Artificial Intelligence is a scam to keep us away from Conscious Technology

I decided to write this story after having seen a series of tweets of the same article about South African Entrepreneur Elon Musk announcing to sponsor a research on Artificial Intelligence.

Humans have been pursuing the quest for "artificial intelligence" since Czech writer Karel Čapek published his play Rossum's Universal Robots in 1920.  

According to John McCarthy, Artificial Intelligence is "the science and engineering of making intelligent machines".

Unfortunately machines won't ever be able to become intelligent because intelligence requires Consciousness and a machine doesn't have Consciousness nor you can't implant it, hence you have to start over from the other way round, that means you first need Conscious material which means living biological material to develop any technology that matters  

That's why when you talk about this matter you need to talk of Conscious Technology and not of artificial intelligence which is absolutely a meaningless expression.  

Artificial intelligence is a meaningless expression because it's an oxymoron as Intelligence is Consciousness and Consciousness can't be "artificial" otherwise it couldn't be "Conscious". 

Plain and simple logic.

That's why if you really want to sponsor a meaningful research on this field you want to pursue something called "Conscious Technology" which is a completely different ball park or better it's a completely different game compared to the scam of artificial intelligence which by its own definition sounds like a joke as "artificial" makes me think of something astroturfed or along that line.

As a matter of fact, for some unknown reason when the media show a future technological scenario it's always about robots and we have been presented with this narrative a million times since 1920.

In practice Artificial Intelligence is nothing else than a remake of robotics. The only problem with this path is that is completely wrong because as I said you have to start from the biological sideand not from the machine or the software because software and machines are made of dead material and they cannot become living as Consciousness is like Paremenides concept of being: "what is is and what is not cannot be"  in other words nothing comes from nothing and Artificial Intelligence is nothing. 

As I said if we want to talk about real technological evolution we must approach this matter from the opposite way, that means if you really want to step into the future in terms of technology you must approach the matter of Consciousness which still at today for our "official science" represents a total mystery and here ends our quest for technological advancement because everything "Conscious" is absolutely taboo for the official science of this planet.

Indeed our "official science" is still stuck where it was two hundred years ago at the double slit experiment, as scientists from planet earth still claim that Quantum Mechanics can only be applied at level of atoms and photons as according to classical physics everything Quantum is still inexplicable.

I repeat it once again just in case you didn't get it:

Classical physics defines Quantum Physics inexplicable.  

Just think to the fact that Quantum Physics was discovered more than two hundred years ago when in 1803 Thomas Young performed the famous double-slit experiment. That experiment revealed for the first time the role of Consciousness as the ground state of physics, although for some unspecified reasons official science has been vehemently denying such role to this day.

For some unknown reasons, official science is still stuck in its Neanderthalian materialistic mentality that the physical universe exists as it presents itself, (just like artificial intelligence) even if Quantum Physics undermined the very notion of physical objects at its foundation, as the universe is not solid, tangible, or fixed, because it's based upon Consciousness. 

Therefore even if the old science of an external physical universe has been mortally wounded by quantum physics, official science is persisting in its state of denial and that's why it keeps talking of such nonsense as "artificial intelligence" and cyborgs because it is coherent with their denial of Consciousness. 

You may easily grasp that if official science denies the role of Consciousness we can't make any meaningful step forward in terms of technology as it would be like building a ship whilst denying the existence of water.

Such a comparison gets more meaningful if you consider that Consciousness is the very essence of the multiverse in which we live as everything that compose the wholeness is Consciousness.

As Deepak Chopra said: "Consciousness is fundamental and without cause. It is the ground state of existence. As conscious beings, humans cannot experience measure or conceive of a reality devoid of consciousness."

If that's the situation, why science still denies the existence of Consciousness and its crucial role in technological advancement? Because one thing is absolutely certain: if we don't take Consciousness as the basis of any future technology we'll stay where we are stuck right now: in the darkness.

Well one of the reason I can think of it's warfare development:

“Success in creating Artificial Intelligence would be the biggest event in human history,” wrote Stephen Hawking in an op-ed, which appeared in The Independent in 2014. “Unfortunately, it might also be the last, unless we learn how to avoid the risks. In the near term, world militaries are considering autonomous-weapon systems that can choose and eliminate targets.”

