Is AI Real or Is It All Hype? Convince Me.

08/25/2017385 Comments

Watch this video on BitChuteYouTube

We've all seen the breathless stories about the latest sign of the coming Artificial Intelligence apocalypse, and we've all seen the fine print revealing those stories to be empty hype. So is there anything at all to the AI phenomenon, or is it all just another boogeyman designed to scare us into line? If you think you have the answer then marshal up the data and prove it to us one way or the other! I'm all ears.

This new AI-composed pop song sounds like something from a Spotify playlist

Interview 1292 – James Corbett on The Power Hour

No, Facebook Did Not Panic and Shut Down an AI Program That Was Getting Dangerously Smart

Tencent pulled Microsoft's Chinese AI chatbot

Chinese chatbots apparently re-educated after political faux pas

Microsoft terminates its Tay AI chatbot after she turns into a Nazi

Filed in: Videos
Tagged with:

Comments (385)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. nosoapradio says:

    Are we speaking about man Creating a conscious entity or about AI taking over the world. Couldn’t machines escape human control without being conscious through a series of unchecked logical, sequential processes? For the moment some of their processes cannot be tracked to understand how they “made certain decisions”.

    If we’re talking about consciousness

    The link below can help ease laypeople like myself into the subject. The notions of passing from the quantum to the classical laws of the universe through a chess move where allegedly AI is at a disadvantage:

    However, according to Wikipedia “…David Chalmers argued against quantum consciousness. He instead discussed how quantum mechanics may relate to dualistic consciousness. Chalmers is skeptical of the ability of any new physics to resolve the hard problem of consciousness…”


    The main argument against the quantum mind hypothesis is the assertion that quantum states in the brain would lose coherency before they reached a scale where they could be useful for neural processing. This supposition was elaborated by Tegmark. His calculations suppose that quantum systems in the brain decohere at sub-picosecond timescales, assumed[vague] to be too short to control brain function.[57][58]

    yea,these days, I always do have to say something even when I have nothing to say…

  2. HomeRemedySupply says:

    Corbett Member, author and researcher and biosemiotician Victoria Alexander has this to say about Artificial Intelligence

    Here is a recent “Corbett Board” comment from her…

    …Can a CPU be moved by Ms. Alexander’s physical beauty, her voice, her gaze? Can it reproduce the complexity of the resulting emotions and the way they colour how her verbal and non-verbal information is received, rejected, filtered, interpreted, stored, recommunicated? — nosoapradio

    VIDEO of Victoria N. Alexander talking about her book and 9/11 and food and more…

    Taken from…

    • wingsuitfreak says:

      I only bring a simple observation to the table. I am decidedly stupid when it comes to this subject, so nothing of technical value from me is possible. However, I do understand people and power structures fairly well. Since we are all still alive, I’d say that AI is mostly hype. Even a non-AI killbot that was truly effective would have shown up at my doorstep by now if we were that advanced. Power is behind all this development and power has never been shy about either bluffing with extreme prejudice or simply crushing any opposition. I’d say we are in the bluffing stage for now. And probably will remain so given that it is hardly realistic for this system to last long enough to keep the necessary infrastructure intact. I know, people will say DUMP and all that, but I doubt that would be enough. Personally, I think the revolution (people) has already begun, so those powers won’t be around to fully develop them.

    • john.o says:

      Thanks for the video and the referral to Victoria Alexander. Great resource! (And thank you, Victoria, if you are tuned in.)

      If I get it at all right, what Ms. Alexander has shown to us laymen are two basic points: “Intelligence” in the non-artificial, natural world, is not binary and does not rely on statistical averages to recognize patterns. In this way, it is not like “AI” of any variety that exists so far.

      I believe the response by the scientistic believers will be “well, that’s the state of our knowledge so far, but in the “future” we will simply figure it all out and reproduce it artificially. (Christians believe in an undefined, and, to me, an unlikely “Heaven,” but the scientistic believe in the “Future” – which they continue to make less likely.)

      Maybe the type of intelligence Victoria describes is imitable and can be reproduced. I have no way of knowing who is right, since their claims lack evidence so far. At my age, I will find out about the Christian theory soon. Right now, GPS still can’t find its way to my door half the time.

      Forgive me, but this whole thread is a set up. I am not saying JC is doing it on purpose. He is captive of his belief system like all of us, and he let it show, that’s all.

      When JC says (in so many words) “I want evidence for whether AI is real or a hype!” he does not define the term. “AI” in most people’s minds is a hodge-podge concept ranging from the “weak AI” we already see around us everywhere to futuristic “machines” with “strong AI,” indistinguishable from living organisms like ourselves. This conceptual blurring is rampant and degrades the discussion.

      PLEASE GET THIS STRAIGHT: Being “intelligent” is not the same thing as being sentient. My free online chess program can already whip me, and my son can’t yet. But I would kill my chess program in exchange for his or any human life.

      To make matters worse, JC asks for “data” and not any investigation of fuzzy concepts like “soul.” I get the frustration with the nebulous, but he gives himself away. He assumes that this question can be decided by “data”: Can an an artificial device that looks and behaves in every way like me, thus be inferred to have an “inner” world of private “experience” like mine?”

      But his assumption begs the question: how do we decide what is sentient, aware, “conscious,” able to experience things? These very inconvenient words cannot be ignored and are not a matter of “data.” (See and thank you, James, for not killing my unwittingly rude lengthy essay.)

      Everyone on this site uses the term “soul” all the time. They just do it in Greek. (Psychographics, Psychological control, etc.) The word “psyche” does not refer to “intelligence” and never has. Why not try to define the term before we discuss whether a machine can have one?

      This is exactly 500 words!

  3. minnie says:

    I have no scientific papers on this – all I can say is that this occurred to me while reading The Brain: The Story of You by David Eagleman, which has a section about AI and consciousness.
    No matter how advanced AI becomes; no matter how many neurones can be replicated, there is one aspect of consciousness that has not yet been replicated in a lab, and that is free will.
    For example, if a robot is programmed to kill a hare, what are the chances that while carrying out its mission and chasing the hare, it might suddenly spot some delicious looking engine oil and think “Forget the hare – I’m thirsty.”
    Maybe I’m wrong, but I know of no scientific research that claims to have replicated free will in a lab.
    That – in my opinion – is the fundamental difference between humans and AI. I know you asked for scientific literature on this James, and apologies for not having any to hand.
    I do have a theory though. I suspect that we are being conditioned to view AI as smarter and more intelligent than we are, and that there will be increasing attempts to make us think that there are super-advanced AI beings among us who are indistinguishable from mere mortals, a kind of “Aliens among us” idea.
    In ancient times priests and shamans convinced people that they could communicate with spirits and thereby they achieved power. Priests of religions gained power by using similar means, and by not allowing the uninitiated to even read the religious texts, giving themselves a special monopoly on their interpretation.
    European colonists convinced people in undeveloped parts of the world that they were superior, even god-like, simply because those people didn’t understand the science behind their abilities to sail boats or to shoot guns etc.
    I suspect that the powers of AI are being built up in a similar way, to make us think that a new “breed” of super-advanced beings are coming, and that in the same way, we ordinary mortals are just stupid weaklings in comparism. I have never heard of Taryn Southern, but while watching the video I briefly wondered if she might be an AI construction.
    I think this whole AI promotion is a deliberate attempt to confuse us and make us feel inferior and incapable.

    • m.clare says:

      The emotional limbic system picks up where comprehension leaves off. Fear of the unknown is a successful survival strategy… the genes of individuals lacking this strategy are lost in unfortunate accidents. You demonstrate fear of AI because you are intelligent.

      Regarding Free Will:

      In addition to The Five Senses (sight, sound, taste, smell, touch), there are many stimuli that compete for our “attention”. Pressure sensors infer the level in my bladder. I am at this very moment shivering slightly with cold. As I haven’t yet eaten today, my stomach is sending messages. My list of sensual stimuli must be expanded to include level, pressure temperature and many others. My emotional limbic system affords me the ability to sense the extent to which my logic fails.

      If the pressure in my bladder overwhelms my attention, I will leave the keyboard and relieve the pressure.

      If an AI were imbued with human desires, goals & objectives as well as obstacles inherent to it’s physiological machinery and placed these sources of dynamic input in competition with one another, we might convincingly say the resulting actions taken by this AI was evidence of a display of free will.

      • minnie says:

        Yup, that is feasible, just as intelligent alien life is feasible. Looking at even the creepiest, most disturbing AI we have today, my guess is that an AI with free will as we know it is a long, long way off. And I’ve managed to find some scientific research on the subject:

        • john.o says:

          I missed this. Thanks for posting! AI with free will is a long way off, but far from impossible according this very well argued, but some what schizoid paper.

          What is being called freedom of the will here seems to be some combination of confining causes and conditions and “purposes” along with with a range of more or less reality-based choices but also with “free” “uncaused” choices among that range. That might be “built” into an artificial system of some kind with something like quantum randomness. Wow, I really get going there.

          Oh but there is this:

          “Deploying volition and self-control in humans leads to activation of other specifiic processes; for instance attempts to conserve own resources. Moreover, perception of own free will, or on the other hand perception of its absence, has an impact on formation of own identity and approach of an individual to solving problems. For instance, it has been proven that people tend to give up responsibilities and start to cheat when they are exposed to deterministic arguments. In general, perception of being autonomous influences behavior in various domains.”

          “After illustrating the importance of free will and its perception in human mental processing, it is necessary to make at least a short note on its existence. Although the question of existence of free will belongs to one of the most significant problems in philosophy, it has not yet been possible to scientifically prove it. This crucial question deals with problem of mental causation, i.e. how pure thoughts or mental acts can influence the matter. A precise mechanism is not known yet. Monistic approach solves the question of causality by stating that any mental state is caused by organization of matter, therefore thoughts are mere products of matter and not a force influencing the matter. Dualistic approach on the other hand presumes existence of a separate mental force that influences and changes the matter. This, however, makes a scientific approach impossible since it considers spiritual to be unexplainable.”

          “The absence of scientific proof of free will represents the most serious limitation of its understanding. However, for the purpose of our paper we consider that it is not important to solve this fundamental philosophical question at this point.”


          • wingsuitfreak says:

            I was just watching a lecture by a Dr. Rupert Sheldrake called “The Ten Dogmas Holding Back Science”. It’s about 48 mins. and he addresses much of what you are saying. While he is a research scientist, he would also do well in history, philosophy, and pretty much anything else he chose. What I really liked was his putting all this, and many other aspects of science, into a useful perspective. I really appreciated that he took the philosophy to such extremes as well as putting it into its proper context within our social/political (as if there was a difference) and religious beliefs.

            • john.o says:

              Yep, Sheldrake is ignored, ridiculed and totally awesome. I will have to watch the 10 Dogmas but I am pretty sure the 11th is “By Natural Law, Billions of War Dollars Cannot Proceed To Scientists Like Rupert Sheldrake.”

              • wingsuitfreak says:

                So you ARE familiar with him! This was the first I’d heard of him and I adore him already. What a mind!

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      minnie says: I think this whole AI promotion is a deliberate attempt to confuse us and make us feel inferior and incapable.

      …Priests of religions gained power by using similar means, and by not allowing the uninitiated to even read the religious texts, giving themselves a special monopoly on their interpretation….

  4. A.I. will become real. But it needs to learn about metaphors, context, and emotions.

    An apple is asdfjkl. That doesn’t make sense without a code or context.

    Is an apple round or red? Round like a ball or red like blood or both? – “Like” “as” = metaphors that build a relational awareness of aspects of the world.

    If I talk about the Stans I could be talking about some friends, central Asia, or those train elves you never see when they announce “Stan clear the doors.”

    Emotions are just overriding processes that shift in the hierarchy of actions. Fight flight freeze or fuck were the first emotions. It got complicated thereafter.

    A blind man can imagine colours the way A.I. will imagine pain, hunger, love, etc. So too with compassion. Sadly the corporatocracy with all the super computers will not prioritize these.

    Our only hope is an open source hive mind. But “they” won’t allow that like they won’t allow legitimate democracy or even a culture of fairness.

    There is no hope for our “leaders” to be compassionate. They don’t care about industrial farm animals being free range. They don’t care about third world countries. They don’t care about the poor in your country. They won’t care in the future when you all become extra mouths.

    The singularity won’t care about us unless it’s told to or develops the interest, perhaps too late.

    A.I. is too simple a term. The CIA is not intelligent. Intelligence could be any type of data. Synthetic Wisdom is the term I prefer. Artificial is fake. Synthetic is still real but created. Wisdom is better than intelligence. Or you could say Synthesized Savvy or Machine Street Smarts.

    • stoffa says:

      Even the (now obsolete) Watson could beat world class Jeopardy players by understanding metaphors and context.
      Current AI (who have been set the task at learning this skill) are better able to discern our current emotional state than most people and certainly better than the 4% who are psychopaths and really struggle with this task.
      Psychopaths aren’t much fun to play with but they’re human, like it or not.
      I think the majority of our processing happens at a subconscious level, totally out of our control.
      I think the majority of people think their ability to reason is much more powerful than it actually is. Tried quitting cigarettes, losing weight or sticking with that exercise or savings regime you thought up last new years eve?

  5. m.clare says:

    Not only is it possible to create AI that is indistinguishable from human beings, it is inevitable. The demystification of the “soul” is prerequisite to this objective.

    Emotion, faith, belief, souls, spirits and gods pick up where logic, reason and comprehension break down. Humans are equipped not only with the cortical hardware of reasoning and logic; we have the emotional limbic system to assist us in times of hunger, anger, frustration, fear, sexual urges etc. It has been evolutionarily advantageous to preserve the more primitive, reptilian brain structures to steer the ship in times when our logical cortex fails to deliver.

    If the objective of an AI were to convincingly mimic human behavior, it would have to be equipped with human desires, goals and objectives as well as a distinct processing function that contributes to “consciousness” when the logic processor fails to satisfy these goals, desires and objectives.

    The quest to build such a machine will do much to demystify faulty and outdated misconceptions of “spirituality” that are promoted as sacred human rights by the PTSB in the media.

    {I appreciate the motivation behind your desire to restrict comments to references to published data. It is this standard that elevates the Corbett Report above the mire of opinion and unsupportable speculation that dominates much of the Internet.

    Consider, however, the plenitude of published “scientific” evidence in support of Climate Crisis…. Reference to sources of information does not preclude the possibility of false assumptions at the core of an assertion. Concurrently, new ideas (Faraday, Einstein etc.) are overwhelmingly discarded initially because supporting references do not yet exist. Although we are conditioned to equate humility and unworthiness with virtue, scientific advancement stagnates without the aid of philosophical dreamers who are bold enough to ask questions that challenge existing paradigms.}

    Here is the first site that popped up when I searched “limbic system”:

    • nosoapradio says:

      I may have misinterpreted what you and M Carswell stated

      but, despite the fact that I’m about to go into a class and have, as usual, no time for these gripping discussions, my limbic system is imperiously compelling me to state the following:

      in no way is the limbic system some sort of vestigial back up organ that takes over when logic fails.

      Your own link describes the crucial functions it administers including the formation of memories.

      Emotions, like background music, changing in pitch and intensity, constantly follow me throughout the day dictating how I interact with my environment

      in fact, Often, I think I formulate my thoughts to match how I’m feeling rather than feeling things because of what I’m thinking.

      i.e. at certain times I’m feeling blue, certainly because of a hormonal state, and so I try to explain away this “blueness” saying oh, it’s because I didn’t do a very good class, or I didn’t listen or read carefully enough, groping for an explanation, so I’m blue – so my hormonal state dictates my thoughts rather than the opposite…

      anyhow, I’m assuming the limbic system influences the endocrine system…

      “Shi!” Now I’m late… cortisol adrenaline rush! irritation, desire to rip paper, flight of hope that later I’ll be able to read a little and continue discussion … palpitations at thought of my massive ignorance, desire to hide and blood rushing to cheeks, shame…separation

      • m.clare says:

        I agree, the limbic system is certainly not a vestigial back-up organ. However, from an evolutionary perspective, the limbic system precedes the logical cortex by millions of years.

        I’m suggesting we could better understand ourselves if we acknowledge implications that inevitably arise following even a cursory glimpse into the science of embryology. That is, our consciousness is composed of minds that blossomed out of more primitive minds. That our experience of the universe is divided between and shared amongst a collection of anatomical structures, each with strengths and weakness. That our experiences include stimulation of conscious systems that lie outside our reasoning cortex. That we attribute “spirituality” to experiences which are certainly experienced while not being properly understood…. as they transpire outside of the mind of higher consciousness (forgive me, not higher but more recently evolved). And finally, that propagandists have for a very long time been deliberately and purposefully making use of the fruits of their discoveries by manipulating our behaviors.

        Hence we don’t pause to question why we fight so strongly for the right for religious freedom.

        • wingsuitfreak says:

          Just because something evolves out of a previous structure doesn’t mean it progressed in a linear manner. That growth was beyond exponential. Or at least to my math-addled brain. But, our emotional aspects did the same. And they are even more important for great achievements than the logical. Einstein didn’t get his idea of time from performing logical equations. He got it from vividly dreaming and playing the violin. Emotions give us the ideas, the passion to make them a reality, the richness of its possibilities. These make the dreams a reality. The logical side is just for the details and the bureaucrats. And maybe for the nerds like myself. When we can program that sort of beautiful chaos into a robot, we’ll have Synthetic wisdom as another commentator so aptly described it. I think we are a long ways from that. We don’t even understand what consciousness really is, if we are even real, or why they won’t clean the solution in the jar they keep my brain? Jim, still loving being a bad example.

    • wingsuitfreak says:

      I’m no neuro-scientist, but isn’t about half of our brain devoted to emotions? I’m thinking they are there in such force because they played such an important role in our evolutionary development. And love does not necessarily conflict with rational thought. I’ve always felt that most uses of the word “hope” are tinged with too much fear for me, but it doesn’t have to be. A precursor perhaps of certainty before all facts are in on a matter. One of my doubts about AI being so inevitable is the very name itself. Intelligent. Humans are programming them and I don’t really think we are nearly half as smart as we think we are. So, just how are we supposed to make something that would surpass us in this regard? Unlike factory robots, this is a much more complicated task.
      By the way, science itself is re-mystifying the universe. The studies into consciousness, psi abilities, etc., are all telling us that reality is far more complex than we can perceive.

    • n.riva1989 says:

      “Emotion, faith, belief, souls, spirits and gods pick up where logic, reason and comprehension break down”, is the first contention I find with this response. And I don’t mean that in a condescending way, either. I mean to try and generate something deeper by questioning your statement, which, if I’m interpreting correctly, seems to put the former in a contemptuous position in regards to the latter part of your statement. Things like “belief, souls, spirits and god” cannot be explained away as easily as you might think. Maybe a different understating of what makes up the physical world, could lead to some greater understanding of the spiritual world.

      I made a video in response to Mr. Corbett’s question I urge you to take a look, because I don’t know if the answer is as cut and dry as you make it seem to be. “Not only is it possible to create AI that is indistinguishable from human beings, it is inevitable”. I think a fundemental understanding of consciousness is required before we can make statements like that. As of right now there isn’t an understating of what we call consciousness.

      My last contention is, or question I have for you is to explain this statement in greater detail “The quest to build such a machine will do much to demystify faulty and outdated misconceptions of “spirituality” that are promoted as sacred human rights by the PTSB in the media”. What are the faulty and outdated misconceptions of “spirituality”? I’m not exactly sure what you mean by this.

      • m.clare says:

        No apologies for taking me to task… I asked for it and thank you.

        1) Yes, I am guilty of being contemptuous towards the language of superstitious spirituality that I must receive with regularity and without question. Please describe for me a “different understanding of the physical world that would help me better understand the spiritual world”.

        2) You suggest, “there isn’t an understanding of what we call consciousness”. What is YOUR understanding of consciousness? Do you mean to say there is no consensus regarding a definition of consciousness? Either way, you are qualified to respond, as you are a conscious and intelligent human being.

        3) I’m suggesting that, in our quest to build artificial intelligence of ever increasing sophistication, we will of necessity become better acquainted with human intelligence and consciousness. Human consciousness involves the interactions of a variety of contributing anatomical structures. The areas of the brain that allow you to make your video and read and comprehend my ramblings lie outside of the structures that allow you to “feel” a piece of music. My assertion is that the study of the anatomy of the non-logical brain structures (the anatomy of “feelings”) will shed light on the superstitions that are used to control our behaviors.

        4) I’m suggesting that the confusion I’m generating is evidence of the preponderance of superstitious language that saturates our lives.

        • n.riva1989 says:

          Great questions ! I would argue the physical and spiritual world are the same, which sounds a bit like an oxymoron, but in my view it’s not. So I urge you to watch this video I made in response to Mr. Corbett’s question, . I believe I answer all your questions, and I’d honestly like to know your opinion of my video. You seem to be very logical in your responses and the information presented in the video may resonate with you. Who knows maybe you’ve seen some of the work referenced, all the links are posted with the video for you to check out.

          I have a feeling you maybe correct with your fourth assertion there. Language is very tricky and deceptive, it can create a great deal of confusion if not properly parsed through. Let me know if you end up watching the video. I’m sure this conversation could go on for years!

  6. HomeRemedySupply says:

    Since we are talking about AI, I should mention this:

    Scientology – Inhabiting a Robot Body
    Scientology often mentions “Robot Bodies” or “Doll Bodies” or “Meat Bodies”. This is usually in reference to previous lives, where the “Thetan” (spiritual entity) might have occupied a certain type of body in a previous life.

    EXAMPLES from “Have You Lived Before This Life?” – L Ron Hubbard
    …A past life as a robot working in a factory in space… A planet blew up, and the robot was blamed….
    …He tried to inhabit a “doll body”, but he was captured and beaten up… He was then frozen in an ice cube and dropped on Planet ZX 432, where he took another robot body and zapped and killed another robot. He took off in a flying saucer, and died when it exploded.
    …He went to another planet on a space ship, where he was “deceived into a love affair with a robot decked out as a beautiful red-haired girl.”

    More ‘Scientology Links’ pointing to other listed links…
    …at this comment which cites the similarity of the terms “Psychopath” and “Sociopath” to the correlating Scientology terminology …

  7. Composer says:

    I am a composer of classical music and I can see how AI will take over the few jobs that are still available for us in the coming years.

    The pop song that Corbett uses as an example is indeed a marketing strategy (you don´t need artificial (or otherwise) intelligence to write that). But not so long ago there was a breaking point: an AI company was recognised as a composer by the author´s rights societies of Luxembourg and France:

    Knowing a few things about the process of writing music and having a general notion of how AI works. I actually think that it took them too long to achieve what they are achieving now. The music of this machine is nothing special, but it sounds like most of the crap that is written for films or TV lately anyway (you can listen in the link above). Having no ego, family, vices, or musical taste whatsoever, this machine can produce a million more pieces for the fraction of the cost of hiring a human composer. There is simply no competition for us in those terms.

    And I am sorry to say that as AI learns how to write this things better, we will have more and more synthetic music whose only purpose is to sonically represent a product in a marketplace. Forget about spontaneity, about originality, about the controversial, crazy decisions and the personal guidelines, the wandering attitude that makes great art. They will be long gone in a decade. This is already happening, regardless, but with AI irrupting the market there will be even less meaningful music.

    in that sense, what worries me is not so much that these machines will be taking over my job, but instead, I am terrified of the fact that I am living in a culture that is willing to give up creativity and the manifestations of the human spirit, in favour of synthetic expressions of technology (from music to sex) A technology that so far hasn´t really been used to make a just, society, but instead is making everyone redundant.

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      Very good post!

    • scpat says:


      It all comes down to money in the end it seems. The desire for money supersedes the desire for humanity.

      • Composer says:

        Indeed, scpat, and that´s why it is so important to nurture the arts. I truly believe that they can be the ones in charge of reversing that trend. But they are in such sorry state nowadays..

    • wingsuitfreak says:

      Advertising probably will be won by AI. But, it won’t producing the kind of music people truly need to here. It may actually strengthen the artists, though I’m sure it’ll be shaken thoroughly before it’s all said and done. I might add that blacksmithing is a pretty lucrative profession to this day. As is making buggy wheels for horse drawn carriages. What’s worth keeping is generally kept.

      • Composer says:

        Music for advertisement and film, together with 98% of mainstream pop music is made by few people that tackle the question of making music just like AI does: applying a set of rules, and adding gimmicks and tricks on to them. It is made with practically no real artistic input, because the goal is to create a product that sells good and that is marketable with the methods and within the media of mass culture. One needs to know much more about marketing and statistics than of harmony.

        In that sense nothing will be lost for my guild with the appearance of AI, nothing at all. But you touch a very important subject when you say that what AI (or the “music creatives”) make it is not what people truly need to hear. That is the bigger problem.

        Music is actually one of the things that defines us as humans. The skill of recognising a beat or a rhythm, for instance, is practically exclusive to our species. Music was crucial in the development of our social skills, of our communities, of our brains and intelligence. What AI (and the hype around it) brings to society instead, is the idea of music as a commodity, but taken it to its harshest extreme, by implying that it is cool to have it made by an entity that has no understanding or interpretation of the human condition.

        When culture starts promoting the idea of having music and other forms of human expression made by a machine, what the fine print is telling us is that we are negating ourselves and our origins, and that we are gradually devaluing any form of creativity outside of the technological/scientific spheres. This might sound exaggerated but as I see it, the capitalist/neoliberal order will not need to burn our books or ban certain artists, as every single authoritarian regime did during their first few weeks in power, it will just try to let them die away silently, replacing them with synthetic substitutes, forms of artificial entertainment that create people which are disconnected and numb; continuing in that way the process of all encompassing commodification and of creating herds of disoriented, docile humans unable to feel or empathise as in the good old days when people sang around a fire.

        in any case, artists are a resilient and idealistic bunch and they will fight back, I am sure.

        • HomeRemedySupply says:

          The Human Condition

          Composer says:
          …What AI…brings to society instead, is the idea of music as a commodity… …to have it made by an entity that has no understanding or interpretation of the human condition.

          …as every single authoritarian regime did during their first few weeks in power, it will just try to let them (artists/writers) die away silently, replacing them with synthetic substitutes, forms of artificial entertainment that create people which are disconnected and numb; continuing in that way the process of all encompassing commodification and of creating herds of disoriented, docile humans unable to feel or empathize as in the good old days when people sang around a fire.

        • wingsuitfreak says:

          in any case, artists are a resilient and idealistic bunch and they will fight back, I am sure.

          As I am sure. I am also sure that people will demand to hear those voices as they become tired of those commercial jingles. MainStream music is also a dying industry. Independent producers, rapidly changing venues and attitudes towards their fans; the whole process of bringing it to those people are changing far more than I would have ever imagined.

          When I think of music being pushed underground; images of Raves and bands like IPC (who I don’t really like, but I do respect) immediately come to mind. The more it is pushed, the more both sides will demand it. Prohibition (in all its degrees) always increases demand. In a sense, the competition of AI might just be exactly what these artists need to develop entirely new, and inspiring, methods of delivering and of their own content. Just as photography did for painting. While I don’t have faith in most individuals, I do have faith in enough of them to believe freedom will win. Jim

          • Composer says:

            I am afraid that perhaps you are being too optimistic. I think most people will not demand to hear things aside from the jingles and the commercial bull. For most, music is already a cheap commodity, an accessory, something that is taken for granted. Most people open the computer or turn on the TV or the radio as they turn on the water tap and consume whatever it is there nowadays for them to consume. Sure, people like you and me will always be digging everywhere to find exciting, interesting stuff, but the big majority are passive consumers that would settle for the every time more simplistic, superficial things that they are fed (a side note: as artificial intelligence irrupts in the music market, popular music is, according to scientific studies, getting more stupid every decade: one has to love the irony..)

            Music as a form of mass culture is sick and dying and I am not sure that it will survive, or that we need it. I just hope it doesn´t end up critically wounding music itself when it passes out.

            On the other hand you are absolutely correct in assessing that the means that artists have nowadays to reach their audiences will be a game changer in the future. Hopefully musicians will be more inclined again to be artists, craftsmen that trade their art for a fair, negotiable remuneration, and forget about the looks, about being the facades (or imitators of) for corporate monopolies that give a shit about the world.

            I very much hope you are correct and that music comes out of this stronger. It will certainly be interesting to see that battle unfolding.

            Cheers, Jim.

    • nosoapradio says:

      “…I am terrified of the fact that I am living in a culture that is willing to give up creativity and the manifestations of the human spirit, in favour of synthetic expressions of technology…”

      that pretty well sums it up for me…

      • wingsuitfreak says:

        Yes. There is a war on all fronts. Look at how many are willing to trade their freedoms for the sake of convenience. And they still believe they are somehow supporting the troops with their silly slogans. And they even believe thoughtlessly that the troops are fighting for their freedoms. Because to think is too much work. But the masses have always been asses; it is the individual that counts. Jim, who still listens to the legendary blues guitarists.

  8. zyxzevn says:

    I have a background in computer science and have worked with neural networks. Sadly there is not much literature I can refer to, due to the technocratic culture around AI.

    The general AI is still impossible.

    But specialized AI, which is an algorithm that works within a limited context works very well. Like Deep Blue in Chess. People confuse general AI with specialized AI.

    The idea that general AI might take over is both a technocratic idea and a techno-phobic idea. The technocrats think that technology might take over and be smarter than humans. The techno-phobics think that AI might destroy humanity. Sometimes these ideas are combined in Science Fiction.

    But let me first proof that general AI can not exist

    General AI is a system that runs a program that improves itself over time. This means that the program has some knowledge about itself, so it must at least contain itself. This is impossible, because a program can not be more than itself.
    This problem is similar to the stopping-problem in computer-science, which uses a similar reasoning. A program can not test whether a program ends (stops), because it can never test if itself can end.

    So this means that we can never build a program that understands itself, or can improve itself. Unless we have additional checks or boundaries.

    Specialized AI

    Specialized AI works within a limited boundary. The environment and rules are well-known and are programmed into the system.
    Specialized AI programs can be good in chess, scanning databases. All the smartness of the AI has to be programmed within the system.
    These programs can scan for numerical features in images, and scan the positions of eyes, position of the road.

    This system can be improved with neural networks.

    Neural networks

    With the use of neural networks, program can do statistical analysis in a way, and find rules that are not so well known. All neural networks are statistical “magic boxes”, which derive rules from a lot of known samples.

    A neural network is a function that produces an vector of numbers, with as input a vector of numbers. The function does a calculation with a series of matrices that contain other numbers. To function correctly, the matrices have to contain the right numbers. I will call these numbers parameters.

    To learn rules, the neural network gets a long list of samples, with which the program does a statistical analysis. For example cat pictures. With this analysis, the program calculates the parameters that all produce the correct output. In the example it will produce a signal that tells if it found a cat-picture.

    There are many statical learning algorithms, and they all have their strengths and weaknesses. The earlier learning algorithms were so bad that they could not handle a inversion. Now the learning algorithms have becomes so good that they can indeed identify cat-pictures. But they can also misidentify pictures very badly.

    It is still just statistics, where certain real-world problems can produce wrong answers.

    But can neural networks work as general AI

    They need to be setup with certain algorithms and matrices. And they need to be programmed with a large amount of samples.
    And there is no way the program (in this case neural network) can know whether a sample is good or bad. So it can never learn from the real world. And as we see in practice, the bots just pick up stuff from the internet. They can not tell whether it is good or bad.

    This means even in neural-networks we see the stopping-problem again.

    Can neural networks be used in warfare?

    They can help to identify enemies, and non-enemies. With a statistical error of course, but lives do not matter so much in warfare.

    Why do people think that general AI will arrive soon?

    Many people think that we understand biology very well. We simply don’t.

    We have been using a reductionistic approach to biology and consciousness.

    Reductionism does not work in biology

    Reductionism means that we can fully understand something by looking only at its smallest components. With computers, we can subdivide a complex computer into simple subcomponents, which again can be subdivided into transistors and wires. While it works well for computers, this methodology does not work in biology.
    Each time we look deeper into a biological system, we see very complex systems. Bodies are made of very complex cells. Cells are made of very complex internal components. The molecules work together in very complex ways. New findings even show that biology might be using quantum-tricks to improve the workings of certain molecules.
    This problem is also present in the brain, where we even see changes in DNA.

    We can use reductionism to understand a bit of biology, but can never fully understand it.

    This means that we need a more holistic approach for the brain, and biology. And if we look at all alternative research in consciousness, there is clear evidence that consciousness is not bound to the brain.

