Why am i more connected with technolgy than earth??

[Doodazzle]

In hyperspace both sides of the coin are well-accounted for. The plant/animal/fungi/cellular kingdom has decent representation in hyperspace alongside the computeristic, mechanical, plasticine, metallic, electronic aesthetics as well. I don't think this is necessarily a consequence of living in a technological society either. While I can't prove it, I imagine that 1000 years ago in the Amazon, that shamans may very well likely have been accessing similar visions - at least some of them some of the time.

I like this statement.

Hyperspace does contain all that natural plant/animal/ect stuff, as well as all that technological stuff. We also tend to see many things that we just can't explain. Maybe the ancient shamans just filed more of the techno stuff into that unexplainable catagory. More of the machine-like stuff was more "alien" to them. Correspondingly, they probably "got" a lot of the nature stuff that breezes right by us.

 

[hixidom]

I'm coming into this conversation a bit late, but I would like to add my 2 cents, which may echo jbark's early post:

Usually when people say "Mother Earth", they are referring to the plants and animals that live on the earth rather than the 99.99% of matter that actually composes this rock on which we are like a mere rash. So, if by "Mother Earth" you mean natural living things, then it may help to recognize that the line between technology and life is becoming more and more blurred as technology progresses. The tools that we have created to help us manipulate matter and information will soon be doing so more than we can. When generalized intelligence in computers surpasses that of humans, these new intelligent beings will see humans as we see animals. They will be the predominant life-form on Earth and we will fade into the backdrop that is referred to as "Mother Nature".

In that sense, there is a spectrum of life, with "technology" on one end and "mother nature" on the other, with humans in the middle, but to intelligent machines of the future, they will be in the middle of that spectrum and the technology that they create will become the new end of the spectrum.

This is all just speculation, of course. The real reason you should prefer technology is that it makes things easier. If you look at every change that has ever occurred in nature, you will find that natural changes optimize time and energy. Technology does the same thing, but better. It's like Nature 2.0. Technology is Mother Nature becoming more and intelligent and, eventually, sentient.

 

[lee]

well since everything is 'connected', computers could be called natural as much as anything that exists in the universe. So it's natural to waste your time getting involved in silly internet dramas as it is to go out and get laid or start a war in some other country! :lol:

If you feel you are out of balance in your life, then DO something about it.

 

[jbark]

I'm coming into this conversation a bit late, but I would like to add my 2 cents, which may echo jbark's early post:

Usually when people say "Mother Earth", they are referring to the plants and animals that live on the earth rather than the 99.99% of matter that actually composes this rock on which we are like a mere rash. So, if by "Mother Earth" you mean natural living things, then it may help to recognize that the line between technology and life is becoming more and more blurred as technology progresses. The tools that we have created to help us manipulate matter and information will soon be doing so more than we can. When generalized intelligence in computers surpasses that of humans, these new intelligent beings will see humans as we see animals. They will be the predominant life-form on Earth and we will fade into the backdrop that is referred to as "Mother Nature".

In that sense, there is a spectrum of life, with "technology" on one end and "mother nature" on the other, with humans in the middle, but to intelligent machines of the future, they will be in the middle of that spectrum and the technology that they create will become the new end of the spectrum.

This is all just speculation, of course. The real reason you should prefer technology is that it makes things easier. If you look at every change that has ever occurred in nature, you will find that natural changes optimize time and energy. Technology does the same thing, but better.

I agree with this. As far as we have come evolutionarily, our next evolutionary step, driven by our nature, is to extend our senses, collapse geography and culture, improve our data storage capacities and problem solving abilities externally by that force of change, technology, which is as inexorable as it is natural. Technology is how we arrive at a more organized state: lower entropy. That is exactly what evolution does.

Technology is nature. If we don't see that now, our successors will.

JBArk

 

[pinealshaman]

"well since everything is 'connected', computers could be called natural as much as anything that exists in the universe. So it's natural to waste your time getting involved in silly internet dramas as it is to go out and get laid or start a war in some other country!

If you feel you are out of balance in your life, then DO something about it."

