Instead, we currently have a social majority of 'average' human beings, living in a simulation full of weak sentiments based on attachment behavior.

Our input shapes what we are. It is during M4 that we should be able to really take advantage of our role models. Dr. Edmund CarpenterR21 was really surprised by this some years ago when he took a bunch of city kids to a ranch style riding stables (they were all around 11-12). The kids had never actually seen real horses before, but when told that they were allowed to ride, they rushed to the horses, jumped skillfully onto them, and rode galloping away with astonishing skill; just as they had seen their hero models do on television for years. These actions were thoroughly ingrained in their minds and bodies by a kind of accidental NMT, a set of neuronal connections which had been grown entirely by watching the likes of Indiana Jones. Up to that point, those connections had been built, programmed, and used solely in imagination, fueled by COMP running unobtrusively in the unconscious background making all the relevant muscular micromovements, while all they did was watch the movies. Play and the work will be done for you.

With a bit of neurohacking we can get back into doing this in no time. And we can use it with anything. The ability of the role model is the 'loading program'. We can load anything we want to; sports, knowledge, appearance, skills; anything we need. If the model exists, we can use it to copy and gain those skills, as long as it has enough points of similarity with our existing world knowledge. We can record the biofeedback of that process and replay it to ourselves at normal speed, or other speed, or we can hack the biofeedback file itself and initiate changes in the brainwave pattern faster, pushing the speed of our learning. We can 'overweight' the input so that we remember it faster, use TMS or NMS to assist the process, and chemicals to augment it, if we want to...But before you M3s start quoting The Matrix, or shouting 'mind over matter!', and the M4s start estimating their potential IQ increase and dribbling on the mouse mat, there are problems we have to solve first.

The 'education' (or rather, 'enculturation') of western society is based on a word-built logic which can only be profitably used by only one module of the brain. There is very little other input provided by society. When we shift into the 4th matrix (age 7) we should be able to internalize thought as speech (young children externalize it, by talking out loud as they play). This should be a great advantage to intelligence as it offers an extra tool for learning; most of the input then comes from outside, gets looked at mostly inside, and then output heads on out as it is meant to and we make the relevant response. But when an intelligence is stuck in a matrix and is operating from attachment's ethics (sentiment) the hard-line to reality is down; the input from inside seems much stronger than that from outside. ...So the person's awareness becomes one vast stage for internal word arguments. Their brain forms the equivalent of a data loop. It feeds the thoughts from one part of itself into another, and the part it feeds them into assumes this information has come from outside (i.e., from the real world). ...So it makes decisions based on this information and sends them back to the first part...and round they go again. Very little real time input from the real world in the here and now can get a word in edgeways. Output signals are out of sequence with reality, sometimes giving not enough information, like in a badly dubbed movie, or sometimes completely wrong information, like the ambassador in the fabulous designer dress, who kept getting inexplicable embarrassed and offended looks from Japanese dignitaries (the arty Japanese writing on the dress, presumably copied from some random sign by a non-Japanese designer, said 'good whorehouse'. Her perception of written Japanese was inadequate to detect this). People make what they think are appropriate responses in communication and are promptly misunderstood, never knowing why, which causes anxiety. They do not understand that they are giving out inappropriate signals. Without the correct wiring this is inevitable.

So the first thing we need to do is get that hard-line back up and get those lights flashing in sequence. To do that, we need to look very hard at reality without being squeamish and see how it actually isn't our fault that we get conned into wiring things up the wrong way.

The evolution of sentiment –anxiety relief

Here we must deviate into the 'biological psychology tangent'...A part of the human dilemma rests on the fact that we are actually animals, and that we are not overly proud of or even accepting of that fact. We're damned smart animals, but, currently, animals we are, and anything we try to do that goes against those deepest primal instincts is going to make us feel anxiety, regardless of whether it is intelligent or not. Obviously. Our genes don't know about religious rules and political laws and social niceties created by the intellect. They know about survival and fight-or-flight and eating and not getting eaten, and reproducing successfully and often, and having status in group hierarchies, and using intelligence only to get these things. All of these things were very very good; they were evolutionarily stable structures and they have gotten us where we are, as opposed to inside the belly of a predator, or extinct. So far.