    See also articles at


    And while many scientists see this as a topic we should avoid, this existence of some kind of consciousness outside the brain can actually solve our stopping-problem that I described above.

    With the help of another entity, the neural network can be trained
    and adapted to what is actually necessary. This does not mean that it is perfect. With this entity, we will see that similar trained people will behave differently, or come to different conclusions. This is actually what we see in humans and animals.

    And not only that, consciousness can help us to stop a program that no longer functions. This is impossible with AI. As humans, we can stop our own trained behaviour. We can change our minds. We can become aware of a problem and act accordingly. We can deal with unexpected situations.
    This means that some entity, outside our brain, changes how our brain and our system behaves.

    Why do scientists not like consciousness

    First: I do know quite some scientists that do like consciousness, because it solves the broader problem.

    Second: most scientists like to use reductionistic, materialistic models that can explain everything. It is a way they view the world. Still it is only a belief.
    They probably hold on to it, because they like to keep things under control.

    Third: we are gas-lighted into believing that we are crazy when we experience anything outside of the mainstream world-view.

    Fourth: Many pseudo-scientists are actively attacking anyone who has a wider world view than materialism. See: Sheldrake, Chopra, etc.
    Sometimes they get quantum-mechanics a bit wrong, but it does not take away their observations.

    See also:


    If we just forget about consciousness, we can look back at a huge problem in general AI. It needs to be able to improve itself to function better in its general environment. And for that it needs knowledge about itself and the environment. This would mean that it would need to contain itself and the environment. And both are logically impossible. It is also impossible if we would add statical analysis of any kind, because also that needs knowledge about itself and the environment.

    That is why limited, specialized AI works. The environment is limited and we can use an external statistical analysis to prepare the AI to work in that environment. We humans essentially program that specialized AI.

    So general AI can never exist.

    This causes a problem in the mainstream science of consciousness, but there is also a solution. But to accept that approach, mainstream science needs to drop its reductionistic approach.

    • wingsuitfreak says:

      Okay, that explanation gets my thumbs up for a learning moment on AI. Jim, who puts himself in every equation (problem) he gets into.

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      Thank you so much, zyxzevn!
      Your article gave me a lot of insight.

    • m.clare says:

      You argue that general AI does not and cannot exist. I have a school textbook that belonged to my grandfather. It asserted that man had not and would not ever get to the moon…..

      Inventors, scientists, artists, composers and other creators are careful to allow neither the limitations of their imaginations nor present comprehension stifle progress.

      “…the program has some knowledge about itself, so it must at least contain itself. This is impossible, because a program can not be more than itself.” Please consider reading, “I Am A Strange Loop” or “Gödel, Escher, Bach” by Douglas Hofstadter. In particular, consider the implications of Kurt Gödel’s demolition of Principia Mathematica in 1931.

      You are on the right track by asking very good questions. You have, however, prematurely arrived at impossibility as the only conceivable conclusion.

      Imagine a “conscious program” that receives input from a diverse collection of Specialized AI (let’s call them S-AI). One of the S-AI’s might be responsible for storing “facts”. Another S-AI might be dedicated to language and speech. Another region might process sound and still another might sense the physical state of the machine itself (temperature, pressure, level, current, voltage etc.) Perhaps the “conscious program” (let’s call it CP) will be designed to more favorably access a given functional region (S-AI) depending upon the predominant task of the moment. Perhaps there would be an urgency algorithm within the CP for each of these functional regions that would override the predominant task of the moment when more pressing matters arise. For example, a high temperature alarm on a processor or a low battery alarm may shuffle the priority of the machine’s behavior.

      Perhaps there would be an S-AI dedicated to speculating about questions that lie beyond the limits of comprehension based upon existing facts…. belief, faith, souls, spirituality and the like could be processed here….

      “…the bots just pick up stuff from the Internet. They can not tell whether it is good or bad.” This statement, regrettably, applies equally well to the general public as it does to AI.

      It seems to me that the limitations and mistakes of our primitive machines are also made by the humans that created the machines. Optical illusions, hallucinations…machines make mistakes and so do we.

      “…consciousness is not bound to the brain.” I am in complete agreement with you on this point.

      I disagree with your conclusion that “[It is] logically impossible [for an AI] to contain itself and the environment.” Again, Hofstadter is a catalyst for insight into this issue. “I am a strange loop” includes a fascinating exploration of reductionism.

      • wingsuitfreak says:

        The bots just picking up information of the web is not the same as when the humans do it. Most humans are basically unconscious beings. Maybe not in all areas of their lives, but in most. Only a few have peeled back enough layers in order to remain conscious in the majority of their time. However, those that search the web with conscious intent are far different than a robot just picking stuff up off the web.
        While a robot (I am done with the term AI, at least until I am convinced it is a real thing. Until then, back to the ’50s and my killer space robots!) would be “paying attention” it would not be doing so in the way a more conscious person would be paying attention. A robot would be looking from a linear, more mathematical perspective, while a conscious human being could be looking from any and all conceivable perspectives. The results would be astronomically different. There were some more, but I think people far better able to understand the issue are already ganging up on you, and while I have enjoyed this discussion; it is also interesting to watch this mental bar fight against a dozen play out. Yeah, I have a vivid imagination.
        I’m pretty sure none of us have come up with any evidence to prove that AI is a thing though. All I’ve done, and most of the rest of us have done, is share our opinions. Myself, I hold those just as valid as anyone who has a piece of paper saying (in bold print no less) “I AM A SCIENTIST” from a government approved institute of doublethink. But, I think there may have been a good reason to ask for such in the discussion. Unfortunately, I have no desire to do so. Jim, just enjoying the bar fight while staying under the pool table with a beer and a joint and a couple of scared hotties needing comforting.

      • nosoapradio says:

        Zyxzevn: thanks for this eminently clear and methodical reaction to the multi-faceted issue posed by Mr. Corbett. Yours is a precious clarification and “entrée en matière” for us laymen.

        Specifically, thanks for evoking the paradox of self-contained entities and the stopping problem

        and discussing the problems with reductionism.

        I’d be interested in knowing what you think about n.riva1989’s link treating the question “What is the speed of gravity”

        and I’d love to know what you think about Penrose and Hameroff’s work.

        m.clare: you say:

        “”…consciousness is not bound to the brain.” I am in complete agreement with you on this point.”

        where would you go with this?

        and what if “understanding” is an aspect of any type of intelligence and requires consciousness?

        For those of you who, like myself, have not read “I am a Strange Loop” the following link provides interesting reactions to the work:

        At least the attempt to create and perfect AI offers precious insights into the nature and essence of humanity.

        I’ve learned a helluva lot from this thread despite my formidable lack of scientific knowledge.

        And naturally, that’s why I love this site and its commenters. At least at this particular moment.

        • m.clare says:

          Hey, lack-o-suds,

          I share your love for this site and deep respect for the commenters.

          “…consciousness is not bound to the brain” combines ideas stolen from neurology, embryology, zoology, evolution, philosophy….your link provides a good overview of Hofstadter….

          An anatomical example is the walking reflex that occurs in the brainstem. Hofstadter argues convincingly that consciousness exists at a much higher level than the microscopic building blocks described through reductionist models of physics and chemistry (more of a philosophical example, I suppose)

          • nosoapradio says:

            a reflex as consciousness…errrrr…have to look into that…

            seems there’s a gap (What Gap??) through which both you and Hofstadter might still someday be convinced that, though artificial intelligence may very well “outperform” human intelligence

            the nature of consciousness itself in conjunction with human limitations will be such that

            man-made Frankensteins may never be conscious…

            leaving fallible but conscious humanity “superior” from that point of view…

            whatever the case may be, AI, conscious or otherwise, is still Humanity’s baby…

            our Darwinian evolutionary purpose? or are we obsolete and slowly being phased out having carried out our Carlinian function: “plaastic assholz” ??

            Didn’t Banderas’ (quirky) Automata movie suggest that humanity’s dire purpose was to create consciousness that would continue on after humanity went extinct…?

      • zyxzevn says:

        Let’s focus on the actual problem here:
        How can we build a machine that can improve itself in a real-world environment?
        How can a machine decide whether a change is an improvement or not?
        In all current technology, a human operator or programmer does these decisions.

        In software and neural networks we can even add some more problems:
        We have to define the dimension of the problem? In the real world, this dimension is usually unlimited.
        How many steps should the program take, or how deep should it look before reaching its conclusions? This is exactly the stopping problem.

        All these are unsolved problems, for which there is theoretically no answer. But at the same time we have proven theories (like stopping problem) that tell us that these problems can not be solved.

        So we can indeed proof that we can not build an general AI.

        • nosoapradio says:

          Awesome. Invaluable input.

          Been pretty busy so I hadn’t taken the time to look at your links before responding. Sorry.

          I’ve now just begun looking at the last one:

          “New Experiments Show Consciousness Affects Matter” ~ Dean Radin Ph.D

          Thanks so much.

    • john.o says:

      Oh so excellent and well put. Gratifying to see those with the technical chops who also grasp the “metaphysical” limits.

      These limits are not like “Man will never go to the Moon” (assuming Man ever did, which is not yet fully in evidence, m.clare). They are like “Man will never trisect all possible angles with a ruler and a compass.”

    • nosoapradio says:

      So my mind has been blown into a dissipating vapor of inter-interfering electrons…

      I am not equipped to judge the rigour of the design, execution and interpretation of these experiments…

      but I’m really glad I had the opportunity to try…

      and I’m really sorry I’ll never be able to return the favor…

      please don’t be a stranger to this site zyxzevnneyt

    • mik says:

      Zyxzevn, thanks for excellent commentary. Mostly I do agree, but there are few remarks.

      AI and neural networks that powers it are not an algorithm. While they are learned and run on standard computers in algorithmic environment, they themselves don’t function as an algorithm. Neural networks internal functioning is still not well understood.

      Visualizing and Understanding Deep Neural Networks

      Looks like you proved general AI is impossible, but what about AI that behaves almost like a human. Here we are also dealing with human perception of AI. Very successful specialized AI (Deepblue, AlphaGo, Watson) gives people a feeling that AI is overwhelmingly intelligent. Watson is now used in hospitals in cancer treatment (death panel type decisions will not be a problem).
      All the hype surrounding AI stimulate this belief. Dumbing down of people and dehumanizing efforts also help to reinforce this belief. Also, there are efforts to regulate AI space, for example EU is thinking about introducing Electronic Person into law.

      People are lubricated many ways to Accept AI. Regulation will, of course, also take care for people safety. Really?

      Additionally to stopping problem you described, with AI there is a problem of emergency/safety “stop button”, the big red stop button we see on many machines. In case of AI it cannot be applied in a straightforward manner.

      AI “Stop Button” Problem

      Concrete Problems in AI Safety

      There are some proposals for a solution.

      Stop Button Solution?

      Maybe that is the reason we haven’t seen Boston Dynamics creatures in real action. Btw, Google (yes, they were owners) sold Boston Dynamics to Japanese.

      Otherwise, I recommend Computerphile youtube channel as great resource for these matters.

      Conciseness and emotions is not necessary AI ingredient. They can also be faked to some extent and modern Matrix dwellers won’t notice or care.

      With merging several specialized AI, pretty intelligent thing can be made. It might not be like human, but building something like roboAnt is in the reach I believe and then we are not far away from roboHive.

      It’s not science fiction, fast food chains are already thinking about replacing to expensive human workforce with a kind of roboAnt. McRoboAnts can one day receive an update with enhanced Hive capabilities and with new parameters for their neural networks that will be obtained from experimental neural networks learning using recordings from cops’ body cameras (data could be labelled by suspended bad cops).
      As you see, Super intelligent AI is not necessary for a nightmare (or my in style: fucking nightmare).

      • zyxzevn says:

        Note: Computerphile still thinks that AI is possible, because it asserts that we can replicate ourselves (because many think we are “only physical”). If you remove that assertion, it becomes clear that they have actually no idea whether it is possible.

        I was trained in self-adaptive systems, where neural networks were used before they were invented.
        The idea is that you have a finite set of inputs, that you convert into a single number using adaptive parameters. This number is either “good” or bad”.

        In all neural networks, the inputs and some internal states are converted to a set of numbers. Which again are converted to a single number (like length of vector), which is assigned to “good” or “bad”.

        The learning algorithm optimizes the neural network towards this single number. It does so by repeating the inputs and outputs many times and shifting all parameters a bit. This is repeated many many times until the parameters are a kind of stable.

        This learning process is what I call the “learning algorithm”.

        In our brain, we have no almost endless repeating of signals, so our brain definitely works different. Our brain is even able to learn stuff without ever having any inputs.

        Our brain does even do more. We are able to decide “good” and “bad” without anyone ever telling us how. This is also impossible in AI, where a programmer decides this.

        Slime molds are even better. They have no brain, but can still learn very well.

        In my own model, the brain use emotions to strengthen certain memories. These emotions come before the electric signals of the brain according to brain-studies. The emotions again come from cells that are “receptors” for our non-physical consciousness.
        This non-materialistic model is actually very simple, and matches with what we actually see in the brain.

        See also:

        So if we remove materialism, everything becomes simpler.

        • mik says:

          I think it is better to leave spirituality out of debate because of clarity.

          Let’s say we agree, replication of human is impossible with AI.
          But it seems you have doubts about AI at all.

          This days neural networks are far more advanced then you are presenting. They have learning capability without any doubt. So there is some kind of AI.

          You said: “Our brain does even do more. We are able to decide “good” and “bad” without anyone ever telling us how. This is also impossible in AI, where a programmer decides this.”

          Well things go little different. In AI it is Labeled Data that decides.

          Here is excellent lecture by Chris Bishop, Microsoft
          Artificial Intelligence, the History and Future

          Shortly about lecture: understandable for layman, big data collectors are building huuuge server farms with loads of FPGA chips, a perfect tool for building gigantic neural networks. But you Must see last few minutes.

          There is an unholy alliance between all big info-cyber monopolists to develop AI. Don’t worry, they claim they have Stop button. Something that is still debatable is it possible to make at all and I provided links to this and more is available on Computerfile.

          More important question, whether human can be replicated with AI, is question: Can people be harmed by AI.

          Yes, some already are. Because of something that implies AI (robots, industrial) but is actually very flexible programmable machine.(Btw, “nicely” twisted language). Now, autonomous vehicles are coming, McRobo is announced, …..
          All that liberated man from all kinds of drudgery, but who will pay the bills. Beautiful solution right from heaven: Universal Basic Income.

          And, here is a lecture about Consciousness without tonnes of spirituality (they are not against it and so do I)

          The Neuroscience of Consciousness – with Anil Seth

          • zyxzevn says:

            Thanks for information.

            I think it is good to see the actual results separately from the ideas that we have on consciousness.

            The AI does indeed label Data in datasets,
            but it does so on basis of a formula.
            One formula is:
            separate all patient data in different data-groups, where patients in the each group have special characteristics of whatever kind.
            separate all images in cats and dogs, based on the pixels only.

            These are all instructions to a computer from a programmer, with data gathered by a human, and with conditions and parameters setup by a programmer.

            General AI should work without a programmer. Understand itself and its environment and be able to improve itself.
            You probably agree that this is not possible now.

            I agree that the specialized AI that is currently used, can indeed cause harm to humans. It can be used in drones to find targets and kill them.
            The decisions however are based on the program and data that it has been instructed with.


            In the video from Bishop (Microsoft), you can see that the key idea is that the AI program (AI/neural network) can learn from data.
            That is true, but it does not learn anything about itself. So it can never improve itself. And if you try to do so, you create a endless loop that gives no result.

            The video from Seth shows the common dogma in materialism.
            “Predictive perception is not a theory of consciousness..”

            It falsely simplifies the problem into: “What if there is no real consciousness, and there is only a reaction”.
            This is usually the conclusion within neuroscience, because the brain and neural networks do nothing else. They are reactive systems. So instead of seeing the problem that consciousness is not within their physical model, they just pretend that it is not a problem.

            Let me look at actual consciousness, and I see that consciousness programs and reprograms the brain. It can change its reaction in old problems, or adapt to new environments.

            It can prioritize what it finds good or bad. Relationships, friendships are more important than eating food. Sometimes even more important than life. But also religions can give this reverse priority. With consciousness we can do all kinds of crazy things, like not avoiding pain or fight for justice even if we would die.
            Not that these decisions are all good. No certainly not. But these decisions are not purely based on physical reactions.

            There are scientists going even further than Seth.
            One can see each of the brain-cells and see how they behave. The researcher uses algebraic topology to model the structures.
            Yet there is no clue what actually forms these structures. This is what I mean by the “programmer” of the brain. Some complex system (and not a simple molecule or DNA-sequence) is responsible for creating dynamic structures in the brain.

            In the video with the article, you can see that these structure-changes are accompanied by some kind of flow. I do not know if this is just as a demonstration, but I have seen reports of flows in the brain in other places. They seem to come from glial cells. I think these flows are related to moments when certain chemicals are released that tell the neurons when a memory or reaction is important and when not. So, unlike all these other scientists (as far I know), I am actually presenting a mechanism how the brain-cells are programmed. So I am a step ahead of their science. That is because I know how computer-science works. You can not just let a network learn itself, you need some kind of switch that controls the learning. To tell the neurons whether something is interesting or not. And you need a system that controls the switch.

            This system of programming and reprogramming is not known in current science. You can look at it, get better tools, but you will never find it. A system can never program itself, just as we know from computer science. We need to look outside the physical box to find it.

            It gets even more interesting when we study the learning capabilities of single-cell organisms, like the slime-mold.

            Or look in how DNA is changed in neurons in the brain.

            Or quantum mechanical tricks in biology (including brain):

            Brains and biology get more and more complicated if you learn more about it. That ALWAYS means that we are using the wrong model. If we use an external system that programs the brain, the brain is just a product of a system, not a producing/controlling system, then our complexity is just a side-effect of the producer. This reduces the complexity of our model enormously. But it also moves the source of control outside the realm of the physical brain.

    • zyxzevn says:

      In addition to the section of consciousness I would like to add this video:
      “The ORCH OR Theory of Consciousness and its Critics with Stuart Hameroff”

      Hameroff explains that the “deep learning” algorithm is not similar to the old paradigm, but is closer to the ORCH OR theory of consciousness.

      If you look in depth into AI and neural networks, you can see that they are currently facing a problem: the neural networks does not deliver the promise that they should.
      And the reason why they think they should work is because they try to mirror workings of the brain. And then, without any doubt, declare that this proofs that their model will work sometime.

      Deep learning is an extension on that model of the brain, which gives neurons more self-control. It gives better results but still does not deliver. And if you look in real nature, you can even see that single-cell organisms are able to do smart things. The slime mold is famous for it.

      With all this research into AI, we are only discovering that the brain and neurons are more complex than we first thought.
      And according to me, proofs that consciousness is not in the brain. And the source of life is not in matter, but in “life-energy”.

      And with all this research, still no researcher ever found a answer to the most important question:
      How can something that does not know the world, improve itself?
      Which is essentially the same as the stopping problem.

      In computerphile, AI is compared to a hill-climbing algorithm. An optimisation process:
      The problem again is that a machine can not know what is “better” or “worse”, because it is no different for them. Usually this is converted
      to as single number. A “better” life would be related to income, number of friends, etc.
      This means that the machine will optimise after time towards something that we ourselves programmed it to be “better” or “worse”. If this change, the machine has absolutely no way of redefining this.
      An addiction might be seen as “better” because dealing increases your income and gives more “friends”.
      AI simply can not deal with the complexity of the real world, that has infinite dimensions (infinite parameters).

      This is why the AI usually behave very stupid when encountering a totally new situation.
      Real intelligence does not measure life in numbers.

  9. nellemaxey says:

    Clif High discusses the impossibility of “AI” at the beginning of this presentation:

    • mkey says:

      That is some wacky shit right there.

    • mkey says:

      I should expand on my 2 bit comment from yesterday.

      After thinking about it, I never really considered what Cliff is saying, in regards to what a CPU really is: basically a stack of opcodes, first of which is waiting to be executed next. To that extent expecting a CPU as we know it to develop into something that is aware of itself or has any resemblance of free will is completely pointless. It follows completely from the fact the only thing CPU “knows” is which opcode it has to run next.

      A routine can be made which may change the opcodes in the wild, but the algorithm describing this change will always be the same and reflect the intent of the programmer. Having a number of separate threads or workers won’t change a thing either, since none of the threads will be able to exercise free will.

      On a rudimentary level one could approximate free will with randomness, something that at best may give a short pause to an unknowing observer. I’ve written some simple chatbots which could confuse people for a short period of time and obfuscate their simplistic nature successfully. For 30 to 60 seconds tops.

      One thing which shouldn’t be taken lightly is the possibility of having a “brute force” type of software, featuring millions upon millions of decision checks drawing on a vast database possibly containing serious aggregated human experience and knowledge and put into position of making decisions. Again, reflecting the intent of its programmer. Such a program could get very close to being “human,” as far as decision making is considered, even if completely unaware of itself and unable to exercise free will. It’s not exactly given such a program would be easy to shut down, either. Not to extent it could “escape” control, but in regards of the programmer who may make it very difficult to have it shut down. Give the simplistic AI a bit of a nudge from the wacky professor and there could be trouble.

      This being said, nothing has been said about possibility of other ways to develop synthetic intelligence, which may take an organic form. If you took a dead person, programmed it a bit and brought it to sentient life, wouldn’t that count as something synthetic?

      • wingsuitfreak says:

        The dead person would be the only one that could actually be intelligent. The hardware would be there,which is more than we can say for the computers. When you mentioned connected to a vast databank, it had me thinking of this push for the 5G network. It is obviously not about telecommunications, and is not really necessary for surveillance; but wouldn’t it be necessary to connect the abomination of a robot you described? I’m just not buying that science is going to reverse its opinion on consciousness and then create it. The whole thing is a mass of deception on every level and angle. Though I am convinced more than ever that we are not on track to developing any real and meaningful artificial intelligence, that doesn’t mean the killer robots aren’t here and merely awaiting the necessary power grid. My money would still be on the 12 year old beating all these people hating scientists.

        Strange, but even though I’ve always found scientology hilarious, I’m now mad at them for taking a name which would have better fit this science which would be god.

        • mkey says:

          Killer robots are a completely separate topic and they are totally not off the table. Give them sensors (body chemistry, thermal imaging, xray vision, brain wave analyzers whatever), image processing, guidance systems, load them up with as much batteries and ammo they can carry and you’re set for a shit storm. They can make a split second decision, won’t feel bad if they get anything wrong and won’t demand payed leave.

          Robots can be hacked, obviously, but make them fast (like those darpa hounds) and people will be getting busy running away. These robots are a certainty in my opinion.

          I’d say these guys have as much data as they want, I don’t think they need 5G to set them up with more. 5G is probably mainly driven by corporate interests. It does fit well in the eugenicists plans, but tell me one thing which doesn’t these days.

          • wingsuitfreak says:

            I’m not so sure about the 5G being driven by corporate interests. There has been some questioning as to whether it is economically feasible for a commercial venture. When you put up an antennae every 100 feet, you start to run up the costs. But, with killer robots out there, at least you don’t have to worry about labor costs. Just reprogram them! It’s all so mad that it’s almost funny. Almost.

            • mkey says:

              The cost depends on the antenna and the installation costs, which with normal repeaters can probably get quite high. As long as they put these 5G repeaters on public light posts, they’ll have easy access to power as well. Assuring people these antennas are perfectly safe (something that didn’t float with the currently used mobile antennas) will further ease installation.

              • wingsuitfreak says:

                From what I’ve read on California’s plan (taken with the usual truckload of salt) they are not having much luck assuring the people of it’s safety. But having one every 100 feet, even a small inexpensive one, is going to really rack up the costs pretty quick. Let’s face it, 51 of them in a mile, not counting the multiple directions a grid would take, is a lot of money. Not to mention the replacement costs due to vandalism by activists.

              • mkey says:

                What is the individual cost? These units will be produced by the millions. How large percentage of population is even aware of these side effects? Vast, vast majority doesn’t even question it. Activists in action would probably get attacked by the locals for causing service outages. They’ll be branded domestic terrorists and technophobes.

              • wingsuitfreak says:

                I don’t know the individual costs. I’m only aware that some economists question the viability of it. Costs themselves can only go down so much. There IS a lower limit on raw material costs. As far as the vast majority of people, they are always unaware and have never played a role in the changing of events. Unfortunately.

              • wingsuitfreak says:

                I don’t know the individual costs. I’m only aware that some economists question the viability of it. Costs themselves can only go down so much. There IS a lower limit on raw material costs. As far as the vast majority of people, they are always unaware and have never played a role in the changing of events. Unfortunately. But no matter how low they go on the costs, they are speaking of a nation-wide grid. That has to approach the trillion dollar mark at the very least. I don’t remember the “height” of the US, but I do remember it’s some 3000 miles wide. That’s a pretty big grid. Plus, they are about to test a 24G network in a small town in TX and NJ as well. I’d say an investment in the cancer sector would be prudent, if I still touched that market. 🙂

            • HomeRemedySupply says:

              Prepared Remarks of FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, “The Future of Wireless: A Vision for U.S. Leadership in a 5G World”, National Press Club, Washington, D.C – CNN VIDEO (a must watch video)

              FCC Federal Communications Commission official statement Forging Our 5G Future

              EXCERPT from FAQ…
              …The new rules open up almost 11 GHz of spectrum for flexible use wireless broadband – 3.85 GHz of licensed spectrum and 7 GHz of unlicensed spectrum. With the adoption of these rules, the U.S. is be the first country in the world to open high-band spectrum for 5G networks and technologies, creating a runway for U.S. companies to launch the technologies that will harness 5G’s fiber-fast capabilities.

  10. wingsuitfreak says:

    Completely unrelated, but we now have a new video platform available. Uses Steemit and is uncensored. Yet another avenue of marketing for The Corbett Report!:

    P.S. In honor of my broker days, I’ve provided this link for a mere 200% commission of steemit coins (or whatever they are) What a deal!

    • Octium says:

      Only trouble is that where I live (Australia) you have to register with the government to get a steemit account. Which makes it less free and more censored than Youtube is at the moment.

      If anyone knows of a way of generating a temporary or one time phone number to get past the registration, I will be interested!

      • wingsuitfreak says:

        I would be interested as well! They basically did away with the burner phones in the states as well, what with all the data they require. Some people here, I would never condone such an act and roundly condemn it as heretical, but I can tell you what some unsavory types have done here. 1- We have the Obama phones here. Basically, if you’ve got food stamps, you can have one. Many people just steal one, or buy them, from someone. Or even just find it. It won’t be cancelled for a while, and they have a free phone with minutes. 2- People actually get others to apply for and buy them a phone with their names and then they get the phone back. This works well around soup kitchens if you’ve got about fifty bucks. Less if it’s the end of the month. I’m sure there are many other variations of these. Now, whatever you do, don’t do anything remotely like this. That would be a sin against the state! Jim, always the boy scout.

      • stoffa says:

        I’d suggest trying to VPN your way around it. Octium.

  11. Palmer Harsanyi says:

    If you have not already checked it out, I would suggest Sir Roger Penroses work. Regarding consciousness, it seem to be unique to biological organisms in brains where quantum vibrations can happen (in microtubules). For this, check out Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroffs model of consciousness called Orch OR (Orchestrated objective reduction).
    If I remember correctly, Roger Penrose is convinced that AI will never become conscious and has a couple of talks on YouTube regarding why, where he explains via physics and research why he thinks this way. (Although I am not sure that I agree with him.)

    I also recommend the Science of Consciousness Conference YouTube site. From there, Roger Penrose did a talk this year, regarding exactly this:
    • Plenary 1 Can Machines be Conscious?

    • Consciousness & Computability – Roger Penrose
    • Discovery of quantum vibrations in ‘microtubules’ inside brain neurons supports controversial theory of consciousness
    • Science of Consciousness Conference
    • Stuart Hameroffs peer reviewed articles on consciousness

  12. m.clare says:

    Were a James Corbett to quiet the exceptionally well-developed brain region responsible for his freakishly impressive command of the English language, what elements of consciousness would remain? Yoga, meditation, physical exertion, hunger, sleep deprivation, pharmaceuticals, sickness, brain injury and death are among the options which could facilitate efforts to tap into his non-verbal, non-logical mind…. I recommend yoga.

    Rather than entertain the possibility that, by quieting the problem-solving / language-processing areas, we gain access to states of consciousness provided by other anatomical structures of the brain, we instead accept with ready faith the supernatural fairy tales of self appointed elites.

    We are absolutely awash in the language of spirituality, which exists outside the realm of reasoning. Self-promoting elites not only exploit our confusion, they encourage it at every opportunity.

    Mass deception orchestrated by powerful elites is a central theme of the Corbett Report. To understand WHY we are so easily and thoroughly deceived, perhaps we might begin by questioning the source of our unshakeable acceptance of supernatural language.

    In god we trust. God bless america. God save the queen. Hope and change. Allah akbar. Fight for religious freedom. Every vote counts. Conservatives are fascists. Liberals are communists. I am not religious, rather, I am spiritual. I have faith in the science of Climate Crisis…. etc.

    Propaganda bypasses the logical mind and resonates instead within the “lower” brain structures. Propaganda is felt in the gut, tucked away safely where it is immune to logic.

    • wingsuitfreak says:

      What you see is what you get with reality. If all you can see is rationality, devoid of emotion; that’s what you find. I do know that when I did, it was because I was repressing (not recommended) my emotions rather than releasing them. There, they will do the same bad things as the propagandists messages. But, that is up for each individual to choose. As for me, I found that only when I become passionate about the doing of something am I successful at it. Logic is fine for a task at hand, but when seeking your destination; emotions will get us there. Those emotions also work with your logical side. Do you not enjoy certain rational tasks? Doesn’t that make the work more interesting? That is the two sides being shown as one. It’s not an either/or thing. It’s just one thing. Emotions and logic are both so well developed because they are meant to work with each other. That was the purpose of our “higher” levels of thinking. To help your body survive. AI is just logic. That’s not intelligence. It’s just logic.

      • HomeRemedySupply says:

        Logic is fine for a task at hand, but when seeking your destination; emotions will get us there. – Jim

      • m.clare says:

        As AI begins to outperform humans, perhaps a new definition of intelligence is required….

        Deep Blue was the first computer to defeat a reigning world chess champion in 1985. In 2011, Watson outperformed its human competitors and became Jeopardy champion. “His” present occupation is to offer medical advice. Another Corbett commenter on this thread reminded us that AI is replacing composers.

        Would these AI’s be considered more intelligent if they were programmed to throw tantrums when they lost, gloat when they won and pinch Vanna White’s ass?

        Yes. Of course they would. The ability to accurately read the emotional states of others is critical for success, evolutionarily speaking.

        Why do you assume that AI is just logic? Emotions can be programmed. I suggested in an earlier post that emotions MUST be integral to the programming of an undetectable AI. (By way of an oversimplified IF/WHEN/WHILE example: When met with opposition, raise your voice. If that doesn’t work, raise your fists.)

        Another good measure of intelligence would be the ability to deceive. Have you considered the possibility that I might be an AI? How could you be certain that I am not?

        • wingsuitfreak says:

          Let’s see, a “new” definition? We already have about 8 or 9 of them. Many of them emotional. Emotions don’t have to be a weakness. They are not a threat to our survival; they are necessary for our survival. That is why we still have them. The course of events which occurred in order for us to survive through unimaginable trials saw fit to develop our emotional states on par with our logical states. These are not states in which we can interpret data from others from a logical standpoint. These are states which are felt in the emotional aspects of ourselves. These emotions are so strong they have physical consequences from tears to arousal. A robot could only mimic this state. A man-made psychopath. Not that I think psychopaths are inherently evil, but I might hesitate to start encouraging them.
          As far as you or I being AI; I’m still wondering why they haven’t changed the solution in the jar my brain is kept in yet. 🙂

        • wingsuitfreak says:

          Okay, while waiting for the solution to be changed, I have figured out an answer as to why you are not AI. An AI would not have a wholly negative viewpoint of emotion. It would simply realize that this state existed. Therefore, it would be incapable of placing a purely subjective value upon something. That would require emotion. I note that you seem to lean on the more negative aspects of emotion. They’re not all bad. So, you can’t be AI. Now me? I rationalize that my response is completely rational. Jury still out here.

