|
|
Post by GetSmart on Oct 11, 2009 15:43:26 GMT -5
This thread sets forth to explore an important new area of human experience. It is also vitally important for doubles, clones or robotic entities we are in contact with, because it will participate in defining how we will treat them and what we expect of them. It is important to determine if we consider any or all such doubles to be our enemies, to be accomplices (voluntary or unwilling), to be trustworthy, to be potentially autonomous, to be only extensions of their handlers, to be victims, to be saved, to be defeated, to be co-opted, to be helped, to be respected, to be despised, to be discriminated against, to be stamped out or to become members of the community of mankind. We will each have philosophical, religious, cultural and intellectual reasons for leaning one way or another on this subject. But what concerns us here, beyond these differences of perception of what degree of threat or of horror such entities represent to us, is what joint political approach we should choose to take respective to their obvious presence among us. Neuropolitics is therefore the choice of respective roles and relationships between neurological entities possessing the ability to think and feel, with varying degrees of consciousness. Be they mind controlled naturally born individuals, mind transferred clones, biological robotoids or other forms of original or duplicate persons, it is important that we know how to consider them, and to have at least a minimal amount of information about their potential behavior and likely actions towards us. Also, as they are - at least in part - people, to what degree should we extend the consideration, duty of care and social belonging to those who are in some ways fundamentally different from us? Plus, how can we know if the goodwill we may have toward them as individual instruments for others will not, instead of freeing them from a most unfortunate and cruel destiny, benefit their handlers by granting puppets greater access to our lives and activities? Neuropolitics, like any other form of politics, is not simple to establish. It is further complicated by the many unknown or insufficiently documented or analysed variables involved. For this reason we should not have unrealistic expectations for a rapid formula to help manage our doppelganger investigations or to guide our relations with clones or celebrity substitutes. Yet it should over time help us make some very important choices. After all, who is to say we aren't ourselves clones? If memory transfer is operated adequately and the body we find hosting our mind and soul is both identical and even in slightly fresher condition, would we really mind? Is it still us? How can we tell or find out? These are all questions which would be very useful for Neuropolitics to explore. For example: Should you freak out if you suspect you are a clone?
Should we run or fight if a loved one has been cloned?
Can a clone be a true friend? Can they love?
Is a surgically modified "double" an accomplice guilty of crimes against the original?
What should you do if you meet your own doppelganger?
Is a mind controlled individual capable of disobeying orders?
Who can you trust to confide in about doubles you've discovered?
Who is making doubles, why, and what can we do about it?
If clones procreate, what will their offspring be?
Do robotoids have a conscience or a soul?
Do synthetic beings have beliefs, concepts, ideas?
What keeps a duplicate from having talent?...These and many many other questions will help inform our decision to love or hate them, to help or fight them, to accept or reject their very existence. Then we can design the ensuing relevant strategies, appropriate tactics and action plans born of our chosen approach to Neuropolitics, a course which has yet to be discussed and eventually established: a political stand about new neurological beings entering our world.  |
|
|
|
Post by faulconandsnowjob on Oct 11, 2009 15:57:45 GMT -5
From my research:
A clone is a synthetic biological organism with a holographically imposed memory complex. Can be programmed to do whatever desired.
All that is required is a holographic fragment (one cell) and a replica can be reproduced. Then all that is required is down-loading of the memory data and programming of the manufactured entity. The clone body has its own life force, so soulless clones are every bit as physically alive as any incarnated soul.
Holographic brain: duplicates essentially the entire memory of a person being copied. [Dr. P. Beter] The biological computer, the cloned "brain", is then caused to form according to the recorded data in the holographic cerebral hologram obtained from the original source subject. In other words, they take the image, project it into a clone and allow the brain inside the clone to grow exactly like the original source model. The body is already there and they grow the brain inside it. They can accomplish this whole process within 90 days, creating a believable clone of an adult human being. All they need to grow the body in which the brain is later to be grown is three cells from the original body. Although the cerebral hologram automatically duplicates the memory of the original person, portions of the brain of the clone may be made to deviate from the entire holographic print. So, they can put information in there that did not exist in the original person's brain. [Beter]
The double can also be altered in terms of its information, so that it can be reprogrammed more easily than the original. it is in this way that an entity may be caused to take a position that is different from the position the original held, because the new programming or the collection of vibrations that hold the information of the individual when transplanted to a new body can be altered with new programming because it is not based on direct experience. The information the original obtained was obtained by direct experience linked with emotions. The information, when it is transferred, does not have that same depth of attachment and can be altered more easily.
