Category: Matrix

Chemical compasses may rely on quantum spin (Credit: Andrey Volodin/Alamy)

Few of us really understand the weird world of quantum physics – but our bodies might take advantage of quantum properties

By Martha Henriques

If there’s any subject that perfectly encapsulates the idea that science is hard to understand, it’s quantum physics. Scientists tell us that the miniature denizens of the quantum realm behave in seemingly impossible ways: they can exist in two places at once, or disappear and reappear somewhere else instantly.

The one saving grace is that these truly bizarre quantum behaviours don’t seem to have much of an impact on the macroscopic world as we know it, where “classical” physics rules the roost.

Or, at least, that’s what scientists thought until a few years ago.

Quantum processes might be at work behind some very familiar processes

Now that reassuring wisdom is starting to fall apart. Quantum processes may occur not quite so far from our ordinary world as we once thought. Quite the opposite: they might be at work behind some very familiar processes, from the photosynthesis that powers plants – and ultimately feeds us all – to the familiar sight of birds on their seasonal migrations. Quantum physics might even play a role in our sense of smell.

In fact, quantum effects could be something that nature has recruited into its battery of tools to make life work better, and to make our bodies into smoother machines. It’s even possible that we can do more with help from the strange quantum world than we could without it.

Photosynthesis looks easy (Credit: Morley Read/Alamy)

Photosynthesis looks easy (Credit: Morley Read/Alamy)

At one level, photosynthesis looks very simple. Plants, green algae and some bacteria take in sunlight and carbon dioxide, and turn them into energy. What niggles in the back of biologists minds, though, is that photosynthetic organisms make the process look just a little bit too easy.

It’s one part of photosynthesis in particular that puzzles scientists. A photon – a particle of light – after a journey of billions of kilometres hurtling through space, collides with an electron in a leaf outside your window. The electron, given a serious kick by this energy boost, starts to bounce around, a little like a pinball. It makes its way through a tiny part of the leaf’s cell, and passes on its extra energy to a molecule that can act as an energy currency to fuel the plant.

Photosynthetic organisms make the process look just a little bit too easy

The trouble is, this tiny pinball machine works suspiciously well. Classical physics suggests the excited electron should take a certain amount of time to career around inside the photosynthetic machinery in the cell before emerging on the other side. In reality, the electron makes the journey far more quickly.

What’s more, the excited electron barely loses any energy at all in the process. Classical physics would predict some wastage of energy in the noisy business of being batted around the molecular pinball machine. The process is too fast, too smooth and too efficient. It just seems too good to be true.

Then, in 2007, photosynthesis researchers began to see the light. Scientists spotted signs of quantum effects in the molecular centres for photosynthesis. Tell-tale signs in the way the electrons were behaving opened the door to the idea that quantum effects could even be playing an important biological role.

This could be part of the answer to how the excited electrons pass through the photosynthetic pinball machine so quickly and efficiently. One quantum effect is the ability to exist in many places at the same time – a property known as quantum superposition. Using this property, the electron could potentially explore many routes around the biological pinball machine at once. In this way it could almost instantly select the shortest, most efficient route, involving the least amount of bouncing about.

Quantum physics had the potential to explain why photosynthesis was suspiciously efficient – a shocking revelation for biologists…




by Nathaniel Mauka, Staff Writer Waking Times 

Neuroscientists have argued whether we even have free will, but now they want to turn it off.

The Libet Experiment

In the 1980s scientist Benjamin Libet conducted an experiment. He ‘discovered’ that what seems to be free will or the conscious choice to do or not do something is really just the observance of something that has already happened. This completely rocked the foundations of what most thought of as a prerequisite for being human, and the long-held religious view that free-will must always be honored.

Libet recorded people’s brainwaves as they made spontaneous finger movements while looking at a clock. The participants in the study were to tell researchers the time at which they decided to wave their fingers. Libet found that there were several milliseconds of preparatory brain activity prior to the time that people reported the conscious act of waving their fingers. His findings were taken as gospel that free will did not exist. Now we call this preparatory action of the brain the ‘readiness potential.’

What Libet’s experiment failed to consider though, was manifold. It is possible that people were only conscious of an action milliseconds after a subconscious realization. It is possible that they could not indicate their intent as fast as their physical bodies could carry it out – a delay in physical vs. mental activity that has been well documented, and it is also possible that the cognition of an anticipated event is cognized well before the actual event, because the entire causal field is changed by our consciousness, as evidenced by recent experiments in physics. This is called the observer effect as it refers to changes that the act of observation will make on a phenomenon being observed.

Libet implies that the conscious decision act is divorced from fee will, in that it is acted out nonconsciously, and that the subjective feeling of having made this decision is tagged on afterward – however – we already know from vast amounts of research from Jung and others, that we know a lot more than we consciously allow ourselves to honor.

Nonetheless, Libet’s experiment has weathered such criticism and the implications have been replicated with even more advanced equipment including the use of FMRI technology and the direct recording of neuronal activity using implanted electrodes.

