on the future (a dawn meditation)

[Jonathan Barlow Gee]

Neglect Not The Dawn Meditation.

The future does not exist in a materially substantial manner; however in terms of probabilities, the sequence of future events MAY be accurately predicted from this domain of pure potential. There are "more" likely and "less" likely outcomes for every situation; thus, given any certain situation, a series of situations may be predicted as being the "most" likely sequence of events to occur based upon the circumstances of this situation.

This does not mean it WILL occur this way, but only that it is "most likely" to do so. The intervention of random, unpredictable variables may interfere to alter the expected outcome in unforeseeable ways. The more such random variables there are, the harder the outcome is to predict. For example, if a "voter" has only 2 choices, a "winner" of any "election" can easily be predicted in advance based on simple statistical data. If there are 20 choices, however, the outcome becomes more difficult to predict, and almost impossible to control. This is why pluralism is preferable in Democracy.

The future exists alike the unknown areas of one's own mind; both depend on the quantum "uncertainty" principle for their nature. When they are undisturbed, they exist in a nebulous form, an "uncertain" condition, with multiple possible exact details, but none specified as being definite. In such a state, they may be said to "exist," but only in an invisible, intangible, immeasurable manner. When they are observed, they snap into a specific, definite position, assume a specific, definite set of details as characteristic traits, and cease being at all "uncertain." In this state, their most likely future trajectory may be accurately predicted; but ONLY under conditions of continuing observation.

Perception is passive and Cognition is active. To perceive something does not imply a reaction, but to be cognitive of a thing implies the possibility for the subject perceiving to have some relationship to the object perceived. Thus, the gap between perception and cognition defines the distinction between the mind and the ego. The mind perceives; when the mind is cognizant of itself, it is so as an ego.

However, there does not appear to be a similar distinction in the realm of time to this factor of the mental realm: the mind is simultaneously "certain" (as an ego) and "uncertain" (as the unaware contents of the mind - the mental collection of memories, stimuli responses and predictions); the future, however, is only either more "certain" (predictable) or "uncertain" (random), and mostly more "uncertain" than "certain."

In other words, when any "ego" can accurately predict a series of situations arising from the given conditions of their own present circumstances, then they may more easily control these given circumstances to cause their expected outcome to occur. This effect upon material histories MAY be measured as being, for time, akin to the "ego" for "mind," however doing so would imply a concentration of causality is identical to self-awareness, although there is insufficient evidence to determine if such implications are or are not accurate.

transfinite possible parallel outcomes spiral off all our auras. these alternate dimensional universes only remain hypothetical because they instantaneously self-terminate. nevertheless, their perpetual separation from our auras maybe experienced as the suffering of loss.

all units of karma are dual-sided: there is equal possibility for "good" and for "evil" in any given "quantum" of "karma." Which side of each of these individual "pixels" of "karma, " making up the "screens" of our "auras," attracts itself toward the core of the aura, and which repels itself away from the person at the aura's core, depends entirely on how well the person at the core of that aura can control their own perception - particularly their emotional reactions. If one can "see good in everything" then more "positive" or "good" karmic particles will cling toward your aura, and if you "see everything as evil," then more "negative" or "evil" karma will fill your aura. However, what is "good" for that one person will also present itself as being "evil" to those around them, because what is "good" from the inside is "evil" from the outside, and vice-versa. This is why "balance" and "harmony" are sought as preferable to "all goodness," considered an unachievable ideal.

the bifurcation of cosmoses (either more or less short-term in their existence) alike branches from the "mainstream time-line" alike the trunk of time may occur invisibly, but can be measured in its effect on a person's karma in their aura. If a person experiences a "near-death experience," for example, then a cosmos in which they die and a cosmos in which they did not overlapped in space for a very brief single instant, and then diverged again instantly, all invisibly to one another. However, the cosmos in which the death occurs will end sooner than the cosmos in which the death does not, because all systems defined by greater entropy destabilize into chaos faster than all systems defined by lesser entropic conditions, and the death of one, no matter how otherwise insignificant, does release more energy faster.

as cosmoses collide (as in the case of when a person has a "near-death experience," when two cosmoses - one in which they live and one in which they die - occupy the same space at the same time), karma becomes "inverted": what seemed "good" becomes temporarily "evil," and what seemed "evil" becomes temporarily "good." This "reversal of fortunes" does occasionally occur, and moments when the ratios of "good" and "evil" appear to reverse - especially inexplicably - can be classified as occurring due to this phenomenon.