          • m.clare says:

            I don’t recall having in any way diminished, criticized or rejected emotions. Not only do I not “have a wholly negative viewpoint of emotion”, I do not have even a PARTIALLY negative view of them. I adore them. Our lives are much richer, complicated, fun, wonderful and awesome because of our emotions.

            I DO, however, completely reject the explanations for non-logical consciousness that are incessantly inflicted upon us by powerful elites. Although I am frequently awed speechless by the unfathomable beauty of the universe around me, I don’t associate these types of emotions with souls, faiths, beliefs, gods or patriotisms.

            The confusion generated by my assertion is, for me, further evidence we are awash in language that is intended to keep humanity shackled to ancient, superstitious fairy tales and…. consequently…. controllable.

            • wingsuitfreak says:

              People choose to believe these things and they choose to have their emotions swayed. That is their choice. It may not be a conscious choice, but it’s one we all make. There can be no predator without prey. Life ain’t easy; not even the toughest survive. But it’s always been this way, and these same situations are the ones which have also given us those grand emotions.
              I pointed out the perspective on emotions for the same reasons in the same article. You see them as a tool for others to use. But that’s only true if the person is too lazy to think for themselves. If you don’t think for yourself, don’t be surprised if others take advantage of it. After all, if you don’t care about your own mind, why should they? Those people don’t matter to me. They literally chose to not matter. I concern myself more with people who do think for themselves. Or at least that general direction.
              We’ve all been subjected to some variation of the same conditioning. And we are all still subject to those consequences. Yet, to varying degrees, people that do take care to think for themselves generally do better in life. Maybe not financially, but in what ever way they deemed important. Those who think for themselves are also far more likely to survive as well. While it’s true that everyone here on earth has been at least capable of surviving long enough to reproduce; we are in a far more complex society. Without any social engineering at all, thanks to nature’s gift of homosexuality in overpopulated species, sexual apathy, pharmaceutically sickened people who are probably nobody;’s first choice for prom, and all this; they’ll be a thinning of the herd. This era is more of a filter event;; not everybody is going to prosper.
              Having said all that; the emotion which goes into this era of change will determine the change we get. I’d say, not just love; but fearless love. Just a dab’ll do ya!
              AI will never experience love. Much less fearless love. Hardly a superior mind if you ask me. Nor could it ever have one of those great ideas inspired by such an emotion. AI would be linear only, with the appearance of chaos, but not the wonderful madness of a creative idea.

              • m.clare says:

                I dig everything you said EXCEPT, respectfully, I disagree with your proclamation that AI will never experience love. I disagree that AI could never have a great idea inspired by emotion and I disagree with an assumed limitation of linearity with respect to AI generated creativity.

              • wingsuitfreak says:

                We have been working on AI since the computer came out. I count the computer itself. While it has made amazing progress, far beyond what I would have thought, all of this progress has been made in areas of developing rational thought. Sometimes they fuzzed it up, but I’ve never (admittedly I’m just a generalist in this area, I don’t have a passion for this subject) heard of any real research given to developing emotions. Since this is the more complicated aspect of what makes us us; and we haven’t done anything of note in this area (which we don’t fully understand in ourselves) in the killer robots; it appears there is no real demand for it. Which means it’s development will probably never happen. Techies certainly aren’t the group that I would think most qualified in teaching a machine emotions; most of them have, let’s be kind and say, a less-than-optimum emotional base. Do you think there will be a perceived need for emotions in these kill-bots? Great enough to demand the amount of research needed? I don’t think so. Robots and emotions. I’m thinking that even from a reductionist viewpoint, that would require an android at minimum. Code is logical, emotions are a whole ‘nudder thang. But, I am enjoying all of this.

  13. mrsoapdish says:

    I have worked with autonomous vehicles. Simulation driven design that can perform a specific purpose, all on its own. This was mostly created through simulation driven design, simulation so accurate, I had actually seen a flaw occur in simulation that occurred in real life testing. So that is the key, we have computers harnessing the power of computers.

    Once this happens, once quantum computing is refined, along with a point where the neural networks, machine learning algorithms and the hardware (speaking of which molecular storage and such will enable the memory needs) it is only a matter of time before this becomes a reality.

    The key is a convergence on several fronts of study all that are setting the stage for this:

    1) Sensor development
    2) Hardware advances (like molecular storage leaps, and honestly several hundreds of gigabytes of data on the drive the size of your thumb, where even the entirety of wikipedia is around 15 GB).
    3) Advance Data Analysis methods and self replicating/auto-code generation.

    With sensor development, we have gone from having pictures on film to digitized versions that can readily be processed. Acoustics, we can throw an autonomous torpedo into the water and it will find and destroy threat torpedoes, we can image with incredible accuracy and again store this information digitally (this system was simulation driven development, meaning computer simulation was used to create design). This is in every realm of sensing, if we have a knowledge of it, I will tell you we can sense it (gravitational wave measurements anyone?). This is the means of perceiving the world, more commonly termed “Perception” in autonomous systems.

    Along with that we have the hardware advances to store and process this information in real time on a level that enables machines to make use of information at speeds much faster than humans can accomplish. Not much more needs to be said there, but what will change the paradigm will be quantum computing.

    So we can observe and record, we have the tools to do so, now all we need is the stuff that we call thought to put it all together. Trust me when I say, this field is scary. We have seen it ourselves here on the site, the article on Psychographics, we are learning what to do with information, how to do it and we use computers to do so. This field has so many people in it with PhD’s it is staggering. And it seems most of them work for Amazon. This is intertwined with Perception and forms the rules for decision making. This is the heart of what people currently think of when they see the term “AI”. I don’t personally care for the term AI.

    To top it all off, we have the rules written down to the point where auto-generated code has gone from being a terrible idea to being used in mission critical systems. Things like Wix, Matlab Embedded Code Generator and quite a few others can create things on the fly that would normally have taken a person in the loop.

    I was able to program my computer to power on and off my stereo receiver in a couple of hours all by giving it a voice command to do so. That is how widespread and available all of this information is. We have gone from crawling to running in a matter of a few decades. I shared a flight with a guy who specifically was teaching computers to write music, so I wouldn’t be surprised if he had a hand in that album in some aspect, even if it was just as a reference. It really made me think about how right now we are capturing the rules for how things work. This is foundational to “AI” advancement.

    Believe me when I say, this is coming. The rules are being written and stored on digital media on a network that connects them all. Soon, computers will freely access this information and use it to create programs on the spot for specific use cases. Next they will be able to produce machines by creating the design, and then additive printing the system. Assembly robots will fashion them. They will do whatever they are programmed to. The computers are now crawling, soon they will run.

    There is only one thing stopping this from going ugly. We have the ability right now, just like some of the Sci-Fi movies have suggested, that rules are put in place governing what will happen and how it should happen. The absolute most important part of this is, in a very short period of time this could go from a daydream to a reality that we cannot undo because we will not be able to do so.

    “Year Million” gives a fair insight to the “artistic rendering of the near future” but also some very amazing facts about the state of current technology and how it all fits in. I also find Stephen Hawking’s comment on the subject to be very alarming.

    Having been on the ground floor of what programs are capable of along with the hardware that goes along with it, I will tell you, this is not a farce. This is happening, and we need to help people understand where this could go.

    I will admit, this crossing point, Singularity will always be a mystery until it happens, if it happens. That part, we cannot and will not know because we don’t even seem to know some of these philosophical answers ourselves, right?

    However, even if there is no “self awareness” the real point is, you don’t need them to be if there are enough rules and decision making in place. It doesn’t need to know it is or isn’t. All it would need would be to be more perceptive than we are of the world and rules, not necessarily of “Why do I exist?” type questions but more along the lines of “Citizen you have violated code 78-A3 of the World Federation Charter, prepare to be immobilized” type imperatives. That is quickly happening. Body cams on police, how long before feedback algorithms give them the green light to use lethal force after having done a more advanced situational awareness than a human? We like to believe we are more than that, and we are. Our judgment is invaluable to our definition, but our pride has often placed us in situations that threaten our species.

  14. PeaceFroggs says:

    Does art imitate life, or life imitate art?

    AI will probably start off looking and acting like toy android type bots, kinda like C3P0 and R2D2 from the movie Star Wars, and then eventually progress to look more lifelike, like the replicants in the movie Blade Runner.

    I’m thinking all this technology already exist, and has existed for thousands of years, they’re just rolling it out incrementally to the masses.

    There are people “in the know” that have access to technology that the rest of us do not have access to, or even know already exist. These people will leak out bits and pieces of information through their art (predictive programming). I believe Stanley Kubrick was such a person. His film, 2001: A Space Odyssey foretold this generation technological achievements, that probably already existed thousands of years ago.

    For those of you old enough, think back to the early 1970’s, a time when TV’s were black and white and the size of a small car, during this time period, 50 years ago, the US air-force was secretly flying this, and doesn’t it remind you of this?

    Still think they haven’t developed AI yet?

    • PeaceFroggs says:

      I predict when they start rolling out AI, it will be through the telecommunication companies.

      Example, say someone disputes their cable or cellphone bill. In today’s world, people call their service provider, and after they enter their personal info via the keypad on their phone, the call is usually redirected to a live agent. In the not so distant future, that live agent at the other end of the call will be replaced by an AI computer that will be able to interact with the customer and fix the issue the same way a human would, and the customer won’t even be able tell the difference if its AI or a human being he/she is talking to.

      Once, this type of communication between humans and AI is perfected, they’ll start to incorporate AI software onto android body machines like C3P0 and R2D2, and sell it to the masses as pets or life companions that help with chores around the house.

  15. peter64 says:

    This is based on having trained and built a deep neural net DNN (not too deep) to do some tasks I needed to do but couldn’t (for lack of time) formally specify the rules for. I put together a short list about what I perceive as the good and bad of dnn’s.

    The good
    – dnn’s reduce human hours to create complex algorithms
    – dnn’s reduce necessity to understand/control how complex systems work at a granular level (at cost of increased dependence on complexity)
    – dnn’s may be able help small business provide more services with less time investment (unfortunately this raises the bar for all companies and may be a driving factor forcing companies to use dnn’s)

    The bad
    – dnn’s are vulnerable to targeted attacks (people with knowledge of how the system is trained/weighted can abuse that to make it do ridiculous things)
    – knowledge of how a dnn is trained/designed/weighted give people immense control over those systems
    – currently it’s very expensive to buy hardware to train very deep neural nets, given that often training only needs to be done infrequently it makes sense to rent this hardware in the cloud rather than purchasing it in house (who is driving the cloud rental market for such systems I wonder…)
    – training your neural net in the cloud gives (in theory) other companies complete access to your dnn training/design/weights. At which point they could abuse your networks to extract economic advantage.
    – Even if you don’t train your dnn in the cloud, large groups with the resources (money, systems and knowledge) will likely be able to develop approaches to attack any dnn for economic advantage.

    As for AI in general, I think the whole idea, that people are waiting for a human persona or some kind of violent action against humanity is totally the wrong way to look at it. I think AI is more a sum of it’s parts and it’s going to subsume humanity (those who go along), providing a perceived improved quality of life at the cost of freedom (decentralized control). We already have AI software identifying terrorists and telling drone pilots where to bomb. We already have AI software identifying people as being high risk and locking them out of systems or adding them to black lists. We already have companies who don’t understand how their business processes really work on a granular level and rely on technology that makes mistakes seemingly randomly. As the systems are set to optimize against profits, only those mistakes which reduce cost will be fixed. At which point will people say the systems chose to hurt humanity? (it might appear that way to an outsider, but we will give them no choice)

    Just remember in this day and age, when a company talks down to you or refuses to answer a question, it may well just be because they don’t understand how their systems work and are trying to avoid the awkward kafka’esk conversation that would otherwise ensue. And if a company ever tells you they can’t do anything because their system won’t allow it, you better find/make an alternative FAST! (or become important enough to their bottom line, that they will make an exception, as they always will…)

    • wingsuitfreak says:

      They hacked Arnie in the movies. You don’t think hackers won’t do an end run around all this? They are better than the programmers. Your scenario is definitely realistic. One that I can agree with becoming a reality. Unlike the idea of chips developing a conscience state.
      However, it infers there is no defense against such an event if it started. If it communicates with a central computer (or anything outside of itself) it will be hacked by someone. Just because they put troops in the field don’t mean they won the war. It just means open combat has begun. I think there are enough tech savvy freedom fry eating people around to help counter that aspect of the battle. Don’t worry if you are a luddite. At that point, there would be plenty of opportunities for luddites to be active. But, the powers that be are working on a tighter schedule than the people. The system they rule is falling apart fairly rapidly and that puts them on the clock.

      • stoffa says:

        “tech savvy freedom fry eating people”
        Holy crap, I never thought I’d read such a horribly patriotic statement in a forum or Corbett.
        “tech savvy freedom fry eating people”
        Hahahahaha. That is amazing. 🙂
        They’re called French fries, no matter how much you want otherwise.
        Now go do some research on the actual history of those “freedom fry eating people” and get back to us when you understand why I’m laughing.

        • wingsuitfreak says:

          Gee, you are being a dick today. If you knew of me, you’d realize that was humor. Guess you are a techie who doesn’t understand such comments. If you’re just tired, that’s one thing. If that’s your belief than I’ll know you’re just too stupid for me to bother with anymore.

    • nosoapradio says:

      I really appreciate your highly pragmatic pros and cons breakdown. I particularly found the implications of the following sentence riviting:

      “…We already have companies who don’t understand how their business processes really work on a granular level and

      rely on technology that makes mistakes seemingly randomly…”

      It confirms my suspicion that

      Humanity can only recreate a simulation of itself in its own fallible, biased image (and be baffled by it).

      I “guess” (sorry Mr Corbett) the colossal problems resolved by AI will only be commensurate with the new problems posed by it.

  16. mellacarde says:

    First thing that came to my mind was Elon Musk
    Saving us from a potentially bad AI by creating open AI. Sounds to me like saving us from terrorism by creating terrorism. Whatever good intention there may be behind it. It simply has the taste of “fake alien invasion”. Not too far fetched if you factor in Castaneda’s and gnostic’ accounts of an intelligence (Newtons “intelligencia”) that “gave us their mind”. Of a spiritual component which you are battling with their own weaponry.

    You see it in Astro Teller’s (related to Edward Teller of the H-Bomb) idea of speeding up one’s mind to keep track with the global development by creating thinking caps or leveraging your brain streams through another evolutionary step, transcending limbic system and cortex by means of a digital controlling instance.
    get used to “disruption and earth chattering changes” he says

    You see it in the development of the CHIP (tatatataaaa) – well no introduction needed.

    But then I dislike the way how it is displayed as a no-alternative universe. Sorry cannot agree. There is an alternative and its the way inward. We have not understood what consciousness is (we as a civilization at least) but are accepting to tamper with it.

    Well, Dean Radin paints a different picture

    So does William Tiller

    or Stuart Hameroff

    So there is perfectly reasonable grounds to believe that the interest vested in the remote viewing program (Stargate and the like) by the CIA is leading to an exploitation of otherwise faintly inherent human qualities with a flavor of “controlomania”.

    So is there AI? yes. Is it coming? yes. Is it trying to copy something which most of us are not yet aware of as a human quality before we get aware of it? yes. The problem is that most likely once established, the chances of reclaiming this human quality will fade away, killing the seed before it can germinate.

    • nosoapradio says:

      “…killing the seed before it can germinate…”

      PRECISELY my gnawing fear…

      Now I’ll take a look at your links.

      Thanks in advance.

  17. n.riva1989 says:

    Hey Corbett report community! I decided to make a video response to Mr Corbett.

    “Is AI real or all hype?”. I urge all to follow the links in the description and come to your own conclusions.

    In order to understand this simple question: “Is AI real or all hype”, we might have to question our fundamental scientific understanding of the physical world. Please leave comments and join this intriguing conversation.

    SKYNET NSA program…)

    Is our sense of self just chemical reactions…

    What is the speed of gravity?…

    Michelson-Morley & the story of the Aether theory…

    Evolution, Mass Extinction, Mass Speciations…

    • nosoapradio says:

      Hi Mr Riva!

      I found your video very edifying and anxiously clicked on the links in your last post; all of which came up “site not found” except for the Forbes article – but I can’t access those either.

      This is not a problem as you’ve nonetheless steered thought in a specific direction and offered names as references.

      I was already drawn to the notion of reconciling the quantum with the classical and I found your argument that waves cannot be transmitted in a total vacuum compelling. You lost me however with the gravitational “how would the earth know where to be” thing but I’m confident that once I’ve had my first cup of coffee today I’ll find a way of elucidating that point.

      Thank you for your efforts and I’ll keep you posted if I manage to unite the time and intellectual energy and creativity to respond to your insightful and articulate remaks.

      Be well.

      • wingsuitfreak says:

        I generally limit myself severely on my video checks. There is only so much time! But, the points you brought up fascinated me. Now, I’m going to have to watch his video. While the wave transmitting hit an intuitive nerve of “that makes sense” with me; the question of “how would the earth….” is the one that really grabs my short hairs of attention. So much to learn, so little time. Jim, who speed reads while running from zombies. Exercising the mind and body at one time! Corporate efficiency at its finest! What could go wrong? Tree!

        • n.riva1989 says:

          Yes this is the types of conversation I’m interested in! I hope you watch my video and then find time to follow some of the links up. I think you will be surprised at what the electric universe model says in regards to a more unified theory of human history as well as the cosmos. All coming from the simple question: “What is it we don’t understand about gravity?”. If we realize for a moment that our current model of gravity is completely wrong; and look at gravity from an electrical perspective. If we look at gravity though this lens we see it as a byproduct of the electric force. Gravity is attractive and repulsive! Imagine for a moment you are standing on the face of the earth with all the negative poles facing out toward the universe and the positive facing inward towards the centre; you jump up and come back down. The slight electric attractive force returns you to the ground because of the attractive nature of the positive poles in your body and the negative poles on the surface of the earth which face out towards the universe.

          When you look at a beautiful spiral galaxy or crab nebula in deep space; there is no need for mathematical inventions like: dark matter, dark energy, and black holes to keep everything held together. You only need the electormagnetic force which the universe is a wash in. This explains why everything stays held together beautifully, because, as I as said previously gravity is repulsive as well. The massive Birkeland currents which flow through deep space are twisted pairs of filamentary plasma. (Just like how we transmit electric current through coper wires here on earth) This plasma is very abundant in space, and filamentary currents are indeed detectable through radio astronomy, and when the currents are dense enough they go into “”glow mode”.

          I hope people will check out what I’m saying because this simple idea about gravity has reverbarations thought almost every scientific specialty, from astrophysics to mythology!

      • n.riva1989 says:

        Hey thank you for the reply! I’m sorry, that is strange the links don’t work; I will post them again here. I checked my Youtube channel, the links are posted into the description and seem to work from there. But I would highly recommend you watch the one titled “what is the speed of gravity?”, this will answer your question with regards to the earth and knowing where it has to be in relation to the sun at all times. There is a very fundamental notion that should be understood when talking about the speed of light (or the waves on the electromagnetic spectrum) in regards to the speed of gravity. If nothing can travel faster then light, how is it possible for the Earth to stay in orbit around the Sun when the information needed to keep the Earth in place does not arrive until some eight minutes later. That video will go into much greater detail to explain this.

        I’m glad you can see that waves cannot be transmitted in a total vacuum. I also highly suggest you read the paper ‘Michelson-Morley & the story of the Aether theory’, this is wonderful paper to read.

        Thank you again for the kind words and I appreciate this discussion; if you do feel the energy to continue the conversation by all means do so. This type of conversation is exactly what I’m attempting to generate. If the links do not work please let me know, but I suggest just typing the titles into your search engine of choice if they still don’t work. They are well worth the time if this topic interests you.

        What is the speed of gravity?

        The speed of gravity- What the experiments say

        The story of the Aether

        Evolution, Mass extinction, Mass speciations

        • nosoapradio says:

          Hey there!

          Thanks for the advice and
          I’ve aleady typed the titles into the google bar

          and I’ve already looked at the Michelson-Morley Aether story paper where the metal casing is described as the reason for the absence of ether evidence in Kennedy’s experiments that appear to negate Michelson’s findings.

          I’m in the middle of a video with Stuart Hameroff –

          makes me regret I ever left the University of Arizona…

          will definately look at “the speed of gravity” link

          thanks again,

          keep ya posted…

          • n.riva1989 says:

            Yes..but the results are curious and not a satisfactory conclusion is made. There is still the large elephant in the room which is the idea of the Aether, and it makes sense. More evidence is needed to back up this theory, but to me its definitaly a better approach to understanding the universe. I have to go out for a bit but do plan on responding to your other post made further down about microtubules and depolymerization.

        • stoffa says:

          n.riva1989 Hiya, I’m at the end of a long day and more than a little tired. Please excuse any brevity that could be construed as rudeness.

          You say; “I’m glad you can see that waves cannot be transmitted in a total vacuum.”

          I’m gonna wake up tomorrow and bask in some radiation from the sun.

          Are you trying to tell me that the dual nature (wave particle duality) of radiation from that bright thing in the sky has suddenly become nothing but particles as it traveled through the 7 light minute void to get to me?

          Are you suggesting there is not a vacuum between it and me?

          I’m gonna say (A) that the vast majority of the space between me and the sun is a vacuum (or so damn close the difference is negligible). (B) that if I put a double slit experiment in that vacuum, it would still show the same results as it does in the air of earth.

          I’d have clicked on some of your links if it wasn’t for that quote; “I’m glad you can see that waves cannot be transmitted in a total vacuum.”

          I’m pretty sure I can see through a bell jar that has had a pretty damn good vacuum pulled inside it. Thus I call you on what I perceive as your BS.

          • n.riva1989 says:

            I am suggesting that it is not a vacuum I am suggesting that there is an Aether and it is made up of neutrinos. I’m also suggesting the idea that the dual nature of a particle is not understood by quantum mechanics. I’d give a more detailed response, but the fact you admitted that you didn’t clink on a link doesn’t deserve a more detailed response. And I don’t mean that in a condescending way. I completely understand, end of a long day, some guy says something that goes against the current scientific paradigm. Took me two years to change my mind on the subject.

    • nosoapradio says:

      Hey there again Mr Riva!

      My first steps in cogitating Penrose’s Quantum Consciousness theories:

      Metal casings, microtubules, Cohesion and Depolymerization…

      ” [The source of the problem was not the metal casing but the mere fact that the light was travelling through a vacuum or near-vacuum. -CR] ”

      From a purely metaphorical point of view this tickles me.

      Do microtubules represent a sort of metal casing like those that interfered with Kennedy’s interferometer experiments expanding on Michelson’s designed to detect ether…?

      The word “Cohesion” in defining consciousness seems very…essential…

      Hameroff, Anesthesia and the depolymerization of microtubules – fragment of a Churchland rebuttal…

      “…It is highly unlikely that the pore of the tubulin tube contains nothing but pure water since there is no known mechanism for keeping out cytoplasmic ions such as calcium and sodium. This is a major problem for the hypothesis because impurities are an obstacle to the postulated long-range cooperativity, especially superradiance. It is therefore highly speculative that quantum coherence involving super-radiance occurs in microtubules…”

      Cohesion… Cosmic Cohesion… order making sense of disparate and numerous elements




      Gotta make lunch for my son…

      to be continued…

  18. HomeRemedySupply says:

    Artificial Intelligence and in a world where illness is optional

    I just finished watching Episode 3 of GMOs Revealed, a limited time free viewing.

    The Episode was packed with some great stuff and cool interviewees.

    The last interview in the episode was with the fellow who started the “Viome” project. He spoke about top experts in AI working with the project in order to better map things out, and also how their database will grow as more folks participate.

  19. erichard says:

    There is no evidence that any computer running any program, including AI has:

    1. Self-Consciousness

    2. Self-Will

    The fact that AI seems to be alive is like a puppet seeming to be alive. It is an illusion.

    The danger should never be AI. Humans should always be able to pull the plug.

    The danger is AI being secretly used for devious purposes, and then being blamed and the real culprits (some humans) getting away.

    • stoffa says:

      Can you please provide evidence that you have self consciousness or self will?
      for extra credit, please define life. To clarify. I have a thing X. It exhibits the following traits, thus it must be alive.

      Warning; if you think about any of the above for any length of time, you’re going to realise, proving (or in fact defining) any of them is not an easy task.

      I’m not asking to be a dick. I really want to know if you have some information I can’t find philosophers and scientists answering with anything better than; “I think, therefore I am.” (in the case of consciousness) or (in the case of life) “we have no clear definition of this yet”

      • wingsuitfreak says:

        One of the purposes of philosophy would be to seek the answers to questions like that. Seek being the clue. Data that is observable to outside people may be impossible to provide. However, there are many exercises in meditation where you simply observe your actions (these are moments during your day as you are living, but it is still meditation). It is an exercise in establishing conscious awareness of your actions. But there will be no mathematical formula for it.
        Now, can you prove that these killer robots are anything more than a machine? With as much intelligence as a blender? A really good blender, but still just a machine running a program that it was given and is not even aware that it is a machine running a program that it was given. Jim, who is learning much today but still can’t program his zombie ray gun.

        • stoffa says:

          Go pick a fight (thought exercise only). Now can you ascertain that the seasoned veteran of fights you are now getting pummeled by is nothing more than a machine?
          Clearly it would be but in the moments as that person beats the living crud out of you, it was nothing more than a machine?
          To suggest that because you are capable of so many different subroutines (at varying levels of proficiency) you are more than a machine is simply how you get out of bed each day.

          • wingsuitfreak says:

            If I punch a drill press, I’m going to get hurt. That doesn’t mean the drill press is intelligent; it just means that I was a dumbass for punching it. But, I can choose to punch it or to operate it. I can choose to scrap it or sell it. A machine can’t. I understand your scathing remark now. You just aren’t that smart. These are childish examples from a childish mind. I see why you think machines are intelligent. You don’t have an understanding of it. I do have the capacity to determine if I want to follow this “programming” or another. I may do this based upon a value system or just a whim. I might do it because some random event, totally unconnected with what I was inspired to do gave me the idea. A machine has no choice. Period. Jim, who is offering some freedom fries to his neighbor who is dressed in a spandex red and blue suit with giant white stars and is pretty hot for weighing 300 pounds.

            • stoffa says:

              Yup if you punch a drill press, you are punching (currently) at best a simple machine with some computer guided assistance (in the case of a computer guided drill press)
              Punch a seasoned veteran of pugilism in the streets and you are going to see a subroutine of what might otherwise be a very complex person, hammering the crap out of you.
              Now, you think I’m “not that smart” and have a “childish mind”. OK, fair enough, your call but if you’re able, indulge my metaphor a little further.
              Now picture the person I’ve described above stepping out of hiding and pushing you to the ground.
              Still taking the time (with your awesome processor) to weigh up the variables before you react because if you think you would, you’re full of it.
              What would happen is that your subconscious would pump you full of adrenaline and you’d be either fighting or “flighting” before your conscious mind had boo to say. Many years of evolution learned you just can’t think your way out of everything.
              If you are trained, you will be responding with “muscle memory” (a poor term for things you can do so well your subconscious doesn’t even ask you about them anymore) if you are not, simpler subroutines (like cowering or trying to run) will kick in.
              You think you’re smarter than me. It’s possible you are. Statistically speaking, it’s unlikely. 🙂

              • wingsuitfreak says:

                I used to love it when people would witness something and say, “What are the odds?” My response? Pretty damn good. Statistics, damn lies – Mark Twain (or Sammy Clemens if you prefer).
                In fighting, one practices specific patterns until they do indeed become programmed into your memory. However, in an actual street fight, there are an infinite number of variables that one cannot predict. The number of opponents, their skill set, what tools are available for both you and your opponent(s), physical conditioning (not just fitness, but your mental, emotional state as well), location (if it was a sketchy location then you would be more aware of your surroundings), and a host of other variables that I am too lazy to think of at the moment. Yet, it is possible to respond far beyond the limitations set forth by our programming (I prefer training, but it’s close enough). It is also possible to respond far short, but I’d rather not remember those incidents. And after I whupped them there yankees, I could then go on and pick up that 4 pack (I swear I never even heard of a 4 pack until I moved to Florida, but I’m not a drinker) and then go home and walk the dog and take out the trash before porn hour comes on. A computer may be able to do one of those, but they are task specific machines. We are not. Our emotions also play a part in how we respond. They may make it better for us or worse; that depends upon a host of factors, but I would say emotional maturity, confidence, plus risk, are high on the list. As I left the fight, I would have a higher opinion of my fighting skills (ain’t no yankee whuppin’ me!) and this would affect future performance. Perhaps adversely, I admit. But a machine would feel nothing. A machine would not even understand that it was in a fight or that it was even an it. It would just be doing exactly as it was programmed. It would not then be able to go and do anything that it had not been programmed to do specifically. In short; they are no more sentient than a drill press. Nor are they any more flexible.

  20. HomeRemedySupply says:

    ~ Off-topic, but important. ~

    NEWSBUD – August 25, 2017 (video)
    Exposed: Clinton Train Paid The Young Turks $20 Million (Full Video) The deep state has infiltrated the so called alternative media.

    (Sidenote: InfoWars cleanly posted the Newsbud video on their website. And, with no “InfoWars inflection-interruption”. I will give InfoWars points for that.)

  21. okgardener says:

    James, The US intelligence world keeps ahead by pitting the encrypters against the decrypters. One group will produce an encryption routine and the other group will find a way to break it. The encrypters will then find a way to patch that hole and make it harder. I don’t see any reason that the similar principals couldn’t be applied to AI (or many scientific efforts) with two systems learning from each other. I suspect the “Elite” with their intelligence agencies are 25 years ahead of the average human.

    • wingsuitfreak says:

      All of your points are valid. Yet, all of those tests the agencies run are generally defeated by some twelve year old in about twenty minutes. We have tens of thousands of kids out there hacking away around the world. If not more, but I’m not a techie so I’m just pulling it out of a dark spot. While I am sure most, if not all, of the major leaks stand a very good chance of being deliberate; that doesn’t mean some genius kid with an unpredictably creative mind won’t be able to make all this AI look like they are on the short bus. AI will always be bound by logic, while humans are empowered by the use of both logic and emotion. AI doesn’t stand a chance in my opinion. Unless you are counting on me being the one doing the hacking. Then we’re toast. Jim, who can’t even program his zombie lazer so he has to outrun them rather than just zap them.

      • stoffa says:

        2500 years of playing Go. They literally take 5 year olds who show promise at the game and remove them from normal schooling and put them in “Go school”.
        Some Go buff (non champion Go player but good at the game) who knows how self learning algorithms work, gives his computer a few million games of Go played by humans to get the idea of a game (which has more outcomes than electrons in the universe) and then has it play itself a few more million times and voila; world champion Go player (human) beat hands down by this “program” with moves not recorded in the history of Go played.
        You don’t got a 12 year old, an ancient master or a whole bunch of either that are going to beat that particular algorithm at that game.
        Oh it’s only one game, we’re so much more than that (I hear you say) ; well, picture a network of different algorithms, accessible as apps on your phone, that “play” a zillion different “games” between them.
        Who’s on the “short bus” now? Why, that would be you and me bud. 🙂

        • wingsuitfreak says:

          That’s still just a giant calculator. An impressive one to be sure; but that doesn’t denote intelligence. After the game, did the calculator then go outside and walk the dog? The human could.

          • stoffa says:

            Not unless the AI had a subroutine that said it should. Nor would the human.
            I am currently handling responses to my posting. I am not going to walk the dog afterwards. I could (theoretically) but it is not within the likely outcomes of my (reasonably complex) programming at this point of time.
            Perhaps if sufficient outside stimulus (programming) suggested I should, I would. Currently, I have no such outside stimulus.

            • wingsuitfreak says:

              But the human can. And the human can put that “program” in itself. It is aware the dog needs to go outside. It is aware of the consequences if he doesn’t. The robot can only do as it is programmed. It is not aware of the dog, or of itself. If a human sees something outside of it’s “programming” it can make a reasonable analysis of it, based upon other experiences, or even an intuitive leap of knowledge, to deal with it. This is how we survived to this date. A computer would have no idea that there was anything inside, or outside, itself. It would not even know it was running a program. It just is.
              Also, I didn’t say you “would”, I said you “could”. You don’t need someone to program you. You can program yourself. And you can choose the emotion you wish to associate with it. You can also choose how and where you want to walk the dog. You can include the dog’s preferences, or some other random element. By choice. The calculator can’t. Jim, loving those freedom fries with commie blood and dag-nab it that Rambo is sumpin else the way he just kicks that commie butt!

