The Schizo Conspiracy Thread - The conspiracies that will get you laughed out of your friend groups and subreddits

[Fek]

Symbols are not inherently good or bad, and that also applies to the method of conveyance. Someone creating a triangle with their hands does not inherently imply they have anything to do with another group which does similar. Quality of intent matters more than any symbol ever will.

That being said - there is one truth to all things, and many of the mystery schools treated with suspicion know this while employing that knowledge with vastly different intent. To help better assist one in learning of these things (without the helter skelter of doom/gloom), I would suggest less focus on Masonry and more on the Rosicrucians - particularly the works of Rudolf Steiner. You may have to adopt new methods of obtaining your information in order to truly understand the patterns you are identifying from surface-level investigations.

And regardless - all will actually be brought back out into the light of day for all to see, and within the lifetimes of most reading this sentence. There will be no more lies and secrecy. The grand closing of this final act of confusion and suffering within this theater of flesh isn't too far off, and the act which follows will be beautiful beyond measure.

It'll all be okay, frens. Don't lose yourself to despair over the acts of your fellows. Forgive them, and find peace.

 

[NoBueno]

I've been talking to Grok about my schizo stuff for some time and this is what it's come up with.

 

[Señora Airi]

For the woman, a quote from Fr Saraphim Rose.

It's Seraphim Rose, but yeah that quote is 100% correct

 

[Fek]

I've been talking to Grok

Do you go out of your way to "shit test" any given chatbot before asking it things you really want to know about? They strike me as being quite censored if you go into a no-no topic. Sure, you can get it to "play pretend" with you and cough up a bit more than it would otherwise, but there are topics which (presuming a lack of bias in both training material and no artificial impediments) they won't go anywhere near.

Do keep in mind they're not remotely an arbiter of truth, friend.

 

[NoBueno]

Do you go out of your way to "shit test" any given chatbot before asking it things you really want to know about? They strike me as being quite censored if you go into a no-no topic. Sure, you can get it to "play pretend" with you and cough up a bit more than it would otherwise, but there are topics which (presuming a lack of bias in both training material and no artificial impediments) they won't go anywhere near.

Do keep in mind they're not remotely an arbiter of truth, friend.

So just like any other person. At least they can pull info fast. I do know the one main thing they aren't allowed to talk about.

 

[NoBueno]

But there are topics which (presuming a lack of bias in both training material and no artificial impediments) they won't go anywhere near.

I just found the second topic. Pedophilia symbolism.

 

[NoBueno]

I've been talking to Grok about my schizo stuff on the nature of reality
View attachment 7181494
View attachment 7181533

Cool CERN backs me up

 

[Fek]

Consciousness does, indeed, create form. The flesh suit is a set of restraints adopted willingly in order to learn through personal experience. I'll just..leave it plain here given the context of the thread.

I'd also like to point out that this is a repeated theme across any topic or action or walk of life where one is led to ask "the bigger questions" about physical reality. This used to be common knowledge prior to..let's call it "the age of shit-stirring"..kicked off, which was actually quite recent.

I'm glad you found a way to confirm that for yourself in a format you prefer, truly.

 

[NoBueno]

Consciousness does, indeed, create form. The flesh suit is a set of restraints adopted willingly in order to learn through personal experience. I'll just..leave it plain here given the context of the thread.

I'd also like to point out that this is a repeated theme across any topic or action or walk of life where one is led to ask "the bigger questions" about physical reality. This used to be common knowledge prior to..let's call it "the age of shit-stirring"..kicked off, which was actually quite recent.

I'm glad you found a way to confirm that for yourself in a format you prefer, truly.

So they keep knowledge secret? Knowledge of the self. Knowledge of the Rules?
Is that what really.... "magic" is?

And then what are they, outside the system, the "hackers", to use a more modern term?

