Patrap's WunderBlog

Breaking the Illusion of Limitation

By: Patrap, 4:08 PM GMT on January 31, 2012





A brand new human being, razor sharp, all firm and tanned
All clean, all pure, with a thirty-second attention span
As the clock strikes twelve and we're ready for party games
You play blind man's buff and I'll play out charades

[Heaven knows] what kind of fool am I
[Heaven knows] why you take an eye for an eye
[Heaven knows] what comes over me
You were pumping iron as I was pumping irony

Now I find myself fully occupied and half alive
With your head, heart, arms and legs wrapped around my family pride
See the whites of their eyes then shoot
With all the romance of the Ton Ton Macoute

[Heaven knows] what kind of fool am I [etc repeated]

Nothing will show as we're shedding our clothes
But then I suppose, anything goes, anything goes
But then I suppose that anything, anything goes
[Heaven knows - heaven knows --]

[Heaven knows] what kind of fool am I
[Heaven knows] what comes over me
[Heaven knows] what kind of fool am I
Tell me please, please, please
[Heaven knows] what kind of fool am I --





Profile Visitor Map - Click to view visits
Create your own visitor map

Updated: 4:26 AM GMT on February 09, 2012

Permalink

Welcome to year AI -1

By: Patrap, 4:57 PM GMT on January 08, 2012









"First Communion on the Moon As we remember the first men on the moon, let's not forget the first supper on the moon -- the Lord's Supper, served and received by an elder in the Presbyterian Church, Apollo 11 astronaut Eugene 'Buzz' Aldrin.

"This is the (lunar module) pilot," Aldrin said on July 20, 1969. "I'd like to take this opportunity to ask every person listening in, whoever and wherever they may be, to pause for a moment and contemplate the events of the past few hours and to give thanks in his or her own way."

Aldrin's way was to serve himself communion, using a kit provided by the pastor of Houston's Webster Presbyterian Church. Aldrin's brief and private Christian service never caused a flap, but it could have. Aldrin has said that he planned to broadcast the service, but NASA at the last minute asked him not to because of concerns about a lawsuit filed (later dismissed) by atheist Madelyn Murray O'Hare after Apollo 8 astronauts read from Genesis while orbiting the moon at Christmas. Did NASA do the right thing by making Aldrin keep his religious beliefs to himself? As an elder in the Presbyterian church, Aldrin had the authority to conduct what is called an "extended serving" of the Lord's Supper.

But Aldrin was representing the United States of America that day, and in many ways, all of his fellow earthlings. Should he have even conducted a private religious service?

"In the radio blackout," Aldrin wrote in Guideposts magazine in 1970, "I opened the little plastic packages which contained the bread and the wine. I poured the wine into the chalice our church had given me. In the one-sixth gravity of the moon, the wine slowly curled and gracefully came up the side of the cup.

Then I read the Scripture, 'I am the vine, you are the branches. Whosoever abides in me will bring forth much fruit.' "I ate the tiny Host and swallowed the wine. I gave thanks for the intelligence and spirit that had brought two young pilots to the Sea of Tranquility.

It was interesting for me to think: the very first liquid ever poured on the moon, and the very first food eaten there, were the communion elements.""



The Law of Accelerating Returns
March 7, 2001 by Ray Kurzweil




An analysis of the history of technology shows that technological change is exponential, contrary to the common-sense “intuitive linear” view. So we won’t experience 100 years of progress in the 21st century — it will be more like 20,000 years of progress (at today’s rate). The “returns,” such as chip speed and cost-effectiveness, also increase exponentially. There’s even exponential growth in the rate of exponential growth. Within a few decades, machine intelligence will surpass human intelligence, leading to The Singularity — technological change so rapid and profound it represents a rupture in the fabric of human history. The implications include the merger of biological and nonbiological intelligence, immortal software-based humans, and ultra-high levels of intelligence that expand outward in the universe at the speed of light.

You will get $40 trillion just by reading this essay and understanding what it says. For complete details, see below. (It’s true that authors will do just about anything to keep your attention, but I’m serious about this statement. Until I return to a further explanation, however, do read the first sentence of this paragraph carefully.)

Now back to the future: it’s widely misunderstood. Our forebears expected the future to be pretty much like their present, which had been pretty much like their past. Although exponential trends did exist a thousand years ago, they were at that very early stage where an exponential trend is so flat that it looks like no trend at all. So their lack of expectations was largely fulfilled. Today, in accordance with the common wisdom, everyone expects continuous technological progress and the social repercussions that follow. But the future will be far more surprising than most observers realize: few have truly internalized the implications of the fact that the rate of change itself is accelerating.