How to Reprogram Or Eliminate Free Will

These studies all seem to point in the same, troubling conclusion: We don’t really have free will. So why then are neuroscientists trying to remove our free will?

A study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by researchers in Germany, has scientists backtracking on their original assumption that we have no free will.

The German researchers worked backwards in a way, from Libet’s experimental protocol, using a form of brain-computer integration to see whether participants could cancel a movement after the onset of the unconscious preparatory brain activity identified by Libet.

If they could, it would be a sign that humans can consciously intervene and “veto” processes that neuroscience has previously considered automatic and beyond willful control. There were more complex methods utilized including the use of colored lights, but in short, they found we could easily undo actions and “veto” them – a sign of undeniable free will.

A quote from the lead researcher, Dr. John-Dylan Haynes of Charité – Universitätsmedizin in Berlin, becomes telling in order to discover how neuroscientists working for the deep state could override our own free will,

“A person’s decisions are not at the mercy of unconscious and early brain waves. They are able to actively intervene in the decision-making process and interrupt a movement. Previously people have used the preparatory brain signals to argue against free will. Our study now shows that the freedom is much less limited than previously thought.”

These findings were supported by a French study which found that “nonconscious” preparatory brain activity identified by Libet is really just part of a fairly random ebb and flow of background neural activity, and that movements occur when this activity crosses a certain threshold.

And even more studies confirm what we all suspected regardless of early scientific findings – that we all act consciously, perhaps to different degrees, but certainly with free will.

When we form a vague intention to move, they explain, this mind-set feeds into the background ebb and flow of neural activity, but the specific decision to act only occurs when the neural activity passes a key threshold — and our all-important subjective feeling of deciding happens at this point or a brief instant afterward.

“All this leaves our common sense picture largely intact,” they write, meaning we can break a chain of events (determinism), but that also implies a certain responsibility for our actions.

The Cooperation of Subconscious and Conscious Awareness

All these studies do suggest, though, that our free will requires healthy partnerships between conscious and unconscious systems. In special circumstances like playing musical instruments, engaging in sports, or driving a car, we apparently recruit specialized unconscious agents with the ability to carry out certain acts quickly without conscious “permission.”

If these “unconscious” agents can be reprogrammed, then we can be controlled, essentially by “disabling” our free will – at least according to pedantic science.

Attempts to Destruct Free Will

Aside from using drugs like scopolamine, known to wipe our subconscious plates clean, so that new, possibly nefarious programming can be installed, and obvious mind control techniques admittedly researched by the CIA (with the help of Stanford Neuroscientists, and others) along with additional intelligence agencies of our government, there are subtle programming methods used every day in the form of subconscious messages in advertising. There are even cell phone apps meant to control the free will of the user. You can imagine what other technologies have been employed.

My advice? Use your free will to override unwanted subconscious programming. If it requires both conscious and ‘non’ conscious compliance, to remove free will, then we can at least interfere by utilizing our conscious awareness and removing tacit consent. That ought to keep the physicist busy for a while, at any rate, and the deep state wasting our tax dollars on more Mind Kontrol experiments.

About the Author
Nathaniel Mauka is a researcher of the dark side of government and exopolitics, and a staff writer for Waking Times.
This article (Deep State Neuroscientists Believe They Can Turn Off Free Will) was originally created and published by Waking Times and is published here under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Nathaniel MaukaIt may be re-posted freely with proper attribution and author bio.


by Jeff Street, Contributor, Waking Times

Understanding the origin, purpose, and true nature of the earthly reality that you are experiencing can be instrumental to transcending your current level of consciousness and moving up to the next level of the game. For some, especially the unawakened, this information might be a bit overwhelming or hard to believe but it could prove to be very important to the future course of your life both, during this one and the next.

Within the Construct

As with all realities created within the One great cosmic mind, and there are multitudes, our earthly reality is simply a mental construct. There are many individual parts/aspects of the One who have chosen to put their focal point of awareness within this construct — to dive into, and play the Earth game. And they all chose to do this for the same fundamental reason — because it provides extremely interesting and formative experiences that drive the evolution of consciousness. And this is the point of all realities because the foundational stuff of existence IS CONSCIOUSNESS.

YOU are one of these aspects of the One that is playing the Earth game right NOW. Whether you know it or not, your true essence IS, and ALWAYS has been, a thread of the universal consciousness. And you, and the higher levels of you, on behalf of the One, have been exploring the nature of yourself and existence by creating a multitude of realities and playing a multitude of roles (lives) within those realities.

The Separation Game

In most of the multitude of realities that we created and played within we knew, to varying degrees, what we were — creator beings that are integral parts of the One creator being — Source consciousness, prime creator, God, or whatever else you like to call it.

But within this great diversity of realities, there were none in which we completely forgot what we were — and this possibility intrigued us immensely. What would that be like? And what could it teach us? It certainly seemed like it might be very interesting, to say the least.