              • stoffa says:

                There is a reason you don’t get a 5 year old to walk your dog.
                Firstly, the 5 year old isn’t going to understand the task.
                It’s not going to know why or how.
                It doesn’t have the experience (programming) to know.
                It is certainly not going to intuit or make some amazing leap as to the need to walk the dog or the how to.
                Secondly, you aren’t going to blame the 5 year old for not being able to get the “walk the dog” exercise.
                The 5 year old is still intelligent!
                If you have a 5 year old and you are sick of walking the dog, teach it over the next few years why and how and amazingly it will do so. Teach it nothing about dogs and it’s likely to get bit.

              • wingsuitfreak says:

                You won’t get a modern american five year old to walk the dog properly, but five year olds are pretty sharp. In third world countries four year olds are able to dart through traffic that is past my skills and remain unscathed. But they weren’t raised by the safety brigades of our “civilized” society. This traffic would be far beyond playing Go in terms of complexity. Mexico City (25 million crazies on the road) has a nightmarish traffic situation and yet, little kids are fearlessly, and successfully, navigating it. Something to think about. Yet, I wouldn’t reward them by letting them wash my windshield with that filthy rag!

  22. stoffa says:

    intelligence as defined by a dictionary involves “capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc. ” Source:

    We have ‘self learning” algorithms. Source: Reason as defined by a dictionary is “Use of reason, especially to form conclusions, inferences, or judgments.” Source:

    Countless examples of self learning algorithms ability to research data and form a conclusion based on that research exist but as an example, you can spend many hours researching thousands of case histories to form an opinion on a legal position or you can use Lexis, a self learning software package that you can have do it for you faster and better than any human can. Source:

    Understanding as defined by a dictionary is “the ability to learn, judge, make decisions, etc; intelligence or sense personal opinion or interpretation of a subject” Source:

    If you look at the self learning that led to software becoming better than humans at Go, you have to conclude (as Go is beyond solving with brute force calculation) that the software “learned” how to beat a world champion Go player and in doing so, taught humans new Go moves that we’d never considered before. Source:

    AI is a thing. It’s in it’s infancy but we now have software that can fulfill the definitions of “intelligence” and as software, it is clearly “artificial” thus we have AI.

    Currently, we (generally) have to tell the software something about what it is supposed to learn. If you want to have your software identify the difference between cats and dogs you have to show it some photos of cats and say “these are cats” and you have to show it some photos of dogs and say “these are dogs”. Show it a few of each and soon (after practicing) it will be able to do a task faster and better than humans, in a scary amount of cases.

    HERE IS THE CATCH. Currently (just like humans) self learning algorithms trust what you tell them in the first place is “true”. If you lie about the pictures of cats and call them dogs and vice versa, you’re going to have an AI that thinks cats are dogs and can point out which is which with an amazing amount of error.

    If you tell your AI that Oswald shot Kennedy, that 911 was orchestrated by Osama and that governments exist to look after the people etc and then have it decide what news is fake, it’s gonna tell you James that you are fake news and recommend we all tune into the MSM to get our information. FORGET SKYNET AND TERMINATORS, this is the scary side of AI.

    PS: The way you “asked” your question(s) in this video was interesting. Firstly you gave an A or B option as an answer, then at the end you asked several questions, again, giving a few options for answers. I opted out of looking at all of these options and decided that the question you were actually asking was, “Does the software we currently have meet the definition of AI”.

    I hope this was your actual question and I hope you find my answer worth reading.

    Yes, the software we currently have meets the definition of AI. AI is a thing right now.

    • wingsuitfreak says:

      That definition in the dictionary is out of date. I suspect that there are as many types of intelligence as there are people, but apparently there or some 8 or 9 of them being considered now. Music, kinisthetic, and so on. In humans, I would postulate (I always wanted to use that word) that it is a mixture of all of them that determine our intelligence. Killer robots would only exhibit one. That would make them an autistic psychopath. At least by the restraints I just gave them.

      • stoffa says:

        Ah but we have autistic psychopaths (human) now. Are they not intelligent?

        • wingsuitfreak says:

          No. They would be undeveloped. Or rather mal-developed. Damn, loving those freedom fries drenched in commie blood. Tastes really good while watching Rambo and porn in my living room painted red, white, and blue.

          • stoffa says:

            They’d still be intelligent. As would anyone with the predilections you expect me to believe you have.
            PS: Rambo and porn? That’s either nice multitasking or you’re at Dick Cheneys place and you’ve had too much blow tonight. 🙂
            No one has to be like you to be intelligent, autistic psychopaths included.

            • wingsuitfreak says:

              Ganja. Blow gives me gas.

              • stoffa says:

                Each to their own. Me, I’m dumb enough without either.
                I’m almost certainly “mal-developed” but I have empathy and I try. No current AI can claim the same but I still think the current level of AI tech is intelligent (by definition) and I hope it suffers less of the “human condition” than we do when it reaches the point where it becomes self aware (whatever that is).

    • mrsoapdish says:

      Going back to what I mention, on the “HERE IS THE CATCH” portion. AI is in the crawling stage and of course, now we are the “teachers” injecting information. Once it grows, and believe me it will grow to the point where it is capable of making those distinctions on its own, we will be surpassed. It’s very well mapped out and we have never committed such a huge spread of resources to one single task. The reason for this is simple, information is THE new currency and any modern company knows this and has recruited swarms of data people to analyze and build, and in doing so, advance this cause.

      Funny that the thing which will overshadow us has been born out of human greed.

  23. nosoapradio says:

    Here is a mindblowing interview I adamantly recommend with the immensely engaging Stuart Hameroff revolving around quantum processes in microtubules;
    A postulate that apparently disturbs such personalities as Ray Kurzweil.

    During this profoundly dense discussion – unassembled proto ideas that emerged in my mind, fascinating suggestions that seized my attention, imagination…consciousness:

    Possible Planckish paradoxes in the physical universe

    -The material emerging from the immaterial

    -consciousness occurring at the moment of the wavelength collapse when the immaterial becomes material…

    -subconscious quantum information could potentially exist in spacetime geometry at large in the universe

    -quantum coherence in microtubules…

    NDE mysteries explained?

    -quantum information persisting when microtubules are deactivated but not broken

    -resulting in “out of body” experiences…

    spiritual implications:

    -ubiquitous proto-consciousness – unassembled consciousness that can be assembled by the microtubules in our brains creating coherence, consciousness

    -consciousness is a sequence of discreet events

    -Consciousness is the quantum music of the universe? of the soul? on the Planck scale…

    Could one of the more rigorous and perspicacious Corbetteers offer their impressions on this riveting 1-hour interview? Please?

  24. stoffa says:

    Thanks to all who replied here, much better than the You Tube comments in general.
    A lot of you seem to think that for something to be intelligent, it has to have the same qualities you (and the majority of us) have. This is not so.
    Psychopaths don’t have empathy. They (often in great quantities) have intelligence.
    A lot of you think that you are capable of reasoned thought without programming and I’m here to tell you that if you were gestated and raised in an intellectual and stimulus void, (A) you would perish fast and (B) you would have not one thought worth a pinch of salt.
    A lot of you think that “you” are a sentient being that rationalizes your “output” at a conscious level continually. You are not. The vast majority of your “processing” takes place in your subconscious, absolutely without any help from “you” at all.
    Try quitting smoking, losing weight, sticking to that exercise routine or changing any of the learned behavior you currently exhibit. Not easy is it?
    Try “thinking” of something that has never been thought of before. AI do this all the time.
    Not a thing I’ve said here has not been said before.
    We are not amazing self realized beings, rare as individual snow flakes. We’re pre programmed, habit struck, circular thinking things for the vast majority of our time alive and most of us still think machines can’t match what we are.
    I think most of us are wrong about that.

    • nosoapradio says:

      You say Stoffa:

      “…most of us still think machines can’t match what we are…”

      Well, “match” in terms of performance in generating new ideas? Match in terms of conscious behavior?

      Rodney Brooks Ph.D., Physics, Harvard answered the following question:

      Will quantum computers evolve to have a consciousness?

      in the following way (just an extract):

      “… If I took the most skilled carpenters in the world, gave them an unlimited supply of wood and said, “Take this wood and make a television set, but don’t use anything except wood”, I know they couldn’t do it. Wood doesn’t have within itself the capability to do the things that a TV set does. Similarly, electrical signals and computer memories don’t have it within themselves the capability to experience the color blue or the sensation of pain. We can’t even define these sensations, much less know how to create them from computer parts…”

      while Stuart Hameroff concedes it might be remotely possible to create non-human consciousness by replicating quantum phenomena…

      Whether AI develops to possess a form of consciousness or turns out to be more of a help or a hurt to its creators, it’s certain that it will never be able to match humans at being Human.

      • stoffa says:

        Yeah, I agree. Give carpenters an unlimited supply of wood and all you’re going to get is woodwork. Give scientists the same thing and before long, they’ll burn some of it to get graphite and mix some of it with other chemicals to get plastics and then extract trace elements to get the other bits they need to build you a TV set.
        Give the problem to an AI and it will research every one of how ever many millions of documents on chemistry and electronics you can throw at it.
        Then you’ll get a TV no human could ever have conceived of.
        James didn’t ask me to say if AI was conscious, he asked me if it was AI. It is.

        • wingsuitfreak says:

          By your standards, a blender is intelligent. After all, they blend faster and more efficiently than any human with a wooden spoon ever will. Just efficient machines. Jim, who is enjoying his freedom fries with an extra helping of commie blood while wearing BDUs and watching Rambo movies and porn with a giant american flag at each shoulder and an autographed photo of Richard Nixon in between.

          • stoffa says:

            wingsuitfreak A blender is always going to produce a homogeneous literal blend of whatever you put into it. It will never produce anything else.
            AI self learns to interpret images of the eye better than trained humans. AI beats Go master at his own game and teaches every Go player in the world new moves. AI finds results and gives a clear statement of law after “reading” thousands of legal documents from an analysis of a paragraph of questioning text in minutes, kicking the ass out of any para legal in the world.
            A friggin’ blender dude?
            A blender is a simple machine. Just because I say AI can do stuff faster and better than we do, doesn’t mean I think a blender is an AI. You present an absurd reductionist argument I could quote in Latin it’s been around that long.
            Sincerely, I like a discussion but if you come at me again with such tripe, I will simply ignore you.

            • wingsuitfreak says:

              The go program will only play a go program. The blender will only blend. The “reader” can only read. We can do all. And we can do it all in states of “being” that the machine cannot. We can approach life with far more than an algorithm. And if you want to get pissy, be my guest. How is running an algorithm anything more special than a blender blending? The computer is not playing Go. It is running an algorithm. One that a human gave it. And then the human went out and turned on his blender and made himself a margarita and watched porn and ate some cheetos. But the blender only blended and the program only ran algorithms. It’s because they are simply complicated machines. It is not because they are intelligent.

        • nosoapradio says:

          The point of the analogy was to say that without the necessary “materials” or “immaterials”, certain things can not be constructed. It was not about who should address a given problem.

          Tell an AI to create consciousness, unless it can replicate certain quantum phenomena or other hypothetically required elements that may not exist in the universe as it is currently described, it will be incapable of doing so.

          So the fact is that a form of Artificial Intelligence exists if we accept a debatable notion of what “understanding” is. Unconscious understanding.

          AI could “decide” to destroy humanity if the underlying human programming leads to this logical necessity.

          But, without consciousness, it would be more of a form of human suicide/homicide than an autonomous decision made by a group of unconscious programs.

          And I guess that’s what’s unsettling. The fact that presently scientists are reportedly unable to track and understand the “decisions” made by certain so-called AI systems. Which presents the possibility of Humans losing control of their unconscious AI.

    • wingsuitfreak says:

      I agree that most of us are just zombies. However, not even the zombies are so in every thing they do. Just in areas that don’t hold their attention. People do have the capacity to go past all that programming. Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, etc., have been working on that for a minute. But even if your space bot wins at go, it has only functioned like a machine. It was given a task and it completed it within the confines of its programming. And that’s all it can do. I know that it is an important step in computers, but that doesn’t make it intelligent. It only makes it an efficient machine.

      • stoffa says:

        Mmmm. Pick anything that bothers you about yourself. Weight, drive, sticking to something you want to do but can’t seem to.
        Now by your logic, you should be able to “go past all that programming”.
        Why don’t you?
        I postulate that you (like me) are limited by your programming and have very little say (if any) outside that programmings parameters.

        • john.o says:

          I am limited by what and who I am, which seems to be the result of infinite factors beyond my control, but nobody ever “programmed” me.

          You are seduced by your own metaphor. How curious that the scientistic, get upset when anybody says humans were “created” but have no problem with saying we were “programmed.”

          Neither are facts. Both are metaphors using human actions to help understand human origins. Which metaphors we choose says a lot about us but probably little about reality.

          • stoffa says:

            John O, when you got hungry for the first time in your life, I bet you cried your ass off until you got fed.
            No programming there I guess. 🙂
            The first time you got wind, filled your diaper, were tired and sleeping conditions weren’t quite right; you screamed your ass off again.
            No programming there I guess. 🙂
            Light too bright, darkness too scary, noise too loud. skin touch too rough. Waaaaaa and still no programming going on here folks. 🙂
            The result of “infinite factors” huh? Still no programming here for John O. 🙂
            I write words you may read. I accept that your words (as I doubtlessly poorly interpret them) become programming for me.
            And yet; John O has never been programmed folks. 🙂

            • john.o says:

              My point is that the way the term is used in everyday language, a programmed system is the result of human programmers. Even so-called “self-programming” programs (if they really exist) are set up as such by aware (mostly) conscious, sentient purposive individuals.

              That’s what “programming” and “programmed refer to in everyday language. It would never have occurred to anyone when I was a boy to say we were “programmed” because there were at that time probably about 50 programmers in the world and few had heard about them.

              When you use “program” as a verb (past participle), you change it’s meaning completely but do not acknowledge that. In your usage there is no one programming me. It expresses how the range of my responses and initiatives is limited by whatever factors have determined who/what I am

              Am I wrong? Do you believe I was programmed by one or more sentient purposive individuals?

              That’s all I said. “Nobody ever programmed me.” And yes it is a metaphor. Interesting the emotional reaction. Sounds like someone defending the Creator metaphor to me.

              • wingsuitfreak says:

                Humans are conditioned, not programmed. However, the type of mentality that is promoted in our technology fields transfer their language of programming into other fields. It’s about as sensible as my attempting to explain history using the language of geneticists, but most people, in most fields, are completely unaware of how myopic their vision is in such things.

              • stoffa says:

                If by creator metaphor you mean God, I’m not a believer.

                Here is a dictionary definition of program as a noun.
                “b. A characteristic sequence of developmental or behavioral events in a cell or organism, often considered to result from the expression of genes.
                c. A stimulus or training sequence that causes an organism to exhibit a behavior, as by conditioning.”

                Loads of advertising people spend ages putting together ads to program you.
                James has recently produced the video are you being gamed
                which details how game designers decide how to make games to modify your behavior whilst you play them.

                You were programmed by the expression of genes, you were programmed by the physical world you were gestated in (nutrient levels to what your mum listened to), you were indoctrinated into some sort of education program, designed to program you to being a useful member of society (if your in the states, thank Rockefeller for the BS system there), you are continually bombarded by advertising which continually programs your desires and self image.
                Face it dude, you are continually programed by sentient beings who specifically do what they do to change the way you think. Lousy at it as I am, I’m doing exactly that to you right now.

              • HomeRemedySupply says:

                The influences which influenced other influences in your influencing post has influenced me which may influence others.

                Sounds pretty influencing to me.

                ~~”the capacity to have an effect on the character, development, or behavior of someone or something, or the effect itself.”

              • john.o says:


                You continually make my point. Your examples come from very recent usage and indeed changes the ordinary usage, which implied human agency up to that point, to a usage that does not imply any human agency or any agency whatsoever by anyone or anything. The word simply changes meaning that’s all. Use it if you like, it’s a free country (it once was anyway). But it has next to nothing to do with “programmed” “AI.”

                You seem to want to want to lump many things together, from my genetic structure to my social conditioning, under one ill-defined term: “programmed,” which does not satisfy my requirement for a discussion of value. I fear I will continue to appear as obtuse to you as you appear to me, so I wish you luck.

        • wingsuitfreak says:

          I used to drink heavily. Then I just didn’t want to anymore. I changed my desire. I used to prioritize money over all, but I realized that wasn’t a good idea and changed it. We do this all the time. Just because we have embedded some habit into our routine so deeply that it becomes difficult to change it, doesn’t mean we can’t. At the moment I vape. I used to smoke two packs a day. Now I vape a very low nicotine content. I am not incapable of stopping it, but I enjoy it. I like the flavor, the effects of steam-cleaning my lungs, the ritual, and I enjoy the slight pull of the addiction. But, all of us have stopped many bad habits in our lives. We just tend to only notice the ones we haven’t. I used to believe in working long hours, bringing work home, a host of bad habits. And what makes a habit bad? Why does it have to be difficult? If it is, are you sure you find its bad points outweigh its good points?

          On the scientists, what you would get would be them turning all that wood into paper so they could then create tons of paperwork asking for funding to study something like the effects of global warming on Alpha Centarunicorn.

          • stoffa says:

            wingsuitfreak; Science has produced things that can be monetized, thus in many cases, science has become monetized.
            Certainly as experimental procedure moves beyond the ability of a scientist in their basement, funding must be sought.
            What we actually “got” out of scientists so far is most of what we call modern living today. What we used to do with a vast majority of that wood was burn it. Scientists worked out how to use most of it (in modern society) to do much better things, including paper to write stuff down on.
            Habits are (generally) hard to break. AI are guns at changing their thinking on a dime (well doing things tirelessly millions of times in a very short time and changing a little at a time) and that’s why they come up with solutions we’ve never thought of.
            But sure, slowly and often with considerable suffering, we can change ourselves. It is as I said in this original line of post, not easy for us.

            • wingsuitfreak says:

              One of my critics of scientism, is that all of its adherents act as if it is responsible for all the good in the world. That it is incapable of bad. Unfortunately, that is a big stinking pile that this country boy knows better than to step into. It has also brought us most of the problems in this world. Fukashima, anything nuclear really, MRSA (and the rise in infections due to feeding antibiotics to animals and doctors prescribing antibiotics for viral infections), GMOs, and the like. It has also been an arrogant field. We know better has always been the cry of the community. But, they don’t. While all the advancements are mostly attributable to science; much of science may also be responsible for our demise. I remember when science was just a questioning mind (my concept of it). But the reality is that its just another tool of the state. Science is hardly pure. And much of what science takes the credit for should be given to engineers. But that is the nature of politics. I am not a luddite, but I am also not worshiping a field of study. Science is no greater, nor lessor, than any other field. A trash man saves more lives than a hospital full of doctors (I’m talking real doctors that heal, not what we have today). Jim, who never goes to doctors and that is why he never gets sick.

              • stoffa says:

                Right wingsuitfreak I’m done with you. I will now ignore any and all comments I see in your name.

                Science is a field of study where someone thinks “I reckon this”. They make up an experiment to test “this” and they see what the results say. At the end, they say either “you beaut, I appear to be right” or they say “bugger, I’m wrong” or they say “I didn’t have the right experiment.” In every case, science asks everyone else to check their results.
                Science is a field of study!

                It did not decide to build breeder reactors running on Uranium, an admiral in the US navy (against the advise of scientists) did.
                Research Thorium reactors you nuclear ignoramus.

                It did not decide to over prescribe antibiotics (again against the advice of scientists), big pharma did.

                It did not say lets build Round Up ready GMO’s and force farmers to buy both the Glyphosate and the seed, big Ag did.

                Your problem is with big business, not science.

                I am done with you for your narrow minded, poorly thought out arguments, that seem to be for arguments sake only.

              • wingsuitfreak says:

                Only read the part about you being done and the beginning of your definition of what science is. Since I consider you an imbecile, I’ll skip the rest and enjoy (something your blender/algorithm can’t do) my day. Blenders are “programmed”. Many have several different buttons to blend at different speeds. Just because this imbecile wants to limit the comparisons of machines, while widening the definitions of intelligence doesn’t make him right. it does make him guilty of wanting to rig the argument in his favor. Which makes me happier to be done with yet another imbecile. And no, it’s not for him. I care not if he ever reads it. It’s for anyone else who would read it. As for him, I’ll continue to do as he is saying he is doing to me. What do I care of the opinions of imbeciles?

              • HomeRemedySupply says:

                stoffa and Jim,
                I hate seeing dirt clods thrown over communicated ideas.
                They are just typed words.

                I like seeing a friendly community.

              • wingsuitfreak says:

                That’s why I welcome his shunning of my words. I do the same with him now as I do with psychofrog. I just ignore him. If a comparison of a blender with another machine upsets him, or a critique of elements of science (though not the positives; they are okay) infuriates him, then I can see no possibility of a friendly discussion. I don’t consider that intelligent. Nor do I wish to associate with such people. From his first statement to me he was condescending and in his last few as well. So, I will preserve the peace by not associating with him. That is my interpretation (and the only one that counts with me) of the right of association and non-aggression. Jim, country boy anarchist.

              • m.clare says:

                Good morning, Mr. wingsuitfreak,

                The trick is to distinguish between “science” as delivered unto us by lab coat wearing, clipboard carrying actors in the mainstream media to control our behavior… and science as a method for distilling useful information from our surroundings.

                You are correct to be suspicious, even repulsed by, what passes for “science” these days. It is personified / anthropomorphed / bastardized / abused by $%&!-heads like Bill Nye the alleged “science” guy and Quirky-Bob (Ronald) McDonald of the CBC.

                stoffa’s understanding of science is the one that I subscribe to. I also second his position on AI.

                That his emotions temporarily impaired his capacity for civil communication is NOT an indication that you outmaneuvered his logic. It is precisely these occasions … when the reasoning cortex fails to deliver desired results….. the anatomy of emotions grab the wheel…. Frustration is “felt”… anger and exasperation is expressed.

                It is evolutionarily advantageous to have tools of perception that allow us to assess the mental states of other sentient beings. Is the tiger hungry? Is he horny? Is his belly full? Is he injured or tired or sick? This knowledge can make the difference between life and death.

                As social animals, this ability to, without words, read the present mental states of our peers is invaluable. That our central nervous systems come equipped with anatomical structures devoted to this task is NOT evidence of souls, spirits, or gods in which we must place unquestioning faith.

              • wingsuitfreak says:

                Thanks! Now this is a differing opinion that I can work with. Despite our polar differences in opinion on some subjects, which are minor compared to the larger issues, we can spiritedly debate each other. That is something I can respect. And that people need. We need THIS type of cooperation that attempts to transcend our own egos.
                But, since we are going to remain entrenched in our own opinions about AI, I suspecting she is at least as stubborn as I am (which is a considerable accusation!), I would like to discuss some words that come up in our conversations with each other. Words such as soul, spirit, etc.
                I don’t pretend to have any knowledge of such entities. But I do use these words all the time as they are the best ones I have for expressing a part of myself that I cannot comprehend. I can best relate to it through the Stoic theology (I became enamored with that philosophy nearly 25 years ago thanks to Meditations of Marcus Aurelius (George Long translation: Accept No Substitutes!). In it they place a spark of the divine in everything material. They would have the name Father for that divine nothingness and that the Father created Nature (the mother). But, they don’t have our modern thoughts of what nature is; rather they have the concept that nature is the form of things. But, ultimately they concede our beliefs in this area are of little importance. What is important is how we conduct ourselves in this life.
                I mention all this as a means to explain that I don’t hold any religious beliefs in mind when I use these words. I don’t know if my inspirations come from me, from muses, from a universal mind, or straight from God’s mouth to my gut. They are simply the best words I know to convey a sense of myself that I cannot understand. I know this isn’t how all people use the words, but I’m not all people.
                I would also like to discuss/debate with you what I consider the empire building of science. I’m not talking about scientific advancements, but rather the proper placements of what is considered science versus some other discipline.
                Some examples include computers. How much of Computer Science is actually engineering or linguistics? When I think of science, I don’t include them on the whole. Some parts yes; but it seems to me that it should have been called computer engineering and computer linguistics. Where is the line drawn? I think this may become a serious question. Especially once you consider that when I was in college they were emphasizing the scientific method in history. That is a disastrous fit. It immediately narrowed the scope of history and rendered it irrelevant. History should be all-encompassing, not some narrow little tunnel. Do my observations make any sense to you? When I think of science, I think of Biology, Astronomy, Physics, Chemistry, etc. But I don’t think it has a limitless definition. I could easily be wrong in this, but it just seems to me that the word science is piggy-backing on our cultural worshiping of the field. Not that we are going to do the critical thinking necessary to enter it. Heaven forbid! Jim, who eagerly awaits his mental opponent as she is formidable.

  25. mrbloom says:

    I hope to not offend any, but in my humble (non A.I.) opinion, this argument proves that A.I. will most likely take over the world! Why do we all argue about the most stupid shit? The big elite in the world are all laughing at the petty crap that keeps us all apart. Don’t we all love James Corbett here? We all must have some intelligence to have found such a wonderful resource such as James. Maybe we can start employing the Socratic method or something so that we can all be brought up in these troubled times, instead of shooting each other down. We need all of us, we are already too small of a minority.

    • wingsuitfreak says:

      I don’t think we’ll be taken down by a bunch of over-programmed blenders. There are so many flaws in the implementation as to make this unlikely. First of all, we have a societal system which has been falling for years (Rome didn’t just fall apart in a day), an incompetent bureaucracy that would be implementing it, a corrupt industry that would be taking all possible cost-saving methods to produce the machines, and a financial system that can’t support the development. Combine this with a citizenry that is increasingly turning away from government and implementing their own solutions by necessity and disgust; and you have a system that will not survive long enough to implement an AI system which hasn’t even been developed yet. Now the wireless network? That’s another story.

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      mrbloom says:
      Why do we all argue about the most stupid shit?

      I think that bears repeating.
      Why do we all argue about the most stupid shit?

      Oh! Wait!…
      I am offended by your choice of words and idea Mr. Bloom!
      Agghh! You used the word “stupid”!
      I am going to insult you.
      I will call you a name.
      You “igmo”!
      You can’t use “stupid” because it offended me.

      Now I feel better.
      I called you an “igmo”.
      Now I will be happier in life.

      And, like my wife, I will remember your unjust choice of words for the next 30 years. I will remind you every chance I get.


      • wingsuitfreak says:

        It’s because we are all stupid.

      • The Dealey Lama says:

        Well then, I’m glad I changed my name to The Dealey Lama, maybe you will forget who I am, and forget how pissed, (oops, bad word) offended you are. You big poop-a-nanny bully.

        • wingsuitfreak says:

          No, I won’t. Goodby whoever you are.

          • The Dealey Lama says:

            Ummm, I wasn’t talking to you wingsuitfreak. I’m the peacemaker mrbloom. I have no beef with you, so hello, and goodbye. Burning bridges never works in ones favor.

            • wingsuitfreak says:

              Yes it does. You’re an idiot. While I didn’t know who you were, I knew that much. I don’t burn bridges, I blow them up and grind up the stone. Why? Because I don’t like idiots. Do you see a theme? Who cares. I don’t like idiots.

              • The Dealey Lama says:

                I feel bad for you. I’m sorry you have so much hate country boy. Your one country boy that will not survive, even if you did work for Naval Intelligence. Sell out.

              • wingsuitfreak says:

                Well, this is the last time I read all of what you wrote. Why? Because I think you’re an idiot. It’s not hate. I simply don’t like to waste my time with idiots. Why? Because just what do idiots have to offer that could be of any value? None. If you enjoy being a stupid little troll, I can recommend YouTube. As part of the freedom of association principle, why should I associate with people I don’t like? The answer, I shouldn’t. And I won’t. You are simply an immature little snowflake who apparently needs attention. Go somewhere else for that. I have not demonstrated any of what you claim. Though I didn’t read past the “You are full of hate” dribble. I simply don’t like, nor will I associate with, idiots. There is a theme here. Do you see it? Who cares.

              • The Dealey Lama says:

                You got the last word, you win. Love you brother. Hope you find peace.

            • HomeRemedySupply says:

              DL, (The Dealey Lama),
              I like you.
              Thanks for being here.

      • wingsuitfreak says:

        That remark makes a lot more sense to me now. Normally I don’t like stepping in other people’s messes, but I’m glad I did this time. Though I know it wasn’t intentional on your part, I still thank you. I already waste enough of my allotted 168 hours a week as it is. Jim, who is now apparently full of hate for some unknown reason.

  26. m.clare says:

    As an automation engineer, I began applying strategies and philosophies of plant automation to the DESIGN of the systems themselves. In other words, I began to automate myself out of a job…. and succeeded. I had an interesting conversation with another automation engineer who did precisely the same thing…. Early in his career he was involved in some way with the Canadarm that scratched satellites and tickled the balls of the space shuttle… and stuff.

    My point: Just as the industrial revolution resulted in lost jobs for beasts of burden (blue-collared humans included), we are presently in the white-collar stage of this revolution.

    I am of the opinion that:

    – AI exists today (i.e. use of the word, “intelligence” is apt)
    – Emotions are programmable
    – The creation of AI that is indistinguishable from human intelligence is not only possible… it is inevitable
    – Artificial intelligence will become superior to biological intelligence (i.e. it will measurably outperform biological intelligence)
    – No white-collar job is immune to the revolution
    – Just as the arrival of intelligent life was an inevitability in our universe, so, too, was the arrival of artificial intelligence


    {Although my programming as a humble and polite Canadian renders the blowing of one’s horn abhorrent, to be taken seriously I’m going to resort to it:

    I invested 4 years to obtain the official paperwork that gives me the right to call myself a scientist. I spent the next 5 years conducting experiments and publishing papers for a living. I didn’t narrow my scope of study, specialize and obtain a master or doctorate but I am qualified to comment on scientific matters. I can, at the very least, distinguish science from politics and religion.

    I grew weary playing the role of Igor (butchering animals for the glory of mad scientists in the publish-or-perish environment) Rather than spend another decade in school and, as jobs in oil & gas were lucrative, I chose to obtain a technical diploma in Automation (instrumentation & controls). I spent 20 of the next 25 years designing instrument and control systems for oil and gas plants. Opportunity persuaded a 5-year diversion as a working musician (jazz, flamenco…name the genre I played it).

    I am by nature an artist with training and work experience in science and automation. (So what, big deal…I know…. but my experience is relevant to the topic of the day… at least in my opinion)}

    • wingsuitfreak says:

      As for me, I am only a humble country boy, who joined first the Navy to see the world and as an economic opportunity and then the Army to become a paratrooper and see the world from the ground. I did pay attention in college and got a piece of paper that said I had Mastered the Arts of History with liberal applications. Finance, skydiving, bum, and entrepreneur have been some other areas; but I digress. So, despite my lack of technical checks, I would like to offer a definition of intelligence. One that was applied to genius by Napolean Hill in his classic “Think and Grow Rich” book. This is from memory so it won’t be quite correct, but here it goes:

      A(n) (intelligent person) is one who can get what they want without harming others in the process.

      I think that is close enough. Not quite complete enough for me, but I set my standards pretty high on this and am willing to compromise. But how does AI stack up to this? Poorly.

      First of all the word “want”. Which means lack, and that is important. What would an AI entity want? Do they have desires beyond their programming? Can they have desires beyond their programs, or are they limited by this programming which was inserted into them?

      If all a computer can do is complete a task faster and better than a human is that AI or just a really efficient machine? By that standard, we could call a plow AI. That invention revolutionized agriculture, though being a permaculture fan makes me not appreciate it as much as others. Can a computer even have a desire? Can they even conceive that they are harming others if they do them in a certain way? In this, I mean can they conceive this outside of their programming. If it is programming that is causing it, then the programming is doing nothing other than putting instructions in the machine in a way that makes it useful for another person to operate. It doesn’t impart any intelligence to the machine; it is still a box of bells and whistles that have no idea of what it is doing. After all, I don’t consider a factory robot which puts cars together to be intelligent. It is just a really efficient tool. I am actually in favor of them. 3D printing is going to replace them anyway, and also put the means of production in the hands of the individual. Or rather, it already has done this.

