(untitled)

I am convinced that all off the world's governments are conscious. Just like proteins interact to make up cells and cells interact to make up multicellular organisms, humans interact to make up governments. We consider each layer below us to be too simple to be sentient, and yet somehow there is no level of sentience above us? Read this: http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/SchwitzPapers/USAconscious-140721.pdf Think about how every cell in your body is designed to keep your specimen, both your physical form and the DNA that will carry on after your death, alive and healthy. Why do the cells in your body not simply live for their own sake? We, as humans, do exactly the same thing. Society is wholly built around supporting this higher entity that we call the economy. Socially, we are expected to put all of our effort into supporting the economy. As technology advances, we are increasingly integrating ourselves into this higher system. Corporations control the media, and they use to make us feel and act certain ways, because we want social validation. It is fringe to believe that there is a group of elites controlling society, but what if society itself has a mind of its own? We humans, by thinking, cannot directly control the neurons in our brains or other cells in our bodies. Likewise, we humans have the freedom to act in ways not sanctioned by society, but still, unless you live as a hermit, the way you live is heavily controlled by society. There are shocking similarities between the function of an organism and the function of a nation. A government wants to keep itself alive, just like a living thing does. Its DNA exists in the form of political philosophy. No state lasts forever; they split up and spread around, and each time they do, the political principles on which they are founded are mutated, based on what is best adapted to the environment. Humans have become increasingly lonely over time. The word "lonely" itself was only invented around the time of the Industrial Revolution, when people started moving into cities (centers of economic activity) for work (the act of supporting economic activities). As is depicted in The Matrix, we are turning into nothing more than vessels for some higher being. Humans are losing consciousness as we become more absorbed into our phones and the influence of social media on the internet. Very soon, we will see AI assistants telling us what to eat, where to work, what to buy, who to spend time with, and people will gradually give up these freedoms to algorithms, since they know better than us. We will do it by choice, because we feel it is improving our lives. I wonder, is this even a bad thing? Humans are happier because of this. The economy functions best when humans are living in good conditions. Wealth inequality is, very generally speaking, bad for the economy, so at some point, assuming that experts are correct in predicting that human population growth will level out, people will start to become more equal in wealth. In fact, I think wealth inequality in countries like the United States could start to decrease in as little as twenty to thirty years, due to technology controlling our lives. As we lose consciousness, we will not care about politics anymore. We will care about simpler things like physical comfort and access to food. Is this a bad thing? Is it even sensible to apply our human concepts of morality onto this higher form of consciousness?

As above, so below. As below, so above. >inb4 bullshit I'll apply it to whatever I want.

Baby reverse engineers Jungian collective unconscious https://www.google.com/url?q=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_unconscious&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjlnejcwZKBAxUTKBAIHRRyAo4QFnoECAUQAg&usg=AOvVaw2n18Yi5MLB_nH4kfelgzQN

>>6417 If you are aware of it like OP, it is part of collective conscious, though. Collective unconscious is the part that you are yet hiding from yourself and not conscious of it. OP, i think the same applies to religion and corporations

>>6418 I mean being aware of the existence of a phenomena doesn't exactly diminish it's mysterious quality in my eyes

>>6415 Plato said that the form of government reflects the nature of the people (who live in that area). >but what if society itself has a mind of its own? I believe all humans are interconnected on unconscious level (some form of Carl Jung's collective unconscious). Also, I think a big mass of people will form a kind of hivemind (like bees). I think there are likely some think tanks that are researching how to control the hivemind (formed by a large group of people). Read about memes and memetics. >Society is wholly built around supporting this higher entity that we call the economy. I don't see economy as higher entity myself. I think it's just means to end. It's function is to increase co-operation. >I wonder, is this even a bad thing? Humans are happier because of this. I think humans are more miserable and unhappy now than ever before. Just think about all beta-males and beta-women, for example (You might want to read a paper titled "Death Squared" by John Calhoun).

In his book The Technological Society Jacques Ellul argues exactly this. The technological society evolves autonomously almost like it has a will of its own. It does not care about satisfying human needs unless it is in its interests. Humans in the technological society are just mere resources who must be utilized efficiently to accomplish the goals of the society. Humans are conditioned and propagandized in order to accept the technological society's goals as their own. They teach you the technological society exists to satisfy your desires when in fact it only cares about its own desires. Politics is an illusion. Politicians too have to obey the will of the technological society. The state or da elites are not the problem. They just obey something that lies above them. There are no political solutions to our modern problems. As the technological society evolves it pushes humans into more and more unhuman conditions. Human beings can not be happy in such a state. Happiness is only achieved through destroying all their humanity by heavily conditioning them to accept their chains. If society continues down its current course it will eventually lead to a society like the one in Brave New World.