So in our eternal quest to know ourselves “we” (e.g., higher levels of ourselves) set out to create this new type of reality — one where we would completely lose our connection to our divine source, forget that we are creators of our reality, and forget that we are all one. A reality where we would think we were separate from the creator and each other — a reality that could aptly be called “The Separation Game.”

Our entire Universe is a manifestation of the separation game. It’s like a huge multi-stage set where the separation game is playing out on many worlds and at many levels. It’s an immensely fascinating multi-level game that I will be exploring further in future articles, follow the blog to stay tuned. One of the worlds where the separation game is in full swing is our very own planet Earth.

Even though the separation game isn’t limited to Earth, I’m focusing on its manifestation on Earth for two reasons; (1) For the obvious reason that everyone reading this article is currently immersed in this game right here on Earth — I doubt many ET’s are following my blog, and (2) The state of the game on Earth is fast approaching a great transition point which should be of great interest to all the participants — it certainly is to a wide array of non-physical beings as well as ET’s that are observing and even assisting.

Players Within the Game

Some of you may object to my characterization of our earthly reality and lives as “a game.” And that’s because you have forgotten the real you, and become deeply immersed in the illusory drama.

The term “game” is actually quite appropriate — just as both kids and adults choose to play games for fun, entertainment, and to learn so do our souls choose to play within the earthly reality construct.

In fact, our experience of the earthly reality works in a way very similar to how our computer games work. In a computer game, you are the player and your consciousness controls an avatar within the game world. You perceive, experience, act and react within the game world as your avatar — the character you are playing. But because you can’t completely forget that the “real you” is outside the game, you never get completely lost in the game and think that it is “real” — you know that it’s an illusion.

In a very similar way, your soul is the consciousness that is directing your avatar (your body) within the earth game world. The big difference is the earth game was designed is such a way that we would forget that we are souls playing within an illusory world. And so we get deeply lost within it and begin to believe that it is “real” and that there is nothing else. And our souls willingly CHOOSE to play the earth game just as people willingly choose to play computer games.

Designing and Creating the Separation Game

It was not at all obvious how to create a reality where we would feel completely separate from our source and each other and forget we are creators. We experimented with many designs before hitting on something that worked. The key elements that allowed the objective to be achieved were the “veil of forgetting”, the role of “the adversary”, our limited physical senses that perceived the world as discreet and separate objects, the substantial delay between our thoughts and their manifestation into reality, and the very strong contrast between the polarities present…


About the Author

Jeff Street awakened about a year and a half ago, after having been an atheist/agnostic scientist type with absolutely no spiritual beliefs for most of his life. After many ‘magical’ new experiences, he is now passionate about learning and sharing his insights about spirituality and metaphysics on his blog You can also follow Jeff on Facebook via

This article (The Origin, Purpose, and Destiny of the Earth Game) was originally at Divine Cosmos and is posted here with permission.



Photo Illustration: Vocativ

Taser has started its own in-house AI unit, laying the groundwork for police body cameras that record fully-searchable video evidence

Last week, Taser, the stun gun company that has recently become an industry leader in body-mounted cameras, announced the creation of its own in-house artificial intelligence division. The new unit will utilize the company’s acquisition of two AI-focused firms: Dextro, a New York-based computer vision startup, and Misfit, another computer vision company previously owned by the watch manufacturer Fossil. Taser says the newly formed division will develop AI-powered tech specifically aimed at law enforcement, using automation and machine learning algorithms to let cops search for people and objects in video footage captured by on-body camera systems.

Moreover, the move suggests that body-worn cameras, which are already being used by police departments in many major cities, could soon become powerful surveillance tools capable of identifying different objects, events, and people encountered by officers on the street — both retroactively and in real time.

The idea is to use machine learning algorithms to streamline the process of combing through and redacting hours of video footage captured by police body cameras. Dextro has trained algorithms to scan video footage for different types of objects, like guns or toilets, as well as recognize events, like a foot chase or traffic stop. The result of all this tagging and classifying is that police will be able use keywords to search through video footage just like they’d search for news articles on Google, allowing them to quickly redact footage and zoom in on the relevant elements. Taser predicts that in a year’s time, their automation technology will reduce the total amount of time needed to redact faces from one hour of video footage from eight to 1.5 hours.

Screen Shot 2017 02 15 at 1.14.40 PM

A Dextro demonstration shows real-time classification of people and objects in video

Searchable video will also have major implications for civilian privacy, especially since there are no federal laws preventing police from trawling through databases to track people en masse.

Taser has previously expressed interest in adding face recognition capabilities to its body camera systems. A Department of Justice study published last year also found that at least nine different body camera manufacturers either currently support face recognition in their products or have the ability to add it later. And according to a recent Georgetown University Law report, roughly half of all American adults have been entered into a law enforcement face recognition database, meaning there’s decent chance that any random person walking down the street can be identified and tracked in secret by a camera-equipped cop.