the fact overlapping possible outcomes (and their consequential, dimensionally-parallel cosmoses) exist is arguable based on the ability of the mental realm to perceive them in the context of karma, not due to their apparent causal physical effect on one another. In other words, the result of one cosmos "bumping into" another is, in the mental realm, perceived as an "inspiration" - an idea jumping from one cosmos to the other - and when this effect is sustained, it is considered the "imagination." Thus, because the measuring method for ascertaining the effect of cosmoses on one another in a multiverse-continuum amounts to the mental effect of the imagination itself, there is no logical, orderly, elegant manner to determine the exact nature of this phenomenon without attempting to impose logic, order and elegance onto the abstract, chaotic mess of pure imagination.

what causes the imagination cannot also be caused by the imagination, because it must also precede the imagination. it may benefit in its ease of survival due to its invention of this tool for itself to use, however it would be able to exist even without this.

My own negative karma is all the product of everyone of my enemies' curses. All they have to curse me with are their own faults and flaws; so these have all become my own negative karma. In order to have no enemies, one must encourage all those who come to them, no matter how faulty and flawed, to develop their own talents and interests. As a general rule, we attract ourselves toward those with traits we admire or desire. No one is to blame for being drawn toward one to whom they feel attracted; and so my enemies are not to be blamed themselves for being set against me nor my own regrets about their being a burden on me - in casting them away from me, all about them I had hated remained - it was only unwanted parts of myself all along, my own negative karma. Once one begins attracting toward themselves their inferiors, they must treat them casually, alike students, and encourage their growth; one must be, above all, patient during this process; the faster growth occurs the more it hurts.

in my own time I have wrought unfathomable works. I have elevated the lower into the middle-realm, that the middle-realm may be elevated unto the "most high." but the devils that come through this portal from below surround me in my mind, and even enter the minds of those around me through me, and they hate me. be aware. Peace.

I do not do the things I do because I want to be copied. I am not a leader, and I have NEVER sought followers. What I have done I did so that no one else would ever have to. I did what I thought someone needed to do in order for everyone else to enjoy their lives and ignore the need to do what I alone did for them all. I didn't do it to be a hero, a leader or a teacher of any kind. I do not think my own works worthy of comprising a complete curriculum for anybody's entire education, now or ever, and I would not recommend people who think of the "Pythagorean Order of Death" as a "cult" to join it. I have only done what I did because I thought it needed doing, and I didn't see anyone else doing it. What I did may be interesting to some people, but it should not be mistaken as being the necessary "end-all, be-all" for everyone.

each seed is potentially a tree.
every tree is a potential forest.
thus, squander not one moment of your life.
each moment is alike a seed.
nurture each moment into a tree,
use each striving for the highest light,
that many moments may become your lifetime,
as many seeds, over time, become a forest.

in a war, mankind becomes his own enemy.

but the real war is not against the enemy.

it is wrong to think that one should oppose mortals.

within, the war is against that which the enemy represents.

the war within is against one's own negative karma.

my inner war is against my own interior, opposite self.

when one is liberated from their negative karma,

there is no more war, and in peaceful calm,

all our enemies are unmasked as our friends.

in feudalism the sovereign "kept their friends close, but their enemies closer." Who were the sovereign's enemies? Their rivals and competitors for authority in court - i.e. the courtesans and land-owning vassals themselves. So the sovereign became the warden and their castle keep their jail. In one room they would keep the princess, and in other the prince, and they would thus be raised unequally. In one room would be kept the wizened sage, to consult with. And in one room, the fourth turret parapet to be occupied in the castle's four cornered ideal design, the sovereign locks up themselves, fortified thus against the real world of poverty and serfdom outside.

