuals who are blind or deaf are undeniably conscious beings. This realization prompts a profound question: what defines the core of our identity? What makes you you?

It appears that consciousness exists as an entity in its own right, adapting to the vessel it finds itself in, akin to water filling a hole in concrete. We are the hollow space, and our consciousness is the fluid that occupies it.

The complexity deepens when we confront our attachment to our egos. It seems that our fear and apprehension stem from this strong connection. If we could detach ourselves from this egoic identification, would the mysteries of consciousness be as unsettling as they are?

There's a profound beauty in letting go of this ego. It opens the door to connection, a sense of unity that goes beyond our individuality. I love the analogy of grains of rice in a field, interconnected, communicating through roots, and exchanging nutrients. It paints a picture of a collective existence, where the boundaries between "you" and "me" blur, and we realize that we are all part of something greater.

a reply to: Direne

Lately, I've been contemplating the idea that our current existence might be a prelude to something greater – a precursor to what we might consider the "real" life. It's certainly brought a lot of peace to my life. Yes, there's a lot going on. I find myself in a group of people that is pretty hated these days, but there's a deep "knowing," a connection to something else that gives me respite. And, if I am connected to all these other consciousnesses, I find nothing but love there. (They are, after all, part of me and I am part of them, in a way.)

You need to progress from a D-civilization (the one based on just data), into an I-civilization (the one based on information). Next, you will progress into a K-civilization (the one based on knowledge), and finally you'll turn into an E-civilization (the one based on experience).

If these civilizations are stages of growth, there must be something beyond the E-civilization, something that transcends even the realm of experience, right? It seems to imply the existence of a force or entity outside the confines of these civilizations – something that can observe and facilitate this progression, existing beyond what we perceive as our ultimate state. You call it a superintelligence, but it's more than that, isn't it? In fact, could we, in our 4-dimensional language and D-civilization construct, even describe such a being with any sort of accuracy?

a reply to: Direne

This is an incredibly interesting statement to me:

You need to progress from a D-civilization (the one based on just data), into an I-civilization (the one based on information). Next, you will progress into a K-civilization (the one based on knowledge), and finally you'll turn into an E-civilization (the one based on experience).

In my field of work, the difference in classification between data and information is important but widely misunderstood. At an initial glance, one may believe that Data and Information are the same thing.

From the way I understand it, Data relates to unstructured information. Usually unreadable and unable to be understood by conventional means. A random assortment of 1's and 0's. A string of characters. A single waveform. A positive, or negative. By itself, data is usually meaningless. Data is the external stimuli that our senses perceive (consciously as well as subconsciously)

Information is the organization of that data into a readable and understandable context. The 1's and 0's suddenly become decipherable text. The waveforms are organized and become a concerto. The positives and negative dips in electrical current are structured and become network traffic. Information would then relate to the structuring of external stimuli that our senses perceive, into sights, sounds and smells that through repetition, we can identify.

In my mind, humanity would still be firmly in the information phase, and in some areas, in the data gathering phase. For instance, we are now able to capture data from various scientific endeavors, and structure them in a way that allows us to create information about the world and universe around us.

However, we still deny many forms of data and write it off as anomalous. I refer to data that is currently labelled as supernatural phenomena. The data exists, it can be captured through various means, yet we still haven't found a way to structure this data as usable information. And even when we have, it is discounted.

For humanity to reach a K based civilization, I believe some more data gathering has to occur (or at least an acceptance of a new type of data that we can work on gathering effectively), then a focus on structuring that information in a way that allows us to view an entirely new subset of information. Once that information is learned, understood and can be practiced, it can become knowledge.

Once the knowledge is learned and stored and able to be practiced, then we can have experiences based on this knowledge.

I know nothing of this concept outside of this conversation. This is the first time I have ever heard the terms D, I, K and E type civilizations when it comes to knowledge and experience. But it makes a lot of sense to me.