A Taser representative told Vocativ that while Dextro’s computer vision technology will allow Taser’s law enforcement customers to detect faces for the purpose of redacting them from videos, it does not currently support face recognition…




Web-Based Brain Damage and Mindless Data Consumption | Global Freedom Movement

By Brendan D. Murphy, co-founder Global Freedom Movement, author The Grand Illusion

Even though we think we’re getting a lot done, ironically, multitasking makes us demonstrably less efficient.
Daniel J. Levitin, neuroscientist

Evidence is mounting that our haphazard info-consuming ways on the web are adversely affecting our neurological and cognitive functioning – as well as wasting time by making us far less efficient – and far more distracted – than we think we are.  The internet is a wonderful (read: essential) thing for humanity, but the way we use it seems to need some tweaking.

According to a study in the Journal of Digital Information, people who read documents online containing hypertext didn’t retain as much information as people reading without hypertext. The temptation to click on hyperlinks caused breaks in focus and attention, interrupting the flow of the material, thus compromising memory retention.[i]

Long-term memory is essential for building models, maps, or schemas – a.k.a. context. When we are poor in context, our ability to make informed assessments of incoming information is crippled. New information may be rejected simply because no groundwork (context) has been laid within which to assimilate it. Learning is stifled.

There is also the issue of “multi-tasking.” MIT neuroscientist Earl Miller states that our brains are “not wired to multitask well…When people think they’re multitasking, they’re actually just switching from one task to another very rapidly. And every time they do, there’s a cognitive cost in doing so.”[ii]

We pay for our broken attention span in mitigated comprehension and recall. Scattered attention on the internet does not conduce to contemplation and the formation of deeper meaning, or broader understanding through dot connecting, a.k.a. context building. The ultimate example, of course, is aimless scrolling through social media feeds, “witnessing” lots of information while learning virtually nothing from it.

Daniel J. Levitin, neuroscientist, warns us that “Multitasking creates a dopamine-addiction feedback loop, effectively rewarding the brain for losing focus and for constantly searching for stimulation,” adding that this rapid switching from one task to another “tweaks the novelty-seeking, reward-seeking centres of the brain, causing a burst of endogenous opioids (no wonder it feels so good!), all to the detriment of our staying on task. It is the ultimate empty-caloried brain candy. Instead of reaping the big rewards that come from sustained, focused effort, we instead reap empty rewards from completing a thousand little sugar-coated tasks.”[iii]

If you’ve ever tried to prise an iPad or similar device away from a small child after they’ve settled into “zombie mode” and mindless scanning, you’ll know that they often do react like crack addicts having their drug confiscated just when they need their next hit. The endogenous opioid findings make sense of this disturbing phenomenon.

More broadly, the case can clearly be made that the way we’re currently using technology is fostering an intellectual decay and poorer cognitive performance. As author Nicholas Carr puts it, “We become mindless consumers of data.” That must be one reason why John Vallance, former headmaster at Sydney Grammar School – one of Australia’s top performing mainstream schools – had not long ago banned students from bringing laptops to school, requiring handwritten essays and assignments until year 10. No doubt that genius educator Rudolf Steiner would approve if he were here today. Vallance describes Australia’s billions of dollars invested in school computers as a “scandalous waste of money.[iv].

We may be far more vulnerable to subtle sources of distraction than we’d like to believe. Glenn Wilson, former visiting professor of psychology at Gresham College, London, found in his research that “being in a situation where you are trying to concentrate on a task, and an email is sitting unread in your inbox, can reduce your effective IQ by 10 points.”[v]

Ouch. Some people may not have 10 points to spare!

Russ Poldrack, a neuroscientist at Stanford, found that learning information while multitasking causes the new information to go to the wrong part of the brain. If students study and watch TV at the same time, for example, the information from their schoolwork goes into the striatum, a region specialised for storing new procedures and skills, not facts and ideas. Without the distraction of TV, the information goes into the hippocampus, where it is organised and categorised in a variety of ways, making it easier to retrieve.[vi]

This finding speaks volumes about the value of focused attention and sustained effort. In yogic terms, such one-pointedness is called dharana. Evidently it’s good for our brains!




Resultado de imagem para The great cryptocurrency heist

image edited by Web Invesigator

Blockchain enthusiasts crave a world without bankers, lawyers or fat-cat executives. There’s just one problem: trust

E J Spode writes on topics at the intersection of science, politics and popular culture. He has been published by 3:AM Magazine, which is currently serialising his novel The Oddity.

On 20 July 2016, something happened that was arguably the most philosophically interesting event to take place in your lifetime or mine. On that day, after much deliberation and hand-wringing, in the aftermath of a multimillion-dollar swindle from his automated, algorithm-driven, supposedly foolproof corporation, Vitalik Buterin, then 22 years old, announced the ‘hard fork’ of the cryptocurrency Ethereum. By making that announcement, Buterin shattered certain tightly held assumptions about the future of trust and the nature of many vital institutions that make modern life possible. He also really pissed off a lot of people.

