Sakiro wrote:
I'm trying to understand better the concept of "being stuck in a matrix."
Being stuck in a matrix means that the locus of your consciousness, which should be in network 6 if you're adult, is stuck somewhere in a previous network operating all the rest of the brain from that network. Here's an analogy:
In reality a person is on the equivalent of the 'starship enterprise', but they will never know this because they live entirely in cargo bay 2, they have never been out of the cargo bay since birth so they don't actually know that most of the ship even exists. Cargo bay 2 is their whole reality; they grew up in here. They think this is 'the whole world' and for them, it is.
They have no idea that this room is just a room inside a bigger ship. Some systems they can't access at all from here, so those systems will never be used and they will never know about them. They have NO IDEA the ship was designed to fly, explore, have fun etc and they will never find out unless they figure out how to leave the cargo bay. They've never heard of transporters, holodecks, astrometrics or planets. They have found a terminal that accesses the main computer but they think it's inside the monitor in here, and they'll only ever use it for gambling games and porn movies. Food comes out of this hole in the wall when they ask for it. They will never think of leaving because there is 'nowhere else' to go into (are you getting the idea yet?) This is how we limit the brain.
When we say that a person may be stuck in the matrix 2, which I have understood is that the development period of this phase is when a child has 2-4 years.
From shortly after birth till around age 3-4, we should be in matrix 2.
It means that if at that age he/she did not receive the correct stimulus (input) and because of that she/he fails to pass the following matrix? (Same for matrix 3, or the 4 or 5, etc)
Sufficient interaction with the correct input is what develops both networks and abilities, just like good nutrition and exercise develops both muscles and strength. If the muscles don't develop, we can't get strength, and if the muscular-mindedness does not develop in any network, we can't learn to use the abilities it would have enabled. Without these abilities (our mental 'tools') we can't practice using the next network, so it's growth slows down due to lack of input and there is insufficient density for us to start 'moving in' and using it.
Because if this were the case, it means that everything that the child continue to learn in the rest of their lives, for example, skills or intellectual works that are done at school or university (network 5) are developed on the same network 2 ?
Yes. The network we get stuck in will use any skills further nets may manage to develop for its own purposes from its own limited point of view. Stuck in N2, we will use imagination to improve N2's seeking behavior by remote-controlling it from N2, but we will not learn to use it for empathy because for that we need to operate it from N3. The locus of our consciousness is the thing that gets stuck. We can start development again at any age, but we need to start from where we last left off.
Because in a guy stucked in matrix 2 what happend when they're working on the network 5, that network will not develop without having developed before the 3 and 4? or is just a recommended way (faster, optimal) but not 100% necessary?
Networks develop basic form because of genetics and then grow because of use. Some people are deprived of input completely and this leads to nonuse, but most people's networks develop to some extent because of wronguse (and sometimes even overdevelop because of wrong use). It is the associated anxiety that starts to degrade networks and kill off neurons over time (and even this takes longer if networks are being used).
Abilities depend on type of use, and many (such as empathy, grace, intuition, modeling) can't be developed with wronguse.
If someone is stuck in N2 they should not be working on N5 unless it needs hacking. Hacks tend to get networks to slow down and focus on good habits, which stops the wronguse and maintains the network in good condition for when the user has developed enough to move into it.
If that is true, can we say, that it is better to be stuck in a “high network” (4-5) than a rear network (2-3)?
It's obviously better not to be stuck at all, but whenever we are, the rest of the brain goes out of balance; that's part of the problem, because those stuck in higher networks may need to go back and do some rebalancing work. If someone has been very fortunate and rear nets remain balanced, that would indeed be a better situation.
Example: If I am stuck in the network 5 means and 1-2-3-4 were (even slightly) developed?
Or "being stuck" only means that this network is "dominant" in our behaviors/skills?
The lower numbered nets will have developed if they have been used, and they've probably been used by N5. Any coopting of this kind is wronguse.
Taked from "matrix theory" research in library
"The brain is constructed physically in a certain order and the phases of intelligence developed in a sequence for a reason, and if this sequence is departed from we will develop less than optimal hardware. We are designed to use the relevant matrix to our current stage of neurological development and abilities. If our abilities do not develop as they should (because of insufficient or erroneous input) biological development goes right on ahead anyway, we don't have the required abilities to make a shift and we get stuck in a matrix (we cannot develop mentally beyond that stage)."
