Was ancient man schizophrenic? Voice of God and Jayne's "bicameral mind"

reply to post by therealguyfawkes


Wardrobe malfunction!

LOLOL

Thanks for the well wishes.

Actually there are half a dozen
people that post was for.. my
apologies if it did not reach
it's intended target!

KPB

reply to post by therealguyfawkes


You have no idea the life i have lived in my 40 some odd years on this planet. I have peeked under every little nook and cranny, trying to wheedle out the nature of life, the universe, and everything.

Where you are...i was there years ago. And I realized that wading out into the waters on the deep end only really leaves you making up answers with nothing to support it.

2000 years ago, Christianity was the "new age" religion. And the cycle continues.

FWIW, I am a deist. From there, what else can i say? I believe there is something like a "God", or "universal consciousness", or something. What that something is, i have no idea But my shamanstic viewpoint leads me to believe that "God" is utterly indifferent to you and I. How do I know this? I don't I could be completely wrong. But I base it on what I can observe with the only mind that I can be reasonably sure isn't insane: my own.

I don't search to feel better, or to fill a void. I search to find the truth. I know I will never find that truth. And I have had to come to terms with serious implications to my own psyche. There is a burden on the "soul" of the inquisitive mind.

Regardless, and as I have mentioned....the topic of bicameralism would have been far more interesting without the new age religious types stifling it.

therealguyfawkes

bigfatfurrytexan

therealguyfawkes

Logarock

Good good. However the condition described was one were there was no overreliance or subjective perspective. In fact the idea of perspective and subjectivity are ideas, terms, definitions that have naturally had to rise out of our "knowledge of good and evil" which is our death and why we must die.

The knowledge of good and evil, or I should say the condition that makes this knowledge possible, is a terminal condition, part of our terminal condition. The knowledge of same does not lead to ultimate enlightenment or a new eternal condition that leads to life.

Even if you believe it was allegory note that man was then kept away from the tree of life which he clearly had access to before knowledge of good and evil. Its clear that the knowledge of good and evil is not a necessary concomitant to eternal life.

Yep, the arising of subjective notions of good and evil is precisely what led mankind down its destructive path, culminating in a ruined environment, in abysmal sufferings, in animalistic emotions like greed and hatred, and the numerous mental/physical conditions that plague most humans.

Only by divesting one's self from the limited perspective of artificial subjectivity can one expand the consciousness, repair the soul, develop universal love, and raise one's frequency to become once-more in tune with the all-pervasive yet oft-overlooked blissful harmony that is the consciousness of God.

"repair the soul"...."raise ones frequency"....


those are just new age catch terms. What exactly happens when you "raise your frequency"? Cite examples of studies of such, even by laypersons.

What exactly happens when you "repair the soul"? And how, exactly, does one go about doing it? What damages it in the first place.

Lastely, you DO realize that the animalistic urges are part and parcel to the human condition, right? We are animals. Our brains work on neurochemistry, like all other animals. Greed was with humans before we were humans, because we have evolved through entire epochs of scarcity of resources/food.

I guess what I am saying is, you wrote a whole lotta words that mean very little in my estimation. And I am a "new ager" myself (ascribing to Amerind shamanic beliefs, for the most part).

The body operates at an energetic frequency depending upon its condition. A body that is free from toxins, from poisonous chemicals, strong in vitality and physically robust will resonate at a higher frequency.

The book Vitality, Energy, Spirit, translated by Thomas Cleary can explain this in better detail.

Your soul is tarnished by the baggage you've accumulated in this life and the others. Things like the weight of bad karma, the burden of evil deeds, preoccupation with the irrelevant--these all contribute to the condition of your soul.

The belief of the ancient Egyptians, who thoughts that after death the heart (soul) is weighed against a feather, and only a soul that is lighter than that feather can ascend to the higher realms, embodies this idea.

Cleansing the soul is the process of atoning for past misdeeds, of discarding all the spiritual and psychological and instinctual baggage that keeps us tethered to this particular "grade level" in the school of reality. Meditation is a good way of untying these psychic knots on the soul, as it Qigong (the book Qigong Empowerment by Wu and Liang is the essential encyclopedia of the art), as is actively repenting for the things you've done wrong.

But remember--the only real way to apologize for indulging in evil is to never do it again.



All choices are essentially a decision between following the call of the higher soul or the urges of the lower.