The Intuitive Linear View versus the Historical Exponential View

Most long range forecasts of technical feasibility in future time periods dramatically underestimate the power of future technology because they are based on what I call the “intuitive linear” view of technological progress rather than the “historical exponential view.” To express this another way, it is not the case that we will experience a hundred years of progress in the twenty-first century; rather we will witness on the order of twenty thousand years of progress (at today’s rate of progress, that is).

This disparity in outlook comes up frequently in a variety of contexts, for example, the discussion of the ethical issues that Bill Joy raised in his controversial WIRED cover story, Why The Future Doesn’t Need Us. Bill and I have been frequently paired in a variety of venues as pessimist and optimist respectively. Although I’m expected to criticize Bill’s position, and indeed I do take issue with his prescription of relinquishment, I nonetheless usually end up defending Joy on the key issue of feasibility. Recently a Noble Prize winning panelist dismissed Bill’s concerns, exclaiming that, “we’re not going to see self-replicating nanoengineered entities for a hundred years.” I pointed out that 100 years was indeed a reasonable estimate of the amount of technical progress required to achieve this particular milestone at today’s rate of progress. But because we’re doubling the rate of progress every decade, we’ll see a century of progress–at today’s rate–in only 25 calendar years.

When people think of a future period, they intuitively assume that the current rate of progress will continue for future periods. However, careful consideration of the pace of technology shows that the rate of progress is not constant, but it is human nature to adapt to the changing pace, so the intuitive view is that the pace will continue at the current rate. Even for those of us who have been around long enough to experience how the pace increases over time, our unexamined intuition nonetheless provides the impression that progress changes at the rate that we have experienced recently. From the mathematician’s perspective, a primary reason for this is that an exponential curve approximates a straight line when viewed for a brief duration. So even though the rate of progress in the very recent past (e.g., this past year) is far greater than it was ten years ago (let alone a hundred or a thousand years ago), our memories are nonetheless dominated by our very recent experience. It is typical, therefore, that even sophisticated commentators, when considering the future, extrapolate the current pace of change over the next 10 years or 100 years to determine their expectations. This is why I call this way of looking at the future the “intuitive linear” view.

But a serious assessment of the history of technology shows that technological change is exponential. In exponential growth, we find that a key measurement such as computational power is multiplied by a constant factor for each unit of time (e.g., doubling every year) rather than just being added to incrementally. Exponential growth is a feature of any evolutionary process, of which technology is a primary example. One can examine the data

in different ways, on different time scales, and for a wide variety of technologies ranging from electronic to biological, and the acceleration of progress and growth applies. Indeed, we find not just simple exponential growth, but “double” exponential growth, meaning that the rate of exponential growth is itself growing exponentially. These observations do not rely merely on an assumption of the continuation of Moore’s law (i.e., the exponential shrinking of transistor sizes on an integrated circuit), but is based on a rich model of diverse technological processes. What it clearly shows is that technology, particularly the pace of technological change, advances (at least) exponentially, not linearly, and has been doing so since the advent of technology, indeed since the advent of evolution on Earth.

I emphasize this point because it is the most important failure that would-be prognosticators make in considering future trends. Most technology forecasts ignore altogether this “historical exponential view” of technological progress. That is why people tend to overestimate what can be achieved in the short term (because we tend to leave out necessary details), but underestimate what can be achieved in the long term (because the exponential growth is ignored).

The Law of Accelerating Returns

We can organize these observations into what I call the law of accelerating returns as follows:

Evolution applies positive feedback in that the more capable methods resulting from one stage of evolutionary progress are used to create the next stage. As a result, the
rate of progress of an evolutionary process increases exponentially over time. Over time, the “order” of the information embedded in the evolutionary process (i.e., the measure of how well the information fits a purpose, which in evolution is survival) increases.
A correlate of the above observation is that the “returns” of an evolutionary process (e.g., the speed, cost-effectiveness, or overall “power” of a process) increase exponentially over time.
In another positive feedback loop, as a particular evolutionary process (e.g., computation) becomes more effective (e.g., cost effective), greater resources are deployed toward the further progress of that process. This results in a second level of exponential growth (i.e., the rate of exponential growth itself grows exponentially).
Biological evolution is one such evolutionary process.
Technological evolution is another such evolutionary process. Indeed, the emergence of the first technology creating species resulted in the new evolutionary process of technology. Therefore, technological evolution is an outgrowth of–and a continuation of–biological evolution.
A specific paradigm (a method or approach to solving a problem, e.g., shrinking transistors on an integrated circuit as an approach to making more powerful computers) provides exponential growth until the method exhausts its potential. When this happens, a paradigm shift (i.e., a fundamental change in the approach) occurs, which enables exponential growth to continue.
If we apply these principles at the highest level of evolution on Earth, the first step, the creation of cells, introduced the paradigm of biology. The subsequent emergence of DNA provided a digital method to record the results of evolutionary experiments. Then, the evolution of a species who combined rational thought with an opposable appendage (i.e., the thumb) caused a fundamental paradigm shift from biology to technology. The upcoming primary paradigm shift will be from biological thinking to a hybrid combining biological and nonbiological thinking. This hybrid will include “biologically inspired” processes resulting from the reverse engineering of biological brains.