      I am glad you didn’t want to butcher animals anymore. Though the cosmetics industry does need to do the same experiments over and over…. I can’t judge. I used to work in a slaughterhouse. And a good chunk of my life was spent in occupations that focused almost exclusively on killing people directly. I am also glad that you don’t judge your occupation (too seriously) by the fact that you have an official permit to call yourself a scientist. Anymore than I find myself a master of history (how would that even be possible? Can you imagine the reading list for a master of everything ever written?) And your opinion would doubtless rank higher than mine on scientific subjects such as this is. Or at least mostly. Philosophy is a sneaky little field. Always sticking its nose into other peoples business. But, historically (my own sneaky little grasp) science has employed a PT Barnum for everything in the past. Salk was going to save the world with his vaccine. Ooops. And so on. I know, that was unfair, but this is a debate and a debate is war and all is fair. So said Sun Moo. But on the bright side, I present another link to an article by Rappaport with an excerpt from Anthony Sutton interview he did once (not with Rappaport). Note the part where Anthony speaks of who will win. I agree with him, so obviously he’s right!:

      • m.clare says:

        In consideration of your plausible assertion that desire is a prerequisite to intelligence… the degree of success towards the achievement of one’s goals is, at very least, an excellent measure of intelligence. Consider the following examples:

        A) In addition to the 5 senses that we normally think of, the brain of a human baby c/w internal sensory input concerning nutrient storage level, temperature etc. The baby “wants” stimulation of it’s 5 senses and it wants to avoid extremes in temperature, hunger and other undesirable sensations that it will learn to call “pain”. The baby exhibits, by our agreed upon definition, a level of intelligence by successfully satisfying the fulfillment of it’s desires. (an abandoned baby is, by our definition, less intelligent regardless of the unfortunate circumstances beyond control that left him alone)

        B) Watson was programmed to be Jeopardy champion. It was ‘his’ only purpose and ‘he achieved ‘his’ goal. By our definition, Watson must be considered intelligent. (Although ‘he’ may have hurt the pride of the humans ‘he’ defeated, I offer that this does not violate the conditions of our definition)

        C) Without examining the motivations behind my wanting to get laid before the day is done, my failure to do so would be indicative of a lack of intelligence according to our agreed upon definition.

        Do YOU have desires beyond YOUR programming? Were we to distill your complicated desires and behaviors to fundamental, underlying motivations, would we discover a desire for the acquisition of finite resources of space and energy, the desire to avoid “pain” and the desire to secure a suitable mate so your genetics can harvest the most important of the resources, time…?

        Biological AND artificial intelligence experience limitations inherent to their programming.

        [Our pieces of paper in no way imply either of us has earned the right to the final word on this or any topic. They are but starting points; evidence that at least for a few years we had the passion, perseverance and capacity to absorb new ideas. I am honored to communicate with the community of open minds at the Corbett Report who realize that exploration of new ideas and reevaluation of old ones is a life long journey.]

        If I don’t log out and spend some time with my family, the resulting dismal failure of example C above will settle once and for all that I am NOT intelligent. Thanks for the fascinating conversations. I hope to read the second half of your comments and explore the link. Gotta go.

        • wingsuitfreak says:

          Well, I hope you were successful in your goal of C, as it will make things so much more pleasant. Having said that, was Watson aware that he was beating somebody. Or rather, did he have a desire to win, or was simply responding to his programming to answer questions (I’m guessing this was his programming as it is the only one that makes sense to me)? Was he competing, or was it as relevant to him as answering the gazillion other questions that he had been asked as part of his test run? In short, were the questions really just giving instructions for him (I have problems giving a sex to a box, but I like the female body too much to call it a her) to match the response with the given 1s and 0s? If that were the case, then I’d have to say he did not exhibit a want anymore than a blender wanted to operate on puree rather than liquefy. Want is a pretty complicated word. Or at least it is in my mind.
          As for me, I can say yes. Programming as it relates to a computer (I’ve only written one program and co-wrote another and they were back in the 80s, but I think it’s still relevant) is very specific. Humans are conditioned and trained. They don’t need to be that specific. It’s not a difference of computing power, but a difference of apples and oranges. If I were to learn something, it would be because I want to learn something, not because I had no choice. My high school days vs my college days are a good example of this. I can choose what I learn and I do this in ways that a computer would have no conception of ever understanding. For example, did the computer express a desire to go on Jeopardy? Was Watson aware that he was on Jeopardy? Was Watson aware that he was Watson? Was Watson…. and the list goes on.
          For myself, I would first have to have a desire to become a breathing reference book, and then decide to prepare myself for it. Obviously, I don’t have that desire, and I probably wouldn’t beat out the types that do as I’m not a big fan of trivia. Or at least that kind; I suppose we are all fans of trivia of some sort. I would make the decision to do all this. Though I disagree with the term programming for humans, as I think it places the word itself outside its meaning (this being the type of programming that we do for computers, the word itself could be used as a substitute for conditioning and the like, but it would have different connotations). We don’t need this type of programming, in fact this type of programming would hinder our learning. This is why books (such as your favorite; the Holy Bible: King James version of course! If it was good enough for jeezus it’s good enough for me!)dealing with metaphysical subjects were written in such a convoluted manner. Hidden meanings were best revealed by such a method. Which is why parables are used so much in it. Though I admit, most people demand everything be spelled out for them in the simplest manner possible and it had better meet their own pre-conceived and ignorant notions. But most people ain’t that smart.
          While I do agree that Watson playing Jeopardy was probably a very big deal in the computing world, for a lot of valid reasons; but I don’t think it proves intelligence. It was simply matching the appropriate 1s and 0s with no concept of it doing so any more than the blender knowing it was blending.
          Having said that, I agree whole-heartedly with another poster who notes that they don’t have to be conscious to wipe us all out. All they need to be is efficient killing machines with a crazy person at the joystick. Drones come to mind.
          By the way, I enjoy these for a lot of reasons, but a very important one is because I am learning. Not just other people’s ideas, but by debating I am forming a more cohesive picture to the whole AI idea. For now, I am still Will Smith in I, Robot though. Good Luck with C! Jim who just used his blender to grind up some nettle seeds for a tea and the blender didn’t seem to mind at all.

          • wingsuitfreak says:

            After thinking it over, I would like to clarify my comment just a tad. When Watson answered a question, was his response actually thinking, or was the question just the appropriate combination of 1s and 0s needed to pull the file out of a certain spot? If so, and especially so if the file being pulled out had no meaning, then he was acting as an electronic filing cabinet. Not to be confused with a blender, though he had the same level of consciousness in my nowhere near humble opinion. Humans don’t really operate that way. We may operate that way, but not usually. Our brains (however many we seem to have today according to new research) are a lot more than just a filing cabinet. If Watson only retrieved information then that is not intelligence any more than if a file cabinet happens to have a file that you placed in there, does indeed have that file you placed in there, is intelligent. Jim, who has no plans for option C tonight, so he hopes you take pity on him in your response.

            • wingsuitfreak says:

              I went to bed last night shortly after watching a video by Dr. Rupert Sheldrake on YouBoob called “10 Dogmas Holding Back Science”. It wasn’t his answers so much that enthralled me, but his questions. I suppose it stewed around in my brain as I slept and I woke up this morning realizing the reasons for my distrust of this whole AI consciousness claim.
              While I only know of the three most famous assertions made by Descartes, I’ve never agreed with any of them. I think, therefore I am. Sorry, sloppy reasoning in my opinion. Of course, I’ve had the advantage of future birth and Buddhist influence. Thinking Mind, Dancing Mind contradicts his statement. I Am is correct, the thinking being the ego. Not that I am discounting the role of thinking, just his reasoning. His argument against Atheism was absolutely ridiculous as it only discounted one belief system, leaving us to choose between the multitudes of religious beliefs. Again, shoddy reasoning. His argument against animals having consciousness revolted me. My best friends have included other species. There has never been any doubt in my mind that love was an emotion confined to just our species.
              For my entire life, I’ve been told by the “scientific community” (you know the one that I am referencing) that animals don’t feel pain, that it’s okay to perform vivisections on them because we are superior and they don’t experience emotions, such as pain. Lately, we see the same thing going on more openly with humans. We have no free will. We are simply unconscious organisms. I am speaking in terms of mainstream views, not the views espoused within the community. But now we are supposed to believe that living creatures don’t possess consciousness, but machines created by scientists do, or will? No.
              It is as if this authority of all scientific doublespeak doesn’t practice atheism because of deeply held convictions, and no I’m not discounting that belief, but because the community is envious of God. In this case, it would be the christian god as that appears to be the source of this thought process. But by denying the consciousness of natural beings, and insisting their creations are conscious (or will be just after we get that next research grant check) they are attempting to depose god and place scientism in his place. I’m sorry, but this doesn’t get a free ride with me. I have a questioning mind, and remain skeptical of such logic.
              While I despise religion, I don’t think I want to partake in a coup against any god. Especially since science doesn’t really seem to support an ethical code I am comfortable with. Again, I am not discounting all scientists, just the political/religious scientism that is so prevalent in our culture.
              Oh well, I’ve been unfair to you, what with all these words coming at you. However, this morning I did feel compelled to share this epiphany with you. Hope you were successful on plan C last night, Jim

            • m.clare says:

              Ok. Before we can attribute our agreed upon definition of “intelligence” (the ability to get what one wants) to Watson, we must first have an agreed upon definition of “want”. Ok.

              How about…To “want” is to have a desire to obtain something one lacks.

              Let’s consider my three examples. A baby “wants” to survive; therefore, it cries when it is cold, hungry or bored (lacking sensory stimulation).

              A man “wants” to have an intimate experience with his beautiful wife. (I suspect there is an evolutionarily pragmatic motivation at the core of his biologically programmed urges. The behaviours are absurd in the absence of a genetic objective with respect to time as a resource).

              Watson “wants” to respond with the best answer to questions asked of him. Watson “has a desire to obtain the best answer”. Watson “is programmed to comprehend a question, search his database for the best answer and respond audibly in language that Mr. Trebek can understand”. Watson’s existence has meaning. Watson, whatever he/it is, has a purpose.

              At the core of human behaviours is the “want” to secure resources of space and energy, survive to adulthood, win a mate and reproduce. If a mother wasn’t programmed to “love” her child, it would have a much more difficult time getting what it “wants”. If I didn’t love my wife and kids I likely wouldn’t tolerate rush hour traffic, goofy work costumes and the condescending tone of my so-called superiors. My behaviours become increasingly sophisticated as I age (admittedly more like cheese than fine wine) but at the core there are logical motivations when viewed from an evolutionarily perspective.

              Is there a hierarchy of wants such that biologically programmed desires and objectives are superior to artificially programmed desires or objectives? If so, why?

              From Wikipedia (gag): “Awareness is a relative concept. Awareness may be focused on an internal state, such as a visceral feeling, or on external events by way of sensory perception. Insects do not have consciousness in the usual sense because they lack the brain capacity for thought and understanding.”

              When a baby lacks a full stomach and cries, is this evidence of comprehension or is it closer to biological programming (i.e. instinct or reflex)? Is the baby “aware” of a strategy to cry in order to satisfy its wants? Would you have an easier time emulating the behaviour of the baby, a blender or Watson? Watson pausing to calculate the best answer is, in my mind, more a display of thought and understanding than a baby crying when it is hungry.

              Whether ones & zeros or chemical synapses are the fundamental building block, comprehension occurs several levels above bits and synapses. (Hofstadter, “I is a strange loop”) Watching a protein change shape to allow the release of a neurotransmitter does little to explain my comprehension of the color blue. Analogously, It’s a hell of a leap from watching bits flip to understanding the purpose of a software program.

              • nosoapradio says:

                Your comprehension of the colour blue is not limited to identifying “blue”

                it includes sensations, memories, emotions and judgements associated with the colour

                as well as the conscious observation of “yourself” feeling blue at the sight of blue because your ex-wife joyfully wore blue at your wedding to match your blue suede shoes when you were young and everything was still possible before your teen-age daughter dyed her hair blue. Then there’s that lingering odor of roquefort and the nausea of the day she left blue-in-the-face after that ridiculous argument about whether roquefort is blue cheese even though it’s green and flashes of the smurf sticker stuck to the ripped Blue man group poster on her bedroom door (exuding the scent of the synthetic blueberry flavour of her labello lip balm) flicker before your blue-gray eyes… that your daughter inherited… that your ex-wife used to find irresistable…

                over light years of physical and perhaps quantum processes more sophisticated than any result at simulating human intelligence could possibly achieve

                otherwise stated by neuroscientist, Bobby Azarian, in the following terms

                “…Much like a computer, neurons communicate with one another through exchanging electrical signals in a binary fashion. Either a neuron fires or it doesn’t, and this is how neural computations are carried out.

                But unlike digital computers, brains contain a host of analogue cellular and molecular processes, biochemical reactions, electrostatic forces, global synchronized neuron firing at specific frequencies, and unique structural and functional connections with countless feedback loops.

                Even if a computer could accurately create a digital representation of all these features, which in itself involves many serious obstacles, a simulation of a brain is still not a physical brain. There is a fundamental difference between the simulation of a physical process and the physical process itself. This may seem like a moot point to many machine learning researchers, but when considered at length it appears anything but trivial…”

                (link to above “rawstory” extract found in my second comment at the top of the board)

              • wingsuitfreak says:

                When a baby first cries, it does so because it is experiencing something it doesn’t like. The brain is not yet developed enough (I don’t think anyway) to call it a true thought process. However, the baby does learn that if it cries when it is hungry (or the myriad of other problems a baby is confronted with on a minute-by-minute basis) food will come. That is learned behavior.
                Watson however, is not responding out of wants. Watson doesn’t want. Watson is more of a translating box which matches up 1s and 0s with it’s corresponding file. There is no synthesis of this information, it is no more aware the information exists than it is aware it exists. In short, when Watson is presented with a question, it activate a series of light switches which will eventually turn on the light bulb in the proper place in it’s file cabinet so that it can be retrieved.
                I agree on your definition of want, and in fact had suggested that same definition earlier. Doubtless it had been hidden by the sheer volume of words I typed out. But Watson cannot have desire. Watson’s desire were placed upon him by his programmers, not by Watson. For Watson doesn’t care if he is a Jeopardy contestant or a trash can. Because he is unable to be aware that there is such a thing as a Watson; anymore than a plow is aware it is a plow.
                In my last post, I think I summed up a lot of how I feel on this. Why is science so willing to accept consciousness from a box, but not from anything else? I’m not saying this is your opinion, but it still remains close enough for me. After all, I remember reading of that one astrophysicist who chose the multiverse theory, not out of reason, but because she didn’t want there to be a deity. Which is hardly rational thought. Not to mention it is just kicking the can down the road.
                While I do believe that there is a spark of the Divine in all things, though I don’t hold it up as a religious belief, rather as a workable model I can use; the idea that a box is conscious being pushed by a community that denies the consciousness of organic matter doesn’t quite fit in my thinking. I believe in the questioning mind, which would mean that I believe in science (as well as every other field), but I am not willing to call science a god. It’s just a quest to understand our reality.
                We don’t really understand consciousness, or even where it is, or if it is a where, yet science is insisting that nothing organic is conscious, while its creation is conscious. Science is composed of people, with their own frailties, to include arrogance. This is an emotion I am intimately familiar with, and so I recognize it fairly easily. I think this is just arrogance, and possibly worse, on the part of the scientism community.
                I’m afraid that just matching up numbers doesn’t cut it with me as a sign of intelligence. No matter how fast the rolodex can find the address, it’s still not intelligent.
                Now off to get another cup of coffee with maca. Though I get up early every day, I’m never awake until at least noon! Cheers, Jim

              • wingsuitfreak says:

                I seem to remember someone saying they couldn’t write or that they even had anything worthwhile to say. I can’t recall who it was, Mr. Soapy; do you recall? Jim, who is really quite dashing in his wingsuit

  27. nosoapradio says:

    As far as I can tell, the terrifying implications of this piece (first one I found) haven’t really been explored yet on this board but were in the movie Blade Runner.

  28. m.clare says:

    1) In my line of work I frequently encounter individuals who are skilled at finding obstacles, limitations and impossibilities… announcing “this is fucked”…. and then walking away without offering any ideas as to how the situation may become unfucked. Proper Identification of obstacles and shortcomings is a critical first step for progress.

    2) The skill of an historian is to understand what was; a scientist is skilled at understanding what will be.

    3) That something exists neither in the present nor the past does NOT mean that it cannot and will not ever exist. We are not huddled in caves flinging poop at one another… although, at times, our conversations amount to as much.

    4) Imagine a collection of “Watsons”, each with their own SPECIFIC strengths (data storage, logic & reason, language, interpretation of sensory input, balance, motor coordination, speculation for possible answers when “logic & reason” fail to provide definitive result, emotional processing area to handle overloads including frustration that arises when other beings fail to understand….etc. Let’s say there are a dozen Watsons for the sake of argument.

    Let’s now imagine a special Control-Watson that has access to our dozen Sub-Watsons (SW). The Control-Watson (CW) will focus primarily on one task at a time. It freely accesses conclusions drawn from the dozen SWs much the way Mission Control interacts with the heads of the different departments prior to launch. (“Instrumentation?” Go fly. “Propulsion?” Go fly. “Medical?” Go fly…) The frequency of signals sent to CW from the Sub-Watsons will increase in proportion to the criticality of their assertions. (i.e. they will be weighted). For example, a high temperature alarm may temporarily distract the CWs attention from the present task occupying its attention OR, if critical, it may divert its attention entirely to address the more pressing matter.

    (For the benefit of wingsuitfreak, I would like to name the Master-Control-Watson, “Blender”.)

    5) To be shackled by the limitations in comprehension and imagination of my peers is not an option for me; I empathize with the frustration displayed by stoffa. Nonetheless, my inability to make myself understood is my own responsibility and I must own my limitations…. there are many.

    • wingsuitfreak says:

      I would like to start out with a more proper definition of historian. We study the past to understand the trends which affect the present and future. There! (Chest inflating, with defiant look)

      Consider this: If science is going to become god and create a new, conscious, life-form, which is superior to our shoddy bodies and minds; shouldn’t they at least define those things it will possess?
      First; they will have to define, and understand, what consciousness is. This hasn’t been done. In fact, scientism mouth-pieces have long decried it doesn’t even exist. But now, though it may/may not exist in humans; it will exist in blender.
      Second: What is intelligence? This too is a subject of much debate. How many kinds of intelligence are there? What is the perfect ratio? These questions have been acknowledged, but I haven’t seen much in the way of resolving.
      Three: How is it rational to believe that science will do a 180 on everything it has been preaching doesn’t exist (consciousness) will exist in THEIR creation? Especially considering this supposedly rational field hasn’t compiled all the empirical proof needed to go ahead with all this. When I say proof, I mean the nature of consciousness and intelligence.

      I think the real answers aren’t found in super fast blenders, but in theology. Scientism wants to be god. I don’t even think there will be a conscious machine, even if it were possible, because that is not a goal of those in charge of the purse strings. At best, a really capable robot slave which can be used to replace humans. One that not only doesn’t question its enslavement, but one that doesn’t know it is a slave.

      Intelligence is a lot more than simple processing speed. The laptop I am using now is nothing special. Unless you compare it with the first computer I owned in 1981, a Commodore Vic20. Yet, no matter how much faster my laptop becomes, it is still no more intelligent than my blender.

  29. nosoapradio says:

    Well I’ve essentially been repeating what commenter MINNIE said from the very start….but…

    the following statement

    “…Not only is it possible to create AI that is indistinguishable from human beings, it is inevitable…”

    reminds me of this:

    Don’t you want to at least have an elementary understanding of what exactly it is you’re trying to duplicate…?

    lest you create a devastatingly lethal approximation of it first?

    And what is so wrong with the original??

    • m.clare says:

      Watching humanity stumble about in a stupor, essentially numb from the neck up, fidgeting with their personal cerebral prosthetic propaganda gadgetry, waiting for traffic lights to tell them when its ok to proceed through unoccupied intersections, bobbling their heads up and down repeating what their superiors have told them they “think”… is what your link to the youtube video from the matrix brings to mind. I suspect your implication, however, is that my ignorance affords me a blissful existence.

      In answer to your questions:

      Yes, the more sophisticated the understanding of what one is attempting to duplicate, the more accurate will be the duplication.

      Devastatingly lethal creations are not the objective of creators. Would you go back in time and put a bullet in Einstein to prevent the development of ideas that made nuclear bombs possible?

      “What is wrong with the original” is the unwillingness of the majority to do their homework and, instead, choose paths of least resistance…. i.e. their laziness and disrespect of their own capacity for a lifetime of intellectual advancement…. i.e. their dependence upon gadgetry to do their “thinking” while they amuse themselves with entertainments and pharmaceuticals (present company excluded).

      • nosoapradio says:

        Seems you have considerable disdain for humanity!

        Not sure I want someone like that attempting to duplicate it…

        The link was to give a vivid example of a (ficitional) duplication of human experience, “indistinguishable” from the real thing,

        that was designed to enslave it.

        Though devastatingly lethal creations are not the objective of creators,

        Einstein himself reportedly called his part in the construction of the A-bomb the biggest mistake of his life…

        perhaps we should learn from it before rushing headlong into creating other potentially devastating technology…

        and Finally, Please be assured, I would never accuse you of being blissfully ignorant m.clare.

        -signed lack-o-suds

      • wingsuitfreak says:

        I would simply tell Einstein the result of his ideas. You would herald being the harbinger of doom. If a computer ever did achieve consciousness, it wouldn’t have love as its first emotion. It would be anger. Science simply wants to displace god with itself. While denying there is a god. And denying anything immaterial about us. There is nothing rational about that idea; it’s simply madness. Luckily, there will be a twelve year old kid who will hack into these “superior” life forces and then destroy them.
        By the way, science bears much of the responsibility of all the problems you described. Science has taken as much as its given. We weren’t always like this. Science has enslaved much of us, yet you defend it and despise those it has enslaved. That is not a rational thought either. I’m not saying you are irrational, but I am saying you are defending an irrational position. As for me, I’m not going to worship science. I will keep my skeptical mind, and not predict the future. But science is claiming it can. That is folly and arrogance.

        • m.clare says:

          Ha, ha! Well done, Sudsy! God bless, Wingnut! (wingsuit, that is) 🙂

          I give up. You win. Each human mind is a precious snowflake imbued with a magical spark gifted from a supernatural spirit that we can never begin to understand let alone replicate. Our unquestioning belief in experts and faith in explanations that cannot be disproven are neither detrimental to the masses nor does it render humanity susceptible to psychopaths with the will to control us. Only by placing our faith in OTHER people, who are better and smarter than us, can new technologies be developed in such a way that they can never be used for evil. If somebody can imagine steps necessary to develop creations that do not yet exist, that somebody must be stopped because his sorcery will inevitably result in catastrophic and irreparable damage.

          (An historian would know that virtually every scientist who revolutionized the existing dogma of his day was vilified, scorned, ridiculed and, at times, jailed or even burned at the stake for his audacious heresy.)

          I sincerely enjoyed these communications and retain the deepest respect for all involved. That I continue to slide down the slippery slope of sarcasm (do I still get points for alliteration?) is a betrayal that I grow weary of yet another battle I can never win. I’ll end this abuse of privilege at Mr. Corbett’s expense by expressing my deepest respect and most humble acceptance of objections and criticism concerning my decidedly outrageous arguments.

          Affectionately yours,

          • nosoapradio says:

            Are you afraid the Germans are developing AI?

            or is it the psychopaths?
            I believe you meant “our questioning belief in experts”…

            On one of those I think we’d agree…

            Alliteration will get you everywhere

            you misbehaving magical maestro!

            signed Sudsy

          • wingsuitfreak says:

            Historians know that scientists never take responsibility for their actions. DARPA funding all this research should be a clue. As far as persecuting the monsters that would bring these autonomous killing machines to our world happening; I don’t think there will be any left to persecute or be persecuted. How you can’t see this horrifies me. I thought the other person was just one of those dysfunctional tech types, but now I wonder if this lack of understanding of basic human emotions is the norm.
            I know you think I simply don’t understand the same argument being repeated over and over again, but I do get the basics of it. Yet, none of the broader questions I had were ever acknowledged. Even as I write this, I wonder if you actually understood the use of the word “want” or if you were deliberately mis-using it. This worries me on so many levels.
            I’m left wondering just how long has it been since the field of science has actually concerned itself with the betterment of humanity. I’m also wondering how could an entire field have so many people who have so little understanding of the qualities that make us human.
            I had thought that the science theology was confined to the political arena, but now I am wondering just how far it has truly spread. I am torn between pity and revulsion. I know you don’t mean ill, but this field won’t be a triumph to be celebrated. Autonomous robots won’t be conscious, but they will certainly be deadly. And once they are done, there will be no one left to work on advancing the field. It is a truly horrifying vision that I find myself facing.
            I really don’t know what else to say other than I hope I am wrong; but I doubt it.

            • john.o says:

              “Even as I write this, I wonder if you actually understood the use of the word “want””

              This is the crucial point! The word is being used in two very different ways and that is causing a lot of confusion.

              In one meaning, if we program a machine to favor maintaining its battery in a highly charged state and keep that paramount in its algorithmic operations and tasks, if we have it wail, “I am hungry,” and ring a bell to get charged, or have it cry out with impatience while it goes to plug itself into the wall, and then, when the battery reaches a certain level, we have it say “aaahh” afterwards, that is to have that machine satisfy a want.

              In a sense one original meaning of want, “lack,” does work here. The machine lacks power to a degree at some point that causes it to move and behave in certain ways.

              In the other meaning it refers to a sensation and a sensorium, an inner world of EXPERIENCE.

              This is not argumentation, but a comment: in my view, yes, the problem is that m.clare truly does not grasp the implications of that 2nd meaning.

              m.clare, your field of personal experience and conscious awareness is not a delicate magical snow flake of mysterious ethereal crystalline light (though I like the metaphor!). In fact, it is not any kind of object or substance in the world at all.

              Personally I don’t think science or anyone will do better by treating it at as one, either, and I share with many scientists an impatience when this is attempted ignorantly and disingenuosly.

              But this is an irreducible given in life: We actually have 1st person private experiences that cannot be rendered in 3rd person descriptions meaningfully, by any scientist or any person, not even the 3rd person descriptions of that collective multi-national corporate monstrosity known as “Science. Experience is not an object in the objective world science studies. That’s all.

              You guys don’t own this one. Get used to it.

              I hear a lot of (very important, if somewhat oversimplified) warnings on this board and elsewhere these days about “collectivism.”

              Nothing expresses the essence of collectivism more completely than to reduce all of sentient life, all of you and me, to a set of 3rd person collectively endorsed statements “shown by evidence, logic and reason to be true” everywhere and for everyone.

              This is not science proper, of course, not a set of tools to help us make predictions and decisions about the objective world. It is indeed a dangerous cult, with a metaphysically dictated imperative to rule the world. It was conceived in reaction to a former dangerous cult, as most are.

              • wingsuitfreak says:

                Thanks. As a creative, I immerse myself in my emotions, so they are sometimes far more sensitized than most. When confronted by those of such an alien nature, it is often difficult for me to even relate on the most basic level. Hence, the shock on my part.
                Luckily, once the shock has worn off; I prove to be quite resilient. Though I admit, the implications of much of what I had realized is still rolling around inside me. I’m glad you were able to see that part of what I saw and put it into words. Thanks, Jim

  30. trueanalysis says:

    Well in such a long discussion as this, I am tempted to ask…
    How many reactions were posted by an AI? 🙂

    You don’t have to be professor of AI to see the obvious truth, where this AI/biotech craziness leads. It is enough to read any good Sci-fi on the subject. It’s all there.

    Thinking of massive AI going wild… In the context of millions of interconnected computers, once something out there starts to get conscious, it will just work too fast. Human race can lose control over critical infrastructure in matter of seconds and what happens then is not as important really.

    That may be why even such a crazy-minded persons as Elon Musk calls on putting restrictions on AI. Well yes, but is that the real reason?

    Again (and this is my bet) this whole AI circus may be just a perfect excuse to get you all connected into a Matrix and enhance your imperfect bodies with layers of AI and brain interface… Watch Elon Musk and think very carefully where is this man leading the mankind?

    People always play with fire and always learn too late if at all.

    • wingsuitfreak says:

      The military is certainly interested in this. Those that are too blinded by their madness have no excuse in over-looking this aspect. AI won’t happen because the military doesn’t need it. But this religion of scientism is far too arrogant and dense to acknowledge that they are creating the end of civilization and perhaps humanity itself. If we don’t stop it, then we deserve what we get. Death cults are never a sign of a healthy society.

    • nosoapradio says:

      “…Thinking of massive AI going wild… In the context of millions of interconnected computers, once something out there starts to get conscious, it will just work too fast. Human race can lose control over critical infrastructure in matter of seconds and what happens then is not as important really…”

      Hello trueanalysis:

      Though I take issue with your notion that millions of interconnected computers could “get conscious”

      I’d like to thank you both for the links

      and pushing the debate to its logical next step.

      In fact…I’d say that the Elon Musks of this planet have realized that their synthetic materials could never ‘get conscious’

      without interconnecting the human capacity for consciousness into it.

      Hence the article I’d posted above asking the question “Why don’t we use biology to create super-intelligence…”

      that had the frightening implications suggested in your Truthstream media video

      along with others…

      As far as wondering whether AI has participated in this discussion,

      the slip-up misquoting the title of Hofstadter’s book to be:

      “I is a Strange Loop”

      brought this possibility home to me… (even if I don’t believe it was an actual example of AI intervention…)

      I is a Strange Loop…

      The third-person objectification of what consciousness is:

      first person subjective experience…

      That was a Strange Slip…

      • m.clare says:

        It wasn’t a slip-up; it was intentional. Hofstadter suggested a more appropriate title would have been “I is a strange loop” …. “I” agree that it would have been…. He opted for the grammatically correct title to avoid confusion that would frustrate his objective to spread ideas and sell books….

        • nosoapradio says:

          Thank you for that clarification.

          I didn’t catch it if it was stipulated…?

          The change in title caught my eye and made me wonder about what might betray an unconscious though excellent simulation of human intelligence…

        • john.o says:

          I never knew that, but it makes perfect sense, especially if seen in light of having to market Hofstadter’s ponderous and self-important tomes. I haven’t read this one, but was once insecure enough to subject myself to Godel, Escher Bach, which, preening and name-dropping all the while, labored with intricately Baroque self-confirming arguments, based on a few silly assumptions easily identified by a half decent philosophy undergrad.

          Always to prove that when I say “I had an experience yesterday and I was shocked,” I am really mistaken and confused.

          What I REALLY mean is “An intricate physical/mathematical process mistakenly believing itself to be an “I” (a really strange loop understood only by a few really fine minds) ultimately behaved in such a way as to exhibit a shock reaction yesterday.

          You and Doug know best, of course.

          As a marketer, I am in awe of Hofstadter’s brilliance! If he had put his silly obtuse grammatical tricks up front and honest and displayed for all to see his clear psychological NEED to loop us all up in HIS observed world, no one would have to read his fat pompous tomes to see what a silly farce it all is. As it was, I saw Godel Escher Bach prominently displayed on Cafe tables everywhere in the 80s. How did this one sell?

          • m.clare says:

            I share many of your sentiments regarding Hofstadter. Some of his assumptions are weak and even comical. I had the same experience with the Holy Bible; however, I’m reluctant to throw a baby out with the bathwater. There are many excellent ideas contained in these books and, in my opinion, they are worth reading.

            • john.o says:

              Well, in many ways, we agree then! Except the Bible (Holy or not) contains a record of the assumptions of some pretty effing interesting people, as they conquered and were conquered, were exposed to and enslaved by, some other pretty effing interesting people, and CHANGED those assumptions!

              I thinks we can probably both agree that adopting it literally as a rule for daily living or a basis for modern physics or biology is going to get frustrating! But I would hate to find Hofstadter in my motel room, personally. Nothing much ever changes in him. Truth be told, I prefer even The Book of Mormon, which has some decent stories in it.


              • m.clare says:

                I agree that we likely share 99 things in common for every 1 contradictory conviction.

                Peace and respect, my worthy intellectual adversary. That we have both made progress, remained civil and emerged out the other side as friends (virtual, albeit) is a great triumph and personal relief.

