20 INDICATORS THAT SIGNAL YOU MAY BE LIVING IN THE MATRIX & HOW TO UNPLUG YOURSELF

Twenty  indicators that signal you may be living in the Matrix & How To Unplug Yourself
1. You spend most of your time devoted to paying off a mortgage rather than enjoying life.
2. You can’t wait for the weekend to come.  
3. You judge your success by the car you drive, the suburb you live in, and the size of the house you own.
4. The wealthy are rewarded for plundering the earth while those trying to save it are ridiculed.
5. You work in a job you don’t enjoy, thinking the money you earn will offset the misery of working in a job or career you are not passionate about. 
6. You think that by a taking a pill your ills will be cured.
7. You think that someone focused on eating healthy, organic fresh foods is weird, while eating highly processed, nutrient devoid foods is normal. 
8. You think buying stuff will make you happy.
9. You watch the news on television and think this is the truth.
10. You’re more focused on your favourite sports team than concerned about the natural world and environment on which you depend for survival.
11. You believe growth and the development of the economy is a good thing and that globalization creates jobs.
12. You conform with the status quo and never question why things are done.  
13. You think traffic congestion, pollution, and sensory overload are part of normal everyday life.
14. You think there is a difference between political parties and that they will enact real change. 
15. You think there are terrorists around every corner and they are a threat to you and your community, despite the fact that you have 150 times more chances of being hit by lightning than being involved in a terrorist attack.
16. You think eating genetically modified food and eating fruit and vegetables sprayed with pesticides is OK.
17. You think the mainstream media is independent and unbiased.
18. You think constant distraction through the media such as sport, trivial affairs, and celebrity gossip is news.
19. You think living next to a cell tower is cool because you get better reception.
20. You wait in line for the next release of the latest technological gadget

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2017/05/05/20-indicators-that-signal-you-may-be-living-in-the-matrix-how-to-unplug-yourself/

"Long live the Conspiracy !!!"

Matrix aka The Rat Race.

No conspiracy there.

I've just unplugged myself

















Where am I

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VRVOklCd2Y

These are the good ones:

1. You spend most of your time devoted to paying off a mortgage rather than enjoying life.
2. You can’t wait for the weekend to come.
3. You judge your success by the car you drive, the suburb you live in, and the size of the house you own.
4. The wealthy are rewarded for plundering the earth while those trying to save it are ridiculed.
5. You work in a job you don’t enjoy, thinking the money you earn will offset the misery of working in a job or career you are not passionate about.
8. You think buying stuff will make you happy.
10. You’re more focused on your favourite sports team than concerned about the natural world and environment on which you depend for survival.
12. You conform with the status quo and never question why things are done.
13. You think traffic congestion, pollution, and sensory overload are part of normal everyday life.
15. You think there are terrorists around every corner and they are a threat to you and your community, despite the fact that you have 150 times more chances of being hit by lightning than being involved in a terrorist attack.
18. You think constant distraction through the media such as sport, trivial affairs, and celebrity gossip is news.
20. You wait in line for the next release of the latest technological gadget

These, however, I need to debunk:

6. You think that by a taking a pill your ills will be cured.

What? Pills do cure illness. I've had dozens of illnesses in my life and usually, I took a pill to cure it.

Now, if we're talking about some sort of existential crisis type of thing (aka depression), they might not work -- antidepressants work for about 40 percent of the population. Nobody's covering up that information, by the way.

7. You think that someone focused on eating healthy, organic fresh foods is weird, while eating highly processed, nutrient devoid foods is normal.

This isn't necessarily wrong, but it shows where this list is going. I.E.:

16. You think eating genetically modified food and eating fruit and vegetables sprayed with pesticides is OK.

Um, it is totally OK. I've eaten GMOs every day for two decades and I'm fine -- and I'm not some kind of Superman who has the power to resist the evil lurking within the genetic code of an onion that has one gene from a petunia spliced into it to make it more resistant to pests.

Genetic modification happens naturally. Animals, including us, have done it literally from the first time an animal chose a plant to eat. It's part of natural selection.