That's it.

Unfortunately for Mr. Hawking and for the military, if you start developing conscious technology you have to stand for Consciousness, that means the whole purpose of development, application and scope of the project must be respectful of the essence of Consciousness which is also its only fuel and that's love.

If you want to build a conscious device you have to start from biological living fabric which is the only way to develop Conscious technology, as you have to use conscious material.

Conscious material is any living biological tissue that has a frequency which can be aligned with ours. Conscious Technology is all about this: FREQUENCY ALIGNEMENT between two conscious beings.

So why the official science of this planet hasn't taken this path, nor it has acknowledged the crucial role of Consciousness and conscious material? 

My opinion is because of the very nature of this matter, you can't use a living fabric for something that is not righteous in its objective. For example if you build a weapon that is conscious, that weapon won't ever shoot for the wrong reasons and that's why it can't be developed on this planet as our civilisation distinguishes itself for being sociopath in nature as murder is everyday business right here and our governments still rule by fear and terror which is the opposite of Consciousness.

Can you imagine earthling researchers trying to develop a technology that has not belligerent application but its opposite?

Can you imagine the military industrial complex engaged in developing something that exclude the possibility of killing or harming someone as a preset setting? or even worse, a technology that will instantly vaporize any human fear? Not in this space-time.

Fear is the most important tool for the elite ruling this planet, if it would vanish for good that would be the panic among the members of the elite.

On the other side this adversion for Consciousness and the adoration of fear are absolutely coherent with the pursue of a nonsense like artificial intelligence because in the past few years a series of dystopyan scenarios have been forecasted by a number of news articles warning on the dangers of artificial intelligence like a possible "Rise of the Machines".

Fear.

It is kind of interesting to notice that those forecasting a possible disastrous outcome from AI are the same people who are actually working on the development of Artificial Intelligence, including that genius of Mr. Elon Musk.

Mr. Musk is the guy who is the lead investor of this amazing futuristic technology together with a number of other enthousiastic Silicon Valley investors who I don't think would be that happy when they'll find out they took the wrong way and wasted billions. I don't think either that Silicon Valley entrepreneurs are that silly that's why I am 100% positive this research is just a big hoax for the press and a further distraction for the sleeping consciousness of the silent majority.

The cover up on Conscious Technology is so intense that they are using every mean to disinform people on this matter. I just found this article by nothing less than The World Economic Forum, which headline goes "What is Conscious Technology?" but if you read the article it doesn't explain Conscious Technology is but it talks about the artificial intelligence and other nonsensical stuff like unspecified dangerous threats awaiting ahead  of us that really make no sense especially for a supposed prestigious media like the WEF. 

On the other side I have found someone who really grasped what Conscious Technology means and that's  Dr. Rachel Armstrong, who talks about "living architecture", "living spaceships" and this is exactly what I mean when I talk about Conscious Technology.

However we're not interested in the reasons why official science won't ever enter the conscious technology, this was just to let you know that artificial intelligence is the usual nonsense provided to you by our official science only to keep yourself away from Consciousness (did I just write that?).

It might sound paradoxical but this scheme is actually been working big time if you consider that official science was able to downgrade quantum physics to a minor rank of study and managed to keep it stuck at the same level it had when it started in 1804 and that's 200 years ago. Being able to keep something invisible for 200 years it means either you're Houdini or you have a crowd of narcolexic people.

The official science can be pretty confident to make you believe that artificial intelligence is the new thing and that its development can carry dangerous consequences to humankind, which is actually true because being the biggest nonsense ever created on this timeline, the first setback for those committed in this project will be the loss of money of whoever invested in such bullshit.

However the problem of Conscious Technology is that being the ONLY way to technological advancement it makes impossible for our civilization to take that direction because our world is a world run by fear and by a bunch of sociopaths who won't ever accept Consciousness as the main way to our future because otherwise we would have already taken it.

This also demonstrates that the real and ONLY kind of Evolution is the Evolution of Consciousness.

E Pluribus Unum

EXPO 2015: A Missed Premise is a Missed Promise

When I happen to attend a social event, from a dinner party to the Venice Biennale and I want to figure out how the event is like I totally rely on perception. 

The best indicator to find out what you should expect from a certain event can be the general mood you perceive from the environment and the best way to conduct such a task is to snoop around starting from visitors and staff. 

If you want to be able to assess an environment's quality, you want to look into people's eyes.

I look at everyone's eyes throughout every department from the security guards to bar staff to the keepers to the stewards.

And that's exactly what I did yesterday night when I first visited the Milan Expo. I started by looking into the sad eyes of the army officer who was babysitting the bridge that leads to the exhibit main site.

Then I saw the shaky carabiniere who had just being called to help the guards at the security check and I noticed the drill instructor voice tone of the steward who was addressing the sheeple: "If you hold still to take pictures please step aside, don't block the way".

The Expo starts at the Pavilion zero where a giant Latin phrase welcomes the visitor: “Divinus halitus terrae” that can be translated as "the divine breath of earth". 

Curated by tv Director Davide Rampello and designed by Italian Architect Michele de Lucchi, Pavilion Zero is supposed to "take the visitor on a journey to explore how much humankind has produced, the transformation of natural landscape, through the culture and rituals of food consumption". 

What you see first is a series of wall-to-wall library shelves and drawers that in a sort of Hogwart-Victorian style are supposed to gather the whole food memory of our civilization. Unfortunately that first room didn't impress me much as I have felt no emotion in seeing such a waste of wood. 

In my book, human memory when portrayed through matter it's all about carved stones as that's the way through which  the great civilizations of the past were able to pass on their culture to us.

Certainly you can't leave behind a series of posh Victorian wooden shelves that remind more of the Harry Potter saga rather than of human memory. 

The second landmark presented at the Pavilion Zero is a large old tree that stretches through the roof. The tree is supposed to depict "the boundaries of time, nature's resistance to change and the quest for spirituality" except for the fact that the tree is a fake as it's made of iron and plaster and what had to symbolize nature's resistence just created the opposite effect.

Celebrating nature through a fake certainly isn't the best debut for an exhibit whose story premise is "feeding the planet" but I didn't want to spoil the party just at its beginning and I went on through this amazing journey into what was supposed to be our civilization's history. 

More plaster is on display as you proceed through the exhibit as you see a 300 squared meter (3200 sq ft) landscape model that depicts a series of human settlements: from the German mines to the English Agriculture, to the Italian village of Crespi d'Adda and the Argentinian pampas.

The journey ends with New York' skyscrapers as if that would be the top of what our civilization was able to reach. Maybe because every architect secret dream is to build a Manhattan skyscraper? 

We don't know.

The model provides no creative inputs nor it's able to project the visitor into our future landscape it's just a dull representation that completely lacks vision.

As cool hand Luke would say: "What we've got here is failure to communicate"

In the second to last room, you enter a dark environment where a huge stock ticker board displays commodity goods being traded worldwide to symbolize speculation on produce goods as today's ineluctable reality is the stock market rules over the world's destiny.

The problem is the visitor is presented with a massive shiny ticker board whose presence is the most overwhelming in the whole exhibit as if what has to be celebrated here is the technological achievement of being able to trade zillions of tons of produce goods in a matter of nanoseconds.

I guess this is the biggest mistake the authors could have made as visitors might be led to confuse Evolution with Technology which is also the greatest misunderstanding of our time. 

Evolution is only about Consciousness and has nothing to do with technology which is just a reflection of the first. We have been reading a lot of propaganda lately about robots and artificial intelligence taking over, only to keep us away from the real deal which is Conscious-Based-Technology. 

In the last room the visitor is presented with a little mountain of wasted food which is made of plaster and it is supposed to represent today's food waste. The concept can be praised but the waste cannot be represented by a plaster model, waste must be waste or the concept won't reach the audience, unless the authors made it on purpose in order to send the message that in today's world made of media our only gateway to reality is just a representation of it but I strongly doubt it. 

After the Pavilion zero I went to the Thailand pavilion.

We've been waiting about fifteen minutes in line only to assist to a 360 degree projection in Cinerama style of a neverending video spot of Thailand as a tourist destination (Just like the infinite looping of Incredible India on CNN).

After the first commercial ended we were taken to a second room where a sort of 3D corporate Power Point was projected on the room surface. I started asking myself the big questions "what the heck is this? what am I watching? where am I?" I suddenly reached the exit onto the Thai food restaurant which I have been gasping for the whole time but only to clash with the harsh reality of a ........Thai Microwave Diner.

You read it well, the Thai restaurant is a frozen food diner where you can buy your favorite frozen dish and the staff heats it up just like in the early 60's the famous New York chain called Tad’s 30 Varieties of Meals featured frozen dinners on its menu.

Customers at Tad’s cooked the frozen meals at tableside microwave ovens just like they do it today at the Thai Restaurant of Expo 2015. 

That's the weirdest way to unfold the premise of "feeding the planet", but I actually saw a happy crowd who was eager to see how frozen Thai food would have turned into their Expo fairy tale food experience.

An Italian/Thai Mystery. 

The very core of the Expo Exhibit is supposed to be the "Tree of Life" a wooden-covered structure with hundreds of leds surrounded by waterworks. Basically it's like the Fountains at Bellagio in Vegas, a show of water, music and a bunch of lightworks with the addition of hologram-style projections on the water haze.

Unfortunately the only intelligible thing I could spot through the waterworks was the hologram of the Pirelli brand that sponsored the show. That's right: in 2015 we're still stuck with branded communication just like we were in the Middle Ages. 

Where's the innovation? Where's the show? Where's the vibe? 

My first impression of the Expo from the Pavilion zero to the rest of the exhibit is just the huge lack of narrative that affects the whole project.

When you aim at representing something that has to connect to an audience it has to be something that inspired your entire life and that can be inspiring for the rest of the Universe otherwise you better stay home. 

The Pavilion zero, like the rest of this huge exhibit has no heart...no inspiration...and lack of inspiration affects the whole narrative. Since you enter the Expo you can tell the main problem of this huge exhibit is the absence of narrative development as it lacks what Robert McKee would call "the Controlling Idea" or what Lajos Egri would call "the Story Premise" that only exists on the event's logline that is "feeding the planet". Such a narrative flaw engenders a major disruption as the story never takes off.

The Expo Story Premise doesn't unfold along the way because of its lack of development that creates a general sense of dullness and a lifeless mood that you can also perceive from the eyes and the voice tone of the people working there. 

A missed Premise is a missed Promise.

In today's world you must not only master storytelling and narrative but you have to be the nastiest crackerjack on the market as in today's world it's all about sharing stories and if you don't know how to structure a concept into a narrative pattern you're going to kill the whole story, the whole product and ultimately yourself.

Expo should represent the world and what's ahead of us in the future. Instead, what I saw was a soulless dystopian Shopping Mall with no Inspiration whatesoever. 

Where's the chaos in which our planet has been prospering over the past two thousands years? Where's the idea contamination the world underwent down the road? 

Where are the new ideas? where's the enthusiasm that led our world to present day's? where's the earth's divine breath? and where are the hope signs which we desperately gasp for? 

And most of all where is Consciousness? which should has been the real Story Premise of this whole event?

Apart from the missing content and the arrested development of the Expo Story Premise, you have to consider each adult visitor pays an admission ticket of €39 (about $42 or £27) to get into the fabulous world of Expo.

When the Paris Expo closed its doors back on 1889 the Eiffel Tower was left in living memory of that event and in 2010 the tower received its 250 millionth visitor.

What the Milan Expo could leave behind its lack of narrative?  a Frozen Thai Dinner? 

Gianluca D'Agostino is the CEO of GLD Marketing, a company focused on the Marketing of Narrative. "In a world made of social media, Narrative is pivotal to distinguish your business from the digital static. In such an environment you don't have to cope with great storytelling, you have to be the Master and Commander". At GLD Marketing we provide your business with on-the-edge Narrative solutions and set yourself on top of the wave. We won't lure your customers with make-believe copies, our strategy is maximizing your existing potential to the very brinkmanship

The New York Times innovation problem has a name: "Consciousness Shift"

The New York Times innovation report points out the readership problem that mainstream media like the NYT, the Washington Post and the Guardian are going through and which the report identifies as an issue of "audience development" set in a wider blurred setting called "digital media."

Through this article we will demonstrate our thesis statement that identifies the New York Times innovation problem as a problem of "Consciousness Shift."

Not surprisingly, after months of investigation led by a team of eight who are among the most "forward thinking" NYT writers, they came to the conclusion that the more urgent need was "to focus on the core of the New York Times."

That conclusion sparked outrage in the NYT newsroom, as the immediate reaction even cited in the report was that "Focusing on the core is harder than starting something new because every proposal threatens tradition and turf."

Such a reaction is the kind of attitude that has been preventing our civilization from evolving for about 2000 years.

It's called "fear of Self-Empowerment" or on a deeper level "Fear of Consciousness" and it made me think of Umberto Eco's "The name of the Rose" a 1980's novel that wonderfully portrays the very reason behind the birth of religion on this planet:  Fear.

This is an abstract from the movie adaptation of the book:

The starting point of the Innovation report is that over the last year the Times "has watched readership fall significantly". I warmly invite you to read the abstract below which is the introductory paragraph of the NYT Innovation report:

"The New York Times is winning at journalism"

 Our daily report is deep, broad, smart and engaging

-- and we've got a huge lead over the competition"

"At the same time, we are falling behind in a second

critical area: the art and science of getting our

journalism to readers."

Dear New York Times Editor, trying to disguise readership with something weirdly defined as "art and science" is not very honorable coming from a historical institution like yours.

"Getting your journalism to readers" is not "a second critical area," nor it can be mystified or confused with "art and science" because it has nothing to do with witchcraft nor is it something that can be exiled to an unspecified "secondary scientific/artistic area."

Such a redundant essay reminded me of the time when physics scientists at the beginning of the Twentieth Century discovered that Consciousness was involved in the dynamics of matter creation and they were so shocked by what they found out that they had to confine such a disturbing phenomenon within a different type of physics.

The discovery was so dreadfully appalling to their fragile consciousness that they felt the compelling need to call it by a different name. That's why Quantum physics still at today is cut off from "official physics."

Just as is the case with a law of physics, Readership is a direct consequent of Consciousness:

No Consciousness, no readers. End of story.

You can try to hide behind bad faith claims like "the endless upheaval in technology"

Or nonsense like: "Digital media is getting more crowded, better funded and far more innovative"

But at the end of the day you will have to face yourself in the mirror and try to convince the person you're looking at.

Turning towards Consciousness means beginning to connect to the world's collective feelings and looking at the world without "tradition and turf," that is to say you have to start telling stories without all the filters you’ve been adopting along the course of your entire history.

That is to say that if you don't want to completely lose your audience you have to jump ahead of the Consciousness Shift and take the lead.

Obviously if you are stuck with "tradition and turf" I strongly suggest you to drop out of the competition because there is no way out here other than tuning yourself into Consciousness mode.
You can find a million excuses not to. You can call it digital upheaval or digital divide, but what you need to do is to become aware that its correct name is Consciousness Shift. Despite its roboant sound, its implications are not as exotic as you might think. Actually it just means that "you have to follow the vibe," where the vibe is yourself and yourself only.

I understand the concept might sound hostile to someone who has buried consciousness under the concept of “digital upheaval” but once you are willing to catch the shift, surprising things will follow, like solving your readership problem for example.

To be perfectly honest I am quietly optimistic regarding the New York Times situation, because among the world's major newspapers that have been mentioned in the Innovation Report the NYT distinguished itself for its cautious behavior and its attitude of sticking to a strict fact-based policy.

As a matter of fact the NYT never made a real faux pas in comparison to other media like the Guardian or the Washington Post, whose fact-checking policy can be compared to an improv show.

What's even more appalling regarding these two papers is that they almost seem to share the same newsroom because their headlines are often exactly the same.

In fact I was almost flabbergasted when I read in the Innovation Report that competition in the news-industry has become more aggressive and the NYT Innovation analyst affirmed the Guardian and the Wash Post adopted "aggressive strategy."

Strategy?

This is the Washington Post on April 8, 2014:

From this headline you can judge yourself the level of "strategy" put in place by what used to be one of the most respected media worldwide.

The headline reads: "Want people to think you're smarter?"

This is not a joke, this is the Washington Post. 
Remember Woodward and Bernstein? The Watergate scandal? It's the same paper.

Let's analyze this headline deeper: the statement expressed in the headline starts from the assumption that "you got to look smarter" even before "being smart".

Actually the very concept of "being" here is completely trampled on, because according to the Washington Post what really matters is "to make people think" you are smart.

Hence, it doesn't matter if you are a mentally disabled individual. What really matters is other unspecified people's thoughts over your "smart appearance."

Not only "being smart" is absolutely out of discussion here, but the article jumps to a further disturbing level because it aims at leading the reader to assume that what really matters is what an undisclosed number of unidentified people, somewhere in the space-time tissue, might, one day, THINK OF YOURSELF. Without even knowing you but only looking at yourself and at your abilities "to look so intelligent."

Let's see:  Do I want other people (who are not me), to see me as a smarter person?

Ok, let's put it for a second that me, Mr. Nobody, I follow the Washington Post's Cro-Magnon's advice and I start to look smarter than what I think I actually am. What then?

I mean once "my smart look curtain" dramatically falls down what then?

How do I keep looking smart once the people I want to impress go beyond that veil of appearance and realize I am a total idiot?

Does the Washington Post provide a solution for that kind of "Consciousness death" like some after-life pill or something that goes beyond how to look or to impress others?

Do you realize the Washington Post is promoting external appearance disguised by Self-Empowerment?

In the era of Consciousness and Self-Awareness the Washington Post Editorial Policy on Self-Empowerment is to focus yourself on "how you look,” which in terms of self-awareness means absolutely nothing but killing your own Consciousness by hiding it under "what other unknown people might think of me one day."

Is this the Washington Post’s audience development strategy?

Rather this appears to be a totally pathetic attempt to deny the very existence of human Consciousness, which is the default equipment of every living human being. Even if it has to be considered pathetic in its form, this is nonetheless but a lame attempt to completely annihilate the reader's consciousness.

And the New York Times is afraid by the strategic audience development put in place by the Washington Post.

I wonder why.

Audience development is an advertising concept. Most of the time, people who have no advertising background and absolutely no knowledge of audience development (as in the case of the Washington Post) they have a sort of makeshift attitude towards something that actually requires a professional background and years of study and dedication.

Below you see a basic audience-development diagram that shows you how a concept has to be modeled upon the audience segment you want to target.

Usually our client tend to prefer advertising campaigns that fall within the ME/PRODUCT area, while in today's market it's the southeast area designated as BENEFITS/AUDIENCE that makes the difference in terms of audience.

In today's market the targeted audience segment has to immediately perceive:

(1) The product was shaped just for them

(2) The immediate benefit they would receive from buying it.

Diagram Courtesy:  GLD Marketing    www.gldmktg.com

This is just a very basic standard you have to stick to when you work with Audience Development Professionals in a professional environment.

If you go back to the Washington Post headline, it is absolutely and immediately clear that the message they want to sell to the audience is not only off target, because it doesn’t provide a single benefit, but it is actually a self-destroying message, hence it won't ever sell. 
Not in a million years.

Here's another pearl:

This is the Guardian's audience development strategy; we can define it as "the denial of human consciousness, of free will and of quantum physics in one shot".

"Does smoking weed make you a better parent?"

We should start here from the Quantum physics, whose basic assumption is that "it is the observer who creates reality". 
Indeed the famous double-slit experiment demonstrates that "when the observer doesn't watch matter behaves like a wave." Quantum physics was discovered 200 years ago and the double slit experiment is a sneak peek into the power of Consciousness but still at today news media struggle to familiarize with it. Or better they simply don't care because they think it's something that only relates to nerdy scientists and not to our everyday's life and certainly not to the scientific-art of audience development.

