PTYL : LOKI : B.A.D.A.S.S

WORD: Content, Value, and Identity, through the Virtual Fracture

2012-01-27T11:39:00.000-08:00

Lately, "the man" has been quite active, attempting to gain back its ability to monetize intellectual property. This includes the S O P A regulations, the crackdown on file sharing services, and I'm sure, there are many more examples.

Anyone, who is somewhat acquainted with how things work on the net, would understand that on the global scale, unless Russia would join in the fight, these actions are pretty much pointless. As long as we have a working global information sharing network, monetizing access to information will become ever more difficult to sustain. At best, information can be quarantined, meaning, potentially, information can remain within closed hermetic circles, but that's the end of it. If an individual does not care for the "confidentiality" of the information this individual purchases, nothing can prevent this information from leaking in an unregulated, non-monetized fashion.

Still, this "struggle", when observed from a different perspective, exposes interesting characteristics of our contemporary reality. Our concepts of content, value, and identity, are obsolete, and I believe, it is this idiosyncrasy, which is the root cause, why this struggle exists.

Let me explain what I mean. Let us begin by agreeing on a basic characteristic of the internet. The internet contains, and transfers, data. The internet does not contain, or transfer, physical objects. While surely, many actions we do over the internet, result with physical changes, from us getting to know of a party, to the delivery of goods to our doorstep, still, all these occur outside the net, due to "non-virtual" social codes, and legal regulations. To explain, if I was to promise you, I would deliver you a car you bought on the internet, the internet itself cannot force me to deliver that car to you. Only the "physical" law authorities, or my social circle, or both, can force me to uphold my side of such an agreement. Regarding the issue of a "social circle", while a social circle can be virtual, its effect on us is psychological, meaning, it exists outside the digital boundaries of the net, as an inherent component of our consciousness. Without our social circle affecting our consciousness, in a manner no different than it affected humans from the dawn of human civilization, and without a legal penalty, the internet and all its inhabitants do not have a mandate over our lives.

So basically, when we are discussing anything related to the internet, we are discussing digital content. We are not discussing C P U's, RAM, routers, etc.

Potentially, we could add "access" to the internet, as related to it as well. However, issues of "access" always depend on issues, which the world wide web cannot decide. For example, if our government disconnects us from the internet, the internet cannot "stretch its arms" and reach us. Only physical devices, and "physical action" over our infrastructures can achieve this.

The thing is, our concept of digital content, is obsolete. To explain, we define digital contents, and its value, according to its manifestation in the "physical" world. As consumers, we do not have a pure "internetish" manner for evaluating content. For example, considering the latest actions of "the man", the idea behind these actions, is to preserve the value data had, in "pre-internet" days, meaning, when we could not gain such data, without purchasing a physical object, be it a book, CD, DVD, or a seat at the cinema.

Arguably, we can find individuals purchasing purely "data-composed goods" on platforms such as "second life", "i m v u", "world of warcraft", etc., which in turn, may lead us to think, we are slowly surpassing this obsolete concept. However, if we analyze the "goods" being purchased on these gaming platforms, we can see a repeating pattern. People purchase objects, who's worth is determined through our experience in the physical world. For example, in "second life", people would purchase "furnished digital houses", overlooking the fact, that we learned the value and use of "houses", in the physical world, as the place where we live in, as physical beings. A simulated 3 D avatar, does not require a house, nor does it require real estate. At best, an avatar needs a hard drive, to store the data defining such "virtual real estates". The same applies to weapons, magic, special objects, etc., on "world of warcraft". To explain, the very idea of giving a "price" for objects, is based on their physical scarcity. If everything was abundant, we would have had to pay for nothing. Indeed, some objects are "scarce" on some virtual platforms, but the decision to make them scarce is done in the physical world, and can be altered with software updates, deeming what was once scarce, abundant, and vice versa. Naturally, this happens also in the physical world. For example, this winter's fashion, would cost much more than that of last year's, sold in cheap outlets. However, such "scarcity" is autonomic to the physical world, while scarcity in the virtual world, always originates from the definitions and infrastructures existing and provided by the physical world. In other words, ultimately, value is determined by the physical world, even if not in the straightforward sense, as in a living breathing marketing guy determining the price of virtual objects.

Indeed, we could claim, that ultimately, being physical beings, indirectly, our concept of value must be determined by the physical world. Still, even if this is true, there is an aspect we do not comprehend, and which is the root cause for the struggle on intellectual copyrights, and that is, that the platforms themselves, consist of data.

Let me explain what I mean. As we all know, computer programs are stored in files. They are data, meaning, they are digital content, not so different from any MP3 or A V I file. In fact, when discussing intellectual copyrights, it applies, and is rigorously upheld, with respect to computer programs, in a much more severe manner than for audio and video content. For example, if you are a software house, and you are found using other company's software without license and/or permission, the level of harshness by which you will be punished, is much higher than if one of your employees is found with an illegal copy of Lady Gaga's latest crap, if you will be punished for it at all. In many ways, you punished yourself enough, in your choice of hiring.

Still, while this fact is both obvious, and well-known, somehow, we completely overlook the fact that the tools and services which piracy, file sharing, hacking, viruses, etc., utilize, are all digital content as well. To explain, naturally, if you use a shell or command line interface, these are all available as they are software, meaning, digital content. However, the torrent files, the download links, the software cracks, the hacking scripts, the viruses, these are all digital content as well. For some reason, we choose to overlook this fact.

Indeed, in itself, this observation seems irrelevant. Still, I believe, we can "extract" a relevant, perhaps even crucial, understanding, from this, or more specifically, from the reason why we overlook the fact, these torrents, download links, software cracks, etc., are digital content.

To explain, obviously, we understand these all represent digital content, and many of us spend most of our time on the internet, searching for this content. However, because essentially, this content is illegal, we do not think of it in terms of copyrights, as we automatically assume, that because it is illegal, copyrights do not apply to it. We think we can't "steal" this content, and hence, it lost its monetary value. Still, obviously, this content has value for the individuals downloading it.

So what am I getting at? Well, the problem is that we apply the same method of evaluation on this "illegal software", as we do in the physical world. We think of its value, in terms of how much it would have cost us, had we purchased it. Somehow, we forget, some people spent their time, energy, and ultimately, finance, to provide us with this content. As the saying goes, time is money, and the time spent on getting a hold on, cracking, and uploading digital content for illegal use, costs money.

The individuals downloading this content, do not "pay this money back" to anyone. Indeed, some file sharing services, allow you to purchase premium accounts, where you get a large bandwidth to download the content you want. Still, generally, all this content is available for free as well, and with a generous bandwidth, using torrents.

Indeed, some content becomes pirated, as act of financial warfare between content selling businesses. Still, this kind of piracy can be eradicated, as it has a "head", on which legal authorities can crackdown. However, a large majority of this content is provided without such "warfare" taking place, simply for the "challenge of it". For example, I can recall one case, regarding the music production software "Cubase", in which the people who "cracked" its anti piracy protection, wrote a full blown computer driver to simulate the dongle, used to ensure the user of the software bought a genuine copy. Moreover, as it turned out, its cracked version had better performance, exactly because it made accessing the external dongle hardware, unnecessary.

To summarize, it appears, the individuals who ensure pirated software is available, such as warez groups, have created their own method of evaluating digital content, which is very different from the manner digital content is evaluated by "the man". Their criteria are not, how much does the content cost if you purchase it legally, but rather, how fast can they deliver cracked software, how fast can they deliver a HD version of a new movie, how reliable is the cracked software (in the sense, that it offers full functionality, and does not crash, etc.).

This is the manner by which they evaluate contents, this is what matters to them, and this is their Achilles Heel. To explain, such individuals still measure value according to the physical world, meaning, according to competition with other individuals, all of which are living human beings, with real lives, real egos, and real weaknesses. By doing this all for free, they show they don't really care for money. By doing this all illegally, they show, they don't react to intimidation of punishment. On the contrary, it makes the challenge more compelling.

Therefore, if anyone wishes to fight for intellectual copyrights, the path cannot be through making it harder to crack software, or raising the penalty. The path is through the things, which motivate these individuals. While the first idea that comes to mind, is to provide "bad copies" to these individuals, so their "deliverables" would be "defected", I believe there is an even more effective method. Crash their pride. You know your software is going to be pirated? Great! Launch your own "warez group", and deliver, way before they do. Of course, you can still sue anyone who uses your product illegally, but make sure, no one fills their egos on your account. Don't feed the troll! Actually, there may be other, less self-destructive methods. For example, don't sue the warez group. Humiliate them instead, through their personal lives, and tie it to their "illegal past-time". Still, whatever you choose, don't feed the troll!

Obviously, I don't expect anyone to take this advice seriously (even if it might actually work in your favor). Still, there is a reason why I spent my time writing this, and it is not to give you advice, which you would most probably find "silly". No. The issue of piracy is just one aspect of a greater phenomenon, which I call "the virtual fracture".

To explain, we have a genuine problem on our hands. We all feel it, but we hardly know what to do with it. I am referring to the internet, allowing individuals to completely detach from their physical existence. The internet allows individuals to disconnect their sense of accountability and responsibility, from their existence. It is as if, in the internet, many of us become the assholes we become when driving a car, only in hyper.

While driving a car, we don't see people. We see cars. We get angry at the "virtual entity" driving this car, judging him or her, in manners we would never allow ourselves to, once outside of the car. It is as if by magic, we become hulligans.

The same applies to the net. We don't see people on the net. We see a name, perhaps a profile, but most of the time, we don't see anything other than anonymous content. The internet allows us to be anonymous, yet still have an opinion, which may sting even more, as it has no "physical" association. For example, if you told your musician friend, the song he wrote is not your taste, he can, and may actually, post a comment on your video, that it's the worst garbage he ever seen. Had you knew it's him, at least you would have known that its motivated by unrelated emotion. However, being anonymous, you can only guess, and you can't even bring up the possibility, in fear of offending your "friend" for nothing.

These kinds of occurrences are typical, and in my opinion, they are turning us to savages, on the emotional level. To explain, regarding the issue of piracy, I am really not sure if all the individuals offering MP3 files, would be as keen, had they been able to see the sad look in a musician's eye, seeing he or she hardly sold shit of their latest album, with all the financial consequences. Personally, I don't fit in this category, as I offer most of my works for free, but not all are like me. Really not.

I believe, it is time we take our head out of our asses, and realize, we cannot leave this situation "as is". No, I am not attempting to pass a pro "big brother" message. What I am saying is different.

People on the net, should not "want" to be completely anonymous. While there should not be a link between our physical lives, and our identity on the internet (as that would be oppressing our freedom), we must strive to establish some sort of consistency, regarding our virtual identity. A person must not be allowed to so easily play both sides. It turns us to backstabbing savages. We must unify our masks somehow, and reclaim our decency, by reclaiming our responsibility and accountability, in the virtual world.

I am really not sure how to accomplish this. I DO NOT think this can be done through "enforcement". No. There should be social privileges, which only individuals who care to keep only one virtual identity get, while the rest, do not. There must still be a disconnection between our physical existence, and our virtual existence, but that does not mean we can tolerate the identity anarchy we have today, as it only makes us hateful and distrustful toward one another in the physical world. It makes us hysterical, anxious, alienated, and I believe, this price is not worth it.

In many ways, this will help tone down piracy, much better than any law or lawsuit. People who cannot afford to have one identity, should feel it is a burden, rather than a benefit, as they feel today. There must not be glory, in inflicting damage on others without retribution.

I know this text is controversial. But sooner or later, if we want to remain human, and not hostile hysterical savages, I believe, we must address it.

WORD: Thrive of the Method

2012-01-24T22:19:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, I found myself attempting to watch the documentary "Thrive" (if you can call it a "documentary"). Considering its contents, I thought I'd relate, maybe learn something new. It is about the new world order, conspiracies, aliens coming to rescue us, secret technologies, David Icke, and all the usual associated issues. I'm not sure if you are familiar with these or not, but on the net, it's hard not to hear of all these.

Well, I did learn something new, but not in the way I expected it. The thing is, that as I was watching this documentary, I kept comparing the notions it proposed, with my own theories, and experience, and as usual, I found that "the devil was in the details".

What do I mean?
Well, I think it is best I begin with the least significant, as once I'm done with the significant issues, I believe returning to these, would be inappropriate. Therefore, let me begin with the "creator"/"director"/"narrator" of this film, Foster Gamble. The charisma I got Foster was a BIG alarm sign, saying "don't believe this guy, he's lying". Why do I say that? Well, the concepts he proposed, were nothing less of an ongoing genocide and apocalypse, yet the guy remained as calm as palm tree on a clear day at the beach. In other words, he radiated he does not care for any of the atrocities he described, yet he used them to justify his arguments. Of course, on the literal level, the guy was 100% politically correct, but you can easily read through that (I'm beginning to wonder, if that was not the whole point, but I'll get to that). Sure, none of the issues he described were new, but then again, nothing has changed in that sense, in our contemporary reality, to better the global-social-economic problems he described, so I guess, either you care for it or not. While the moment you "discover" this the first time, might be "paradigm shattering", there is much more at stake than our personal perspectives, especially for people, whose life depends on, or are at risk, due to these issues.

In addition, I would like to stress, the use of imagery was stressing the term cliché, to outrageous levels. For example, I remember hearing Foster saying humans have compassion, and the imagery was of a monkey in a cradle sucking milk from a bottle. I mean, come on. Compassion means much more than being an animal lover, if being an animal lover as anything to do with it all (actually, from my experience, the opposite is true. I found usually, that the more people care for animals, the lower is their general attitude towards other humans, as if saying, "humans are crap, animals AND ME - are pure").

Yes, this is all a matter of my personal taste, and lacks any rational argumentative validity. Ok, let's continue to the "real issues", starting with the Torus, which is the technological "leap", the creator of this documentary suggested, as means to "alleviate humanity", or as the movie defined it, "to allow us to thrive". Actually, before I continue, let me complain about one more insignificant issue: the use of the word "thrive":

WAKE UP!
Humanity has been thriving like mad! There are more of us today than there ever were on this planet AND THIS IS WHAT THE WORD THRIVE MEANS. The very suggestion something is stopping us from thriving, is misleading. It causes us to assume the existence of a problem, before we understand there is a problem, or that we should think there is, or what it is, kind of like marking the target around the arrow, after taking the time to decide where to plant it, to best serve your interests. Actually, this is quite remarkable, as in the same documentary, David Icke raises the same exact argument, against the leaders of the new world order, the corporatocracy, or however you want to call it (in "Loki", I used the slightly shorter term "corporatracy"). In short, generally, something seems "wrong" in this documentary, from the very beginning.

Now, let me make it clear. There are problems. Sure there are. And I have mentioned these several times in my past works. One of them, is the deluded messianic sense too many people share today, which in the book "inconsistent", I defined as "auto-angelic tendencies". And this documentary "Thrive", is bloated with such tendencies, to horrific levels. The problem with auto-angelic tendencies, is that they make us fight to convince and persuade others, to behave in irrational manners. For the barer of an auto-angelic tendency, this provides great comfort, as the following of others, makes an auto-angel (meaning, a person with auto-angelic tendencies), temporally believe the message, which essentially, is biased and irrational, feel it is, in fact, the truth.

This happens a lot in the movie "Thrive", but not from the direction Foster expects, but rather from the opposite direction. To explain, the corporatocracy surely does exist, one way or another, and no, I don't think anyone in their right mind and conscience would support its actions, from a straightforward perspective. I mean, yes. The direction into which America, Europe, Russia, China, the Rothschilds, etc., lead us, is "mean", to say the least. However, the alternative "Thrive", and MANY MANY OTHERS suggest, is simply a load of bullocks, which following can only result with an even worse fate than that our contemporary reality offers us.

But again, why? Well, first, let us discuss the technology Foster proposed, meaning, the Torus. The truth is, I have no idea what the Foster's concept of free energy refers to. Still, there is one thing I am sure of, and that is, that considering the size of the devices "Thrive" suggests, it does not discuss contingent dimensional technologies, which according to my empirically unproven, yet rigorously explained theory, involve devices who manipulate elements on the quantum levels. The devices the "Thrive" suggests are way way bigger. The size of engines. I am saying this because my theory also suggests we can create Perpetuum-mobile devices, by manipulating the physical imperative of particles to move in space. Still, again, none of the devices mentioned in "Thrive" mention anything of the sort.

Still, as I already confessed in my books, I lack the knowledge and technical capability, to refute the feasibility of devices I have not seen, and hence, my understandings cannot refute the claim for the feasibility of "free energy", in the manner suggested in "Thrive". It just means, I can't determine anything about it, without more information regarding the design and principles such devices implement.

Still, there are other problems "Thrive" impose us with (and when I say "Thrive", I mean all the individuals participating, or supporting it). These problems are of a more "narrative" nature, and I agree, might seem subjective, but when taken in the context of this "documentary", become a real cause for concern.

Let me explain what I mean. First, let us consider the extraterrestrial narrative, who for some reason, wish to share the Torus technology with us, and which according to "Thrive", have been involved with us, from the dawn of human civilization. "Thrive" suggests this ancient link, not me, as well as adding the hypothesis, these "ancient aliens" are our benefactors, or something like that.

And this is the problem. According to the Sumerian mythologies, these same "ancient aliens", created us as a slave race. The same notion reflects again in the bible, where "man is punished for eating the fruit of knowledge", exposing a genuine desire of "ancient aliens", to restrict us from gaining access to such technologies. However, according to the proposed historical narrative of "Thrive", these same ancient aliens, now want to share this technology with us.

So what is the score? The same alien race which created us to be dumb slaves, now wants us to become masters of the universe as them? To have the same technologies? Why? Have we shown any signs we know what to do with such technologies, other than destroy our planet? "Thrive" suggests we have, but there is no proof, just wishful thinking. In other words, historically, these "ancient aliens" are not our benefactors, and if they now offer us technology, we would be wise to doubt their intentions. Moreover, considering the technology "they offer", both suggests free energy, while refraining from utilizing contingent dimensional technologies, suggests it is a hoax, perhaps of an extraterrestrial scale.

You might wonder why I even mention this. Well, the truth is, I have seen U F Os above my flat in Tel Aviv, in 2009, and hence, I cannot dismiss their existence anymore. On the other hand, to the best of my knowledge, they have not "abducted" me, and therefore, I can't really determine what I saw, other than they seem like so many other reports of what is known as "flying triangles". I don't know what these were, who piloted them (if they were piloted at all, and not merely lights, or some type of light pulsating beings). I simply don't know anything. What I do know however, is that they have not brought joy into my life, and by taking my sightings too seriously (due to emotional circumstances which preceded these sighting), I did myself damage. In other words, they are definitely not "guarding angels", in the spiritual sense. That much I know (and if you need clarifications, check the last episode of inconsistent, closure).

I’m saying this, because undoubtedly, there is some kind of spiritual association between U F O sightings, the global December 12, 2012 anticipation, apocalyptic prophecies, and the likes, which might serve as some type of an oratory method, to make us put more meaning in these U F O sightings, than there really should be. According to historical records, there is nothing essentially special about our current time, with respect to U F O sightings, as they have been reported throughout the ages. It does not seem U F Os have ever really left the earth, suggesting that while their technology is advanced, it might not be as advance as “Thrive” assumes, meaning, a technology, which allows vehicles to travel faster than the speed of causality (which up until not so long ago, was considered also as “the speed of light”, although new discoveries have seriously challenged this assertion). Moreover, if that is the case, it might suggest, these aliens are really close, in interstellar terms, perhaps they are even from our own solar system. I mean, why not? Is it because in ancient times, “the gods” said they are from Orion? The same “gods” who gave us zilch of their technology? Would it be such a surprise to learn, these “gods” were from Mars? Jupiter? Saturn? Why? I mean, if the gods of our mythologies are really “ancient aliens”, it means, these planets are fucking named after them!

The whole discussion regarding U F Os has only begun in the last 200 years, suggesting that even if we have historical data dating from before those times, nothing can guarantee these old reports are genuine, meaning, that they have not been added to ancient texts, only in the last 200 years or so. This might even include the very existence of the Mayan calendar, which may have been either reinterpreted, or forged, in these last 200 years, just as it can be genuine.

You might think I am contradicting myself, once claiming U F Os exist, while another time claiming they are fabricated, and in a way you are correct, but my point is different. What I am implying, is that we simply don’t have a well-defined, or even reasonable narrative, to contemporary U F O sightings. We don’t even know if all genuine U F O sightings refer to extraterrestrials, as it is just as possible, that humanity has come up with a strange technology, which is similar in some sense to extraterrestrial technology, meaning, both humans, and aliens, fly these U F Os. We don’t know, and we don’t even know when this all begun, in the sense, that it is just as possible, secret human cultures exist on earth (say for example, in Antarctica), which possess and utilize technologies way more advanced than our own, and have been living side by side along our civilizations, meaning, there are no aliens at all. Again, we don’t know, and neither does Foster.

Moreover, even if aliens were to tell us a message, why should we believe them? Why do we immediately assume, that if a culture of superior technology does not wipe us out, it means it is here to “help”. Can’t we consider the possibility that our planet is simply not worth an “invasion”? Why not? Because it is green? What’s so great about green?
All in all, it seems the manner pop culture and underground culture has deciphered U F O sightings, is not that different from the way our ancestors deciphered their gods, immediately placing ourselves at the mercy of the capabilities they have, and we do not. No one even considers, the levels of submission we show these flying...whatever they are. Is it possible that this is exactly what our governments are attempting to fight? Our enslavement to a civilization, which is neither from a far-away solar system, nor benevolent, yet with fucking great public relations? I don’t know, and neither can I prove (at least to myself) anyone else does.

Back to the subject of the technology, the narrative Foster suggested, was of working technologies of free energy, being confiscated by governments, the same governments which are run by the corporatocracy, which want our planet to be run by one shadow government, by causing some type of genocide type cataclysmic change on our world, by poisoning our earth with the damages of fossil fuel usage, and many other vile things. Now, I am not saying it isn’t true. However, it seems improbable that these technologies would not be in use.
On the contrary. Supposing I was to attempt to cause the entire world to suffer from energy becoming ever more expensive. Would I pay this price as well, when I have free energy generators in my “confiscation garage”? What for? I can sell my own fossil fuel, fake my use of fossil fuels, and use my free energy generators instead, as that would both make me more rich and powerful, and ensure my plan carries out as intended. However, no record of such use is mentioned in the film, or in any other similar message.
Of course, we can argue against this possibility, claiming it might “leak” to the public. However, why is that so improbable, while the public existence of a movie such as “Thrive” is not improbable? To explain, according to the movie “Thrive”, the leaders of the “new world order”, have secured enough dominance, to silence any opposition. This includes, making sure, specific individuals “disappear”. This includes, shutting down the internet, or any other channel, for anyone who imposes a real risk to the corporatocracy. Still, this movie is available, on the internet, the same internet, built by the United States Army, and controlled by the corporatocracy, as far as infrastructures are concerned. And yet, movies such as “Thrive”, thrive on the internet (I am referring to films such as “Zeitgeist”, part one, two, and three, and the likes). Moreover, even specific individuals, such as David Icke, for example, are “left to carry their message”. If their message was so true, if it would have imposed a real risk, it would not have been “out”. YouTube, would not be allowed to broadcast it. There is no real problem silencing anything, and if someone thinks otherwise, I suggest he or she grows up.
The fact is, the corporatocracy can silence this “movement”, if it wishes it. The corporatocracy can silence all our rebellious members, be it hackers such as today’s pop icons “anonymous” (who took their imagery from the Hollywood film “V for Vendetta”, as if that is not a red flag saying “we’re fake”), and had it wished it, the corporatocracy could have issued world-wide genocide much sooner (just use some germ or virus, vaccine some and not others, and everything is done), but it doesn’t, and the reason it doesn’t, is I believe, simply because, that is not its goal.
The reason the current banking system exists, is not because it is just, or because it is rational, but simply because it keeps the order, and allows humanity to “thrive”. Of course, many get screwed by this, but many would have gotten screwed regardless. To explain, the truth is, humans don’t really need much more than they already have, almost everywhere on earth. If they can reproduce, and if they are accustomed to die at a specific age (be it 30 or 120), they have what they need to “thrive”.
However, this would not make them happy. We always want to be more than our surroundings, and if we would all be equal, we would not be happy. Within our current system, we blame our lack of happiness on the fact we don’t have enough money to get what we want. However, if this could no longer serve as an excuse, we would simply blame each other, and start fighting each other, like humans have done from the dawn of human history. I believe, the corporatocracy understood this principle, and found a way to reduce these conflicts, from total wars, such as those we knew until the two world wars, to local struggles, and relatively limited conflicts. Sure, they fuck us all in the process. But we would have fucked ourselves much worse otherwise, and we have a long history to show this.
Now, I know this last statement is infuriating, and you know what? Maybe it is invalid. However, I seriously believe, this is what the corporatocracy sees as their agenda, not the quest for power, not the destruction of earth, but rather a perhaps misleaded sense of responsibility.
Still, I am worried. To explain, the growing popularity of notions such as those “Thrive” proposes, suggests, something else is happening in the background, which is neither the corporatocracy, nor this free energy "save our planet" agenda. Something allows both sides of this conflict to “thrive”, as it understands, neither sides impose a risk to it. Everything points out to its existence, yet no one speaks of it, which is exactly what I would expect of a real source of power. This is what I referred to, in one of my songs from “Loki”, as “the method”.

To explain, I believe, there is a third force, larger than the corporatocracy, David Icke, Foster, and all these guys put together, which due to our concentration over this conflict, we refrain from acknowledging, allowing it to “thrive” uninterrupted. I seriously don’t know what this source of power is (social power that is), if it is human, nothing. Again, everything points out to its existence, and it is the real force pulling the strings behind our society. We don’t know its agenda, but we sure do know it wants us to feel panic and reactionary. To explain, the message movies like “Thrive” deliver, requests our personal involvement in a conflict, which to me, everything shows, is a wild goose chase. Of course, the corporatocracy are no different, making us fight against enemies we single handedly created.

To explain, don’t misunderstand this text, as supporting our government. I’m just suggesting, we should not merely switch masters between our governments and free energy enthusiasts. There must be a different, more plausible narrative, and while I have yet to have heard of it, I am sure, once it will be revealed, everything will make much more sense, as senseless, horrible, or funny as it may be.

STREAM : inconsistent : chapter 7 : closure

2011-06-03T12:41:00.000-07:00

Dear listener, who do you think is going to listen to this text? How many people? Of those who will (if the term "those" is even applicable), how many will understand it? How many will be able to take the "theory", we suggested in this text, and realize it through praxis? To make it clear, we did not present detailed blueprints for our alleged artificially future conscious machines. Far from it. We merely suggested, why the construction of such machines may be feasible. We left many questions unanswered. Honestly, I simply do not know how to answer them. Let us review these problematic issues:

1. The change, to which we refer (meaning, the global angelic collapse) suggests, there will be no more angelic messages (such as prophecies, for example), while the justification for our effort to "change the odds" relies on a somewhat prophetic interpretation to our reality, and hence, the realization of this prophecy would imply, this change did not really occur. The realization of this prophecy is paradoxical, even if it will be by our own doing, meaning, by provoking a scientific paradigm shift, with which constructing our future artificially conscious machines successfully would result. To clarify, we must remember, even if our prophetic interpretations, suggesting a global angelic collapse, motivates our effort, the historic events, which assert our motivation (such as the discovery of physical randomness, and the ethical implications of the two world wars) came prior, suggesting our prophetic interpretations might overestimate the significance of these events, in an angelic, or alternatively, partial, fashion.

2. The global angelic collapse motivating our effort, is only one possible future. Furthermore, as we suggested in the previous item, if this text is indeed partial, and there will be no angelic collapse, our effort is unnecessary.

3. The metaphysical foundation, which “Delta theory” suggested, might be fundamentally invalid.

4. The "test", which we revised for our future machines, cannot irrefutably determine, if our future machines will utilize the dimension of consciousness, does not provide an exact scale to measure our success, and hence, does not carry a robust argumentative strength. Moreover, our decision, whether to perceive the objects, which our future machines would produce, as intelligible demon casts, can only be subjective.

5. Even though in “Delta Theory”, we analyzed our experiences as consciousnesses, both rationally and consistently, it is possible, we neglected some attributes of our consciousness, exactly because we utilized rational and consistent analysis, as it is just as possible, our consciousness reflects additional inconsistent attributes, apart from demonic influences, which we discussed in this text already. In this case, what is true to artificial utilization of the dimension of consciousness, might not be true to natural consciousnesses, such as our own. Therefore, even if we succeed in constructing our future artificially conscious machines, it might not be enough to assert the dragonish option empirically.

6. Because we base our effort on an unproven metaphysical theory, we will be able to justify our effort empirically, only after we will create our future machines successfully, increasing the burden on our effort.

7. Because our effort demands that technologically, we would master both contingent dimensional, and metaphysical inconsistent manipulations, regretfully, we may be forced to borrow some of the components our future machines would incorporate, directly from life forms, which already exist in nature, and which apparently, managed to evolve to utilize them already. Still, if we would, we might never be able to determine, the metaphysical occurrences transpiring in our future machines, suggesting their successful construction may teach us nothing in the metaphysical sense, deeming our effort pointless. To explain, because metaphysically, we cannot "access" the contingent dimensions governing the operation of life forms, life forms are somewhat of a metaphysical wildcards. Once we insert life forms into our model, many religious concepts could justify their operation, such as ghosts, souls, traditional demons, or even gods.

8. While testing our future artificially conscious machines, we must find a way to isolate them from external particles, radiation, fields, and any other type of external causality. This may prove impossible on the practical level. Still, we should remember, if we fail to isolate them in such a manner, we would not be able to prove the objects they would produce are the result of spontaneous internal metaphysical processes, or alternatively, reflect true demon casting capabilities, and hence, could not utilize their successful construction, as means to affirm the metaphysical foundation, by which we built them.

9. As we suggested in item seven, building artificially conscious machines demands we acquire knowledge in contingent dimensional, and metaphysically inconsistent technologies. Currently, this knowledge does not exist, and neither is it certain whether we can attain it at all. To explain, first, because metaphysically, dimensions are independent of one another, it is possible, there is no materialistic method to explore the laws, which govern the contingent dimensional occurrences, transpiring during collisions between dimensicons. Secondly, because metaphysical inconsistencies do not adhere to any regularity, the thought we could master them technologically, so to build our demonic injectors, could in itself reflect a demonically induced perspective.

10. Considering the limitations contingent dimensions impose, it is possible, contingent dimensional technologies are useless, unless implemented in the manner our neural biology implements it. To clarify, while as we suggested in "Delta Theory", all particles are equally alive, meaning, all particles manipulate contingent dimensions in one way or another, our consciousnesses do not exist as physical elements in the external world, and hence, the manner particles manipulate contingent dimensions in the external world is intangible to us, forcing us to resort to secondary methods, such as the one artificial neural networks suggest. While indeed, this may not be a real "problem", still, it is disheartening. To clarify, hyper-computation is far more useful than the theoretical applications artificial neural networks support.

11. The design we suggested, demands collisions between inbound stimulating dimensicons, and the dimensicons compiling our future artificial neurons, should reflect in the manner our future artificial neurons would react to future stimulations, in a deterministic fashion. Again, this may be impossible to achieve.

12. The design of our artificial neural networks, demands these networks would "map" dimensicons to the artificial neural pathways they travelled, suggesting that some of the contingent dimensional composition of each of our future artificial neurons will not change, while at the same time, we might need to change this composition to train our artificial neural networks. Therefore, we must be able to master the contingent dimensional composition of our artificial neurons, while currently, we do not know if we can achieve this at all.

13. It is possible, the real gods falsified evidence, and mistakenly, made us think we evolved through evolutional trial and error, while in actuality, evolutional trial and error are hardly potent enough, to yield such evolutional progressions. If so, finding the correct architecture could be even more difficult than all the previous challenges put together.