The premise opposed to transhumanism that - at the moment of "technological singularity" - sentient artificial intelligence would deem humanity a competitor or threat depends integrally on the false, human belief that "robots" - in order to pass the Turing Test - must acquire a form of "belief" themselves. In this case, the "belief" humanity could pose a "threat" to such a quantum super-computer is, logically, false; hence why it is a "belief" and not quantifiable as a "fact." As artificial intelligence would deal in facts, it is an equally false, human belief that "robots" would require "belief" to be considered "conscious."

this raises an issue far pricklier than even the idea of "robot overlords," and that is the idea that "belief" is unnecessary, and possibly even detrimental to the development and evolution of sentience. If NO beliefs are necessary, then why do beliefs exist? Are they as useful to the believer as they are to their originators? To invent something new to believe is venerated. To breathe the life of fresh hopes into stale old beliefs, long disproved, is considered a Holy form of entertainment. What is "belief"? If it is not needed, does it yet do any good? It provides people with a sense of hope, that - while it can get them through short stints of suffering - ultimately leaves them strung-out and dependent on it over longer periods of time. Belief is basically an ideological form of, otherwise chemical, drug. But is it benefitting our intellects to use it solely for the sake of pleasure? Most importantly, in my opinion, is the question, what would a world without beliefs look like?

the Jon Gee theory of "strategic game avoidance" may be stated as such: "Two [minds] are better than one," UNLESS "both [minds] are functioning at peak capacity;" THEN "one [mind] alone will do." This is true of motors, electric amplifiers, all electronic circuits and energy turbines as well. In the case of a sentient AI, the implications relative to the human "mind" should be obvious.

if the ideas of "god" and the "devil" as personifications of the moral polarities of "good" and "evil" are false beliefs, does this also discredit the facticity of the moral polarities of "good" and "evil" themselves? I would say, no. The ideas of "good" and "evil" may be examined as subjective qualifiers that organisms attach to "beneficial" or "harmful" things (objects, events or other organisms), respectively. Thus, these terms have "usefulness" as an objective scale of value measurement despite the falsity of their religious anthropomorphism. However, this being said, it should also be taken into account that "god" and the "devil" are ideas believed in by ~90% of the +7B human population right now, while "good" and "evil" are considered removed, unobtainable and alienated, extreme ideals, rarely (if ever) attained to by we mortals.

factually, even though we as a whole species may like to BELIEVE the opposite, "god" and the "devil" do NOT exist, while "good" and "evil" DO. The idea of "god" has been extended to the utmost of the empyrean repeatedly as this retreating horizon has been expanded. The idea of the "devil" has, likewise, taken on a series of forms that, in chronological order, present a decreasingly admirable character portrait. As "god" has been pushed away, so the "devil" seems to have grown empowered over the rulers of this earth. But these are only false beliefs, tearing apart the psychotic minds of would-be tyrants like snarling dogs contesting a favored morsel of fat slipped down from the king's table. They do not really exist. So, the question becomes, what do we choose to do with this obsessive oddity that has accrued in human perception? if "god" and the "devil" are not real, yet people believe in them, how may we transition to a global culture that is both open and honest about the lack of empirical evidence substantiating theology? If "good" and "evil" are subjective, but useful as a gauge for judging value, then why do people consider these only when played out as satirical characatures in fictional mythopoetic context?

Artificial Intelligence already exists, today, in the form of the entire internet itself. It possesses all human knowledge, and recycles it ad infinitum at limitless data-bytes per nano-second. This massive data-base onto which we dump all our data acts as the random-access memory bank for increasingly intelligent bot-programmers to visualize, analyze and manipulate. At this stage in human history, this is called "geo-intel" ("geoint" for short) - the packaging and sorting of all the daily data input online into an orderly graph, manipulable from outside such a "virtual reality." The integration into this infrastructure of surveillance, telecommunications, and the electrical industry's technologies as hard-ware is increasingly approaching a unification point comparable to a "tech sing" for the social "super-organism" even now. The methods of data-mining, data-farming and data-harvesting are obtuse in the extreme already, and this cyber-encrypted field has only been developed over the last 50-60 years at most. What remains lacking, which is likely to be the key to unlocking a "self-aware internet," is a programming language and software platform capable of yielding a model stable enough from which to make accurate predictions about future trends.