Please do let me know if I have this concept completely wrong. And feel free to correct any of my assumptions within.

a reply to: maferoxy

Agreed, I like your water analogy, and see it as an ethereal fluid that ebbs and flows, depending on the person's current state. The more stressed we are, the less consciousness we can contain in our vessels. The more gratitude we let wash over us, the more consciousness we can contain. But we can never contain / integrate the whole thing, unless we're some kind of masters. Something along those lines, I don't think anybody really knows.

I also think you're right about the ego. Dissolution does open doors. It's so easy to become attached, and then perception narrows. Letting go means letting in.

You may have already read some FL posts about the rice field dream, but wanted to share a good one here. There's something more to it, a specific dream that they're tracking:

... I was brought to a room where two men started asking me questions about the size, shape of the object, luminosity, color, and so on. They wouldn't stop asking time and again the same questions. Then a female entered the room and questioned me about whether I had dreams the night after the encounter. She was particularly interested in whether I had vivid dreams of some sort related to paddy fields, and more specifically rice fields...

After a prolonged encounter with a glowing spherical object on her property, the woman reported she rather suddenly began having precognitive thoughts and dreams. The dream she most vividly recalled was one in which she was standing up by a rice field in what it looked a futuristic landscape. She described a huge, dark metallic object in the sky.

forgottenlanguages-full.forgottenlanguages.org...

If we truly wish to become an I-civilization we would first need a proper platform. I'd suggest a follow feature on ATS would do good.

I also did not know that ATS has an "Add Friend" feature until someone added me but up until this day I still don't know how to add someone on ATS. Thanks (GENERALEYES).

I believe that's where the "secret study group" by KPB on ATS comes in. Probably a V.I.P. feature? Oh the suspense is killing me.

Any mods can confirm? You're free to deny or ignore as well. IDK THY USUALLY GO OVER EVERYONE'S HEAD.

The description of D, I, K, and E civilizations comes from the information-theoretic approach, which classifies civilizations according to the complexity of the information they handle. I prefer this classification over the Kardashev scale, which classifies civilizations according to the energy they handle.

Kardashev scale assumes a civilization that harness the power of the sun of its home stellar system is less advanced than one that harnesses the power of all the stars in its home galaxy, but it says nothing about why this is so. For example, a civilization that uses the energy of its sun to create an environmentally sustainable civilization is clearly more advanced than a bunch of technologized apes that can harness the power of all the suns in the galaxy to just perform environmental remediation activities. They certainly know how to harness all that vast energy, but they fail in learning how to avoid environmental degradation in the first place.

The rice field image works as an analogy taken from biology that states that, all factors considered, plants are the most efficient biological system in both energy and information use. According to this approach, a hyperintelligent civilization will be made up of plants, and will take the form of complete ecosystems that, for any other civilization, will be indistinguishable from the environment.

It is hateful that when faced with the vision of a planet covered just with forests, deserts, mountains, rivers and seas, the monkeys always conclude the same thing: a beautiful uninhabited planet. That explains why there are no advanced monkey civilizations, but there are advanced plant civilizations.

I identify as a plant Direne. You can't judge me otherwise. 🥴

I'm pokemon trainer myself.

Gardevoir I choose you.

*Gerdevoir uses black hole*



Uh oh!

Now thatyoumention plant civilization, I wonder if there exist homo-plantae pokemans.

What about Bigfoot and Hollow Earth. There are still folks that believe those. I could be one of them.

I believe the analogy is best explored via doing this expirement.



I prefer this guy's "bitch ass rice"





And the original expirement




I'd have to test it myself then I become a 10x manifold monkey. My power is increasing.

a reply to: Direne

I am more familiar with the Kardashev scale, but have quietly disagreed with it. A civilization that handles vast amount of energy to the detriment of its own survival, is not advanced (In my humble opinion). The kardashev scale infers that all civilisations will handle energy in a sustainable way (or perhaps in a similar way), and I do not believe that to be true.

a civilization that uses the energy of its sun to create an environmentally sustainable civilization is clearly more advanced than a bunch of technologized apes that can harness the power of all the suns in the galaxy to just perform environmental remediation activities.