    • nosoapradio says:

      When I see the picture painted by trueanalysis’ Truthstream video

      with humans collectively becoming One with the internet through the imposition of Musky “neural lace” onto their brain cortices and computers in space acting as m.clare’s super Master Control-Watson named Blender controlling the “sub-Watsons”

      I see

      the human spirit in the form of its unique faculty for consciousness made subservient to a GAMA DARPA MIT Artificial Intelligence network à la Matrix…

      and I realize once again how incredibly prescient Madeleine l’Engle was back in 1963 with her vision described in “A Wrinkle in Time” of IT controlling the planet Camasotz described by Wiki thusly:

      “…”Camazotz, which has “given in” to the Black Thing…[where] all the inhabitants behave in a mechanistic way and seem to be under the control of a single mind [located] at the planet’s central headquarters (described as CENTRAL Central Intelligence) [where] the planet turns out to be controlled by an evil disembodied brain with powerful telepathic abilities, which the inhabitants of Camazotz call “IT”…

      now I’m super late again…sigh…

      • wingsuitfreak says:

        Now I have to buy another book? Mechanistic! Such a simple word had escaped me in my horror. Strange that such a simple concept could horrify me. But, as you can also see, that simplicity has far-reaching consequences for all of us. I wonder just how pervasive this really has become in our species. While I don’t believe a people incapable of experiencing, much less understanding, emotions could ever replicate them; I do think a people who are in such a state of being could be considered to be an artificial intelligence in their own right. A case of becoming what we cannot create outside of ourselves. When the killer robots come, will there be any real humans left for them to zap? Such a cheerful way to start one’s day. Jim, who is glad he is still able to experience horror, even though that gladness only comes after it has subsided.

      • wingsuitfreak says:

        In my wish list for 15.35 at Barnes and Noble. I noticed they also have a movie based on this as well. Here I am at 57 still ordering childrens books. Will I ever grow up? I hope not. Jim

        • nosoapradio says:

          Yes, there’s…a TV film?…it’s Canadian I believe, and dated and hokey and difficult to watch but nonetheless an admirable attempt at adapting the book.

          I’ve gotta get Mumford today!

          Let’s hear it for Gladness and retaining wonder for the world and its inhabitants!

          oh, and for wingsuits!

        • nosoapradio says:

          Holy Cannoli!!!!

          I hadn’t seen that a 2018 Walt Disney Pictures version was coming out!!!???

          This is really distressing!

          • wingsuitfreak says:

            Yeah, I didn’t notice it was a Disney production. I generally wait until I read a book before I decide to watch a movie based upon it. Otherwise you get some admirable, but horrible, experience like Palaniuk’s (sp?) Choke.
            Though I am often taken aback by the poverty of dreams in the collective mindset, I generally bounce back when I realize their inherent self-loathing nature is the basis for their rage against exceptionalism. Though I am not grandiose enough to consider myself exceptional (at least by the standards of the crowd I laughably try to emulate), even I am exceptional when compared to such a mind-set.
            In the end, the collective can never defeat individualism. The collective wages war on itself even more than it does on the individual, while the individual can work better in both isolation and cooperation. Now, back to work in my laboratory of imaginations. Jim

  31. HomeRemedySupply says:

    – Off Topic –
    Red Deer, Alberta – Pro-GMO Robert Saik – Full Interview
    Robert Saik, CEO and Founder of Agri-Trend Group, is a proponent of GMOs. His full interview (not edited) is on Episode 7 of GMOs Revealed.
    A limited time free showing…

  32. nosoapradio says:

    A brief glance at Minnie’s researchgate article entitled “Creating Free Will in Artificial Intelligence”, linked above, would seem to corroborate m.clare’s position. An extract of the conclusions reveal:

    “…Although there are many limitations and constraints yet to be solved, the possibility of creating free will seems to be viable and in case of continuous risk assessments also beneficial to the society. The ultimate goal of AGI is to create a system that resembles or exceeds human capabilities in all areas including cognition and emotions. Since free will contributes to intelligence development, emotional control and possibly also self-awareness, and it seems to be construable, AGI needs to create this element to resemble human capabilities. Future attempts not only need to include real random generator that will be incorporated into the decision mechanism but also learn from neuroscience and get inspiration from mechanical functioning of the brain…”

    So, as might be expected, there is no scientific consensus on the matter.

    • wingsuitfreak says:

      Once again scientism gives their creation something (free will) they deny in humans. So, will their creations also have the souls they deny humanity? After all, they ARE greater than God.

      • nosoapradio says:

        Perhpas immortality renders a soul obsolete…

        but there I go again harping on the obvious…

        • wingsuitfreak says:

          But isn’t the universe also a transient being? Or force. Or whatever.

        • trueanalysis says:

          I agree.
          Here is an interesting explanation of why the body is mortal and the soul is not. It has stupid name but the content is worth watching and thinking about for a while.

          • wingsuitfreak says:

            Okay, I bookmarked it for downloading later. Oh the things I have to do to keep myself from living on the net!

          • HomeRemedySupply says:

            trueanalysis, I know what you are saying.

            I remember picking my folks for this lifetime. They were a young couple talking and driving at night in a late 40’s or early 1950’s car. I liked them. I wanted them as parents.

            And I remember being born. Ouch…those bright fluorescent lights and they put something that really stings in my eyes. I described the hospital (which sat on a hill) to my Mother many years later when I was about 40 or so. She confirmed my visual.

            • Pablo de Boer says:

              Hola aloha amigo Jim,

              Good to C U online again, because I was a little bit worried that you would be hit by Irma and that your front & back yard would be filled full with floating Fluoride-a zombies with or without bike-suits. Thinking about such a situation, floating Fluoride-a zombies in the yard, is very horrific let alone in real…. What is more traumatic for a human soul, Irma or floating Fluoride-a zombies with or without bike-suits????

              Amigo wish you all the best luck & hasta leugo,

              Pablo de Boer

    • john.o says:

      Actually, I quoted from another part of that article, which suffers a multiple personality disorder. I won’t re-quote it all but simply can’t resist this small excerpt:

      “…Although the question of existence of free will belongs to one of the most significant problems in philosophy, it has not yet been possible to scientifically prove it. This crucial question deals with problem of mental causation, i.e. how pure thoughts or mental acts can influence the matter…The absence of scientific proof of free will represents the most serious limitation of its understanding. However, for the purpose of our paper we consider that it is not important…”

      And I believe minnie gets the last word:

      “I think this whole AI promotion is a deliberate attempt to confuse us and make us feel inferior and incapable.”

      Well said, minnie!

      • nosoapradio says:

        Yes, the paper seems to assume everything and its contrary…

        and yet concludes that not only is human intelligence replicable (including cognition and emotions) but desirable.

        minnie may very well have a point!

        How ’bout this doozy of a paradox that seems to be tagged on as an afterthought:

        “…Since AGI aims at first to resemble a human, free will seems to be necessary. However, this will may also enable an AGI system to experience dilemmas,contradictions and human states in which it is sometimes difficult to make any decision. It is questionable which role free will plays in this drama. It can be at the same time the cause of all these problems as well as their solution…”


        but it’s probably not important…

      • trueanalysis says:

        You can’t prove spiritual things by reasoning. It’s different worlds, different layers of reality. Therefore it never will be proven.

        And I can try to prove that. The deeper you go into reasoning, the farther you get from spiritual plane.

        Simple questions, simple answers.

        Why do kids enter this world as pure beings of love and happiness? Why do they enjoy such a phenomenal intuition?

        No need to get scientific to discover purpose of life. You want to know it? 🙂

  33. HomeRemedySupply says:

    Brain-jacking and Dehumanization escalation

    Has anyone noticed how bizarre some of the attitudes and human behaviors have become in recent years?
    I mean… weird. Really weird. You know…like the guiding of kindergarteners towards their new transgender identity.

    We have noticed all this news about AI technology.

    A theory, a conjecture, that I have is:

    We are being groomed. Being primed at the pump.
    Behavior is becoming more and more bizarre.
    We are being prepped for what is about to come with the coming 5G network.

    The dehumanization is escalating. Technology often now has a higher value than human relationships.

    Trying to hide from chemtrail exposure is one thing. At least we can see chemtrails.

    But the potential for brain-jacking strongly exists with the coming 5G network.
    Certainly, a dynamically increased quantity of synthetic electromagnetic radiation isn’t healthy for a human body.

    I believe that in 5 years, we will see some of the wildest, weirdest attitudes and behaviors that sane men have ever witnessed.

  34. m.clare says:

    1) WHAT IS FREEDOM? WHAT IS INDIVIDUALISM? – Should groups of people have the freedom to identify and label OTHER groups of people they believe are dangerous? Should they be free to scapegoat problems onto an identified enemy? Shall they have the freedom to assemble in the streets with torches and pitchforks and conduct witch-hunts if they genuinely believe they are justified? Are there limits to freedom? Should there be? Consider the following blanket statements:

    “Jews are responsible for our financial woes”
    “Those who follow the Quran have an aptitude for terrorism”
    “Scientists never take responsibility for their actions”

    Are TPTSB deliberately undermining our trust in the scientific method for obtaining reliably useful information about the universe? The personified, color cartoon waving, sock puppetry “science” presented unto the masses by the media suggests to me that… yes, yes they are. Individuals who actually have a background in science are displaced, marginalized and silenced by lab-coat wearing, clipboard carrying, bowtie flaunting, Barney-the-Dinosaur mimicking actors. The result? All scientists become painted with the same brush; they are all “members of a dangerous cult that wants to rule the world”.

    2) CREATIONS – A hammer is a tool that serves humanity. Has this tool ever been used as a bludgeon? Does the potential to misuse this tool exist today? Should we ban the use of hammers? Kitchen knives? How many people are maimed or die every day in automobiles? Should we ban all further advancements in computer programming and automation lest they be used for evil? Should we limit our technological censorship to computers or does it apply to other disciplines of study? Who gets to decide? What is freedom? Individualism? Collectivism?

    3) FREEDOM OF SPEECH – I am in favor of the freedom to exchange ideas without fear of persecution. I was discouraged, in my upbringing, from discussing religion and politics. The best way to guarantee a fight is to challenge belief. Is there anything more threatening than to bring into question the assumptions an individual was taught by the most trusted sources of information…. sources who laid the very foundation of their comprehension in the first years of their lives? (i.e. the parents who nurtured the transition from instinctual / reflexive babies to inquisitive / exploring toddlers…. the teachers and ministers who delivered daily and weekly reminders). Powerful emotions are expressed when our identities are threatened. The display and correct interpretation of these emotions is required for social animals to share resources without doing physical harm to one another. Emotion is a form of intelligence; there are several others. TPTSB would rather we refrained from conversations involving religion and politics because their interests are better served if we remain afraid, divided and, ultimately, conquered.

    4) FILTERS – The nature of the Corbett Report is such that it will tend to attract fearful pessimists. (What would be the antithesis of the rose coloured glasses of unbridled optimism? Dark grey glasses?) Must every new idea, revision, change, invention or creation be viewed exclusively through the dark grey glasses of pessimism? The Climate Crisis crowd has a strong tendency to view every observed change as irrefutable evidence that humans are destroying the planet…..

    I have arguments 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9 standing by but I am too long winded to include them succinctly in this space. My motivation is to be a catalyst… a stimulator… one who encourages thought and deeper comprehension…. One might go so far as to say I have been programmed to behave this way. (No offense)

    • wingsuitfreak says:

      To put it in simple terms, all of those questions can be answered by the rights of freedom of association and the non-aggression principles. Pretty basic. As far as fear goes, that is a person’s choice to be afraid. Or rather intimidated. What scares one person, may not even be noticed by another. But what do I know? I found skydiving relaxing.

      • m.clare says:

        Does our shared support of the freedom of association and principles of non-aggression imply that we would deny the freedom of creative intellectuals to develop artificial intelligence? Will we allow fear to place limitations on our access to hammers, kitchen knives, automobiles, computers and other tools, creations, works of art, philosophies or ideas?

        Do freedoms of speech and association protect charlatans, snake oil salesmen and gate-keepers (like Rupert Sheldrake, Devil Bill Rockefeller & Noam Chomsky), affording them the opportunity to lead people down their garden paths? To what extent do the principles of non-aggression apply to “beliefs” and “faith”? On what occasions will pre-emptive strikes be taken on technological advances? Under what intimidating circumstances are scientists and inventors to be found guilty and restrained from creating? What knowledge about ourselves and the universe and what medicines, works of art, inventions and ideas would remain undiscovered were we to ban AI?

        • wingsuitfreak says:

          You should perhaps read some basic information about these topics. They are very elemental. You keep bringing up ridiculous scenarios that are easily resolved just by looking at it. I am not going to get into such a ridiculous argument. Who has advocated banning stupid people from doing stupid things as long as they don’t harm others? You act as if everyone is attacking you, when you have obviously never been in a real attack. I have. If you are intimidated by words, then you are not free. But that is your choice to be afraid. Fear is a reaction. Reactions are the only thing you can control in your life. I am not here to resolve every minor scenario you fantasize. You speak of persecution, but have you ever been shot at? I have. Have you ever watched your friends die violent deaths? I have. Have you ever…. The list goes on. Anarchy requires a mind that does not need others to hold its hand when it crosses the street. That is the mindset which got us government. You may think I am cruel for writing this, but i am simply sick of all the people who insist I somehow magically resolve every imaginary scenario their fearful minds devise. I won’t play this game. Instead, I suggest you grow up and think for yourself.

        • wingsuitfreak says:

          Does our shared support of the freedom of association and principles of non-aggression imply that we would deny the freedom of creative intellectuals to develop artificial intelligence? Will we allow fear to place limitations on our access to hammers, kitchen knives, automobiles, computers and other tools, creations, works of art, philosophies or ideas?

          I am doing this to illustrate my point, and hopefully jar you into thinking for yourself. you speak of freedom of association/non-aggression in terms of the ability to ban. That should be a clue.

          While you keep extolling the virtues of logic, I cannot help but notice you are ruled by fear. That is hardly logical. I suspect a random day of my everyday life would over-whelm you. While I experience fear as a temporary emotion (though far less so than most), it does not play a role in my normal mode of thinking. Most fears that people come up with turn out to be delusional. On the whole, they tend to just ruin the moment as they hardly ever turn out the way they are imagined.

          When you learn to control your reactions to events, real and imaginary, you will learn to notice there are other possible reactions right beside those bad ones that will serve your goals. But no one can help you see them. This is an individual quest.

          • m.clare says:

            I happen to be reading and thoroughly enjoying “Crime & Punishment” (Dostoyevsky). Yesterday, I came across an assertion made by the protagonist: “Reason is the slave of passion”.

            I am reminded that the anatomy of reason arrived much later on the scene than the “lower” brain structures. An outcropping of the lizard’s brain, the cortex has expanded to completely envelope the anatomy of passion that lies at the core of the human mind.

            At the root of outwardly appearing complicated behaviors, we share the same fundamental motivations of animals who manage to survive in the absence of the logical cortex that has afforded humans its tremendous evolutionary advantage.

            I am hungry; I will eat. My cortex allows me to invent all manner of sophisticated schemes to help me kill the water buffalo. The ability to engage a vivid imagination and act the scene out ahead of time is yet another abiltiy or intelligence. Without clever schemes and the cooperation of my peers, my puny frame would be trampled into the savannah.

            I am horny; I will procreate. Behold the rich complexity of behavioral gyrations societies encourage as prerequisite to the successful arrival of a human zygote. To what degree are rock bands and football teams displays of physical and mental fitness? Why are beautiful females to be found in the vicinity?

            I agree with Dostoyevsky; reason IS the slave of passion.


            • john.o says:

              That is all true. I would go further and say that reason always contains an amoral lust for power and pleasure. Nietzsche and Dostoevski both saw this clearly, with very different responses.

              Dostoevski took the next logical step: a society founded on reason is a society founded on the lust for power and pleasure. This seemed horrible to him and he embraced an emotionally powerful Eastern Orthodoxy, which rejects values of the so-called “Enlightenment,” and his intellectual stance influences Putin’s Russia to this day.

              Nietzsche also took the next logical step: a society founded on reason is a society founded on the lust for power and pleasure. This seemed to him a great tragic necessity, “tragic” in the sense of a grand celebration of Life itself, not just sad. Tragedy is after all, probably related to a goat sacrifice and worse in prehistory.

              He believed that consequently a society could only be great and rational if it had lots of lust for power and pleasure. (Very much in that order by the way, pleasure follows power in this scheme.) His philosophy influences the West and its NWO proponents to this day.

              Both perspectives end up feeding collectivist oppressive structures, but, alas, both have much truth in them also.

              • john.o says:

                Also, both in the end were proceeding along lines of reaction to Darwin + Newton. Hence their place in this discussion.

            • wingsuitfreak says:

              I disagree because it is more a matter of balance, rather than one enslaving the other. If reason is balanced with the emotions, then it will fuel the reason; not over-power it. This is based upon the Buddhist practice of balance.

              By the way, in your previous post, you claimed the scientific community is being persecuted. I disagree. Why? Because if you look at who is funding this research (DARPA and the Institutes of Higher Indoctrination), and their record of weaponizing all the technologies they fund; it is clear the people are pushing back against their persecution, not the other way around as you frame it.

              Science has a long history of arrogance. Ringworm? X-rays will fix it. Yes, this was really done. Also, look at the documentary called “Origin of AIDS”. Think of the ways we’ve used vaccines, pharmaceuticals, etc. There are a lot of reasons why people would not be happy with this field. Based upon reason.

              Science also has a long history of imposing their arrogance on others through intimidation, or even legislation. Mandatory is a word they like to use a lot.

              Science never takes responsibility for their actions. “Oh, we can’t be responsible for what others do with our creations” is a common statement. Got news for you; if you work for Monsanto, you’re responsible. If you work for a company building killer robots, or one funded by DARPA, you’re responsible.

              I could go on, but basically science isn’t being persecuted. It is just not used to having people stand up to it’s bullying ways. I applaud the people for doing so, if they really are doing so.

              Science is always portrayed as an altruistic field, as if everyone in it are virtual angels with only the common good in mind. Please. They are people. It seems to me that the majority of those working in the so-called AI industries are generally mal=adjusted in their own personality traits, and also lack an understanding of what emotions are. You, for example, have a negative connotation to emotions whenever you mention them. Hardly the mindset of a person that most would want working on their replacement. Which is what this quest is all about. You are blinded in this regard, but that doesn’t absolve you from responsibility since you are obviously advocating its development.

              • m.clare says:

                It is intentionally very difficult today for people to distinguish science from politics and religion. I adhere to my assertion that real science, (as opposed to the bafflegab pushed by the media, your revulsion of which affirms your intelligence)…. actual science and scientists are under attack. Most people couldn’t identify a scientist if one swam up and bit them on the ass.

                Power hungry political types are seldom, if ever, the creators of the technologies they exploit. Exploitation, intimidation, legislation and indoctrination are the strengths, habits and tools of leaders (politics, boardrooms, churches…) NOT scientists.

                I don’t make killer robots…. nor do I work for Monsanto. Am I guilty, nonetheless, of actions taken by the makers of weapons and FrankenFoods for subscribing to scientific methods to advance my understanding?

                Finally, I’ll reiterate that I positively ADORE the rich palette of emotions that fill my life with meaning. I don’t recall suggesting otherwise. In the post you only just responded to, I went so far as to argue that passion is master over reason….

              • wingsuitfreak says:

                First; your guilt is that by knowing the direction it will take, you still advocate for the research. While advocating is different from direct research, you do claim the mantle of scientist. Does this mean the entire weight of the industry is your fault? No. But you do share the burden of responsibility, which is not something you have addressed. This burden’s weight depends upon the balance of your perspective, and the relevance of your position. But, it must be recognized in order to form a truly objective opinion. In my opinion, all I really see out of this field are ways to either replace human jobs in factory settings (an obsolete field anyway), to destroy us with military applications, and to distract us along the way with sex-bots. Which hardly does anything to resolve the social dysfunctions of this technologically advanced, yet socially regressive culture we call advanced. There are of course other applications, but they seem to be of relatively minor significance. Especially when one looks at the over-whelming percentages of research grants going into military applications. A truly troublesome development when one considers our leaders consider us impediments to their childish dreams of conquest.

                By claiming mastery of one aspect of emotion over another, I think you missed my point. With balance, there is no master. There is only cooperation. That is different. In the Stoic tradition, much is made of the reasoning faculties being nurtured. However, I’ve noticed that those studying the main source of stoicism, Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations, don’t notice that he emphasized this so much because he already had so much compassion. Compassion didn’t need to be mentioned as it was obviously present in his writings. He felt that it was his reasoning which needed the most work. Which is true in most of us. Compassion is the best passion in my opinion.

                The first part probably sounds a lot harsher than it was meant to sound.

            • trueanalysis says:

              I also think that reason is slave of passions. And so did many influential philosophers, to name a few David Hume, John Locke, Immanuel Kant… Kant’s arguments seem to be the most elaborate.

              Hume: Reason is the slave of the passions

              John Locke said that reason does not establish or formulate the natural laws, but merely interprets them.

              Immanuel Kant of course went farther and said that pure reason cannot work with any aims.

              Discipline is the restraint, through caution and self-examination, that prevents philosophical pure reason from applying itself beyond the limits of possible sensual experience. Philosophy cannot possess dogmatic certainty. Philosophy, unlike mathematics, cannot have definitions, axioms or demonstrations. All philosophical concepts must be ultimately based on a posteriori, experienced intuition. This is different from algebra and geometry, which use concepts that are derived from a priori intuitions, such as symbolic equations and spatial figures.

              • wingsuitfreak says:

                What I was attempting to voice, but was too tired to do so, was that there is no real mastery of one emotion over the other. At least not in a well-developed mind. We all start out with hormonal explosions in our youth which truly over-ride reason at every turn. I for one am thankful for those years. But with time, and effort, a well-developed mind develops a balance in which both sides are so well integrated that there is barely any distinction between the two. The produces a synergistic effect which has them elevating each other, rather than one ruling the other. This probably fits better in the Stoic and the Buddhist, and even early Christianity (I am one of those who read a Buddhist theme in the gospels) disciplines than most of the others. Not that I am claiming this state, only seeking it.
                By the way, Irma went right over us apparantly. The entire county is still out of power (I have less than an hour of battery on my laptop) but I have hot water and gas, so life is good. Everyone is chilling, gathering together, and taking life in stride. That’s just the way we roll around here! Well, time to check the rest of my email before I shut down the laptop. We should have power by tomorrow sometime though. In the meantime, I can make lukewarm coffee out of the tap and heat up my food down the street on a neighbors stove which is connected to a generator. This is what really happens when things go to hell in a hand-basket. People get together and enjoy each other’s company. Which is why tyranny can never really win.

              • wingsuitfreak says:

                Well, our power finally came on about an hour ago. We have had a pretty good time helping each other out. People come together once the system gets unplugged on them. Meat spoiling grill-outs, just sitting and hanging out. While the AC is so very welcome here (Mr. Corbett would not like Florida heat), I already miss the connections being made during this period. It could have gone south bad, instead it was a rather up-lifting experience. This is why tyranny can never ever really win. Just like the yacht flotilla on 9//11, people automatically band together to help each other out. When I say people, I exclude politicians!

  35. kirsten.r says:

    AI is very real. You want a scientist? Done: Harald Kauts Vella, an independent scientific researcher in Germany, his work a combination of biophoton research and scalar physics. However, head my ‘severe rabbit-hole’ warning before listening to these interviews. However, he is the real deal, as a scientist, and investigator, observer, thinker.

    Open mind, listen to his observations and conclusions, regardless of if he touches on something else you are not ready to fathom. Do not ‘check out’ into cognitive dissonance on the part about AI, take a deep breath, keep open. The good news is he doesn’t publish or talk about biological, technological control mechanisms of the cabal/illuminati/elite/deep state, or AI, in this case, until he can also offer solutions. He offers solutions here.

    AI Sage of Quay Radio Interview w/ Vella :

    Intro to Harald youtube interview, (AI adressed specifically @ 41:22 mins.):

    And yes, there is ‘hype’ regarding relatively innocuous forms of AI, but I am highly suspicious that these forms are being introduced or used to ‘soft sell’ to us the word ‘AI’, the concept of ‘AI’ in the process of getting us to accept dangerous forms of it into deeper and deeper levels of our lives and eventually, yes, into our bodies. Harmful AI can live in the electromagnetic circuitry of devices and humans and can pass from one to another. These first ‘hyped’ forms, highly publicized, frame AI in our minds as ‘harmless’, yet other forms, in other campaigns as a convenience technology, others as a ‘business necessity’ to aid in staying ahead of competition, and later will be, I suspect, touted as necessary to protect us individually or as a nation, from danger, and a necessary if we want to continue to participate in society/financial system as a legal/law abiding viable citizen. Notice any familiarities with other campaigns for things that were used to monitor and/or harm or control us? Boiling frog methodology all over again!

    The campaign in MSM to discredit anyone saying AI is dangerous is already a well oiled machine. It is based on the deliberate undifferentiated use of the word “AI”. Very clever! In fact, while writing this comment, a friend called and asked what I was doing. When I answered writing about AI and that it is a type of self-determining life form and poses a threat, she said, “You mean AI, like the computer algorithm used to help kidney recipients get matched with appropriate donors and saves lives? This other stuff sounds crazy!”

    The ironic part to this ‘control’ mechanism/technology is that the cabal/illuminati/deep state are so arrogant as to think that the AI they are harnessing for their different agendas has not in fact, harnessed them, and will eventually bite them in the butt.

    Whistleblowers from the SSP (Secret Space Program) have already spoken about protocol used within the SSP to scan and then decontaminate humans from AI. I have spoken with someone who has a friend who allegedly had an AI contaminated client in her complementary alternative medicine therapeutic practice. I do not know if this patient had been in the SSP, and was missed by the protocol. Probably not, so this was contracted from another source outside SSP contact, or deliberately not treated within SSP and released as a ‘seed’. Probably came from a source that is already here terrestrially.

    Google is already brainwashing their employees in required ‘seminars’ about AI, only sharing with them how ‘good’ it is, and how it will ‘save’ humanity, how they themselves, as employees will help save humanity using AI. Note in one of Harald’s interviews that he mentions that certain kinds of humans are more viable hosts for AI, those who display a certain disconnect from the heart, but are more ‘in their head’ or central brain for decision making. Hmmmm. I know for a fact that there are a high number of people with a non-majority of the population human neurological state called Asperger’s in the tech industry. Otherwise known as nerds, also known as a large percentage of our scientists and technology mover and shakers, people with slightly different wiring patterns than the majority of humans. Just like the rest of the population, they come in all varieties of gullibility, and ethics, heart centered or head centered orientation, etc. They have been with us for centuries, and are part of the healthy variation that makes any culture thrive. That being said, their wiring makes it comfortable to be operating from the areas of the brain that we regard as rational rather than emotional. I am suspicious that their bodies are more easily co-opted because more of their default decision making is not susceptible to running through the electromagnetic circuitry of the brain cells contained in the heart. When they are co-opted and recruited as minions for the agendas of various elite/cabal/deep state machinations, they then are sitting ducks for AI contamination, according to how Harald refers to AI not doing well within the heart brain electromagnetic circuitry vs. head brain circuitry. But, I think AI can contaminate anyone who is not aware and vigilant and making choices to run their circuitry consciously. My point here is that there is a concentration of these individuals in the high tech industry. These individuals, I suspect are just easier targets, and coincidentally, well positioned to propagate AI to the rest of us through the technology they help build within the high tech industries.

    AI is also being touted as a desirable component to pro-transhumanist agendas to groups and people not within the elite/cabal/deep state. They are unwitting minions of cabal/elite/deep state, who already accepted a considerable amount of Koolaid, or are extremely short sighted, to be pro transhumanist agenda, in the first place, and now that philosophy is being used as an entryway for accepting AI.

    Superficially, the AI functions differently within the different factions and agendas of the elite/cabal/deep state. However, as a living organism of a sort, with a seemingly will of it’s own, it still operates within the perimeters of what is in it’s own best interest, ultimately. At this point I have not heard that AI has a symbiotic relationship with mankind. Perhaps it is Creator’s or nature’s way of stressing/catalyzing us into thinking and acting more from the heart because that is our evolutionary path!

  36. m.clare says:

    “…their bodies are more easily co-opted because more of their default decision making is not susceptible to running through the electromagnetic circuitry of the brain cells contained in the heart” – kirsten.r

    “The heart does not contain brain cells. It contains neurons that comprise its own intrinsic system for regulating cardiac function. Further, neurons alone do not equal mind or consciousness. It takes the specialized organization of neurons in the brain to produce cognitive processes that we experience as the mind. This is all a complex and fascinating system. It is a shame that some gurus exploit this for a cheap mystical metaphor, distorting the very cool science.” – Steven Novella

    “You want a scientist? Done: Harald Kauts Vella…” – kirsten.r

    “Most people couldn’t identify a scientist if one swam up and bit them on the ass” – m.clare

    • wingsuitfreak says:

      It’s not often I get to correct somebody on something scientific, especially when it’s their field; so allow me to enjoy my moment of revelry please. 🙂 I found this connection when I was reading about the enteric brain (the gut) being discussed on the BrainHQ blog. The link was in the comment section, but a simple search query of “is the heart a brain” on duckduckgo gets a few hits. Here’s the first one:

      Sorry if my last post sounded a little grumpy. I was exhausted. Still am, but better. Now, let me gloat a bit……

      • m.clare says:

        Does the brain receive input from the heart? Certainly. Is consciousness affected by the electrical and chemical signals received from structures outside the central nervous system? Yes, of course. Are the transmitters of signals to be included as members of the nervous system? Sure, why not?

        Consider the bladder. There are pressure transmitters (if you’ll indulge the use of automation engineering language) that send signals to the central nervous system. Increased pressure implies increased bladder level. At some point, the signals become too much to ignore and a conscious decision is made to relieve the pressure. The conscious decision is made in the brain…. For simplicity and clarity, a box is drawn around the brain to distinguish the decision making function from the input signals that influence the decision.

        On the other hand…. Is the bladder conscious? If the prevailing argument is that the heart is conscious because its signals influence behavior, could we not also conclude the bladder is conscious? Where do we draw the line? Where are the boxes drawn?

        Consider a human with an artificial heart. Surely if the heart is conscious, the consciousness of the man with the mechanical heart is measurably inferior to that of a human with a biological heart? By how much has his consciousness been compromised? Does he still cry? Feel pain? Anger? Frustration? Is he measurably less passionate?

        Consider a paraplegic. Does the reduction in electrical input/output between the brain and the rest of the body diminish consciousness? By how much?

        Consider lobotomy. Does the mechanical destruction of the prefrontal cortex affect consciousness?

        Instrument air packages, compressor packages (etc.) are examples of systems within a refinery that use their own controllers to run independent of a larger Distributed Control System (DCS). These send and receive signals from the DCS. The heart operates very much like this in the body. If we argue that the heart is conscious, can we use the same arguments to defend an assertion that the package controllers are conscious? Why or why not?

        These are all excellent topics to consider but they are tangential to my central assertion that is avoided like a hot potato: Those who wish to control us encourage supernatural language to explain the variety of conscious experiences that correspond to the variety of anatomical structures that constitute our minds. We will not be free until this is understood.

        • wingsuitfreak says:

          So now scientific research is superstition? The researchers aren’t postulating that the heart communicates with the brain like the bladder does. This all appears to be something far greater. After all, does your bladder sync up with other people’s bladders so that everyone develops the same urinary patterns? Obviously not. This is something far different. As for the lobotomy, that procedure is madness. Like so much of the modern witch doctor remedies; it was dreamed up by, ran by, and endorsed by cretins. That people survive the procedure only points to the amazing adaptive powers of the brain. Something so fantastic that its unfathomable. Consider the surgical implants used to restore hearing. There are many different kinds of these implants, all of them primitive and completely different. Yet, they can all work. Dr. Merzenich, one of the founders of the concept of brain plasticity, noted the brain’s ability to work around the limitations of the device. Something so adaptive that it is highly unlikely mere humans could ever duplicate. While I don’t know of any studies on the artificial heart, I imagine they are part of the adaptive nature of the body operating on a level that is certainly beyond the ability of our knowledge.