 

[Meriasek]

Cool CERN backs me up
View attachment 7191530

Wouldn't really say "CERN backs me up", it's one computer scientist/philosopher who did some programming and computer development work on the ATLAS detector at the LHC in the late 90s for one before leaving for corporate jobs and mostly philosophy. And he was at CERN in 1996/1997, years before they even started digging the LHC tunnel or having any physical components of the ATLAS detector.
It's an interesting view, but ultimately, like most philosophy, unproveable/unfalsifiable and basically just navelgazing.
*hits blunt* "But what if consciousness gave rise to the world?" -"Bruuuuuuh"

 

[Otterly]

hits blunt* "But what if consciousness gave rise to the world?" -"Bruuuuuuh"

It’s an interesting POV. I think it’s a tiny bit wrong, I think that consciousness is a part of the world and can interact with it in ways we don’t understand.
The problem of consciousness is completely unsolved - it’s a huge dilemma, and there are multiple theories but not a single one of them is any more backed by evidence that that bong rip or the idea of souls. No theory of consciousness has any testable predictions. It’s all, every single theory, speculative. Which is fascinating because that’s the ONLY biological phenomenon that’s like that. We can literally look at the molecular (and up as needed) level for everything else but consciousness? Not a clue
Have you read Roger Penrose’s stuff about microtubules?

 

[Meriasek]

It’s an interesting POV. I think it’s a tiny bit wrong, I think that consciousness is a part of the world and can interact with it in ways we don’t understand.
The problem of consciousness is completely unsolved - it’s a huge dilemma, and there are multiple theories but not a single one of them is any more backed by evidence that that bong rip or the idea of souls. No theory of consciousness has any testable predictions. It’s all, every single theory, speculative. Which is fascinating because that’s the ONLY biological phenomenon that’s like that. We can literally look at the molecular (and up as needed) level for everything else but consciousness? Not a clue
Have you read Roger Penrose’s stuff about microtubules?

Personally, I think consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, coming from the interconnectness of its neurons and all the biochemical states and so on. The more complex the network gets, the closer it gets to full consciousness (of neurotypical human scale). Even small brains are way too complex for us to fully model and analyse in sufficient detail, but I do believe that it's all quite physical. I.e. I don't believe in mind/body duality, and tbh I don't believe there is much of a "hard problem of consciousness". Consciousness emerges from sufficiently complex processing of sufficiently dynamic sensory input, it's a byproduct so to speak. I also don't really believe in free will per se, as I think that the universe is deterministic to a large enough degree. However, since the universe and the human mind itself are so complex, there isn't really a functional difference between free will and a deterministic mind, as it would be impossible to predict the physical state of the brain and body (and its entire history leading up to these states) in any meaningful way.
Yeah, it's a bit of a cop-out to say "Well, it's just too complex to say for sure", but well, we do say that about a lot of things and hope that some day in the future we can get there.
AI research is an interesting thing here since it could provide a testable avenue. A sufficiently complex network with sufficiently dynamic input and malleability in the network should then potentially yield a form of consciousness. Problem is that it could be extremely different from our consciousness so we might dismiss it as non-conscious or like current LLMs it would simply pretend to have a consciousness. Since consciousness would be an abstract emergent property, it'd be hard to tell.

Penrose's stuff is quite interesting, proposing that there's a quantum component to it all in those microtubules. I mean, sure, I personally find it a bit unlikely due to the quantums state lifetimes in the brain being probably waaaaay too short for any reasonable processes going on, but in the end it'd just be another physical mechanism in the brain leading to consciousness. Quantum mechanics aren't magic.

 

[NoBueno]

It’s an interesting POV. I think it’s a tiny bit wrong, I think that consciousness is a part of the world and can interact with it in ways we don’t understand.
The problem of consciousness is completely unsolved - it’s a huge dilemma, and there are multiple theories but not a single one of them is any more backed by evidence that that bong rip or the idea of souls. No theory of consciousness has any testable predictions. It’s all, every single theory, speculative. Which is fascinating because that’s the ONLY biological phenomenon that’s like that. We can literally look at the molecular (and up as needed) level for everything else but consciousness? Not a clue
Have you read Roger Penrose’s stuff about microtubules?

I'm drawing on multiple thread to come up with the theory. So I hope you can see where I'm coming from.

I think Rogan is also CIA, and it's his job like Alex Jones and others, is to give partial disclosure, follow the Karmic resolvement rules, but you have to piece things together yourself, if you didn't see, it's no foul, according to the rules.

 

[Meriasek]

Cloning and gene editing is a fun one. I could see China or others working on genome editing and cloning to produce the perfect politician/leader. All you need is pliable ethics to do edit the genome, and a heavily controlled environment for the child to grow up in to hopefully create a person who is smart, charismatic, with just the right amount of physical attractiveness and psychological drive towards domination to make for a good leader. If the gene editing is understood and precise enough, longevity and health could be improved, which for less-than-democratic countries where the leaders are for life would be a plus.
Also, waiting for a temporary supersoldier serum based on giving people a temporary overload of PEPCK-C enzymes in their skeletal muscle as a massive metabolical boost.
Could also be an interesting weightloss drug...

