Clif High - Ontology tools.

May 13, 2025 - Clif High

22:05

Ontology tools.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit clifhigh.substack.com

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello humans.
	Hello humans.
	It's May 13, 1.23 p.m.
	Just thought I'd take a minute to talk about ontology tools for a second.
	Right at the moment, really the dominant ontology tools are humans, human mind.
	An ontology tool would be defined as a mechanism for determining something about the ontology, the event stream, or the eternal now, all of which are, you know, the event stream and the eternal now, of course, are inside the ontology.
	So ontology tools now really are human minds.
	Maybe whales are intelligent enough that they have divination and know what's going to happen and that kind of stuff.
	We don't talk to them, so we don't know.
	Aliens, you know, perhaps, who knows, right?
	But humans anyway are ontologically sensitive.
	We get the qualia.
	And so you get really good, you get people that are good with tools such as astrology or tarot.
	My girlfriend here, Heidi, is a Vedic astrologer and also does tarot readings.
	And she's good at both.
	And she'll tell you that the tools don't really work for the person applying them.
	So she isn't able to give herself a really quality reading with the tarot cards.
	And it's because the present conscious mind will always intrude.
	And you'll have a tendency to favor those, the interpretation that favors your own interest of that moment anyway, right?
	And this is even true with my data.
	So I never look at my data specifically for myself and the process through which it goes, it basically excludes me and just chunks it out so that I never get my mind interfered with by any predisposition to believe one path or another will actually manifest, right?
	So I guide myself as everybody else in this materium and this eternal now.
	Anyway, so the ontology tools are likely to change here as we get the entangled qubit chips into more and more computers and more and more devices and more and more software programmers play with these devices and see what they're able to produce.
	We may indeed get into ontology tools.
	We have them now, like I say, in the form of human minds.
	And there's always going to be some level of interpretation required on all of them as on the part of the person delivering the ontology report, so to speak, the astrologer or the tarot reader or whatever, I Ching or anything, right?
	So the reader is basically an ontology interpreter, but then the receiver of it's also going to do the interpretation themselves for their own life, right?
	Because they know their life more intimately than anybody else.
	I think it's really a sign of increasing awareness of how our reality works that people do go and get things like astrology readings or tarot readings, right?
	Just that you're exploring that is an upleveling of your awareness of the potential in terms of how this reality works and how it's not as mechanistically as much of a mechanism as is described by the rational materialist.
	Anyway, so we'll probably get these ontology tools and we've had some recent entangled qubit AI breakthroughs towards those kind of structures in software and hardware that may yield these tools.
	Then we're going to have to actually test them and see if they're accurate enough to be able to be used.
	And this is where you get into the level of interpretation on these.
	Well, these tools yield reports that have to be interpreted through the human mind or will they be straightforward and we'll be able to test them option A versus option B. I don't think so.
	I don't think it'll be that clear because our testing procedures necessarily are destructive.
	So if we were given a, say we had an ontology tool, a computer that spat out specific data about an upcoming decision point, and it describes to you a decision point and then option A and option B. And so you know your options going in, right?
	And all decision points come down to only two options.
	No matter what you do, that always resolves to two options.
	Even if you don't make a choice, that becomes one option right there.
	And then any choice you do make becomes the other option.
	So it's always binary.
	We live in a binary reality.
	And so you come along in the event stream and you reach that point where the machine described to you this decision point you would have to come to.
	And then you choose from what it had provided and say it recommended option B. Okay, give you these two options, and you're going to be faced with this decision point, and you have an option A and an option B. And that I, the computer, based on the following criteria, think that option B would be the most advantageous to select.
	Now, as humans, when we make a decision, thereafter we don't own any of the results.
	Shit just happens, right?
	This is the flow of karma.
	If the computer is prescient enough to pick out the coming decision point, and then it has to be further prescient in order to pick out which option is best and has to have decent analytical skills and corresponding database to support those skills, it will still have to make some level of determination as to what is likely or presumed to transpire from each of these two decision points, right?
	And then here's our real problem.
	We can never test both A and B, because when we arrive at that decision point and we choose option B to proceed, we instantly destroy the option A that did exist up until the moment of that choice.
	And then once you make that choice, it doesn't exist anymore and you're on the option B path no matter what.
	And so you can never return and redo and analyze, was the computer right in suggesting option B over option A. So this is one of those things where interpretation and over time will again have to be applied.
	So in that sense, an ontological tool derived from AI or even a predictive AI is going to have to be evaluated based on rational criteria that involve duration.
	And so you'll have to have these criteria that says, okay, we're going to do this AI, it's going to predict all this stuff.
	We're going to have to analyze these predictions to see how they're accurate or not accurate over this period of time.
	And let's just say we eliminate the actual timing and just go on the sequence of the events appearing.
	Then we're going to have to say, okay, what if the computer gets, you know, 60%?
	How are we going to apply manifesting reality descriptions to the computer's forecast?
	And then you get into the real weeds of it all in terms of how you are going to analyze whether it's actually the computer is predicting 15 items that you could easily identify as materializing within the reality.
	And that gets really tricky, okay, because that's why I'm such a stickler on all aspects of language, is because the definition of the language really does guide you in dealing with such things as these woo predictions of potential futures and stuff, right?
	Because the tendency will always be for our involved conscious minds to intrude, as it does with the tarot and astro readings.
	So we'll always do that.
	Now, when Heidi does a reading for someone else, she can be extremely accurate and very psychic, all right?
	And this is because her conscious mind at that stage is doing things to restrict its impact on the ontologically prepped mind that she uses for the astrology or for the tarot.
	In other words, because it's not her, because it's for someone else, she can be detached enough that her mind does not go in and lean or favor one set of options over another as she determines that there's option points in your future.
	And this is the way it's going to be with all good tarot readers.
	Their own lives will be, as anybody else's, somewhat ruled, or always ruled by karma, but somewhat appearing to be involved in the chaos, et cetera, that everybody else goes through.
	They're not exempt just because they have these skills.
	And so nobody is going to be.
	We all end up getting hoisted by our own skill set and then discover at some point that our skills can't be applied to our own lives.
	Again, I think it's like a rule that universe won't allow you to have that level of control over information ahead of decision points because it fucks with the very nature of things.
	If you knew, for instance, if you could always make the appropriate choice, then there's no risk involved in life or in any of your choices.
	And if you always made the appropriate choice for yourself or whatever, then you're going to distinctly affect the way that karma works.
	Karma has to have a level of risk.
	It has to have the level of uncertainty involved in order for the potential for, in order for chaos to be created and in order for the potential for novelty to emerge from that chaos.
	It's not particularly complicated, but it is very complex in its actual manifestation.
	So now, ontology tools, in my opinion, when they come on out, will have to be dealt with at a very suspicious level.
	We'll have to really analyze how we're going to decide if these things are accurate, because our conscious minds will intrude, especially on the people using the devices that invented them and so on.
	And they'll intrude and they'll say, okay, you know, it is this way because my conscious mind feels this, right?
	Because I feel this particular way.
	And that conscious mind intrusion will alter the interpretation of what should be data sets or data that's coming out that need not be interpreted.
	Now, I don't think we're going to get to the point where we're going to have devices that will actually sense qualia appearing, but we may get something that is close to that.
	We may get devices that are able through quantum entanglement, through atomic level entanglement, to be able to anticipate to some level of electronic prescience.
	So maybe a few milliseconds all the way up to a couple of seconds, maybe a few minutes, and maybe for large stuff, you know, further out, but they'll be able to sense some level of disturbance in the force as the event stream is going to be manifesting something that's relatively large in the general scheme of things.
	And so, because we're all frequencies and all of these other issues.
	And so I think that we will have those devices, but they're going to have to be dealt with in the realm of the same thing as tarot cards.
	People that are using them are not necessarily the best people to be interpreting them if those things are going to be impacting their own lives.
	So I don't think it'll ever get to the point that we have AI providing us with, you know, even any more in the way of accurate decisions than we're able to come up with on our own, because that underlying karmic engine requires that level of risk and stupidity and bad decisions, etc.
	So it's just yet more of the ontology revealing itself.
	Just as we now have more questions as we get into revelation, secrets revealed, and so on, it's not like any of these things answer as many questions as they raise.
	So they're all participating at that level of karma.
	And so all of our actions will continue to do that, even in spite of having oncology tools.
	And so the ontology tools, though, will emerge as a result of the work that people are doing on the entangled computers, the Q-chips, and so on.
	And I think that those are relatively, they may be existent now to some extent.
	I'm not saying that they're going to have computers that would do like remote viewing work or anything like that, But they may indeed have computers that are able to provide some level of mathematical analysis as to levels of energy that may be manifesting from the event stream.
	Not that the people that are getting this information understand what they're actually looking at.
	They may be thinking of it as time waves or something, and just not really understand how this stuff works and what they're actually seeing.
	Then I also have another wonder about the ontology tools, and that is, will they ever be better than the human mind is at doing these things.
	Bear in mind that our brains are antenna at a very subtle level of energy, much more so than maybe even all the way down to a quantum level.
	And it may be that there's an entangled quantumness that allows for such things as telepathy.
	Such as the, and I don't know if it's telepathy or if it's a qualia or how I'm phrasing it, but there was that strange episode that was not just a simple word or phrase, but was an afternoon of activity between Heidi and myself, in which she was compelled to provide me with photographs of her closet.
	I know that sounds really weird, but in that same previous evening into that morning, which led to this afternoon of activity, I had been writing a chapter about the main character in this book, encountering a bunch of clothes in a closet.
	And then here, Heidi was compelled to, and that was one of her things, was that she felt a distinct, almost a need, to send me photographs of her closet, right?
	So this was just rather odd.
	But it was a huge, huge qualia.
	And so is that telepathy?
	Is that entrained mind?
	Is that the ontology trying to connect us at this particular level?
	You know, it is all of those, but extracting the meaning from that is, you know, is more than simply a one-go thinking at it.
	So I'll think about it repeatedly and will gain more insight from it repeatedly as I go along here.
	And I think human minds are going to be far better at being ontology tools.
	And that may be why you hear these persistent rumors about humans being kidnapped and basically used as like psychic slaves in the secret space program kind of shit, right?
	He sold-off world and all this other stuff.
	None of which I have any reason to give credence to, but it is within the realm of possibility.
	Not probable, extremely unlikely, but it is possible that such things could occur.
	But we don't see, it'd be really weird.
	I don't know the circumstances, right?
	We do see people leaving, but we don't see a great deal of value being added to the planet in exchange for all the millions of missing people every year.
	It could be different levels of value exchange.
	So, you know, you give us a million people, we give you a zero-point energy generator, that sort of thing, as opposed to a pound of gold per person or something.
	But I'm just not seeing an energetic exchange that would support the idea that it's anything more than predation.
	So there is that aspect of it.
	But anyway, so the entrained qubit thing is going to certainly take off.
	We're in the midst of that right now, and there's going to be more and more countries piling on it.
	And this will be an aspect of what Trump is calling his AI initiative stuff, right?
	Because the AI is going to take a different form and be fed by the uncertainty that is within the entangled particle chip structure.
	And we'll see these things, and those are also going to be very sensitive.
	They're not going to be as sensitive as the human mind, in my opinion, because they're actually trying to, in these quantum chips, they're trying to dampen out the observer effect and the impact of consciousness.
	When they start developing chips that are designed to pick that up, then we're really going to have something.
	Because that would be like AI augmentation of your own psychic ability.
	Maybe you'd have a little AI psychic ability generator and you just put it in your room when you're doing your tarot card reading and all of a sudden you can, you know, you're 100% on everything you say and be extremely predictive of it because the entangled AI embraced or worked chip would be able to modify the and
	magnify those frequencies that are actually supporting the ontology reaction within the human mind.
	And so we may head that way, right?
	I don't know if we're going to call that an augmented human or, you know, something like that.
	It's not transhumanism.
	It's certainly a magnification of local radiation that you then allow the human to feel and the human becomes that much more psychic.
	That's the idea.
	So I think those things are coming as a result of these entangled chips.
	There's a lot of things that you can do with these chips that are not instantly apparent to those people that are outside of the technology.
	Anyway, this is going on too long and I've got to get some more stuff here done before I can call my workload done for the day.
	I just was taking a moment for some tea and contemplating, basically contemplating why I abandoned astrology after a little bit of time investigating it.
	And it turns out in my thinking, that was because I couldn't make it work for me.
	The same thing was true of the tarot cards.
	I mean, I've looked at all these divination tools over time because of my interest in the event stream, etc., even way back when.
	But they never worked for me personally.
	Then to discover that Heidi also says this, that, you know, the cards are not necessarily giving to her relative to revealing stuff because her conscious mind gets in the way.
	And you want, you know, even doing it for yourself, you want a specific outcome, right?
	So anyway, so I think that's how the ontology tools are going to work, that we may end up with some kind of augmented human by a device that does that sort of thing.
	We'll see how, but over the next four or five years, we'll certainly be dealing with these.

▲