The survival of food plant species relies upon being attractive as a food source to animals. Animals eat the fruit and poop out the seeds, or they help the plant spread its pollen to other plants, and the plants most successful at that are the plants that are the most nutritious.

Evolution being a genetic phenomenon, the mere act of eating has genetically modified plants since the dawn of life on this planet. Hell, we humans, thousands of years ago, forced weeds to turn into oats and rye.

Okay, to the rest of the list. A few can be lumped together:

9. You watch the news on television and think this is the truth.
17. You think the mainstream media is independent and unbiased.

A journalist has the exact same motivation to tell the truth as objectively as humanly possible as a mechanic has to fix your car properly or a doctor to cure you of an illness. Yes, you should take everything with a grain of salt and remember you're getting your news from people who make mistakes and aren't omniscient.

But to assume the media is lying is, frankly, intellectually lazy. SOME media outlets are reliable. Others aren't. Some are more professional than others -- they make fewer mistakes and delve deeper into the circumstances that give rise to news.

The easiest, quickest way to appraise the reliability of a news outlet is to take their lead story on any given day and check that story against the reporting of a basket of other outlets. Look at CNN, the BBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, your national television news channels, etc. and see if anybody else is reporting on the issue and what they say.

For example, a truly horrible outlet, which I won't even call news, reports:

American Academy of Pediatrics declares “no science” needed to prove vaccines are safe, because they BELIEVE

I promise, if you check any of the above-mentioned outlets' health sections, you're not going to find that story -- because it's not true; the whole report twists a press release beyond factual recognition. Of course vaccines were tested for safety extensively before they were ever used on people, and to state that a medicine must be proven safe for every single person who might ever take it is an impossible demand.

(Another good rule of thumb, actually -- reputable, professional news organizations tend not to put ALL CAPS in headlines.)

I'd just like to end my rant on this media topic by asking everyone to question why someone would want to undermine people's confidence in the mainstream media in the first place. I personally think it's because those who bash the media would prefer you to believe lies that just so happen to serve their own interests.

14. You think there is a difference between political parties and that they will enact real change.

More intellectual laziness. People make claims like this like they burp -- it's just wind that pops out of their mouths, no mental energy required.

Debunking this just requires one example which we all saw -- 20 million Americans gaining health care that they never had before the Democratic Party made it a priority, as the Republican Party refused to lend it any support and fought day and night to keep that from happening.

Now the Republican Party is fighting day and night to take health care back from all those people, and four million more to boot.

And it ends with this:

19. You think living next to a cell tower is cool because you get better reception.

If you're going to claim that living near a cell tower is dangerous, and that you "live in the Matrix" if you like getting better reception, you should be able to prove that living near a cell tower is dangerous. And nobody has done that. In fact, a study in England around 2010 looked at prenatal cancer rates among those who lived near towers and those who did not and found no difference.

If "living in the Matrix" is a metaphor for believing lies, then the author is being a bit of a hypocrite, asking us to believe that the mainstream media isn't generally reliable or independent and that GMOs and cell phone towers aren't generally safe without providing any proof.

I'll go further,  Ben...

The author of that pointless load of drivel doesn't even define what he/she means by "the Matrix".

It largely reads like a list of loosely (dis)connected vacuous thought bubbles, with no substantiation nor explanations..

"Lazy thinking" in a nutshell...

I think a lot of the list is very good and worth taking note of (pretty much the ones Ben highlighted). And the meaning if the Matrix would be (I guess) a detachment from real reality or blissfull ignorance.

Of course, there is a problem in that it weaves fair points with conspirscyish ideas (of medication and media), but a critcal readers we can all separate the sense from the rubbish

Generally i don't live in the matrix according to that list, But i am openly hoping to make the matrix so

2 points
GM food allow humans to feed the poor of the thirds world, organic and free range while good if you can afford it would mean that about 30% of the world would starve even if we cut down every last forest and turned all the wild places to farms.
and globalization DOES create jobs it just doesn't give jobs to lazy white people for the 'virtue' of being white and born in the 'right' nation

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

I'll go further,  Ben...