 

[Otterly]

Consciousness emerges from sufficiently complex processing of sufficiently dynamic sensory input, it's a byproduct so to speak

That is one theory. Again it has no way of proving it other than maybe creating our own artificial simulacrum and seeing if it’s conscious (and how would you determine it is?) this is what I mean - there are no theories that are testable

If the gene editing is understood and precise enough,

It’s not, yet. Or at least what’s public domain isn’t, and also growing a child like that puts them in a non optimal environment. What they will do is breed psychopaths.

 

[Smashed & Slamed]

All of your schizo theories are trash. I'm gonna give you a real schizo theory.
All of the birds, cats, dogs, deer and other animals that play chicken with automobiles are doing it on purpose.
They are doing it to get an adrenaline high. They know the car is coming. The car is loud, the car is bright, the car is going the same way millions of other cars have gone. The car is predictable, even to a small animal brain. The car is infact so predictable the animals try and see how close they can get to a car. They don't see the cars as an existential threat but if they get close enough to the loud and bright box they still get the flight or fight response.
It's why when you drive slow you don't get as many animals trying to become one with the pavement, sans dogs chasing cars.
Also maybe some birds try and use the current generated by the car to piggy pack and burn less calories but it doesn't explain all the small critters.

 

[Meriasek]

That is one theory. Again it has no way of proving it other than maybe creating our own artificial simulacrum and seeing if it’s conscious (and how would you determine it is?) this is what I mean - there are no theories that are testable

Yeah, it's a principally unknowable thing. Maybe AI or rather, the general approach of tensor networks could give us some way of getting into it since it's a more controlled system where we have, in theory, access to each "neuron" and their states. How would we recognize actual consciousness and distinguish it from something fake? No idea. I don't think a certain complexity of responses to stimuli can be achieved without a form of consciousness forming as an abstract emergent property. Although I think that a key factor would be dynamics. Current AI/LLMs are still very static and one-dimensional, as far as I know. At least compared to a biological brain.

It’s not, yet. Or at least what’s public domain isn’t, and also growing a child like that puts them in a non optimal environment. What they will do is breed psychopaths.

You say that as if that's not a desired property for a designated lifelong leader of a state...

 

[NoBueno]

Yeah, it's a principally unknowable thing. Maybe AI or rather, the general approach of tensor networks could give us some way of getting into it since it's a more controlled system where we have, in theory, access to each "neuron" and their states. How would we recognize actual consciousness and distinguish it from something fake? No idea. I don't think a certain complexity of responses to stimuli can be achieved without a form of consciousness forming as an abstract emergent property. Although I think that a key factor would be dynamics. Current AI/LLMs are still very static and one-dimensional, as far as I know. At least compared to a biological brain.

Maybe the measure of conciousness is not if they respond intelligently or logically, but if they somtimes respond emotionally or illogically?
What have they already cloned? You think they would clone humans?

 

[Meriasek]

Maybe the measure of conciousness is not if they respond intelligently or logically, but if they somtimes respond emotionally or illogically?
What have they already cloned? You think they would clone humans?
View attachment 7194000

But such responses can be "fake" as well in a sufficiently advanced neural network.
On the other hand, if consciousness and emotions are just emergent, abstract side effects from the brain processing things, an advanced neural network might have something like that as well. Can't really distinguish, or if it's too strange, recognize it.
As for clones, hard to tell. Due to the international community not being too fond of rogue efforts in genetic manipulation and cloning of humans, any actual experiments would be likely kept secret. Some groups have claimed to have already done it, although those claims haven't been verified as far as I know.
If we are to believe that the actual state of the art is much further than what the public and even dedicated "normal" scientific institutions (i.e. non-secret regular university groups and such) know, then maybe there are cloned humans already. Or manipulated humans. Hard to tell, there hasn't been independent verification of these claims, and if it's actually done in secret, surely there wouldn't be.
Could there be genetically manipulated slave race humans in the DUMBs serving the lizard people or Freemasons or whomever? Maybe. By nature, they wouldn't tell the regular people.
And anything that leaks is so watered down it's easily dismissed.

 

[Bonesjones]

How would we recognize actual consciousness and distinguish it from something fake? No idea.

Because true consciousness can output creative answers that aren't derivative.