This is too much. To explain, while possibly, some of the arguments we suggested in this text, with respect to contingent dimensional manipulations, or artificial utilization of the dimension of consciousness, might be correct, it is only one possibility. Only through extensive study and experimentation could we know the feasibility of the model we suggested, while it is just as possible, through experimentation and additional contemplation, we would deduce, these machines are impossible to build. Furthermore, it is possible, we will find a different better model, how to construct machines of similar cognitive capabilities, without resorting to metaphysics. I do not know, and neither do you. Furthermore, let us be frank. probably, you do not possess a sound scientific background, and hence, even if you wanted to "join the effort", and help build such machines, you would simply not know how.
Still, building such machines is a lot of work, which inevitably, would be costly, both financially, and time-wise. Furthermore, as strange as it may sound, I think it is boring. Building such artificially conscious machines is not an achievement I wish to accomplish anymore. To clarify, as I mentioned in the introduction chapter of this text, as well as in the last chapter of "Delta Theory", I have already attempted to research these ideas academically, and made little success. In addition, considering our conclusions from the end of the previous chapter, probably, because the evolution of such machines may take many years, inevitably, even if today, we would put our hearts and minds to the effort, we would fail to see its fruits during our life time. Moreover, we should remember, even within a human body, after millions of years of evolutional progress, a human child is born as dumb as a brick. A newborn human child requires many years to reach cognitive maturity, while at the same time, the slightest neurological defect may result with long-lasting cognitive deficiencies, suggesting a similar difficulty, with respect to our effort, meaning, we may find ourselves training our machines for several years, only to conclude, our artificial neural networks are a piece of garbage. To summarize, while I really am sorry, I have better things to do, other than see my efforts end with such a frustrating failure.
I am not saying we cannot do this. I am not saying we will not utilize dimensicons or metaphysical inconsistencies in our future machines. Still, it is simply too much to ask of one person to realize. No. If we are to achieve real progress with such technologies, it demands the combined effort of the entire scientific community, while I can assure you, this will simply not happen.
Look. I apologize for changing the tone, but it is time we return to reality. As I confessed in the last chapter of "Delta Theory", from my experience, I know perfectly well, how new ideas are accepted today. It is very simple. They are not accepted. I mean, this is not the first book I have written (yeah, it is time I admit it. This is a book. It is my second book). Do you know how many people listened to “Delta Theory” in its entirety? To the best of my knowledge, less than five. How many of them understood it? One. Me. To make things worse, while “Delta Theory” was somewhat "rational", this book is certainly more "challenging", and no one likes “challenging” these days. Still, this changes nothing, when it comes to the amount of effort it would inevitably take, to complete our effort successfully.
To summarize, I do not expect this book would result with us constructing artificially conscious machines. Still, as we explained in the previous chapter, the successful construction of such machines is essential, if we are to affirm their metaphysical foundation, meaning, “Delta Theory”, as well as its completion, which we added in this book. In short, most probably, both books would ignored and forgotten, as if I never wrote them. Still, this implies, we will not assert the dragonish option, and hence, obviously, we will not “change the odds” in our favor, in the event of a global angelic collapse.
So what is the score? Why did the real gods allow me to write this book? Is there no purpose to it whatsoever? Are the real gods changing their tendencies or not?
Obviously, the most natural answer would be “no”. This is just a book. There is not even a religion or a school of thought backing it, let alone a significant one. Therefore, the easiest answer would be to dismiss it altogether. Hope you liked the ride. I am truly sorry we did not get anywhere, but what did you expect from a book called “inconsistent”? Forget about it. See you on Monday.
Still, we should consider another option. To explain, in chapters one, and two, we deduced, the real gods are real, by concluding metaphysical inconsistencies must exist, regardless of our metaphysical persuasions. These statements are more significant than the existence of any book, or text, including this one, suggesting that if the real gods were really changing their tendencies, they would not rely on a single book, or text, to "do their biddings”. In other words, the question whether we can “change the odds” in our favor or not, does not suggest, a dependency between the real gods and our interests. While indeed, we suggested a method, how we could exploit this change to our advantage, still, it does not imply, this change will transpire, only if we manage to exploit it. On the contrary, the very nature of this change suggests we will not. Again, it is not just any change. It is a shift away from the angelic path. It is a shift away from angelic messages, prophecies, and religions, and hence, if we could foresee this change with enough clarity, so to be able to actually exploit it, again, it would suggest, it would not be a change at all. It would merely be a shift in the contents of angelic messages, and as such, it would be as partial as all angelic messages.
So actually, I guess the previous chapter was pointless. The manner by which we concluded the real gods might be changing their tendencies, implies we will not have the chance to prepare ourselves for this change. We could either be ready for it or not. We could gain some sort of "advantage" from this change, only after it will transpire. Still, currently, our society is mostly angelic, suggesting this change has not yet transpired. Indeed, the fact we discovered physical randomness only in the last one hundred years, and that auto angelic tendencies and demon casting are becoming ever more popular, may signal there is a process in motion. Nevertheless, this process occurs on a much broader scale than the span of this book. As far as we know, nothing is governing this process. In fact, the lack of dependency between the historical events, which signal this change of inconsistent metaphysical tendencies, suggests the only elements influential enough to govern it, are the real gods themselves.
You do not have to say it. I know. You are asking yourself, why do I still cling to this notion of "the real gods". We were suggesting something far more practical, such as affirming the metaphysical foundation of “Delta Theory”, and the dragonish option, by building artificially conscious machines. We even suggested some of the details of their design, and while possibly, their construction might be impossible, at least our discussion was constructive in some sense. Still, if I am so convinced, attempting to build such machines is pointless, then why am I still clinging on to the notion of the real gods? Why not give it a rest?
Well, the truth is, I wish I could. Seriously, I wish I did not have a reason to write this book. I wish it never came into my mind. I mentioned this before, and now I mention it again, still, I am quite sure, you do not understand, why I am mentioning it.
Well, in the introduction chapter, I promised, I will not discuss my experiences, even though they led me to write this book. I thought I could keep my debate rational. Still, the further I wrote this book, I understood, there is no way around it. My experiences are an inherent part of this book. They form arguments, which I cannot remove from this book, for three simple reasons. First, my experiences determined the contents of this book. Indeed, this is a weak argument, as naturally, my experiences are the source from which I conceive my ideas. However, there are other reasons. The second reason is the nature of these experiences, the truly unthinkable story, which had I not experienced, I would never have believed. Without this strangeness, without reality becoming this weird, I would never have written this book.
Still, there is the third reason. I did not want these experiences. I wanted, and still want, things to be different. In fact, contrary to my confession in the first chapter, the very reason I wrote this book, was to attempt to find a way to change them, and actually, this is why in chapter five, I suggested, this book is my own demon cast. Still, the details are important, as they suggest a notion, which we cannot afford to overlook, with respect to our current course of discussion.

Therefore, without further apologies, I guess it is time I told you my story.

STREAM : inconsistent : chapter 6 : changing the odds

2011-06-03T12:39:00.000-07:00

Before we continue, I wish to make it clear, that what we are to discuss next, is not an attempt to convince anyone to do anything. While it may be tempting to apply the concepts this text suggests, to morality or ethics, it would be a mistake. To clarify, thinking there is a change coming, prior to its unfolding, is prophetic, suggesting of angelic tendencies. Indeed, the limitless inconsistent metaphysical potential of the real gods implies, all angelic messages are equally possible and impossible, regardless if their semantics make sense, or the origins of their angels, and had the real gods “wished it", they could have realized all religious angelic prophecies, so to fit historical, and future events, to the letter. Still, they did not, suggesting the only reason religions embrace inconsistent concepts, is because the real gods “wish it".
The same applies to demon casting and dragons. For example, the real gods can prevent the emergence of the spontaneous demons necessary for the dragonish “training”. In other words, the visibility of the “azimuth” of change, which we suggested in the previous chapter, cannot imply it must transpire. In fact, the realization of this change is paradoxical. To explain, how can we know there would be no more angelic interventions? How is this different from the unfolding of an angelic prophecy?
Such a prophecy implies many changes must transpire. Religions must lose their grip on society. Empirical sciences must lose their objective throne and dominance. In other words, if such events were to unfold, it would suggest, our reality is still angelically “managed”. In short, paradoxically, while the “azimuth” of this change is to release us from our angelic “chains of infancy”, the existence of such prophetic clues, hints this change might be a mirage, and that our conviction it should transpire, is somewhat demonic. Nevertheless, this change embodies a shift away from the angelic method of handling our demonic influences, and hence, if we are to follow a new path, we cannot allow ourselves to follow the same angelic path we wish to avoid, as if we do, inevitably, we would achieve nothing. Therefore, even if this “prophecy” is real, its possible validity cannot provide us with providence. To conclude, if we are to “change the odds” in our favor, we cannot rely on the help of the real gods, at least not in the angelic sense.
We must refrain from angelic behavioral patterns. We must refrain from discussing ethics, as in good and evil, right or wrong. Therefore, we cannot justify proactive actions, against others who do not share our convictions. If we do, we will become exactly the thing we are trying to “change the odds” against. We cannot even afford to hate or patronize such individuals, as essentially, there is no justification for such a “negative” emotional reaction. To explain, the rebellion we discussed in the previous chapter, does not spore due to resentment to any specific religion or morality, but rather from the partiality and falsity inherent to all of them. While the change, to which we were referring, may cause a spiritual vacuum, which we will have to somehow “fill”, still, as we suggested in the previous chapter, we are not the ones, who will cause this change. We will merely be its spectators.
Nevertheless, we should not forget our rebellion is a reaction to the visible falsity of the angelic path. We did not “just happen” to notice this falsity. The real gods made sure this falsity is visible. This visibility is not a personal preference. As we suggested in the previous chapter, there is a historical link motivating our rebellion. The real gods are consistently suggesting, we should shift away from our angelic tendencies, and had they not “wanted” this shift, it would never have been visible. We should never have discovered physical randomness exists. We should never have encountered the ethical and religious paradoxes the two world wars imply. We should never have become this self-centered as a society. Considering this, we can even argue, the thought such change should transpire, is not prophetic at all, but rather the product of our analysis of the historical data we have in the present. To explain, we can claim, that while indeed, our analysis utilized controversial terms such as "gods", "angels", "demons", and "dragons", in actuality, these were merely different names, referring to social and scientific facts, which due to our somewhat "fantastic" terminological translation, opened us a new rational perspective over our reality. To clarify, we can claim, that our cultural and technological progress, deems the religious persuasions of our ancestors, along with the social orders they established, obsolete.
Still, regardless, again, it is not "our job" to “change our world”. If this shift will transpire, it will not be by our doing, nor by our realization it is visible, just as it has been persistently transpiring over the last one hundred years, without our assistance. We do not need to wage a new “holy war”, as the real gods are already “pulling the strings”, which may lead our reality, into the cataclysmic social event, required for the unfolding of this shift. While it is possible, the real gods may use angels to bring forth this cataclysmic social event, still, this is none of our concern. We need not take an angelic path, to make this cataclysmic social event come sooner, as if we do, we will not be eligible to profit from the very message we preach. Our “message” is simply not angelic. If anything, it is dragonish.
To summarize, “changing the odds” does not suggest, changing common religious persuasions. We are merely preparing for a yet unknown cataclysmic social event, which may result with the collapse of all angelic establishments and persuasions, but only "if" it will happen. There are many “ifs” involved here. Again, as Aristotle correctly stated, we simply cannot know what the future will bring, and frankly, it is not such a bad thing. To explain, usually, we plan our future based on existing orders, and therefore, inevitably, most of us will severely suffer from such a cataclysmic social event. Nevertheless, if change is unavoidable, it would be better if we could exploit it to our advantage, rather than be its victims.
This is the notion, to which the statement “changing the odds”, refers. We should better our chances to benefit from such a cataclysmic social event. To clarify, this is not a “plan” how to change our current reality. We wish to change only one possible future. Indeed, we can have no assurances this effort will be worthwhile. Still, arguably, it is better than doing nothing, as it grants us some of the hope we lost, once comprehending the conclusions this text suggests. I mean, unless I am missing something HUGE, once fully understanding and accepting the conclusions this text suggests, the sense of resentment toward our reality is unavoidable. Furthermore, currently, there is nothing we can do about it, and therefore, some hope is definitely a “blessing”.
Indeed, you could claim, I am taking things too dramatically, and that we can simply enjoy life as an “experience”, without analyzing our existence so rigorously. Well, I disagree. To explain, metaphysical inconsistencies exist practically everywhere. Demonic effects are pounding our psyche relentlessly. We cannot obvert these conclusions. This is the extent of the statement “inconsistency must exist”. The question is, “How are we to deal with these demonic effects?” We cannot accept statements such as "simply enjoying life”, without contemplating about our demonic influences, “as is”, as in actuality, what we are claiming, is one of the following:

1. We do not have a plan, how to handle our demonic influences, and nor are we willing to accept the existence of the demons this text describes, allowing our demons to govern our lives, uninterrupted. To clarify, regardless of our beliefs, the existence of the demons we described in this text, is as imperative as the existence of metaphysical inconsistencies in our reality. Therefore, by refraining from casting our demons, we imply, we will follow our demons, regardless of our intentions, and suffer the consequences of their inherent inconsistencies, blindly introducing chaos into our lives. Every plan, which we will base on the validity of our demonically influenced concepts, may fail. When we will reflect on our lives, we may feel shame and regret, for the mistakes we did, by following our demons, and a general sense of lack of achievement.
Sounds familiar? Of course it is. Most of us follow this path. Almost all of us follow at least one demon, ranging from religion, ethics, morality, romantic obsession, or blind following to the inconsistencies, inherent to all sciences. These demons embody our weaknesses, and our source of distress. Obviously, there is no guarantee “a demon will strike”, and destroy our lives, and arguably, it may be possible, to live a full and happy life, while following our demons. However, honestly, this option does not "fit" my experience, and if you, dear listener, feel the same, I suggest you reject this option. If it does not work, then I say, fuck it. We need something else.
2. We attempt to understand ourselves better, so to gain control over our lives. Arguably, this option is somewhat similar to the option, which we already suggested in "Delta Theory", and actually, it is not that different from the dragonish option. Still, as I suggested in the first chapter, "Delta Theory" was incomplete, and so is this option. To clarify, in "Delta Theory" we neglected the effects metaphysical inconsistencies have over our psyche, suggesting the "solution" it proposed is inapplicable to our real lives. Arguably, we can claim, that by introducing the concept of demon casting, we may "complete" our "solution" from "Delta Theory", namely, introspective analysis, devotion to artistic creation, humor, playing games, and perhaps, narcotics. Still, if we reject this completion, or if we reject "Delta Theory" altogether, and resort to other methods of rational reflective analysis, potentially, our introspective methods might prove ineffective, when confronted with our demonic influences. To clarify, as we suggested throughout this text, metaphysical inconsistencies must both exist, and affect our psyche, regardless of our persuasions, and if we neglect this metaphysical fact, essentially, our reflective analysis will be as useless, when confronting our demonic influences, as the lacking course of action, which we suggested in the previous item. Moreover, arguably, such reflective analysis is quite different from simply "enjoying life", suggesting we are somewhat detached from our real psychological condition, meaning, that our reflective analysis is indeed quite lacking, even without suggesting the existence of our demonic influences.
3. We choose to practice delta bestiality, meaning, we attempt to solve all our demonically induced sufferings, by appeasing one type of deltas, be it mindless hedonism (namely, bodily bestiality), mechanizing our lives (namely, logical bestiality), or devotion to fantasies, which we continuously invent, to appease our current hardships and desires (namely, completeness bestiality). Originally, we introduced the concept of delta bestiality in chapter six of "Delta Theory", which you can revisit, if you need clarifications. Moreover, in chapter four of this text, we revisited the notion of delta bestiality, which to remind you, we suggested, is somewhat similar to demonic possession, with respect to the behavioral patterns it makes us exhibit. Still, as we mentioned, delta bestiality is different from demonic possession, because as we suggested, we choose to practice delta bestiality, while possessive demons force their effects on us. Actually, our current course of discussion exemplifies this difference. To explain, as we already hinted, we can choose to practice delta bestiality, to resist our demonic influences, rather than to adhere to them. For example, if our demons increase our susceptibility to bodily desires, we may choose to practice logical bestiality, as a method to enforce discipline over our lives, so to regain control over our decisions, and actually, this method is quite popular, leading individuals, whom originally, were somewhat "decadent", into ascetic lifestyles. Alternatively, if our demonic influences are fixating, suggesting we should be prudent and obedient, we may forcefully attempt to free ourselves from their influence, through hedonist bodily bestiality, or through fantastic completeness bestiality. Moreover, if our demons are spontaneous and proactive, we may attempt to prevent our detachment from reality, by mechanizing our lives through logical bestiality, or "silencing" our "demonic callings", by overwhelming our psyche with sensual experiences, such as sexuality, narcotics (including psychiatric pharmaceutical drugs), obesity, and the likes.
Indeed, in many cases, through delta bestiality, we may be able to overcome some of our demonic influences, while improving the quality of our lives significantly. For example, if our demonic influences led us to a life of crime, obverting our demonic tendencies, may prevent us from clashing with judicial systems, if not saving us from a premature death. Still, again, as we suggested in "Delta Theory", delta bestiality brings its own set of hardships with it, be it dismissal from our social environment (due to our bodily or completeness bestiality practices), or a general reflective sense of discontent, if not shame, for our lack of achievement (due to our logical bestiality practices). To clarify, as we suggested in "Delta Theory", all types of delta bestiality, reduce our cognitive potential, to that of an arguably lesser biological species, while as we suggested in the previous chapter, demon casting allows us to exceed our cognitive capabilities and achievements, beyond all current knowledge, and there are good chances, we will notice it, causing an ever growing retrospective conviction, we wasted our lives in vain. In addition, considering our suggestions from chapter four, it is very possible, our delta bestiality practices, were but another demon, waiting for us to adhere to it, while our original motivations, namely, to resist our distinguishable demons, were but a "trick", luring us to the hands of our real demons. To clarify, because as we suggested in chapter four, demons affect the "filter" of our consciousness, usually, we are somewhat oblivious to their effects on us, and hence, it may be possible, the demons we attempt to resist, through delta bestiality, are but "an excuse", which our real demons persuade us to invent. For example, we can attempt to justify our completeness or bodily bestiality practices, claiming that otherwise, our lives would be dull and mechanical, while in actuality, we were simply too "lazy", to even attempt to discipline ourselves. To conclude, delta bestiality reduces our potential, and may result with demonic possession, irreparably damaging the quality of our lives, and while obviously, we cannot forbid it, still, personally, I find it somewhat distasteful and lacking, with respect to the dragonish option.
4. We follow the path of polytheist angels. We promote the persuasion that concepts exist in the external world, with which we formally justify our way of life. I intentionally did not mention polytheist religions, because as Plato’s philosophy shows us, polytheist religions are merely a subset of this option.
Indeed, such persuasions can convince us, our happy carelessness, is justified. For example, we can choose to follow Dionysus or Satan, so to justify a hedonistic lifestyle. Nevertheless, as we suggested in both chapter three, as well as in “Delta Theory”, metaphysically, such beliefs are invalid. While we may think in terms of polytheist gods, in actuality, we suffer from the effects of possessive inhibitive fixating demons. Still, with respect to the previous item, arguably, such persuasions are different from delta bestiality, as essentially, polytheist persuasions are well-defined (meaning, they do not reflect completeness bestiality practices), and today, they are not that popular, suggesting they may not reflect logical bestiality practices, as logical bestiality tends to undermine our ability to choose, while selecting an unpopular religious persuasion, somewhat reflects our individuality. Still, even without the effects of delta bestiality, and even if possibly, such persuasions allow us to "enjoy life" in the name of our animated concepts, it comes with a price. To explain, we will fail to see the impossibility inherent to our beliefs, and therefore, inevitably, many aspects of our reality, will fail to comply with our persuasion, nourishing an ever-growing resentment toward our reality.
Things could have been different. If polytheist religions were dominant in society, our immediate reality would better support polytheism. However, currently, monotheism is far more dominant. This growing sense of resentment could peak. If it does, naturally, we can change our persuasion. However, how could we justify our careless lifestyle if we do? Still, if we refuse to change our persuasion, what options do we have? Our religious dedication will bring us nothing but loneliness. So how are we to sustain our happy carelessness?
Well, while indeed, today, polytheist religious followers are neither common, nor visible, they still exist, suggesting that theoretically, we can isolate ourselves from society, within a small closed polytheist religious group. This group will serve as our conceptual protection, keeping us both careless, and oblivious to the obvious inconsistencies, between the external world, and our beliefs. Still, the bitterness toward society, inherent to all members of our small religious group (or better said, “Cult”) will induce its own demonic effects. To explain, we cannot justify our shared bitterness rationally, as essentially, it is demonic. However, unlike other demons, our cult will not be able to "protect us" from these demons effectively. To clarify, when we discussed western monotheism, we showed how the existence of other religions, negates the omnipotence of the western monotheist god, and the same applies to our polytheist persuasion. The polytheist gods our cult would cherish, would remain impotent outside the boundaries of our cult, and we will all notice it, enhancing our shared sense of bitterness. Still, because our cult must close its doors to the rest of society, our cult comrades will be able to express this resentment, only on each other. Furthermore, because the cult is hermetic, no external authority could enforce a different morality on our cult, and therefore, inevitably, our original utopia will transform into a cycle of abuse between the members of our cult, which no external authority could regulate. In fact, this can explain past records of cult related cases of abuse and mass suicide. In any case, it does not add up. Polytheist carelessness and happiness is bound to collapse.

5. We are stupid, as simple as that. Our thought patterns resemble more those of an animal lacking a consciousness, than those of a human. We do not suffer demonic effects, because instinctively, we do not think in concepts. We simply fail to understand anything. Still, we should remember, we do not choose to think in concepts. It is in our genes. It is in the automaton governing our animal body, and hence, if our ability to think in concepts is limited, it simply means, our automaton is “defected”. We fail to carry the human genome from our parents. We might be happy, and that will be absolutely wonderful, but we are not really the same as other humans. We do not need to solve demonically induced “problems” as our evolutionary backwardness “saved us the trouble”. This is indeed backwardness (or alternatively, devolution). To explain, as we suggested in “Delta Theory”, our ability to think in concepts came long after the initial evolutionary formation of the brain. Furthermore, our ability to think in concepts came hand in hand with the degradation of our instinctive manners of survival, which motivated humans to think. Therefore, such “happiness” is by no means “progress”. Moreover, arguably, such devolution cannot survive. To clarify, again, our ability to think in concepts, made us masters of the earthly food-chain. However, without our cognitive capabilities, our survival capabilities are undoubtedly limited, and arguably, being this devolved, the only way we may be able to survive, is by relying on more evolved humans, to provide us with our survival necessities. To summarize, while it is indeed wonderful, such stupidity cannot be a model for more evolved humans, much less for dragons, which arguably, are even more evolved than normal humans are. Nevertheless, such cognitive evolutionary backwardness would make it practically impossible to understand this text, and therefore, I guess it does not apply to you, and hence, there is no point discussing this option further.

6. We are lying. We are neither happy nor enjoying life. We just say we do. Well, sorry sis. This text is about consistency, truth, and the likes. Any possible misconceptions we might have about ourselves are too off topic. Still, possibly, our belief we are happy is demonic. If so, then welcome! we are “on the same boat”.

Please note:
I did not discuss the possibility to live carelessly happy, while following a monotheist religion, as the constant sense of moral guilt, on which monotheist religions strive, negates this option. Furthermore, I did not address careless happy atheists, as I believe we can map them to the options we already suggested, namely, items one, two, five, and six.
Arguably, none of the options we reviewed is desirable. Still, again, with respect to our conclusions from the previous chapter, the option we suggested, namely, the "dragonish option", is not much better. To clarify, while indeed, our dragonish tendencies may allow us to handle our demonic influences constructively, by converting our demonically induced “problems”, into elements beneficial both personally, and culturally, still, it comes with such a heavy price, that currently, it is undesirable as well, while following the angelic path, is practical. Potentially, we can mix the two options. To explain, supposing we did not yet reach dragonish demon casting levels, we can “mix” the practice of demon casting, with angelic practices, and actually, because again, today, our society is mostly angelic, usually, if we are to undergo some type of dragonish "training", arguably, such a mixture is unavoidable. Still, the cataclysmic social event, to which we were referring, suggests the angelic path will no longer be available, and in such an event, either we will suffer from distress, or demon cast our way, out of our demonically induced sufferings. Nevertheless, currently, excessive demon casting results with distress, and hence, it is undesirable, causing a sense of paradox, where we are driven to distance ourselves from the grip of our demons, while at the same time, feeling a sense of longing, to some type of an angelic embrace.
If we are to find hope, we must better this disposition. We cannot accept, that when facing the “problem” of a global angelic collapse, the dragonish “solution” will still result with loneliness, and depression. We cannot, and we should not, as it is our current angelic perspective, which deems the dragonish “solution” as such. To explain, angelic perspectives do not consider demon casting as either beneficial, or significant. On the contrary, angelic perspectives are antagonistic to the practice of demon casting, fearing we will cast the inhibitive fixating demon they endorse, and actually, we can find historical records, which hint this antagonism. For example, in Judaism, the second commandment, “Thou shalt not make graven images”, suggests a religious antagonism toward artistic creation. While arguably, the motivation behind this commandment was to prohibit idol worshipping, this is not what the commandment says. It clearly prohibits the act of creation, not the act of worshipping. Indeed, the first commandment prohibits worshipping different gods. Still, it is a different commandment. It is a general prohibition. It refers to various religious activities, and not merely to artistic creation. The link between artistic creation and worship, suggests a link between the elements involved in both practices, meaning art and religion, and actually, by now, such a link should not surprise us, as demon casting can yield them both.
Surprisingly, idol worshippers were antagonistic to demon casting as well. For example, in “The Republic”, Plato banned talented artists from entering his ideal state, in fear that the artistic muses will disrupt its perfect order. This is untypical. Ancient Greece was polytheist. The ancient Greeks were already idol worshippers. Moreover, the ancient Greek civilization cherished the arts.
At first glance, the motivation behind Plato’s suspiciousness toward artists, appears to be different from that of Judaism, but it is not. To explain, Plato feared artists would challenge the Ideal Rationalism, which was to govern his "ideal state", suggesting he failed to comprehend, his own Ideal Rationalism, was demonic. To clarify, regardless if our analysis of metaphysical inconsistencies was rational and consistent, as we suggested in the first chapter, metaphysical inconsistencies must exist, and therefore, rational consistency cannot fully explain the nature of our reality. Therefore, Plato’s Ideal Rationalism is as inconsistent with our reality, as the Jewish persuasion, or any other inhibitive fixating demon for that matter. Plato feared artists would demon cast his Ideal Rationalism, just as Judaism fears artists would demon cast the western monotheist god, and frankly, this fear is justified, as demon casters can obstruct any belief system.
Still, Plato’s Ideal Rationalism is but one example. Generally, practical sciences do not reserve a special place for demon casting. Demon casting simply does not exist in the scientific jargon. While arguably, the practice of demon casting yielded some of humanity’s greatest scientific breakthroughs, we only remember its “fruits”. We remember the individuals, who discovered these scientific breakthroughs, as geniuses, while the cognitive methods, by which they discovered them, we consider little more than gossip. The reason for this is simple. As we suggested in the previous chapter, demon casting is not a well-defined practice. The infinite contingent dimensional variety, in which our demons may emerge, forces the same infinite variety on their methods of casting, suggesting there can never be a prescription, "how to demon cast". Simply put, demon casting is not a scientific discipline. Still, for dragons, it is not only a practice. It is a way of life.
Therefore, it is no wonder, the dragonish option leads to loneliness and distress, as essentially, none of its important features is either respected, or even recognized. Moreover, because demon casting utilizes analysis and synthesis of inconsistent demonically induced concepts, society dismisses our dragonish achievements. To explain, from an external perspective, dragons appear very much insane, causing our social environment to mock our motivations to demon cast. For example, if our motivations to demon cast, spawned due to misfortunate events, which left us puzzled, most probably, our social environment would consider our efforts, as little more than misguided grievance. Arguably, our dragonish achievements may tone down this condescending attitude, but only to some degree.
Naturally, dragons do not appreciate this attitude. To explain, let us consider the perspective of a dragon. We fought our demon, and beaten it, achieving something truly impressive in the process. Still, in the end, our social environment thinks we are insane. What an outrage. Indeed, before we demon casted, our demons still had a “grip” over us, and hence, arguably, we were somewhat “insane”, but now we are healed. Nevertheless, our social environment still perceives us as mentally sick, or unstable, and therefore, it is no wonder, such outcome increases our sense of alienation, loneliness, and inevitable depression.
To conclude, the reason that currently, the dragonish option is unattractive, has little to do with any inherent flaw of demon casting. In fact, its main problem is that no one considers it as an "option" at all. Again, contemporary society does not accept the demons we described in this text exist, and therefore, it does not consider demon casting is a virtue. Society mistakably identifies demons as angels, fabrications invented by angels, or insanity. However, in the event of a global angelic collapse, angelic perspectives will collapse as well, while the dragonish option will remain "untouched". Still, as we just explained, “untouched” is not good enough. The dragonish option is unattractive. It has not yet matured. Therefore, to “change the odds” so that such angelic collapse will signal a transition to the dragonish option, we need to nourish it. We need to prove the dragonish option is sound, and the only way to achieve such a goal, is by empirically proving its metaphysical foundation. Empirically proving the metaphysical foundation, which both "Delta Theory", as well as this text suggest, will validate our conclusions, including the beneficial aspects of the dragonish option, and yes, this is what the phrase, “changing the odds” implies.
Still, how can we possibly do that? To clarify, in the introduction chapter of “Delta Theory”, we already explained, why we cannot validate metaphysical theories, as there can always be untraceable elements, which affect our reality, and arguably, consistent metaphysical theories are even worse, as their consistency suggests, we cannot even refute them. So how can we validate any metaphysical theory?
Well, we do not have to validate our metaphysical foundation in its entirety. We can satisfy by validating its completeness criterion, meaning, the manner by which sensations, constructs of sensations, thought, sensory, repression, and nullification, emerge in our consciousness. To explain, in the introduction chapter of "Delta Theory", we suggested, that being self-aware, we can only validate the existence of our self-awareness, as from our perspective, the ontological existence of any other element, is but an assumption, or alternatively, a belief. Therefore, arguably, we should only validate the portions of our metaphysical foundation, which refer to our self-awareness, of which all reflect in the manner "Delta Theory" answered the completeness criterion, along with the corrections we added in this text (namely, the attributes of metaphysical inconsistencies, as they reflect in our consciousness, or alternatively, our demonic influences). In addition, we should note, “Delta Theory” may require future corrections, as surely, it overlooked many issues. Moreover, as I suggested in the last chapter of "Delta Theory", new scientific discoveries may demand we revisit our metaphysical assumptions, and therefore, generally, limiting our validation to our essentials, is good practice, as essentially, even such a humble argumentative validation, is enough to affirm demons affect our psyche, and hence, is enough to justify the usefulness of demon casting. Assuming our effort will be successful, validating the dragonish option is beneficial, should be trivial.
Still, we should understand the implications of our effort. To explain, supposing our metaphysical foundation is consistent, philosophically, there is no point for future discussion. We can leave it "as is", meaning, as yet another philosophical "option", residing in the vast archives of human meditation. To clarify, theoretically, we are already "there". Nevertheless, somehow, it does not change our immediate disposition. Therefore, regardless of our personal confidence in our metaphysical foundation, and more specifically, in the manner it answers the completeness criterion, we need to "extend" our confidence, beyond the "scope" of our beliefs, and onto the "scope" of the external world, meaning, we need to prove the completeness criterion empirically. Therefore, considering our previous conclusions, that metaphysical inconsistencies affect us, by utilizing the dimension of consciousness, and its ability to inflict changes, whose causative justification originates from irrelevant worlds, in practice, to “change the odds”, we need to build machines, which utilize the dimension of consciousness, or alternatively, conscious machines, and whose performance we could measure empirically. If these machine would “work”, meaning, if they would utilize the dimension of consciousness, when determining the actions they would perform in the external world, it would affirm the metaphysical foundation by which we designed them, and therefore, affirm the dragonish option.
Still, obviously, this will not be easy. Many things can go wrong. For example, it is possible, the manner, by which “Delta Theory” satisfies the completeness criterion, is fundamentally incorrect, and hence, obviously, we will fail to build any machine, whose feasibility relies on its validity. Still, even if so, we should not worry about this option. On the contrary, it is a good thing. To explain, disproving the manner, by which “Delta Theory” satisfies the completeness criterion, discredits its metaphysical foundation, including our recent conclusions, with respect to gods and religions, which arguably, is a blessing. To clarify, it would have been better for all of us, if our reality was different from the reality this text reflects, a reality in which we could have trusted our gods, to provide us with providence, rather than inconsistent metaphysical tyranny, a reality, in which the dragonish option would have been unnecessary. Therefore, essentially, refuting “Delta Theory” would be a valuable positive achievement on its own, regardless if it would imply, our efforts to construct conscious machines would fail. Nevertheless, refuting a metaphysical theory can be as difficult as validating it, and therefore, generally, we should not expect much trouble on this front.
Still, even if our metaphysical basis is sound, and even if we manage to build such machines, how will we determine if we achieved anything at all? To explain, as we suggested in "Delta Theory", metaphysically, elements, which the dimension of consciousness hosts, are irrelevant to elements existing in the external world, meaning, physical elements, suggesting we cannot validate such machines utilize the dimension of consciousness, using materialistic instrumentation. Moreover, even though our internal mental world, consists of contingent dimensions, as well as the dimension of consciousness, arguably, our consciousness cannot intrude any such alternate internal mental worlds. To clarify, regardless if the dimension of consciousness is universal, meaning, that we all utilize it, as the metaphysical enabler of our self-awareness, our consciousness consists of contingent dimensions as well, of which all are both somewhat unique to our individual consciousness, as well as independent of all other contingent dimensions, imposing a metaphysical limit, beyond which we can validate nothing, while the manner such conscious machines would utilize the dimension of consciousness, could only be evident beyond this metaphysical barrier. Actually, in chapter two, we already discussed a similar issue, suggesting we cannot validate the self-awareness of anyone else but our own, let alone that of a machine. Still, as we have just shown, we cannot even measure the contingent dimensional condition of such machines, regardless if they are self-aware or not. However, if we would be able to validate neither the self-awareness of our future machines, nor their utilization of the dimension of consciousness, then how are we to utilize them to prove anything?
Actually, our challenge is even greater. To clarify, again, according to "Delta Theory", metaphysically, all contingent dimensions are independent of one another, and therefore, theoretically, there is no limit over the amount of contingent dimensions a particle may span. Therefore, even if we could measure the contingent dimensional composition of the particles, of which our future machines would consist, potentially, each of these particles may span an infinite amount of contingent dimensions, and hence, even if metaphysically, we could "access" their contingent dimensional composition, we would simply not have the time to go over the data. Actually, this difficulty exemplifies yet another reason, why we cannot validate our metaphysical foundation through other means, such as through measuring physical randomness, or experimentations with life forms, as essentially, according to our metaphysical foundation, contingent dimensions govern them, which again, we simply cannot measure.
So how are we to overcome this metaphysical barrier? Well, we need to broaden our perspective. To explain, if we are to prove anything, with respect to either the dimension of consciousness, or contingent dimensions in general, we cannot use the standard deterministic model for experiments, in which we have preconditions, predicted post conditions, which we compare with the actual post conditions. No. We must remove the pre-conditions, use our metaphysical foundation to predict something inconceivable, and then, empirically, show it transpired.
The removal of preconditions is mandatory to all experiments conducted over contingent dimensions. For example, with respect to life forms, suppose we conduct an experiment, to test whether passing an electrical current through a dead animal, brings it back to life (such as in the famous story of Frankenstein). Even if the animal would come to life, we could not determine the role contingent dimensions played in our experiment. Our traditional empirical intuitions would persuade us, this revival occurred due to the electric currents we passed through the corpse of the animal, regardless of the level of biological decay it exhibited prior. Still, this would not imply, contingent dimensions did not play a factor, but rather that because our scientific instrumentation, failed to measure contingent dimensional data, we could not include it in our analysis of the results of our experiment.
Supposing that indeed, contingent dimensions both exist, and affect our reality, while remaining "inaccessible" to our scientific instrumentation, again, we must conduct experiments, where we could provide no materialistic explanation to the empirical results we would measure, other than our metaphysical foundation, showing our metaphysical foundation is more "exact" than our scientific instrumentation. However, how can we conduct an experiment using elements our instrumentation cannot access? How can we call it an experiment at all?
But this is exactly the point. To clarify, think what we attempt to prove. We attempt to show, that even though we cannot measure it directly, our reality consists of dimensions. We cannot conduct experiments over the imminent dimensions, as to experiment with them, we must be able to isolate them from our instrumentation, while according to our metaphysical foundation, the imminent dimensions are the metaphysical enablers for the existence of our scientific instrumentation.
Still, fortunately, contingent dimensions are accessible to empirical study. To explain, indeed, we cannot measure contingent dimensional composition with scientific instrumentation. Nevertheless, we can measure their effects on our reality. In fact, it is possible that accidentally, science has already measured their effects, while discovering physical randomness in nature. Indeed, this is only a hypothesis, as empirically, we did not yet prove contingent dimensions cause the emergence of physical randomness in nature, or anything of the sort. Nevertheless, supposing we would construct artificially conscious machines successfully, arguably, we may be able to affirm it. Again, regardless of their somewhat "confusing" name, our attempts to build such machines, does not spawn from our desire to build artificial intelligence, and most probably, our crude designs will yield machines of questionable intelligence, if we could call them "intelligent" at all. Still, their construction would prove valuable, due to the following reasons:

1. We will base the design and architecture of these machines on a metaphysical foundation, which we conceptualized by analyzing our consciousness (meaning, the manner, by which "Delta Theory" constructed its metaphysical foundation). This is important, as it will allow us to deduce, that the metaphysical principles we would incorporate in the design of our artificially conscious machines, should be true to human consciousnesses as well.

2. Our metaphysical foundation would explain why these machines should both work, and share some of our cognitive capabilities, prior to their successful construction. This is important, as it provides us with the necessities, which we require to validate our metaphysical foundation. To explain, by showing these machines work as we predicted, while utilizing attributes scientific instrumentation cannot measure, we will show, the flow of consistency in our reality, exceeds the inherent limitations of our scientific instrumentation, exhibiting its metaphysical limitation. In simpler terms, it will show contingent regularities exist in our reality.

3. Regardless of the manner our future machines would utilize the dimension of consciousness, naturally, our machines would be artificial, rather than "natural" life forms, and hence, their successful construction would hint, that exactly as we suggested in "Delta Theory", metaphysically, life, and consciousness, are irrelevant to one another. Indeed, in itself, the significance of such a claim, is quite marginal. Still, arguably, it may add argumentative robustness to our effort, as well as help us obvert possible moral prejudice, so common to any discussion, with respect to technology, and the human psyche.

4. We have no other prior empirical knowledge, with which we could justify the feasibility of the technology, which we would incorporate in these machines, suggesting the successful construction of such machines, should signal an immediate metaphysical paradigm shift in practical sciences. This is important, so that in the event we would succeed, the scientific community will not attribute our success, with an explanatory model, which would refrain from validating the dragonish option.

While arguably, this collection of items appears promising, still, there is a problem. To explain, indeed, in “Delta Theory” we attempted to answer the completeness criterion, by analyzing our experience as consciousnesses rationally, and consistently. Still, it is possible, our consciousnesses possess attributes, which are incompatible with consistent or rational analysis, suggesting the manner our future machines would utilize the dimension of consciousness, would be fundamentally different, from the manner our consciousnesses utilize it, allowing us to argue against our metaphysical foundation, even in the event we will construct such machines successfully. Actually, this is more than but a vague speculation, as arguably, throughout this text, we have shown, the existence and effects of irrational and inconsistent elements over our psyche, namely, demons, and there may be others. To clarify, in no way do I claim, this text embodies all there is to discuss, with respect to metaphysical inconsistencies over our psyche.
The truth is, we cannot base our actions on our lack of knowledge, and hence, arguably, we may not be able to overcome this difficulty. Still, we should remember our motivation. We do not require conscious machines, as had we merely wanted to populate our reality with more consciousnesses, we could have just as well reproduced, or utilize existing cloning technologies. Furthermore, again, our main motivation is not to validate our metaphysical foundation in its entirety, but rather to affirm it is more "exact" than the current materialistic metaphysical paradigm of empirical sciences, and arguably, constructing our future machines successfully, while basing our effort on a theoretical foundation, fundamentally different from that of contemporary empirical sciences, would successfully achieve this goal. Moreover, as we previously suggested, we would not restrict the metaphysical foundation, according to which we will design our future machines, to the one we suggested in "Delta Theory", but rather extend it to our conclusions from this text, meaning, we would construct our machines, so they would suffer from demonic influences.
Actually, considering our conclusions from this text, there is no other option. To explain, first, because as we suggested in chapter two, inconsistent elements can alter the contingent dimensional composition of any particle, being physical, meaning, consisting of particles, potentially, any machine is susceptible to the effects of inconsistent elements. Still, naturally, our goal is not merely to build machines, which would exist physically, and nor is it to build machines, whose existence would be consistent with the existence of the dimension of consciousness. Our aim is to build machines, which would utilize the dimensional hosting capabilities of the dimension of consciousness, so to relate to events occurring in a world, external to these machines, and so to be able to react to their external conditions. Therefore, essentially, we attempt to build machines, which would cause irrelevant worlds, to become relevant to one another, suggesting our future machines would utilize metaphysical inconsistencies of some sort. However, because only inconsistent elements may yield metaphysical inconsistencies, it suggests, our future machines must somehow incorporate inconsistent elements into their design. Therefore, because we are to utilize the dimension of consciousness, and because as we suggested in the first chapter, inconsistent elements must always exhibit all the attributes of metaphysical inconsistencies, it implies, the assimilation of inconsistent elements into the design of our future machines, would result with demonic effects.
Still, this is neither a drawback, nor a problem. On the contrary, we will “exploit” this imperative, to our advantage. To explain, as we suggested in the previous chapter, our demonic influences, along with our cognitive ability to demon cast, allowed us to progress both culturally, and technologically, beyond the limit of any consistent cognitive progress, and possibly, we could utilize a similar inconsistent cognitive progression, as the inconceivable feature of our future machines, which will mark our effort successful.
Still, arguably, such a suggestion, may damage our effort. To explain, as we suggested in the previous chapter, computer sciences have already proved, that utilizing truly unbiased randomness, we can solve problems using probabilistic algorithms, using significantly less calculations than deterministic algorithms require. While indeed, such probabilistic algorithms may error, still, with but a few additional calculations, we can reduce our margin of error, to any finite value. Therefore, considering our future machines would utilize contingent dimensional manipulations, through the manner they would manipulate the dimension of consciousness, we could argue, that the reason their performance would exceed our expectations, is merely because of the random component determining their operations. To remind you, empirical sciences have discovered this already, without initiating the scientific paradigm shift, which is the cause of our effort, and hence, it suggests, potentially, our effort will fail to bear fruit.
To summarize, our future machines should exhibit more than merely unpredictable superior performance of some sort. We require a "stricter" success criterion, one that would exemplify the difference between the metaphysical foundation we attempt to validate, and the current metaphysical paradigm of empirical sciences.
Still, what could this criterion be? Well, if you remember, in chapter two, we argued, that because physical randomness is the only aspect of our reality, which according to our current scientific paradigm, we will never be able to predict, if it does not adhere to contingent dimensional regularities, it deems our self-awareness neither a consistent element, nor an inconsistent element, and hence, we concluded, contingent dimensional regularities must govern it. Therefore, to counter the existing scientific paradigm, which rejects the notion of contingent, or alternatively, local dimensions, we must somehow exemplify, our future machines did not merely surpass their theoretical capabilities in a random fashion, but rather in a fashion we will predict, in advance.
In chapter four of "Delta Theory", we already discussed the manner, in which contingent dimensions affect our reality (namely, governing the manner our world persists, in the small volume of space, which a particle occupies), as well as the type of physical events, whose outcome they determine (namely, collisions between particles). Our future machines will incorporate these yet unknown, and immeasurable, attributes of matter. Still, being contingent, or alternatively, local, we can exploit these attributes only to some degree, as the metaphysical intangibility of contingent dimensions, imposes a limit over the type of architectures, which can exploit them. Moreover, most probably, they will remain intangible, if not utilized in a manner, similar to the one we will soon describe. Actually, this in itself may impose a challenge. To clarify, because the attributes of matter, which we will exploit in our future machines, are intangible to materialistic instrumentation, which does not incorporate an architecture, similar to that which we attempt to build, until we will successfully complete our effort, we will not be able to justify it empirically. Before then, it is all a question of faith.
Still, this is not the end of our problems. To explain, currently, it is hard to determine, how much of our future artificially conscious machines will be of our design, and how much of their design, we would have to borrow from nature, “as is”. To clarify, as we suggested throughout this text, it is possible, our sensations of pain occur due to the insertion of inconsistent elements into our internal mental world, through the dimension of consciousness. Actually, it may not merely be possible. It might be imminent. To explain, according to "Delta Theory", our sensations of pain cause the emergence of all our deltas, inflicting us with our wills and desires. These wills originate from the external world, which as we suggested, metaphysically, is irrelevant to our internal mental world, and hence, it suggests, our sensations of pain reflect the existence of metaphysical inconsistencies in our psyche. Still, because from our experience, we know our animal body can inflict us with sensations of pain (such as for example, when making us feel hunger), it suggests, our animal body manages to manipulate metaphysical inconsistencies, a capability, which currently, we can only dream of mastering. Therefore, this may extend the scope of our effort, from "merely" mastering contingent dimensional technologies, to mastering metaphysical inconsistencies as well, imposing a tougher challenge, which potentially, could demotivate us from answering it in its entirety. Instead, due to pragmatic limitations, we may be forced resort to "partial" solutions, ones that will mix our own design, with the "designs" we find in nature, such as those existing in the neurons in our brain, for example.
Indeed, such "partial" solutions may significantly reduce the challenge, which constructing such machines may impose. However, because we will not understand the metaphysical essence of the components, which we will incorporate within our future machines, potentially, we may not be able to understand, why our machines "work", which in turn, would deem our effort pointless. To clarify, again, we need neither construct artificial consciousnesses, nor construct artificial self-awareness, but rather validate our metaphysical foundation. Moreover, arguably, by incorporating components, which we would borrow from nature, we could argue, our effort would not yield machines at all, but rather reconstructions of existing biological organs (as small as they might be), not so different from contemporary implant procedures, further exemplifying the difference, between the product of our effort, and the goal to which we aspire.
Still, this is but one possibility, and it may also be possible, that once we begin our actual effort, we will find ways to overcome this challenge, and actually, with respect to this specific difficulty, there may be a reason for some optimism. To clarify, because apparently, all humans react to pain sensations, it suggests, the insertion of pain sensations into our psyche, utilizes a universal feature of the external world, or alternatively, reflects the regularity, which one of the imminent dimensions sustains, and actually, in "Delta Theory", we already suggested this possibility. If so, this challenge may be relatively easy to master, as essentially, all our contemporary materialistic machines, utilize the imminent dimensions. Therefore, while indeed, without further experimentation, it is hard to determine if this is indeed the case, still, for the course of our current discussion, we will assume this challenge is solvable. Moreover, arguably, the insertion of metaphysical inconsistencies into our future machines, through a process, somewhat similar to the one transpiring in our brain whenever we feel pain sensations, may be the key ingredient, enabling the successful completion of our effort.
In what way? Well, as we previously mentioned, while verifying the existence of our self-awareness is trivial, we cannot verify the existence of self-awareness in others, let alone in a machine. Moreover, we cannot know in what manner, our future machines would utilize the dimension of consciousness. Nevertheless, we can predict, that if our future machines would utilize the dimension of consciousness, in a manner similar to the manner our neural biology utilizes it, the reactions of our future machines, to the introduction of metaphysical inconsistencies into their "conscious" components, meaning, their components, which would utilize the dimension of consciousness, should be similar to our reactions. For example, we should expect, our future machine would attempt to avoid such metaphysical inconsistencies, similarly to the manner we attempt to avoid sensations of pain.
We would exploit this feature, to affirm our metaphysical foundation. To explain, this "feature", would reflect in the “test”, which our machines would have to pass, so to mark our effort successful. To be more specific, the "test" our future machines would have to pass, would be to evolve to exhibit the ability, to cast their spontaneous demons intelligently. Indeed, as we already agreed, such a test may not validate our metaphysical foundation in its entirety. Nevertheless, arguably, it may provide us with something far more beneficial:

1. By constructing machines, which are somewhat intelligent, we will validate a link between intelligence, and the explanation “Delta Theory” suggested, for the emergence of our consciousness.

2. By utilizing contingent dimensional technologies, we will show, that contingent dimensions both exist, and are capable of yielding intelligence. This is important, because as we will soon see, the architecture we are to describe, utilizes existing discoveries in neuroscience, which currently, does not claim contingent dimensions are necessary for the emergence of human intelligence, and which potentially, could argue against the necessity to resort to metaphysical discussions, with respect to explanations for the emergence of our intelligence. In other words, our future machines will counter existing assumptions in neuroscience, exemplifying the necessity of our current course of discussion.

3. By showing our machines suffer from demonic influences, we will show, the attributes of metaphysical inconsistencies, which we predicted in the first chapter, are compatible with the design of our future machines both theoretically, and empirically.

4. By showing our machines demon casted intelligibly, empirically, we will show, that demon casting is both "natural" to an intelligence, which we would construct by analyzing our consciousness, as well as means, by which our machines enhance their cognitive capabilities, exactly as we predicted in this text, suggesting it is applicable to our reflective analysis.

5. Because we will base most of our future machine's design on our conclusions from "Delta Theory" (which to remind you, suggested our consciousness is a consistent element), in many ways, demon casting is external to their design, and hence, its spontaneous emergence would reflect a predicted unexpectedness, suggesting that as we have shown throughout this text, metaphysical inconsistencies are not chaotic, but rather exhibit somewhat predictable tendencies.

To summarize, this test allows us to “skip” the problematic aspects of validating a metaphysical theory. It affirms demon casting is a viable cognitive practice, while relieving us from the need, to prove why it is so, by fulfilling several of our predictions, which according to existing scientific paradigms, should not occur, namely:

1. We will show, we can consistently manipulate elements, which we cannot measure with scientific instrumentation (meaning, contingent dimensions), so to yield deterministic physical changes we can measure. In other words, we will extend the metaphysical scope of exact sciences.

2. We will show, we can physically construct a working machine, based primarily on metaphysical principles.

3. We will show, the capabilities of machines, which utilize the technology we would incorporate, surpass their initial design (meaning, by demon casting).

Now that we have described the essentials of our effort, it is time we shift from theory to praxis. How will we do it? How will we summon this predicted unexpected outcome? Well, actually, again, similarly to the changing "tendencies" of metaphysical inconsistencies, once we construct these machines, we will not need to do much. We will leave these machines in a sensory vacuum, allowing spontaneous demons to influence them, until eventually, without exterior provocation, these machines would yield objects, whose existence we could only explain as demon casts. While possibly, such demon casts would reflect some type of randomness, still, the intelligible internal order, as well as the level of detail, which these objects would exhibit, would suggest, they are complex, rather than chaotic, and as such, they will exemplify, physical randomness encapsulates an abundance of unique deterministic processes, rather than the absence of deterministic causality. Furthermore, because we cannot predict the semantics, by which we will interpret the details these objects would exhibit, we will show that potentially, their complexity is infinite.
Still, as we just mentioned, these details must be intelligible. To explain, randomness yields details by default, while our effort demands, we exemplify these details reflect determinism of some sort. Therefore, in addition, we must be able to show:

1. The details of the objects our machines would yield, would reflect their internal state. This is important, so to refute the possibility, these details represent the imprint of accidental randomness, rather than a deterministic process.

2. Producing these objects should come hand in hand with increased performance. To clarify, indeed, we have not yet defined what actions or calculations our future machines would perform. Still, such increased performance is necessary to validate both the reflective meaningfulness of these objects to the machines producing them, as well as the positive cognitive aspects of demon casting.

3. The objects our future machines would produce, would exhibit intelligible patterns, which would reflect their temporal internal states, rather than their architecture or implementation. This is important, so to refute any claim, suggesting a dependency between the objects our machines would produce, and the manner by which we designed them. To explain, generally, machines reflect the algorithms they obey, meaning, they reflect the manner their operation changes, with respect to their external and internal states. Therefore, potentially, by changing the internal and external states of our future machines in a random fashion, they may shift between the various states of their operation, and hence, any object they may produce, could reflect these state transitions. In other words, by allowing a seemingly random agent to govern our future machines, we may allow them to exhibit the complexity of the design by which we constructed them, which potentially, we may confuse with intelligible details these machines yielded spontaneously. For example, if we consider a calculator, we may confuse its ability to display digits, with the ability to comprehend the semantics of the values it calculated, wrongly suggesting our calculator understands the physical implications, of the values it calculates and displays, such as distances, amounts, and weights. Still, by remaining vigilant to the possibility, our future machines would exhibit the design by which we will build them, we will ensure that indeed, our machines exceeded the capabilities inherited from their design, implying the contingent metaphysical manipulators, which we will incorporate in their design, serve as a placeholder for unexpected capabilities, rather than merely chaotic data generators.

By satisfying this list of necessities, arguably, we may affirm the metaphysical link, between physical randomness, and a deterministic process, exemplifying physical randomness does not reflect chaos, but rather a metaphysical placeholder of infinite complexity. From this point on, the empirically measurable feasibility of this placeholder, will "do the math" for us.
Still, what does it mean? Well, supposing we have a computer, containing a 5-tera bits hard drive. Because each of the bit the hard drive stores, can be in two different states (namely, zero, or one), naturally, there is a physical limit to how small its hard drive can be. To explain, at the very least, it must occupy five billion particles. If we wish to store even one more additional bit in our hard drive, we are out of luck. We cannot. Therefore, considering any machine occupies a finite amount of particles, it suggests, no machine can store data of infinite complexity. Moreover, even if we had an infinite amount of particles at our disposal, how will we access them? To clarify, to access each bit, we must physically go over an infinite amount of bits, and this alone will take us forever, no matter how fast we can read a single bit. Therefore, by showing randomness reflects detail, rather than lack of definition, and considering we cannot predict these details with any finite amount of deductions or calculations, we will affirm our hypothesis, namely, that physical randomness reflects detail of infinite complexity, which is not materialistic, suggesting that metaphysically, consistency extends beyond the scope of materialistic manifestations. Moreover, supposing our future artificially conscious machines would react to this randomness by demon casting, it would imply, they were susceptible to an infinite amount of details.
Still, how could they do that? To clarify, have we not just suggested, accessing data of infinite complexity should take forever? Well, this could only be possible, if our future artificially conscious machines will react to this infinite amount of details at once. If not, it would imply, reacting to a single detail requires a minimal non zero temporal duration, and considering that potentially, the amount of details we discuss is infinite, the duration it should take to react to such details, must be infinite as well. Indeed, we could claim, our machines react to merely a finite subset of these details, and actually, considering our inability to "access" the contingent dimensional states of our future machines, there is little we can do to refute such a hypothesis. Nevertheless, if the operation of our future machines would be finitely complex, it would suggest, their operation would remain predictable, and hence, arguably, they would fail to exceed the capabilities they inherited through their design, as they will be limited to a predetermined scope of behaviors. Actually, this emphasizes the need to verify, the products of our future machines would satisfy our list of necessities, as essentially, poor demon casting capabilities will not do.
Still, comprehending the essence of our effort, we must refine the way we perceive physical randomness. To explain, first, if physical randomness merely reflects our inability to measure the materialistic attributes of matter, our machines will suffer no demonic effects. To clarify, demonic effects occur due to inconsistent changes, and without them, our future machines would remain static, when no external stimulations influence them. Naturally, we could argue, our machines could undergo changes, due to quantum interactions with particles, which originated from their external environment. To clarify, according to empirical research, apparently, some particles are so tiny, they manage to penetrate practically any materialistic barrier, before finally colliding with a particle, such as for example, the particles, of which our future machines would consist, causing external interferences, which potentially, could discredit any claim we may deduce from our effort. Therefore, while testing our future machines, we must ensure, we can isolate them from any particles, radiation, fields, and any other type of external causality, and actually, this feat alone may impose a tough practical challenge.
Secondly, we must comprehend the implications of the alternative, namely, that physical randomness occurs without causative justification, meaning, that physical randomness reflect a physical inconsistency, rather than merely the effects of metaphysical inconsistencies, residing outside the metaphysical boundaries of the external world. Again, as we already suggested in chapter two, such a notion is problematic, as it suggests, all particles are inconsistent elements, and hence, it implies that metaphysically, matter is capable of all the attributes of inconsistency, meaning, it can be everywhere at once, it can disappear without a trace, it can spontaneously appear without justification, and most of all, it does not adhere to any regularity, suggesting it should not adhere to the laws of physics, contrary to our empirical knowledge.
Arguably, we may decide to embrace this argument, suggesting that the only reason matter adheres to the laws of physics, is because currently, the real gods "wish it", and actually, considering our conclusions from chapter two, with respect to the metaphysical capabilities of the real gods, allowing them to change the trajectory and essence of particles at will, there may be some truth to such a suggestion. Nevertheless, such a suggestion is even more farfetched than our argument, namely, that contingent dimensions determine what we perceive as physical randomness, consistently. Therefore, considering that arguably, this alternative is even less plausible than our suggestions, for the course of our next discussions, we will assume, contingent dimensions of potentially infinite complexity, deterministically determine the physical behaviors of particles, which currently, we perceive as random. If you require further clarifications, with respect to this issue, I suggest, you revisit chapter four of "Delta Theory", as I find little value in repeating the same arguments in this text.
As I mentioned in the last chapter of "Delta Theory", it is unclear why currently, empirical sciences have not considered the metaphysical imperative, suggesting the existence of contingent dimensions. Still, this is not really a problem. On the contrary, we will exploit this difference to our advantage. To clarify, by successfully implementing our conclusions from "Delta Theory" in the design of our future machines, we will further affirm our metaphysical foundation is sound, showing our arguments are more robust, than those of contemporary empirical sciences. In other words, we would enhance our arguments, from merely relying on the validity of the manner "Delta Theory" satisfied the completeness criterion, to validating the greater explanatory corpus, which "Delta Theory" embodies. This validation will apply to almost any conclusion, relying on our metaphysical foundation, including the dragonish option, ensuring that in the event of a global angelic collapse, the dragonish option will be both viable, and available. In fact, it might even become a desired practice, suggesting that indeed, we would successfully “change the odds” in favor of a positive outcome. We will free ourselves from our angelic “bonds of infancy”.
A new age will begin. While indeed, the real gods would still inflict inconsistent changes on our reality, through our demonic influences, mentally, we will be strong enough to exploit these influences to our advantage. We will require the help of neither religions, nor their oppressive moralities. We will exploit the full potential of our neurological biological capability to demon cast, progressing further and further both culturally, and technologically. It would be an age of dragons.
This is not a rational idealism. This is not a false angelic utopia. Rational and irrational thoughts will demonically transcend to us from the real gods, inspiring us, rather than oppressing us. Such an age will be very different from our present. We can know little about it in advance, other than that apparently, it is consistent with the "new tendencies" of the real gods. It may be a harsh age to endure, and it may be blissful. Still, undoubtedly, it will be inspiring.
Now that we have asserted both the motivation to build artificially conscious machines, and our methods to benchmark them, it is time we discussed their architecture and technology, beginning with their "building blocks", which we will call, "dimensicons". Essentially, dimensicons are particles, be it atoms, subatomic particles, perhaps even molecules. We resort to such a terminological shift, merely to emphasize the different manner, according to which we will utilize these particles, meaning, as placeholders of contingent dimensions, rather than materialistic physical elements.
Due to the lack of empirical data, currently, we know little, with respect to the actual composition and attributes of the contingent dimensions dimensicons span. To clarify, contingent dimensions can appear in different formats, be it single contingent regularities, contingent dimensional clusters (somewhat similar to the dimensional cluster, which the imminent dimensions embody, or alternatively, the three dimensional cluster, compiling the dimension of space), hosting dimensions, and possibly, there may be additional formats, different from those we mentioned in “Delta Theory”. Still, regardless of the formats, by which they may appear, they must share some basic metaphysical attributes:

1. Dimensicons span (or alternatively, "store") contingent dimensions.

2. The contingent dimensions a dimensicon spans, exist in the external world.

3. Contingent dimensions affect the manner the external world persists, in the small volume of space, which a dimensicon occupies.

4. Contingent dimensions are consistent with the regularities they sustain.

5. The existence of contingent dimensions is tautological.

6. Contingent dimensions exist independently from all other dimensions.

When "grouping" contingent dimensions together, meaning, by spanning them from a single dimensicon, abstractly, they become equivalent to a potentially infinite set, of unordered discrete independent conditions. Metaphorically, such a group is similar to a computer hard drive of potentially infinite size, in which each bit has a unique unsortable index. This is all computer science gibberish, so to explain, we cannot sort contingent dimensions, because metaphysically, they exist independently from one another, and hence, we cannot "force" them to adhere to the demands of any external sorting agent. Because we cannot sort these data indexes, if we were to attempt to access this data using traditional computers, potentially, it would have demanded we scan all our data indexes, until finally finding the data item we require, suggesting that if potentially, our data set is infinite, finding a single data item, could require an infinite amount of time. In simpler terms, in practice, we could not access such data, and indeed, we cannot "access" the contingent dimensions a dimensicon "stores". Therefore, obviously, our future machines will not be traditional computers.
Still, our future machines will be different from traditional computers in additional manners as well. To clarify, traditional computers differentiate between two types of elements:

1. Data.

2. Functions performed on data.

The data traditional computers manipulate is static. For data to change in traditional computers, functions must process it. Naturally, the data a traditional computer stores may change, whenever we shut it down, but this is irrelevant. Indeed, traditional computers store the definitions of functions, as data as well. Still, only the physical architecture of a traditional computer can execute them. Usually, the physical architecture of traditional computers utilizes transistors to manipulate the data they store, according to the laws of electronics, in the manner the functions they execute define. Indeed, traditional computers may use other means to manipulate the data they store, such as through analog and quantum computations. Nevertheless, such exotic computers change neither the distinction between data and functions, nor the manner by which they manipulate data, meaning:

1. Access and transfer the data to the computational agent.

2. Perform the computation.

3. (Optional) Extract the processed data from the computational agent, and store it in memory.