How? Well, to understand all that, first we need to talk about trust and its place in the fabric of our lives. Trust seems to be in short supply these days, although we have no choice but to rely on it. We trust schools and babysitters to look after our children. We trust banks to hold our money and to transfer it safely for us. We trust insurance companies to pay us should we meet with some disaster. When we make a large purchase – such as a house – we trust our solicitors or an escrow company to hold the funds until the transaction is complete. We trust regulators and governments to make sure these institutions are doing what they are supposed to be doing.

Sometimes, however, our system of trust fails us. There are runs on banks. People lose faith in currencies issued by nation-states. People stop trusting their political institutions because of the chicanery, short-sightedness and general incompetence of the self-interested clowns running the show. The response to this widespread erosion of trust has been varied, ranging from Donald Trump’s (hypocritical) pledge to ‘drain the swamp’, to the promise of so-called ‘blockchain technology’ and its associated cryptocurrencies.

The blockchain is the key to understanding Buterin’s project. A good way to wrap our minds around the concept is to think of its most famous application: Bitcoin. And the best way to think about Bitcoin is not in terms of coins at all but rather as a giant ledger.

Imagine a world in which we didn’t exchange currency, but kept track of who had what on a huge public spreadsheet, distributed across the internet. Every 10 minutes, all the transactions that took place in that slice of time are fused together into a single block. Each block includes a chain linking it to previous blocks, hence the term ‘blockchain’. The end result is a universal record book that reliably logs everything that’s ever happened via a (theoretically) tamper-proof algorithm. We don’t need to trust human bankers to tell us who owns what, because we can all see what’s written in the mathematically verified blockchain.

But Bitcoin is just one version of the blockchain. The fundamental technology has the potential to replace a much wider range of human institutions in which we use trust to reach a consensus about a state of affairs. It could provide a definitive record for property transfers, from diamonds to Porsches to original Picassos. It could be used to record contracts, to certify the authenticity of valuable goods, or to securely store your health records (and keep track of anyone who’s ever accessed them).

But there’s a catch: what about the faithful ‘execution’ of a contract? Doesn’t that require trust as well? What good is an agreement, after all, if the text is there but people don’t respect it, and don’t follow through on their obligations? Which brings us back to the crucial matter of how Buterin managed to piss off so many people.

In the beginning, Buterin was a hero to the crusaders against trust. In late 2013, at the age of 19, he wrote a document, known as the ‘Ethereum White Paper’. In it, he observed that you could hypothetically use the blockchain to store and execute computer programs – hypothetically, any computer program. This gave rise to Ethereum: a blockchain-based platform that supported self-executing contracts. The commands to execute the contract were built into the contract itself, and the contract was sealed into the (supposedly) immutable and universally visible blockchain. No trust necessary. Or so the story went.

This had extraordinary implications – one of which was that entire corporations could be encoded in the blockchain in the form of ‘decentralised autonomous organisations’ (DAOs). None of the usual trusted business partners would be required: employees, managers, human resources officers, CFOs and CEOs would be rendered otiose. No longer would shareholders need to pay massive bonuses to hedge-fund executives ‘trusted’ to make decisions about our money. In theory, at least, those executives could be replaced by a bundle of transparent, pre-set instructions stored in the blockchain.

About 11,000 people ponied up a total of $150 million to take part. What had they purchased, exactly?

On the back of a wave of excitement, Ethereum’s currency, known as ‘ethers’, went up for pre-sale in the summer of 2014. Ethers would serve a dual function as both the ‘fuel’ that powered the computations on the network, and as a medium of exchange, like bitcoins. In short order, the value of ethers started to climb, and the platform reached a ‘market capitalisation’ of around $1 billion after the pre-sale. (Full disclosure: I participated as an investor at this initial stage but have since liquidated my holdings.)…








Author: Soren Dreier

I have been approached by many who write about the same issue.

They feel like they are spiritually stuck and are making no spiritual progress. I addressed this issue in the post: Change, due to the shift of frequencies that occurred during the solstice. We know that 2017 is, and will continue to be, a year of great change. We can read it in the collective by the election of Trump, and we can read it in the political landscape of Europa. Nothing – Nothing will be the same as now, come Solstice 2017.

I also previously wrote about ambition – spiritual ambition.
Nothing wrong with ambition, the problem is being overambitious, especially in the context of spirituality. It is very understandable that we want to get to where we have a vision about being, but that final touchdown will never manifest. There will be and there are a multitude of mundane or spiritual touchdowns, and we might rest there a bit on our voyage and harvest the fruits of our journey, but one thing we know is that: This Universe is ever creative, in movement, never in the Status Quo, it does not have a start and an ending. It’s a never-ending creative manifestation and we are part of that.

We never run out of spiritual fuel, let me explain.

We miss a great point, we leave a lot out, if we think that spiritual progress or growth only takes place in the spiritual. As a matter of fact, it does: It only takes place in the spiritual, so what are we missing when we talk about our spiritual life?