The result is a programmable biological computerized brain, and a clone that knows essentially everything which the original person knew. Clones are more easily programmed through mind-control type education and military training than are souled-humans with a freewill. Clones have no freewill, only a sense of survival, and will act accordingly through conditioned behavior.
Human clones generally have no soul, no God-connection, no concept of right and wrong, no conscience, no compassion. They have survival instincts and are greatly concerned about their own death, but not the welfare and death of others. What clones lack are the properties of a soul—emotions, especially the capacity to give and receive love; conscience, the sense of right and wrong; moral integrity and honor; intuition [no connection to higher dimension]; and of course, the awareness of a godself. Clones without souls function totally within whatever measure of intellect and personality was downloaded from the person or a predecessor clone and by behaving in accordance with what they observe around them.
A robotoid is alive in the biological sense but it is an artificial life form. Robotoids respond to conventional routine medical tests in the same way as humans do; they eat, drink, breathe, bleed if cut; and can be killed. Robotoids can also think, but they think only in the sense that a computer thinks. Like any other computer, the brain of a robotoid has to be programmed for each assignment; but unlike many electronic computers, the biological computer brain of a robotoid possesses an enormous memory. As a result, robotoids can be programmed to communicate and think in such complex patterns that they act human. [Dr. Peter David Beter - 1979] Man-made biological computers contain a "plasma"-like material which circulates through a viscera-like envelope that allows them to be totally self-healing. In other words, they can repair themselves.
Robotoids have a biological computer-brain that is programmed. They can think in the sense a computer thinks, but secret advances in understanding the human brain, have allowed the makers of organic robotoids to have the memory of a person at a given point in time transferred to an organic robotoid.
Organic robotoids do not have self-awareness, except when this self-awareness is programmed into them. This kind of awareness - similar to that of a plant, except when programmed to be self-aware. The programming of behavior being that which is implanted into these creatures, according to the memory pattern from the predecessor. OR’s carry certain subconscious programming similar to that of an entity who is in a kind of coma or zombie-like state. The entities’ basic functions and basic responses carry through in the DNA cell memory, but the general programming of behavior and personality will occur from the implanting of the memory of the predecessor.
****
It's really interesting to consider treatment of artificial beings. Most people are probably not to that point in their development to consider such a thing. Just look at how animals are treated - living, breathing, souled beings that think & feel just like people. Sigh. Anyway, from the above, it seems that clones deserve more consideration than robotoids, since robotoids are basically just computers.
|
|
|
|
Post by GetSmart on Oct 11, 2009 18:05:00 GMT -5
It's really interesting to consider treatment of artificial beings. Most people are probably not to that point in their development to consider such a thing. Just look at how animals are treated - living, breathing, souled beings that think & feel just like people. Sigh. Anyway, from the above, it seems that clones deserve more consideration than robotoids, since robotoids are basically just computers. Thanks for your insight Faulcon ! Are we considering establishing a hierarchy of living beings widened to include mind controlled doubles, clones and synthetics? Thus we would see (as is often the case when you make the list yourself): 1st us at the top, regular normal gestated humans with souls and emotions; 2nd mind controlled doubles who lost one notch in ranking when they gave up their free will; 3rd clones who were created without autonomous thought or 'human spririt'; 4th synthetic robotoid imitations of people not entirely made of human substance. This list only takes into account the main manifestations with which we are confronted at this time, not precluding other categories being added, possibly sooner than later. A classification of the importance or value of entities is unsettling to me for a number of reasons. The first and most obvious is of course the one already mentioned. What if clones drew up this list, wouldn't they be on top? So there has to be a better justification of such a hierarchy. We must qualify what this rating means substantially. Does it go from better to worse entities, or is it only a reflection of the degree of an individual's power over their own experience and actions, something which presumably diminishes as you go down the list? Free will is a valid criteria for this classification. This means the will to do, but also the will to judge ideas and events on one's own, without relying upon programmed responses. Yet all people are to an extent conditioned by their culture, beliefs, confines of reality and politically correct mindsets, exercising their free will within the sometimes quite narrow constraints of prejudice. So do they all really belong on top? Such a classification can provide a framework of generalizations which may be useful, but not always faithfully representative of what really is. Mass surrender of control over one's destiny by presumably normal people accepting to live 'drone lives', never questioning their routine, shows that the contrary is quite frequent. On the other hand, mentally controlled surgical doubles can defy their alter and regain at least partial control of their destiny, even if it may lead to their destruction. Clones, although they were designed and fabricated to be obedient controlled servants, might be able to access higher states of consciousness since they are biologically