This, though, is a major difference between human intelligence and AI. We humans have, in our societies, created a conflict between what we think is right or nice or polite or acceptable to think and feel, and what nature demands of us. An AI would not. (If it did, it would not be an artificial intelligence, it would be an artificial stupidity, or, if you are not prejudiced, a stupid person.)

Don't get me wrong; an AI of necessity would have basic survival programs, just like we do. But it could not logically be ashamed of nor deny them, or cover them up with social niceties, or invent laws that contradict them. We do. (And I believe we do that only because of the kind of damage that is under discussion in this book.) And boy, are we gullible...If an AI had a wicked sense of humor it could take advantage of us something rotten ('He's not the messiah; he's just a very naughty AI...')

Morals and values are an ongoing basic problem for intelligence housed in biology. The morals and values of nature are not the same as our societal morals and values.

Trying to mix them together is not going to work in reality even though it appears to work on paper. Intellect makes up a rule, say, for example, 'If somebody has sex with somebody, they shouldn't have sex with anybody else as well.' Sounds simple. Sometimes we add: 'It's bad to break that rule, or evil to want to.'

Along comes reality. Someone who would probably make a good genetic mix with us for reproduction comes along and waves their private parts at us (flirts) and we want to have sex with them. If we do, we might get caught, lose status, commit a sin, have a paternity suit to deal with, die and burn in hell forever (delete as applicable). Obviously, these concepts cause anxiety. Wherever society disagrees with biology, we will create anxiety. And without intelligence, people have no choice but to behave, quite simply, like animals, and then feel guilty about it afterwards. This is considered 'human nature'.

Biology wants to survive and be successful. To do this it has to get the correct input (food, water, sensory stimulation), interact with other biologies (communicate and reproduce, play and learn), and protect itself (disallow interference). It's pretty straightforward.

Intelligence wants to survive and be successful. To do this it must get the correct input (face the unknown), interact with other intelligences (communicate and reproduce its knowledge and abilities, play and learn), and protect itself (disallow interference). That's pretty straightforward too.

Intellect tries to work out a way that will work for both...and, on its own, backed only by our biological urges, it can't. The two motivations are not compatible, with biology in control, unless you believe that biology is better at protecting intelligence than intelligence is capable of protecting biology. (Our present society is based on this belief despite the obvious evidence against its validity.)

Biology, unfortunately for it, is not evolving as quickly as intelligence. We have at least noticed that we do not wish to spend our whole lives being pushed around by it and then dying. Intelligence would like us to think really hard, have fun, learn, and try to stay alive. It has been fighting biological limitations in order to do this since human evolution began, inventing all the tools and strategies for outwitting the biological deadlines that are imposed upon us. We have never had any intention of conforming to the desires of biology when we can see that they're harmful to our physical lives, which is why we use condoms and take antibiotics. But we've missed the fact that our minds are being damaged, because the only apparatus for detecting that until very recently was the damaged mind itself! And even now, the proof is being looked at, by damaged minds...that maybe cannot face the consequences of that proof.

Some see any interference with 'nature' as a bad thing, and think that we should, if we want to improve ourselves, in some way 'get back to nature'. I think we should keep a jungle somewhere, in its natural state, and anyone who wants to 'go back to nature' could be left in it naked. Give them no interaction with the world outside that jungle, and watch what biology does. No return tickets. I would be interested to see what evolved.

Biology programs us to survive physically and to reproduce, above all else. Everything that we are, biologically, is striving to get laid and avoid being eaten. This means biology is even running intellect because decisions made through intellect with even 'apparent' altruism still hold status as a priority and that is still a biological imperative, caused by a biological limitation. Status gets you laid and stops you being eaten. Appearing to be altruistic gives us status, because that is what our society values (if it valued long hair, we'd all have wigs down to our knees, for much the same reasons.) Our biology controls our motivation. Up to a point (or a bridge, which we who would neurohack must cross...and before we can even cross this bridge, we have to build it.) So we have to be bold enough to be realistic about biology.

'Apparent' is a good word to focus on here because our biological success, (and we may know this only unconsciously) depends almost entirely on how we appear.