I mean, probably we “all” develop at least slightly all the networks? And i said this looking at the possible results of the Functional Analysis, i don't know if any of us could answer it in a way that we have 0 F scores in a network?
I hope I've explained enough for you to get this now?
All this brings me a bit of confusion when, for example, of the cases of children with genius IQ, at 5-6 years of age, when, theoretically, all the skills which highlights/manifiest these children should begin to appear at 14 -16 years (if I remember correctly).
I'm not quite sure I understand the question (?) but I can give you some info that might answer it -In optimal development we would be 'practicing' N5 intellect/literacy skills at around age 10 and we would be 'moving in' to N5 at around age 10-11. Around age 15 we should be moving into N6.
The phrase 'genius IQ' doesn't make sense in reality. To be a genuine 'genius' someone would need a high IQ and high scores from the other 5 networks. I don't think anyone is that well developed and we may not see one for some time (although people like Da Vinci had a good shot at it).
And I do not understand this phenomenon, if it is produced “artificially” by an early input from parents at an early age from activities that forment the development of network 5 or something genetically predetermined?
There are natural genetically-timed brain-growth spurts that occur when biology is developing a network physically in preparation for us to shift consciousness locus to the next network, but to make that shift we need to have developed the abilities of the current network and started to learn the abilities of the next one. Genetics provides the hardware as long as it keeps getting its blood supply, but the abilities depend on 'right use' and of course right input to use. We need nature AND nurture, working in synchrony.
And if at that early age 4-6 years, these new skills that the parents are trying to "teach" (or perhaps in some cases are naturally expressed by the child) are not "stored" on the network two (because at that age the shift matrix to 5 is impossible)? and while I read in the tutorials, it saids that the different networks can learn the skills of another one, but never do them as efficiently as if the correct network run, but in the case of the boys "geniuses" if hipotetically all that skllls are “launched” in the wrong network, they still performed at them extremely well!!
Ah, there is an important phrase to remember here. It is “compared with what?” In a society where everyone is blind, a dude with one eye, who can see real well in black and white, looks amazingly advanced. The brain is highly adaptable and will do its best to produce what it thinks we want and will often do it very very well, but it's still a mere shadow of the brain it could have become in optimal conditions and all skills are gained at the price of losing other skills (in the right order, all skills are kept).
Imagine how well these guys would perform if they had learned everything in the right order! And also imagine some of them in ten years' time with 6 university degrees, a morbid fear of leaving the house, chronic anxiety, no close relationships, obsessive-compulsive material acquisition and early onset diabetes...not too 'genius', right? This is the sort of thing that happens in reality.
We point at skills like this because it is unusual. It shouldn't be. Everybody could be so much better than this. We have fantastic potential, if we can get ourselves developed as biology intended.
Force-growing any network too early (which almost everyone in western societies has no option but to do) does slow down/halt development, partly because resources are limited but mainly because the nets that should be getting exercise throughout that time are being ignored in favor of N5.
In real life though, most of us have been slowed down so much by events before/at birth/during infancy that we have already fallen out of sync with biology's intent for development by our first birthday.
And what will be the "outcome" of a persona who need to develop his networks but he do it, in the "wrong orden" i mean, one day he trains n1-n2, the other n5, the other n3 etc .. i mean, a no-neurohacker guy, he don't have the knoweldge of the benefit of "do the things in the right orden" but can have what is said a "full rich life" when in a all the whole weeks do a variety of task/input to "work" all the networks but again ... "in the wrong order".
Most people fit this description. They hear about 'brain training' or 'memory improvement' or some new diet or an interesting new activity and decide to try it out. That's great because at least they are taking an interest in their own wellbeing and being a bit explorative, but it's like anything else -if you try to do stuff without knowing what you're doing, some of what you do will be 'correct' by mere chance, some will be harmful by mere chance, and some will make no difference at all. The resulting development is literally a matter of numbers. The closer activities conform to what biology needs, the faster people will improve. If the majority of what they do is in the wrong order or is bad input, brains degrade.
I've never met anyone from among the general public who claimed to have a full rich life and seemed healthy, happy and contented. (If you have, I'd like their email address) : ) Most folks say their life is either full of hassle or boring routine while worrying about how to pay next months whatever; or in the colloquial, “Life's a bitch and then you die”.
Of course from the NH point of view, “Life's a runway, and then you fly”... : )
Best,
AR
Forum 