^ I resonate with your view here good sir. For me as a "shaman" I stive to merge with my internet and computer via the actions of a neo pagan of the techno pagan sort. Perhaps you might say that my pineal now resonates on the frequency of silicon. My DMT links me up to the cosmic server of all internet computers and I can pretty much justsing icaros by clicking onto them on youtube. This for me is the most powerful form of ayahuasca healing..ala cyberawasquero healing. This brings me more into balancee than trying to be in nauture and talk to the fucking ferries and elves all day lol.

 

[mandel]

'ala cyberawasquero healing'

Cyberwasqua...sounds like a future compound to look out for

 

[lee]

^ I resonate with your view here good sir. For me as a "shaman" I stive to merge with my internet and computer via the actions of a neo pagan of the techno pagan sort. Perhaps you might say that my pineal now resonates on the frequency of silicon. My DMT links me up to the cosmic server of all internet computers and I can pretty much justsing icaros by clicking onto them on youtube. This for me is the most powerful form of ayahuasca healing..ala cyberawasquero healing. This brings me more into balancee than trying to be in nauture and talk to the fucking ferries and elves all day lol.

You're on a great path to enlightenment my good friend.

I can see that the o/p isn't really meaning that he's worried that he might be spending too much time on tecnology, no, he's worried he's not living fully and completely. It's hard to feel 'earthed' and 'connected' messing with a computer in the same way that one may do swimming in the sea whilst just having shagged a hot chick you met last night in a steamy nightclub for example.

 

[MissMolecule]

^ I resonate with your view here good sir. For me as a "shaman" I stive to merge with my internet and computer via the actions of a neo pagan of the techno pagan sort. Perhaps you might say that my pineal now resonates on the frequency of silicon. My DMT links me up to the cosmic server of all internet computers and I can pretty much justsing icaros by clicking onto them on youtube. This for me is the most powerful form of ayahuasca healing..ala cyberawasquero healing. This brings me more into balancee than trying to be in nauture and talk to the fucking ferries and elves all day lol.

You're on a great path to enlightenment my good friend.

I can see that the o/p isn't really meaning that he's worried that he might be spending too much time on tecnology, no, he's worried he's not living fully and completely. It's hard to feel 'earthed' and 'connected' messing with a computer in the same way that one may do swimming in the sea whilst just having shagged a hot chick you met last night in a steamy nightclub for example.

Good point, I know when I spend to much time in cyber land I can feel he call to get out in nature more. As I said in my intro I'm taking the time to spend with me and part of this process is being in nature. I miss the jungle so!

 

[Doodazzle]

I'm coming into this conversation a bit late, but I would like to add my 2 cents, which may echo jbark's early post:

Usually when people say "Mother Earth", they are referring to the plants and animals that live on the earth rather than the 99.99% of matter that actually composes this rock on which we are like a mere rash. So, if by "Mother Earth" you mean natural living things, then it may help to recognize that the line between technology and life is becoming more and more blurred as technology progresses. The tools that we have created to help us manipulate matter and information will soon be doing so more than we can. When generalized intelligence in computers surpasses that of humans, these new intelligent beings will see humans as we see animals. They will be the predominant life-form on Earth and we will fade into the backdrop that is referred to as "Mother Nature".

In that sense, there is a spectrum of life, with "technology" on one end and "mother nature" on the other, with humans in the middle, but to intelligent machines of the future, they will be in the middle of that spectrum and the technology that they create will become the new end of the spectrum.

This is all just speculation, of course. The real reason you should prefer technology is that it makes things easier. If you look at every change that has ever occurred in nature, you will find that natural changes optimize time and energy. Technology does the same thing, but better.

I agree with this. As far as we have come evolutionarily, our next evolutionary step, driven by our nature, is to extend our senses, collapse geography and culture, improve our data storage capacities and problem solving abilities externally by that force of change, technology, which is as inexorable as it is natural. Technology is how we arrive at a more organized state: lower entropy. That is exactly what evolution does.

Technology is nature. If we don't see that now, our successors will.

JBArk

Technology makes things more organized? Lower entropy? Are we talking in theory, or in practice here?

Oceans are filled with plastic. Disorganization, right there. We deficate into toilets and take that organic matter, that nutrient, out of the life cycle, rather than putting it back into the soil where it belongs. Organization you say? Less entropy?

Transhumanism is a good thing? So....monsanto should just keep doing what they are doing, harvard is working on robotic bees to replace the real bees. Technology will fix the problems that technology causes. That last sentence defies logic...should we take it on faith then? Albert Einstein said something about the impossibility of solving problem with the same consciousness that caused the problem. He must have lacked faith.

Sure, technology is natural--everything is natural. Not all natural things are good. Technology is a part of the human mind that is going all haywire and bugging out, deleriously, absurdly, destructively. It could be used wisely--in theory at least.

I could have made this post a lot shorter and merely said this: you two hold some assumptions that seem mighty strange to me and I suspect your logic circuits are all out of whack.

 

[Global]

I could have made this post a lot shorter and merely said this: you two hold some assumptions that seem mighty strange to me and I suspect your logic circuits are all out of whack.

Consider that you've merely provided one side of the argument. It doesn't really mean that because you have low entropy there that you easily don't have higher entropy in other applications of technology (technology being the vaguest of terms anyway). I could give a bunch of positive examples, but it doesn't make the positive side of the argument right either. Lots of these questions to which people are seeking the answers tend not to be able to be simplistically answered as yes/no; this way/that way, etc...

 

[jbark]

I'm coming into this conversation a bit late, but I would like to add my 2 cents, which may echo jbark's early post:

Usually when people say "Mother Earth", they are referring to the plants and animals that live on the earth rather than the 99.99% of matter that actually composes this rock on which we are like a mere rash. So, if by "Mother Earth" you mean natural living things, then it may help to recognize that the line between technology and life is becoming more and more blurred as technology progresses. The tools that we have created to help us manipulate matter and information will soon be doing so more than we can. When generalized intelligence in computers surpasses that of humans, these new intelligent beings will see humans as we see animals. They will be the predominant life-form on Earth and we will fade into the backdrop that is referred to as "Mother Nature".

In that sense, there is a spectrum of life, with "technology" on one end and "mother nature" on the other, with humans in the middle, but to intelligent machines of the future, they will be in the middle of that spectrum and the technology that they create will become the new end of the spectrum.

This is all just speculation, of course. The real reason you should prefer technology is that it makes things easier. If you look at every change that has ever occurred in nature, you will find that natural changes optimize time and energy. Technology does the same thing, but better.

I agree with this. As far as we have come evolutionarily, our next evolutionary step, driven by our nature, is to extend our senses, collapse geography and culture, improve our data storage capacities and problem solving abilities externally by that force of change, technology, which is as inexorable as it is natural. Technology is how we arrive at a more organized state: lower entropy. That is exactly what evolution does.

Technology is nature. If we don't see that now, our successors will.

JBArk

Technology makes things more organized? Lower entropy? Are we talking in theory, or in practice here?

Oceans are filled with plastic. Disorganization, right there. We deficate into toilets and take that organic matter, that nutrient, out of the life cycle, rather than putting it back into the soil where it belongs. Organization you say? Less entropy?

Transhumanism is a good thing? So....monsanto should just keep doing what they are doing, harvard is working on robotic bees to replace the real bees. Technology will fix the problems that technology causes. That last sentence defies logic...should we take it on faith then? Albert Einstein said something about the impossibility of solving problem with the same consciousness that caused the problem. He must have lacked faith.

Sure, technology is natural--everything is natural. Not all natural things are good. Technology is a part of the human mind that is going all haywire and bugging out, deleriously, absurdly, destructively. It could be used wisely--in theory at least.

I could have made this post a lot shorter and merely said this: you two hold some assumptions that seem mighty strange to me and I suspect your logic circuits are all out of whack.

Of course technology brings lower entropy - to the system in question. Is a bird's nest more organized than a scattered bunch of twigs? Of course. Is a beaver dam a deliberately organized system of wood? of course. But trees are felled and killed to make it, it dams up the flow of a river or lake drowning more trees and creating stagnant water that kills many organisms and changes the ecosystem of the lake. This does not change the fact that a beaver dam is an organized system of lower entropy than scattered logs and trees. And it is, by definition, a technology.

Would you mind identifying the assumptions that seem strange to you? I admit I am baffled at your logic, and would like to understand how you think my "logic circuits are all out of whack".