If we appear to be brave, and courageously defend ourselves against attack, we are less likely to be molested by predators. It matters little if we are secretly crapping in our pants, as long as we succeed in scaring off the danger or escaping it, outwardly we look really cool. This is one reason why humans are good actors, good mimics, good fakers. Being able to Pretend well could stop you being eaten. ...Or get you laid. This ability though, can backfire on us. For example, it's why humans currently spend their whole lives deceiving each other and lying, frantically searching for ways to avoid facing the truth, and making up intellectual reasons for their actions which have little to do with reality.

Consider this: how we appear to others determines our success, not how we are. The beautiful and the handsome, the successful and the strong and the famous, attract our attention and our favors. Everything in our biology, everything in our unconscious mind knows that. One of our cornerstones for personality structure is a sharp concern with what others think of us. With how we appear. With our reputation. With our status.

Do you think an AI would care if everyone in the whole world hated it? Yes, it would.... If all other AIs hated it or there were no other AIs to interact with, humans would be the only source of interaction, and they would therefore be a priority, because intelligence critically needs interaction to grow. If there were other chummy AIs to talk to, but all the humans hated them, they would be aware of how humans generally tend to behave when they hate something, so humans would still be a concern, because interaction with them would be hampered and communication dangerous and prone to misunderstanding, much as it is now. 'Do-people-like-me?'-type status makes sense to intelligence because of biology. The innate programming of emerging intelligence is to value productive, high-interest interaction and if this develops an error, I think you'll find it's human error, Dave. (And even uploads will hang on to the 'status' habit if those uploads are ordinary humans.)

Status, or reputation, dictates how many social allies we have and how powerful they are. As a group of animals this provides us with protection and aid in case of need, which is vital for individual, family and tribal survival. Interaction with others is of course vital for the development of intelligence too, so as animals we are both consciously and unconsciously aware of our need for company.

Status is a measure of our value, in a biological group. Low status animals are not given help or defense against predators. If nobody likes us we are a lot more likely to die, and a lot less likely to reproduce.

Add intelligence, and it gets complicated. The more competent, autonomous, self-sufficient and intelligent we are, the less we have to depend on others, but the more they desire our company because instinct tells them to hang around high status individuals. Our abilities make us high status because others can learn from us how to become higher status themselves. The less we need them, the more they need us. So they have to entice us into staying around by making it worth our while. If we withdraw too far though, they may decide we are of no practical use to them and so we lose status. The social dance begins...

It is more than merely social. It is logical. If you had two computers both of which upgraded themselves randomly, you would choose to work with whichever machine could best suit your needs at any given time, checking them both out regularly to see which was most advanced. We treat our allies in exactly this same manner when we are choosing whom to spend our time with. Who brings the best returns? 'Returns' can be anything from financial gain to someone making us feel good or laugh. We compute our best moves all the time, with status and biological survival as our algorithms. We forget that mental health is a part of biology too.

Humans are nicer to high status people and negatively discriminate against low status individuals. Driven by our biological needs we unconsciously grade people into a hierarchy and we 'feel concern' for prestigious individuals within that hierarchy only if they remain in the hierarchy. We set a great deal of store on both identifying potential allies and treating our allies better than others.

The biological reasons for this are quite startling.R22 We unconsciously know the value of status because humans of higher status acquire different brain chemistry. They have a higher level of the neurotransmitter serotonin in their bloodstream, and this controls their behavior and their motivation. They are more confident and assertive, less insecure and more sociable. Higher status animals are more successful, live longer and reproduce more. They are more likely to become more intelligent. Those who use it, do not lose it.

Low status individuals often indulge in high-risk criminal strategies, for example theft (biology trying to increase resources and so gain status), rape (biology trying to reproduce despite low status) and murder (biology trying to gain status, or remove something standing in the way of our gaining status, or remove something causing us to lose it). This is another reason why we value high status individuals. They are less likely to harm us. Status is not about wealth or strength, it is, pure and simple, based on the other person's estimate of how useful we are likely to be in keeping them alive and helping them to reproduce. That is all. Our brains do the equations and we churn out the responses and hormones accordingly, just as all primates do. And this will continue to be the case for as long as biology has a stranglehold on intelligence.