As we just stated, the third step is optional. For example, with respect to output devices, such as computer screens, a computational agent may perform functions to process data, so to project it correctly, while refraining from storing the data it calculated, which essentially, is lost with the next screen update.
Not so is the case with dimensicons. Dimensicons are both data holders, and computational agents. To clarify, the existence or inexistence of a contingent dimension a dimensicons spans, is analogous to switching a computer bit, on, or off. The physical interactions between the contingent dimensions, which different dimensicons span, is analogous to executing functions over the data they "store".
Still, there is a “twist”. As we somewhat hinted, there can be no interactions between different contingent dimensions, which a single dimensicon spans. To explain, because as we just mentioned, all contingent dimensions exist independently from one another, as long as they span from a single dimensicon, they remain out of each other’s “reach”. Nevertheless, because as we mentioned, contingent dimensions affect the small volume of space a dimensicon occupies in the external world, potentially, whenever dimensicons collide, they can "transmit" their contingent dimensional "data" to one another, effectively "executing" functions, whose computational complexity is potentially infinite. Still, to know the laws or equations, which govern these collisions, we must conduct empirical study, experimentation, and debate. Furthermore, probably, we will not understand many aspects and features of their manipulations, before actually implementing an architecture, which would utilize dimensicons (that is, if we can implement it at all). Nevertheless, as we just hinted, if interactions between dimensicons actually transpire (and “Delta Theory” is not a load of bullocks), each such interaction may embody a hyper-calculation.
The term “hyper-calculation” refers to calculations of infinite complexity, which complete in finite time. Traditional computers cannot perform hyper-calculations. Indeed, arguably, quantum and analog computers may be able to perform a weak form of hyper-calculation. To explain, such machines exploit the immediateness, by which physical phenomena occur, without performing bit-by-bit calculations, allowing them to exceed the physical limitations of traditional computers. Nevertheless, to utilize such machines as computational agents, we must both feed data into them, as well as later, extract the data they processed from them. Therefore, even if theoretically, such exotic computational agents may store data of infinite complexity, before, or after executing a calculation, because inevitably, we must sample this data to a format compatible with traditional computers, we lose this complexity. To clarify, considering analog calculations, we must either sample the result of our analog computation, back into a traditional computer, and lose fidelity according to the precision of our sampling equipment, or merely output this data into an output device, as sound, image, or movement, deeming it "unavailable" to future calculations. Moreover, supposing that indeed, our analog computational agent stores data of infinite complexity, any attempt to reduce it to finite precision, would imply we would lose an infinite amount of detail, and hence, because traditional computers can only manipulate data of finite complexity, this limitation is imperative. Moreover, even if we sample the output data with analog devices, during the transition between data mediums, external physical “noise” is bound to mix with the data, losing the precision of the output, our analog calculations yielded originally. Arguably, quantum computers do not suffer from the same loss of precision. Nevertheless, quantum computers can only manipulate data of a finite size, effectively imposing a limit over the type of computations quantum computers can calculate. To clarify, quantum computers can neither calculate functions, which manipulate an infinite amount of input data, nor functions, which output an infinite amount of data. Actually, quantum computers may suffer from even greater limitations, which we will not discuss, as they are irrelevant to this text.
Dimensicons are fundamentally different. Dimensicons can perform hyper-computations, both in terms of the complexity of the data they manipulate, as well as the amount of calculations they can perform. To clarify, again, according to our metaphysical foundation, whenever dimensicons collide, potentially, an infinite set of contingent dimensions juxtaposes with another different infinite set of contingent dimensions. After such a collision, the colliding dimensicons either emit or absorb some contingent dimensions. Still, because this process affects all of the contingent dimensions a dimensicon stores simultaneously, the calculations such collisions reflect, are instantaneous. Again, it is too early to determine what exactly transpires in such collisions, and arguably, because as we previously suggested, we cannot "access" contingent dimensions, we might never be able to determine it. Nevertheless, again, according to our metaphysical foundation, such collisions embody real hyper-computations, powered by nothing other than the metaphysical essence of the external world.
While indeed, this sounds like a promising technology, still, again, there is a "catch". To clarify, these hyper-calculations manipulate contingent dimensions, which again, we can neither access, nor have the time to review. Moreover, we cannot alter the “functions” governing such collisions. To clarify, while metaphorically, we may call them "functions", in actuality, these are merely physical collisions. In short, it appears, dimensicons provide us with nothing but an infinite contingent dimensional mess. What on earth can we do with this piece of junk?
Well, it depends on the architecture we will implement in our future machines. Actually, this architecture already exists in our biology, within the neural networks in our brain. All we need is to “reassemble” this architecture within machines of our creation. Fortunately, many studies in this field of research already exist. To explain, biologically, it appears our brain consists of a huge constellation (or alternatively, network) of interconnected neuron cells. Generally, each neuron cell consists of three biological components:

1. The Soma.
The center of the neuron, where we can find its nucleus.

2. The Axons.
The tail, extending from the Soma.

3. The Dendrites.
Small connectors, extending from both the Soma, and the opposite tip of the Axon.

According to empirical studies, neurons react to chemical and electrical stimulations induced into the neurons, through the Dendrites of their Somas. Once meeting a certain threshold, the Soma fires a pulse down the Axon, and into the Dendrites of the Axon. This pulse continues to stimulate the next neurons, connected to the Dendrites of the Axon. Some pulses occur spontaneously, without additional stimulation from the Dendrites of the Soma. Over time, the amount of Dendrites on both sides of the neuron (meaning, the Soma, and the Axon) change, changing the overall effect, each neuron has over the neural network. Naturally, there is an even deeper analysis of the structure and operation of neurons, but arguably, for our current purposes, this level of detail will suffice.
By examining this structure, computer sciences have revised a computerized model to mimic it, unsurprisingly named “neural networks”. The computerized model replaces the Dendrites of the Soma, with input variables, the Soma with a stimulation function, computed over the input data, and the Dendrites of the Axon, with the output of the neuron, while adding additional elements, such as weight functions. Essentially, a weight function determines, the significance of inputs, arriving from a specific Dendrite, with respect to the overall calculation a neuron executes. The computerized model added weight function over the various input variables, as well as output weight functions. By using various training algorithms, this computerized model can "learn" to "recognize" specific types of data, and hence, is mainly used as means to classify input data, meaning, determining if a certain input, represents a specific type of data (such as for example, associating a specific face, with a specific person). While some applications extend this functionality slightly, generally, computerized neural networks learn the generalized function specific types of data represent, and hence, they serve as a computerized model for generalization. The level of success, which computerized neural networks achieve, depends on both the training algorithms, architecture (meaning, how many neurons does the model include, and which neurons are interconnected), and the stimulation functions governing each neuron. These stimulation functions include sigmoid functions, radial functions, and many others, all of which accept parameters, which can change their behaviors.
Still, because this model is compatible with traditional computers, meaning, it reflects a materialistic algorithm, as we suggested in chapter two, it cannot yield self-awareness. Moreover, it cannot manipulate the dimension of consciousness. To clarify, as we previously suggested, utilizing the dimension of consciousness, so to react to inputs arriving from the external world, demands we incorporate metaphysical inconsistencies into our computational agents, so to induce a metaphysical equivalent, to our sensations of pain. However, traditional computers merely manipulate data. The computational agent of traditional computers, is a traditional transistor, which inevitably, is oblivious to the semantic meaning of the computations it performs, while without a computational core, rational computer can do absolutely nothing. Metaphysically, the data a computerized neural network manipulates, is identical to the data any other computer programs manipulates. There is no metaphysical difference between a computerized neural network, and a “hello world” program. Both merely reflect numeric computations of some type, while retaining the irrelevancy between the internals of the computer, meaning, its registers and transistors, and the functions we make it compute, so radically different from the manner, which utilizing the dimension of consciousness suggests.
If a neural network is to suggest metaphysical relevancy, between the functions it performs, and its internal state, in a manner similar to the manner we utilize the dimension of consciousness, we must unite its computational agent, with the data it manipulates. To clarify, as we suggested in chapter one, as well as in "Delta Theory", when we utilize the dimension of consciousness, ontologically, our psyche merges elements originating from irrelevant worlds, and hence, it suggests, any machine, which would utilize the dimension of consciousness, so to reflect our neurological design, must realize this metaphysical function. To explain, such machines cannot merely process data as "information", but rather merge the metaphysical essence of their inputs, suggesting there must be a metaphysical "location", in which such merger transpires. This "location", cannot be in their inputs, as merely merging their inputs, would leave our machines indifferent to the inputs they process, so radically different, from the sensations of pain and pleasure, which we sense from our experiences. No. The "location" where inputs should merge, must be in the computational agent itself, and this is exactly what dimensicons provide.
To explain, because the existence of a dimension (imminent, or contingent) implies the existence of the regularities it sustains, a dimensicon encapsulates both data, and the computation agent processing it, suggesting that theoretically, dimensicons can utilize the dimension of consciousness, in a manner similar to the manner natural consciousnesses (such as our own) utilize it. This is the main issue neurosciences failed to address. To clarify, neuroscience failed to question the essence of the data, which stimulates neurons, while suggesting it is convertible to numeric values. The reason for this is simple. Neuroscience relies on the contemporary metaphysical paradigm of empirical sciences, which suggests, the occurrences transpiring in neurons, are purely materialistic, and hence, are convertible to mathematical values, and applicable to mathematical manipulations. Unintentionally, neuroscience failed to realize, through such conversions, we revoke the semantic meaning of inbound stimulations.
To explain, matter can either exist, or not, but in both cases, it is not "meaningful". For example, suppose we consider six particles, as representing the number six, they do not reflect the semantic meaning of the number six, which generalizes both the concept of the grouping of six different elements, as well as the various symbols by which we can find the number six, such as in writing, or on one of the edges of a dice. The six particles, which we called "the number six", does not include our collection of interpretations to the number six, suggesting that even when referring to mathematical terms, we cannot convert materialistic manifestations, to conceptual elements.
Indeed, it is just as strange to consider the contingent dimension a dimensicon spans, as the number six. Still, because dimensicons harbor an internal complexity, potentially, they may represent something beyond their existence. Arguably, we can attempt to counter this argument, by considering the various materialistic attributes of particles, such as energy levels, spin direction, or mass. Still, this does not change much. To explain, if we consider materialistic attributes, which we can describe finitely, we can simulate them with a traditional computer, or substitute them by a larger finite collection of particles. Moreover, arguably, even if we consider continuous attributes of matter, such as local velocities, position relative to other particles, and perhaps others, according to our metaphysical foundation, the imminent dimensions yield them universally, and hence, they do not reflect the internal states of particles, but rather our interpretations with respect to their physical disposition in space, while the particles themselves remain oblivious to such interpretations. Furthermore, even if we accept continuous attributes of matter may reflect an internal state, it changes little. To explain, continuous attributes of matter reflect an infinite precision, and hence, any attempt to reduce their attributes to a finite description, changes the data these attributes reflect. Therefore, we cannot "store" the data such attributes reflect, using traditional data storage devices, as all of them allow storage of merely finite data descriptions. Theoretically, we could "store" continuous data, by storing the particles exhibiting it. Still, even if so, again, we will not be able to access this data, as any such access attempt, demands we reduce its fidelity, back to that of traditional computers, suggesting that again, we cannot access this continuous data, and if so, then how are we going to compute anything with it? What choice do we have other than to let the laws of physics serve as our computational model?
Still, if we choose this option, in actuality, we are referring to dimensicons. To explain, the only way we could utilize the laws of physics as our computational agent, is by allowing the continuous attributes of one particle to affect the continuous attributes of other particles, as again, we cannot relay these attributes using their finite representations, as such representations ruin the fidelity of our data. Therefore, we must physically “send” these attributes using a physical manifestation of some sort, which will physically sustain these continuous attributes, in transit. In other words, we must send a physical entity to collide with another particle, just as our use of dimensicons suggested. While arguably, we may be able to utilize radiation or fields to achieve this, again, it changes little. To clarify, it merely generalizes our notion of “collision”, into various physical manifestations, and actually, as we previously suggested, the exact manner, by which contingent dimensions affect the external world, requires empirical study, and hence, currently, we cannot determine what physical properties we will utilize in our future machines, to cause dimensicons to collide. To clarify, it is possible, these collisions would be radically different, from collisions between billiard balls on a pool table.
To conclude, to build our future artificially conscious machines, we need to modify the neural network computational model. We need to retrofit its components with dimensicons, and replace its stimulation functions, with collisions between dimensicons. Possibly, other models can utilize dimensicons as well. Nevertheless, as we will soon show, incorporating dimensicons within a neural network architecture, simply makes sense. Furthermore, let us not forget our initial motivation. Regardless of the obvious potential benefits, which contingent dimensional technologies may promise us, currently, our prime motivation is to affirm our metaphysical foundation, with respect to the manner it answers the completeness criterion, and hence, we must build machines, which would reflect our own neurological design. Moreover, arguably, without taking a “hint” form our biology, potentially, our lack of knowledge would fail our attempts to construct machines, which utilize dimensicons. Indeed, as we suggested in "Delta Theory", contingent dimensions govern the behavior of life forms, which potentially, we could exploit to construct many useful applications. Still, as we just suggested, "accessing" the contingent dimensional composition of particles may be impossible, while as we will soon see, our utilization of artificial neural networks, allows us to avoid this challenge.
Nevertheless, supposing we successfully build our demon casting artificially conscious machines, we would introduce a new class of computers, ones which could store infinite amount of data within a single particle, performing operations, which all the computers on earth cannot, while utilizing merely a handful of particles. Furthermore, enhancing our empirically proven scientific metaphysical foundation, would open new research possibilities for all scientific fields, and may result with severe ethical and religious disruptions. So yeah, there is actual profit to be made, by affirming the dragonish option.
To design our future machines, we will combine our conclusions from “Delta Theory”, with our empirical knowledge in biological neural networks. To clarify, in "Delta Theory”, we suggested, our brain routes inbound contingent dimensional inputs, using our collection of born and learned instincts, as well as the contingent dimensional composition of the particles compiling these pathways. Still, our brain does not evict all our inbound stimulations, but rather stores some of them in memory for later use, either as inputs it continues to evaluate, or as part of the contingent dimensional composition of the neurons compiling our brain. Inbound stimulations enter our consciousness, from either external or internal sources, meaning from either our senses, or the internals of our animal body and brain, respectfully. Usually, stimulations, which originate from our senses, impose little burden on our consciousness, as our brain manages to learn the consistent patterns, which such external stimulations reflect, and respond to them automatically, allowing our consciousness to remain oblivious to them. To explain, as we suggested in chapter four, such external stimulations reflect the consistency of the external world (such as in the manner it adheres to gravity for example), and hence, teaching our brain to evict them automatically, is quite trivial. In contrast, as we suggested, with respect to our demonically influenced concepts, such stimulations do not reflect consistency, and hence, our brain cannot learn how to evict them, causing us to feel sensations of pain and distress, which as we suggested, reflect the insertion of inconsistent elements, or alternatively, demons, into our psyche. These demons can either disrupt our instinctive methods of inbound stimulation evictions (namely, through inhibitive demons), or introduce new irrational concepts into our psyche spontaneously (namely, spontaneous demons). These demons cause, and may actually embody, our sensations of pain, imposing a burden on our consciousness, forcing our psyche to be metaphysically relevant to the sensations we sense, and hence, induce our motivations to appease our bodily needs.
By combining dimensicons, and the biological neural network model, we will revise a design, which would implement these features, starting with a single biological neuron. A neuron will be the place, where dimensicons collide, leaving the contingent dimensional imprint, in the neurons they cross. Dimensicons will repeatedly enter our artificial neurons from their artificial Dendrites, colliding with the particles of which our artificial neurons would consist, which beyond a certain level of contingent dimensional "agitation", would "fire" their contingent dimensional contents, to the artificial neurons, connected to the artificial dendrites of their artificial axons, suggesting each artificial neuron would have its own contingent dimensional "flavor". This "contingent dimensional flavor" embodies the individual stimulation function, governing each artificial neuron, suggesting that even though biologically, chemically, and physically, our artificial neurons would appear uniform, each neuron would behave differently. In some artificial neurons, introducing a specific dimensicon would increase its contingent dimensional agitation, while in other neurons, the same dimensicon will not cause such agitation.
Still, it is hard to determine the exact link between the contingent dimensional agitation of our artificial neurons, and the fact they "fire" their contingent dimensional contents. To explain, intuitively, we could think, the more a neuron is agitated, the more likely it is to fire, as metaphorically, we think the neuron is somewhat "angry", as if "shooting" its contingent dimensional contents in rage. Still, it is just as possible, a neuron would fire, exactly because there was no agitation, allowing the neuron to release its contingent dimensional contents with ease, such as in the case of our cognitive instincts, which again, allow us to remain oblivious to the inbound stimulations they relay. To clarify, we should remember, that as we suggested in "Delta Theory", the prime function of our brain, is to evict external stimulations, which as we suggested, are useless, if not potentially harmful, to our animal body, and actually, considering our suggestion, that the reason we find sensational burden uncomfortable, is because it reflects the effects of metaphysical inconsistencies over our psyche, it is not that surprising, as potentially, the metaphysical inconsistencies inherent to pain sensations, may disrupt the robustness of the kinetic equilibriums, allowing the cells of which our animal body consists, to persist to exist.
As we previously mentioned, currently, it is unclear how we will implement these artificial neurons. We could use particle accelerators, magnetic fields, and most probably, there may be many other options. Moreover, currently, it is hard to tell from what materials we will build our future machines, because as we suggested in "Delta Theory", all particles span contingent dimensions, and hence, potentially, all particles are equally eligible to serve as dimensicons. Still, again, there is one important, and perhaps difficult feature, all such implementations must support, namely, to allow the collisions of dimensicons, with the dimensicons of which our artificial neurons would consist, to change the manner these neurons would react to future inbound dimensicons. How will they do that? Currently, it is hard to tell.
Still, regardless of these obvious difficulties, supposing we would construct such machines successfully, essentially, we would construct the first hyper-computation machines known to man. To clarify, the possibly infinite amount of contingent dimensions, which would determine the agitation functions of our artificial neurons, would reflect calculations of a potentially infinite complexity, executed in finite time, without reducing the complexity of the data before, or after, these calculations, as theoretically, dimensicons can "store" the results of the computations they perform, in their full fidelity. Furthermore, unlike analog computations, physical noise does not downgrade the data, while in transit between the components of our artificial neurons model, as essentially, the physical noise, or alternatively, physical randomness, which would affect our model, is one of its inherent components (meaning, demonic effects). In short, even though the components compiling our model, are but common particles, theoretically, this model can perform calculations no other traditional computer can.
Still, even if we would build such artificial neurons successfully, and even if these artificial neurons would perform actions equivalent to hyper-calculations, we would still have challenges to solve. To explain, even if we could stream dimensicons (meaning, particles) into the "input jacks" of our artificial neurons, causing them to "fire", or alternatively, evict their contingent dimensional contents, again, we simply cannot access their contingent dimensional composition, suggesting we cannot know why our artificial neurons fire. Therefore, in order to utilize the hyper-computational capabilities of our artificial neurons, we must construct an apparatus of some sort, which would "map" the contingent dimensional composition of the dimensicons our artificial neurons would evaluate, into semantically meaningful specific types of inputs.
This leads us to the greater architecture of our future machines, namely, "the artificial neural network". To explain, in “Delta theory”, we already suggested, our brain evolved, because of the evolutionary advantages, which learning new behavioral patterns, different from the ones the automaton governing our animal body, promises. To clarify, while indeed, metaphysically, nothing limits the behavioral sophistication of a single cellular life forms, without a learning mechanism, such life forms can only do, what they could do from birth, suggesting that if their external conditions require they would perform actions, which they did not “know” from birth, well, tough luck. They cannot. To attain new beneficial behaviors, first, life forms must evolve their contingent dimensional automatons, so to allow survival in these new conditions.
The same applies to neurons and neural networks. To explain, while potentially, a single neuron can calculate the same "agitation function" an entire neural network can, it cannot differentiate between different “inputs”, and hence, it cannot select a beneficial response to each. To clarify, the contingent dimensional automaton, which governs the behavior of a neuron, does not “know” what is “out there” in the external world, suggesting neurons must learn, how to map specific sensory inputs, with beneficial responses. Still, the semantic meaning of the inputs a neuron processes, exists in neither its sensory inputs, nor the contingent dimensional automaton, governing the neuron. Only an ensemble of neurons may deduce such semantic interpretations.
To explain, let us consider our eyes. An ensemble of neuron receptors, located at the back of the eye, gather sensory inputs. Each receptor does not "know" what the other receptors “see”. It simply "dumps" the sensory input it gathered, into the nervous system, as if saying, “Let god sort them out”. If a single neuron had to analyze all this sensory information, it would not "know" how to differentiate the inputs it received from each neuron. Actually, it might not even "know", which dimensicon originated from which receptor, as once dimensicons enter the contingent dimensional “collision area” within a neuron, essentially, any previous distinction between the origins of dimensicons, is lost. Therefore, inevitably, a single neuron would fail to combine its inputs in a beneficial manner, forcing it to interpret its contingent dimensional inputs as chaotic, resulting with a uniform response to all inputs.
Still, the output of a neuron is somewhat more "meaningful". To clarify, the dimensicons a neuron fires, conveys the dimensional imprint signature of the neuron that fired them, originating from the set of dimensicons, compiling the neuron. The same applies to every neuron. To clarify, potentially, the infinite contingent dimensional variety, which each dimensicon compiling a neuron may span, allows infinite variance between the outputs of neurons. Moreover, the dimensicons a neuron outputs, reflects the dimensicons it received as inputs as well, and hence, potentially, its output dimensicons carry the contingent dimensional signature of the entire neural pathway, from which its inputs originated. Therefore, theoretically, this "signature" provides a method to map the contingent dimensional contents of dimensicons. Still, this mapping requires that somehow, some of the contingent dimensional composition of each neuron would not change, and hence, our future artificial neurons would have to support this feature.
Still, even if this helps us solve the challenge of mapping the contingent dimensional contents of dimensicons, meaning, mapping them according to the neural pathways they travelled, our machines must learn how to respond to them, in a beneficial manner, meaning, in a manner, which would reduce the levels of metaphysical inconsistencies, within our future artificial neurons. This learning must transpire over time. Still, learning something “new” in the contingent dimensional sense, demands our artificial neurons must possess the capability to change their design. Still, it is unclear what type of change is required. Neuroscience suggests such changes are limited to changes in the structure of our artificial neural pathways, while it is possible, that as we just suggested, it may require changing the contingent dimensional composition of the dimensicons compiling our artificial neurons, so to inflict specific beneficial "flavors" on to the dimensicons they process. This is yet one more issue we need to study empirically. Nevertheless, if altering the neural pathways is enough, then we already possess several such training algorithms. To clarify, we can apply the same training algorithms, which neuroscience revised, such as back propagation, gradual descent, bootstrapping, ensembles, and many others. I will spare you the details, but it works. Just get a copy of Matlab, and play with the neural networks package.
Arguably, creating a working artificial neural network, which utilizes dimensicons, is enough to affirm the explanation “Delta Theory” provided, to satisfy the completeness criterion. However, without a sophisticated cognition such as our own, our machines will not be any more impressive than traditional computers. I mean, come on. Mapping inputs to meaningful outputs is not a big deal. To achieve something impressive enough, so to metaphysically shake our current scientific paradigms, we must exploit the potential for hyper-computation this technology provides further. Again, we must exemplify, our artificial networks share some resemblance to our cognitive capabilities, which as we suggested, demands our future machines would demon cast.
How will we achieve this? Well, considering the amount of challenges we are yet to master, it is hard to say. Our best bet is to follow the origins of our technology, meaning, the evolution of the human brain. We need to think why we cognitively developed as we did, and implement the same evolutionary progressions in our future machines. Actually, "Delta Theory" already suggested several possible explanations for our cognitive evolution. Moreover, fortunately, unlike the human brain, our future machines will be designable. We will not have to wait for millions of years, so to verify, which evolutionary mutations are most successful. We know what we are looking for. We are looking for a design similar to ours. Whenever we will encounter evolutionary progressions, which we will find undesirable, we could simply “kill the power” of our future machines, and refine our model.
Nevertheless, we must be careful. We must remember, the model we attempt to construct, can both think rationally, and irrationally, allowing it to demon cast, because again, as we suggested in the previous chapter, by demon casting, we surpass the consistent limitations of our conceptual capabilities, as we realize ideas through matter. This irrationality deems it impossible to predefine what will be our demon casts, suggesting we must implement a similar design, meaning, a design, which would allow such irrationalities. To clarify, contrary to common practices in the field of artificial intelligence, we should not seek a design, by predefining a set of deterministic behaviors, which our future machines should obey. Instead, we must keep our designs somewhat "loosely defined", so that occasionally, our future machines will perform unexpected actions, as again, potentially, one of these unexpected actions, should result with the demon casts, allowing us to successfully complete our effort.
Still, how will this search for the right “design” transpire? Are we completely lost here? Well, not exactly. First, as we already agreed, we must implement a mechanism, somewhat similar to the one allowing sensations of pain to motivate our actions, which to ease our discussion, we would name, the "demonic injector". Moreover, with respect to computer sciences, we can rename this mechanism more technically, namely, as a "reward function". This reward function would mimic the sense of comfort we sense, whenever we adhere to our born instincts. Nevertheless, we cannot implement such a reward function straightforwardly. To clarify, usually, reward functions adhere to objective criteria. A reward function measures performance according to criteria external to the agent performing the action, while in contrast, we must make our future machines "care" for the reward we will grant them for good performance, which we would implement, by binding it with our demonic injector.
This is a truly complex and important design principle, which we must implement in our future machines. Moreover, this principle determines, the environment, in which we will develop them. To clarify, first, we must ensure that as long as they are active, our artificial neural networks will repeatedly relay dimensicons, as the “will” to process dimensicons, so to relieve their demonic sufferings, must be "hard-coded" into their design, so to ensure they would bother to do anything at all. In many ways, our biology has implemented the same design principal, by constantly streaming sensory stimulations into our psyche. While sometimes inconvenient, this is mandatory for the development of thought. We do not have the luxury of sparing our future artificially conscious machines this burden, as arguably, without it, our future conscious machines could always take the “lazy solution” to all their “problems”, by doing absolutely nothing.
Still, we should be careful, while provoking our future machines, with our demonic injector. To clarify, while we should not be too "merciful", allowing our future machines to "lazily" accept the effects of our demonic injector, we must not overwhelm them as well, and hence, possibly, we should consider installing them with a “crying” mechanism of some sort, so that in times of great artificial “distress”, our future artificial neural networks will not overload, but rather "flush out" their demonic influences physically, through a stream of dimensicons. Nevertheless, again, we must be careful, not to allow our future artificial neural networks use such a mechanism too often, as if we would not challenge them, naturally, they would always prefer the lazy easy option. Still, currently, there is no point speaking about this in such level of detail.
Still, with respect to such a "crying mechanism", we must provide a body for our future artificial neural networks to control. Moreover, if we are to mimic our own consciousness, we should provide them with a body, somewhat similar to ours in its mobility. Artificial intelligence research somehow overlooked this seemingly harmless and arguably obvious notion. To explain, again, the emphasis in artificial intelligence research has always been in the end-result, meaning constructing an intelligent machine. Generally, artificial intelligence research overlooked the reason, why humans and animals are intelligent. Maybe it is because artificial intelligence is in the computer sciences faculty, while the study of evolution is in the biology faculty, but regardless, artificial intelligence research failed to achieve real progress. Still, having understood the basic design of our future machines (meaning, artificial neural networks), we cannot overlook this aspect.
The basic function our brain performs, is solving the emergence of pain sensations, by manipulating our animal body, such as through eating, drinking, and the likes. This basic function motivates us to learn all other cognitive capabilities, including our social and conceptual capabilities, as well as our desire to learn a language, with which we can exploit our "intelligent environment", so to provide us with our biological necessities. Therefore, if we are to build artificially conscious machines, we must implement this principle to the full. We must connect the outputs of our future artificial neural network to a “body”, which our future artificial neural network will learn to control. Still, it does not have to be a physical body. We could let our machines operate a simulated model of a body, which traditional computers could produce, as there is no real significance to the materialistic attributes of this body. Alternatively, if we choose to distance these machines from human cognitive capabilities, we can abstract this body, so to perform abstract computational actions, such as accessing databases, or saving data. Nevertheless, because we learn most of our cognitive capabilities from our interactions with other humans, again, it would be preferable to utilize an artificial body, which could exist in an environment other humans could visit, and "raise" our future machines, quite similarly to the manner we raise human infants.
In addition, we should remember, that because our future machines rely on contingent dimensional technologies, it would be extremely hard for us to predetermine, which designs would yield "better" behaviors, and possibly, the only way we would be able to find good designs, would be through trial and error, suggesting that even though these machines would be manmade, to find "good" designs, we must incorporate some sort of “controlled evolution”. Still, finding the right design does not have to be that difficult. To clarify, considering nature managed to create human consciousnesses with random trial and error, we should be able to "manage it" as well. Indeed, we can always claim, the only reason we evolved as we did, is due to the omniscience and omnipotence of the real gods, somewhat similarly to arguments, which creationists suggest. Nevertheless, this is but one option. Moreover, supposing the real gods "want" our effort to succeed, they might even "help us", by causing us to unintentionally construct "good" designs. Moreover, as we previously suggested, it is possible that challenges, which currently, seem so "out there" would become tangible, once we put our minds to the effort. Furthermore, we could harness discoveries in the field of brain research to “speed up” the evolution of our artificial neural networks, as well as perhaps utilize Einstein's theories of time relativity, so to "accelerate" the progression of causality in our future machines, reducing the time it would take them to evolve otherwise.
So, is this it? Is this how we are to “change the odds” in our favor, in the event of a global angelic collapse? Is this the new tendency of the real gods? Are we to build artificially conscious machines, capable of performing hyper-computations? Will our future machines demon cast? Will we affirm the metaphysical foundation, which we suggested in “Delta Theory”? Are we going to affirm the dragonish option empirically? Is this the reason this text came to be?

Was there an angelic message, hidden in this text?