>>6423 > As the technological society evolves it pushes humans into more and more unhuman conditions. Human beings can not be happy in such a state. Happiness is only achieved through destroying all their humanity by heavily conditioning them to accept their chains. Wouldn't that just be adaptation? Humans would just be evolving to better survive the environment they're in, like any other organism.

>>6431 I guess Ellul would say that humans are no longer top of the food chain and that's immoral. It's pretty weird to me because Ellul was Christian, so why would he have a problem with something other than human sitting at the top of the food chain and subordinating everyone to it's whim? Idolatry I guess?

Well I sort of disagree. The greater economy and government and all that are created by collective choices. Humans, our consciousness, is not made up of stuff with a free will of their own, but rather more chemical necessities. We are, by definition, at the peak of consciousness. Nothing can be more conscious. Do governments and society as a whole contain interesting emergent phenomena? Yes. But that alone doesn't make it conscious. I don't say the cell is conscious because it is made up of proteins

>>6433 Not nessesarily. Our system is produced by conscious actors making decisions but is not nessesarily conscious. If it is conscious then it's certainly schizophrenic. Say you have an instrument played by a conscious man. He's playing a melody. Now imagine there's a thousand people in the room playing melodies. Some are playing together in groups, some are by themselves. This produces a cacophony. The same with our system. It's produced by conscious actors but not synchronised on the conscious level. There is something to be said about the unconscious level though, as >>6417 stated

>>6415 I've been telling a lot of people around me about this exact idea for the past few years, though in a much less sophisticated way and extending it to organizations as well. There is also the higher (and perhaps esoteric/occult) implications of giving "birth" to these "entities" Glad I'm not the only one poking at that idea like a maniac

>>6423 Absolutely true, but the real problem is not that the society selects for what it selects for, but that we live in a system not selecting for anything but future happiness. Any system but that is bad for this reason. Nature without society will cause mass suffering as it pursues fitness, while kaczinski's technological society will pursue its advancement and stability at our cost as well. Until a supermind capable of out competing society, and making decision for its own happy future is created, we will be leaves in this cruel wind. I hope to help achieve this, though I doubt we'll see in the near years. If you want to work with me, you can hit me up at endexternali/ties/@/poste/o.n/et, or on matrix @/babeler:m/atrix./org. (remove slashes)

>>6441 People talk about AI being unaligned, but ecpsystems, capitalism, political structures are all paperclip maximizers in themselves, and we need only glace about to see the misalignment. We need to become beings capable of thriving on our own plans, not within the whims of emergent societies and phenomena.

>>6451 >We need to become beings capable of thriving on our own plans, not within the whims of emergent societies and phenomena. Thats where I think I would disagree. I would hate it if all the cells in my body suddenly chose to act independently, which is how I view the human role in all of this. I think we more have a responsibility to excise toxic or cancerous manifestations such as "the greedy corp" or "honor as a currency" Whatever it is we are collectively building together, from what I can tell has an excess of energy but is incapable of using it. If a human eats and eats they get fat. If a collective creation eats and eats it grows without cause like a tumor.

>>6451 >>6456 I do want to clarify though that those are just the names I gave to some of the more abstract concepts. I do think the more tangible constructs such as governments and corporations are utilizing effective but malicious "cells" in order to prosper. Like Viktor Orban and, yes, Jeff Bezos. It actually kind of reminds me of Monstro the whale in Pinocchio.

>It is fringe to believe that there is a group of elites controlling society Unless that is the very mechanism that arises in the hyperentity of government ;D Though I don't at all doubt that societies act as one giant organism- hell, apparently krill tend to do this. Though, I don't think it's a good thing if we come to lose consciousness from this- I don't subscribe to happiness being the apex, fulfillment is far more important, I think. Though, you do bring up a lot of interesting points, and thank you for that, OP If I am, and others like me, are an anomaly that overall harms our hyperorganism, well we'll be removed before damaging the being Though, I still stand that we need more than material happiness (for it amounts to little, without contrast of discomfort or etc)- and if I'm right, the "body" in which we are "cells" will suffer if it comes to mistreat it's cells. It's similar to how your body will start to fuarrrk you up if you (as in your mind) don't take care of it. I think the same would come to take place in society. In my mind, it's a real possibility the "body" we're in will die, if it is, as I believe, not taking sufficient care to protect it's "cells" >>6416 Damn straight

>>6441 >There is also the higher (and perhaps esoteric/occult) implications of giving "birth" to these "entities" Going down that route, brings to mind the concept of "egregores" I think the Egregore of currency that we have has run rampant and must be "unthought"

Amber Reeds talkls about this in her writing called In Service to the Mute God https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vkG5Gp_phBVLPI611WlpVFtONDfto6Tz1mTIwiudKvw/edit?tab=t.0