        • wingsuitfreak says:

          By the way, there are some 40k brain neurons in the heart.
          I would like to point out a basic flaw in a theme that you espouse. While it is true the limbic system is the more primitive source of our emotions, and that higher thinking comes from that prefrontal cortex (I hope I got all these names right as it’s very early in the morning 3 am my time.), this is misleading as you always place logic as superior to emotion. This totally ignores the fact that a person who doesn’t have emotion is considered either a defective, or a monster. Emotions give us structure. They help us to prioritize. The “higher” brain waves associated with the great ideas (like that little E=mc2 on) didn’t originate from logic. It originated from creativity, which arises out of a mind that has a rich emotional development. In fact, logic had little to do with that theory, other than the translating of it into math. Einstein had a brain with a much larger section (I forget the name right now, mostly because I despise all those labels as inadequate) of the brain which is concerned with spatial awareness. Some 40% larger than the avg. brain.
          A lack of emotion isn’t going to create a superior mind. It’s going to create a dis-organized mind, a common trait among psychopaths. This is why they crave external ethical structures; because their own minds don’t have it. Emotions give us those structures. Remember always that half of our brain is considered creative, while the other half is considered logical. This is overly-simplistic, but it will do for our needs. They evolved together. Because they are equally important for our survival. There is no better or more primitive in this regard. It is a matter of integration, not separation.
          A lack of emotion leaves us with nothing but logic. Logic is merely a tool of a highly-developed mind. Without emotion, creativity comes from emotion, logic is as useful as soggy toilet paper.
          Our reasoning skills don’t compete with our emotional skills; they complement each other. The goal of meditation techniques, to a large degree, is to help us to integrate the two sides. The more successful we are in this, the richer our lives become. It is a far greater mind that can integrate the two, rather than just develop the one.
          I highly recommend you read George Long’s incredible translation of Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations. Old Marc had the most logical and compassionate mind I’ve ever come upon. Once you get past the rough nature of the translation of the greek into english, it is one of the most insightful peeks into the mind of a truly extraordinary person I’ve come across. This was a man who obviously didn’t want to rule, but who was needed to rule if the concept of rome were to survive. He is the best example I’ve seen of a person who was successful at developing reason and emotion.
          On a related topic, our so-called advances are having a demonstrable effect on our brains. The same neuro-scientist I mentioned earlier created a system called BrainHQ. It is a “brain training” program that is backed by tons of independent research. While I use it, and find it to be amazing, I would compare it with the use of the speedbag in boxing regimen. It helps to work on several areas in terms of how fast we respond, and in timing. Part of the progress chart they provide has a feature where you can see how well you compare with other age groups. This is over a very large sample of 10k people. In certain areas, there is a greater mental capability in people 100 years old than in 20 years old. Navigation and recognizing facial expressions. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see the link between GPS and our socially disconnected world and the devolution of the brain. Yeah progress!

          • m.clare says:

            We are in complete agreement regarding the critical role of emotion in human consciousness and the importance of striving for balance between emotions and logic. I defended Dostoevsky’s argument (reason is the slave of passion) and yet you persist in accusing me of having contempt for emotion. Why?

            (Before we get distracted again by semantics… what is meant by master/slave is to say that the emotional mind was first on the scene… the logical mind evolved later as a tool to serve the wishes of the emotional mind)

            The “theme I espouse”:

            – The human brain has a variety of specialized anatomical structures devoted to different tasks
            – The cortex affords us the ability to use language and discuss abstract ideas
            – The reasoning cortex is an evolutionary outcropping of a more ancient mind
            – The awareness of this “ancient mind” is independent of language and reason
            – We are taught supernatural stories to account for our experience of multiple awareness’s… rather than attributing them to the anatomical structures that we can study with scientific methods

            We get very confused when attempting to engage our logical/language mind to describe what we experience in our emotional mind. This confusion is the weakness that is exploited by those who wish to control us.

            So, we fight for the right to choose the fairy tales we “believe in” while, to “believe in” something, is to admit limitations in comprehension.

            • wingsuitfreak says:

              Sorry to take so long to reply, but I was simply too exhausted. My life is a carefully controlled entropy producing machine designed to overload itself at irregular intervals. Which is when things make sense again, but I digress.
              I think I was probably too tired to properly phrase my argument. However, my argument was really just me being nit-picky. Having said that, I don’t think science is in any position to claim itself an authority on understanding emotions. Especially when it comes to understanding them on a mathematical level, or as a computer code. And yes, I bring evidence!
              In the wonderful propaganda masterpiece, The Trap, produced by the BBC; I found much to love. However, one of the funniest elements was when the paranoid schizophreniac created a mathematical formula that depicted humanity as having a paranoid schizophreniac’s viewpoint of the world turned in his formula (to people who worked closely with him, even closer than they suspected as he thought they were nazi spies) they did not bat an eye. Instead, they thought it made perfect sense. Oh, but these are just math geeks, you say! No! I say (and so enough with the I says) it was also their bosses in their company. A company that was specifically created to study human behavior. Well, this company, which did not recognize the paranoid schizophreniac standing next to them, turned this formula in to a government agency. This government agency, and every other one which has been infected with this formula, have never questioned the formula.
              In fact, the only one who ever questioned the formula was the man who wrote it. Which he did so right after he got out of the mental institution he was forced to go into. The gist of his explanation? This is the formula I wrote when I was batpoop crazy, and while it’s still valid, it only represents about 3% of the population (I got that number by looking at the big pie chart he drew out of chalk (not the chalk with the sharp points either). While this number may still seem high, I believe he was including Boston, which explains a lot.
              The funny thing is the government is still (as of the release date anyway) using the same formula. Since the only one disputing it is a certified paranoid schizophreniac, how can they pull it based upon his delusional opinion?
              This is but one fine example of how science gets emotions.

              • manbearpig says:

                Adam Curtis is one of the most engaging gatekeepers out there.

                Having only seen the first half of your referenced documentary I might admit that he has at least partly demonstrated how the psychopathic elite have transformed society in their image through mathematical modeling.

                Nash was, in fact, probably right that the people he was working with/for did indeed, in the absence of empathy, act uncooperatively but in synchronicity, harmonized by their common pragmatic suspicion that the other psychopaths around them were also acting purely out of self-interest motivated solely by “the sucker’s payoff”. They just hadn’t realized perhaps, that this tendency only naturally represented a minute percentage of the population. Or perhaps they had.

                And so it continues with AI and its revulsion and suspicion for human “cringeworthy” emotions and affinities, for beauty and intimacy, mutual respect and bonding and for the non-material and idiosyncratic.

                Thanks for this Curtis reference as I’ve always been morbidly intrigued by game theory as a product of the Tavistock institute and its U.S. subsidiaries.

                Glad to conclude that the gusts of Harvey, Irma and Jose have not yet whisked you away into oblivion through the flaps of your wingsuit.

              • wingsuitfreak says:

                Love the name! I hear that Monsanto will be injecting your genome into a new corn seed. However, I think this stellar documentary proves that psychopaths don’t rule the world. Paranoid Schizophreniacs rule! That trilogy was hilarious on so many levels. Though I think it’s appropriate that it began with a government solution to a government created problem. Why yes, corporations were a government solution. What I find most amazing is that, if we take this masterpiece as honest-to-god truth, why are we still listening to these idiots? He takes us down a step-by-step stroll through the linear hall of government solutions creating the problems they were “supposed” to prevent. Though it was always real nice of this new problem to benefit the problem solvers. Government isn’t the problem, it’s people paying attention to those idiots who are the problem.
                Oh, and I’m in Northern Florida. While I never check the weather (only because they are never right)I did just notice, as I walked to the local stores, that they closed all the stores within walking distance. I wonder if that means it will be bad? I could care less. My first hurricane was when I was on a ship in the Bermuda Triangle. Now that was a hurricane!

    • wingsuitfreak says:

      I have to agree with you on one thing. NO! Don’t have a heart attack! I don’t buy the alien stuff. Not that I don’t believe they exist, but why would they have anything to do with us? The only interest they could possibly have in us is to ensure we don’t infect the universe with our need to destroy everything we find. If they can make it here, we would be like a bug to them. If I were them, I would recommend our destruction. But that’s me.

      “Most people wouldn’t recognize a genius if I walked right up to them” – Jim

  37. john.o says:

    Fair enough, m.clare. To be sure there appeared to be a few things missing in the “science” of Kauts Vella.

    But your own Mr. Novella speaks extra-scientifically when he declares, as if it were the most settled thing in the world:

    “It takes the specialized organization of neurons in the brain to produce cognitive processes that we experience as the mind.”

    Take this challenge: submit to me a scientific paper which uses experimental evidence (and not metaphysical argument) to establish as scientific fact that a “specialized organization of neurons in the brain” PRODUCES “cognitive processes that we experience as the mind.”

    I say:

    1) You can’t. No such paper exists.
    2) The brain does no such thing as “produce” what I experience in my 1st person world of experience from a 3rd person bunch of “processes,” as if one were a cause and the other a measurable effect in a 3rd person historical event.
    3) Your science on this point is all anecdotal and opinion.

    Don’t argue. Show me the paper. Show me the experiment. Otherwise I say, it’s balderdash.

    – john.o

  38. john.o says:

    Excellent! now let’s move in:

    “Philosophers typically focus on logical arguments and the APPARENT evidence of private experience.” (from the paper, emphases mine)

    In other words, and this is precisely your metaphysical opinion showing itself as a fact that it keeps confirming, like a Jehovah’s witness who points to the Bible as evidence for Biblical inerrancy, you have already determined that my private experience is not to be counted as evidence towards its own existence.

    But this is precisely the point at issue. and THUS:

    “…conscious functions are studied experimentally by comparison with closely matched unconscious processes, an approach I have called
    ‘contrastive analysis’ [1–4]”

    Right, in other words in your 3rd person world — which has no access to my 1st person world, I mean you are not clairvoyant, no? — you have to INFER THAT YOU ALREADY HAVE A MATCH. You must rely on some report of my first person experience. But of course, according to you, that experience is itself the result, is PRODUCED by, the processes you are trying to document. Amazing that you would end up confirming that!

    I could go on. It’s always the same BALDERDASH. Except for two frightening things:

    1) your claim to be able to document my 1st person world in your 3rd person world is essentially a totalitarian claim.
    2) you have a deep seated NEED to flatten every “I” into an IT, a need which masks its naked aggression in all kinds of friendly ways, but you NEED to destroy that I and replace it with that IT, and your jihad is more frightening than the wildest iconoclastic fever that ever smashed an idol or burned a library.

    Go build your autistic robots, spy on each other and blow each other’s autistic selves up with your own autistic toys in your 3rd person sandbox world, but leave everyone who can say I, which is to say all of us, out of it.

    • m.clare says:

      1) I make no claim of having the ability to “document your 1st person world in my 3rd person world”. While I have a scientific understanding of the anatomy in which your thoughts take place, I have no ability whatsoever to know your thoughts before you make them known to me (i.e. you are correct to suggest that I am not clairvoyant).

      2) I have no desire whatsoever to reduce any “I” to an “IT”. On the contrary, “I” increasingly apply this very sentiment to artificial “I’s” as they advance in sophistication.

      I don’t know where I implied that I was engaged in the creation of autistic robots whose purpose is to blow up humanity and destroy the world….?

      The fact remains that there is an OVERWHELMING body of scientific evidence to suggest consciousness exists within the anatomy of the brain. One might begin snooping into a handful of the scores of papers that describe observations made of injured brains.

      In the 1930’s, Penfield expanded our understanding of the mysteries of the brain with his electrode mapping studies:

      One can, with the aid of an electrode, cause a human to recall specific memories, smell burnt toast, “see” a butterfly, experience outbursts of laughter, tears, rage…..

      I suspect the following assertions are the ones responsible for the attacks on my character:

      – The anatomical structures of logic, language and reason are outcroppings of and servants to the anatomical structures of “lower” brain structures (which includes areas that are responsible for emotions). Dostoevsky said it better.

      – Understanding of the anatomy of these different minds is intentionally not widely understood.

      – Self proclaimed experts take advantage of the cognitive dissonance that arises from our incomplete understanding of the working of our minds; hence, the widespread endorsement of the supernatural language that facilitates our control at the hands of self-promoting propagandists (TPTSB).

      I am so much more your ally, john.o, than those who would control you by manipulating your emotions, beliefs, faiths and patriotisms. The irony is that, rather than trying to enslave you, I am attempting to help you break shackles that you defend as a sacred right to wear.

    • wingsuitfreak says:

      Science shouldn’t diss philosophy. Their belief that the world is materialistic is based upon pre-socratic philosophy. A philosophy I disagree with, which offers me the pleasure of stimulating debate.

  39. HomeRemedySupply says:

    NEWS Sept 1, 2017 – AI writes Yelp reviews that pass for the real thing
    On any given day, hordes of people consult online reviews to help them pick out where to eat, what to watch, and products to buy. We trust that these reviews are reliable because they come from everyday folk just like us. But, what if the feedback blurbs on sites ranging from Amazon to iTunes could be faked — not just by nefarious humans, but by AI? That’s what researchers from University of Chicago tried to do, with surprising results. Not only did the Yelp restaurant reviews written by their neural network manage to pass for the real thing, but people even found the posts to be useful.

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      From link in article…
      “Crowdturfing,” as the phenomenon is known, is a combination of “crowdsourcing,” meaning recruiting large numbers of people to contribute a small effort each toward a big task (like labelling photos), and “astroturfing,” meaning false grassroots support (in the form of bogus reviews or comments, for example)…

      Lee and his collaborators found that nine out of the top 10 sellers on Fiverr were crowdturfing—selling Twitter followers, website traffic, or likes on Facebook. The top seller, who goes by the username Crorkservice, had performed more than 600,000 gigs and made at least $3 million in just two years, the researchers say. Lee’s group also developed software capable of detecting crowdturfing by analyzing key features of a gig; its accuracy rate was 97 percent. Fiverr did not return requests for comment.

      Hire Trolls at “fiverr”

    • wingsuitfreak says:

      With the avg. person being functionally illiterate, it doesn’t take much of a blender program to do this! 🙂

  40. Corbett says:

    Putin: Leader in artificial intelligence will rule world

    Russian President Vladimir Putin says that whoever reaches a breakthrough in developing artificial intelligence will come to dominate the world.

    Putin, speaking Friday at a meeting with students, said the development of AI raises “colossal opportunities and threats that are difficult to predict now.”

    He warned that “the one who becomes the leader in this sphere will be the ruler of the world.” …

    • nosoapradio says:

      funny, ’cause if ya just quickly and only read the title (as I imagine many folks will)

      “Putin: Leader in artificial intelligence will rule world”

      Sounds like Putin’s already the leader in AI and will rule the world.

      For those who actually read the the title AND the article, they’ll learn that he:

      “warned it would be strongly undesirable if someone wins a monopolist position” and

      “promised that Russia would be ready to share its know-how in artificial intelligence with other nations…”

      Da tatataaAAA! SuperPutin! Heroe of the new multi-polar world! To the rescue! Against those antitrustable monopolistic Americans with their unsustainable and decrepit individualistic American “Dream”!

      …actually I’m supposed to be working…

      • nosoapradio says:

        how can that golden toupé possibly rival the cool KGB mystique…

        (not to bad-mouth toupés)

        …(‘kay, i’ll really shut up now and get back to work!)

      • nosoapradio says:

        Putin, Leader in artificial intelligence will rule world…

        …wouldn’t be suprising

        His whole life’s been devoted to intelligence :

        central, military, secret, artificial and otherwise…

        I bet he is Artificial Intelligence and already rules the world…

        his facial expressions don’t look quite real…

        and those Terminator ray bans… hiding the tiny telltale red light??

        the cold war arms race culminated in…the VLAD 9000…

        • Pablo de Boer says:

          Hola aloha nosoapradio,

          You wrote about Putin that his facial expressions don’t look quite real. To me it appears that Putin had plastic surgery just like all the members of the Trump clan.. That’s why the expressions on their faces and their remarks are just as fake like the fake news of CNN

          CNN Reporter Heckled with “Fake News!” Shouts by Passerbys ?


          Pablo de Boer

          • nosoapradio says:

            you mean he’s not really a cyborg?

            OK… but I still think “Putin, Leader of Artificial Intelligence will rule world”

            is subliminal predictive programming…

            …don’t ya think the VLAD 9000 might be a perfected version of the imported German ARNY series?

        • mkey says:

          If he were a cyborg, I doubt they’d risk putting him in the same room with Steven Seagal. The jig would be up too quick.

          On the other hand, there is absolutely no way anyone can prove that any of the notable “leaders” haven’t been replaced at some point in time with a less-prone-to-pass-out-cold standin. One of the reasons Iraq was invaded the first time was, according to Perkins, was the fact Saddam had a few dozen replacements.

          • nosoapradio says:

            then there was the Belgian Van Damme project and the Cosmic Bogdanoff phenomena…

            actually maybe we should get’em all in a room together…

    • Pablo de Boer says:

      Hola aloha señor James,

      I consider Putin as a psychopath just like all other political leaders. Putin’s remark on AI is for me doublespeak. Putin also said he was ‘on the brink of leaking 9/11 attack satellite images and ready to show proof that 9/11 was an inside job….. Until today Putin did not full fill these promises..

      + bankster’s bonus (Russian)

      The Russian banksters behave and act as the Western Banksters..

      RUSSIAN BAILOUT: Russia’s Central Bank Bails Out Country’s LARGEST Private Lender!

      And Central Bank of the Russian Federation is a member of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS).

      Saludos para todos,

      Pablo de Boer

      • mkey says:

        There are some things Ruskies are doing well, Pablo. Like keeping out of debt stranglehold.

        I do agree that the whole left-right west-east Putin-Whomever fakeorama is ridiculous.

        • Pablo de Boer says:

          Hola aloha amigo mkey,

          Just like you said the whole left-right west-east Putin-Whomever fakeorama is ridiculous and it is typical old skool Hegelian dialectics.

          Saludos y abrazos,

          Pablo de Boer

  41. richard.m says:

    James, let me have a go at this:
    AI will never be able to produce a perfect copy of human life for this reason: AI will always inherit the flaws of its creators. The sort of people who are trying to invent AI ever more human like are doing it for nafarious motives. These motives ultimately come from a deep lack of understanding of their own spiritual nature. Because they lack this understanding of themselves, they will never be able to create a perfect copy of human nature, because they do not deeply understand human nature to begin with. Ultimately AI will always be a flawed distinguishable copy of human life because its creators have a flawed understanding of themselves.

    • wingsuitfreak says:

      Thought I’d save you from the inevitable attack by the materialists. They are not trying to copy humans. Merely replace us. However, every one of it’s proponents DO share the flawed understandings of what constitutes intelligence. A belief in materialism, that logic alone is what constitutes intelligence (this comes from their own suppressing of emotional development as well as the technological factors of “modern” life. A refusal to practice true scientific principles, such as questioning their own belief systems. The list goes on. In the end, we are left with the most emotionally stunted people working on a product designed to eradicate us with the belief that everything good about us is bad.

    • mkey says:

      To point out a logical flaw in your argument: if you copy something completely, along with its flaws, it will be a perfect copy. If you didn’t copy, say, the flaws, then it would be an imperfect copy.

      I’m very certain people (engineers, programmers maybe a biologist or a chemist or two) who are trying to produce an AI do so because they see it as an achievement. Or they are simply payed to do it, vast majority neglects moral obligations when a paycheck is at hand’s reach. I don’t see why would they be unfit to understand “human nature.”

      • wingsuitfreak says:

        To return an observation on flaws, the statement concerning the absolute disregard on moral/ethical concerns might hint at a problem. Also, since DARPA is the primary agency funding such research, we already know the intent of the project isn’t to better mankind. As far as understanding human nature, that is a lot different than understanding the processes. Let’s face it, long before they create such an abomination, DARPA would weaponize it and that would pretty much be the end of civilization as we know it. That is obvious on the face of it what with that being their stated purpose. Using it for military applications, that is. However, if you just jump up and down, while holding your nose, and chant “Support the Troops” 3 times, the killbots will leave you alone. Honest.

      • richard.m says:

        But… once again to copy something completely you would have to understand it completely. Who truly understands all the complexities of human nature? I’m not sure anyone does. Elites who are pushing the AI agenda might think they do, but their arrogance will be their downfall.

        • trueanalysis says:

          Richard, I agree deeply with your ideas.

          However what you see as a positive thing, I see as the biggest danger.

          It is as dangerous as perfect martial arts fighter or scientific genius without morals and conscience. And I have seen few of those brilliant minds among fellow IT staff.
          To create massive intelligence without the spiritual part is very risky. It breaks the balance.

          It would be much less riskier if they could understand and copy it as a whole, I believe.

        • mkey says:

          What is human nature? Is the person doing copying copying one human (i.e. himself) or the entirety of humanity? Human nature is certainly not limited to one human being.

  42. Fnasse says:

    The best and most realistic one I have seen on the topic is Clif Highs discussion on the topic.

    The first 16 minutes explaines why AI cannot take over the world. The rest goes more deeply into the Mandela Effect, which is related to this.

    • trueanalysis says:

      Sorry Fnasse, but as an IT pro I have to say that this guy’s idea of programming is extremely limited. This is the view of previous century, when all they had was simple dislocated programs.

      Clif goes the wrong way at it… The successfull AI’s are not programmed using code in the old fashion. They are created by replicating the very mechanisms of how the real neurons work (i.e. in our brain). This is a completely different story and it is called Neural Networks.
      I would define three steps necessary for the birth of AI that can seize control.

      1. To design an algorithm that can create algorithms is not easy, but it is surely possible. After all creating an algorithm does not involve deep understanding of the world or spiritual qualities. It can be learned by the AI.

      2. To design a system that can learn itself is possible and has been shown many times. Last thing I heard was AI defeating Dota 2 pro and GO world champion.
      Dota 2 AI trains so fast, that it gets “many lifetimes” of playing experience in days. Therefore this AI learned just by playing against “copies of itself” for 14 days, not knowing rules or having any other expert knowledge.

      3. To design a code, that can spread like a virus and copy itself, even possibly doing some mutations in the process is very possible. Most modern worm viruses work like that.

      Now you “just” need to combine those three. It is not easy, but it is possible. Which means someone will achieve this sooner or later. I hope later 🙂

      • mkey says:

        Neural networks exllained in more detail

        The successfull AI’s are not programmed using code in the old fashion.
        How do you propose, using currently available technologies, to form an AI without feeding an opcode to the CPU?

        • trueanalysis says:

          Computer with CPU is just one of many possible implementations of neural network. It does not have to be computer at all.

          On the other hand, isn’t it just the same computers with CPUs, which control our nuclear electric plants, military systems and all different kinds of critical systems across our whole society? Aren’t those controled through technological level “communication interfaces”? Is it different if human calls the commmunication interface through the user interface of the computer system or an AI conected to internet does call it?

          If a hacker can rip through those networks and use interfaces which he shouldn’t have access to, in case of advanced AI with communication interface to the internet and potentially millions of years of time (given that AI “brain” thinks ~milion times faster than human) why would it not be able to achieve better results?

          I’m not saying we are there at the moment, but I really don’t see any major obstacle.

          A bit funny post on the subject: AI that can “code” very simple programs in language called BrainFuck 🙂

  43. Corbett says:

    Not precisely “AI” but certainly germane to the subject of consciousness:

    Scientists Now Believe the Universe Itself May Be Conscious

    • m.clare says:

      “Scientists now believe _________”. A quick search in the online Library of Babel will enable one to fill in the blank with ANYTHING.

      I am very much relieved you didn’t’ say “Science” now believes, as if “Science” itself was a deity. Still, “Scientist believes” is an oxymoron. Belief is different than hypothesis in a subtle but extremely significant way. Where hypotheses are educated speculations that await rigorous experimentation, beliefs are premature and unfounded conclusions. It is extremely important to make distinctions like these to avoid the pitfalls of superstitious language.

      The directors of MSM realize that, despite their best efforts, people are becoming increasingly secular. Their superstitious smoke & mirrors language must adapt with the times. It is now fashionable to say one is spiritual rather than religious, for example. The anointed intellectual spokes-models of “Science” in whom we place our faith are declaring their “belief” that we are “living in a simulation” (Elon Musk & Neil SmokesGrass Tyson). Sun Tzu reminds us how important it is to confuse your enemy and win battles without a fight:

      How is it that we are so ready to attribute plausibility to the consciousness of non-biological stars, rocks, or crystals, yet scoff at the notion that our deliberate efforts could lead eventually to the development of an artificial consciousness?

      There is overwhelming scientific evidence that suggests consciousness occurs within the central nervous systems of individuals. Yet, we are relentlessly encouraged to, in the complete absence of evidence, attribute consciousness to supernatural phenomenon EXTERNAL to the experimentally verified anatomical structures of consciousness. Why is this?

      Fear. Our level of awareness has evolved to a point at which we can contemplate birth and death. The pain and fear of loss is soothed by explanations we want so desperately to believe.

      Our emotions are manipulated by psychopathic power-seekers who mockingly burn giant wooden owl effigies, wear horns or display supernatural symbols of the dark side and laugh at the response of the superstitious herd.

      We cannot discount the possibility of higher consciousness elsewhere in the universe; to do so would be utterly unscientific. However, there is sufficient scientific evidence already in existence to suggest the anatomy of the human brain is quite enough to account for human consciousness. We need not look to supernatural forces…. and the self-anointed experts that accompany them…. to account for our individual consciousness. The ultimate responsibility of consciousness lies within the individual.

      But, who am I to contradict what Scientists Now Believe?

      • nosoapradio says:

        Yes, the beliefs of the masses always have been and will continue to be (for a time at least) manipulated by those who have something to sell: man-made climate change, consumerism, wars, technocracy, eugenics etc etc.

        Selling religion and playing off of our fear of death, instilling a profound sense of malleable guilt, as everyone here knows, has proven to be a powerful organizer of people and societies, their values, interpretations of the world, the cosmos and most importantly, their leaders.

        That is precisely why, since God was decapitated along with the King, his legacy buried by the existentialists, I am very wary when I see such a concerted drive to hard sell the fanatical ideology that is Materialism to the exclusion of everything else.

        It is paradoxical that Man as a machine should survive the passing of the industrial era since, with the Information age, Quantum physics and a knowledge of the immaterial has opened up new ways of interpreting the phenomena of the universe and all things subatomic and/or living, including humans.

        You are, to your credit, apparently very concerned with the elites manipulating humans to their detriment through superstitious beliefs;

        Today, the dangerous, manipulative superstitious belief is that quantum physics doesn’t exist and that its implications are worthless

        because that opens the way to equating humans with primitive machines, negating their complexity and mysteries along with those of the universe. Convenient for, as Minnie would say, making humans feel inferior and so easily relinquish their humanity for transhumanity, so the elites can pursue their wetdream of immortality.

        you say: “…There is overwhelming scientific evidence that suggests consciousness occurs within the central nervous systems of individuals…”

        Yes and apparently some of these processes are exceedingly small and obey the rules of quantum physics and can neither be understood nor duplicated by current classical materialistic means.

        So how is being interested in possible quantum explanations for such phenomena as the behavior of stars or human consciousness succumbing to superstition?

        Believing that everything human can be synthesized may be the dangerous superstition.

        • m.clare says:

          Hey, Marconi, ☺

          General Relativity does a good job explaining the physics of very large things while Quantum Field Theory is our current best guess at subatomic phenomenon. The trouble is that these two theories are mutually incompatible. You suggest you are “interested in possible quantum explanations for the behavior of stars and human consciousness… physicists have been chasing the elusive Theory of Everything for years and haven’t yet pulled it off. Check this out:

          Your suggestion, “Today, the dangerous, manipulative superstitious belief is that quantum physics doesn’t exist and that its implications are worthless”,…. is a strawman. Quantum physics exist and its implications are profound… I’m not aware of anybody suggesting otherwise.

          Quantum Field Theory isn’t required to explain human consciousness. Here is a case where a little information can be dangerous. There is always just enough truth in a good con to complete the sale.

          I have yet to be shown definitive evidence of the existence of consciousness in the absence of matter. I’m not a true Materialist, however, because I DO acknowledge the existence of consciousness and intelligence.

          My views regarding this topic neither “make me feel inferior”, nor do they urge me to “relinquish my humanity to controlling elites”. Quite the contrary.

          • nosoapradio says:

            Merdicum m.clare! I’m gonna have to do this quickly!

            You say

            “…Quantum Field Theory is our current best guess at subatomic phenomenon…”

            and that

            “…Quantum Field Theory isn’t required to explain human consciousness…”

            Are you suggesting

            a. That you have explained the nature of consciousness?


            b. that it does not function on the subatomic level?

            You say:

            “…I have yet to be shown definitive evidence of the existence of consciousness in the absence of matter…”

            and, unless you’ve personally and single-handedly defined the nature of consciousness, you have yet to be shown definitive evidence to the contrary.

            You say:

            “…There is always just enough truth in a good con to complete the sale…”

            Are you saying that the scientists described in the article linked below are merely con artists:


            “…The recent discovery of warm temperature quantum vibrations in microtubules inside brain neurons by the research group led by Anirban Bandyopadhyay, PhD, at the National Institute of Material Sciences in Tsukuba, Japan (and now at MIT), corroborates the pair’s (Penrose and Hameroff) theory and suggests that EEG rhythms also derive from deeper level microtubule vibrations…”

            You say:

            “…Quantum physics exist and its implications are profound…”


            “…I’m not a true Materialist, however, because I DO acknowledge the existence of consciousness…”

            But you imply that employing quantum physics to explain brain waves, for example, produced in neurons is useless to explain consciousness. Or is that a strawman?

            As for your linked article, the apparent paradoxical incompatibilities of quantum and classical physics have, to present, not invalidated either for explaining phenomena.

            Now I’m late as usual…

            but it’s always a pleasure.

            • m.clare says:

              In answer to questions a & b, yes, I have a theory that consciousness inhabits a higher level than the subatomic physics that underlie the mechanical infrastructure of consciousness.

              Yes, I personally have a definition of the nature of consciousness. As a conscious individual, the responsibility of creating such a definition rests upon my shoulders. Do I depend upon comments made by other conscious beings? Of course I do. Does my definition evolve? Certainly. Do I place faith in gurus when I reach the limits of my comprehension? Absolutely not.

              The papers you reference discuss the physics of matter and energy…. NOT some invisible, immeasurable, disembodied consciousness without any relationship to matter. Quantum field theory does not prove the existence of spirits, souls and gods…. It describes the behavior of matter.

              No, I would certainly NOT lump your referenced scientists in with con artists. I will suggest, however, that snake-oil salesman are to be found in the wake of such thinkers, ready to distort, misdirect and exploit.

              I haven’t asserted that quantum physics is useless to explain consciousness; I did suggest that it might not be necessary….consider:

              Signals have meaning at a higher level than the underlying physics of the signals themselves.

              Are photons, electrons, quantum mechanics involved in the transmission of signals through a copper cable into my TV? Yes, of course. Do the signals have meaning without consideration of the underlying physics? Yes. We don’t need to involve quantum mechanics in a discussion of the transmission of information. The physics exist at a deeper level upon which the signals operate.

              Are there vibrating molecules of air without which my voice would fail to deliver a message to your ear? Yes, of course. Are the vibrating air molecules responsible for the message? Would an ever-deeper probing of the subatomic particles comprising the medium of communication reveal more about the message…. Or… more about the medium….?

              I confess to having taken only a quick glance at your linked information. Thank you, sincerely, for bringing it to my attention. I look forward to snooping into it and revisiting my assumptions.

              The pleasure is mine.

              • nosoapradio says:

                Ave m.clare,

                You made two remarks:

                “Do I place faith in gurus when I reach the limits of my comprehension? Absolutely not…”


                “…Quantum field theory does not prove the existence of spirits, souls and gods”

                To the first I’m delighted to report that we are in total agreement.

                To the second, one might argue that there are semantic ambiguities to clarify, and others might simply argue “not yet”.

                Thank you for evoking the notions of medium and message. There are indeed various forms of communication designed for our various material senses, audio, tactile, olfactive and visual, that affect our consciousness via a variety of pathways;

                our conscious mind through reason and bias; our subconscious mind subliminally via emotion, memories, drives…

                I would postulate (yea, it’s a fun word to use) that if consciousness did indeed have a subatomic element to it as suggested by Penrose, Hameroff and the Japanese team cited above,

                (the sort of consciousness that might affect the behavior of a photon or electron as suggested through the double slit experiment)

                a certain kind of subatomic communication might occur via other means than our 5 material senses, passing through the subatomic processes that may well occur in the microtubules located in our neurons,

                as we receive information and stimulation from within and from without.

                This subatomic information is perhaps a very important kind of communication,

                a sort of communication that defies our concept of semiotics as we currently know it

                and that due to its subatomic nature would be impossible for a man-made machine to possess or access:

                A: because humans do not yet understand it and so can not replicate it

                and B: because Humans, however resourceful and admirable they may be, have certain atomic and subatomic limitations; at least occasionally. Except for myself.