We are clearly missing out on the fact of being incarnate. We are clearly suffering from belief that the Matrix of Spiritual is all a matter of spiritual practices like meditation, ESP, Yoga and what have we. Worst of all, we are suffering from the illusion of Earthly life, practical life, Karma Yoga, learning by doing and the list is long. If we think that spirituality doesn’t tie in with the practical life each of us is living, we will get stranded and miserable and feel there is no progress.

That is a crucial turning point.

Also, the reason why the historical Jesus only took ‘40 days in the desert’. He needed to detach, meditate, push the envelope before once again returning to his Dharma. His life calling. His mundane and celestial destiny. Ever think of the deeper meaning of being born into this world with this task as a Carpenter? A very practical skill. Hint, hint.

Jesus mentioned here, since the practice of working spiritually with oneself and then returning to the mundane life: in order to embed the insights into that life in the Mundane, to heighten its frequencies and to improve whatever we need to improve is of utmost importance.

It is very similar to this tale from the Tao:

In the tiny village, there lived a Sage, a Mystic, a Seer.
The villagers were very curious to know how it was to be so enlightened. So, they asked the Sage: What is it like to be that spiritual, that knowing, that enlightened. The Sage answered: Before I got enlightened, as you call it, I chopped wood and carried water. After I got enlightened, as you call it (an enlightened being would never refer to himself as enlightened or even awake), I carry water and chop wood, but now I know why I´m doing it.

The key to this answer lies in the understanding of, allow me to call it: Heaven and Earth.

If we are into spiritual self-empowerment, we prefer the Heavens. And that is alright since the picture of the 40 days in the desert applies to that. It all goes on in the spiritual realm in us; some would say the higher chakras. Hopefully we take those insights into our Earthly life and manifest them into that. It is often called: Manifesting Heaven on Earth.

So far so good.

But it is a contradiction in terms to even divide it into: Heaven and Earth. It’s dualism and what we want is Unity within ourselves. A strong coherence between the highest (heaven) and lowest (earth), until we can dissolve that division and see it as: One.

One and the same thing…





Salk scientist finds similar rule governing traffic flow in engineered and biological systems. (Credit: Salk Institute)

by Salk Institute

Although we spend a lot of our time online nowadays–streaming music and video, checking email and social media, or obsessively reading the news–few of us know about the mathematical algorithms that manage how our content is delivered. But deciding how to route information fairly and efficiently through a distributed system with no central authority was a priority for the Internet’s founders. Now, a Salk Institute discovery shows that an algorithm used for the Internet is also at work in the human brain, an insight that improves our understanding of engineered and neural networks and potentially even learning disabilities.

“The founders of the Internet spent a lot of time considering how to make information flow efficiently,” says Salk Assistant Professor Saket Navlakha, coauthor of the new study that appears online in Neural Computation on February 9, 2017. “Finding that an engineered system and an evolved biological one arise at a similar solution to a problem is really interesting.”

In the engineered system, the solution involves controlling information flow such that routes are neither clogged nor underutilized by checking how congested the Internet is. To accomplish this, the Internet employs an algorithm called “additive increase, multiplicative decrease” (AIMD) in which your computer sends a packet of data and then listens for an acknowledgement from the receiver: If the packet is promptly acknowledged, the network is not overloaded and your data can be transmitted through the network at a higher rate. With each successive successful packet, your computer knows it’s safe to increase its speed by one unit, which is the additive increase part. But if an acknowledgement is delayed or lost your computer knows that there is congestion and slows down by a large amount, such as by half, which is the multiplicative decrease part. In this way, users gradually find their “sweet spot,” and congestion is avoided because users take their foot off the gas, so to speak, as soon as they notice a slowdown. As computers throughout the network utilize this strategy, the whole system can continuously adjust to changing conditions, maximizing overall efficiency.

Navlakha, who develops algorithms to understand complex biological networks, wondered if the brain, with its billions of distributed neurons, was managing information similarly. So, he and coauthor Jonathan Suen, a postdoctoral scholar at Duke University, set out to mathematically model neural activity.

Because AIMD is one of a number of flow-control algorithms, the duo decided to model six others as well. In addition, they analyzed which model best matched physiological data on neural activity from 20 experimental studies. In their models, AIMD turned out to be the most efficient at keeping the flow of information moving smoothly, adjusting traffic rates whenever paths got too congested. More interestingly, AIMD also turned out to best explain what was happening to neurons experimentally.

It turns out the neuronal equivalent of additive increase is called long-term potentiation. It occurs when one neuron fires closely after another, which strengthens their synaptic connection and makes it slightly more likely the first will trigger the second in the future. The neuronal equivalent of multiplicative decrease occurs when the firing of two neurons is reversed (second before first), which weakens their connection, making the first much less likely to trigger the second in the future. This is called long-term depression. As synapses throughout the network weaken or strengthen according to this rule, the whole system adapts and learns.

“While the brain and the Internet clearly operate using very different mechanisms, both use simple local rules that give rise to global stability,” says Suen. “I was initially surprised that biological neural networks utilized the same algorithms as their engineered counterparts, but, as we learned, the requirements for efficiency, robustness, and simplicity are common to both living organisms and the networks we have built.”