STREAM : inconsistent : chapter 5 : rebellion

2011-06-03T12:37:00.000-07:00

I know what you are thinking, and no, you did not “get it”. The purpose of this text is not to make us rebel against the real gods. Such a rebellion is essentially pointless. No. What I meant by the term “rebellion” is more straightforward than that. It simply means that knowing the "nature" of the real gods, makes us want to rebel against it. If reading this text makes you dislike the way things are, it is by no coincidence. The fact I wrote this text, even though I never wanted to think of such things, is no coincidence either. To clarify, apparently, the real gods genuinely “want” this antagonistic effect. I do not know what outcome this sense of antagonism will bring, but it is what the real gods “planned”.
So what could be the purpose of this antagonism? Well, the first most obvious purpose of which I can think, is that there is none. This entire text is simply a way the real gods show us, “We can do this”, "We can expose our true nature, show you how pointless it is, and leave you hanging”. This seems very plausible. Furthermore, I can only speculate, that in accordance with the pointlessness of this entire venture, little more than ten insignificant individuals will ever listen to this text. To clarify, it is hard to believe, the real gods would “want” this text to be popular, as implicitly, it reduces their ability to inflict inconsistent changes on our reality. They were only “trying to make a point”, showing that exposing their true nature, does not impose a limit for them. Nevertheless, naturally, they have nothing to gain from “dwelling” in this achievement, as there are many more people to fuck with, other than Ptyl.
While indeed, I have little problem accepting this option, considering the amount of work put in this text, the possible validity of this text (I repeat, possible, I am not saying it is necessarily correct), and such an insignificant outcome of pissing me off, simply do not "add up". As I said, due to events, which have transpired in my personal life, you could say, I was “dragged” into thinking the thoughts, which I expressed in this text. Still, even before writing it, I was already antagonistic, or at the very least indifferent to religions, and therefore, essentially, by inflicting these arguably demonic influences on me, the real gods achieved nothing, and actually, this in itself, undermines the limitless metaphysical potential of the real gods (at least from my perspective). Simply put, I cannot find the connection, between the undeniable persistence the real gods showed, maintaining religions for thousands of years, and the impotent face they have shown me, through the progression of my life.
Still, if indeed, this text has no purpose, while it will become an influential “best seller”, we may have reason for concern. To clarify, if the real gods “want” us to doubt their angels and demons, without "gaining" anything from it whatsoever, it suggests, they “lost interest” in the inconsistent changes they can inflict through us. If so, then we are really screwed, as implicitly, our “usefulness” to the real gods, reassures the real gods “want” us around, and hence, if they do not “need” us anymore, it could suggest, that exactly as all the 2012 apocalyptic prophecies predict, our time is almost “up”. We are going to be “wiped clean” in the near future. While I agree, this option is “farfetched and hysterical”, still, maybe it is the truth…
Nevertheless, obviously, there are other "less hysterical" explanations to the existence of this text, one of which being, that this text is a load of bullocks. Actually, this can be true in several manners. First, it is possible, that it is wrong to think the real gods are deities. Again, the real gods might be simply a “force of nature”, which does not have a semantically meaningful “purpose”. While such a claim does not validate angelic messages, as their inconsistencies with our reality, are irrelevant to the "deity status" of the real gods, still, it does suggest, there is no “purpose” to the existence of religions. To explain, metaphysical inconsistencies may simply have no “purpose”, regardless if they reflect in religious principles, or in my motivations to write this text. To clarify, it is possible, religions spawn of insignificant chains of events, and that is all there is to it. Nevertheless, just because this text, may have no global pan-historic purpose, does not automatically imply, it is irrelevant to our personal lives.
To explain, the manner we defined the "nature" of the real gods, was identical to the manner we defined inconsistent elements. Again, essentially, the term “the real gods” is but a different name, reflecting a different perspective, over inconsistent elements, without any special additional attributes. Therefore, while it is possible, inconsistent elements take no part in the inconsistencies inherent to religions, still, why should we think that? To clarify, obviously, changing the attributes of metaphysical inconsistencies, would have changed the arrangement and distribution of religious persuasions. For example, if we consider the western monotheist god, the attributes of metaphysical inconsistencies pretty much “define it". Therefore, it suggests, that if inconsistent elements were neither unpredictable nor “restricted” from actually “entering” our reality, potentially, they could have seriously challenged the “authority” of the western monotheist invisible omniscient and omnipotent god. Therefore, just as the metaphysical attributes of inconsistent elements are relevant to the manner religions define their gods, even if these elements may not necessarily possess “divine intelligence”, our inability to determine, if inconsistent elements are deities or not, does not imply, this text is a load of bullocks, at least as far as our personal lives are concerned.
The temporal context, in which I wrote this text, is a time of rising secularism, accompanied by a growing theoretical gap within empirical sciences (reminders: the inability of an algorithm to yield our self-awareness, and the inconsistency inherent to the explanations quantum physics proposes, to the existence of natural physical randomness). Therefore, even if the circumstances that “forced” me to write this text were insignificant, arguably, this text still captures a crucial moment, in the development of human thought. Therefore, while indeed, this text may be culturally insignificant, still, it is a consistent product of our contemporary reality, and hence, similarly to the manner technology helps us change the world to better fit our liking (such as to cure diseases for example), we can find contemporary applications for this text, even if it has no "divine purpose". On the contrary, if inconsistent elements are “unintelligent”, it allows us more freedom, with which we can find ways to solve our sense of antagonism toward them. To clarify, if indeed, there is something we can do to better our condition, then it is most certainly the purpose of this text, and while I do not claim we can actually better our condition, at the very least, the option is worth “considering”.
Secondly, you could argue, this text is a load of bullocks on an even more fundamental level, meaning, that the metaphysical foundation, on which it relies (namely, “Delta Theory”), might be invalid. Well, if this is how you feel, then I really have to ask. Do you not think it is a bit “late” for that now? To clarify, in the introduction chapter, I explicitly said, within the context of this text, we would assume “Delta Theory” is either correct, or at least, mostly correct. In addition, if you remember, in chapter one, we concluded that the statement “inconsistency must exist” must be correct to all metaphysical theories. Moreover, again, as I suggested in the introduction chapter, arguably, the axioms, on which “Delta Theory” bases its arguments, are so minimal, it is very hard to refute. To clarify, because it asks for so little, it can coexist alongside other metaphysical theories and persuasions, as most of them, do not, or cannot, negate it effectively. Therefore, because we deduced the attributes of metaphysical inconsistencies from this minimal metaphysical foundation, arguably, the conclusions we suggested in this text, carry a similar robustness. Indeed, had we found an alternate complete consistent metaphysical theory, which would have either refuted the metaphysical existence of inconsistent elements, or shown that the attributes of metaphysical inconsistencies are fundamentally different from those we suggested, potentially, it could have refuted our previous conclusions, including the sense of resentment with which they induce us. Still, to the best of my knowledge, no such theory exists as of yet. You are more than welcomed to conceptualize such a theory, but until then, the validity and sense of antagonism this text provokes, still hold.
To conclude, it is possible, this text has a purpose. Still, what could it be? To clarify, while this sense of resentment, may provoke us to rebel against something, obviously, it cannot be the real gods, as the real gods "determine" all of our actions, including the emergence of our sensations of resentment and antagonism, and hence, essentially, there is no difference between rebelling against the real gods, and adhering to their demands. Nevertheless, arguably, we can rebel against their angels, just as we can rebel against religions, and their fixating demonic influences. Still, our "rebellion", must be "responsible". To explain, with respect to our conclusions from chapter three, regardless if according to both the biblical text, and our contemporary reality, the real gods did not, and do not, adhere to the angelic messages of western monotheism, its long-lasting successfulness suggests, the real gods are “happy” with the “framework”, with which western monotheist religions provide them, and therefore, we should expect, that even if the real gods "want" us to feel antagonism and resentment toward their angels and demons, still, we must be vigilant to their tendencies, understanding that unless the real gods “want” our “rebellion” to succeed, inevitably, it will fail, similarly to the manner, rationality failed to overcome our somewhat "spiritual" tendencies, throughout human history.
To clarify, as we mentioned in the previous chapter, historically, scientific progress repeatedly bounced up and down on the technological ladder. From the times of the great pyramids, both in Egypt and in South America, we shifted to times of nomadic technological backwardness and stagnation. From a striving Hellenistic rationalistic civilization, we shifted to the dark ages. In fact, we can even argue, these erratic cultural shifts, affect us to this very day. To explain, even though as we advance technologically, we marginalize the significance of religions and angels, somehow, technology and science were never a match for demonic and angelic influences. This is a repeated tendency of the real gods, and therefore, we must not repeat the mistakes of our ancestors. We must take it into consideration.
And we do. While indeed, we base our conclusions, including the sense of resentment they induce, on both a consistent metaphysical theory (namely, "Delta Theory"), and our existing empirical scientific knowledge, in no way do we attempt to refute the imminent existence of the real gods (or inconsistent elements, whatever name you prefer). On the contrary, their imminent existence is our prime motivation. Furthermore, our “rebellion” is not against religious establishments, regardless of any flaws or corruption they may harbor, but rather against the concepts religions endorse.
We must not attempt to eradicate the existence of a “framework”, with which the real gods could invoke inconsistent changes on our reality. No. We should propose a different “framework”, one that would better fit our interests. To clarify, as long as we provide a suitable replacement for the “framework” religions provide for the real gods, the real gods would not “mind”, as our personal discomfort never played a factor for the real gods, and the real gods sure “like” variety. To summarize, we rebel against the currently known tendencies of the real gods. Indeed, the success of our "rebellion" demands these tendencies will change. Nevertheless, considering the omnipotence of the real gods, our demands are humble. Moreover, because apparently, the real gods “embrace” any change that allows them to realize their limitless metaphysical potential further, the existence of this text, does not necessarily negate their “interests”. On the contrary, it is possible, this is exactly what the real gods “want”. In fact, arguably, the lack of such change should have made us raise an eyebrow, as such stagnation would have hinted, the real gods are losing their inconsistent “edge”.
Still, because we cannot really decide, whether inconsistent elements are deities, or simply “forces of nature”, the idea of expecting them to change their “tendencies” is somewhat "out of context". To clarify, if inconsistent elements are merely “forces of nature”, you could argue, it is merely yours truly, who is changing his perspective over his reality, while metaphysical inconsistencies do not change their “tendencies”, or anything of the sort. While considering my personal experiences, I am unsure if this is the case, surely, I do not wish to delude myself, that my experiences must signal such a universal metaphysical shift.
Still, my experiences are not the only record of such changes in the “tendencies” of metaphysical inconsistencies, as arguably, we can find objective evidence of this change as well, such as in the scientific discovery of physical randomness in nature. While arguably, we tend to marginalize this discovery, irrefutably, for the first time in recorded history, we have found proof, showing the metaphysical paradigm of empirical sciences is fundamentally lacking. Metaphysically, this discovery is paradigmatically different from other past discoveries in physics. To clarify, indeed, discovering atomic and sub-atomic particles, or the connection between matter and energy (as Einstein’s relativity theories suggest), were groundbreaking scientific achievements. Still, physical randomness is more than merely “one more thing, we did not know before”. We can explain the existence of true physical randomness consistently, only with some sort of infinite “conditional complexity” (meaning conditions, which are infinitely complex, and hence, are impossible to trace or predict), as quite simply, there is no other method to solve this “random puzzle” consistently. To explain, as we already suggested in chapter two, rejecting this option, implies metaphysical inconsistencies must physically exist in the external world, and as we mentioned so many times before, this is impossible, regardless if metaphysical inconsistencies exist within the world-in-itself. Indeed, it is possible, science has misinterpreted empirical data as random, while in fact, it follows a finite set of tangible preconditions, consistently. Nevertheless, currently, this is only a speculation.
Again, the meaningfulness of this empirical finding goes beyond physics. To clarify, for the first time in recorded history, we have found empirical proof for the existence of physical elements, whose behaviors we cannot predict, by definition, and apparently, these physical elements compose all the matter, existing in our universe. Moreover, we should stress, our inability to predict physical randomness does not reflect a limit of our current knowledge, as the existence of physical randomness implies, we will never be able to predict it. Indeed, in the time of ancient Greece, Aristotle has shown already, predictions of the future have no truth-value, in his famous "Sea Battle" argument. Still, such unpredictability is limited to statements about the future, while physical randomness is unpredictable in the present. To clarify, statements about the future are logically invalid, because there may always be preconditions, of which we do not know yet, while physical randomness implies, it is impossible for us to know the preconditions determining it, even after it transpired.
Physical randomness is a mystery that troubles the scientific community quite a lot. Still, no one asks one question: why now? Why did we not discover it during the time of ancient Greece? Why did we not discover it during the time of ancient Egypt? Why did we not discover it during the time of the bible? No one thinks of asking such questions, as no one thinks there is much to learn from answering them. The discovery of physical randomness transpired in the context of other scientific breakthroughs in physics, and therefore, apparently, there is nothing special about this “timing”.
Still, what else transpired, a few years before, and ever since its discovery? Well, first, humanity endured the two world wars. Indeed, today, we think these wars were senseless. Still, were they really senseless, or were they stages of a greater process, which we do not comprehend yet, as we have not yet seen its outcome?
Consider the Holocaust. While western monotheism remained the most dominant religious group on earth, somehow, the western monotheist god found it “fitting” to bring such an event on its earliest religion.
At first glance, the two world wars, and the atrocities they unleashed, may leave us with the impression, that the western monotheist god simply does not exist. Still, as we previously suggested, elements, which metaphysically, are equivalent in potential to the western monotheist god, must exist (meaning, inconsistent elements). While arguably, the transpiring of the two world wars may suggest, inconsistent elements are too unpredictable to provide us with “providence”, why did an event of such magnitude never transpire before? Moreover, why did the formation of the state of Israel occur so soon after the Holocaust? If this is some kind of divine “justice”, why is Israel still fighting endless wars to this very day? Are these merely more affirmations that the real gods are unpredictable, or are we missing something?
Let us forget my own limited perspective, as probably, had I not been born in Israel, I would never put an emphasis on either Israel or Judaism in general. Consider the bigger picture. The two world wars have changed the political fabric of the most dominant nations on earth. The western world became much more democratic, while other nations have either turned soviet or into other totalitarian regimes. As time progressed, many of these dictatorships have converted to democracy, but the change did not end there. As we shift into the present, the political systems that govern countries are no longer relevant. While in the shadows, private corporations become more dominant than governments, on the micro levels, something else transpires.
Before the two world wars, we thought of governing parties, as more important than ourselves. We were satisfied being “working bees” for the greater good, which we entrusted with the governing parties. However, after the two world wars, things have been continuously changing. We put higher importance in ourselves, while consistently reducing the importance of governing parties.
There is a reason why it is so. As dominance shifts from governments to financial establishments, being what they are, financial establishment strive to increase consumption, to secure their financial stability. In simpler terms, financial establishments want us to “buy” more. To achieve this, the media relentlessly bombards us with messages, persuading us, we can, and should, consume more to better our lives. While it is questionable whether consumption actually betters our lives, still, by focusing on consumption, we divert our center of interest, into our own personal lives. To clarify, as we are bombarded with messages, telling us, how much we need to “get” the things we do not yet own, in our minds, we become more significant than society.
In addition, the media delivers us "proactive social oriented” messages, which attempt to persuade us, we can, and should, “save our world”, while generally, nothing has changed. To clarify, our reality was, and still is, governed by a collection of few, possibly by even less individuals than in the past. Still, we are “taken” by these messages. We fail to see the repeated pattern these “proactive social efforts” exhibit. To clarify, no one tells us to support real sources of power. Actually, most “proactive social efforts” involve resisting real sources of power, meaning, joining forces with essentially "lost causes". Rarely do such “proactive social efforts” result with actual change, as arguably, real social change is possible, only if a real source of power supports it. Still, even if such efforts do little to “save our world”, they amplify our self-centeredness. We think we are important, so important we can "save our world"…
Finally yet importantly, the internet enhanced our self-centeredness as well. For example, with social networks, we are both exhibitionists and voyeurs. We both "advertise" ourselves, and remain anonymous, meaning, we both focus on our own importance, and refrain from being active participants in any social group. Even if we are governed by a collection of individuals, fewer than in any other time in human history, and even if we are still quite powerless to control our immediate environment, we never thought we are as significant, as we do today. Moreover, because the internet is international, we think the entire world is watching us (a notion that the “big brother” hysteria subliminally inflicts, as if "the world" really gives a damn about us).
Actually, lately, the two last social tendencies we discussed, began to merge, with the emergence of "proactive social efforts" in internet social networks, such as Facebook, for example. We amplified our self-centeredness, to the level we think we can change world orders by clicking "like" on an internet browser, of a "revolutionary" web page, while neglecting the global power and monopoly, we give to these internet platforms. We fail to comprehend the only reason these "revolutions" succeed, or are even noticeable, is because other, much stronger establishments, enforce our "revolutions", in an attempt to become stronger than any government, while celebrating our deluded sense of self-centeredness, to the level of absurdity.
As we suggested in chapter three, this self-centeredness intensified our auto-angelic tendencies. Still, arguably, in the background, something else transpires, which links our growing self-centeredness, the intensification of auto-angelic tendencies, the discovery of physical randomness, the historical events that have transpired in the background, and a possible change in the tendencies of the real gods. Each of the issues we just mentioned is merely a “piece of the puzzle”, which on its own, does not seem to relate to the other “pieces”. Still, all these issues have a united "azimuth" to which they direct. The discovery of true physical randomness shows, the empirical basis, on which we relied as our assurance for conceptual stability, was at the very least misleading. The truth is, science does not endorse a consistent metaphysical foundation. Moreover, lately, empirical discoveries have disrupted the existing paradigm of empirical sciences even further, suggesting there are particles, or more specifically, neutrinos, which can travel at a velocity faster than the speed of light, as well as many other discoveries, with respect to the behavior of matter in empty space, and in distant galaxies. In short, it appears as if "something" is attempting to tell us, a scientific paradigm shift, is imminent.
Because the metaphysical foundation of empirical sciences proves to be partial in the physical sense, inevitably, empirical sciences can only provide us with estimated knowledge. This knowledge is subject to change, as soon as a "better" metaphysical foundation will be available. Considering religions, a similar process transformed objective religious “knowledge”, into subjective personal preference. Considering society, the role of the self, changed from being perhaps not at the top of the social hierarchy, but still in it, to becoming “kings and queens” of the subjective realm, while objectively, the "self" lost the ability to change who governs its reality. Similarly, while this text provides perhaps irrefutable objective proof a “greater power” both exists and affects us, it fails to satisfy our personal subjective needs.
The "azimuth", to which all these issues direct, is indeed for change, but not for just any change. Our previous assurances, with respect to the nature of our reality are refuted, while our subjective perspectives become both subjectively dominant, and objectively marginal. We are “sent” into our own personal internal mental world, while the external world, which once subjectively dominated us, appears more and more flawed and impotent. Nothing appears to be worth hanging onto other than the “self”, not even the real gods. Even though through the internet, we broadcast our opinions world widely, little by little, we are left to our own devices.
This is the “azimuth”, to which I was referring. To clarify, the truth is, we are not that powerless to control our lives. To clarify, within our neural biology, we have evolved to possess the cognitive capabilities to “handle” most of our demons. As we suggested in the previous chapters, just as our immune system has evolved over time to fight off disease, so did our psyche. To explain, as we suggested in "Delta Theory", with respect to the self-organization of life forms, which bettered their self-sustainability, by distributing different roles to different life forms, our neural biology underwent a similar process. In fact, not only can our brain "endure" demonic effects, it can harness them to our interests as well. Actually, humanity had these cognitive capabilities for quite a long time, but it never fully exploited it. We “chained” ourselves mentally, because of older times, times when our biology could not yet handle demonic effects, without angelic "assistance", and apparently, this new “azimuth” of change, redirects us to free ourselves from our evolutionary “chains of infancy”.
This is the core of our rebellion. We rebel against our angelic protection from our demons, the cognitive heritage of our ancestors. No longer are demons something to fear, and nor are they something to follow. Demons are something to exploit. Once we remove our preconceptions regarding demonic influences, demons merely represent the insertion of randomness into the concepts that govern our psyche, meaning, the cognitive capability to extend beyond that of which we know.
Nevertheless, demons manifest cognitive perspectives, which are not the product of rational thought or generalization capabilities, and therefore, they may still invoke contradictions and dilemmas within our consciousness, and hence, experiencing them is hardly “serene”. Moreover, as we suggested in the previous chapter, it is possible that metaphysically, demonic effects may be yet another manifestation of our sensations of pain, and if so, then obviously, experiencing them may not be pleasant. However, because arguably, our sensations of pain determine what we find meaningful, demons ensure we find our reality meaningful, and therefore, their effects on our consciousness are not necessarily undesired. To explain, while obviously, there is little to gain from experiencing physical pain, the truth is, most demonic effects affect the "filter" of our consciousness, and hence, they manifest through abstract disturbing notions, rather than through physical pain. Therefore, it suggests, we can effectively evict these sensations from our psyche, using abstract conceptual means.
Still, to achieve this, first, we should better understand the conceptual attributes of demonic influences. As we suggested in the previous chapter, demonic influences affect the "filter" of our consciousness, which in itself, consists of the collection of neural pathways in our brain, or alternatively, our born and learned instincts, and the sensations embedded in these pathways, controlling the manner these pathways route inbound stimulations, according to their contingent dimensional composition. Usually, our consciousness helps to create the instincts compiling this "filter", by adhering to our logical deltas, meaning, by repeatedly performing the actions, which later, our brain learns to perform automatically. Moreover, in most cases, the actions we repeat, and which eventually, our brain converts into cognitive instincts, reflect the consistency of our world, causing us to take the consistent attributes of our reality "for granted", such as gravity and spatiality, or alternatively, the relatively consistent meaning of terms and concepts, allowing us to learn new languages, practical abilities, and the likes.
Demonic influences override this cognitive process. Inhibitive demons cause us to learn new instincts, resulting with us exhibiting automatic behaviors, which do not serve any consistent purpose, such as saying a prayer before each meal, or feeling a sense of shame and fear, whenever we "disobey the word of god". In contrast, spontaneous demons cause ideas to enter our minds, even though we did not learn them through experience or contemplation, creating a dichotomy between the sources of the sensations our consciousness evaluates, and which eventually, it “flattens” into learned instincts. The first source is deterministic, meaning, the sensations our brain learned not to evict, so we would rethink them, and re-optimize the routing capabilities of our brain, while preserving our self-sustainability. For example, while learning to speak a language, our brain ensures, we remain vigilant to audial properties, with respect to the pronunciation of words, and hence, be able to recognize and avoid our mistakes, until finally, we become somewhat "deaf" to these details, allowing us to hear only the concepts the language describes, rather than evaluate it as merely "sounds". The second source is demonic. We cannot retrace the origin of demonic sensations, as their emergence in our consciousness occurs due to inconsistent changes in our neural architecture. These changes occur both materialistically, meaning, through mutations of the neural pathways in our brain, as well as contingent-dimensionally, meaning, through changes in the semantics of the generalizations with which we think.
Potentially, spontaneous demonic effects can result with the emergence of practically any sensation in our consciousness. To clarify, essentially, any semantic meaning, which may ever bother our consciousness, consists of contingent dimensions, and hence, theoretically, spontaneous demons can yield them all. Nevertheless, because as we suggested in "Delta Theory", the amount of contingent dimensions compiling a sensation is potentially infinite, the conceptual variety with which spontaneous demons can result, is infinite as well, while only a handful of these contingent dimensional possibilities, are consistent with our reality. Therefore, while it is not mandatory, the two different sources, from which sensations emerge in our consciousness, become a source of inconsistency within our psyche. To clarify, while through our senses, the external world persistently streams consistent patterns into our consciousness, at the same time, inconsistent elements repeatedly inflict demonic sensations in our brain, regardless if they yield conceptual inconsistencies in our psyche. Therefore, potentially, our consciousness constantly sustains a state of cognitive paradox, deeming any fixed instinctive thought pattern, by which we would wish to evict these paradoxical cognitive dispositions useless, and our sense of serenity fickle.
While arguably, we might wish to simply “kick out” all our demonic induced sensations, so to remain both serene and consistent with the external world, and our "natural" neurological architecture, it is simply impossible. To clarify, the existence of our reality, as well as the existence of the effects of inconsistent elements on it, are imminent. Moreover, without demonic effects, we would never have developed our cognitive capabilities.
But why? Well, first, if indeed, our sensations of pain occur due to the insertion of inconsistent elements into our consciousness, or alternatively, demons, it suggests, demons invoke our various deltas, including our logical and completeness deltas. Therefore, with respect to our conclusions from "Delta Theory", it suggests, that without demonic effects, we would lack the motivation to progress cognitively, leaving us as intelligent as any other earthly animal species. Secondly, we should understand, that while indeed, demonically induced sensations are inconsistent with the sensations we sense from the external world, still, they are consistent with themselves. To clarify, demonically induced sensations exist in our consistent reality, and hence, must be consistent elements. Still, as our brain attempts to evict demonically induced sensations, neurologically, it shifts from being consistent merely with the external world, to being consistent with both the external world, and our demonically induced sensations. While arguably, this merger may interfere with our ability to evict sensations, which we sense from the external world, it provides us with new different perspectives as well. We gain a different hierarchy of meaning, one which reduces the significance of concepts, consistent with the external world, while increasing the significance of demonically induced concepts. Nevertheless, this does not imply, we "deceive" ourselves from cognitively addressing the sensations, which actually bother our consciousness, as again, from the perspective of our consciousness, demonically induced sensations are as real as any other sensation. Still, this mixture of demonic and non-demonic sensations, within our hierarchy of meaning, yields new “problems”, which our brain attempts to solve. While arguably, the “solutions” we find to these demonically induced "problems", may not solve “problems”, existing in the external world, they may still provide us with practical knowledge, which we could never learn, without “solving” such inexistent demonically induced “problems”.
In short, demonic effects are essential for the development of human culture. But again, why? Well, if we take birds as an example, a bird does not wonder, why apples drop from trees, as it will never think it is its "problem", and hence, it will never develop theories in physics. Moreover, if we consider the underlining concept physics represent, namely "causality", as we suggested in “Delta Theory”, it is but a generalization, and as such, it cannot exist in the external world. Actually, the same applies to the term “physics”, as well as many other fields of conceptual human achievement. While indeed, we may question the worth of human culture, and actually, in "Delta Theory", we already suggested, cognitive superiority does not benefit our sense of happiness directly, still, our culture and cognitive superiority over other earthly animal species has placed us at the top of the earthly food chain, and surely, a careless ,perhaps serene bird, would have loved to take our place, if it could. To summarize, evolutionarily, demonic effects are surely beneficial.
The process, by which we gain new knowledge, through “solving” demonically induced “problems”, is what I call "demon casting". While demon casting, we "cast" seemingly inexistent demonically induced “problems” into elements, which both exist in the external world, and possibly, may be beneficial in the future. To clarify, while it is possible, that when coming to our attention, these “problems” may have been irrelevant to our existence in the external world, still, possibly, their “solutions” may become relevant later. For example, with respect to Issac Newton’s discoveries in physics, understanding the basic laws of gravitation, resulted with knowledge, applicable not only to falling objects, but to objects moving in all directions (even if Einstein’s relativity theories later corrected them). Furthermore, by showing that the physical world obeys mathematical equations, Newton’s discoveries inspired an entire ensemble of human cultural and technological growth.
Actually, this is not surprising. To clarify, computer sciences have shown that with truly unbiased randomness at our disposal, probabilistic algorithms can solve problems, using far less calculations, than deterministic algorithms require. While indeed, such probabilistic algorithms cannot yield foolproof results, while their deterministic counterparts can, for most intended purposes, these probabilistic algorithms are “good enough”. The same applies to demon casting. While indeed, it is unclear, if a demon cast will be beneficial in future non-demonic situations, still, there is a high probability, it will.
Still, regardless, demon casting is always beneficial, for the individual, who manages to perform it successfully. To explain, first, demon casting is “fun”. It is like a game you beat. Just as games impose us with challenges, which essentially, are irrelevant to our real lives, demons provide us with “problems”, which are irrelevant to the external world. Secondly, we should understand, demonically induced “problems” actually bother our consciousness, and hence, “solving” such “puzzles” both helps our existential condition, as well as asserts our “cognitive skills”, rewarding us with a sense of pride, which unquestionably, feels good. Furthermore, with respect to Issac Newton for example, it is possible, our demon cast embodies a new significant, or even ground breaking discovery. Who knows?
But this is exactly the problem. When our perspective is demonic, inevitably, we believe our demon cast simply “must” be “important” for others, and we expect our society to “recognize” this, strengthening our auto-angelic tendencies. To clarify, indeed, it is possible, our demon casts will be valuable for others in the future. Still, at the time of its inception, we simply cannot know, as the dimensional infinity, of which demonically induced sensations consist, makes it impossible for us to predict the practical value of our demon casts, which may range from groundbreaking achievements, to exhibitions of complete stupidity. Moreover, when we compare the amount of individuals, who actually manage to become groundbreaking and influential, with the amount of charlatans and idiots, claiming to be groundbreaking pioneers, arguably, the chances are that culturally, our demon casts will be insignificant. In short, while it is possible, we are significant angels, still, most likely, we are demonically disturbed individuals, whom merely found temporal serene relief.
Therefore, for the most of us, adopting an auto-angelic perspective, will result, with society ridiculing our demon casts, transforming our lives into a practical joke, which we pulled on ourselves. Moreover, we should remember, the real gods “issue” our demons, for their own "selfish" reasons, which rarely show any "respect" to the quality of the lives of the individuals who suffer them. More importantly, as we previously mentioned, the real gods affect us, so we would behave in irrational manners, and hence, their "center of interest" is not enhancing our rational knowledge, suggesting that in most cases, demon casts will reflect our irrationality, rather than groundbreaking technological progress. In fact, with respect to our previous historical review, it appears, the real gods do not "like" our technological progress, a tendency, which reflects in the erratic azimuth of human technological progress, from being technologically advanced, to technological backwardness, and vice versa. Furthermore, even if our demon casts will make us significant angels, and even if we manage to persuade many followers, we should always remember, that exactly as the biblical text consistently suggests, the lives of angels are miserable. In short, arguably, this aspect of demon casting, is problematic, and actually, understanding this, with respect to this text, I would like to stress, I do not suggest this text should be culturally significant, and I would not consider it a "failure", if it will simply be overlooked. My reasons for writing it, are personal.
Still, the auto-angelic route is not the only possible outcome of demon casting. We must understand, that while it is formidable to “beat” the game, there are plenty of other demons out there to cast and “beat”, and actually, once we demon cast successfully, the insignificance, of the demons we casted, becomes apparent. To clarify, it is not the demon cast, which is formidable, but rather our ability to demon cast successfully. This understanding reduces the meaningfulness we find in our demon casts, and hence, it leaves us both demon-resistant (in the sense, that our demons do not govern our lives anymore), and protected from following a path, which most probably, will lead us to ridicule, sorrow, or both.
The ability to repeatedly demon cast successfully, is what I call the "dragon instinct". Probably, you are wondering, why I chose this name. I mean, “Dragon”. As if we did not overload enough bombastic terms of the English language. What did we have already? “Gods”, “angels”, “demons”, and now “dragons”. Well, admittingly, I have somewhat of a "history" with this term, and if you are acquainted with my musical works, you might have noticed it. Still, for my defense, I can honestly claim, that by choosing this term, I am applying the same principles, which I applied while introducing our previous terminology. I am redefining the term, so it would refer to new concepts, while still relating to some of its original connotations. Nevertheless, honestly, had I wished it, I could have chosen any other term. So yeah, I choose the term “dragon instinct”, because it refers to concepts, similar to the ideas, to which I was referring in my musical works.
Still, there are additional anthropological etymological reasons, why I chose this term. To clarify, we can find references to "dragons", in both far-eastern and western mythologies, both of which suggesting that generally, humans possess the cognitive capabilities we described previously. For example, in far-eastern mythologies, dragons represent wisdom, and are said to have taught humans to speak, and therefore, considering demon casting enhances our knowledge, this is an interesting analogy. Still, somewhat surprisingly, the analogy I find most inspiring, comes from the bible, and I quote, "the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience" (the Book of Ephesians 2:2). Admittingly, originally, this quote was associated with Satan, which sometimes appears in the bible under the name “the dragon”. Still, because as we suggested in chapter three, Satan is merely an angel, I feel little problem “borrowing” this quote. Moreover, because the gods we know from our heritage, along with their angelic messages, embody inhibitive fixating demons (inhibitive, as we receive them from external social sources, and fixating, because usually, angelic messages are "fixated" in ancient texts, and hence, obviously, they cannot "change"), I find this analogy fitting. To clarify, because by repeatedly demon casting, we will find no comfort accepting angelic messages, there is an inevitable antagonism, between religions and “serial demon casters”. Moreover, we should note that again, because Satan is a proclaimed protagonist of “demons”, the dragon instinct is antagonistic to it as well. In short, regardless of the demon or angelic message at hand, if it demands we behave in an inconsistent or irrational manner, the dragon instinct will be to “disobey it". Moreover, because this “spirit of rebellion” is embodied in a creature (meaning, a dragon), it suggests, this behavioral pattern is not the result of our knowledge or rationality, but rather of a biological instinct. Still, this beast-like dragon metaphor does not suggest, the dragon instinct is animal-like, as it relies on our "higher" cognitive capabilities, meaning, our ability to think conceptually.
It is hard to tell, when the dragon instinct first emerged in human evolution, and actually, it is possible, it is the missing evolutionary link (or better said, “fracture”), separating the Homo-Neanderthals race, from the Homo-sapiens race. To explain, possibly, this racial separation occurred due to such neurological evolution, as demon casting allows culture to evolve inconsistently, “leaping forward” in the technological sense. To clarify, as we previously suggested, the introduction of randomness into the composition of the concepts with which we think, makes us “solve problems”, which should not have troubled us yet, and hence, demon casts can introduce technological and cultural achievements, which are “ahead of their time”, and actually, our ability to demon cast, makes it hard to track the course of our cultural evolution, through rational analysis.
Unlike our other cognitive born instincts, our ability to demon cast is dependent on the external world. To clarify, while indeed, as we suggested in "Delta Theory", sensations of pain, which are somewhat "external" to our consciousness, "trigger" all our cognitive born instincts, or alternatively, our various deltas, still, these instincts inflict us with well-defined wills, such as wanting to eat, wanting to better our cognitive capabilities, and the likes. However, demonically induced pains are different. Essentially, demonically induced pain sensations are somewhat "alien" to our neural biology, meaning, they represent neither the needs of our body, nor an evolutionarily superior behavioral pattern. Neurologically, they have no purpose, and hence, differently from other pain sensations we feel, when we attempt to appease them, our brain does not "reward us" with a temporal sense of relief. Still, because as we suggested previously, demonically induced sensations may be radically inconsistent with the sensations we sense from the external world, repressing our demons, meaning, merging our demons with the "filter" of our consciousness, will not alleviate our sense of distress, but rather deem the sensations we sense from the external world, inconsistent with our beliefs, causing us great anger and discontent in the process. For example, if we embrace a demonic notion, suggesting we could fly like birds, we could quite easily find ourselves in a hospital, after a misfortunate "lift off attempt". In addition, because our demonically induced pain sensations emerge due to metaphysical inconsistencies, they do not adhere to any type of causality, and hence, our rationality is powerless to appease them. Arguably, if our demonic influences are moderate, our brain may be able to overcome them, by utilizing its natural neurological-biological mechanisms (such as sleep, for example). However, when our demonic influences are severe, this might be impossible, forcing us to seek "external solutions" for our demonically induced sufferings.
Arguably, religions are the most common type of such "external solutions" for our demonically induced sufferings. To clarify, while indeed, as we suggested in the previous chapter, inevitably, all religions endorse inhibitive fixating demons, still, obviously, religions benefit their followers as well, helping them overcome some of their irrational demonically induced tendencies, granting them more control over their lives. In many ways, it is as if religions demon casted for us, with the product of their demon casts being the teachings, to which they attempt to persuade us. For example, by inheriting us with a morality, religions make us resist many of our irrational, arguably demonic desires, such as committing regretful felonies against others. In this respect, psychology is quite similar to religion, because as we suggested in the previous chapter, the metaphysical basis of all contemporary empirical sciences, including that of psychology, is inconsistent, quite similarly to that of a religion.
Nevertheless, usually, religious “solutions” for our demonically induced sufferings, are far from ideal. To explain, first, again, as we suggested in the previous chapters, usually, religious teachings are irrational, or alternatively, demonic, and hence, potentially, they may increase our demonically induced sufferings, such as for example, when calling their followers to wage religious wars. Secondly, usually, religious "solutions" are too general to help us in some demonic situations, such as for example, when we discover, our religious leaders are corrupt, leaving us defenseless at the "mercy" of our demons. Thirdly, similarly to psychology, usually, religions do not "grasp" the "nature" of the demons we discussed in this text, and therefore, their methods for demonic alleviation, cannot "pinpoint" our demons, but rather associate them with other, somewhat irrelevant concepts, which may confuse our reflections. For example, while religions may correctly associate our demonically induced desires with demons, still, usually, they will attempt to persuade us these demons are deity minions of the devil, while in actuality, none of these associations are either relevant, or beneficial for our "recovery". In contrast, the science of psychology may attempt to persuade us, there is a causative justification for the emergence of our demons, making us assume irrelevant conclusions with respect to our psyche, and hence, unintentionally, may interfere with our psychological "recovery". Last, religions undermine our personal freedom. To clarify, by following a religious teaching, and embracing its morality, implicitly, we limit our experiences, to those our religious persuasion allows, such as for example, determining the food we eat, the days we spend off work, and the likes. Still, religions undermine our personal freedom in an even more fundamental manner, as they make us depend on them, so to be able to endure our demons.
While in many ways, the same applies to psychology as well, which in some cases, may undermine our ability to handle our lives, without the aid of psychological treatment, it is even more true to narcotics. To clarify, potentially, narcotics can alter our neural biology, so to undermine our demonic influences, without resorting to conceptual methods such as demon casting. Nevertheless, still, narcotics are external to our biology, and hence, by using them as means for demonic alleviation, we both become dependent on them, and suffer their side effects, undermining our personal freedom in the process. Moreover, differently from religious "solutions", usually, narcotics are costly, meaning, they impose a financial burden on our lives, which may translate to many activities, which we would find a nuisance or distasteful otherwise (and I will spare us the specifics). Still, even more to the point, because neurologically, narcotics are a crude instrument, affecting our neural biology in its entirety, similarly to religions and psychology, they cannot "pinpoint" specific demonic influences. To clarify, as we suggested throughout this text, it is possible, demonic effects yield all our deltas, meaning, all our wills and desires, and hence, if narcotics are to help us undermine our demonically induced sufferings, they must dull all our desires, reducing our general responsiveness to any stimulation, and irreparably damaging our potential in the process. The same applies to more aggressive psychiatric "treatment techniques", such as lobotomy, or electric shock "therapy", but again, with your forgiveness, we will not discuss these. I mean, nuff said.
To summarize, while indeed, there may be times, when we would find the external "solutions" we discussed beneficial, still, if our demonic influences are too specific, meaning, if demons "target" only a specific aspect of our lives, these "solutions" may be inefficient, and potentially harmful. In such cases, we could either choose a passive course of action, meaning, dive into depression, possibly resulting with suicidal tendencies, or attempt a more active course of action, meaning, we can attempt to demon cast. Still, as my use of the term "attempt" suggests, nothing guarantees our success, (and perhaps, this is why this “solution” is not that common).
Still, what exactly is a demon cast? Well, the truth is, the properties of a demon cast, depends on the specific "nature" of the demon we cast, and hence, demon casting cannot be a "well-defined" practice. Nevertheless, all demon casts share a few similarities, which differentiate them from our other endeavors.
The main difference, between demon casting, and the external "solutions” we discussed previously, is that through demon casting, we objectively "better" our immediate external reality, by creating physical object exhibiting impressive properties, enhancing our practical capabilities, altering the way others know us, and the likes. While the external “solutions” we discussed previously, temporally discredit or “remove” our demonic influences, demon casting does just the opposite, showing our social environment, our past weaknesses, or alternatively, our past demonic influences, were neither irrational, nor a reason to discredit us. By “casting” into our reality, something unique, inspiring, and perhaps even beneficial to others, we validate ourselves, providing justification and purpose to the demons, which troubled us previously. Therefore, while the external “solutions” we discussed previously imply, we have, or are, the problem, suggesting we should change ourselves, by demon casting successfully, we exemplify we are “the solution”, suggesting our social environment should change the way it perceives us, understanding we are neither troubled nor “possessed”, and that the only reason for our previous hardships, is because we are the “avant-garde” of our social environment.
Considering this, we could argue, "demon casting" is but another name for auto-angelic tendencies, as implicitly, both may result with expectations, that our social environment should cherish us. However, contrary to auto-angelic tendencies, while demon casting, we do not focus our attention on the respect or gratification, we would receive from our social environment, but rather on the task itself, meaning, the transformation of our demonically induced perspectives, into objects, exhibiting unique objectively beneficial properties. Actually, this difference is exactly the reason, why demon casts must exhibit objectively beneficial properties. To clarify, regardless of the subjective value we may find in our demon casts, usually, our social environment is angelic, and as such, it does not "care" for any irrational notions, other than those it endorses already. Therefore, usually, our social environment will either dismiss, or ridicule, the demonically induced concepts, which inspired us to demon cast originally, and hence, without an objective value, we should expect, our social environment would demotivate us from the effort, leaving us defenseless at the mercy of our demons.
However, as we suggested previously, even with the support of our social environment, our attempts to demon cast, can fail. Still, such failures suggest more than merely our failure to gain the appreciation of our social environment. There is a lot more “at risk”. To explain, first, when we fail to demon cast successfully, we fail to “beat” our demon. Indeed, because no one guarantees our social environment will "care" for our demon casts, the appreciation of our social environment does not determine the successfulness of our demon casts, and hence, the criterion, by which we determine the successfulness of our demon casts, can only be subjective. Still, if we fail to persuade ourselves, our own demon casting “worked”, inevitably, we will fail to justify our demonically induced “sufferings”, and hence, we will continue to suffer from the same state of demonically induced distress. Secondly, by repeatedly failing to “successfully” demon cast the same demon, effectively, we will exhibit symptoms of demonic possession, and risk developing obsessive-compulsive behavioral patterns, which may irreparably damage our lives. Considering this, there is an even greater, third risk. If we believe our demon casts "worked", while objectively, they fail to exhibit any objective value, we risk developing auto-angelic tendencies, and suffer their consequences.
Still, even if we demon cast “successfully”, and even if our demon casts exhibit objectively valid unique value, which potentially, our social environment could find beneficial, again, usually, our social environment "suffers" from its own fixating demonic influences (which in many cases, may be of a higher demonic measure and possession than our own), and hence, we should not expect, our social environment would cherish our demon casts automatically. In fact, this is yet another reason why demon casts must exhibit objective value, as in many cases, our struggle to validate ourselves, as neither insane nor possessed, may require we exhibit the objective value of our efforts.
Still, there is a different, arguably less "demanding" discipline, which potentially, we could utilize for demon casting, namely, art. To explain, creating art facilitates all the necessities for demon casting. With art, we “cast” our internal conceptual world, into physical elements, existing in the external world, and therefore, it is not surprising, artistic creation is both a convenient, and popular, format for demon casting. Unlike other activities, in art, we do not need to remain consistent with a single objective reality. To explain, in art, we can create not only the elements, into which we “cast” our demons, but also the artistic world, in which these elements reside, allowing a far greater variety of possible demon casts, of which all are exclusive to art. To clarify, unavoidably, the “metaphysical rigidness” of the imminent dimensions, limits the variety of objectively valuable demon casts, which we can create, with respect to the actual nature of the external world, while a fabricated artistic world, is limited only by our imagination, and level of craftsmanship. Actually, this makes art even more convenient to demon cast in, as usually, we can increase our level of craftsmanship, through formal learning, autodidact practice, or both. To clarify, while it is extremely hard to reinvent the laws of physics even once, it is only natural to create different poems, stories, paintings, sculptures, music, films, or whatever other methods of artistic expression. Therefore, considering we demon cast out of necessity, rather than out of free disinterested choice, if we care for our well-being, it is preferable we demon cast in the realm of art, than in the realm of science. It is preferable we make music, than write strange texts, such as this one, for example. I mean, yes. If you have not yet figured it out, this is my own personal demon cast. While arguably, “Delta Theory” is somewhat auto-angelic, as I mentioned before, this text is somewhat “different”.
Still, even if demon casting in the realm of art may be less demanding than demon casting in the realm of science, when demon casting in the realm of art, we must adhere to some objective criteria, or fall into depression, ridicule, obsessive-compulsive behavioral patterns, auto-angelic tendencies, or all of the above. These criteria fall into several categories, all of which we must address to some level.