In short, this human experience is just a game, a school where you have the opportunity to refine the soul. If you plan on graduating to the next level, you need to cast off all those animal tendencies that, in the end, only tend to hold you back.

There is plenty of truth here in what you are saying. Theses goals if you will are even represented in the Law of Moses as they, if followed, represent a life with far less trouble than those who live lawless.

Differences arise however when understand that no condition of "lite as a feather" can ever be achieved by man except for a stand in to take our lashes. That we are cleansed by the blood of an innocent sacrifice. No matter how well we live man will reach a short ceiling in the end and find no ultimate cleansing in a life lived well but only through a price being paid at some point.

bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by therealguyfawkes

 

You have no idea the life i have lived in my 40 some odd years on this planet. I have peeked under every little nook and cranny, trying to wheedle out the nature of life, the universe, and everything.

Where you are...i was there years ago. And I realized that wading out into the waters on the deep end only really leaves you making up answers with nothing to support it.

2000 years ago, Christianity was the "new age" religion. And the cycle continues.

FWIW, I am a deist. From there, what else can i say? I believe there is something like a "God", or "universal consciousness", or something. What that something is, i have no idea But my shamanstic viewpoint leads me to believe that "God" is utterly indifferent to you and I. How do I know this? I don't I could be completely wrong. But I base it on what I can observe with the only mind that I can be reasonably sure isn't insane: my own.

I don't search to feel better, or to fill a void. I search to find the truth. I know I will never find that truth. And I have had to come to terms with serious implications to my own psyche. There is a burden on the "soul" of the inquisitive mind.

Regardless, and as I have mentioned....the topic of bicameralism would have been far more interesting without the new age religious types stifling it.

It's possible that years ago you were where I am. It's possible that years later you'll be where I was. I doubt in this truncated textual exchange that either of us have scratched the surface of the other's beliefs, so it's impossible to say.

But in any event, it's all good. I think there's many roads that lead up this particular mountain, and I hope yours takes you as high as you're able (and willing!) to climb. Cheers.

(FWIW, I'm not a "new age religious type." I'm just addressing a community at large, so I speak to people using the language and terminology that they're most likely to relate to and understand.)

Hello everybody , I think that it's very wonderful to see people searching for our father. And for some his son

I would like to present to you proof of the unknown , evidence of our creation having been made of a creator . Not evolution which is nothing more than adaptation.
All life has the will to survive ! Where did this will come from? From the smallest living things to the largest , all has been given this will to live. Nothing in science can possibly begin to account for this basic fundamental drive within all species. To account for the origin of such a will .
And I believe that some people realize this and begin to try to comprehend this breath of life that has been given to us and sought to live their life according to the principle of life and living as opposed to death. As this would be contrary to that will that has been given to us. . However I also believe this will to survive has been twisted from the will to live, to you will not live so that I can .
Who is to suppose that someone would not be able to walk with God and understand the will given to us, this will to live, and what it is supposed to be used for , this freewill.
Who here can account for this free will to survive and to live? What or who else could be responsible for this breath of life that is in us but God . And why would any suppose that comprehending this will would not eventually lead to the fingerprint of God . His will is for us to LIVE ! Why are we killing each other instead of living together ? Because good and evil live together in the mind because survival demands the removal of threats to that will to live . Let's not dim the pure light in us with colorful thoughts which only lead to dimming that pure light already in us . Stop all that new age stuff, please your dimming the light by coloring it , don't be fooled into thinking that your spirituality depends on ceremony or circumstances , just start living for living and not killing , except for killing the things that take us into separation of living , it takes NOTHING TO BE KIND , no ceremony or circumstance is required to not wish to kill or endanger another .
Now I don't wish to offend any but the life that is given to us belongs to everyone and no pineal gland stuff or chakra stuff is going to add one iota to the light in you but dim you. I am quite sure that a special needs person has as much if not more light of life in them as any . As is it is self evident to me that will to live is given to all, so let us live !
Love light and the will to live to you all , may all your journeys lead you to GOD. And his son , so that we may all live. Thank you.

Wow... been off of ATS for a few days and suddenly a thread about Jaynes pops up. Really, the odd thing is that there has been no real good theory that has been presented as to the evolution of human cognition since this theory was presented in the late 70s. This is an area that has not really been explored by our greatest thinkers.