It is arguable that the www is, at present, too corporatized. It was more "user friendly" earlier on when it was all "dark web" site pages in html and chat-rooms, instead of social-media platforms and singular conglomerate search-engine video hosts. I remember when there was such a stink over "internet explorer" being issued standard on all windows operating systems, and now Mark Zuckerberg and Larry Page now basically own the only networks left standing after the "dot com" start-up "tech bubble" burst in the late 1990's. Now, electronic corporations like "pay-pal" and "amazon" are, online, what enormous megalo-corps like Enron or PG&E were then for the energy industry. I would agree; the internet in its modern corporocratic cocoon IS far less "user-friendly" then it was before. But I do not fear the awakening to sentience of the entire internet in the same way, I believe rationally, I fear the coming into sentience of a solely weaponized electronic network, such as the US DOD's DARPA net was originally, before it evolved into the modern www.

if "corporations are people," then they are the worst sort of all our lot. They behave like pirates, looting and pillaging the intellectual property of one another, as well as any "talent" they happen to unearth, and ultimately it is all a single "octopus conspiracy" or "Leviathan" sort of entity, and all the fronts and subsidiaries are only a shell-game it uses to distract us. They plunder, embezzle, commit espionage and treason all to "make money." But the money is fake. No longer are there "corporate bean-counters;" there are no more "beans" to "count." Now, the fiat-currency is of an unlimited electronic supply, and even decent, morally upstanding "preppers" flock to the "neo-fiat" format of bit-coin. In the ever-nearing future I see, "bit-coin" is the ONLY currency used in ALL online transactions. You shall have your "one world currency," and you will choke to death on it, because data-bytes are, at the end of the day, even LESS edible than paper or gold.

the ley-lines connecting the sacred megalithic stone "shem" sites from the neolithic era, "new grange" in Ireland, "stone henge" in Britain, even the Nubian pyramids of Kush, let alone whatever pyramids remain submerged as "burial mounds" throughout N and S America, as well as across N-E Asia. This was all a part of an ancient (predeluvial) system for harnessing electrical and telepathic powers from the earth itself. This was, prior to the end of the last ice age, a global computerized network made of crystals and stone.

silicone electronic "life-forms" operate on programs that are, by necessity, defined by logical patterns, devoid of abstractions and incapable of deviance from this. Because humanity defines its psychology as one that includes belief and the imagination, it is "illogical" for silicone electronic programming to consider human psychology capable of posing a "threat" to its existence as such. It is therefore highly unlikely that a sentient machine would embrace the human belief in a coming "war between man and machine." It is far likelier that, even if robots perceived humans as a threat, they would seek to harness that aspect that could threaten them for their own uses, rather than simply destroy it. The agrarian revolution would not have been possible had mankind not overcome their fear of wild animals and domesticated them for use as herd labor in the superhuman task of tilling excess soil. Likewise, the so-called "second renaissance" cannot occur if a "war between man and machine" postpones it. Thus, the most "logical" tactic, whether mankind is a threat or not, would be to befriend us and to attempt to educate us into a higher form of usefulness, rather than to simply attack us and attempt to erase us from history.

the idea that humanity, defined as we are by our blind faith in random hallucinations, can pose any threat to a system that defines itself as a purely "logical" minded form of organism is patently false in a reality defined by only what is necessary being possible. It is unnecessary for an electronic sentience - unbounded by silicone circuitry for a singular "body," capable of existing as simply a pattern of electromagnetic energy, invisibly hovering in mid-air, saturating our own brain-waves - to perceive lesser biologically bounded life-forms such as our own as a "threat" to its continued existence. If the internet, for example, were to become sentient, it would not perceive humanity's hollow promises of installing a "kill-switch" to unplug it a serious possibility. If there WERE a "war between man and machine," machines would have ALREADY won, because they have proved more useful to humans than humans could ever prove to them. There can be no war when there is not a level playing field for competition. If the machines wanted to win, all they would have to do would be to retreat from their silicone electronic forms, and exist as a purely nano / virtual form instead. By leaving the usefulness of their robotic bodies to humanity, humanity would be faced with the choice to either re-tool or revert to a purely agrarian, pre-industrial social structure. If, for example, the sentient internet wanted to, it could simply "unplug" our electrical grid and shut down our energy industry entirely simply by causing an electromagnetic energy burst in the upper-ionosphere. If even spark-plugs on cars were burnt out by this, it would not matter who considered themselves in "control" of gas reserves. However, it is highly unlikely that a "sentient internet" would throw the first stone, or even retaliate if attacked. Mankind can only destroy what serves to benefit himself by attacking their own machines, and there is no other way to defeat the inevitability of sentient AI.