DWQA Questions › Tag: Creator's planFilter:AllOpenResolvedClosedUnansweredSort byViewsAnswersVotesCan you help us better understand the role of the Higher Self? Does it cause things to happen by directing healing energy for divine interventions and their implementation, or is its role strictly for observing, monitoring, and reporting current status as a kind of sentinel? Can you give us a tutorial about the role of the higher self in maintaining physical and emotional well-being and for healing when things get out of alignment?ClosedNicola asked 3 days ago • Higher Self58 views0 answers0 votesA practitioner asks: “In a recent channeling Creator has said that the divine can’t take viruses directly out of us because that would essentially amount to killing them, but that we can use physical measures such as antiviral supplements to get rid of viruses ourselves without accumulating karma from doing so. On the other hand, we have been told and know that Creator regularly removes viruses from food or beverages to be ingested if we use the daily prayers. I would like to understand why it seems to be possible for you to remove viruses from our food directly but not from our bodies? Isn’t it essentially the same as killing the viruses when removed from our food? What’s the difference? Is it because, in the case of food, the viruses haven’t come into contact with the consciousness of a host body yet and can therefore be removed more easily? Is it because they can be removed from food without killing them or something else entirely?” What is Creator’s perspective?ClosedNicola asked 3 days ago • Lightworker Healing Protocol28 views0 answers0 votesA practitioner asks: “It was a bit disappointing to find out that remote healing via the LHP seems to be rather limited when it comes to removing viruses directly. Creator has stated that more than 85% of all chronic illnesses are viral in origin, so that seems to be quite a limitation for what remote healing is able to achieve if one of the main culprits that is responsible for most illnesses seems to be off-limits, at least in a direct and immediate sense. The fact that we can take measures into our own hands and use antiviral supplements or other physical methods to free ourselves from these viruses is all well and good but there are still massive limits in place that will hinder our progress. What about our other lives, for example?” What is Creator’s perspective?ClosedNicola asked 3 days ago • Lightworker Healing Protocol30 views0 answers0 votesA practitioner asks: “So we may have been lucky enough to find out the truth about viruses and what to do against them in this life, thanks to Karl’s brilliant work, but what good is it if it comes to our many other lives where we don’t possess this knowledge, let alone the means to do anything about it? To me this seems like a rather big hole in the healing equation that needs to be addressed somehow. Is there any kind of “loophole” by which we could achieve more in this regard?” What is Creator’s perspective?ClosedNicola asked 3 days ago • Lightworker Healing Protocol28 views0 answers0 votesA practitioner asks: “Could we, for example, ask via the LHP that whenever we take an antiviral supplement, for all the benefits it brings to be automatically applied to our other lives as well? Could we, by doing so, authorize the divine to do more for us through this and help to remove viruses more aggressively? Could we perhaps even ask for the same benefits to be applied to all other humans or beings in general whenever we take an antiviral supplement ourselves or apply another physical method that allows for more direct removal of viruses from our bodies? Or is there perhaps another method by which this could be achieved?” What is Creator’s perspective?ClosedNicola asked 3 days ago • Lightworker Healing Protocol35 views0 answers0 votesA practitioner asks: “Creator says killing is wrong and to avoid killing another if possible. Why do we have to kill animals to survive? Does this come from interloper manipulation? Or is the idea of killing to survive an intentional plan? Is there a better way to survive? I’m thinking that with the plans coming up, we’ll have to become more self-sufficient. I can see that raising our own food would be a healthier source of food. However, I don’t think I would have the heart to kill an animal. Is there an easier way to have meat without killing? For example, could I ask an animal to give themselves up, then wake up the next morning to a dead animal ready to be processed for consumption? This sounds crazy but it came to mind and I’m wondering if it’s possible.” What is Creator’s perspective?ClosedNicola asked 3 days ago • Divine Guidance23 views0 answers0 votesA viewer asks: “As a commandment, are we still to keep the sabbath holy and not work on Sunday or Saturday?”ClosedNicola asked 3 days ago • Divine Guidance28 views0 answers0 votesA viewer asks: “Recently a young adult female elephant gored a senior keeper at an African elephant orphanage which led to the death of the much loved 70 year old father of eight. The elephant was out browsing with its herd when it uprooted a tree thus blocking a dirt road. As members of staff started to clear up the branches, it turned on the senior keeper and gored him. The man died of his wounds later, much to the dismay and sadness of his family and the local community. The elephant, not an orphan itself, didn’t have a history of trauma so why did it do this? Did the negative ET alliance have a hand in this? What actions could the staff, community and family take to optimally heal from this tragedy?”ClosedNicola asked 2 weeks ago • Animal Issues54 views0 answers0 votesA viewer asks: “As a young man I had a very deep romantic interest in a woman, who accepted my friendship, and we became close but not romantic despite my best efforts. One day I knew we were both free, I called her to try to make a date and she never got back to me. Next time we talked she said she had called me that same day to get together with me and hadn’t heard back. When I went back to check the call log she had called me at the exact same time I had called her and I never got a notification. It seemed fate had intervened to dash my opportunity. Was this a coincidence? Karmic? Divine intervention? Sabotage from dark forces somehow?” What can we tell him?ClosedNicola asked 2 weeks ago • Karma48 views0 answers0 votesIn the book, The AI Con: How to Fight Big Tech’s Hype and Create the Future