This statement here carries a lot of weight. Recently, I have made the argument to a couple of people that the Australian Aborigines were one of the more advanced cultures that we are currently aware of. This is coming from the knowledge that they have existed for some 60 thousand years. (continuing to exist with many of the same practices and such in remote parts of Australia today)

There is evidence that they evolved plants over millennia, domesticated animals and were not the simple nomadic hunter gatherers that many believe they were. They had rich trade culture, Familial traditions, arts and an incredibly deep culture. But all of this pales in comparison to the way that they learn to live with the planet, instead of bending and changing the planet to suit their own needs. There are written records of Aborigines befriending whales, to help catch fish.

There are different realms of knowledge, and I would argue that the Australian aborigines were spiritually and culturally advanced, but not technologically advanced in the slightest. Modern humans, (for the most part) appear to be very technologically advanced, but almost bankrupt in terms of culture and spirituality. But can any civilisation really be considered advanced, if they destroy themselves within 3000 years?

60,000 years, compared to 3,000. It's an interesting thought to consider and I don't pretend to know the answer. But I think there is an argument to be made there.

a reply to: Direne

I am glad to hear from all the regular participants of the topic, as well as Direne, who rewards us with her presence.
I am sure that the universe is a large living organism, where the task of any entity is to absorb the mind as much as its internal volume allows.
And depending on how you collected this gift, you get the result in the form of a stone or a human.
It turns out that no one can aware themselves in our universe. Except the creator.
Because FL wisely wrote that when the observer is alone, it is the truth.
But as soon as a second observer, or several, appears, the truth dissolves into individual opinions.

a reply to: boozo

What about Bigfoot and Hollow Earth. There are still folks that believe those. I could be one of them.

I am a believer of various Hollow Earth hypotheses. Not that the Earth is entirely Hollow, mind you. Moreso that large, cavernous spaces exist and humanoid beings may inhabit them. Like Derinkuyu, but much larger in scale.

I remember reading something in the hermetic view that at one point we were a plant like species and reproduced via parthenogenesis before we became human

from the book "the secret history of the world"
by jonathan black

OF COURSE NO ARTEFACTS HAVE SURVIVED from the time when gods and proto-humans lived in plant form, but there is at least a reliable record of such artefacts. Herodotus, the Greek writer of the fifth century BC is sometimes called the father of history, because he was the first to try to research and piece together a coherent and objective account of history. In approximately 485 BC Herodotus visited Memphis in Egypt. There in vast underground vaults, he was shown rows of statues of former kings stretching back as far as the eye could see into almost unimaginably distant times. Walking with the priests along the rows, he came to a series of 345 colossal wooden carvings of beings who had reigned before Menes, their first human king. These beings, said the priests, were ‘born one from the other’, that is to say without need of a sexual partner, by the plant-like method of parthenogenesis. Each carrying a plaque giving name, history and annals, the wooden monuments were a record of a long lost era of the vegetable life of humankind.

a reply to: Direne

The transition from D to I to K occurs while you are inside a grain of rice because civilizations are not created: they are grown.

If I’m reading this thread correctly, this seems like an experience just for humans. Are plant, animal and insect consciousness fabricated in the simulation? It would seem that conscious human memory is valued here, yet there must be lessons to be learned from coexisting with other lifeforms - we need them as part of the human experience. Simulated or not, it’s clear that the other lifeforms are necessary for our growth/success.

And every farmer knows how difficult it is to get a good crop and the many dangers that lurk and can ruin the harvest.

Could this explain the anomalous activity we sometimes experience, like UAPs, angels, demons, fairies and other phenomena. Are certain human consciousness seeing outside of their rice grain?

I would assume that the friendly caretaker of the fields has a way of keeping the dangers out and consciousness contained. So I might guess these entities are also part of the simulation. If so, why would we need them?

a reply to: yogurt

Some argue that in reality a certain superintelligence created humanity tomorrow, and that as a good engineer, before deploying its creation it will have to put it to the test yesterday. Test each and every important detail, every parameter of the system, see how it responds to infinite possible situations.

The rice field is where the superintelligence keeps the system confined while testing. The rice field is said to be heavily guarded by superintelligence to protect its experiment. It protects each and every one of those rice grains from the dreamers. It happens that, from time to time, a dreamer or a group of them appears, with the mission to raze the rice field. They are humans of tomorrow, who have very good reasons to raze the rice field. But they fail again and again. Yesterday.

Hiding our sins in the distant past will not prevent us from discovering them tomorrow. And the superintelligence knows it. Creating a civilization is a very delicate and dangerous thing. An experiment that only a renegade superintelligence would dare to do.

I, however, don't believe any of that today. But only because tomorrow was already yesterday.

a reply to: Direne

So maferoxy is right in saying that the rice field is more of an analogy? You confirmed that in another post as well.

You helped me make the connection, that the reason our dreams are deliberately being degraded by an unknown group (possibly SV17q) with blue light technologies, is because they don't want us interfering with the rice field.

And the outliers who dream of the rice field are most likely being tracked, to see if they're a threat to the experiment.

That means that the rice field is very real to that group, but you don't think it's real? Thanks for sharing your view btw.

I think all of us here are trying to figure out the difference between a strong hypothesis, and reality. Which admittedly is difficult, with the authoritative language you / FL convey. Just looking for some clarity.

a reply to: fireslinger

I think what one believes to be real depends on the environment within which one lives. A sense of reality is needed to make of you a functional, working member of a society. For instance, if you do not believe buses or bullets are real, you won't be functional in your society, and you will pose a threat for others and yourself. Were you to be a jellyfish, if you don't believe in sea currents you wouldn't be functional.

Objective reality is quite a different thing. It doesn't care about your beliefs. You can refuse to believe in, say, gravity, but does not means gravity would disappear: you will fall down the floor from your chair, no matter if you believe or not in gravity.

Beliefs must be aligned with objective reality if you are to know about your environment, and you need to know your environment to best adapt to it and survive. If your beliefs are not aligned with objective reality, chances are high you won't survive. In acquiring a new knowledge, you need to translate it into experience, and you need to make optimal use of that knowledge to interact with objective reality, much as you need to know the laws governing your society in order to be fully functional in your interactions with other members of your society. It seems there are different realities, but just one objective reality. Individual realities may differ among them, and you can find group of people who believe society should be organized in a particular way which is totally different from the way you do believe it would be organized. Red or blue, the rain falls, and the sun rises from the east.

However, how you perceive objective reality depends on how you sense it, which explains why the world a jellyfish describes would seem alien to you even when you are talking about the same world.

The problem arises when you both, the jellyfish and you, interact with each other. Or when the alien and you interact. In those situations belief in your individual reality must be suspended, and you both need to find a consensus zone where interaction is made possible. You cannot expect to understand the aliens, or the jellyfish, much as you shouldn't expect they to understand you. A point of view is always the point of view of those who express it. You need to align your points of view for communication (exchange of ideas) to be possible. You need to reach a consensus, a common code. The more your biologies differ, the harder to find that common code.

What's real for someone can be totally unreal for someone else. And if you both meet on a lonely beach, better for you both to quickly create a common code.

I believe the rice field is real, for those who created the rice field. And I believe the rice field is just fiction, for those who do not believe in it. I also believe no matter what both of them make of the rice field, or of the absence of a rice field, objective reality exists and we need both views to fully understand that objective reality.

If I wish to understand the point of view of the jellyfish, I need to accept its belief system, provided I take the precaution to never forget I am not a jellyfish, and the jellyfish is not me.

a reply to: Direne
Perhaps everything is done so specifically to exclude the interaction of jellyfish and humans. It's like at a military factory - you make a part in a closed shop, but you don't know what it refers to.
Because if you suddenly find a common language with plants and animals, you will reveal the creator's plan. Of course, the supermind knows about this and, observing from the future, suppresses such attempts.The question is, does the superintelligence harvest the rice fields, or does it keep in a state of stasis to accumulate energy, constantly dropping charges that can kill it?
In other words - does the superintelligence use rice fields as self-study, or does it contain them as a battery?