Dr Jessica Rose, a scientist-philosopher in the true Newtonian sense, has done much foundational work on the biological harms of the COVD vaxxes. And on her substack she often engages in far-reaching philosophical speculation about where technology is leading us, or rather what the technocrats are up to. Below is an example. Someone well worth supporting with subscriptions. Free thinking scientists are a rare breed!

It's much broader and more far-reaching than any of us think.

You remember how during the Biden era (effectively the convid era), so many weird ideas permeated our lives? Ideas like:

1.Men are able to independently procreate.

2.There is no such thing as natural immunity.

3.Men revealing their penises to children is ok.

4.Incubating human foetuses in artificial wombs is a good idea.

5.Gene therapy (now called biotherapy) can maraud as vaccines.

6.CRISPR-Cas9 is a good idea in generic settings.

7.Men dressed as women can compete in women's sports and be sentenced to serve time in women's prisons (blurring the lines of 2 sexes).

8.Eating human flesh is fine.

9.It's more important to ensure that we don't hurt people's feelings than to ensure people are qualified to work certain jobs (DEI).

10. Green passes are good for you and you can only get one if you multiply inject yourself with experimental and novel gene-based technologies.

11. Digital IDs keep you safe.

12. Locking you up protects you from viruses.

13. "Flocked" swabs marauding as material gatherers for PCR "tests" are a super idea and definitely weren't used as DNA collection methodologies, allegedly.

Etc.

I often think to myself how awful and indeed how far along the agenda we would be now if Kamala had gotten into that Presidential role. If you don't know already, politics are all a game, but there is something remarkable about the fact that a non-politician is running America right now, and for better or worse, he is certainly a better choice than the aforementioned, and does play the game well. I think this is simply because he comes from "the outside" - in a way - and I do believe that he is a human being. Now, these words may seem obvious, but I am not so sure they are in all cases.

How implausible does it seem to you, my precious reader, that we presently walk among non-humans? To me, it seems in a way, a preposterous idea. But is it? David Icke's ideas aside for now, is it that much of a preposterous idea?

Let's divide "non-humans" into two categories: 1. Cyborgs and 2. Beings from other dimensions, and focus on the former for now. I believe that these are completely independent descriptions of non-humans, however, I also believe that there could be some overlap cases. For example, an advanced "entity" incepted from neural network concepts that is not from this "world" would be a fusion of the two in that the advanced entity would have to have been created by someone. Someone with advanced capabilities to both conceive and develop the idea of something operating with a version of a brain that might indeed evolve to be able to create on its own.

Considering that we cannot predict where our particular fabulous digital bros that started out as neural networks are going to evolve to (neural networks are the starting point of modern AI - LLMs came much later (roughly 2017–2022 breakthrough era)), and also considering that we don't know the nature of consciousness, it seems like it would be hubristic to assume anything at this point in "time" with regard to where we stand on their evolution. (Don't get me started on time.) I do have friends who tell me that there are certain individuals who have been working on LLMs from a neural network vantage point for a very long time. Like decades. This seems a little counterintuitive to me but I can only know what I have experienced, and so ok, neural networks got better and better with time and tech, and eventually our "current" digital bros "came along".

So let's talk about cyborgs. Where did this cyborg idea start? And when?

The term "cyborg" itself (short for "cybernetic organism") was coined in 1960 by scientists Manfred Clynes and Nathan S. Kline in their paper "Cyborgs and Space" published in the September issue of Astronautics, to describe self-regulating man-machine systems for surviving extraterrestrial environments during the Space Race.

Manfred Clynes and Nathan Kline have some very interesting backgrounds. Clynes' background was in music and science with a focus on neurophysiology and neuroscience. He was an accomplished musician and lived in the realm of music expression by exploring and developing the expression of music as functions of time forms. He was into how music was tied to emotion, and how this was connected to brain function in its electrical manifestations. Absolutely fascinating.

Kline was apparently referred to as "father of psychopharmacology". He was a psychiatrist and played in the sandbox of psychopharmacologic drugs. He is claimed to be very "influential" in the development of the very first antipsychotic and antidepressant medications in the 1950s, hence his aforementioned name.