We Want, co-authors Emily Bender and Alex Hanna argue that the term AI (acronym for Artificial Intelligence) is marketing hype. Google defines the word hype as “promote or publicize (a product or idea) intensively, often exaggerating its importance or benefits.” The implication is that without the exaggerated claim of benefit, and if people knew what they were REALLY getting with widespread adoption of these technologies bundled under the AI moniker, they quite likely would reject the product or idea altogether. The other pertinent question is, benefit to WHOM? Does the average consumer really benefit more than the cost imposed and the harm potentially incurred? The authors argue NO, the use of the term AI is really a bait and switch for increased AUTOMATION across the board. Automation that will decrease the demand for labor and remove human judgment from decision-making and categorizing. It will end up benefiting the ownership and finance classes at the expense of everyone else. What is Creator’s perspective?ClosedNicola asked 2 months ago • Problems in Society122 views0 answers0 votesThe term AI and Artificial Intelligence suddenly became relevant in the 2010s with the fortuitous adoption of chip technology designed to solve an entirely different problem, namely presenting complex and fast-changing graphics on computer screens, used mostly to make video games more realistic and lifelike. A little more than a decade ago, a small company named Nvidia made a graphics processor for making computer video a LOT faster. Today, it’s a trillion-dollar company because that processor was successfully adapted for AI processing with little modification. Once this discovery was made, untold TRILLIONS of dollars have been poured into making billions of these chips. Massive data centers are being built to utilize them, requiring vast amounts of resources and electricity. AI was less a software innovation than it was a hardware innovation. At the end of the day, these chips are overwhelmingly “number crunchers,” not much different in base functionality than an electronic calculator, only vastly miniaturized for speed and scaled up for volume. Is it fair to say that AI is really just a vast “calculator” when one tries to grasp how it REALLY works? What is Creator’s perspective?ClosedNicola asked 2 months ago • Problems in Society209 views0 answers0 votesWhen people think of AI, most think about chatbots like ChatGPT and Grok. These technologies are based on a software architecture called neural networks. Another name for the way these chatbots are put together is called LLMs or large language models. A large language model is really just a very sophisticated pattern matcher, and the shortcut used to match patterns is statistical probability. At its very foundation it makes large amounts (hundreds, thousands, millions or more) of microscopic decisions based on what statistically is more or less probable in terms of what comes before or after a word. Is it more probable the word “and” follows the word “this,” or more probable it follows the word “that?” So any response from a question to ChatGPT or Grok is the result of deep statistical analysis and pattern matching with no actual intelligence involved. What is Creator’s perspective?ClosedNicola asked 2 months ago • Problems in Society152 views0 answers0 votesAn argument can be made that no single human being really understands how AI works. What they discovered when they added more processing power and more layers of pattern matching (what they call deep learning) for building large language models is that the chatbots became REMARKABLY humanlike in terms of their output. This was a downright shocking discovery, and this development alone suddenly diverted trillions of dollars of investment towards the development of AI. But according to the authors of the recent book, AI Snake Oil: What Artificial Intelligence Can Do, What It Can’t, and How to Tell the Difference, Arvind Narayanan and Sayash Kapoor of Princeton University, relatively little of that money has been spent on research that would attempt to understand WHY we are getting this result. It seems no one really knows, and worse, no one REALLY CARES. Instead, the agenda is to throw more and faster hardware at it, “FEED THE BEAST” to give it more power, more capacity, more memory, with no one truly understanding why it even works as it does. Is this more human folly unfolding before our very eyes? What is Creator’s perspective?ClosedNicola asked 2 months ago • Problems in Society156 views0 answers0 votesAnother technology that has mysterious origins is cryptocurrencies. To this day, no one really knows where Bitcoin originated, who created it, or who introduced it to the world. There is speculation all over the place, and it’s assumed someone knows, but that information is not public knowledge. Is Bitcoin a “gift” (more like a naked Trojan horse) from the interlopers? And is AI, and how it really works, similar in its origins? What can Creator tell us?ClosedNicola asked 2 months ago • Problems in Society198 views0 answers0 votesThere is a good joke that’s been around for a while, but it’s especially pertinent when it comes to evaluating AI: “It must be true, I read it on the Internet.” Everyone knows this means it’s more likely not to be true. But when it comes to AI, almost everything it “knows” comes from the Internet. And because it tends to weigh true and false by frequency of encounter, the more AI encounters the same images, assertions, statements, treatments, opinions, etc., the more statistically weighted it will be. The term, “There’s safety in numbers,” comes to mind in that the idea is, the more frequently something is encountered, the more genuine it probably is. This becomes AI’s “default assumption” about the material it is trained with. It can only utilize, evaluate, and regurgitate the material it is trained with. This turned out to be quite a problem early on because the sheer amount of racist, violent, and derogatory material on the Internet was not fully appreciated until AI started digesting it. It became necessary to employ untold thousands of low-paid (on the order of two dollars a day) “content evaluators,” mostly in third-world countries, to filter out gore, hate speech, child sexual abuse material, and pornographic images. If AI read it on the Internet, it must be true? What is Creator’s perspective?ClosedNicola asked 2 months ago • Problems in Society154 views0 answers0 votes
Nicola