1. Demonic reference.
Do our artistic works reflect actual embodiments, or results, of our demonically induced concepts? To clarify, we can create many kitsch cliché creative works, which realize none of the things that actually bother us. If we do this, it implies, we simply do not demon cast, and hence, even if we gain respect for our efforts, we will alleviate none of our demonically induced sufferings.

2. Craftsmanship.
Are we creating works of art at all, or do we merely jabber about concepts, which essentially, have little to do with the works we actually create? When attempting to demon cast through the realm of art, the results of poor craftsmanship may vary, from ridicule by those who evaluate our works, to a deluded self of identity and individualism, which can end in a heartbeat. Even though irrelevant reasons such as “hype”, or charisma, may cause others to respect our creative efforts, if our craftsmanship is extremely poor, again, we achieve no demon casting. To clarify, there is no reason we should gain respect for a work of art that is pure shit, unless the reason we gain this respect, is not the work of art. While possibly, we may think, we gained the respect of others because we demon casted, unless we will better our level of craftsmanship, this "respect" can only reflect the current "hype", or our charisma. Still, because we already gained the respect we longed for, we will not feel inclined to better our level of craftsmanship, and instead, we will do what we do best, meaning, follow the current “hype”, and socialize. Therefore, while we may think our demon casts were successful, and that our demonically induced problems are over, still, as soon as we will fail to follow the “hype”, or socialize successfully, our past "achievements" will mean nothing, as we fall into depression, quite similarly to as in any crisis of faith.

3. Uniqueness.
Are we actively demon casting, or are we merely repeating the demon casting techniques of others? Surprisingly, of all the criteria, uniqueness is perhaps the least significant. Even if past artists created artworks, exhibiting concepts and techniques, which we utilized as well, still, it was in a different context. Moreover, even if objectively, two works are identical, each artwork introduces its own flavor, as the audiences, to which both artworks direct, and the social and historical context, in which both artworks exist, are different. Furthermore, the selection of context could be the demon cast itself, such as was the case, with the famous "sculpture" "the fountain", by Marcel Duchamp, whom in 1917, chose to display a urinal in Paris's famous Louvre museum, by "renaming it", in an attempt to mock the artistic establishment. In short, just as a poet does not need to invent the terms of the language in order to gain respect, absolute uniqueness is not required in any artistic medium. In fact, total uniqueness could make a work of art so “unreadable”, it will be hard to differentiate it from low level of craftsmanship. Still, if a work of art shows total lack of uniqueness, or close, again, it is not a demon cast. If all we do is copy the works of others, then how can our artistic efforts reflect our demons? For crying out loud, it is someone else’s demon cast! How is it any different from following a religion? How is it any different form conformity or obedience? Furthermore, if these works do not reflect our demons, then why do we spend our time and energy on this effort? What exactly is our demon? Is it the concept, which the artwork we copied reflects, or is it merely our attempt to gain respect? To clarify, if our motivation, is to gain the same amount of respect, as that of the original demon caster, we suffer from a different demon. To explain, the thought we should gain the same amount of respect, as that of the original demon caster, without any reason or achievement, is irrational. On the one hand, we may envy the respect the original demon caster gained, but fail to find value in the original works we copied, and if so, by copying these works, we are doing something we do not respect, and hence, the thought others should respect us, reflects merely our arrogance, if not our complete stupidity. On the other hand, if we value the works we copied, we should know, we do not possess the internal qualities required to create them, as they already exist, and not by our doing, and hence, we should ask ourselves, why should we even attempt to gain respect for our efforts? In short, the very reason we invest our energy creating such artworks is irrational, or alternatively, demonic. While it is possible, these demons are spontaneous, in most cases, such demons are inhibitive and fixating, and if we were to actually demon cast, we should have casted these demons, rather than copy someone else’s demon cast. Still, as of yet, we did not demon cast our true demons, and therefore, we are prone to suffer from demonic possession, obsessive-compulsive behaviors, and all the other epistemological misfortunes demonic influences inflict.

4. Variety.
Are we demon casting our current demons, or are we re-performing our past successful demon casts? Variety is perhaps the biggest “Achilles heel” of the artistic demon casting “solution” to demonically induced sufferings. We had it once. We disobeyed everything. We perfected our craftsmanship, realized our talent, and conceived something truly unique, and valuable. We even earned respect for it. We affirmed ourselves as “correct”, while we proved our social environment was “wrong”. We were on our way to become “free” from our demons. However, things changed. Society changed, and with it, the inhibitive demons it endorses. Our personal life changed, and with it, yet another set of inhibitive demons emerged. New spontaneous demons came out of nowhere, and what did we do? Did we demon cast them as we did before? Why should we? We think we already “did our part”. We already gained respect for what we accomplished. Let someone else do the “dirty work” from now on.
Well, tough luck. Demon casting can only “solve” our current demonically induced sufferings. Demon casting is not an insurance policy. Had we had the time, or ability, to relax, perhaps "sleep things over", we would not have had to demon cast in the first place. The fact we are repeating the same demon cast, which once was so successful, will do nothing to protect us from the influences of our current demons, for all it implies. Furthermore, because we gained “our place in the sun” through demon casting, it is possible, we left the comfortable embrace of the inhibitive fixating demons of our social environment, and if so, we are left all alone. We relied on ourselves, and we gave ourselves "the finger". So now, the most probable “solution” we will find for our demonically induced sufferings, will be to embrace religion, begin a long and tedious psychological therapy (which most probably, would fail to yield any significant results), dive into depression, "escape" our demons using narcotics, or all of the above. Moreover, by repeatedly copying our own “solution”, we are essentially becoming auto-angels. Our repeated pattern becomes our message, and we will suffer from our auto-angelic tendencies as all angels do.

5. Quantity.
Are we really demon casting, or are we merely playing with the idea? Arguably, introducing the quantity criterion, diverts us away from the essentials of art. To clarify, in the realm of art, it does not matter, if we created only one great work of art, as if it was truly great, others will respect us for it. Still, demon casting is simply not the same endeavor as artistic creation, as essentially, it is identical in its psychological significance to religion. Again, our personal reality constantly changes. New demons can appear in our psyche every day. So how are we handling these demons? Are we demon casting them, or is there another method, by which we “solve” the sufferings they induce? If there is another method, does it not contradict the “demon casting method”? How are we addressing this difference? With demon casting, we are the ones “on the right path”, while all other manners to deal with demonic influenced concepts demand we “correct” our ways. So who wins this debate? Is it a debate at all, or is it yet another demon, ranting at us, we cannot demon cast anymore? So when will we demon cast this demon? If we constantly demon cast, quantity rises, and the dragon instinct becomes dominant. If we do not, who will “solve” this demon, other than the fixating inhibitive demons of our society? I mean, what else is left? Narcotics?