If we examine the timing of these steps, we see that the process has continuously accelerated. The evolution of life forms required billions of years for the first steps (e.g., primitive cells); later on progress accelerated. During the Cambrian explosion, major paradigm shifts took only tens of millions of years. Later on, Humanoids developed over a period of millions of years, and Homo sapiens over a period of only hundreds of thousands of years.

With the advent of a technology-creating species, the exponential pace became too fast for evolution through DNA-guided protein synthesis and moved on to human-created technology. Technology goes beyond mere tool making; it is a process of creating ever more powerful technology using the tools from the previous round of innovation. In this way, human technology is distinguished from the tool making of other species. There is a record of each stage of technology, and each new stage of technology builds on the order of the previous stage.

The first technological steps-sharp edges, fire, the wheel–took tens of thousands of years. For people living in this era, there was little noticeable technological change in even a thousand years. By 1000 A.D., progress was much faster and a paradigm shift required only a century or two. In the nineteenth century, we saw more technological change than in the nine centuries preceding it. Then in the first twenty years of the twentieth century, we saw more advancement than in all of the nineteenth century. Now, paradigm shifts occur in only a few years time. The World Wide Web did not exist in anything like its present form just a few years ago; it didn’t exist at all a decade ago.




The Prophet's Manual

Reality is not one subjective determination, which is only relatively different from any other. It is not exclusion of one but acceptance of all. Exclusion of one relative determination as the only one out of infinite number of equally real determination is self-limitation. It is limiting of unlimited through space/time distortion of ONE reality. Boundary of any relative sequence is its fractal passage of time, which is inversion of such inertial sequence (equal opposite). That's why tree of knowledge is an illusion, which is surface shadow of only one tree - tree of life, which is only reality there is. Tree of life is whole 3D, which is not limited by fractal passage of time, while tree of knowledge is one out of many different dualities - it is its surface reflection limited by passage of time.

All further tribulations are effects of only that one cause - belief that superficial materialistic reflection is true reality (idolatry). Purpose of all spiritual teachings is defeat of that one fallacy. It is also purpose of fractality, which does not differentiate between physical/spiritual, because they are only local and non-local reflections of ONE reality that is always here and now (no difference). Introduced novelty that separates fractal supersymmetry from all superficial theories is in its triangulation. It does not differentiate between different surface theories - it accepts all of them as equals within its singular inertial framework. It is not a theory but truth in whose face all superficial opposition dissolves, as if it never was.

Only surface duality is infinite freedom of choice - its singular in-depth inertion is no choice, because all relative choices are equal choices of no choice. Only reality that is no choice in its depth is infinite freedom of choice on surface. It is the point where canonical science and fractality diverge, because canonization is precedence of one subjective differentiation over infinite number of relatively different, but equally real fractal dualities. Canonical science repeats original error that reality is exclusivity of its superficial dual projection. It is based on subjective opinion that duality of action/reaction is real without its inertial framework. Such subjectivity inherent in materialistic dogma is limitation of its theories. It prevents full comprehension of unlimited reality described completely in both - relativity and/or uncertainty principles.



A Glitch in Time





All of history can be seen as a preparation for our impending close encounter with the eschaton.

As the event draws nearer, the preparations become more obvious. Of particular concern in this regard is the likelihood of a strong negative reaction from this world’s power structure. This would have been the case if there had not been a preemptive move on the part of the higher powers.

A compelling scenario for this preemption comes in the form of a trojan horse visitation directed particularly at the military-industrial complex of the U.S. Something like this has certainly become an icon of popular culture, and at the end of the day, what may have actually happened will be a moot point, relative to what could have happened or what people believe, or what the authorities come to believe may have happened. Having a literalist frame of mind is useful in the hard sciences, but often not in the soft sciences.

The higher powers look for the meanest dog in town and send it a gift horse in the form of an exotic package that will confound all the kings men as they try to reassemble it. They cannot swallow it, nor can they spit it out. They are left with a funny looking visiting sage who lectures to them at his leisure about the finer points of cosmic etiquette.

The junkyard dog learns table manners in the privacy of his own dog house.