Instead, here we have a headline that is just as self-destructive as the Washington Post's article on "looking smarter." It basically starts from the assumption that the reader's consciousness and her/his free will simply do not exist.

This is the Benefit-oriented/Self-Empowerment strategy of the Guardian in terms of Audience Development.

What the New York Times must be aware of, is that a major Consciousness Shift is occurring on this planet and if you pretend this is not happening, you are not only going to completely lose your audience but you are taking the risk that you might end up in a no-time zone like the Bermuda Triangle, where time doesn't flow and everything is stuck, including your own Consciousness.

Consciousness Shift means that a major change is occurring within every single human being on this time-string.

You have to be aware that Consciousness is not an inclusive club like Religion; some people will be left out of this shift. The final result is that the people on the planet will be split in two separate dimensions. On one side you will have those people who were awake enough to "catch the wave." On the other side you will have those who defend "tradition and turf" and who believe that an external reality does exist outside of your own Consciousness. 

The immediate consequence of such event would be that you should stop using stone-age words like "supernatural" or "paranormal" or "truth" and you have to accept the power of your own Consciousness which is by default eternal.

You should open your weltanschauung and shift your point of view not on a global scale but on a Multiversal scale. 
Such a shift involves accepting concepts like "Multidimensional Consciousness", "Life in the Multiverse" and the presence of different time dimensions, which for some reason, despite the fact that their existence was scientifically demonstrated by Albert Einstein almost hundred years ago, it is still a struggle for news media to take it into account.

When you affirm that "Flight 370 likely went down," you are not adopting a cautious attitude towards the facts because to this day there is still no conclusive evidence that the plane actually "went" somewhere. 

Despite mainstream science showed the existence of other time dimensions, according to which planet earth is not just three-dimensional but it has at least 12 different dimensions, this hypothesis has not even been considered by the New York Times. 

My question is Why?

Entering the Consciousness shift means implying that such an event might actually have happened.

Obviously you can pretend that such a shift doesn't exist or that Consciousness is just an empty word and you can keep up being stuck by fear and terror of your own Consciousness but you have to consider the chance that not accepting such a change is actually occurring, might involve the possibility for you to end like those poor people that two thousand years ago were so frightened by the power of Consciousness and so weakened by their inferiority complex that they disguised their own abilities with the work of the devil or the supernatural.

In practice they were so frightened to discover the power of consciousness that their inferiority complex let terror and fear taking over themselves. They needed a safe haven to try to control their unstoppable self-empowering instinct which scared the hell out of them and led them to feel the need to build a safe recovery called religion and buried their consciousness within.

Those monks suffered of very low self-esteem and they could not conceive power as something related to their own self, hence they started to think that an external reality existed outside of themselves. They were convinced the power they felt inside of their consciousness did not come from within but was to be attributed to an external superior entity called god. And that those self-empowering feelings had to be attributed to the Evil One: the Devil.

Strange to say but this human attitude is still alive and well in the present day. The same mistake was made by those scientists who two hundred years ago discovered how consciousness affects matter and were so scared by it that they created a brand new branch of physics to distance themselves from that nightmarish reality.

You have to realize that fear (which has no correspondent feeling in the rest of the Multiverse, hence is earth's most typical product) characterized the whole history of our civilization and it is the very reason for our civilization's major setbacks in all fields that involve knowledge.

The entire human history has to be seen as a continuous struggle between Consciousness and Fear, fear that has resulted in the inability to accept Consciousness as the very fundamental ground upon which the whole Multiverse is based.

Starting to accept what Middle Ages philosophies defined as supernatural as natural could be the first step towards Consciousness Shift and the right direction in terms of audience development.

On the contrary, holding up "Tradition and Turf" in the New York Times it would be like keeping the Holy Inquisition's flag waving over New York city and the whole world.

If you want to survive in the era of Consciousness you have to get rid of such dead weight policy . Especially if you are the New York Times and you are supposed to be the guide of our Civilization through the new era we have just entered.

E Pluribus Unum




@consciousfabric
@giallucad 
@GLDMarketing