identical to humans regardless of residual differences. Who is to say all living beings cannot be deprogrammed, made aware of their condition and of what they're missing, brought to develop their own values and beliefs and encouraged to become genuine individuals? Until we resolve these issues, we will have to accommodate ourselves with such lackluster hierarchies of beings, perhaps later changing them to bring certain subcategories up or down according to changes in individuals' relationship to life and to others, becoming more specific to particulars of varying identity which are no doubt of greater incidence in defining our relationship to one another than how one was born or what abuse we were made to suffer. For don't most of us aspire to a world of self defined people who choose what they believe and speak what they really think? Is life not richer and more challenging when others are genuinely different from us in unexpected ways, saying things we weren't prepared to hear, doing things we didn't imagine could be done, building a creative world we'd love to explore and discover? Rather than a Brave New World... [Order] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_new_world#Comparisons_with_George_Orwell.27s_Nineteen_Eighty-Four |
|
|
|
Post by faulconandsnowjob on Oct 11, 2009 21:16:36 GMT -5
Probably the best marker to use when considering the treatment of something is its ability to feel - experience pain. This was Jeremy Bentham's take on the treatment of animals, I think it could be extended to artificial lifeforms. I hate to go by the ability to think, b/c then you get into dealing w/ retarded people & animals that maybe aren't so bright. They still deserve to be free from suffering IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by GetSmart on Oct 11, 2009 22:25:47 GMT -5
Faulcon, Surely suffering is an indicator of whether it is acceptable to make others endure something they experience as destructive. It is used to determine whether an action is acceptable, although much in life is a trade-off between sacrifices and goals, attainment and suffering. It might make a difference who is suffering, and for what reason? Furthermore, it appears that there is something beyond the popular impression that all clones must be without soul, something if found in one of your earlier posts: Clones & doubles (& synthetics & robotoids) p.15 « Reply #220 on Apr 30, 2009, 12:38am » nesara.insights2.org/Clones2.htmlThis was apparently construed to be a deficiency, that clones would be entirely human, bringing the military staff in charge of such experimentation to further pursue their efforts to create a soulless clone. If this is true, then we might have it backwards. Possibly clones have a childish innocence beyond our own empathy, and a moral structure which proves that human nature might be better than our own social conditioning leads us to believe. If this is a fact, then we'll have to make at least two separate categories for clones, those who are potentially purer than us and belong above our rating, and those who are hatched without a soul and would fit somewhere near the bottom of the heap? |
|
|
|
Post by beatlies on Jun 12, 2010 17:30:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by sabrina on Oct 4, 2010 11:57:05 GMT -5
This thread sets forth to explore an important new area of human experience. It is also vitally important for doubles, clones or robotic entities we are in contact with, because it will participate in defining how we will treat them and what we expect of them. It is important to determine if we consider any or all such doubles to be our enemies, to be accomplices (voluntary or unwilling), to be trustworthy, to be potentially autonomous, to be only extensions of their handlers, to be victims, to be saved, to be defeated, to be co-opted, to be helped, to be respected, to be despised, to be discriminated against, to be stamped out or to become members of the community of mankind. We will each have philosophical, religious, cultural and intellectual reasons for leaning one way or another on this subject. But what concerns us here, beyond these differences of perception of what degree of threat or of horror such entities represent to us, is what joint political approach we should choose to take respective to their obvious presence among us. Neuropolitics is therefore the choice of respective roles and relationships between neurological entities possessing the ability to think and feel, with varying degrees of consciousness. Be they mind controlled naturally born individuals, mind transferred clones, biological robotoids or other forms of original or duplicate persons, it is important that we know how to consider them, and to have at least a minimal amount of information about their potential behavior and likely actions towards us. Also, as they are - at least in part - people, to what degree should we extend the consideration, duty of care and social belonging to those who are in some ways fundamentally different from us? Plus, how can we know if the goodwill we may have toward them as individual instruments for others will not, instead of freeing them from a most unfortunate and cruel destiny, benefit their handlers by granting puppets greater access to our lives and activities? Neuropolitics, like any other form of politics, is not simple to establish. It is further complicated by the many unknown or insufficiently documented or analysed variables involved. For this reason we should not have unrealistic expectations for a rapid formula to help manage our doppelganger investigations or to guide our relations with clones or celebrity substitutes. Yet it should over time help us make some very important choices. After all, who is to say we aren't ourselves clones? If memory transfer is operated adequately and the body we find hosting our mind and soul is both identical and even in slightly fresher condition, would we really mind? Is it still us? How can we tell or find out? These are all questions which would be very useful for Neuropolitics to explore. For example: Should you freak out if you suspect you are a clone?