Understanding how the system works under normal conditions could help neuroscientists better understand what happens when these results are disrupted, for example, in learning disabilities. “Variations of the AIMD algorithm are used in basically every large-scale distributed communication network,” says Navlakha. “Discovering that the brain uses a similar algorithm may not be just a coincidence.”





by Christina Sarich, Guest, Waking Times

The matrix we live in is designed to rip all hope, power, and special talent from your conscious awareness. If you realized, no, remembered your true Self, this unfavorable reality would dissipate in a heartbeat. You’d either find yourself living in another timeline, in a different Universe, or you’d be living here and now, but under drastically different circumstances. If we really are living in a simulation, as even people like Elon Musk and Neil deGrasse Tyson attest, then that means we can change the computer program – our consciousness, and discover our latent gifts to truly topple the ‘ruling’ regime.

Elon Musk and Neil deGrasse Tyson are not alone. In fact, many of the world’s richest and most powerful people are so convinced that we live in a simulation of the real world, that they are funding scientists to help “break us out of it.” 

Whether you believe that we are living in a simulated reality or not, or what the ancients called maya, Tyson asserts that there is a 50-50 chance that our entire existence is a program on someone else’s hard drive. He argues that the gap between chimpanzee and human DNA is only 2 percent, but somehow we aren’t chimps. He states it is a surprise that we aren’t “drooling, blithering idiots,” and that “it is easy for me to imagine that everything in our lives is just a creation of some other entity for their entertainment.”

The theory of maya has been manipulated just as often as modern theories of universal reality. The word maya was first found in the Vedanta, then later again in the Upanishads, and then used once more by the Buddhists and Hindus. Some think maya means magic or illusion, others believe it means an ignorance of reality, as if a cloud was formed over our eyes, preventing us from seeing the Universe as it truly exists. Maya is not idealism or realism, but a simple statement of fact in its earliest form – that we are not what we see around us.

If we were to take Tyson’s advice, we could conveniently blame some other thing for what we’ve created here in this world. But what if the ability to change this computer simulation rests entirely in our own hands? What if we can change this holographic Universe to display another reality? What if we hold the keys to do that?

The Vedantists didn’t say it was impossible, only that the mind is limited because it has great difficultly seeing beyond time, space, and causation. Since no one can jump out of his own self, the limits that have been put upon him by the laws of time and space are practically a jail – a matrix – we could say. Every attempt to solve the laws of causation, time, and space seem to be futile, because the very attempt would have to be made by taking for granted the existence of these three.

But here is what is happening – people are starting to see beyond time, space and causation.  This has actually been happening for eons, but the tools that free us from the matrix are currently often hidden, or used for manipulation instead of the furtherance of freedom.
As Danny Hawley, PhD writes,

“Sri Aurobindo speaks of “a subtle change which makes the sight see in a sort of fourth dimension.” Lama Govinda writes, “If we speak of the space experience in meditation we are dealing with an entirely different dimension.” He continues, “Vision is bound up with a space of higher dimension, and therefore timeless.” He further explains, “An experience of higher dimensionality is achieved by integration of experiences of different centers and levels of consciousness. Hence the indescribability of certain experiences of meditation on the plane of three dimensional consciousness.”

Essentially, we have to move beyond 3-D consciousness – time, space and causality. Sahaj Ramachandran puts it this way,

“The concept of hyperspace is Amazing! Even “supernatural” phenomenon could possibly be explained with Higher Dimensional physics. For example, GOD, if he would ever exist, would do so in the 4rth Dimension. Even “Ghosts”, if real, would have the ability to walk through walls just because they would have access to a higher dimension. We humans live in the third dimension. However, there is a way to visualize objects in 4D.”

Ordinary consciousness is 3-dimensional. All we really see is the surface of things, as if we were watching a film in a theatre. We think we are seeing all dimensions of something in real life, just like when we watch a film – only when we watch the film, we know that what we are looking at is only representative of reality. It’s a flat screen with actors playing their parts up there, yet it seems so real, we even laugh and cry with them.

We also create ‘time,’ which is really the 4th dimension of reality. There is no past, present or future, but our minds slow things down so that we can experience Allness in one ‘frame’ at a time. Time, just like space, and causality are limits of our mundane consciousness.

From a higher-dimensional space (beyond even 4-D or 5-D), we don’t see the screen of our lives in the same way we do while living in a low-consciousness reality. All things become clearly part of a larger reality – a Oneness. Though ‘things’ come in diverse shapes, and colors, they are all working toward and from a unified field. Like space pioneers ripping through ‘time’ via a wormhole, we can exit the matrix into a whole new phenomenon…


About the Author
Christina Sarich is a staff writer for Waking Times. She is a writer, musician, yogi, and humanitarian with an expansive repertoire. Her thousands of articles can be found all over the Internet, and her insights also appear in magazines as diverse as Weston A. Price, NexusAtlantis Rising, and the Cuyamungue Institute, among others. She was recently a featured author in the Journal, “Wise Traditions in Food, Farming, and Healing Arts,” and her commentary on healing, ascension, and human potential inform a large body of the alternative news lexicon. She has been invited to appear on numerous radio shows, including Health Conspiracy Radio, Dr. Gregory Smith’s Show, and dozens more. The second edition of her book, Pharma Sutra, will be released soon.
This article (How to Find Your Way Out of the Simulated Matrix (Maya)) was originally created and published by The Mind Unleashed and is re-posted here with permission.