I am not claiming that Jaynes' theory is totally or even partially correct.Cognition is not really something that is discussed in academia as it is too akin to talking about the soul, in my opinion. Thus shied away from. The bicameral mind does make for a good narrative of how we went from non-conscious to conscious; a good story.

reply to post by slip2break


No one has mentioned the fact that in many of the biblical examples were certain prophets ect were claiming to speak for god, that god had been talking with them one way or another, that opposition to the claim is often recorded as well.

As recorded, the same sort of questions asked today were asked then. Is the person nuts? Are they a fraud? ect ect. In fact, save for a few cases, the bible always records the opposition to claims of God contact. In the case of Jesus and some of the prophets it is well recorded that certain thought these were mental cases. The other sort of opposition came from others who's position as self appointed god go to guy was being challenged......also known as the false prophets, priests, princes and kings. Another sort came from folks that wanted into a power sharing position. Whatever the case madness was almost always suggested.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Egad I have been busy lately. Feels good to be doing some honest hard work for a change.

I know what you mean, the phrases put out by people into new age philosophy often sound as phony as that coming out of mainstream religion.

Sure, I need to cleanse my body, energize my chakras, and open all three of my eyes, don't we all, but would I be happier in some world of bliss. I think not. I would die of boredom. Getting bashed up side the head by reality now and then is good for me. Struggle is good.

That being said, there is no use in denying it, I am a new ager. As I read the stuff put out by people obviously elbow deep into searching for purpose to life, all I think is, yep, been there done that. Why would anyone worship a jealous god? I have to think anyone with half a brain is a new ager these days. We are all looking for a new level of consciousness, purpose. Personally, I think we are here for the amusement of God. Back in the day, I guess I would have worshiped at the temple of Bacchus.

I wish people would read the Op and follow the links, and read some of the material. The man did his research before putting out this revolutionary concept. Do your homework before posting people. Jayne thought that this awakening of the conscious, and the loss of the voice of God, of which there is considerable evidence, happened two to three thousand years Before Christ. The ancient Greek philosophers being the first to put this new level of conscious to use.

The best idea on the ramifications of such a possibility that I have read was the idea that such a new level of conscious would be like a software upgrade. Modern man 2.0.

How many levels of conscious have we gone through since then?

Isn't New Age Philosophy all about trying to reach that next level?

reply to post by poet1b


All I know is that our ancestors had less recreational options like us today. So they took a lotta psychedelic drugs to pass the time. I heard even Aleister Crowley was a coc aine/heroin shill. And yet he seemed to influence a lot of our media today. Maybe the gods didnt open their mouths coz they were stoned.

And why do the new age main dudes only communicate with certain folks like channelers. Why not come on tv and channel? their psychedelic message?

Chill!

poet1b
reply to post by KellyPrettyBear

 

I would say that this is essentially, the main motivation behind New Age concepts.

Ancient tales also talk about people being able to perform magic. Maybe a stronger link with the higher self enabled ancients to do amazing things.

This is slightly side a topic, but can play in to it as well.

I do not believe that Magic is gone, Nor the voice of "God" (( I will use that name for easement sake)). the best way I can explain this is using a modern term we on this forum can all be familiar with.

Right now at 3:46 am I am on my internet, The Familys Roku is off, the xbox the laptops the Cell phones etc. etc. All that is on is my personal laptop.. The internet is flowing amazingly, Now we use a DSL uplink and so does most the neighbourhood, We all have Cell phones Ipads/tablets, Cell Phones laptops computers Gaming consoles. the more people awake and using the net the more likely the net will lag.

So what if as the population grew the supply of magic has been spread thin? I find the flow of energy in the world much easier when I am alone or with fewer people.

The Same could be said for "Gods" voice, We are constantly distracted and submited to so mucht hat his once might voice may be spread so thing now that it is a whisper.

poet1b
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

Egad I have been busy lately. Feels good to be doing some honest hard work for a change.

I know what you mean, the phrases put out by people into new age philosophy often sound as phony as that coming out of mainstream religion.

Sure, I need to cleanse my body, energize my chakras, and open all three of my eyes, don't we all, but would I be happier in some world of bliss. I think not. I would die of boredom. Getting bashed up side the head by reality now and then is good for me. Struggle is good.