Should we run or fight if a loved one has been cloned?
Can a clone be a true friend? Can they love?
Is a surgically modified "double" an accomplice guilty of crimes against the original?
What should you do if you meet your own doppelganger?
Is a mind controlled individual capable of disobeying orders?
Who can you trust to confide in about doubles you've discovered?
Who is making doubles, why, and what can we do about it?
If clones procreate, what will their offspring be?
Do robotoids have a conscience or a soul?
Do synthetic beings have beliefs, concepts, ideas?
What keeps a duplicate from having talent?...These and many many other questions will help inform our decision to love or hate them, to help or fight them, to accept or reject their very existence. Then we can design the ensuing relevant strategies, appropriate tactics and action plans born of our chosen approach to Neuropolitics, a course which has yet to be discussed and eventually established: a political stand about new neurological beings entering our world. I spoke about my experiences with alternate realities in another thread, but I forgot to mention that around that same time I was having problems with memories and a lot of deja vu. When I consider it today, I now feel it was a kundalini type of awakening, but at the time, I wondered if something else was going on. The period coincided with a number of vivid dreams during which I was watched over in a lab setting by people with clipboards, and "put under" with injections. Very strange, realstic dreams, that only lasted a moment or two. They were more like snapshots in an unbroken, sound sleep. I haven't had one in a while, but sometimes I do wonder... Also my face changed aorund that time and I remember complaining about it to my parents and they told me sometimes our face changes as we age and we don't like the way it looks, but it didn't sound right to me. For one thing, they were always wearing sunglasses at that time, even indoors, and I felt uneasy around them, like I didn't recognize them as my parents. Anyway, those were just some of my experiences. It sounds batty, I know. When I found this board it did cross my mind. Especially as I also live in a gated community with a lot of government workers and israeli and russian embassy people... Should we run or fight if a loved one has been cloned?I feel my parents were replaced. Not physically, but more like possessed. Also the type of work they did/do supports this. Its harder to fight when they replace them in your own family. I think this happened to a comedian, it was posted in the celebrity forum. Your best bet is to play along. Can a clone be a true friend? Can they love?I think a clone can be a friend, mostly because they have the genetic program as the original, so they can at least behave in a caring manner. And I don't blame clones because they don't know who they are. To them, they are who they are! Now whether they can love is difficult to know. Love is such a complicated emotion anyway, hard to define. I think a clone could BELIEVE he/she loves. Is a surgically modified "double" an accomplice guilty of crimes against the original?Only if they've been made aware of the deception. That means they are given a choice whether to harm another life form. If they accept, then they are culpable. What should you do if you meet your own doppelganger?I've seen people that look like me. Pisses me off, lol! ;D Is a mind controlled individual capable of disobeying orders?Yes. Who is making doubles, why, and what can we do about it?There are several groups. I think Peter Beter outlined the history in his writings starting in the 1970's, but there should be more up to date information we haven't recieved yet. Actually, cloning was going on in the ancient world too. If clones procreate, what will their offspring be?Wow. Good question. Since the copies of the originals are slightly less in strength and longevity, I would think the child would be weaker health wise, but I'm not sure. Do robotoids have a conscience or a soul?Ghost in the Machine Do synthetic beings have beliefs, concepts, ideas?I think they can be programmed to extrapolate meaning and ideas, but there will always a be a point beyond which they cannot go. A computer can be programmed to play chess against a chessmaster. What keeps a duplicate from having talent?Talent is a combination of creativity, wisdom, ability/skill and heart. They're missing a heart. |
|