Resultado de imagem para A Dorid nudibranch (Tritoniella belli) in Antarctica. Photo by Norbert Wu/Minden/National Geographic

Cold and calculating. A Dorid nudibranch (Tritoniella belli) in Antarctica. Photo by Norbert Wu/Minden/National Geographic

The world is full of mundane, meek, unconscious things embodying fiendishly complex mathematics. What can we learn from them?

Margaret Wertheim writes about the cultural resonances of science and mathematics. Her books include The Pearly Gates of Cyberspace (1999) and Physics on the Fringe (2012). She also creates art and science projects, including Crochet Coral Reef, which has been exhibited at the Hayward Gallery, the Smithsonian, and elsewhere. She lives in Los Angeles.

What does it mean to know mathematics? Since maths is something we teach using textbooks that demand years of training to decipher, you might think the sine qua non is intelligence – usually ‘higher’ levels of whatever we imagine that to be. At the very least, you might assume that knowing mathematics requires an ability to work with symbols and signs. But here’s a conundrum suggesting that this line of reasoning might not be wholly adequate. Living in tropical coral reefs are species of sea slugs known as nudibranchs, adorned with flanges embodying hyperbolic geometry, an alternative to the Euclidean geometry that we learn about in school, and a form that, over hundreds of years, many great mathematical minds tried to prove impossible.

Sea slugs have at least the rudiments of brains; they generally possess a few thousand neurons, whose large size has made these animals a model organism for scientists studying basic neuronal functioning. This tiny number isn’t nearly enough to enable the slug to formulate any representation of abstract signs, let alone an ability to mentally manipulate them, and yet, somehow, a nudibranch materialises in the fibres of its very being a form that genius-level human mathematicians didn’t discover until the 19th century; and when they did, it nearly drove them mad. In this instance, complex brains were an impediment to understanding.

Nature’s love affair with hyperbolic geometry dates to at least the Silurian age, more than 400 million years ago, when sea floors of the early Earth were covered in vast coral reefs. Many species of corals, then and now, also have hyperbolic structures, which we immediately recognise by the frills and crenellations of their forms. Although corals are animals, they have only very simple nervous systems and can’t be said to have a brain. A head of coral is actually a colonial organism made up of thousands of individual polyps growing together; collectively, they grow a vascular system, a respiratory system and a crude gastrointestinal system through which all the individuals of the colony eat and breathe and share nutrients. Nothing like a brain exists, and yet the colony can organise itself into a mathematical surface disallowed by Euclid’s axiom about parallel lines. Strike two against ‘higher intelligence’.

Ask any fifth-grader what the angles of a triangle add up to, and she’ll say: ‘180 degrees’. That isn’t true on a hyperbolic surface. Ask our fifth-grader what’s the circumference of a circle and she’ll say: ‘2π times the radius’. That’s also not true on a hyperbolic surface. Most of the geometric rules we’re taught in school don’t apply to hyperbolic surfaces, which is why mathematicians such as Carl Friedrich Gauss were so disturbed when finally forced to confront the logical validity of these forms, and hence their mathematical existence. So worried was Gauss by what he was discovering about hyperbolic geometry that he didn’t publish his research on the subject: ‘I fear the howl of the Boetians if I make my work known,’ he confided to a friend in 1829. To their universal horror, other mathematicians soon converged on the same conclusion and the genie of non-Euclidean geometry was let loose.

But can we say that sea slugs and corals know hyperbolic geometry? I want to argue here that in some sense they do. Absent the apparatus of rationalisation and without the capacity to form mental representations, I’d like to postulate that these humble organisms are skilled geometers whose example has powerful resonances for what it means for us humans to know maths – and also profound implications for teaching this legendarily abstruse field.

I’m not the first person to have considered the mathematical capacities of non-sentient things. Towards the end of Richard Feynman’s life, the Nobel Prize-winning physicist is said to have become fascinated by the question of whether atoms are ‘thinking’. Feynman was drawn to this deliberation by considering what electrons do as they orbit the nucleus of an atom. In the earliest days of atomic science, atoms were conceived as little solar systems with the electrons orbiting in simple paths around their nuclei much as a planet revolves around its sun. Yet in the 1920s, it became evident that something much more mathematically complex was going on; in fact, as an electron buzzes around its nucleus, the shape it makes is like a diffused cloud. The simplest electron clouds are spherical, others have dumbbell and toroidal shapes. The form of each cloud is described by what’s called a Schrödinger equation, which gives you a map of where it’s possible for the electron to be in space…




%d bloggers like this: