• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Voluntary micro chips

ROFLMAO? Someone always has to take it over the top....
 
Amygdala....
 
andrew said:
Amygdala....
Click to expand...
Oh man, college biology flashback!

I had to go look it back up on Wikipedia to remember the details (who knows if this is reliable)

but...

"The right amygdala is also linked with taking action as well as being linked to negative emotions,[19] which may help explain why males tend to respond to emotionally stressful stimuli physically. The left amygdala allows for the recall of details, but it also results in more thought rather than action in response to emotionally stressful stimuli, which may explain the absence of physical response in women."

So, men like to act (problem solvers) under stress, and women want to think it through (emote)

Funny, but how often have we heard this men????
"I just wanted you to listen to my problems...not solve them!"

You just made another rabbit trail Andrew:confused:
 
Surprise ending! :confused:
 
Back to the topic, this is a serious matter that is coming very rapidly. In New Zealand, most purchases are already electronic and have been for years, people hardly carry any cash. Now all bank cards have microchips, and you can just wave them over a scanner to make a purchase, without even entering a pin number. Most shops have these "wave" card readers installed now. You can swipe a modern cellphone over the same reader to make a purchase, and some banks issue microchips on stickers to stick to older phones or anything (e.g. keyrings) to make transactions without a card.

If implanted microchips were introduced tomorrow, most of the public would jump at it as a great new security solution. And you could use them today at almost any shop in the country, the equipment is already installed.

I can also fly anywhere in NZ without a boarding pass, just swipe my phone at the gate and step on board. I can fly to Australia and walk through customs without talking to a single person - just swipe my microchipped passport, have my photo taken, and walk out of the airport. All that would easily be taken over by an implanted chip - meaning you couldn't travel without one.

This will be here sooner than we realise.

The Beast will not be introduced by any one government. It will be a technological solution produced by a multinational corporation, that provides services to governments, banks, transport companies or anyone who has a use for such technology, and gradually assumes control of everything - voluntarily as the service is so effective and every large organisation signs up for pragmatic reasons. What we see today is the trial runs, multiple competing solutions, that will exist until the commercial winners emerge and merge into a single global system.

Keep an eye on trunews.com
 
Of note to our little band of brothers is that that law I mentioned (42 USC 666) was targeted at "deadbeat dads" (remember them?). It's all about separating the husband/wife, father/mother bond, making the men the slave labor of the Almighty State, and the State the Provider/Protector for all women and children. "May you live in interesting times...."
 
The tech industry is rapidly working on artificial intelligence, and openly promoting the idea that AI should be used in government, because in theory an intelligent computer can know and take account of millions of times more facts than a human can and come to a more carefully calculated conclusion based on more facts. For instance, an AI computer planning public transport systems for a town could know every single individual person, where they worked, how often they travelled, what their age was, predict based on their stage of life how their travel requirements may change in the future, know the future businesses planned for the town, and calculate the cost-effectiveness of every single option. By monitoring their communications it could even know who they communicated with electronically and the likelihood of in-person and online interactions being substituted into the future. And that's a very simple example, this can get a whole lot more complex. In theory, it could actually work well. But...

It would only work with complete surveillance of every aspect of life. And, more seriously:

The ultimate goal is that the computer would be so much smarter than humans that we would not be able to understand how it came to the conclusion that it did. We would just have to have FAITH that it knew best.

An all-knowing (ie spying on everyone through technology) super-intelligent computer that comes to conclusions that we cannot understand and have to simply accept by faith is the closest thing to God that man could possibly create. It is actually a direct substitute for God.
Revelation 13:15-17 said:
And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.
And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
Click to expand...
It's easy to claim to know what prophecy is about, far more difficult to actually be correct. We can't fully understand until after it happens. But, assuming the "image of the beast" involves some sort of super-intelligent computer system that interacts with people, consider:
  • All people must "worship" the image of the beast. Worship simply means to bow down to, to submit, to obey. So everyone must do what the beast says through the image of the beast.
  • As part of this, everyone must receive a mark that allows them to function in this new system.
  • Anyone who does not choose to obey the beast and receive the mark, ie who does not "worship" the beast, will be killed.
For a computer that is programmed to control everything to make a "better world", anybody who cannot be controlled is an unpredictable liability. It is entirely understandable that the computer would conclude that they are too great a risk to the system and need to be killed (because it's a global system, so the only way to eliminate them from the global system is through death, you can't put them outside the system any other way). And if people are accepting what the computer says out of faith, they might say "I don't know why we have to kill Fred, it makes no sense to me, but the computer is always right, maybe the computer has worked out that he's about to strap a bomb to himself and blow up a crowd of people so we're having to stop him, I'd never have thought of him as a criminal but who am I to know, whatever the reason we'd better just get on with the job..."

Might not be completely correct. But it's very plausible, and becoming more realistic by the day.
 
andrew said:
Of note to our little band of brothers is that that law I mentioned (42 USC 666) was targeted at "deadbeat dads" (remember them?). It's all about separating the husband/wife, father/mother bond, making the men the slave labor of the Almighty State, and the State the Provider/Protector for all women and children. "May you live in interesting times...."
Click to expand...

Thousand likes!
 
FollowingHim said:
The tech industry is rapidly working on artificial intelligence, and openly promoting the idea that AI should be used in government, because in theory an intelligent computer can know and take account of millions of times more facts than a human can and come to a more carefully calculated conclusion based on more facts. For instance, an AI computer planning public transport systems for a town could know every single individual person, where they worked, how often they travelled, what their age was, predict based on their stage of life how their travel requirements may change in the future, know the future businesses planned for the town, and calculate the cost-effectiveness of every single option. By monitoring their communications it could even know who they communicated with electronically and the likelihood of in-person and online interactions being substituted into the future. And that's a very simple example, this can get a whole lot more complex. In theory, it could actually work well. But...

It would only work with complete surveillance of every aspect of life. And, more seriously:

The ultimate goal is that the computer would be so much smarter than humans that we would not be able to understand how it came to the conclusion that it did. We would just have to have FAITH that it knew best.

An all-knowing (ie spying on everyone through technology) super-intelligent computer that comes to conclusions that we cannot understand and have to simply accept by faith is the closest thing to God that man could possibly create. It is actually a direct substitute for God.

It's easy to claim to know what prophecy is about, far more difficult to actually be correct. We can't fully understand until after it happens. But, assuming the "image of the beast" involves some sort of super-intelligent computer system that interacts with people, consider:
  • All people must "worship" the image of the beast. Worship simply means to bow down to, to submit, to obey. So everyone must do what the beast says through the image of the beast.
  • As part of this, everyone must receive a mark that allows them to function in this new system.
  • Anyone who does not choose to obey the beast and receive the mark, ie who does not "worship" the beast, will be killed.
For a computer that is programmed to control everything to make a "better world", anybody who cannot be controlled is an unpredictable liability. It is entirely understandable that the computer would conclude that they are too great a risk to the system and need to be killed (because it's a global system, so the only way to eliminate them from the global system is through death, you can't put them outside the system any other way). And if people are accepting what the computer says out of faith, they might say "I don't know why we have to kill Fred, it makes no sense to me, but the computer is always right, maybe the computer has worked out that he's about to strap a bomb to himself and blow up a crowd of people so we're having to stop him, I'd never have thought of him as a criminal but who am I to know, whatever the reason we'd better just get on with the job..."

Might not be completely correct. But it's very plausible, and becoming more realistic by the day.
Click to expand...

This is the first original line of thought I've heard on this topic in my entire life.
 
I can't take credit for that, I started looking at it that way only following recent coverage of technology advances by trunews.com. They've been talking about internal US politics for the past couple of weeks, but go back to episodes earlier in July regarding technology to hear the many threads of thought that this is based on, I've just summarised it. They spent all of July at technology conferences around the world joining dots. They will soon be starting a new show focussed purely on technology developments as they relate to end times, this is likely to be in a video format, should be enlightening.
 
FollowingHim said:
I can't take credit for that, I started looking at it that way only following recent coverage of technology advances by trunews.com.
Click to expand...
I came to basically the same conclusion independently a few months ago, without reading another site -- that the image of the beast, the abomination that makes desolate, which is given power to speak, would very likely be some form of government AI system (so if FH doesn't want to take credit, I'll take it!). That's a very cogent scenario.

The word abomination is often used to describe things like idols and related cultic items. The word desolation refers to destruction and devastation. Thus the abomination of desolation would be an idol or other type of object used to worship the antichrist, and which causes destruction or devastation. Matt. 24 describes that devastation as a great tribulation of God's people.

Historical documents become more difficult to understand over time because you get further from the truth. People and places are forgotten, cultures change, and the general zeitgeist is lost. But prophecy should become easier to understand over time, as you draw closer to the truth.
 
Last edited:
Just to dig a bit more into this (now that I'm sitting at an actual keyboard instead of thumbing on a phone over lunch break), here are some of the trends that I've been seeing that make this a likelihood. By way of qualification, I'm a software engineer by profession, and I've had introductory A.I. and robotics classes at the Masters level, though I'm not active in those fields directly.

We already trust A.I. with making minor decisions for us: Where is there a good restaurant? How can I get there? What movie should I watch next on Netflix? What music track should I listen to on Pandora? We're even starting to get "smart home" systems like Alexa. Meanwhile, social media companies use sophisticated algorithms to analyze "Big Data" collected on individuals from various online sources to determine what ads I am most likely to respond to. Most of an airplane's flight is controlled by autopilot, which works similar to cruise control. But now algorithms are getting sophisticated enough to drive cars for you. One of the problems regarding automated cars is who's held responsible when a mistake is made? I'll just say that I would not want to be the software engineer in that situation. As folks here will know, decision-making and responsibility are two key aspects of authority.

As much as technology helps people communicate, it turns out that people still have a sin nature, and that gets exposed. For example, when a public figure makes an unpopular decision, the "twitter mob" descends from on high to shame and harass them (while virtue-signaling their own supposed merit). So of course, we have to start policing how people use technology... for our own good, of course. Facebook is notorious for controlling what its users do and don't see in their feed. Algorithms go through youtube videos and flag anything that looks like it might be copyright infringement. More recently, companies have started getting skittish about what youtube videos they support, and videos that mention controversial topics are likely to get automatically demonetized for wrong-think. Certain users on twitter have reported getting "shaddowbanned", where it looks like their account is still active, but some subscribers don't see what they post.

AI technology also played a huge part in the 2016 US elections, with the company Cambridge Analytica (which claims it "uses data to change audience behavior") allegedly providing sophisticated online microtargeting algorithms -- using techniques such as "psychographic profiling" and "emotion analysis" -- that apparently helped boost Trump's popularity in key battleground states. As an even scarier fallout from the election, people on both sides are now decrying "Fake News" and "Echo Chambers", and trying to find a way to use more AI to decide what stories are and are not "true". This is a departure from previous systems which try to guess what you might be interested in, since it now makes an AI (and by extension, it's programmers) the arbiter of what gets presented to you as truth. That's scary!

With computers learning more about us and getting better at making decisions for us (and us trusting them to do so), and with corporations having an active stake in controlling how those computers control us, it creates the basis for a sort of unofficial "corporate technocracy". Right now, much of it tends to end up being very "democratic" -- in the bad, "mob-rule" sense of the word -- because corporations have to pander to the people's whims in order to prevent a PR nightmare. But it's not hard to imagine that government will step up and take control of this system and start regulating it before long, leading to the opposite evil of an "authoritarian technocracy". And with the continuing trend towards globalization, a global technocracy seems inevitable.

The other day, I came across the following quote from Richard Stallman (founder of the Free Software Foundation, the GNU project, and the idea of "copyleft", as opposed to copyright). Though this is in the context of charging for software (which I'm not totally against, not muzzling the ox, and whatnot), I think it illustrates a much larger point:
Richard Stallman said:
If the users don't control the program, the program controls the users. With proprietary software, there is always some entity, the "owner" of the program, that controls the program—and through it, exercises power over its users. A nonfree program is a yoke, an instrument of unjust power.
Click to expand...
On a more light-hearted note, we're not quite completely there yet: China kills AI chatbots after they start criticising Communism :)
 
Last edited:
Shibboleth said:
Just to dig a bit more into this (now that I'm sitting at an actual keyboard instead of thumbing on a phone over lunch break), here are some of the trends that I've been seeing that make this a likelihood. By way of qualification, I'm a software engineer by profession, and I've had introductory A.I. and robotics classes at the Masters level, though I'm not active in those fields directly.

We already trust A.I. with making minor decisions for us: Where is there a good restaurant? How can I get there? What movie should I watch next on Netflix? What music track should I listen to on Pandora? We're even starting to get "smart home" systems like Alexa. Meanwhile, social media companies use sophisticated algorithms to analyze "Big Data" collected on individuals from various online sources to determine what ads I am most likely to respond to. Most of an airplane's flight is controlled by autopilot, which works similar to cruise control. But now algorithms are getting sophisticated enough to drive cars for you. One of the problems regarding automated cars is who's held responsible when a mistake is made? I'll just say that I would not want to be the software engineer in that situation. As folks here will know, decision-making and responsibility are two key aspects of authority.

As much as technology helps people communicate, it turns out that people still have a sin nature, and that gets exposed. For example, when a public figure makes an unpopular decision, the "twitter mob" descends from on high to shame and harass them (while virtue-signaling their own supposed merit). So of course, we have to start policing how people use technology... for our own good, of course. Facebook is notorious for controlling what its users do and don't see in their feed. Algorithms go through youtube videos and flag anything that looks like it might be copyright infringement. More recently, companies have started getting skittish about what youtube videos they support, and videos that mention controversial topics are likely to get automatically demonetized for wrong-think. Certain users on twitter have reported getting "shaddowbanned", where it looks like their account is still active, but some subscribers don't see what they post.

AI technology also played a huge part in the 2016 US elections, with the company Cambridge Analytica (which claims it "uses data to change audience behavior") allegedly providing sophisticated online microtargeting algorithms -- using techniques such as "psychographic profiling" and "emotion analysis" -- that apparently helped boost Trump's popularity in key battleground states. As an even scarier fallout from the election, people on both sides are now decrying "Fake News" and "Echo Chambers", and trying to find a way to use more AI to decide what stories are and are not "true". This is a departure from previous systems which try to guess what you might be interested in, since it now makes an AI (and by extension, it's programmers) the arbiter of what gets presented to you as truth. That's scary!

With computers learning more about us and getting better at making decisions for us (and us trusting them to do so), and with corporations having an active stake in controlling how those computers control us, it creates the basis for a sort of unofficial "corporate technocracy". Right now, much of it tends to end up being very "democratic" -- in the bad, "mob-rule" sense of the word -- because corporations have to pander to the people's whims in order to prevent a PR nightmare. But it's not hard to imagine that government will step up and take control of this system and start regulating it before long, leading to the opposite evil of an "authoritarian technocracy". And with the continuing trend towards globalization, a global technocracy seems inevitable.

The other day, I came across the following quote from Richard Stallman (founder of the Free Software Foundation, the GNU project, and the idea of "copyleft", as opposed to copyright). Though this is in the context of charging for software (which I'm not totally against, not muzzling the ox, and whatnot), I think it illustrates a much larger point:

On a more light-hearted note, we're not quite completely there yet: China kills AI chatbots after they start criticising Communism :)
Click to expand...
I know I sound paranoid and crazy, but I don't use GPS systems for this very reason. I feel like the routes they take me on somehow reflect the route a particular corporate sponsor of that system wants me to go down, and thereby pass all of their businesses on the way.
 
You know, I don't turn on my phone's GPS either (except a few times by accident, after which I immediately shut it off again). I already know where I am, thank you very much, and no one else needs to know (although they could get a rough guess from cell-tower usage, I suppose). Besides, I enjoy reading maps.

But after thinking about the above issues for the past few days, (plus the recent Google firing scandal) I'm seriously thinking about giving DuckDuckGo a try, as an alternative search engine to Google.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top