That being said, there is no use in denying it, I am a new ager. As I read the stuff put out by people obviously elbow deep into searching for purpose to life, all I think is, yep, been there done that. Why would anyone worship a jealous god? I have to think anyone with half a brain is a new ager these days. We are all looking for a new level of consciousness, purpose. Personally, I think we are here for the amusement of God. Back in the day, I guess I would have worshiped at the temple of Bacchus.

I wish people would read the Op and follow the links, and read some of the material. The man did his research before putting out this revolutionary concept. Do your homework before posting people. Jayne thought that this awakening of the conscious, and the loss of the voice of God, of which there is considerable evidence, happened two to three thousand years Before Christ. The ancient Greek philosophers being the first to put this new level of conscious to use.

The best idea on the ramifications of such a possibility that I have read was the idea that such a new level of conscious would be like a software upgrade. Modern man 2.0.

How many levels of conscious have we gone through since then?

Isn't New Age Philosophy all about trying to reach that next level?

I first stumbled on the Bicameral Mind many years ago while I was a poster at another forum. STormdancer and I were friends on that forum, actually. When I left I invited her here, and you can see she has done well. LOL.

But my first reading of the material was mostly from the perspective of a psychology student.

When you mention "levels of consciousness"....that is something that takes a bit for me to get my head around within the framework of my understanding of consciousness/self/mind.

I guess the issue, then, is that there is a lack of tangible nature to the discussion. It is hard to observe many of the things new age discussions revolve around.

I have several thoughts I need to organize. But Ill be back to share them later.

Reply to bigfatfurrytexan

I think you get where I am going with this. It isn't that I disagree with you, or agree with you. It is that you seem to state this so firmly and resolutely....why?

Well he might as well. I mean whether or not one could perceive these things, the people arguing about it aren't going to be able to perceive it probably LOL.

One tends to lose a lot of flow of writing when caveat'ing everything to death. He believes it, it's his opinion, his post, it's an opinion forum, so he simply said it. Makes sense that he did it this way to me.

Do people need science to back up opinions? If so what's the point of having individual opinions, since there's usually going to be one 'official' science opinion but a lot of people?

It is much like trying to debate an insight which came during a moment of prayer or meditation, of which one might have zero objective evidence to back, and in fact which 'logic' itself might be unable to wrap around. In my view this merely means that some things can only be understood within the state of mind from whence they originated. That doesn't mean that state of mind is wrong, it just means that -- well here's a couple:

No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.
-- Einstein

There comes a time when the mind takes a higher plane of knowledge but can never prove how it got there.
-- Einstein

By the way, I happen to disagree with his views on frequency and the soul, but I won't debate them because this is not the thread for that. So I'm not arguing because I agree with him, merely because I agree with his right to have an opinion without being required to have someone else's science references on it. ;-)

pixelbob
All I know is that our ancestors had less recreational options like us today. So they took a lotta psychedelic drugs to pass the time.

Some people don't need drugs. My brain appears to manufacture all kinds of groovy states of mind all on its own.

I heard even Aleister Crowley was a coc aine/heroin shill. And yet he seemed to influence a lot of our media today.

Crowley was a severe asthmatic. Despite this he held world records for mountain climbing until not long ago. He was prescribed heroin as a treatment, which was common in those days. He wrote a book about the experience.

And why do the new age main dudes only communicate with certain folks like channelers. Why not come on tv and channel? their psychedelic message?

I think you might have some misunderstanding about what channeling (a wide-spectrum mostly-misunderstood even by the people involved in my opinion) actually is. In any case, no, it doesn't come through televisions. That's an entirely different kind of channel. ;-)

bigfatfurrytexan When you mention "levels of consciousness"....that is something that takes a bit for me to get my head around within the framework of my understanding of consciousness/self/mind.

I have had quite a few 'esoteric' experiences where I was 'utterly aware' that what-I-call-"I" spanned a huge spectrum of frequency (this might be the wrong word, however, it is how my brain interpreted it at the time, perhaps that is simply my only model for it).

This huge spectrum could be divided infinitely, but for me, had specific bandwidths. Many of the 'layers' (bandwidths) were INCREDIBLY "thin." Each bandwidth, I perceived as "a reality."

I interacted with identities in those realities. One Abramelin entity taught me how to 'get' there. It was more like those 3D pictures or remote viewing, than forcing anything, like setting your intent to find it and then get the hell out of the way and let your subconscious mind do it.

Later, of course, my logical can mind say, "Whoa, dude... really? Tons of realities, each are bandwidths of frequency? Have you got a science journal ref on that?" But the part of my mind that seems to be part of a larger sense of identity and a somewhat different perspective on everything, thinks it is all perfectly obvious, at the time. Many times. Enough that now I understand that this is just an obvious no-brainer from that perspective, no matter that for people who do not have such experiences, I'm sure it seems far out.

There was that story. "In the country of the blind, the one-eyed man is king," was the common phrase. But the man who could see, who found himself in the legendary country of the blind, was not considered brilliant and made king. They considered him insane, they wanted to operate and take out his eyeballs they felt sure were causing his delusions, and he barely escaped with his life, let alone his eyes.

I think it kind of applies to a lot of metaphysical things and our culture today. :-)

reply to post by RedCairo


Do people need science to form an opinion? Well...yes and no.

You cannot form an opinion that contradicts things that are known. And it certainly helps to understand how what you are saying can blend into a system that includes known reality. Essentially, you preclude magic.

A good example of something I feel is nonsensical that I often read around here: "You have to raise your vibratory level". What does that mean? I would suspect that among a group of people, you will get several versions of what that means. And often it would not include the frequency ranges you spoke of. Which, for what its worth, coincide with my own "beliefs" quite well.

bigfatfurrytexan
You cannot form an opinion that contradicts things that are known.

What an odd thing to say! I have all kinds of opinions about things that other people do not consider known at all, many of which range from "esoteric" to "lunatic" depending on the day, or who you ask. Or did I misunderstand what you meant?

A good example of something I feel is nonsensical that I often read around here: "You have to raise your vibratory level". What does that mean? I would suspect that among a group of people, you will get several versions of what that means.

Well yes, but then again, you'd get several versions of what things mean if you ask multiple people about anything. What eating roast beef does to your body, or why the sky is blue... so I'm going to have to say that particular criteria can't be used for dismissing claims of the esoteric since it's just as true for the purely practical things also.

But I'm not trying to be obtuse -- I know exactly what you mean. The word "consciousness" is like that. What the hell is that? That word is like "psi" -- it's a warehouse word. It neatly encapsulates everything we don't know, and a lot of what is probably not even true, and is so profoundly fuzzy it can't be argued because it can't even be decently defined.

Sadly, our language is so lacking in so many critical words for describing anything outside the concrete, that one is sometimes forced to use words that are of course wrong, cannot be defined or not consistently, or have to be stretched and malformed to cover a different need than their current practical usage. And this often results in everyone being irked about how it's such mumbo-jumbo. Since no words exist for many things, people are forced to use what we've got. And often the result is a conglomerate of what amounts to, it's true, mumbo-jumbo. Sometimes it's deliberately fuzzy. But sometimes it's just a lack of vocabulary scrunching things up. (Scrunching. A perfect example of a lack of proper vocabulary LOL!)

I think there are a variety of ways one could try to describe the raising-the-vibration reference but as it was not my reference, I'm not going to bother trying (and like you said, we'd all do it differently anyway).

However, I do think it is obvious what people mean IN GENERAL when they say that, and that it is slightly obtuse to pretend that one has no idea, that unless someone can give precise references for what exactly that means logically, that it's not a fair reference. There are tons of things in our language that use semi-abstracted analogies to make a point which is not linear-literal at all.

My ex husband was from Czech, and English was like his 6th language or something. (He and the Pakistani woman in the courthouse in Florida who married us, could not understand a word each other was saying. This ended up being so funny that our little wedding party was sitting on benches laughing so hard we were crying hysterically before it was over. People sure looked at us funny, with all that laughing and our tears, when we came out! Totally hilarious war of the accents! I probably could have got him to say I DO to anything. He'd have had no idea. LOL!)

One of the things I learned from that, and from my best friend in college who was from Nigeria, is that there are a lot of allusions and references -- damn, there is a word for it, but it's 1am and I got up early to work this morning and now my brain is not in an ideal state. I'm trying to think of an example. Like "when pigs fly" perhaps. Or he had one, "Like flicking peas at the wall" or something hilariously stupid like that, which to him meant "doing something pointless." I wish I could remember the actual term that describes these kinds of references. They tend to be the things that most befuddle people learning any new language, because they are usually complete nonsense to outsiders.