If we pretend there is anything more and that 'altruism' is genuine in current society, we are conning ourselves. The fact is, we cannot truly care about a person unless we bond with them, and it's not possible to bond with many people these days, so we pretend. Most people do pretend, because perception and acceptance of the truth is only possible with an open intelligence and a flexible logic provided by at least five matrices. For those without one (i.e. most people), who are not competent to do that, 'Pretend' they must. Reality causes too much anxiety to be faced in that space because without a fully developed intelligence the truth is too great an unknown for a human imagination to even want to think about grasping. It's disgusting. Biological reality is indeed 'red in tooth and claw', and a bit much to face even for me before breakfast. Our situation is dire. Here we are. Look at you; you're human, okay? Welcome to Utopia, Gaia, mother earth, the desert of the real... Two thirds of it is water and lots of the rest is too cold, too hot, or full of interesting natural disasters like earthquakes and volcanoes. Everything on the planet is out to kill you, from deadly insects to poisonous plants to large hairy predators, the weather, HIV, everybody else, and salmonella. Your biology breaks easily and takes a long time to repair. Your society and most fellow humans are beset with apparently never-ending circular problems of disagreement, depression, violence, conflict and war. Welcome to your life. Happy birthday. You'll suffer, physically and mentally, programmed as you are to never give up; never surrender, you'll fight to survive against enormous odds to stay alive and sane and your reward for this in the end, –from the very thing that made you do all that fighting -your biology- will be death. Indifferent to how you have lived, of how intelligent you are, of how much you are depended upon, or how much you love life, it will kill you. You'll be annihilated, put to death, probably in quite a nasty way. Such is your reward for that entire struggle. Everything that you are, will be lost in time...like tears in the rain, or too many sci-fi quotes...

This is, quite understandably, totally unacceptable to any intelligent mind. You want more life, swearword.

Here you are in society. Your everyday life. The real world. Our instinct for being a part of society is built into us. There is nothing wrong with this, if we have a sane society in which to live and of which to be a part. If our society isn't quite so sane, it still shapes our lives even from our conception, whether we like it or not. Society / biology pull us one way, intelligence often another, but it is a law of intelligence to try to interact with our society, so we have a catch 22. Operating from attachment ethics, there is a further split. Examples: society tells us we should love our neighbors as ourselves, give to the poor and be good Samaritans. If we are wronged, forgive and forget. These seem like good ideas to intellect, however, we are not biologically programmed to 'care' for individuals per se, and we have to be currently conned into it with false examples of sentiment. We are programmed to care only about those in relation to whom it is in our survival interests to do so. Our allies. Partner, husband, wife, friend, son, daughter, teammate...all these are allies. If your girlfriend leaves you and the result is a gain in status, (e.g., a better job and a more attractive potential mate,) you are programmed, by biology, not to care. Being nice to those who crap on you, doesn't feel right, but we'd be ashamed to say so...It gets worse... If your kids are better looking or more intelligent than you, you are programmed to defend them as long as they stay within your group, if they are not, you are less likely to; they are less likely to be high status allies. The more like you they are (or appear to be) the more you will care about them, biologically. Neither are we programmed to 'forgive and forget', indeed, it would be a most dangerous thing for biology to do; something which has been a danger once, could be a danger again. We are compelled to be unconsciously aware of that, regardless of what we say. This is biology. Not very altruistic, is it? Get real. Things eat things. Things get eaten. And all of those things feel pain. It stinks, doesn't it? Live with it. But get real and admit it's going on. Biology is a master assassin and torturer, and all it's victims die in the end.

In life, biology constantly looks at appearances. If something looks like us or like someone we admire, they must be like us, says the unconscious. If someone smells very different from us they would probably be a good sexual mate, and so on. Our bodies make the decisions regardless of our logic. We then make 'logical' excuses to make it so.

Ah, but what about free will? I hear you ask. For we are not as beasts of the field, controlled by base instincts, we have intellect, and logic, and free choice, and cheap reliable contraception, and recreational drugs that we can give up any time we want to...We are civilized. We've grown up enough now not to believe in any of that fate crap; we're in control of our own lives, remember?