The author of that pointless load of drivel doesn't even define what he/she means by "the Matrix".

It largely reads like a list of loosely (dis)connected vacuous thought bubbles, with no substantiation nor explanations..

"Lazy thinking" in a nutshell...

To answer your bit in bold, erm yes he did and it was on the link provided and here it is:

Having tried to extract myself from the rat race and city living many years ago, I found myself experiencing my own version of the Matrix on a recent trip to Sydney (coincidentally where they filmed much of the movie). I decided to document some of the more obvious things that stood out to me after having been somewhat unplugged from the Matrix.

To clarify, I personally define the Matrix as a set of beliefs, cultural norms, attitudes, and conditioned states which are pervasive throughout society. These are initially created under an economic rationale which offer products and services to citizens. To promote these goods and services various themes, ideas, and ideologies are promoted to establish compliance and persuade individuals to partake in consumptive patterns. Along the way, this information becomes embedded within a society, creating cultural norms and distracting individuals and society from the truth. As individuals living in a society, we become subservient to authority and start conforming to certain illogical cultural constructs. Eventually, like a fish swimming in the ocean, we are unaware of the water that surrounds us, we become unaware of the Matrix…

As to your last point - three fingers pointing right back at you, lazy arse.

We're all trapped in that matrix to some extent. Watched an interesting documentary about Facebook last night...how it harvests all our information etc. I think the powers that be are working its way up to a no cash society as well. We won't be able to hide anything or do anything that's not logged or examined.

Big Brother is watching you.

nicko wrote:Big Brother is watching you.

This is why points cards were introduced, Tesco and saisnbury etc they can see what you're buying and where your money is going.

eddie wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

I'll go further,  Ben...

The author of that pointless load of drivel doesn't even define what he/she means by "the Matrix".

It largely reads like a list of loosely (dis)connected vacuous thought bubbles, with no substantiation nor explanations..

"Lazy thinking" in a nutshell...

To answer your bit in bold, erm yes he did and it was on the link provided and here it is:

Having tried to extract myself from the rat race and city living many years ago, I found myself experiencing my own version of the Matrix on a recent trip to Sydney (coincidentally where they filmed much of the movie). I decided to document some of the more obvious things that stood out to me after having been somewhat unplugged from the Matrix.

To clarify, I personally define the Matrix as a set of beliefs, cultural norms, attitudes, and conditioned states which are pervasive throughout society. These are initially created under an economic rationale which offer products and services to citizens. To promote these goods and services various themes, ideas, and ideologies are promoted to establish compliance and persuade individuals to partake in consumptive patterns. Along the way, this information becomes embedded within a society, creating cultural norms and distracting individuals and society from the truth. As individuals living in a society, we become subservient to authority and start conforming to certain illogical cultural constructs. Eventually, like a fish swimming in the ocean, we are unaware of the water that surrounds us, we become unaware of the Matrix…

As to your last point - three fingers pointing right back at you, lazy arse.

All that load of bullshit gibberish shows, is that the fuckwit whot wrote it never actually watched the movie...

I haven't seen it either. Though I really should.....

Ben wrote:Genetic modification happens naturally. Animals, including us, have done it literally from the first time an animal chose a plant to eat. It's part of natural selection.

* * * *

Evolution being a genetic phenomenon, the mere act of eating has genetically modified plants since the dawn of life on this planet. Hell, we humans, thousands of years ago, forced weeds to turn into oats and rye.

Human genetic modification is vastly different from natural selection.  The latter takes place over eons of time, and is a species-wide phenomenon, not an merely a single incident.  

Genetic modification eliminates the test of time and the constraints of the environment, and therefore is not honed in a reality that proves itself by selection and survival.  This is why GM foods are creating such problems. Peanut genes being spliced into corn is a man-made disaster, and it didn't evolve, but was invented. Bigly bad.

eddie wrote:I haven't seen it either. Though I really should.....

the first one is good.
and wolf is right in context the OP doesn't make since

the matrix is paradise to the extent the human brain would accept it
to unplug from it is to embrace the harshest of realities

what she sees as suffering is the nice fake reality (the height of human civilization) that the machine created.
the real world in the matrix is a desolate post nuclear war wasteland where the last few rebel human are hunted

Original Quill wrote:

Ben wrote:Genetic modification happens naturally. Animals, including us, have done it literally from the first time an animal chose a plant to eat. It's part of natural selection.