But the people in the culture know what they mean. The point is that they are not literal, they are merely getting through an expression about something. Language is not always literal. It is often merely a sharing of any collection of sounds or words which "convey meaning" -- and that meaning can be abstract, can be an emotion, etc.

Well does anybody here actually NOT KNOW that if someone refers to "raising their vibration" that they actually MEAN "improving one's psychology-spirituality-physicality to the point that one is more inclined to peace and love instead of violence and ignorance?" Just for a general example? I find it hard to believe that this "generic cultural reference" is completely misunderstood and mysterious, come on. I think everyone knows the 'general gist' of what it means. Anyone who didn't: now they do.

There is no particularly good single-phrase way of putting that in english, and so that has come to be employed as a convenient phrase. It may or may not ALSO be literal. That may depend on the person using it. There may be no way with current science to describe that part, even if it were.

What matters is that it is a common phrase and it has 'generally' common meaning. One shouldn't need a pubmed link to use it and expect to have people understand the basic point of it.

All this negative logic is like a total downer on the vibes, man.

poet1b
How many levels of conscious have we gone through since then?

I think an interesting thought is: can we go through more?

Circa 1994 I was having a lot of really, really weird experiences. (Kundalini side effect, and probably some other less esoteric things.)

One of the many theories I developed was that perhaps my brain was actually being affected by the mass amount of electronics I was usually surrounded with and it was shifting the set of frequencies that my body filtered out (or didn't). One reason I had this theory is because I worked in an office with two doors, and on both sides it was a little noisy especially one big engineering warehouse, crazy noisy out there. I kept the door closed and could definitely not hear people walking toward it, not even a little. And yet I started getting this "gut sense" like I could FEEL them (spontaneous dowsing solar-plexus-chakra physical-relationships-feeling) coming toward me, and sure enough, just when I would think they should be opening the door now, they would. This would start when they were way too far away, with way too much noise out there, for me possibly to have heard them walking. So that plus the "feeling" led me to think that my body was developing some new kind of bio-sonar. I just didn't know why.

Another theory I had was that subsurface geomagnetic activity (in southern california where I was living) might be the issue; that perhaps my brain was more sensitive to these than average, and actually considered me under 'threat' (much like animals are said to act odd before geologic events sometimes); and perhaps my brain was slightly shifting its "perception" of which frequencies the body perceived and tried to make sense of -- as a form of survival instinct.

Well what if? Jaynes was describing one thing that might have been a mass change in consciousness.

What if the people who are talking to aliens or seeing auras or whatever today are just the first bubbles on the eventually-boiling pot that will rise to the next "level of consciousness?"

What might be the next thing that could shift our entire culture profoundly -- perhaps there would be no new thing in our world, but a very different way of how we perceive it?

reply to post by RedCairo


I have always been amazed at how I can look around in a large busy place, such as a mall, or a concert, and catch the eyes of others. I would spot people that draw my attention, and suddenly they would turn and look into my eyes, as if I had tapped them on the shoulder.

The frequency of a solid is lower than the frequency of a liquid, which is lower than the frequency of a gas, which is lower than the frequency of plasma. If higher minds of higher frequencies are out there, I would think that they are most likely plasma life forms. How much faster would a plasma life have to move and think? Think of speed of light proportionately like the waves of the seas, that they would have to be able to react and respond in equal measure as the fish in the sea.

I could see how, to communicate with these higher life forms, one would have to raise one's frequency.

However, I think to be in the moment, to observe the moment of the render of time, to truly observe the present as much as possible, one would have to lower their frequency.

Maybe the correct goal would be to expand your frequency range.

reply to post by Osirisline1


I agree, I think there is a whisper still there. A nice way of putting it.

Maybe this journey of consciousness is necessary. We need that alone time in our heads to tune into the moment.

Science looks at the moment. Heisenberg's principle is about the impossibility to capture the moment. To slap up a straight edge to the world and check to see if it is true.

To figure out how all the pieces fit together.

If the break down of the bicameral mind, was modern man 2.0, have we gotten to 2.1? Or maybe we are at 2.9, about to step into 3.0?

The Ancient Greeks, 2.4? The Romans 2.5?

The dark ages a step back? Or just a bad upgrade?

The Renaissance?

The Industrial revolution?

How much will the internet and the information age change us, and will we be able to recognize it if or when it happens?