On waves of love my heart is breaking
And stranger still my self control I can't rely on anymore
New tides surprise - my world it's changing
Within this frame an ocean swells - behind this smile I know it well
Beneath a lover's moon I'm waiting
I am the pilot of the storm - adrift in pleasure I may drown
I built this ship - it is my making
And furthermore my self control I can't rely on anymore
I know why - I know why
Crazy on a ship of fools
Crazy on a ship of fools
Turn this boat around - back to my loving ground
Who claims that no man is an island
While I land up in jeopardy - more distant from you by degrees
I walk this shore in isolation
And at my feet eternity draws ever sweeter plans for me
I know why - I know why
Crazy on a ship of fools
Crazy on a ship of fools
Turn this boat around - back to my loving ground
Oh no, oh no - ship of fools --





Slow dancer - no answers
For you new moves to see
Fast talker in dark corners
For you new words to hear
Sly glances - half chances
For you the eye that sees

When the sun slips from the day and the coolness brings relief
There's no torment 'neath the stars in the stillness of the night
When the swirling has to cease behind the safety of the veil

In high places - darkened faces
So indifferent in days to be
Lost races - no losers
Only winners return to see
New order - can't be altered
When the eyes refuse to see
When the sun slips from the day
Soft spoken - never could be broken
Waiting the dawn light with me
Slow burning - school of learning
Don't hasten it down on me
Hearts leaping - hopes been reaching
To the heights, to the heights - these signs to see

Oh baby, in the darkness, in the darkness...







Sisters of the way-side bide their time in quiet peace,
Await their place within the ring of calm;
Still stand to turn in seconds of release,
Await the call they know may never come.
In times of lightness, no intruder dared upon
To jeopardize the course, upset the run;
And all was joy and hands were raised toward the sun
As love in the halls of plenty overrun.
Aaah, ahhh...

Still in their bliss unchallenged mighty feast,
Unending dances shadowed on the day.
Within their walls, their daunting formless keep,
Preserved their joy and kept their doubts at bay.
Faceless legions stood in readiness to weep,
Just turn a coin, bring order to the fray;
And everything is soon no sooner thought than deed,
But no one seemed to question in anyway.
Aaah, ahhh...

How keen the storied hunter's eye prevails upon the land
To seek the unsuspecting and the weak;
And powerless the fabled sat, too smug to lift a hand
Toward the foe that threatened from the deep.
Who cares to dry the cheeks of those who saddened stand
Adrift upon a sea of futile speech?
And to fall to fate and make the 'status plan'
...............reach

Singin'....
Where was your word, where did you go?
Where was your helping, where was your bow? Bow.
Dull is the armour, cold is the day.
Hard was the journey, dark was the way. Way.
I heard the word; I couldn't stay. Oh.
I couldn't stand it another day, another day-ay,
Another day, another day.
Touched by the timely coming,
Roused from the keeper's sleep,
Release the grip, throw down the key.
Held now within the knowing,
Rest now within the peace.
Take of the fruit, but guard the seed.
They had to stay!

Held now within the knowing,
Rest now within the beat.
Take of the fruit, but guard the seed...








Uploaded by Purrfectstranger on Oct 3, 2009
Krishnamurti is regarded globally as one of the greatest thinkers and religious teachers of all time. He did not expound any philosophy or religion, but rather talked of the things that concern all of us in our everyday lives, of the problems of living in modern society with its violence and corruption, of the individual's search for security and happiness, and the need for mankind to free itself from inner burdens of fear, anger, hurt, and sorrow. He explained with great precision the subtle workings of the human mind, and pointed to the need for bringing to our daily life a deeply meditative and spiritual quality.

Krishnamurti belonged to no religious organization, sect or country, nor did he subscribe to any school of political or ideological thought. On the contrary, he maintained that these are the very factors that divide human beings and bring about conflict and war. He reminded his listeners again and again that we are all human beings first and not Hindus, Muslims or Christians, that we are like the rest of humanity and are not different from one another.

He asked that we tread lightly on this earth without destroying ourselves or the environment. He communicated to his listeners a deep sense of respect for nature. His teachings transcend man-made belief systems, nationalistic sentiment and sectarianism.

At the same time, they give new meaning and direction to mankind's search for truth. His teaching, besides being relevant to the modern age, is timeless and universal.


You Might Also Like:
Can The Brain Be Totally Free?
Krishnamurti & Bernard Levin
Krishnamurti - Living with Love
To Live Without a Shadow of Control
Krishnamurti - Living Without Images
The Ending Of Conflict
Krishnamurti Collection: The Real Revolution
J. Krishnamurti - What Love Is Not


Profile Visitor Map - Click to view visits
Create your own visitor map

Updated: 7:25 PM GMT on January 30, 2012

Permalink

About Patrap

Local Weather

Mostly Cloudy
83 °F
Mostly Cloudy

Patrap's Recent Photos

Personal Weather Stations

Uptown
New Orleans, LA
Elevation: 20 ft
Temperature: 78.9 °F
Dew Point: 78.5 °F
Humidity: 99%
Wind: 2.5 mph from the NW
Wind Gust: 4.9 mph
Updated: 5:58 AM CDT on July 28, 2014

About Personal Weather Stations