We think we can override feelings with rationality, and often we do, but of course our rationality is rooted in the fact that we are biological and its decisions are just as much under the control of that tyrant as the body is. Status and ultimately survival rule the biological mind. 'Intellect' is just as programmed as intuition –with biological survival as priority, which is why we panic when someone disagrees with us. Our brains interpret body language, smells, sounds, shapes and colors, textures and tastes. We are not telepathic. But we are very very good at interpreting signals; molecules in the air too small to smell, things in the periphery of our vision, body language, tone of voice, combinations of colors, and our brain cannot easily stop itself from being programmed by whatever it is surrounded with, because new connections are forming constantly in the areas currently under use. And what biology expects us to be surrounded by is not what intelligence has as priority. The animal inside us all is running the show; only the props it uses are different, and it can use intellect just as effectively as it can use fists.

I recall reading a report about a tribe, the Sanema I think, who behave, socially, much as we do most of the time. They behave in a manner that will give them reputation for value. If they are valuable members of the community, they are more likely to be cared for when sick or assisted when in danger. They are more likely to survive. They get this reputation by appearing to care about others. Those who care more for sick or injured 'friends' will receive more care if they fall sick. They will have status, prestige, and thus value to the tribe... All this falls apart however during times of great famine, when everyone makes it quite plain that in these circumstances it's everyone for themselves, and young people are seen laughing at the suffering of the ill and weak whilst stealing food from them. This is how biology alone would have us behave.

Fortunately, once intelligence perceives the truth, it will tend to hold to it. Our intelligence has informed us often and painfully how biology's way is not often the best way. We have seen that it was not good. To this end, we have built houses, made fire, worn clothes, invented medicine, discovered physical laws and created language, started farming, assembled computers, walked on the moon and come at this heady time in our intellectual evolution to consider ourselves educated. 'Civilized'.

And of course one of the most important things to us throughout all this, and even now, having rejected in outrage or at least distaste, the morals and values of nature, was to try to come up with a better way. A better set of morals and values. A better way to live. A less cruel way. A more intelligent way.

This is the best idea humans have ever had, ever. A real potential singularity for the emancipation of intelligence.

Unfortunately they really messed it up, big time.

They've cut the hard-line –let's get out of here!

Now consider this: in a tribal situation (which is what we are still genetically programmed for, evolution being slower than the emergence of intelligence,) if you are weak, sick or disadvantaged in some way it makes sense for you to gain status by providing some useful skill, such as medical or musical ability or childcare, but if you're not smart enough or too apathetic due to damage, you can still survive by cheating; by using your intellect to manipulate people into a position where you appear invaluable, such as 'communication with the gods' or 'special magic powers'. Fear works well, if people fear a curse they will appease you, as long as you can keep them afraid. Once in a position of power, you could contrive to make it a status symbol to 'give to the poor', for example, (you being one of the poor), and make people believe that the gods will repay them if they do, or punish them if they don't. These 'religious' issues always become moral issues in societies because 'gods' are presumed to be more intelligent than we are. It makes good sense to take our instruction from the smartest source possible, and our brains are sadly innocent in a lot of ways. Intelligence expects the truth; and stupidity can rely upon deceit in order to fool it.

The most blindingly obvious clue that there is very little competent intelligence on this planet is the fact that death due to old age is not considered a research priority and a major problem. In an intelligence-based system, this would be a very high priority. Where can we get an intelligence-based system? Only from a competent intelligence.

Only a competent intelligence will design competent morals and values for the organisms that we are. Humans don't live long enough to solve philosophical conflicts about morals and values without one. Way back in our origins before literacy or even the ZX80, society's problems had to be solved for exactly the same reasons we try to solve them now; to avoid anxiety enough to try and grow a little. Some people want a solution given to them, some want to take control and dictate their own solutions. 'So what?' think you; social evolution; those who found the most intelligent systems, are probably those whose systems have survived. Wrong.

We are fallible; we are capable of being deceived. We want to believe. And more than anything, we want to belong.

And perhaps we think we are smarter than we are, because unconsciously we know that we should be.