*  *  *  *

Evolution being a genetic phenomenon, the mere act of eating has genetically modified plants since the dawn of life on this planet. Hell, we humans, thousands of years ago, forced weeds to turn into oats and rye.

Human genetic modification is vastly different from natural selection.  The latter takes place over eons of time, and is a species-wide phenomenon, not an merely a single incident.  

Genetic modification eliminates the test of time and the constraints of the environment, and therefore is not honed in a reality that proves itself by selection and survival.  This is why GM foods are creating such problems.  Peanut genes being spliced into corn is a man-made disaster, and it didn't evolve, but was invented.  Bigly bad.

nope that not how evolution works it is just a few individuals that mutual genes and then spread, often but not always wiping out the others that it was once the same of in the same location
that is why there is still chimps. only one group of protochimps became humans it was literally probably only one male in the first generation that could stand better than the rest due to a fused vertebrae, which allowed him to whack things better with his pointy stick which allowed him to use his not so pointy stick on more females his offspring that inherited his fused vertebrae gene continued to be better at using the pointy sticks (since being bipedal allows you to carry your pointy stick and use it while moving.) thus continued to get more females until the gene became dominate in the protochimp population in that specific area of Africa.

"His not so pointy stick"

veya_victaous wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Human genetic modification is vastly different from natural selection.  The latter takes place over eons of time, and is a species-wide phenomenon, not an merely a single incident.  

Genetic modification eliminates the test of time and the constraints of the environment, and therefore is not honed in a reality that proves itself by selection and survival.  This is why GM foods are creating such problems.  Peanut genes being spliced into corn is a man-made disaster, and it didn't evolve, but was invented.  Bigly bad.

nope that not how evolution works it is just a few individuals that mutual genes and then spread, often but not always wiping out the others that it was once the same of in the same location
that is why there is still chimps. only one group of protochimps became humans it was literally probably only one male in the first generation that could stand better than the rest due to a fused vertebrae, which allowed him to whack things better with his pointy stick which allowed him to use his not so pointy stick on more females  his offspring that inherited his fused vertebrae gene continued to be better at using the pointy sticks (since being bipedal allows you to carry your pointy stick and use it while moving.)  thus continued to get more females until the gene became dominate in the protochimp population in that specific area of Africa.

So, if evolution isn't a species-wide phenomenon, you must be saying, in your example, that species homo sapiens does not exist?  If the adaptive feature did not spread to the whole species, how did the whole species predicate its success on the adaptive feature?

You are looking at evolution retrogressively.  Of course, at the origin, or cause point, the successful adaptive feature is not species-wide.  But if evolution works at all, it spreads species-wide.

Otherwise, evolution does not work.

not all Homo erectus became Homo sapiens so it was not species wide.

In our case homo sapiens over the next 30,000 odd years wiped out the other homo erectus colonies and our 2 'sibling' evolutions, that some other Homo erectus evolved into, Neanderthal and Denisovan. so Humans are not a great example.

No, You are looking retrospectively and assuming that there was only ever going to be one Hominid.
until approx. 10,000 years ago there was 4 hominid species on earth.

a better example is finches there are thousands of species of finches due to varying locals (and not wiping each other out) that all come from the same original species.

veya wrote:not all Homo erectus became Homo sapiens so it was not species wide.

It depends on which species you have in mind, the nascent one, or the already developed one.  If you focus on the homo sapiens, then yes it is species-wide.  

I imagine Darwin himself had to deal with this kind of misperception, as he was describing a dynamic system, and not a static one.  As we have moved into the late 20th- to 21st-century, we have moved into a world of systems-thinking, over and above static appreciation of our world.  Homo erectus, homo sapien?  Things are in constant motion.  Like the river of Heraclitus, you step into the same water and different water with the same stride.  Darwin was already thinking this way in the late 19th-century.