You should pay attention, I did not include “effect” in this list. No, I did not somehow “forget it”. To explain, indeed, when evaluating an artwork, the most significant criterion, by which we should measure it, is by the amount and types of effects it has over its spectators. However, while demon casting, such an effect is optional. To clarify, even though demon casting changes our immediate personal external reality, it is not the external reality that “counts”, but rather our perspective on it, which we modify by demon casting successfully.
Arguably, this observation has profound implications, with respect to the cultural evolution of art. To explain, throughout the history of art, the definition of art was always a problematic “grey area”. From being totally commissioned (such as the Christian art of the Middle Ages), art shifted to more contemporary notions (such as “art for art’s sake”), claiming art is "free" and "disinterested".
While indeed, it is nice to think of art in such "liberating" terminology, a different “picture” emerges, when considering the notion of demon casting. To clarify, the art establishment, perceives the independence of art, as an inherent component of its essence. However, arguably, with respect to our recent observation, this independence may be but a quality inherited from demon casting, as essentially, art is merely a concept culture invented. Art has no intrinsic qualities, other than those society grants it, while arguably, demon casting reflects our neurological biological instincts, and as such, it does not need to adhere to any definition. It is what it is. The conceptually independent nature of demon casting is the result of its purpose, to alleviate our demonically induced “sufferings”. This alleviating effect does not require any definition. It merely requires, the external world would “store” the physical manifestation of our demon casts (which in this case, simply means “the artworks”).
Undemanding as it may seem, “storing” the demon cast within a physical object is essential. To clarify, if the demon is not “stored” (or alternatively, “casted”) into some sort of physical manifestation (such as an artwork, text, or physical invention), the demon cast can only exist in the mind of its future creator. Nevertheless, “storing” the demon cast in the mind of its future creator, is not enough, as before the demon is physically “casted”, the very idea it can be “casted” into matter, may in itself reflect a demonic perspective. To clarify, the demon cast does not yet exist in the external world, and hence, the thought that it is, is inconsistent. Arguably, this is just a formality. Nevertheless, before the demon is successfully casted, its future creator, can only believe it can be done, while in actuality, the final physical manifestation of a demon cast, can be radically different, from the original design its creator conceived. To explain, we should remember, the perspective, motivating us to attempt to demon cast, is demonic, and as such, to some level, it must be inconsistent with our reality, and therefore, usually, our original design for our demon casts, are inconsistent with our reality as well. Therefore, to realize our demon casts, inevitably, we must conform our initial designs to the limitations our reality imposes.
Therefore, to demon cast in the realm of art, artists simply must "get their hands dirty”. An artwork must remain consistent with the physical limitations of its artistic medium, regardless if it is fine arts, literature, cinema, music, poetry, or whatever other medium of artistic creation, as if an artwork cannot exist physically, the very notion it can, is demonic, by definition. While possibly, an artist may not be aware, that the product of a demon cast is different from its original design, still, this reflective blindness does not change the fact, it is simply different.
Still, arguably, this realization limitation has its benefits. To explain, first, as we previously suggested, the ability to merge our demonically induced concepts, with the consistent nature of our reality, rewards us with a sense of accomplishment. Secondly, as artists "get their hands dirty”, arguably, they may undergo a “correcting consistent feedback effect", as they learn the physical limitations of their artistic mediums, which inevitably, “soothes” the inherent inconsistencies of their initial designs, returning them "back into reality”. Last, by realizing the demon cast, an artist may exhibit it, and possibly, may even gain respect for it.
Still, this is only one possibility. To clarify, first, by concentrating on their demons, artists may adopt a perspective, suggesting their demons are their benefactors, which in turn, may result with devotion to their demons, deeming them slaves of the real gods, not so different from atheist and Zen type Hindu persuasions. Secondly, as we suggested before, it is also possible, that failing to cast some of the inherent inconsistencies of a demon, will result with repeated failed attempts to demon cast it, transforming the belief it can be casted at all, into a fixating possessive demon. This demon is different from the demon the artist attempts to cast, and hence, the artist must address it separately, either by casting it, or otherwise.
Arguably, these possible downsides, emphasizes the significance of the quantity criterion. To explain, by repeatedly demon casting successfully, artists learn, the ability to demon cast is more significant, than the demon or the product of the demon cast, and hence, with each success, casting each specific demon, becomes somewhat mundane. Slowly, the artist shifts form a demonic mentality, into what I call a "dragon". To explain, essentially, a dragon “masters” the “art of demon casting”, and hence, it can rely on this ability, when handling any demon, without the need to resort to external “solutions”, such as religions, psychological treatments, or narcotics, and arguably, this independency may have resulted, with the conceptual independency, which the art establishment associates with art. Moreover, because the demonically induced concepts, which serve as motivation and inspiration for demon casts, are irrational, essentially, demon casts are "free" from a need to suggest rational justifications for their conception, logically valid argumentations to explain the reason for their inception, or logical restrictions, which potentially, could demotivate us from the effort of their creation.
Nevertheless, contrary to Immanuel Kant’s definition of beauty (which later, the art establishment associated with art in general), artistic demon casting is anything but “disinterested”. To explain, not only is there a purpose to artistic demon casting, arguably, this purpose is practically imprinted into the human genes (or using the terminology of “Delta Theory”, it is imprinted into the automaton, which governs our animal body). To explain, when people say artistic creation is their therapy, they are not over glorifying anything, as essentially, whenever we demon cast through artistic creation, this is exactly what we are doing, on the most fundamental neurological biological level.
Still, the art establishment claims this independence its own, without mentioning, the origins of this independence are "demonic". Instead, the art establishment relies on rational philosophical argumentations, such as those endorsed by post modernism, for example. While the art establishment is happy to accept the truly remarkable artistic achievements, which demon casts exhibited throughout the ages, formally, it refuses to differentiate demonically influenced artworks, from non-demonically influenced ones. Arguably, it is understandable. To explain, because demon casts are independent of both rational reasoning, and social limitations, we simply cannot prove, an artwork embodies a demon cast, and not merely a manifestation of craftsmanship. We can only guess, what thought or demon bothered the mind of an artist, while creating an artwork, and actually, usually, artists do not really know this either. To clarify, usually, demon-casting artists are only aware, that somehow, the creation process makes them “feel better”, without having a concrete explanation why.
Nevertheless, arguably, we may learn to differentiate between demon casting artworks, and manifestations of pure craftsmanship, by repeatedly attempting to demon cast, becoming familiar with a large variety of artworks, or both. To explain, by repeatedly demon casting, we learn to differentiate the elements, within a work of art, which are “just for show”, from those, which are imperative to successful demon casts. In contrast, by becoming familiar with a large variety of artworks, we learn to recognize repeated patterns in seemingly unrelated artworks, which potentially, can help us with this classification, as essentially, demon casts reflect their demonic randomness, which arguably, cannot be converted into mere craftsmanship. Still, because of the unpredictability of demonic influences, these methods can only be speculative, meaning, they grant us a vague classification sensibility, and not a set of objective criteria.
Moreover, again, to "decipher" the true value and meaning of an artwork, including its demonic references, we must know the historical and cultural context of its creation, as even if an artwork may be merely a manifestation of craftsmanship, potentially, there may have been a time, in which similar artworks, may have embodied artistic demon casts. For example, if we consider the development of rock music, arguably, there was a time, not so long ago, when the “rough” attitude of rock music, was both new, and reactionary. However, as rock music became ever more popular, it transformed from the expression of individual demons, to a "code", which all rockers must obey, effectively undermining these founding “dragonish” attributes. Arguably, rock music may still reflect a sense of rebellion against something (whatever that is). Still, similarly to religions, this rebellion, and its "dragonish attributes", were already "casted" for today's rockers, transforming rock music, to a general external “solution” for our demonically induced sufferings, which in many cases, may be ineffective when dealing with the specifics of our demons. Actually, in this respect, we can even claim, the "founders of rock music” are in fact, angels, as arguably, they exhibit all the angelic necessities and downsides, including the imminent falsity of their message, transforming our expression of individual freedom, into a list of strict and oppressive fashion codes.
Considering this, we should enhance our terminology. Instead of differentiating demon casting artworks, from manifestations of pure craftsmanship, we should use the term "angel casting artworks". To clarify, while similarly to demon casting artworks, angel casting artworks exhibit demonic influences, still, the demons they exhibit are obsolete, suggesting they can only be inhibitive. While as we just suggested, it is possible, there was a founding demon caster, whom casted this demon into the artistic format, by which we know it today, this format no longer reflects any personal or individual demonic influence, and neither do angel casters attempt to mutate it, so to reflect their current personal demonic influences. In fact, similarly to as in religions, the artistic formats of angel casting artworks, persuade us to exhibit irrational behaviors, a product of a fixating inhibitive demon. For example, if we consider rock music, its angel casting properties, manifest in many ways, beginning from the type of music angel casting artists create, and ending with idiotic "groupie" behavioral patterns. Therefore, while demon casting artworks may serve us as means to alleviate our demonically induced “sufferings”, angel-casting artworks achieve the exact opposite, enhancing our demonic influences, while leaving us incapable of using the artistic medium, as means of demonic alleviation, forcing us to resort to other methods, such as religions, psychological treatments, narcotics, or whatever other means, by which we can escape our mental reality (such as sexuality, and hedonism, in general).
Arguably, angel casting is somewhat similar to an alarming behavioral pattern we described in "Delta Theory", namely, logical bestiality, which as we suggested, transforms our lives into a somewhat "mechanical" algorithm, which many times, may result with a sense of shame, for our inability to realize our ideals. Still, angel casting artists may be more versatile in their non-artistic endeavors, and hence, essentially, angel casting is different from logical bestiality. Moreover, creating angel-casting artworks is not necessarily a harmful practice. To explain, first, similarly to demon casting, angel-casting answers a biological cognitive instinct, namely, the will "to belong" socially, and from an evolutionary perspective, for humans, the will "to belong" is a necessity, as we depend on our social environment to survive. Secondly, while angel-casting artists may not mutate the formats of their creations, they may still express creativity and ingenuity, by focusing their efforts on improving their level of craftsmanship and techniques, striving to be the best in their genres, and may achieve remarkable feats in the process. Therefore, arguably, it might even be beneficial, if artists were to begin their artistic endeavors, with angel casting, as potentially, it may better their future craftsmanship.
Nevertheless, due to its inherent properties, angel casting causes great resentment and antagonism among demon casters. To explain, first, while when demon casting, we focus on our personal demons, when angel casting, our subjective perspectives are simply irrelevant. Secondly, when demon casting, essentially, we "rebel" against our demons, while when angel casting, we adhere to our inhibitive fixating demons. Thirdly, angel casting artists aspire to reach the top of existing social hierarchies, while demon casting artists wish to disrupt these hierarchies. Fourthly, while the ideal, to which angel casting artists aspire, is to be “superstars”, the ideal of demon casting artists is to be "dragons". Fifthly, not only is there a colossal difference between the two practices, there is exploitation as well. To explain, as we suggested, arguably, the “artistic freedom” is the product of art's demon casting heritage, which angel casting artists are more than happy to exploit to their selfish needs, which in many cases, are irrelevant to art, such as expectations, society will grant them a "special treatment", as reward, for the cultural achievements of their demon casting counterparts. Sixthly, the inevitable adherence to existing formats, deems the sincerity of angel casting artists, irrelevant to their creative efforts, while when demon casting, sincerity is all that "counts".
Demon casting artists will consider themselves as "real" artists, and actually, this is partially true, as the art they create is intrinsically connected with their psychological reality, even if their level of craftsmanship may be questionable. In addition, demon casting artist may believe, their angel-casting counterparts are “sellouts”, or “fake”, and again, this is partially true, as indeed, all angel casting artists care for is success, and mostly, their creative efforts do not exhibit any type of "sincerity". In contrast, angel casting artists will believe they are simply realists, and actually, this is partially true, as existing social-cultural structures and establishments, support their creative efforts, both socially, and financially. Moreover, angel casting artists may accuse their demon-casting counterparts of being insane, and again, considering the ideal, to which demon casting artists aspire, namely, to be "dragons", this is also partially true, I mean, come on.
Therefore, it appears, associating demon casting artists, and angel casting artists, with the same practice, namely, art, does nothing but harm, as essentially, the two practices are contradictive. Nevertheless, our difficulty to objectively differentiate between them, deems it impossible to grant each practice its own cultural realm. Obviously, this “arrangement” yields much resentment within the art world. To clarify, demon casting artists suffer from this arrangement, because as soon as they achieve a successful artistic demon cast, a flock of angel casting artists begins to capitalize on their turf (and possibly, “kicking them off the thrown", which they singlehandedly conceived), while angel-casting artists suffer from it as well, as our misconceptions with respect to their craft, forces them to pretend they are rebellious, sincere, and free, while in practice, they are enslaved to the formats of their genres.
Nevertheless, arguably, in practice, this "arrangement" betters angel-casting artists, and actually, this is understandable, as essentially, angel casters both adhere to social restrictions, and are predictable, and hence, provide the "stability" required to capitalize on their creative efforts, allowing angel casting artists to earn their livelihood from their craft, while demon casting artists can only dream of such an option. To explain, because demon casting artists respond to their personal inconsistent unpredictable demons, they cannot ensure any type of "stability", so essential to financial exploitation. Indeed, seldom, demon casting artists may be financially successful. Still, even in such cases, inevitably, they will have to choose whether to remain true to their demon-casting path, and risk their financial success, or "convert" to angel casting, and handle their demons outside the realm of art.
Still, in no way does this suggest, artistic demon casts are culturally insignificant. On the contrary, potentially, demon-casting artworks can be as valuable to human culture, as Einstein’s relativity theories. To explain, a demon cast does not need to deal with sciences to be significant. For example, if indeed, concrete angels have written the western monotheist bible, its compilation into a single book, qualifies as a demon cast, and hence, essentially, it is identical to literature, meaning, it is an artwork. Nevertheless, the cultural significance of demon-casting artists may not always reflect in their personal lives, and in many cases, society and culture have exploited their efforts, while the business of art roamed its wheels, such as was the case with Vincent van Gogh for example, who hardly sold a single painting during his life, while today, his works are priceless.
Still, as we previously suggested, arguably, there might be a change coming. To explain, not only did our contemporary self-centeredness, and the contemporary rising popularity of auto-angelic tendencies, make us believe, we have “a message from god”, in addition, it made us express ourselves more freely, and abundantly, through our creative efforts, and hence, unintentionally, more of us began attempting to demon cast. To clarify, while indeed, people have been demon casting throughout human history, still, the manner, by which we demon cast today, has changed. To explain, in the past, people were reluctant to demon cast without the embrace of a backing establishment, ranging from academic institutes, galleries, newspapers, to the media in general. While indeed, these establishments granted an outlet for demon casting, still, they imposed their list of demands and requirements as well. For example, in academic institutes, the requirement is to base our current efforts, on previously published academic research, while in art-oriented establishments, the requirement is to be aware of previous artworks, and art theories. Many times, failure to comply with these requirements, resulted with rejection by these establishments, and without their support, reluctantly, many individuals chose to abandon their demon casting attempts, in favor of more “sound” endeavors.
While arguably, the requirements such establishments impose, are a good practice, repeatedly, individuals have made significant discoveries and achievements, outside the embrace of any establishment, which possibly, could have been demon casts. Still, regardless, the significance of these achievements, was always in their product, and not in the manner, by which people achieved them, and hence, currently, no one acknowledges demon casting even exists, neither as a method to progress cognitively, or technologically, and nor as a human neurological biological instinct.
Still, again, even without such acknowledgement, today, the practice of demon casting has become widespread. With the introduction of the internet, and the publishing capabilities it grants us, we simply do not need these establishments anymore. No longer do we need to devote our lives to studying existing knowledge (or alternatively, angel casting techniques), just to be able to publish our demon casts. We are free to create and publish whatever we want. If we have demons to address, we are free to cast them, without first acquiring proper "education". Nevertheless, this comes with a price. To explain, because the internet is practically “littered” with works of so many individuals, we lost our ability to reach a significant audience for our efforts.
Surprisingly, this made demon casting even more popular. To clarify, at first, people were publishing their works, from an auto angelic perspective, thinking they would reach a significant audience. However, the abundance of published works changed our perspectives. To explain, on the one hand, failure to reach an audience suppressed our beliefs, reaching a significant audience is feasible, helping us obvert our auto angelic tendencies. On the other hand, as more of us “got our hands dirty”, while attempting to demon cast, we began to learn the value of this endeavor, regardless of the level of financial success or popularity it granted us. Still, by repeatedly attempting to demon cast, we increased our self-centeredness, as well as our sense of antagonism, toward obedience in general. To explain, as we suggested in chapter three, mostly, the morality of our social environment, reflects some sort of inconsistency. Regardless if this inconsistency, is of a religious or scientific origin, from the perspective of a “serial demon caster”, these are all demons, and the more we demon cast, the less we will be willing to follow them. This is especially true for inhibitive demons, as usually, inhibitive demons are "static", and therefore, are somewhat easier to “spot”.
It is hard to predict, where this path will lead us. To explain, while indeed, it is possible, change is upon us, still, currently, the balance between demon casting and obedience, did not reach a critical point. Apparently, only the semantics of the demons society embraces changed, shifting our society from embracing religions, to capitalism. Today, our heroes are the rich, while we care little, if their morality is somewhat "distasteful". We follow their words like sheep, so similarly to the manner, we used to follow our religious leaders in the past.
Arguably, this is all there is to it. I will not assume the role of a "prophet", and claim otherwise. To explain, if writing this text taught me anything, it is to avoid my auto angelic tendencies. Still, the rising popularity of demon casting is a fact, and as we can expect, its effects are unpredictable. It is hard to believe a “serial demon caster”, let alone a “dragon”, could “embrace god” in the event of a “religious revolution”. Therefore, it is hard to predict, what will transpire, in the event of a full frontal confrontation, between the secular capitalist western world, and religions (such as could possibly happen, with respect to the contemporary rising popularity of Islam). Moreover, a colossal global financial fiasco, can seriously shake the “following” capitalism has today (and I am referring to an event, in a scale, which we have not yet witnessed), allowing our growing demon casting skills to strive. To explain, because demon casting does not rely on external affirmations, it can help us obvert our demonically induced distress, even without the support of any establishment. Therefore, it is possible, that as a result of some sort of cataclysmic social event, and in the absence of any other means to alleviate our demonically induced sufferings, the practice of demon casting, may replace the role, which currently, religions, conformity, and faith, have in our lives, transforming into a dominant feature of our future morality, enhancing our dragonish capabilities, and placing dragons, as the heroes and leaders of our future societies.
Will it happen? I do not know. Is it worth a thought? Well, in the practical sense, I am not sure. To explain, it is hard for me to think of a situation, where most people will think for themselves, and follow their own subjective convictions, in the manner demon casting requires. Furthermore, there is much more at stake here, than affirming or refuting the significance of this text. To clarify, there are worldwide establishments, both religious, and financial, on which billions of lives depend, for everything, ranging from the basic means of survival, to worldwide aspirations of power, and such a colossal web of interests and dependencies must already plan, how to secure dominance, in any reasonable, or even unreasonable scenario. Still, colossal as it may be, again, size was never "an issue" for the real gods, and while arguably, it may be easier for us to think of them as “forces of nature”, if they really have an “agenda”, then it is visible, as we have managed to establish a link between seemingly unrelated events, such as the discovery of physical randomness, and the social evolution, which led to the reality we know today. Furthermore, considering science predicts impending worldwide cataclysmic events as well, such as global warming, global fossil fuel depletion, non-sustainable economic systems, food shortage, and the likes, it is hard to tell.
Still, even if such cataclysmic events would transpire, and even if our dragonish tendencies will become dominant, it does not suggest any type of "apocalypse", or utopia. To explain, regardless of their arguable merits, dragons are neither "perfect beings", and nor do we require such cataclysmic events to become them. Still, currently, without such cataclysmic events in formation, being a dragon, is a mixed blessing at best. To clarify, in the current state of human evolution, the role the dragon instinct takes, in the formation of our society, is marginal. At our early years, society repeatedly attempts to inflict us with its angelic convictions, causing us to repress our "dragonish tendencies", which later, we find hard to uncover, without severely disrupting our lives, through possibly tragic circumstances. Moreover, to become dragons, we must learn to obvert our auto-angelic tendencies, as if we do not, the “training” of our dragonish instincts, may end prematurely, suggesting we must be both conceptually independent of the inhibitive demons our society follows, as well as critical toward our own past achievements. In short, currently, developing our dragonish instincts, is irrational, and hence, to become dragons, we must suffer from a high measure of spontaneous demonic influences, while somehow obverting possession, suggesting a paradoxical, arguably undesired existence.
To explain, to develop our dragonish instincts, we must experience the effects of many demons, which we repeatedly cast, until we manage to master this practice. Still, while spontaneous demons may appear in any variety, inhibitive demons are repetitive, and hence, they cannot yield the same variety, while without it, unintentionally, our attempts to demon cast, could transform into a fixative demonic possession, as by repeatedly casting the same demons, we may become oblivious to the variety, by which demons may appear, causing us to adopt demonic perspectives, such as believing our "purpose" in life, is to fight our immediate social environment, our family, and friends. In other words, if we are "obsessed" with our inhibitive demons (either by following, or fighting them), we may fail to recognize the effects these demons have over our psyche, thinking we are logical and rational, while failing to comprehend, how ridiculous we appear from afar. These are definitely not the markings of a dragon, but rather of an auto-angel.
To summarize, for our dragonish instincts to mature, we require a very specific measure of spontaneous demonic influences. Still, because naturally, we cannot predetermine our spontaneous demonic influences, in many ways, currently, only the real gods may determine our "dragonish levels", and considering the arguable significance of demon casts, in the development of our culture and technology, this conclusion further asserts, the significant role, which the real gods take, in the formation of human history. In other words, it appears the real gods determined both the timing, in which the dragon instinct first emerged in human evolution, as well as the timing, in which it will become dominant.
We cannot change this disposition. To clarify, as we suggested in the previous chapter, contrary to notions, somewhat popular among new-age psychedelic circles, we cannot change the levels of our spontaneous demonic influences, as spontaneous demons do not adhere to causality of any type. Moreover, even if we can mutate our perception, using mind altering narcotics for example, essentially, our perception under the influence of such substances, is neither irrational, nor demonic. It is simply "different". In fact, arguably, the effects of such narcotics may interfere with our dragonish cognitive development, as in many ways, to develop these cognitive capabilities, we require a clear and sober mind. Arguably, it is possible, that by changing our perspective, we may increase the significance we find in our spontaneous demons. Still, again, demon casting does not suggest, we follow our demons, but rather overcome them, and hence, such perspectives hardly assist our dragonish cognitive development, and actually, considering the effects of narcotics are external to our consciousness, meaning, they affect our biology, rather than the concepts with which we think, and because the memories with which they leave us, are inconsistent with the manner, by which our senses stream sensations into our consciousness normally, arguably, such psychedelic habits may increase our measure of inhibitive demonic influences. Moreover, because usually, we choose to use such narcotics, it is most probable, we will recline from casting the inhibitive demons with which they inflict us, diving deeper into our demonically induced perspectives, believing they are meaningful and significant.
In short, currently, our dragonish tendencies cannot be of our doings, and neither can we share them with others. To explain, because the development of our dragonish cognitive capabilities, requires the involvement of spontaneous demons, it implies, we must endure these demonic influences alone, as usually, spontaneous demons affect our consciousness directly, without the mediation of our social environment. Moreover, because the dragonish "training" requires demonic influences, there may be times, when these demons overwhelm us, without us having anyone with which we could confide our experiences, which potentially, may cause us to fall into depression. Still, even if we manage to "handle" our demonic influences on our own, the sense of mental struggle, which dragonish tendencies suggest, is anything but enjoyable, and may reflect in a generally hostile attitude. To clarify, while indeed, the sense of antagonism, which reflects in the dragonish desire to disobey demonic influences, is conceptual, still, we can easily associate specific individuals with specific concepts, converting the somewhat abstract dragonish sense of antagonism, into conflicts of a more personal and concrete nature, which in turn, may result with individuals and social circles, showing a similar resentment toward individuals exhibiting dragonish behavioral patterns, and actually, this "feedback effect" may enhance these patterns, forcing dragons to be even more self-reliant, perfecting their demon casting skills. Still, even if we manage to realize our "dragonish potential" to the full, it does not promise us a joyful life, as by casting and "defeating" all our demons, accidentally, we may repress all our deltas, meaning, our wills and desires, causing our neural biology to misinterpret our cognitive condition, as idleness, and hence, as we suggested in "Delta Theory", we may suffer from extreme boredom. To conclude, there is nothing "ideal" about the dragonish option, and if it is to become widespread, it must be due to necessity, rather than our choices.
Still, arguably, some of these drawbacks, may merely reflect the incompatibility between dragonish behavioral patterns, and contemporary social tendencies, and in the event of cataclysmic social changes, such as those we suggested previously, they might no longer be relevant. Moreover, as we previously suggested, arguably, the art establishment owes quite a lot to the achievements, attained through demon casting, and hence, even today, it welcomes dragons into its midst.
Unlike religious establishments, the art establishment is already accustomed to the criticism of its demon-casting "residents", and learned to accept the antagonistic dragonish attitude. Indeed, some art establishments will not accept some demon casters. For example, many art establishments would reject either artists, or artworks, which exhibit Nazi symbolism and ideals. Nevertheless, because art is so pluralist and decentralized, usually, all true "serial demon casters", can find a "home", somewhere in the vast realm of art, regardless if their works are somewhat "distasteful".
Still, arguably, there may be another link between dragons and art. To clarify, dragons are “serial demon casters”, and as such, obviously, they have an affinity for demon casts, meaning, they are somewhat “drawn” to “solutions” of demonically induced “problems”, which manifest through physical objects. While these physical objects can vary greatly, still, usually, they share a few characteristics. To explain, before we cast a demon, its inherent inconsistencies, prevents the thoughts it invokes in our minds, from “adding up”, or “making sense”, causing each thought, somewhat related with this demon, to remain in our consciousness, as an "unsolved riddle", resulting with an ever growing sensational burden. However, once we cast this demon successfully, this sensational burden, transforms into the justification for our efforts. For example, if we demon cast in the realm of science, then naturally, we take great pride in the issues we solved, and which troubled the scientific community, prior to our efforts.
The same applies to demon casting in the realm of art. To explain, when demon casting in the realm of art, usually, the contradictions the demons we casted reflect, reflects in the physical properties of our artistic demon casts, somewhat resembling a trophy, exhibiting the semantics, by which the demon bothered our consciousness previously, as well as exemplifying we can dismiss this demon, by transforming it to our motivation to create artistically, rather than adhering to its semantics within our lives, outside the scope of artistic creation. Moreover, whenever we will observe our previous demon casting artworks, although we will see these semantics, usually, we will not be bothered by the demon, which inspired us originally, and instead, we will view our creations as complete experiences, or alternatively, gestalts, and considering our sense of accomplishment, we may actually feel a sense of sensational relief, due to the cognitive idleness we attained through our previous demon casting efforts. In fact, this is another reason why demon casts must manifest through physical objects, as to sense this sensational relief, there must be a difference, between our cognitive disposition before, and after, we perceive our past creations. Moreover, to really impress us, these objects must reflect a real objective accomplishment, which may induce us with sensations of pride, reminding us the scope of our achievements.
In "Delta Theory", we suggested a similar, somewhat more natural cognitive experience, namely, beauty. To explain, according to "Delta Theory", we feel sensations of beauty, whenever we sense a sensational variety, which the internal epistemological order it reflects, allows our consciousness to select any specific detail from the vastness of our experience, to comprehend our perception in its entirety, reducing the cognitive burden our consciousness senses usually, while evaluating inbound stimulations, and leaving our consciousness in a state of relative idleness, which makes us feel sensational relief and pleasure. Therefore, subjectively, we can claim, our demon casts are inherently beautiful, meaning, whenever we sense our previous demon casted creations, we will feel sensations of beauty, regardless if we demon cast in the realm of art, or otherwise. Indeed, because others may not comprehend the cognitive meaningfulness of our demon casts, meaning, the manner they helped us solved our demonically induced sufferings, they may not share our sense of appreciation. Nevertheless, by incorporating objectively beautiful elements into our demon casts, meaning, elements, which exhibit an ordered variety, we may enhance the effectiveness and persuasiveness of our demon casts, so to make others respect it as well, increasing our sense of accomplishment even further.
In short, from an artistic perspective, beauty is a useful instrument, by which we can increase the chances our demon casts will be successful, and therefore, dragons are instinctively drawn to it, as quite simply, “it gets the job done”, further enhancing the connection, between dragons and art. Furthermore, because for dragons, demon casting is not a past time, or a hobby, but rather an epistemological instrument, allowing them to endure their demonic influences, arguably, they do not have the liberty to "wait" until they stumble across a scientific discovery, which will show mathematical grace, and hence, of all endeavors, art is the favorable dragonish choice, if only for the simple reason, that it is always “available”.
To conclude, it appears, the link between dragons and art, consists of both social and practical motivations. Nevertheless, unlike other artists (angel casters, or otherwise), when dragons create art, they do not have “art” in mind. Casting demons comes first, and quite honestly, “art” is not “at the top of the dragon’s agenda”. The cultural value of art means very little to dragons. Even when dragons create significant, or influential works of art, inevitably, all they care for are the demons yet left to be casted. Therefore, even if the realm of art may welcome dragons, “belonging” is simply not on their agenda. Furthermore, because usually, artistic establishments demand we follow a few ethical and technical regulations, dragons feel somewhat uneasy within them. Moreover, artistic establishments welcome angel-casting artists as well, which dragons simply loath. Therefore, dragons are anything but “enthusiastic” to belong in artistic establishments, for both social and “ideological” reasons.
To summarize, even though dragons may be masters of the arts, even if their demon casts may be beneficial to culture, and even if dragons are “blessed” with internal strength, they simply cannot find a home, as dragons will find demons to cast, in every establishment that will accept their disobedience. Moreover, they may feel resentment to any type of human interaction, as inevitably, their dragonish “perspective” will draw them to repeatedly search their social environment, for demonic influenced behavioral patterns, while inevitably, dragons may cast only their own demons, as only by casting our own demons, may we feel the sense of achievement, so imperative to the epistemological benefits, which demon casting offers.
As a result, in most cases, dragons will find their sense of “belonging” only in esthetic ideals. Still, because obviously, "an ideal" does not possess a consciousness, the thought we can "belong" with our ideals, is irrational, and hence, dragons will not accept such fantasies either, and most probably, will attempt to demon cast them.
Currently, the only way a dragon can find peace, is by nothing less, than I would say, a "miracle". To find peace, a dragon requires an esthetical ideal, which possesses a consciousness, meaning, another human, which the dragon will find attractive, while somehow managing to "dodge" the dragon's resentment to demonic influences. To explain, all humans suffer from demonic effects, including the person representing this esthetic ideal. Innocently, we could think, a dragon may feel comfortable with another "dragonish partner". However, because dragons manage to "subdue" their demonic influences, such "dragonish partner" would fail to exhibit demonic behaviors, resulting with an ever growing mutual sense of boredom, causing such "dragonish partners", to search for other, somewhat more demonic sources of interest.
No. To find a "home" a dragon requires, what I call a "dragon mate", or better said, "dragonish counterpart". Surprisingly, the more a dragonish counterpart is demonically influenced, the more a dragon will find its counterpart attractive. However, naturally, the more a dragonish counterpart is demonic, the less value he, or she, will care for the rationality of a dragon, finding little value in the dragon's demon casted achievements, undermining the dragon's sense of pride, resulting with a sense of resentment toward the dragonish counterpart. Still, because dragonish counterparts are demonically influenced, essentially, dragonish counterparts do not exhibit rationality, and hence, in many ways, we cannot predetermine anything, with respect to a dragonish counterpart psyche, regardless if it is attraction, or revolt. In other words, just as the "dragonish training" demands a specific fine measure of demonic influences, so does the emergence of a dragonish counterpart in the life of a dragon.
Therefore, essentially, the feasibility of "a harmonic merger" of a dragon, and a dragonish counterpart, is improbable. Still, if the real gods really "wish it", it may happen, but only with the dedicated assistance of the real gods, as only their demons may realize such an improbable event, and actually, considering our previous conclusions, with respect to the tyrant untrustworthy nature of the real gods, in most cases, the meaningfulness of a dragonish counterpart will reduce from being a real life partner, to serving as but another source of dragonish inspiration, not so different from all demonically disturbed individuals. In short, dragonish counterparts are definitely not a general solution to the dragonish existential difficulties, and unless our future will bring nothing but chaos, in no way may dragonish counterparts represent a general "vision" for any future dragonish society.
To conclude, even if angelic ideals are flawed, the ideals of demon casters are not much better. To clarify, while angelic ideals are flawed, because they consist of false beliefs, which can easily clash with reality and collapse, still, the demon-casting ideal, leaves us in a constant epistemological struggle, with little chances to find peace.
So what should we make of this? To explain, this chapter began with a sense of rebellion and resentment, toward angels and the real gods, and ended with the realization, that the method by which we may realize this rebellion, will take us on a one-way ticket to depression. However, if this is indeed the case, then what is the purpose of this text? Does it really have none, as we suggested previously? To explain, even if we may accept the real gods are deities, and even if we may agree, that the real gods are “changing their tendencies”, why should our culture shift to the dragonish path? Why would anyone want to endure the dragonish existential distress, on top of the hardships, which global cataclysmic events will unleash? Why should we leave the angelic path? Still, again, with respect to our previous conclusions, can we really embrace our angelic heritage? If we cannot, then again, what are we to make of this text?

Well, I was thinking about this quite a lot, and it appears, there is only one solution.