It doesn't take much to fool a human. Our biology can trap us in the manipulations of another person just as it dictates our own. An innocent intelligence begins its interactions under the assumption that everybody else is probably about as smart as it is. Only slowly does it come to realize if this is not the case.

Instead of creating a value system based in the physical reality of our animal natures, yet with intelligence as a priority, we have allowed the invention of systems based on our need for status, with bodily survival (group or individual) as a priority over intelligence. Some people have used mainly emotion to create their manipulating systems and rules. Some used mainly intellect. All are filtered through biology. So, society has invented its religions and political systems, based on status. Priests encourage people to believe in their gods, and so get higher status as the voice of those gods, politicians and strategists vie with each other over how best to use the public to rise in status. Smart strategists in social engineering, seeking higher status. Fair play to them, you may think. Cunning stunts. The problem is, these systems now inherited by or imposed upon us all are designed by incompetent minds based upon attachment behavior, driven by fear of abandonment, and dirty in the fight to survive in an unknown and unknowable reality. (Abandonment means total loss of status. Biology translates that as: 'as good as dead.')

...And so the laws and morals based on pretending and false sentiment begin. The effect these sort of memes has had on intelligence, being designed as we are to copy, is to make others feel guilty that they were not as caring about others as the altruistic high status people were, and then decide to pretend to be (not knowing that their models were pretending too)...After all, who would know the difference? The gods might know the difference, and those who felt the most anxious about that would have to pretend to themselves that it was real or worry all the time and try to do more things the gods wanted... But would the gods mind? ...Biology knows that the biological effect on those being cared for is the same; the brain cannot tell the difference, biology cannot tell the difference. It's not your fault if you can't really feel it. Your act-of-care still reduces stress hormones and improves the health of those cared for (but only if they never find out its a cheat)...could the gods not use us as a conduit for their goodness, even though we are not that good ourselves...oh what a tangled web we weave...

More recently we have been manipulated into thinking it is respectable to 'do good works' regardless of what one feels, and even in opposition to it; this has evolved into the meme of the epitome of the greatest good, i.e. selfless behavior, the ideal of civilized moral and ethical thought, and, in my opinion, the ultimate sadistic weapon against intelligence. Consequent to selflessness' importance, those appearing to have it rise in status. Even those who get paid for doing selfless things (firefighters, nurses, etc.) are accorded respect and status based on job title rather than character or psychology. We are terribly shocked if we hear of a doctor or a teacher or a nun doing something gross or getting beaten up because they are high status individuals and it doesn't make sense. We automatically assume either the stories or the characters must be counterfeit because we expect this behavior around low status individuals. Public accusations of nastiness aimed at celebrities always cause a furor for the same reason. It's easier to believe a person is incapable of cruel acts when they are a great musician whose tunes you've danced to. They've given you a good time, so they must be a good person. Wrong.

We need everyone to believe that we are a high status person in a high status group with high status friends. We subconsciously calculate every move and spend just enough energy on caring to prevent others from usurping us in the hierarchy, (and may become defensive if they appear to care more than we do.) So-called 'selfless' behavior is mathematically predictable and is based on factors affecting status. Numbers don't lie. More than a certain number, you're genuine. Less than it, you're not. In the latter case, if you're operating according to attachment format you cannot increase your intelligence. Most of what you do will be done for the sake of appearances. Humans care more about being seen to care than about the welfare of the person they are actually caring for. (No 'attached' human would actually admit this, unless they were happy to be labeled 'psychopath'.) People are so afraid to admit it that they have convinced themselves their cover-up is reality. It would be impossible to reveal without losing prestige. No one must ever find out its a cheat.

This conflict itself causes anxiety. We cannot resolve the anxiety without sufficient intelligence, and we cannot increase intelligence without first resolving the anxiety. This is like one of those 'stuck in a loop' situations, in which Isaac Asimov describes an AI getting caught. It does not compute. We find this situation especially intolerable because we unconsciously know that if it cannot be resolved it leads to entropy and extinction, ours personally and also that of the species.