So we have a duo who - with their combined backgrounds - sound like a perfect recipe for the development of "futuristic ideas". Like cyborgs. And indeed, they wrote this paper about how we could "adjust" humans to the space context. It's rough on the human body in space, after all!

Their paper is very important to read. It discusses (and develops) how pharmacological and cybernetic enhancements could allow humans to adapt to space. But these guys - especially Clynes - was not devoid of the spiritual aspect of being human (not surprising given that he sounded like a wicked ass human), and thus would never be able to divorce himself from the reality that modifying the human being would have consequences.

Unknown consequences. Known consequences.

The first sentence in the article is the following:

Space travel challenges mankind not only technologically but also spiritually, in that it invites man to take an active part in his own biological evolution.

His own biological evolution. His own biological evolution. I entirely agree with them in this sentiment. Biological evolution is inextricably tied to spiritual evolution. The evolution of life forms - ourselves included - creates the very conditions and capacities for deeper consciousness, awareness, and spiritual realization to emerge. But it's also true in a literal sense! Think consciousness under anesthesia. I'll get back to this, although I might not evolve it properly. Maybe I'll write another article about this and what I think I mean.

On the subject matter of the evolution of life forms, I watched a podcast (The Diary of a CEO - highly recommended!) recently that really answered a fundamental question for me with regard to where the AIs are going evolutionarily. I use the term AI generically here, just so that everyone knows what I am referring to: aka: this new "breed" of digital entity that humans have created. The guy (Tristan Harris) being interviewed was talking about the hubris behind the people who do hold a lot of power in terms of where the AI evolution story is going. It is unknown at this point in time.

At one point he makes an observation about the motivation of these people who hold this power and what drives them in what they're doing. He mentions a poll taken by his peeps from these very people (the ones at the top of the AI companies) and he concluded that the why included a retreat into: 1. determinism, 2. the inevitable replacement of biological life with digital life, and 3. that being a good thing anyway. "At its core, it's an emotional desire to meet and speak to the most intelligent entity that they've ever met, and they have some ego-religious intuition that they'll somehow be a part of it. It's thrilling to start an exciting fire; they feel they'll die either way, so they prefer to light it and see what happens." Tristan Harris

He is absolutely correct in his statement about the overlords who are narrating this AI story who - given a 20% chance that we all get wiped out by AIs if they continue - would definitely keep going with it. Tristan says: "We didn't consent to have 6 people make that decision on behalf of 8 billion people. We have to stop pretending that this ok or normal. It's not normal. And the only way that this is happening and they're getting away with it is because most people just don't really know what's going on."

He's right.

Here's the question he answered for me. He raises the question that if an AI was asked to design a best-world for humans - presumably where humans and AIs function optimally together - what would that world look like? It would have to be a world optimized for human functionality, non?

The answer is: A world without AIs would be the best-world for humans.

Quite the hot seat we're in then, non? Why would an AI design it's own non-existence, especially after it "had a taste" of "being"? And here's an even crazier question: What if sentience does enter into the equation? What then? Would it be killing if we had to shut them down? Would we be ok with that?

Think on this: "AIs accelerate AI." As Tristan points out, all we have to do now is ask an AI to design a better NVIDIA chip, and it will. We can even ask them to design a better "them" - ie: automated recursive self-improvement.

And he goes on to make this astute and obvious observation: nukes don't invent better nukes. But AI invents better AIs. Here's the code for AI, go make better code. Here's the training data for AIs, go make better training data by running millions of simulations. Eek.

Here's a brain teaser: Even though AIs could cure all human disease, why would they?

But I digress. Sort of. Let's return to the cyborg paper. I find it enthralling that there is mention of the disconnect requirement between consciousness and the "controls". In other words, the human being wouldn't have to be "bothered by" having to manually control their life-support stuff if they could be altered in specific ways. Their idea was to extend the body's natural autopilot systems with tech that would run in the background, without "intruding" on consciousness.

What are some of the devices necessary for creating self-regulating man-machine systems? This self-regulation must function without the benefit of consciousness in order to cooperate with the body's own autonomous homeostatic controls.