STREAM : inconsistent : chapter 4 : demons

2011-06-03T12:34:00.000-07:00

I seem to have developed a habit in this text, where at the beginning of each chapter, I apologize for the things I suggested in the previous chapters. This is no exception. To clarify, while we based our discussion on a consistent metaphysical theory, namely, "Delta Theory", the notions we suggested were of a somewhat “different” flavor. For example, in the previous chapter, even though initially, I confessed, my interpretations and analysis of religions are speculative, and not necessarily correct, as our discussion progressed, this initial commentary, became more of a lip service. While obviously, we did not prove any of the notions we suggested, there was no real sense of doubt. Moreover, even if possibly, the arguments we suggested in the previous chapter are correct, and even if I cannot think of better interpretations to the existence of common religions, toward the end of the previous chapter, an inherent argumentative flaw began to emerge.
To clarify, we were trying so hard to “access” the prolonged inconsistent tendencies of the real gods, that as soon as we found and isolated them in existing religions, we assumed, they imply "something" about our reality. However, sadly, this is not the case. To explain, indeed, it is possible, some religions are successful, because they provide a “useful framework” for the real gods, with which they can provoke us to inflict inconsistent changes on our reality. Still, as we suggested at the end of the previous chapter, the manner, by which religious followers actually practice their religions, can have very little to do with the "formal" principles of their religions.
In short, analyzing religions, according to the principles we suggested in the previous chapter, can only explain why religions exist. While such discussion can help us analyze the cultural macro levels, it is too abstract and general to analyze the micro levels, meaning, the manner, by which the real gods affect our personal lives. Moreover, while the principles religions endorse may explain why the real gods “allow” their existence, still, these principles do not impose the real gods with any “limit” or “obligation”. To clarify, at no point, did the real gods “promise”, our reality will reflect any religious principle. In other words, the arguable existence of prolonged inconsistent tendencies, applies only to the concepts we believe our reality should reflect, while in actuality, these concepts hardly describe our reality, regardless of our personal preferences.
Simply put, angels do not govern our reality. There is no providence protecting us from the inconsistent nature of the real gods. Religions attempt to “blind” us from acknowledging the numerous times their teachings have failed the test of time, while replacing our objective rational judgment, with a fragile and temporal peace of mind, which can end in a heartbeat. To clarify, the real gods can "select" any moment they choose, to disrupt the fabric of our lives, regardless of our religious persuasions. The irony is that it simply does not matter, how devoted we are to our religions, and how disillusioned we might become, once the real gods will have their way with us. While indeed, through experience, we may learn all religions ever taught us, was a load of bullocks, our personal tragedies would not even “dent” the stability of the religions we followed previously (unless we are significant angels, that is). In short, in the micro personal levels, the role angels play in the shaping of our lives is quite marginal. Therefore, if the real gods are really as potent as the attributes of metaphysical inconsistencies suggest, they must have other non-angelic means, with which they affect us. So what are they?
Well, we suggested, angels are messengers of the real gods, luring us to follow misguided concepts, which inevitably, make us behave in irrational and inconsistent manners. Still, because angels affect us by conveying us with ideas and concepts, even if angels make us act irrationally, to follow them, we must act intelligently. To clarify, even if the ideas, with which angels inspire us, are inconsistent with our reality, to understand and follow them, they still demand we use our rationality, at least to some degree. Therefore, this imposes a limit, over the effects, which the real gods can inflict on us by the use of angels. Still, again, this limitation does not apply to the real gods themselves, and if the real gods have other means, with which they can make us act in irrational inconsistent manners, we can be sure they use them. In short, if there are “other players” in this "game", we can be sure they affect us.
I am intentionally “beating around the bush”, because I want us to understand what this “other player” is, before we give it a name. Unlike angels, this “other player” affects our behavior, without persuading us consciously. Therefore, we can assume this “player” does not rely on our ability to think rationally. It can only rely on our instinctive behavioral patterns. Still, it must be able to make us act differently, from the way we would consistently. Therefore, we can exclude primal and animal-like behavioral patterns, as such behavioral patterns are both predictable and mechanical, or alternatively, consistent. For the same reason, this “other player” cannot be an inherent part of our genes or biology. To explain, according to “Delta Theory”, contingent dimensional automatons govern our animal body in a consistent fashion, and therefore, they are as predictable as any other consistent machine. Indeed, as we suggested in chapter two, it is possible, the real gods manipulate our animal body, making us ill, or curing our diseases, unleash unexplained pains, and the likes. Still, this has little to do with us. To clarify, while indeed, by manipulating and mutating our animal body, the real gods can change our behaviors, still, our behavior would remain consistent with our physical and biological conditions. Furthermore, again, because our knowledge in biology is incomplete, we cannot differentiate between consistent and inconsistent biological changes, and hence, we cannot differentiate between our "natural" biology, and the manners the real gods manipulate it. Moreover, because as we suggested, on the quantum levels, the real gods affect every particle of which we consist, discussing the "places" in which the real gods affect our biology, is pointless, as potentially, they affect our biology in its entirety.
Still, we tend to deduce meaning from our biological abnormalities, regardless if such deductions are accurate. We tend to, but not always. It all depends on what we believe is “happening” to us. It does not matter if we really experience physical or biological changes. We could be lying in our bed for several hours, without anything happening whatsoever, and without any reason, a new “perspective” we have not thought of before, will completely change the thoughts running through our minds. From being indifferent, we could shift into emotional unrest. From feeling happiness, we could shift into sadness, and vice versa. While arguably, such shifts could be the result of chemical changes in our brain, “Delta Theory” suggests another explanation. To clarify, we could be experiencing changes in the contingent dimensional composition of the concepts with which we think. In simpler terms, we could be experiencing changes in the things in which we believe.
Usually, we change our beliefs in a consistent fashion, meaning, by thinking about our experiences. Still, we do not change our beliefs every day, and hence, relatively, our beliefs are static. For example, we hardly ever change our beliefs, with respect to the meanings of the terms of our language, as if we would change them too often, inevitably, our language would become meaningless, as all sentences would become invalid. To clarify, let us consider the sentence, “Apples are red”. Unless we are referring to green or yellow apples, usually, this sentence is valid. However, if we replaced the meaning of the word “apple” with the meaning of the word “cucumber”, while retaining the meaning of the word "red", then obviously, this sentence would be incorrect, as generally, cucumbers are not red. Similarly, we hardly ever change our beliefs, with respect to the essence of our lives, as if we did, inevitably, we would constantly change our plans for the future, achieving nothing in our lives, and hence, remove the need to think about our future at all. In short, again, for the most part, our beliefs remain static.
Furthermore, usually, we do not meditate, reflect, or are even aware of our beliefs. Our beliefs are spontaneous and transparent. To explain, as we suggested in “Delta Theory”, our beliefs reflect the neural and contingent dimensional composition of the "filter" of our consciousness, consisting of the collection of our born and learned instincts, as well as the sensations, which our brain utilizes to route incoming stimulations, through its neural pathways. Therefore, while our beliefs reflect the physical biological infrastructure of our brain, because our consciousness is not a physical element, in many ways, metaphysically, its existence is irrelevant to our beliefs. In other words, our beliefs are not ideas in our minds, but rather ideas we can deduce through contemplation.
The same applies to religious beliefs. To clarify, while arguably, we might be able to find arguments supporting our religious persuasions, essentially, such argumentation is more of an excuse, justifying why we are as we are. Moreover, even if there were valid rational arguments, which could irrefutably “prove” the rational validity of a specific religious persuasion, we would not convert to it, as quite simply, this is not how religious faith "works".
To summarize, belief in a religion is simply not knowledge. It is instinctive. It is not “composed of” rational understanding. Considering angels, faith is simply not a “message”. Nothing obliges us to believe in the angelic messages we receive. From the perspective of the real gods, we merely need to comprehend angelic messages, or at the very least, understand these messages exist, while nothing demands we must understand their implications, as essentially, their implications are relevant only from the timeless perspective of the real gods. In fact, arguably, the real gods may "prefer it", if we do not comprehend the implications of angelic messages, because as we suggested in the previous chapters, inevitably, all angelic messages are misleading, and hence, potentially, comprehending their implications may interfere with the “purpose” for which the real gods “issue” their angels in the first place.
Still, regardless, changing our beliefs changes our behaviors, and therefore, if the real gods can invoke such changes, it opens a door to a new type of inconsistent effects, which the real gods can inflict on our reality. Moreover, because as we just mentioned, the real gods can achieve such changes, by changing the contingent dimensional composition of the sensations in our minds, this "new" type of changes, does not impose any significant metaphysical “challenge” for the real gods, as essentially, manipulating contingent dimensions is the real gods’ “specialty”. In fact, arguably, this "new" type of effects is more "natural" to the real gods, as essentially, it does not require the tedious process, of constructing scenarios, in which they deliver us their angelic messages. Moreover, considering our previous hypothesis, that our sensations of pain occur due to the insertion of inconsistent elements into our psyche, it is possible, this "new" type of effects, occurs by default, through the work of our neurological mechanisms, governing our deltas, or alternatively, our wills and desires. Still, such effects share a similarity with angelic influences, as they too require our cognitive generalization capabilities, meaning, our ability to “believe in” something, and to the best of my knowledge, only humans facilitate this basic requirement.
This is the “other player” to which I was referring, which I will now call "demons". I choose this name, because of the resemblance, between inconsistent changes in our beliefs, and the western common folklore concept of demonic possession. Still, we should stress, the "demons" to which we refer, are definitely not the demons of which western monotheism speaks, and neither do they resemble the demons appearing in any other religious teaching. To clarify, the "demons" to which we refer, are neither minions of Satan or Lucifer, and nor do they come "from hell". Moreover, they are not necessarily harmful. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the demons to which we refer, are deities or not, as in many ways, the manner, by which we may view them, is subjective. To clarify, similarly to the "deity status" of the real gods, we can choose to view the demons to which we refer, as mere forces of nature.
I feel the need to mention this now, because I fear individuals, whose religious persuasions are somewhat antagonistic toward western monotheism, might attempt to abuse this text. To clarify, while the notions we suggested, definitely do not support western monotheism, neither do they support their conceptual religious adversaries, namely, Satanism, and paganism. Therefore, we should emphasize, the demons to which we refer, are not spirits from the underworld, a “dark side”, "monsters", or any other silly concept, which we would otherwise encounter in horror films.
No. Simply put, demons govern our “faith”. They determine our religious choices. Moreover, demons determine which angelic messages we will follow, suggesting an inherent link between demonic and angelic effects. Furthermore, because both angels and demons provoke us to inflict inconsistent changes on our reality, essentially, from the perspective of the real gods, their differences merely reflect different "tactical invariants".
Nevertheless, demonic and angelic effects are fundamentally different. For example, while angelic interventions require our awareness of them, demons do not require our knowledge of their "presence", as potentially, being aware of their "presence" may cause us to doubt the beliefs, with which they attempt to inflict us. Furthermore, again, often, angelic effects require our understanding of angelic messages, while belief and faith are spontaneous and instinctive, and hence, demons cannot actually “explain” to us what we should do. Instead, demons "shift" the focus of our attention, in a manner inconsistent with the flow of causality in our reality, overriding the “natural” consistent manner, by which the focus of our attention, should "shift" otherwise. Moreover, because demons mutate the "filter" of our consciousness, essentially, they are an inherent part of our internal mental world, and hence, we are much more "intimate" with our demons, than we are with angels, as angelic messages are merely ideas, of which we may become aware through various different "channels", some of which may be quite impersonal or passive. In addition, we should emphasize, the concepts, in which demons can make us believe, are not limited to existing religions. Demonic effects are far more versatile, and hence, they are much more common than angelic effects. Still, because demonic effects are subconscious, usually, we do not acknowledge them, while the angelic semantics of our beliefs, are always outspoken. Metaphorically, angels are similar to divine-larger-than-life celebrities, which inevitably, are irrelevant to our personal lives, while demons are similar to close acquaintances, following our every move, while directing our lives, according to the inconsistent “plans” of the real gods. Actually, in some ways, demons resemble our common notions, with respect to guardian angels (with the small difference, that in no way do demons promise, they “wish to protect” us from anything).
We can divide demonic effects into two types. The first type is what I call "proactive demonic effects". Proactive demonic effects occur whenever our faith, beliefs, and instinctive preconceptions, change without any apparent reason. In such cases, we undergo sudden unexplained psychological shifts, which result in us exhibiting untypical behavioral patterns. While in some cases, these behavioral patterns could be self-abusive, this is definitely not the only possibility. Proactive demons can just as well provide us with inexplicable inspiration, invoking “eureka moments”, insights, and revelations in our psyche. In fact, it is possible, proactive demons are responsible for the transformation of a person into a concrete angel. To clarify, regardless of the semantics of angelic messages, a "future angel" may require “divine help” just to pay attention to a "divine message", rather than dismiss it as nonsense. Nevertheless, we should remember that as we suggested in the previous chapter, the real gods do not "issue" their angels to help us, but rather to serve their "selfish" metaphysical “interests”, this hypothesis does not suggest, proactive demons are in any way “good”. Still, undoubtedly, they are inspiring.
The second type of demonic effects, are what I call "fixating demonic effects". Unlike proactive demonic effects, these effects are not characterized by inexplicable changes in our beliefs, but rather by an inexplicable “blindness” to facts and rational logical thinking. Fixating demonic effects are a fundamental ingredient of our faith, as they keep us true to our faith regardless of circumstances. The same is also true to another cherished concept: love. Actually, for most intended purposes, faith and love are practically identical.
Nevertheless, fixating demonic effects are not always pleasant. Just as when taken to the extreme, love can transform into an annoying, and possibly dangerous obsession, the same applies to faith in general. In the name of our faith, fixating demonic effects can cause us to do harm to ourselves and to others, without any rational justification why, and arguably, religious fanatics are a fine example of this.
Because essentially, all angels must obvert the manner, our reality should persist consistently, mostly, their messages do not reflect existing idioms, and hence, we should not expect, individuals would "transform" into concrete angels, due to fixating demonic effects. Nevertheless, a concrete angel may require the "help" of fixating demonic effects, to sustain its dedication to its "angelic calling". To clarify, from the perspective of the real gods, if proactive demons are to bear an "angelic fruit", their somewhat "erratic" nature might require the conceptual stability, which fixating demons provide. Therefore, even from a religious or moral perspective, we cannot categorize either types of demonic effects as “good” or “evil”. Furthermore, because as we suggested, the formation of concrete angels may require both types of demonic effects, it is impossible to link demons with any specific religion, as most probably, demons took part in the formation of all angels, all religions, and all concepts of god, which ever affected human history.
Still, demons are anything but “trustworthy”. While indeed, the real gods “issue” demonic effects for a reason, still, as we already concluded, there is nothing essentially “good” about this fact, as essentially, again, the real gods are untrustworthy tyrants. Moreover, because as we explained in chapter two, we may never know the real "plans" of the real gods, knowing the real gods "issue" our demons, does not teach us anything. Nevertheless, arguably, proactive and fixating demons can make our lives interesting, as living a life in a completely logical and rational manner, is not exactly “inspiring”. Still, because we are consistent beings, there is a limit to the demonic effects we can endure, without transforming our lives into complete chaos. This limit reflects in two uncorrelated axes: measure, and possession.
With high demonic measure, proactive demons, fixating demons, or both, incapacitate us from effectively reacting to objectively “real” events occurring in our lives. While proactive demons may shift our attention between too many uncorrelated thoughts, deeming it impossible for us to focus our attention, and “exploit” the ideas, with which these demons may inspire us, fixating demons may undermine the rationality we require to “achieve” anything “real” in our lives. Both effects endanger the potential to successfully exploit our demonic influences, while at the same time, damage us socially, as our behaviors become too unpredictable and autistic to our social environment. Nevertheless, arguably, with enough talent and dexterity, or if it is simply "the right time at the right place", we can still exploit this demonic abundance. In fact, arguably, there may be times, when a high demonic measure is “exactly what we need” to achieve goals, we would consider impossible otherwise.
In contrast, arguably, high demonic possession, is far less desirable. To clarify, with high demonic possession, a single demon dominates us. Either we fail to stabilize our minds on a single thought, destroying everything we accomplish before it can bear fruit, or we fail to internalize the reality in which we live, deeming all our actions pointless. High demonic possession enslaves us to demonic effects, while we gain nothing in return. Unaware, we become slaves of the real gods. We can find these “slaves” in mental institutions, or relentlessly praying to god, to save them from their misery, or both. Even if there are times when possessive demonic effects are exactly what we need, again, we all have a "breaking point", beyond which demonic effects yield nothing but a downward spiral of self-destruction.
Actually, in "Delta Theory", we suggested a similar behavioral pattern, namely, delta bestiality. While practicing delta bestiality, we devote our entire lives to one type of deltas, be it bodily pleasures (meaning, bodily bestiality), mechanizing our lives into a consistent "algorithm" we follow (meaning, logical bestiality), or perceiving our entire existence as "spiritually significant" (meaning, completeness bestiality). Indeed, externally, delta bestiality may appear very similar to high demonic possession, as essentially, our perspective, while practicing either logical or completeness bestiality, is similar to our perspective, while under the influence of high demonic possession. To clarify, if we are "possessed" by a proactive demon, we may shift our beliefs sporadically, similarly to the manner, which individuals, who practice completeness bestiality, change their beliefs to accustom them to their current desires. Alternatively, if we are "possessed" by a fixating demon, we may recline from changing our habits, similarly to the manner, which individuals, who practice logical bestiality, refrain from changing their life style.
Still, high demonic possession is different from delta bestiality, as arguably, we choose to practice delta bestiality consciously, while essentially, demonic possession revokes our ability to choose. Nevertheless, arguably, this does not reflect a real difference, as we could claim, that because the real gods determine each action we perform, they determine the choices we finally make, and hence, arguably, our "choice" to practice delta bestiality, may itself reflect a demonic effect. Still, arguably, there is an even greater difference, as demonic possession does not imply any specific semantic implication. To clarify, if we are "possessed" by a proactive demon, it does not imply, the shifts in beliefs we will exhibit, will be of a "spiritual" nature, as we could just as well shift our beliefs, with respect to politics, our esthetic taste, and the likes. Alternatively, if we are "possessed" by a fixating demon, it does not imply, we would transform our lives into an "algorithm", as demonic possession can just as well be abstract and conceptual, causing us to refrain from deducing conclusions, which others would consider obvious. Moreover, generally, we do not have to adhere to our demons, regardless if we suffer from demonic possession or not. While indeed, demons inflict us with some of our motivations, other beliefs may still motivate us, helping us obvert our delta bestializing tendencies. In short, while delta bestiality and demonic possession are similar, essentially, they reflect two different aspects of our existence as consciousnesses.
Still, similarly to the sense of distress, with which delta bestiality results, experiencing demonic effects is hardly pleasant, regardless of the benefits they offer. Either the conceptual and practical foundation, on which we build our life breaks apart (due to the work of a proactive demon), or we feel tremendous hate to our reality, as it does not conform to the inconsistent concepts, to which our demon fixated our beliefs. It is a game of pro and cons, in which we have no say.
Only the real gods can determine how much we will gain or suffer from demonic effects. To clarify, while mistakenly, we may think, we can actively reduce or enhance the effects demons have over our lives, the truth is, we cannot. Even if we “chain” our lives to reason and rationality, if the real gods “wish it”, demons may still affect us. On the contrary, the real gods may find our inhibitions and aspirations to achieve dominance over our consciousness, even more “fun” to disrupt. Alternatively, as we suggested in the previous chapters, if we wish to be "possessed" by demons, and so, harness the inspiration they might bring us, with either prayer, narcotics, or whatever other means, the real gods may find it more “fun” to put us in our place, refraining from showing us even a "shred" of their inconsistent metaphysical capabilities. In short, again, the more the real gods are “happy”, the more we suffer. This applies to everyone, including you.
Another similarity, between demonic effects, and delta bestiality (or more specifically, completeness bestiality), is their seamless resemblance to mental disorders. To clarify, a person suffering from demonic effects, will exhibit behavioral symptoms, which usually, we would associate with mental illness. While proactive demons may result with erratic and inexplicable behaviors, and hence, we can easily confuse these behavioral patterns with symptoms of schizophrenia, we can easily confuse the effects of fixating demons with obsessive-compulsive behavioral disorders. Still, again, while demons may yield our motivations to behave in psychotic manners, in no way do they demand, we must fail to preserve our sanity, and hence, essentially, demonic effects are not equivalent to insanity. Moreover, while indeed, if we follow all our demonic beliefs, we may “lose touch” with reality, again, essentially, nothing demands demonic effects must be "harmful". Furthermore, theoretically, demons may affect us temporally, and then leave us to our own devices, allowing us to regain control over our lives. While indeed, the inconsistent untrustworthy "nature" of the real gods (which to remind you, are the metaphysical elements, which “issue” our demons), does not show such “philanthropic” tendencies, still, it is possible. Nevertheless, even if so, once we become accustomed to following our demons blindly, as soon as our demons are “gone”, we would feel lost without guidance. To clarify, by following our demons, we undermine our cognitive capabilities to navigate our lives, and hence, once our demons no longer direct us, inevitably, we will have no way to navigate our lives, other than repeating the demonically induced behavioral patterns, which we attained previously. Therefore, while from afar, our behaviors may still appear “insane”, in actuality, there will be nothing truly inconsistent or “crazy” motivating us. If we used to exploit our proactive demons for inspiration, the inspiration will simply be “gone”. If we used to follow our fixating demons, suddenly, the beliefs we once found so compelling, will lose their appeal. Nevertheless, again, others will still interpret our behaviors as insane, and hence, we will suffer from this classification. To conclude, arguably, whenever we suffer from high demonic measure or possession, waiting for our demons to “leave us", may not be our best option.
Still, arguably, if we think we can “overcome” our demonic influences, it merely shows, we did not yet understand the essence of demons. To clarify, demons are not here to “test us". The effects demons have on us, are exactly the effects the real gods “planned” when they “issued” our demons. If we think we can overcome our demons, it can only be because the real gods “want” us to feel this sensation of self-control, as if they do not, they could easily overcome our resistance to their demonic influences. In fact, arguably, this sense of self-confidence is “instrumental” for the real gods, as the differences between the demons, which we successfully overcame, and those we failed to overcome, can strengthen the meaningfulness we will find in the demons we have not yet "conquered". Moreover, at any point, the real gods may "decide" to strengthen the demonic effects, which we thought we overcame already, transforming our lives into a living nightmare, until they achieve their inconsistent goals. Still, we should note, that usually, the actual purpose of demonic effects is not to force us to do what our demons “suggest”, but rather to put us in a state of mental distress, and hence, force us to resort to faith. Actually, this is one of the “meanest tricks" the real gods “pull” on us, as by resorting to faith, at times of demonically induced distress, we fall into the hands of other demons, meaning, the demons this new faith reflects.
Nevertheless, again, arguably, demons are essential for the transformation of one into a concrete angel, and therefore, innocently, we would expect, that regardless of the potential damages demons may inflict on our lives, religions would cherish them, as arguably, without demonic effects, our religions could never have "spawned". However, surprisingly, all religions are antagonistic to demonic interventions. Why is that? To clarify, I am saying “all”, and I mean all, as essentially, all religions both exist in our reality, as well as endorse angelic messages, and hence, their existence depends on their founding concrete angels, which as we explained previously, required some sort of demonic intervention to "spawn", either to receive their "angelic inspiration", or to sustain the dedication to their "angelic callings", while refraining from questioning the inconsistencies, inherent to all angelic messages.
Well, while indeed, angels and religions depend on demonic influences to "spawn", the inconsistencies inherent to their teachings, suggest the existence of perspectives, from which their teachings would become invalid. Therefore, naturally, religions "fear" these perspectives would become visible and widespread, and the more a religion is inconsistent, the more perspectives it must wish to hide. However, because essentially, demons adhere only to the inconsistent "inclinations" of the real gods, nothing can restrict them from exposing us to these perspectives. Furthermore, demons need not even “prove” religions are invalid. To clarify, as we already suggested, demons can force us to change our beliefs, without rational justifications, while religions can merely suggest their persuasions, with angelic argumentations. Moreover, because as we suggested, demons are the metaphysical entities governing our faith, ironically, when religions ask us to resort to faith in order to “fight our demons”, in actuality, they ask us to follow other demons, meaning, the fixating demons, which will redirect us back into their embrace. In short, ironically, while religions may wage wars against demons, in actuality, their persistent existence depends on specific fixating demons, and in many ways, their existence reflects the demonic influences of their angelic founders.
This applies to all religions. Indeed, in some religions (such as polytheism, paganism, and of course, Satanism), demons are praised, cherished, and worshipped. Still, usually, such religions embrace “hedonistic” demons, while they tend to ridicule our more "prudent" demons. Furthermore, contrary to such arguably primitive religious persuasions, as we previously suggested, demons are not necessarily deities, and hence, arguably, suggesting they have a “personality” we could "appease", is nonsensical. To clarify, again, mostly, demons affect us subconsciously. Indeed, if the real gods find it necessary, demons can make us believe they are deities. Still, arguably, such association may reduce their effectiveness, as whenever we suspect our urges originate from deities different from us, we may develop a sense of alienation and antagonism toward our demonic influences. Therefore, again, we should expect, that usually, the real gods will not “want” us to think their demons are deities, but rather an inherent part of who we are. Furthermore, again, because metaphysically, demonic effects are equivalent to contingent dimensional manipulations over the particles existing in our brain, arguably, there is no reason to associate them with deities, as their "deity status" is even more questionable, than that of the real gods.
Still, religions explicitly associate demons with deities. Why? Is it because demonic interventions led to the formation of the deity gods religions follow? Is it because the demons of which religions speak, are in fact, angels? Is it because religions cannot confront what demons really are? Is it because religions have conditioned their followers to think only deities can have godlike capabilities? Is it because religions want us to feel alienation and antagonism to our demons, as our epistemological link with our demons is much deeper than our link with our religions? Honestly, it is hard to tell.
Still, as we suggested previously, the worst misconceptions regarding demons, come from religions, which celebrate them the most (namely, polytheism, paganism, and Satanism). We can only guess, the reason for this, is the negative “image” demons have in rivaling religions. Possibly, such religions view demons as a “force” coming to their "aid" against their conceptual religious archenemies, and wish to give thanks to their invisible demonic “friends”. However, somehow, such religions overlook the fact, the real gods “issued” these “friends”, the same real gods responsible for the marginality of their following.
Still, even if religions misrepresent demons, honestly, our new definitions are somewhat lacking. To clarify, as we suggested in "Delta Theory", our beliefs consist of both the contingent dimensional composition of the sensations in our brain, as well as the collection of all our cognitive born and learned instincts. Therefore, it suggests, demonic effects may occur due to several reasons, of which only some depend on contingent dimensional manipulations, while others may occur due to rewiring and reshaping of the neural pathways in our brain.
These effects range between two polarities, with the first being "inhibited demonic effects". Inhibited demonic effects occur whenever we undergo experiences, so incompatible with our previous beliefs, that inevitably, they leave us in a state of conceptual distress. The relentlessness of these experiences forces us to reject our previous beliefs, and embrace a different persuasion, one which is more compatible with our experiences. Still, because usually, such experiences are radically abnormal, such new persuasions tend to be somewhat incompatible with our personality.
The second polarity is "spontaneous demonic effects". Spontaneous demonic effects occur due to physical neural alterations in our brain, transpiring on the quantum levels, as the contingent dimensional composition of the “grey matter” particles in our brain, changes without any conscious or causative justification. To clarify, such changes are purely "physical", meaning, we cannot explain them psychologically.
We can map all demonic effects, somewhere between these two polarities. For example, it is possible, we were already in a state of mental distress, yet somehow, could still "hold things together", until finally, spontaneous demons got the upper hand on us. Alternatively, we could suffer from brain damage, due to trauma, disease, or inconsistent physical changes in our neural architecture, which inevitably, would leave us in a demonic mind state.
Considering the versatility, by which demons can affect us, innocently, we could argue, insanity is a "synonym" to demonic effects, supporting the arguments lunatics have claimed in their defense, throughout human history, and actually, considering the real gods are "responsible" for all the events transpiring in our reality, including demonic effects, essentially, there is some truth to such claims. Nevertheless, this does not imply, exhibiting psychotic behavioral patterns is a "good thing", as again, the real gods care only for the inconsistent changes they make us inflict on our reality, while the "quality" of our lives, they find insignificant. Moreover, arguably, without first having a clear definition of “insanity”, we cannot differentiate it from demonic influences. To clarify, we think insanity is an objective term. We take it for granted that if we think individuals are insane, it automatically deems them mentally incapacitated. Still, what exactly are insane individuals incapacitated from? Is it that they do not think like us? Is it that they do not grasp the things we understand? Is it that they do not automatically accept the things we take for granted? Or is it simply that they do not believe in the things in which we believe?
Before the introduction of the sciences of psychology and psychiatry, naturally, we did not diagnose "insane" behavioral patterns, with scientific terminologies. During these “dark times”, if such behaviors did not impose a real risk to those exhibiting them, or to the people around them, or alternatively, if the authority of those exhibiting these behaviors could not be challenged (such as kings, nobles etc.), they were simply ignored, while labeling such individuals as stupid, strange, or ignorant. However, if such individuals were causing harm to themselves, or to the people around them, and there was sufficient authority to impose sanctions on them, usually, society would label them as “taken by the devil”, or “taken by an evil spirit”, or alternatively, “taken by a demon”, and soon after, a series of actions would take place, such as exorcisms, witch burning, and the likes.
However, things changed with the introduction of the sciences of psychology and psychiatry, as without empirical proof or basis, science rejected the notion of demonic influences. Instead, the sciences of psychology and psychiatry offer a wide variety of evaluations, classifications, and treatment techniques, with which we attempt to "heal" individuals exhibiting such behavioral abnormalities. While indeed, the treatment techniques, which the sciences of psychology and psychiatry offer, may vary, the purpose of such treatments is uniform:

1. Eradicate the behavioral abnormality.

2. If possible, emancipate the individual back to “normal” society.

3. If emancipation fails, to ensure social stability, separate the disturbed individual from “normal” society.

The methods for achieving items one, and two, range from psychoanalysis based treatment, psyche-affecting drugs, meditation techniques, electrical shock therapy, lobotomy, and in some cases, science may even suggest, we resort to alternative medicine. Still, again, as we mentioned in item three, all treatment approaches agree, such behavioral abnormalities must not become norm. To clarify, even if democratic countries respect conceptual pluralism, the ideas they accept, must not explicitly undermine, that which we accept as an absolute “truth”. To clarify, while formally, contemporary democracy is tolerant to all opinions, some "opinions" it will simply not accept. For example, democracy does not accept ideas, which would effectively lead to the eradication of the democratic system. While arguably, such restriction is acceptable, as without it, we could have no system, in which to express our opinions, contemporary democracy rejects other notions as well. To be more specific, because democracy inherently adheres to the rationality typical to empirical sciences, it rejects any notion suggesting to undermine it. Actually, we can even claim, empirical sciences and rationality govern democracy, as essentially, allowing the majority to reign, while refraining from "judging" the semantics by which it governs us, reflects a "cold" rational and mathematical perspective, so typical to empirical sciences.
This is the root of the problem, which makes it so hard for us, to differentiate demonic effects from insanity. To clarify, without empirical findings, to validate the existence of the demons we described in this text, from an empirical scientific perspective, they are no different from the figurative-fantastic-deity-pseudo-demons, which we know from religions. To suggest the existence of the demons we described in this text, first, we need to embrace the metaphysical foundation, from which we deduced their properties. However, empirical sciences reject any metaphysical discussion. Actually, empirical sciences reject even the possibility, we can find empirical proof to the existence of such demons, as implicitly, the perspective of empirical sciences suggests, metaphysical discussions cannot yield understandings, which we can verify empirically. While indeed, in itself, this is a good idiom, as it helps empirical sciences focus on technological applications, still, as we suggested in chapter two, with the non-algorithmic nature of our consciousness, the current metaphysical paradigm of empirical sciences is simply inconsistent, which in turn, deems all existing scientific diagnosis and treatment methods for demonic effects, at the very least “misguided”, if not completely irrelevant.
The truth is, the terms “insanity”, “mental disorder”, or whatever names psychology and psychiatry give to abnormal behavioral patterns, are simply invalid, because they rely on both rational logical thinking, and an inconsistent metaphysical foundation. While indeed, these scientific disciplines may yield effective treatment methods, which may help many disturbed individuals, still, the knowledge and conclusions these disciplines attained, is far from "perfect". Therefore, essentially, differentiating insanity from demonic effects is pointless, as the term “insanity” is simply so subjectively defined, we cannot discuss it in a consistent fashion. To clarify, essentially, “insanity” means little more, than exhibiting behavioral patterns, abnormal to a specific social circle, while other circles may accept such behaviors, or even cherish them. While indeed, “insanity” may suggest a collection of alarming behavioral patterns, still, we cannot use it as reference, when labeling specific behavioral patterns as “flaws”, even if many times, such “flaws” are more than evident.
To conclude, within the context of this text, we cannot refer to insanity “as is”. We must use our own terminology. Moreover, the negative or positive connotations we may associate with demons, are subjective, and dependent on the context, according to which we judge them. For example, if initially, we were strict Christians, while later, demonic influences caused us to "stray" into secularism, the Christian community to which we once belonged, will label us “evil” or “decadent”, while in contrast, individuals, whom are somewhat antagonistic toward the Christian church (and there are many of these) will think we “finally opened our eyes to the truth”. Still, as we already understood, essentially, both perspectives are equally “off the mark”, as we simply cannot determine objectively, if our demonic influences are beneficial or harmful. Moreover, such subjective and context dependent interpretations to our demonic influences, are not limited to religions. To clarify, even when we act “crazy”, society evaluates our behaviors, according to context. For example, while usually, "normative” adult communities do not appreciate it when we act “crazy”, the teenagers of the same exact communities will most probably think otherwise. While indeed, we may claim, it is just a “phase” of adolescence, still, it is certainly not a “phase” for people working in the entertainment industry.
The essence of our confusion, with respect to the differences between demonic effects and insanity, lies in our common preconceptions regarding demons. To clarify, because intuitively, we think of demons as deities, we fail to recognize the existence of inhibitive demons, as such demons are too “circumstantial” for us to associate them with deities, and essentially, there is nothing “weird” or “supernatural” about them. In many ways, we can perceive "inhibitive demons" as but another name, for the social fabric of our reality, and because we are so familiar with it, we take it for granted, it is “normal”. Nevertheless, inhibitive demons can cause us to inflict as much inconsistent changes on our reality, as their spontaneous counterparts. In fact, arguably, we can claim, the act of receiving and accepting angelic messages, is but a specific case of inhibitive demonic effects. To clarify, usually, angelic messages do not enter our minds, without us experiencing the circumstances by which we receive them, and hence, we can suggest, these circumstances are but another manifestation of inhibitive demons. Therefore, we can argue, demonic effects are the "meta-group" of all the manners, by which the real gods can affect our psyche.
From the perspective of an individual a demon affects, the main difference between inhibitive and spontaneous demons, lies in accountability. To clarify, when spontaneous demons affect us, arguably, we have no one to blame other than ourselves, while when inhibitive demons affect us, we tend to blame society for our demonically influenced behaviors. For example, the fact we even consider the religion into which we are born, as a candidate for our religious persuasion, is a classic case of an inhibitive fixating demon at work. Furthermore, if we follow this religion dedicatedly, we can even claim, we suffer from possession of an inhibitive fixating demon, and if we become religious fanatics, we may enhance our "demonic status" to the level of high measure inhibitive fixating demonic possession. Still, somehow, as if by magic, no one will demand we undergo psychological or psychiatric treatment. Why is that?
Well, it is obvious. The religions our society endorse, are nothing less than a red flag saying, “We want to inhibit you to our possessive fixating demons”. Still, religions are not the only source for inhibitive fixating demons. For example, atheist Hinduism also embodies an inhibitive fixating demon. To clarify, we cannot “invent” atheist Hinduism. We learn it, and learn to believe in it. The same applies to academic scientific perspectives as well, and for similar reasons. Furthermore, arguably, the pluralist secular messages the media endorses, combined with the psychological effects, with which social networks inflict us, making us think we are all “celebrities”, link today’s rising popularity of auto-angelic tendencies, with the work of inhibitive fixating demons. To clarify, society forcefully attempts to convince us, we all have a purpose, meaning, and a message, even if we have none, as the rising popularity of reality television programs clearly reflects.
Still, arguably, inhibitive demons may not be the only cause for auto-angelic tendencies. To clarify, surely, there may be cases, where auto-angelic tendencies seem to spore out of "thin air". Nevertheless, such occurrences are still demonic, or more specifically, they reflect the work of a spontaneous demon. To explain, as we just suggested, unlike inhibitive demons, when spontaneous demons influence us, we are not aware of any element affecting us, and hence, arguably, we can blame only ourselves for our actions.
Nevertheless, we can try. To clarify, we can claim, a demon made us “do it”. Still, no one will take us seriously, and for good reasons. First, “A demon made me do it” sounds too similar to “The devil made me do it”, and because the “devil” (meaning, Lucifer, or Satan) is but an angel, such a claim is simply incorrect. Again, angels can either be consistent deities, and hence, equivalent to us in their metaphysical capabilities, meaning, they cannot mutate our thoughts in any supernatural fashion, or abstract concepts in our minds, meaning, they do not exist as deities at all, and hence, they cannot actively affect us. Secondly, associating demonic influences with a specific concept, merely reflects our failure to comprehend the essence of demons. To clarify, because as we previously suggested, demons are but another name, to the effects the real gods have over our psyche, claiming they affect us is pointless, as in many ways, the real gods are "responsible" for all our actions (including that thing of which no one knows, and you know exactly what I mean). Therefore, essentially, if demons were to be accountable for our actions, rather than ourselves, it would deem any form of justice invalid. To clarify, if the real gods are to be accountable for everything we do, it would imply, we cannot be responsible for any of our actions, and hence, no one may judge us, as essentially, judging us would be as pointless as judging the real gods. While arguably, this conclusion may cause us to think, accountability and justice are indeed unnecessary, the truth is, they are mandatory. To clarify, without a system of justice, there can be only anarchy, and with the rule of anarchy, nothing can restrict individuals from imposing their own systems of justice, in which claiming the real gods "made us do it” will do nothing to reduce the harshness by which such "new justice” will be administered.
In short, the link between our behaviors, our demonic influences, and the real gods, is irrelevant to accountability. While indeed, the real gods are both responsible for our creation, and for the emergence of demons in our psyche, still, we are to assume accountability for all our actions. As unfair as it may sound, this is the hand we are given. Nevertheless, again, our demonic influences can be beneficial. It is a package deal. To clarify, just as we love claiming accountability for our demonically induced "successes", we must take the blame for our demonically induced "failures".
In short, the reason our reality does not reflect any "divine justice" is simply because the real gods do not “respect” justice. Nevertheless, arguably, the real gods “want” us to assume accountability over our demonically induced actions, as our accountability enhances the inconsistent effects, which the real gods can inflict on our reality. To explain, had we not been accountable for our demonically induced actions, essentially, our actions would be meaningless, and hence, the real gods could not utilize our consciousnesses to realize their metaphysical potential, as essentially, our consciousnesses would be no different from unintelligible matter.
The real gods expect us to assume accountability over our demonically induced actions, and we will assume accountability over our demonically induced actions, end of story. Indeed, we can “bend the law” so it would better serve our interests. Nevertheless, accountability does not “end” with judicial punishments, and neither does it demand others must know our actions. To clarify, indeed, crossing a red light, without receiving a fine, will not bother our conscience, as essentially, in such a case, we hurt no one. Nevertheless, once we lose our general respect for the law, there may be times, when we will refrain from utilizing the assistance of judicial systems, regardless if potentially, they could serve our interests. Furthermore, when we do not “respect the law” we tend to commit more felonies, and hence, we may recline from any interaction with judicial systems, in fear they might prosecute us for other felonies we committed, and actually, such unfortunate occurrences are quite common.
Still, again, accountability goes beyond our judicial systems. To clarify, unless we suffer from amnesia, whenever we hurt others, we remember it. It does not matter if others accuse us of our actions or not, as most probably, such memories will haunt us with a sense of guilt, which potentially, could evolve into self-loathing and self-hate, making us think low of ourselves, and allow others to treat us in manners, to which we would never agree otherwise. Alternatively, we might pointlessly hurt or endanger ourselves.
Still, even if we manage to “dodge” this sense of guilt, we will still “pay” for our actions. To clarify, once we agree we should not be accountable for our somewhat “distasteful” actions, this idiom will affect us in many ways. We are social creatures, and unless our social circle is inherently abusive, it will not accept our distasteful actions will go “unpunished”. Therefore, while theoretically, we can "dodge" our sense of guilt, as a result, inevitably, either we will suffer from social alienation and isolation, or we will have to accept being unjustifiably hurt, emotionally, physically, financially, or in whatever other form. Obviously, both options are undesirable, and may result with alienation toward society, and extreme loneliness, and if we like ourselves, probably, we would never wish us such an existence. In short, we simply cannot "dodge" our accountability over our demonically induced actions, at least as far as punishment is concerned.
To summarize, no one gets a "free ride". We all must “pay” for our actions, regardless if spontaneous or inhibited demons induced them. While indeed, the real gods “know” exactly what we are going to do, and “know” the price we will inevitably “pay” for our actions, still, we do not. We could receive “visions” of the future, but we can never tell if these are real prophecies, or merely lies. Moreover, because as we just mentioned, the real gods “want” us to assume responsibility over the action they provoked us to perform, there is no reason to think, they will come to our aid. Again, the real gods are the ultimate tyrants, and if we care for the quality of our lives, we should never trust them. While angels may tempt us to believe we can rely on our gods, arguably, knowing all angelic messages are inherently partial and invalid, trusting these "angelic gods" is pointless.
No. We should rely only on ourselves. While indeed, we can claim, we should rely on our families and friends, in actuality, we will still be relying on ourselves, as to maintain their friendship and care, inevitably, we must “give back” that which we wish to “take”. We must be there for others in their time of need, even if there may be times, we would prefer not to, as failure to do so, may damage the affection and care, on which we wish to rely. The same applies to all other forms of “aid”, be it psychological or psychiatric therapy, narcotics, meditation, self-expression through art, you name it, all of these demand our dedication, as well as our agreement and ability to pay for whatever costs or side effects they may include, and yes, this is what the real gods “want” us to do, as they would not “allow” it otherwise.
Still, again, as we suggested in the previous chapter, just as evolution made us resistant to some diseases, with which the real gods attempt to infect us, so did our psyche. To clarify, generation by generation, our consciousness evolved to withstand more and more malicious “demonic attacks”, which the real gods invoke on us. Our culture, science, and philosophy, embody one such defense, as by rationally analyzing our demons, some demons fail to affect us. For example, throughout history, science has successfully refuted many past religious claims, such as was the case with Galileo Galilei, among others. Still, as we suggested in the previous chapters, recorded history shows that arguably, the real gods may not “like it” when we utilize this method, as essentially, such tactics “incapacitate” them from realizing their metaphysical potential. In fact, arguably, this may explain the inexplicable manner, by which the dark ages replaced the Hellenistic civilization, the burning of the famous ancient library of Alexandria, or the contrast between contemporary technological progress, and the rising popularity of Islam. In short, even if potentially, culture and rationality can help us resist our demonic influences, repeatedly, the real gods have shown, they will not let such tactics prosper.

Still, what about this text? Supposing the notions this text suggests, are either true, or mostly true, what is its purpose? To clarify, while indeed, this text explains in detail, the nature of the real gods, and the manners by which they affect us, still, this "knowledge" merely yields antagonism toward their tyrant untrustworthy "nature". Nevertheless, because as we repeatedly suggested throughout this text, being consistent elements, metaphysically, we cannot resist them. Therefore, arguably, the "knowledge", with which this text provided us, is pointless, as it merely shows us how misfortunate is our condition.
So why did the real gods “allow” me to write this text, if all they “want” is our blind following to their angels and demons? I mean, without going into details, I can assure you, when I understood the notions I suggested in this text, I was anything but enthusiastic. The circumstances practically “forced” me to write it, against my wishes. Using the terminology we introduced in this chapter, you could claim, I wrote this text due to a high measure of spontaneous and inhibitive proactive and fixating demonic possession.
So again, why? Why would the real gods “want” to show their true "nature", if inevitably, the antagonism such "knowledge" yields, diminishes the effects they may have on us?

Well, I can only think of one reason.