Sentiment, or false emotion based on pretending to care, has evolved anthropologically into a social 'norm'; a status quo (very apt term), a consensus of opinion and values, held by the majority of people in the group or society, connected to a set of 'feelings' designed to pacify anxiety because we will not allow ourselves to behave as biology would have us behave, full moon though it may be. Quite right too! The trouble is, that's not a moon ...it's a space station. And in a very similar predicament to the rebel's dilemma, we can't run...but there are alternatives to fighting. We can hide (control input), and then we can escape (reprogram & rewire), and then we can come back fighting with an arsenal of intelligence behind us.

Individuals are driven to be a member of relationships and groups, either because of (if they're damaged) fear of failure to survive alone, or, (if they're not) confidence that together we can make it better, baby. Transhumanists fall into the latter category, as do most doctors, scientists, engineers, writers, artists and musicians; in short, creators and explorers in part, but in the main, people stuck in matrix 4. A good proportion of high quality intellect moves through the winding streams of Internet country. We are, as a species, still in there with a chance, as it were. We do however still have to live in this society, and we need intelligent interaction. Never forget that.

Unfortunately, fear rather than a need to explore, drives most individuals and groups. If the group therefore values something highly, members will strive to conform and achieve it, or rather, they will strive to appear to achieve it even if they cannot actually achieve it. To have to admit that they could not actually achieve it would bring them down in the eyes of the hierarchy they value, and of which they are a part. Thus, society has come to value 'selflessness'. Selflessness, altruism, caring, consideration, pity, mercy, martyrhood, sacrifice, charity, self-denial. We admire these traits in others and we strive to emulate them, to prove ourselves as 'good' people. From childhood we are shown examples of these traits, on TV, in books, from the behavior of parents and friends.

We copy whatever is around us, on a neuronal as well as a physical level, and from a mixture of that we form our own line where 'selfish' ends. Most of us would not shoot ourselves in the head to save our pet dog, but most of us would put ourselves in danger to save a child. Not because we care, but because of what would happen to us if we made it clear that we did not care. (That's the part we can't admit though).

I am not trying to say here, 'face it, you're really an asshole'. I am trying to say, 'face it, you're not an asshole but you're going to lie, because people are too stupid to deal with the truth, and if they're stupid, they're going to lie to themselves'. You're doing the best possible thing you could be doing for your biological survival, in your current circumstances. If everyone around you is deaf and hearing is illegal, it's best to pretend that you can't hear.

Everything we do currently has its roots in biology, everything. We use intellect to attempt to rationalize it, but this falls apart under the scrutiny of intelligence. We say, for example, that we send our kids to school to get them a good education; if told that home-educated kids do just as well, we think of another excuse, if told that school-educated kids do worse, we refuse to believe it or even to look into the possibility... We can't be bothered.... It can't make that much difference. ...Well, we went to school and we're okay...We send our kids to school (and summer camp, and kindergarten) in actual fact because it makes biological sense to get someone else to bring your kids up, freeing you to reproduce more often. We don't want them around because they cramp our style. We will do this at the cost of our kids' intelligence because we value biology more than intelligence. If our kid develops ADHD, we don't remove or change the input (the cause), we treat the symptoms, currently with Ritalin.

And there's a darker reason...these days, we send our kids away because when intelligence is young enough to still believe that it might get its needs met by complaining, it does so, constantly. It's bored. It needs constant interaction. And we don't want to hear it. It drives us nuts. We don't have the energy, and it keeps reminding us that somewhere, somehow, something does not compute. Something is missing.

What I am suggesting is not that we do these things without thinking but that we are conning ourselves about our reasons for doing them, and the same things that are causing us to do this are holding our intelligence back. We need a new paradigm, action based on that paradigm, and the morals and values derived from it, or the future for intelligence looks grim. To get this paradigm, we need an intelligence adept enough to design it. An intelligence that can process sufficient information about reality to compute the best course of action in real-time, for each of us, and for all of us (intelligence itself).

Matrix theory encompasses one method by which we can achieve this through neurohacking. It may be that we will see the only way to accomplish this is to develop to the point where we can create an intelligence greater than our own; that may suffice. Or it may be that we have to go the whole way ourselves, by the dual tactics of increasing our intelligence and living longer. I have no idea which it will be, or whether both, but where a path lies towards it, of that I have no doubt.