For the record, I did not say technology is "good" or "bad", just that it was natural. Viruses are natural, and they destroy more than they create. So hate viruses, hate people, hate technology if you will - just don't stand under the false assumption that we are somehow "different", and not part of the equation. If you do, you help foster and "us and them" attitude toward nature, and you have far more in common with the brass at Monsanto than you believe.

JBArk

 

[jamie]

I have to say I dont necessarily agree that technology is making things more organized, neither do I agree that a birds nest is the same thing are our current technology. This is why the term "natural" has someone lost it's meaning in discussions like this IMO. If you want to call both of them natural than that is fine, I am fine with that..but in terms of coherance with the preexisting planetary system that has been here for far longer than humans have, I can say with absolute confidence that a birds nest seems far more coherant within that system than an automobile or laptop does. This is just the reality of it. Birdsnests are not burning fossil fuels or wastefuly made of plastic and other toxic matierals etc. A birds nest is just made of dead sticks.

To compare the two is a way that makes them the same thing is kind of rediculous in my view. A birdsnest and a stick hut in the jungle are more like the same things for me..a birdsnest and a bow and arrow or hunting spear are more similar..the relation to and consequence within the larger system of a cell phone and a beaver dam are just not the same at this current time. The catch is that without going through the phase we are in now we might not be able to reach that level. Tech is not "bad" but it def has the ability to be completely incoherant within the greater system.

Hopefully at some point we will move into a global technological culture that is based on biosustainable tech that is truely coherant within the global gaiasphere..but at this point we are not at that level.

Our tech is largely not ecologically coherant as it is applied in the mainstream. A birdsnest is. My proof for this is that we dont see mass deforestation or toxification of the ecosystem due to bird technologies like birdsnests.

I wish people would just stop saying eveyrthing is natural, and using that as their arguement. Hilter was natural too. Doesnt mean his actions were coherant within the larger scope of humanity.

Another way to say this more bluntly is this..birds exist in symbiosis within the planetary ecosystem, and western civilization(mostly due to our tech) exists as a parasite. Nature is abound with parasites..but not to the degree that they threaten the integrity of the entire system the way humans have been doing.

I am definatly not anti technology..I am just critical of the way technology is currently use and I think that criticism is entirley justified. We are not on the most sustainable system we could be on only due to political reasons..and that is not really acceptable for me.

 

[jbark]

I have to say I dont necessarily agree that technology is making things more organized, neither do I agree that a birds nest is the same thing are our current technology. This is why the term "natural" has someone lost it's meaning in discussions like this IMO. If you want to call both of them natural than that is fine, I am fine with that..but in terms of coherance with the preexisting planetary system that has been here for far longer than humans have, I can say with absolute confidence that a birds nest seems far more coherant within that system than an automobile or laptop does. This is just the reality of it. Birdsnests are not burning fossil fuels or wastefuly made of plastic and other toxic matierals etc. A birds nest is just made of dead sticks.

To compare the two is a way that makes them the same thing is kind of rediculous in my view. A birdsnest and a stick hut in the jungle are more like the same things for me..a birdsnest and a bow and arrow or hunting spear are more similar..the relation to and consequence within the larger system of a cell phone and a beaver dam are just not the same at this current time. The catch is that without going through the phase we are in now we might not be able to reach that level. Tech is not "bad" but it def has the ability to be completely incoherant within the greater system.

Hopefully at some point we will move into a global technological culture that is based on biosustainable tech that is truely coherant within the global gaiasphere..but at this point we are not at that level.

Our tech is largely not ecologically coherant as it is applied in the mainstream. A birdsnest is. My proof for this is that we dont see mass deforestation or toxification of the ecosystem due to bird technologies like birdsnests.

I wish people would just stop saying eveyrthing is natural, and using that as their arguement. Hilter was natural too. Doesnt mean his actions were coherant within the larger scope of humanity.

Another way to say this more bluntly is this..birds exist in symbiosis within the planetary ecosystem, and western civilization(mostly due to our tech) exists as a parasite. Nature is abound with parasites..but not to the degree that they threaten the integrity of the entire system the way humans have been doing.

I am definatly not anti technology..I am just critical of the way technology is currently use and I think that criticism is entirley justified. We are not on the most sustainable system we could be on only due to political reasons..and that is not really acceptable for me.