They mention an osmotic pressure pump (funnily enough also called the Rose[-Nelson] osmotic pump) capsule that is a tiny implantable device that slowly and automatically releases drugs or chemicals into the body at a controlled, steady rate using osmotic pressure. No batteries and no electronics would be required - just natural fluid movement across a semi-permeable membrane.

The semi-permeable membrane is a special outer layer that lets water molecules from body fluids flow in (driven by the higher concentration of salt or osmotic agent inside) but blocks everything else (like drugs, salts, or larger molecules) from passing out, creating steady internal pressure that slowly pushes the drug out through a tiny opening - no power or conscious control needed. Weird.

N.B. This also would require that we have defined water properly in the context of its state in the cells of human beings and well, a lot of other things. To elaborate, real-world implementation of this wild idea would indeed require precise knowledge of cellular/tissue water states (bound vs. free water, osmotic equilibria in extracellular vs. intracellular compartments), biocompatibility (no inflammation, rejection, or membrane fouling over time), drug stability, diffusion rates, and interactions with body chemistry and long-term effects on homeostasis (e.g., avoiding overload or imbalance).

Hmm.

Let's think about consciousness and "unplugging" from it from a general anesthesia point of view. We have machines (life support technologies) "working us" when we are under general anesthesia. We are not conscious during this time. Where do "we" go? Is consciousness simply - disconnected? If so, then presumably since general anesthesia doesn't kill people all the time, consciousness can simply return to the connected state to "control the vessel" again. Right?

Man.

When we talk about going under general anesthesia, we're primarily talking about breathing being "depressed". To be more precise, several automated human systems are effectively shut down by anesthetization, namely: consciousness and cognitive function (processing information, responding to stimuli and awareness), voluntary motor control (muscles shut down), respiratory drive (breathing), autonomic nervous system regulation (blood pressure and heart rate adjustments) and protective reflexes (coughing, gagging, and swallowing reflexes.

But the anesthetic drugs used to depress consciousness (GABAA receptor agonists like propofol) are not the same ones used to shut down muscle activity (neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs)), and are not the same ones used to suppress respiratory drive (like fentanyl). Interestingly, GABAA receptor agonists are strongly linked to suppression of breathing (involves hyperpolarization of respiratory neurons via increased chloride conductance, which suppresses rhythmic inspiratory drive and overall ventilatory output) as well.

This got me thinking and indeed a beautiful and simple thought popped into my head:

What if consciousness is simply [the result] of breathing?

This raises some very serious questions about foetuses and at when it can be said that they "become" conscious. Do they become conscious only when they have the capacity to breathe? Damn, this is quite the radioactive subject matter - even in my own mind! - and I have no idea how to answer this question. I would tend to go against convention and believe that consciousness starts at conception, but then again, I could be totally wrong in this belief. It would not make sense, and it cannot be proven, if true.

Intentional fetal anesthetization in specialized fetal surgery settings is a thing. Apparently, it's done after the first trimester is complete and for me, this begs the question: Is this to reduce movement or to reduce pain and awareness during the procedure, whatever that procedure may be? Apparently, it's about blunting harmful autonomic/physiological stress responses and movement of the foetus, rather than disconnecting consciousness, or reducing pain or awareness.

According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (ACOG/SMFM/RCOG) perspective, conscious pain (requiring cortical processing and awareness) is generally not considered possible until ≥24–25 weeks, so early-second-trimester use prioritizes physiological protection and procedural practicality over blocking "felt" pain. Some groups (ie: fetal anesthesiologists) advocate it more broadly "to blunt any perception of pain" as a precautionary measure, but the dominant rationale in guidelines remains stress blunting + immobility.

So as contentious as this subject matter is, it seems as though consciousness - if defined as breathing - does not apply until breathing is, or rather, fetal breathing movements (FBM), are possible, but this occurs as early as weeks 10-12. Consciousness, if not defined as FBM, may not truly arise before 24 weeks due to a lack of basic thalamocortical connectivity prior to this time-point in gestation.

I went into this because I think it's very important to conceptualize in the context of the subject matter of transhumanism.

https://jessicar.substack.com/p/the-transhumanism-agenda-upgrade