We are actually more in agreement than you seem to think. I just believe that harping on the idea that we are not separate from the natural world is very important, to the point that I think many of the pitfalls we seem to have indulged in stem from a belief that we are somehow different, and "other", allowing us the philosophical and ethical freedom to create technologies AT ANY COST, as a sort of warped sense of entitlement. If a shift were made in this paradigm, one that I believe most here would get behind, we could perhaps begin to move technology in a more sustainable direction.

Or not. Maybe we are a parasite who will, likely to our own detriment, use up all the resources this planet has to offer and leave it a barren hunk of stone slowly hurtling toward its star.

Curious though that you latched on to the birds nest part of the analogy and left the beaver dam alone.


JBArk

 

[acacian]

hehe thought I'd quote Jerry Seinfeld here:

"I find the human fascination with water is amazing. We're constantly going to beaches, pools, lakes, rivers, we're swimming, we're snorkeling, we're-we're scuba diving, we bathe in it, our bodies are mostly made of water, everyone is caring around these bottles of water. We can't get enough water, unless it rains then we're like, "Oh, look I'm soaked. I am literally drenched." For some reason we have a huge problem with small flying water. I-It'll just stop us right in our tracks. "Uh, I felt a drop, We're gonna get caught in it! Everyone cover your water bottles, run!!"

 

[jamie]

I say the same thing about beaver dams and I think they play a key role in river ecosystems and should be left alone, instead removing them out of fear for the ecosystem which is sometimes done. All of the "dustruction" that is significant to us caused by beaver dams is to flooding property and railways etc..and the issue of the trees that are used..that only becomes an issue in fragile ecosystems that we have pretty much raped and left in such a fragile state.

Beaver Dams are an important part of wetland ecosystems and can acually help tpo restore them. They also help conserve the water levels within the ecosystem and can raise the water table of an area.

I agree with you that everything we do an make is natural. Which is why I prefer the term coherance when trying to explain the difference between some of the things humans are doing and what other animals do.

I dont believe that humans are inherantly parasitic. I also think that if most people were given a viable option they would choose a more sustainable system..but again there is a political agenda at the moment that has a lot fo weight behind it. You cant expect the adverage person to really fight against that to the degree that is necessary when most people are entirley removed from both the reality that it might be necessary and the rest of the living biosphere from which they were birthed.

Better education for all people about these issues is probly something that is most needed.

 

[Doodazzle]

jbark, I was wrong to question your logic circuits. My bad. I was responding to something that hixidom had said, his entire post actually--something to which you chimed in with in agreement.


Personally, I believe that if humanity is to continue, we will need to let technology, high tech anyway, fade out and become much less a part of our lives. or just take a break from it for a generation or two, come back to it when and if we grow up a bit. But that's just my personal belief, one which I will let go if proven wrong.

Saying that technology is natural...is a logical sounding position. mere samantics, i suppose. I like the technology of cob. Mix clay containing soil with sand and add some straw, build a durable and beautiful house which is energy efficient. Much like the beaver dams and birds nests mentioned earlier. Awesome technology, that. And it's a lot funner to build that way, compared to mainstream building. Ever hear of voc's? It's all good vibes bouncing off of cob walls and cassien paint. The stuff bouncing off of treated lumber and acrylic paint is some ill stuff. The internet is cool too, in small, small, occasional doses.

Getting back on track, how about this:

When generalized intelligence in computers surpasses that of humans, these new intelligent beings will see humans as we see animals. They will be the predominant life-form on Earth and we will fade into the backdrop that is referred to as "Mother Nature"

Hmmm, digital technology is a product of a rather exploitative paradigm, one that treats nature as a resource to be consumed and left to suffer and die. Computers that are smarter than us and view us as animals....terminator and matrix were popular movies.

If technology kills off enough of the pollinators, to the point where our crops can not grow, it will be okay, because robot bees are in development.

If you can see that as a good thing, or if you see technology as a panacea, then maybe your logic circuits have done gone kerflooey...or maybe there is a vitamin D deficiency, and/or you have simply contracted a toxic meme. Spend more time outside, with real old fashioned, bug n' poison ivy nature. It's better than plastic nature.

"technology = the cure for all ills"-- that meme reeks of toxicity, in my most humble, that is.

 

[Sky Motion]

Love these simple realizations! A healthy dose of both is okay.

Earth is the mother though