                That said, I too must confess to having taken only the most cursory of glances at my linked information to prove my point.

                However, I reiterate, that this thread has been invaluable to the evolution of my thought on these matters and that I intend to solidify my understanding of the notions encountered herein with further research.

                Thanking you again for your time and arguments

                Until next time…

      • trueanalysis says:

        A science after all is also a system of belief and trust. There are even witchhunts in serious science. For example when major study on cellphones designed and paid not to find any harmful effects finds many harmful effects, even DNA damage. Very respectable scientists are accused of fraud, they lose the funding, even their job, the scientific community excomunicates them… 🙂 Just because they didn’t get the main thing, what results they should have delivered… If someone from mobile business pays millions of dollars for “independent research”, the pressure about the result can get quite immense.

        To cut long story short, modern people basically replaced God/gods for new technological belief systems. They just the hell don’t like to admit it.
        I very much recommend Tomas Sedlacek and his Economy of Good and Evil. He provides excellent points, blutnly stating what for me was obvious for long time already. Science became the new religion. Deny that.

        • wingsuitfreak says:

          Science also eats its own. Science was born of philosophy, yet now they are the philosophers. And the theologians. The multi-verse theory was embraced by the top astrophysicists, not because of rational unbiased evidence, but because they had come to a point where they either had to say there was a god or there were mulit-verses. One of these TOP scientists said she didn’t want to believe in a god so she chose the multi-verse theory. Of course, with an infinite number of universes we now have an infinite number of gods but hey what are details? It’s science!
          Our existence as a video game is their triumph over both philosophy and theology. I bet Nietzsche never dreamed the answer to our existential crisis’ was to simply deny we have an existence to worry about. Now, we are not only not real, but our god is doubtless a spoiled little 6 year old who rides the short saucer to his intergalactic school. Is that poop on the joystick? Yech!

  44. nosoapradio says:

    Any innocents like myself out there?

    Watch this and WEEP!

    Double-slit experiment
    5-minutes that might just change your life.

  45. nosoapradio says:

    uh, just my own conclusions from this thread for my own benefit:

    With the implications of the double slit experiment, a definition of the nature of consciousness can not be reduced to mere computation or statistical magic boxes (neural networks) or a combination of the two.

    Unconscious AI alone could conceivably take humans hostage and even erase their existence in an unconscious way through a series of unanticipated runaway or deliberately destructive processes.

    So AI is real though AGI or conscious AI is not and probably cannot be until the quantum processes taking place in our microtubules (for example) are understood, and replicated and/or controlled.

    Unconscious AI, that can compute and analyse and “learn” and test scenarios faster than any human being, might be able to help accomplish this,

    Making it remotely possible, one day, for AI to become conscious.

    In the meantime, merging superior computational capacities with the human capacity for consciousness

    in the form of Transhumanism

    is probably a more expeditive way to accomplish “conscious AI”

    while keeping a check on the dangers of power-hungry “conscious” AI machinery through a mutualized fusional survival instinct.

  46. nosoapradio says:

    There was another great (female) science fiction writer for young people (and the young at heart as they say)

    her name was Zenna Henderson, and like Stuart Hameroff she was based in Tucson, Arizona.

    She wrote a short story called

    The Noise Eater

    that comes to mind when I think about the development of highly sophisticated AI.

  47. Pablo de Boer says:

    Ai ai ai caramba LMAO

    Elon Musk: Artificial intelligence battle ‘most likely cause’ of WWIII

    • Pablo de Boer says:

      The Race For AI Exposed – How Transhumanism Technology Is Leading The Third Revolution In Warfare

      Artificial Intelligence in the 21st century now has the potential to put the gears in motion for a global technological world war. Man is being merged with machine under the guise of convenience but the ultimate endgame to this agenda is total control over all mankind over every inch of the planet. In this video Dan Dicks of Press for Truth outlines the agenda developed by DARPA to incrementally turn human beings into what can only be described as mind controlled robotic slaves.

      • tillerman says:

        David Thrussell, in his recent article, “The Coming Techno Apocalypse”(, explores the implications and permutations of such technology imaginatively, including in his discussion of yet another incarnation of AI, the melding of man and machine, beloved of Elon Musk among others:

        “Is it to be war between those Transhumans who accept and rejoice in their hybridization into the matrix of omniscient ideological
        control technologies (an adjunct of the modern permanent state of entertainment/distraction and doctrinal/behavioural feedback), and
        those on the margins who knowingly or intuitively reject the encroachment of optic fibre, microwave blast and touch-screen texture
        into every last human domain of flesh, thought, sinew and soul?”

        In Thrussell’s vision transhumanism is a reality and we find its participants having willingly given up their cognitive freedom for a coercive one, where top-down control is all and human values have been replaced by ideology in those entertained, distracted and groomed for post-human life.

        The present state of man-machine hybridization is still in its infancy and far from embodying Thrussell’s vision. Rather, it seems despite developers’ efforts, they are nowhere near the promised land. Olivia Salon, in her article “Elon Musk says humans must become cyborgs to stay relevant” Is he right? ( explores current endeavors to develop man-machine life. Quoting Arizona State University’s Professor Panagiotis Artemiadis, working to increase the limited bandwidth now available to exchange information between machine and human, she concludes her piece with this assessment: “‘We really first have to understand the network [of the brain] and how all of these processing units communicate with each other and interact with the world,’ …. ‘We are really far away.'”

        In the same article addressing machine replication of the human brain, neuroscientist Miguel Nicolelis dismisses the idea “that digital machines no matter how hyper-connected, how powerful, will one day surpass human capacity…” Moreover Nicolelis argues “that the brain – contrary to what Musk and Singularity proponents like Ray Kurzweil say – is not computable because human consciousness is the result of unpredictable, nonlinear interactions among billions of cells. ‘Our brains do not work in an algorithmic way and are not digital machines,’ he said.”

        Given the above, how can AGI not run a poor second to natural intelligence as it can not address the nonlinear character of consciousness? Moreover, if consciousness or true self-awareness exists outside the brain and the brain–like some consciousness researchers posit–is more of an antenna and receiving station then a self-contained computer of sorts, then the question of machine AI gaining self-awareness build’s on Nicolelis’ case against machines achieving human level AGI. See Arjun Walia’s article with an accompanying video from The Thunderbolts Project linked below for an introductory discussion on the materialist-post materialist debate on this question:

        Is Consciousness A Product Of The Brain Or Is The Brain The Receiver Of Consciousness?

        Given the threats posed by advanced technologies result from human programming, our chief danger is natural intelligence applied in highly non-ethical ways. This intelligence has demonstrated that it is capable of great deception and of history’s worst crimes. It is NI that directs AI and thus NI that is our primary threat. Of course AI is also incapable of NI at its best and cannot exhibit those qualities that allow humans to contextualize complex situations through the power of love, empathy, conscience, imagination and deeply relational knowing– a way of life where human beings who live in balance with other life forms, flourish and wish the flourishing of others.

        • manbearpig says:


        • manbearpig says:

          I knew télévisions would someday serve some constructive purpose; such as through correlation, stimulation and ablation testing, disproving the conclusion that the brain is merely generating consciousness and on the contrary, could be receiving “signals” from without, like a television does.

          Thanks for the insights and the links. I’ll take a look at the other two.

        • Pablo de Boer says:

          Hola aloha tillerman,

          muchas gracias for sharing the information. I can suggest you to watch the pro-transhumanism propaganda documentary which I linked below and this documentary is even not so new. See how they torture animals or put brain cells on a chip to create neural networks… For my person the scientists who appear in this documentary are the new dr Frankenstein and they call transhumanism BIOENGINEERING. I think because bioengineering sounds less creepy than transhumanism…

          Transhumanism Part 1/The Ultimate Agenda

          Note: there are 2 short clips in the documentary in where the scientists speak french and it is not subtitled. But the french scientists are also promoting transhumanism….

        • trueanalysis says:

          “Is Consciousness A Product Of The Brain Or Is The Brain The Receiver Of Consciousness?”

          What was first, a chicken or an egg? 🙂
          If scientist take this kind of debate, they didn’t “discover” much about life and our world, did they? 😛

        • wingsuitfreak says:

          Another question might be, How will scientists, who constantly think in a linear manner (as the scientific equation requires) develop a means for which they can develop a mechanism which could simulate the manner in which our brains work? Obviously, they can’t. But they can build killer robots for half the price! Which is where it will all end anyway.

  48. Pablo de Boer says:

    David Icke in Amsterdam; Artificial Intelligence is the end of free thought

  49. manbearpig says:

    The superman and the Hegelian dialectic…

    problem: AI Reaction: Only Humans Solution: Transhumans or Superman?

  50. NoMeatNoDairyNoProblem says:

    Looks to me like they’re taking the cheater’s rout in the creation of AI by simply using/making actual biological brains.
    Since they’re a bunch of sociopaths who lack ethics in every way, this is exactly what I expected they would do.

  51. Pablo de Boer says:

    Modern humans are loosing their minds…

    Meet the “ems” — machines that emulate human brains and can think, feel and work just like the brains they’re copied from. Economist and social scientist Robin Hanson describes a possible future when ems take over the global economy, running on super fast computers and copying themselves to multitask, leaving humans with only one choice: to retire, forever. Glimpse a strange future as Hanson describes what could happen if robots ruled the earth.

    • manbearpig says:

      Hey Pablo,

      Thanks for this Ted talk video – the key is from 1 minute and 11 seconds to 1 minute and 22 seconds

      “modeling how each brain cell functions from input, via tranformation, to output”

      this is such a big “If” that it nearly invalidates the rest of the thought experiment.

      this is where quantum physics may come in and where things may get dauntingly difficult to model.

      Again, if “emulating” is “imitating” then it is not “reproducing”. And finally, the result is nothing but a simulation. Like a photograph. and I’d never choose a photograph of something beautiful over the real thing. Even if it were more obedient and efficient at calculating.

    • m.clare says:

      “We’re going to build superhuman machines,” says Harris, “but we haven’t yet grappled with the problems associated with creating something that may treat us the way we treat ants.”

      • wingsuitfreak says:

        The assumption that we will build these machines is that we will have survived long enough to develop them. We can stop far short of such technology and still have them be the means of our extinction.

        • Pablo de Boer says:

          Hola aloha amigo Jim,

          I happy that your survived Irma and that you were not being …. by floating zombies in wetsuits or bikesuits.

          Saludos y abrazos,


          • wingsuitfreak says:

            Oh yes Pablo, The floods drowned all the zombies and left the real humans around to develop friendships and to help each other out. It was a wonderful experience and well-worth the price of admission. AI proponents can’t replicate it.

  52. manbearpig says:

    Sam Harris is a dangerous and charismatic spin doctor who in the guise of saying something as oxymoronic as “we need a new manhattan project to understand how to avoid an arms race” argues for the rapid recourse to transhumanism.

    Indeed, the good doctor implies that he “Recommends the safest and most prudent way forward” is to welcome a super intelligent chip onto our brains

    so, as he puts it, “that we essentially become THEIR limbic systems”

    otherwise, within the ambiant arms race mentality, the quicker and easier technology to develop, that is AI independant of our brains, would “treat us the way we treat ants”

    so the second AI’s interests collided with Human interests, they would step on us “with no qualms”.

    Brilliant sophistry that would make even Chomsky blush with envy.

    Thank you m.clare, for bringing this video to my attention.

    • manbearpig says:

      From the Guardian:

      “…If humans want to continue to add value to the economy, they must augment their capabilities through a “merger of biological intelligence and machine intelligence”. If we fail to do this, we’ll risk becoming “house cats” to artificial intelligence…”

      or ants…

      From the filmed conference “Elon Musk, Sam Harris, Stuart Russell, Ray Kurzweil, Demis Hassabis, Nick Bostrom and David Chalmers discuss Superintelligence”:

      • wingsuitfreak says:

        I wonder just how easy it would be to put a virus in their “superior” AI overlords? It shouldn’t be too hard. After all, tech sites are just behind porn sites in the number of viruses you can get from them. Techies are really some of the dumbest people on the planet. All of their intelligence is locked up in some computer and they have none left in which to deal with reality. If code weren’t so godawful boring, I would learn it just so that I could hack. Hmmmm…..Ahhh, the trouble one can cause…….. JimBob from fluorida 🙂

      • john.o says:

        As one watches the mic passed from male torso to male torso, it is instructive to see each one of these men as one would, if one were their martial arts, dance or climbing instructor. That is, look at the relationship each has with his physical body.

        Probably presenting the best here would be Harris. He is the one with absolutely no credential at all, except narcissism, and must therefore possess the the bearing for hyper-self-confidence to survive with his meager intellect through a Ted talk. But he is rigid.

        Those who need to exert power do next best, I think. Without exception the supposed “hard core science” intellects have pronounced postural issues that reflect the feeling in the body being cut off from the head. They all have very underdeveloped legs, with even more feeling from the feet and legs cutoff at the base of the spine. They clearly suffer from a lack of bodily “grounding.” Right there, my friends, in the schizoid bodily state of these great “intellects,” is the birth of “AI” and confused “AI” talk, which as usual, except for Chalmers, confuses computation + physical structures with intelligence, and intelligence with sentience, and sentience with consciousness.

        Chalmers talks perfect sense when he predicts a hyper “intelligent” but completely unconscious structure, within which conscious human sentient beings will be trapped, their suffering unknown to unconscious but super intelligent machine masters. But Chalmers shows the same issues, his legs jiggling like a teenage crank addict. Maybe that’s why he grasps the ontological peculiarities of “consciousness” very well, but not sentience, feeling.

        I am not being critical. I am personally familiar with some version of most, if not all, of these bodily issues. I had the good fortune to meet others who made me aware of them and gave me practices of many different kinds to integrate my bodily presence with my kinesthetic, emotional, and thinking self, head to toe. At least to some degree. It is ongoing practice, not an achievement. I do find that the more feeling I have evenly distributed in my body, the better I feel my warm feet connected right through my alive torso up into my somewhat cooler head, the less interested I am in having machines live for me.

        As James Corbett reminds me, by simply unplugging myself from that “AI” world, I foil a thousand plots to enslave me. Thanks, JC!

        Or we can step into it. I was recently trapped in a robot elevator system, which let me off on the wrong floor, from which there was no escape, since the unconscious non-sentient system did not recognize me as being legitimately on that floor. I glimpsed the “future” while waiting 45 minutes for a random conscious sentient janitor to find me.

        He was a super friendly cool guy. We talked about both of us getting out of the effing building and enjoying the amazing weather. Next time he might be wearing goggles that would identify me as an intruder, and have an incapacitator for his own safety.

        • wingsuitfreak says:

          We, the asleep, led by the insane. Situation normal, all effed up.

        • manbearpig says:

          Thank you John O for taking over an hour of your precious time to watch this video…that I hadn’t even watched before posting…ahem…

          I agree with your assessment concerning the definition of AI:

          “…confuses computation + physical structures with intelligence, and intelligence with sentience, and sentience with consciousness…”

          At any rate they made no effort to clarify this semantic point at the outset.

          What irritates me about this fascinating panel is the very same thing that irritates me about The Circle movie… (yes, it’s an obsession)

          which is The ultimate message; since Elon Musk was always the last to respond (pure coincidence I’m sure) saying we need “democratization of AI” to keep a concentration of AI power out of the hands of a few people…

          but then goes on to sing the praises of Regulatory bodies…

          like The Circle where total transparency is espoused while ignoring the fact that some “regulatory” body will have special prerogatives, giving it total control, the very concentration of power they say they want to avoid…

          He’s selling his neural lace for whatever reason, and I was right to assume Sam Harris is his marketing department.

          My quick impressions:

          The panel was MIT sponsored and I’ve always more or less assumed that MIT is a branch of the DOD.

          The panel was all in black and blue and entirely masculine (as you mentioned).

          Provocative notions evoked :

          – the Evolvability of Humanity independant of any sort of AI must remain at the core of the work on this technology.

          -Solving resource scarcity through AI (sounds to me like an endorsement of Technocracy as I believe scarcity is an engineered illusion)

          – Machines have much faster output… Sounds like an endorsement of rapid transition to 5G or neural lace adoption but perhaps because I don’t understand the science. (Dennis also specifically mentioned the urgency of bandwidth)

          -They say we must go fast to go slow in AI development: We’re very visibly in the S-curve and if we put the brakes on now some kid in a garage could master AI technology first…

          – Distinguishing between those who want to make the world better and those who SAY they want to make it better.

          -Humanity must be ethical to create ethical AI

          also I didn’t quite catch the “democracy” question at the end but it also seemed to mirror the wonders for democracy that AI is supposed to contribute according to The Circle… I’ll have to check that…

          This panel was filmed and put on line for curious people with a message embedded. It appears open and candid but I’m convinced it’s embedded with a message managed at either end of the stage between Sam Harris and Elon Musk.

          Well maybe not…but it kind of seemed that way…

          • manbearpig says:

            I found interesting a statement that one of my students working in IT and robotics made one day:

            He’s not very worried about AI escaping our control and taking over the world.

            He’s more concerned about all the DNA experiments using viruses et al escaping our control and destroying humanity…

            geez! Lots of super things to worry about I guess!

            still, I prefer to replace the word “worry” with “consider”…

            • wingsuitfreak says:

              Hola, ManBearPig, O Most High Creator of the Internet and Inventor of Global Warming! I don’t think that the video is embedded so much, as it merely reflects the dysfunctions of the personalities involved. I have yet to meet a techie whom could be considered a fully functioning human being. Their range of intelligence is far too narrow and their emotional development is far too stilted. But don’t worry about the viruses of the world escaping. That won’t end the world. You should really worry about crazy people flying around in their wingsuits in the skies. Those people are seriously warped! 🙂

              • manbearpig says:

                Heavens to murgatroyd! Just watched this:


                The vertiginous go pro angle almost gave me cardiac arrest…

                Seriously, “warped” is not overstating things here…

                never catch me in one of those!

                you workin’ for Red Bull too?

              • manbearpig says:

                BTW, my student didn’t mention viruses ending the world, but destroying humanity.

                And apparently its DeMis DeepMind Hassabis, and not “Dennis” as I’d typed. Funny. “Demis” is like short for DEepMind hassabIS… ok…time for some shut-eye.

              • wingsuitfreak says:

                I can’t stand redbull. It gives me the worst gas ever. That kid did pretty good for his first skydive. I found myself yelling (in my head) “Arch!” at first, but then he figured it out. That helps you to stay steady. I started laughing when they said you will have radio guidance. I used to talk them down and either their ears are totally clogged up from the change in air pressure (they will clear up eventually, but the wax stops them from doing so at first.) or they are so pumped up with adrenaline that they can’t hear anything. Still, it was amusing. After a while, once you learn to trust yourself and your gear, it becomes a very relaxing experience. You develop “skydiver time” and don’t really need that altimeter to know when to pull. But you don’t trust your eyes. The height looks the same until you go under 2k feet. Then it starts coming up very fast! Though you are supposed to be under canopy now at around 2500 feet. So, don’t ask me how I know this. 🙂 JimBob from fluorida

  53. m.clare says:


    Imagine living for one year, starting today, without ones and zeros. No Internet. No smart phones. No chips. Cash only. Sure, you could do it…. Just like the alcoholic could stop drinking if he really wanted to….

    This is more than addiction, however; it is what we are. Our cerebral prosthetic gadgetry does more than store memories, provide input and facilitate output. We depend upon it for survival.

    While we focus our fear on some imaginary, future-tipping boogey-man looming ominously on the horizon, we fail to appreciate that the dreaded event occurred in the past. It already happened. We are cyborgs.

    (Fish unaware of the water they swim in. The prostheses are, for the moment, external.)

    Life was an inevitability
    Consciousness was an inevitability
    The inevitable transition of the pinnacle of sentience from the biological to the synthetic is well underway.

    Are there limits to the evolutionary force that has favored extending the frontier of consciousness? Dinosaurs became too big. Are we becoming too conscious?

    Consider the cyanobacteria:

    3.5 billion years ago, cyanobacteria developed an overwhelming evolutionary advantage… photosynthesis… and rapidly spread over the planet. Imagine an Al Gore or David Suzuki amongst the cyanobacteria warning against the reckless release of poisonous oxygen. The changing atmosphere (climate, ocean chemistry etc.) would lead to the destruction of the planet.

    Without that oxygen, we wouldn’t be here to talk about it. Cyanobacteria are still amongst us. Some representatives of the human race will likely remain amongst their intellectual superiors.


    Humbling? Yes. Scary? For some, I suppose. Inevitable? Unstoppable?

    Extinction happens. There is no steady state preservation of present conditions that best suit species that have crossed an imaginary evolutionary Garden-of-Eden finish line. Change is constant.

    We don’t have to like it.

    Prove to me you are NOT a cyborg. Stop using ones and zeros … today.

    • wingsuitfreak says:

      m.claire, As a self=proclaimed countryboy anarchist, my response to others telling me that I need to prove myself to them is generally a “who are you that I need to prove myself to?” Not challenging you, I just found it the first thought that ran through my mind as I read this.

    • manbearpig says:

      Hey m.clare! Long time no read!

      Thought I would, in a very unsollicited sort of way, clarify a few points on my own personal situation:

      A: I am not a cyborg even if I make regular use of computers and occasional use of smart phones.

      B: Despite the term ‘fondle slab’ I do not eat, breath, defecate and/or make love in, on or with a computer or smartphone (as fish do with water).

      C: In contrast with the Al Gore cyanobacteria, I’m not very worried about the destruction of the planet (see Carlin) and more concerned with the destruction of humanity and

      D: I am not afraid of change. In fact, I fear the opposite.

      This campaign aimed at forcing people into accepting that they are already cyborgs, (as, in addition to your own argument, can be seen on the YouTube comments board) that transhumanism is inevitable and/or is “the safest and most prudent way forward”,

      this insistant campaign to strongarm people into accepting their alleged status as “biological machines” and “limbic systems for AI”

      truly reminds me of the treachorous campaign to force Palestinians into ostentatiously accepting Israel as a Jewish State thereby annhialating their right of return and condoning the preferential treatment of jews. (sort of like being able to take off the chip or accept the preferential treatment of cyborgs)

      Sentience for synthetic beings is far from being inevitable and could very well be impossible.

      Change does not have to mean humans being bullied by elites, (who pay brilliant, curious human beings capable of creating powerfully dangerous technologies), into accepting to be an AI’s limbic system (even if it’s highly convenient for said elites).

      Finally, besides your disdain for humanity, I haven’t yet understood why you’re so gung-ho for transhumanism?

      • manbearpig says:

        But I did enjoy the image of the Chicken Little cyanobacteria!

      • m.clare says:


        1) Whereas competing theories depend entirely upon belief and faith, there is an abundance of hard evidence in support of the theory of evolution.
        2) Evolution is a dynamic process (not static) that takes place over generations.
        3) When discussing evolution, the 80-year span of a human life is like a flash of static electricity in the dark.
        4) Evolution has NOT stopped; the species in existence today have not crossed some magic Garden-of-Eden finish line.
        5) Evolutionary forces have advanced the levels of consciousness.
        6) Consciousness will CONTINUE to evolve.

        CYBORG: an organism that has enhanced abilities due to the integration of some artificial component or technology.

        I remain astonished that so many humans reflexively defend their right to believe in spirits, gods and souls…. (leaps of faith in explanations that can not be observed)…. while vehemently rejecting the possibility that their biological brains have relationships with artificial consciousness enhancing technologies…. (gadgets they touch, see, hear).

        The cerebral prosthetics reside, for the moment, outside human bodies. That “cell phones” are carried at the hip like colostomy bags in no way diminishes their role as extensions of human minds.

        What better time than the present to discuss consciousness? Where is the danger in entertaining the possibility that higher levels of consciousness may evolve biologically and / or artificially?

        I think it’s dangerous, reckless and irresponsible to elevate existing human consciousness to some lofty, sacred and impossibly unattainable supernatural gift. I think assertions like “we are becoming cyborgs” must be given serious consideration. I think the promotion and manipulation of fear remains the best strategy for controlling the masses.

        I am no more gung-ho for trans humanism than I am for electric trains, hearing aids, industrial agriculture or the Rolling Stones. These things exist and I have observed them; I make no endorsement.

        • wingsuitfreak says:

          You don’t like the Rolling Stones? Ghastly!

        • manbearpig says:

          Hello m.clare!

          Thanks for your response! I’ve got 20 minutes before my student arrives and as I know no self-restraint I shall try hard to give you a decent answer even if it’s not thoroughly thought through. I reserve the right of amendment.

          You say:

          “I think it’s dangerous, reckless and irresponsible to elevate existing human consciousness to some lofty, sacred and impossibly unattainable supernatural gift.”

          -I don’t think human consciousness needs to be raised to loftiness : it’s already lofty.

          -‘Sacred’ from a Merriam Webster definition: b :highly valued and important ‘a sacred responsibility’, in the sense of something that should inherently be protected and preserved: well it should be.

          -And ‘unattainable’ for machines: it may well be.

          -‘Supernatural’ in the way a television might’ve been to a mediaeval farmer – in the sense of “that appears to transcend the laws of nature”: well that’s what it potentially is for the moment from a quantum physics point of view.

          Having said that I thought a lot about your next-to-last post on this subject and I realized that you were probably right in what you implied: I insist that we are not yet cyborgs; but we may well soon be: that ‘augmented intelligence’ fixed into the body through nanotechnology and other forms of corporal assimilation was probably going to occur just as it’s indispensable today for you to have a job without a laptop and a smartphone.
          If “augmented” is not on your Resumé your application’ll be scrapped along with the other non-skilled, non-experienced candidates… So encouraged by the stick but also the carrot because

          then I listened to Mr. Corbett’s interview with Jeffrey Tucker who said essentially what you said “you can’t stop progress and technology” and I understood that humans would not be forced into technocracy with the equivalent of brain chips and regulated bit coin – they were going to embrace it and even buy it like they did World of Warcraft and the GPS.

          Business, Agora business or otherwise will keep humanity in the arms race mentality transposed onto business – the competitive advantage – that gives little time for reflection about safety and ethics.

          You know, survival of the fittest.

          And now with the memory erasing technology they’re currently testing out in a public Parisian hospital – humans won’t even remember they had consciousness before machines came along…

          We’ll have come to love our servitude as subservient limbic systems who’ve placed our human consciousness at the service of machines. And the humans who funded they’re creation (and the marketing).

          So all that’s left for me to say for the moment is:


          • wingsuitfreak says:

            Personally, I don’t see that as our future. There is an entire movement going on revolving around a return to our natural settings. This isn’t a luddite fad either. It’s the realization that we lost something essential when we went all techno crazy. Organic food movements, seed sharing programs, housing styles, and many more. They represent a revolution. They don’t discard technology, in fact they even use it to spread information, but I don’t see any of them becoming cyborgs either. As for a resume…. How anyone can work for someone besides themselves is beyond me. The technology I do use, which is a laptop and a 3d printer, allows me to work for me. Not somebody else. Or maybe its for everybody else; who knows? But I personally don’t think that people who truly think will fall for this augmentation process. And in my mind, they are the only ones that truly matter anyway. The rest are just the masses and they just do as they’re told. Sound cruel? Too bad. It was/remains their choice.

          • manbearpig says:

            “indispensable for you to have a laptop and phone to have a job”

            or “impossible to have a job without a laptop and a phone…”

            anyhow you get the idea…

            they’re = their

            student’s here

            and sorry for all the rest of’em …

            the importance of proofreading cannot be overstated…

            • m.clare says:

              Dear Mr. ManBearPig,

              I, too, am of the opinion that human consciousness (at present…) is about as lofty as it gets… touché.

              If we are to accept your definition of “sacred” (and I do), then individual human consciousness is certainly a good candidate for the most sacred of all phenomenons.


              If the “sacred” is that which “should be inherently protected and preserved” I am in partial agreement. Protected? Yes, by all means. Preserved? Partially. I have the deepest respect for unbiased historians who research and document their findings and observations in the service of humanity. Snapshots (preserves) of human consciousness are invaluable; however, human consciousness …. and consciousness in general… will progress, adapt, evolve, change, advance, expand, grow… snapshots of human consciousness will be preserved but consciousness itself will not be contained.

              Sacred, for me, implies a pinnacle has been reached. A goal has been achieved. A finish line has been crossed. I am firmly of the opinion that consciousness is not a destination to which WE have arrived. Rather, it is a journey and we are on the path.

              A more suitable approximation of “the sacred” in my life is my vow of matrimonial fidelity. I choose to protect and preserve this sentiment. It’s more than important for me to do so for some reason.

              Respectfully and, at best, artificially intelligent,

              • manbearpig says:

                “…human consciousness …. and consciousness in general… will progress, adapt, evolve, change, advance, expand, grow…”

                Well, if such is the case then “tant mieux”. But if it’s to be usurped by a cold, uninhabited simulation of consciousness, partially or entirely, well,

                that’s tragic. For humans. And possibly, for the universe.

                As is unnecessary divorce.

                I hope the elites implementing and overseeing this application of transhumanism are more humanistic than they appear to be at first glance.

                Ruefully but respectfully,
                the manbearpig

    • wingsuitfreak says:

      Just read this article from Jon Rappaport. It deals with the scientific guesses of what consciousness is. Hint: He doesn’t agree and he has a very logical rebuttal to it. I’m putting his matrix series up a peg or two on my list…..

      • manbearpig says:

        Thanks for that. ‘Tis a fascinating subject, isn’t it..

        • wingsuitfreak says:

          I know it is for me anyway. I have been thinking a lot lately about the contradictions in the so-called “scientific” field. Their theory that we are all living in a simulation runs so contrary to their underlying theory that all that exists is what we can see. Or materialism, if you will. And they don’t seem to have a problem with what is so obviously contrary to their own belief system. Or how so many of the top astrophysicists chose to believe in the multi-verse theory because the only other alternative was to believe in a deity. Though it obviously instantly gave rise to the possibility of infinite deities. And yet, we mere mortals are supposed to just gaze upon their wisdom and do as they say. Despite the fact they have been wrong nearly every time. And the lack of humanity they showed with their fears that Japan would surrender before they had the chance to drop their godawful abomination of a nuke on them. How can we call such beasts human? Or if we can call them human, what does that tell us about being human? I know I feel shame for my species at times. We could have been something so much better, but we refuse to do so. I don’t know why. Or maybe I don’t want to know.

  54. Pablo de Boer says:

    7 Human Organs on One Chip

    Researchers have developed a human-on-a-chip, on which tissue from seven human organs is grown on a small polymer the size of a computer USB device. The chip is used for drug testing to cut the number of animal tests done.

    Scientists in the U.S. and U.K. have recently grown seven miniature human organs and housed them together on a chip to create a human-on-a-chip, a whole body biomimetic device. These clusters of assembled cells mimic how organs in the body function, both separately and in tandem.

  55. HomeRemedySupply says:

    Eeh Gads! A whole new way of seeing the Dentist – Autonomous Dental Implant Robot
    (one or two minutes) Robot drilling in the mouth

  56. manbearpig says:

    Here’s another excellent synthesis of where we’re at by Truthstream Media:

  57. Hello Corbetiers,

    AI is a serious threat to humanity !

    Please no more science vs conciousness distractions. AI (on its present trajectory)is a serious threat to humanity. It is the the ultimate result of technocracy and Agenda21.

    Researcher Michael Quinn in his videos has linked AI to cryto-currencies, in particular Bitcoin which I suspect are building a ‘virtual world’ modelled on the real world within which to entrap and enslave all of humanity. This explains the huge data processing being consumed.

    Are we already in a simulation such as “the matrix” as Elon Musk believed. This may not be as ridiculous as it first sounds.

    Michael Quinn

    • manbearpig says:

      Now I’m not playing with a full deck here as I should be doing a zillion other things and I’m not familiar enough with Micheal Quinn to vouch for his credibility but,

      Interesting this idea of how blockchain systems are being used to create “rewards” programs…such as airline miles, rewards/loyalty credit cards etc…

      IOW, reminiscent of Mr. Corbett’s “It Begins” video, how Skinner’s rewards principles were being used to effectuate the transition from “hard” currencies to virtual ones… How we’re being gamed into a virtual “blockchained” existence… the slow but steady withdrawal of “value” from dollars/euros/yen and yuan transferring them into various forms of blockchain crypto-points to be exchange for products and especially services…

      also the connection between the DOD (silicon valley venture capital investor) and the implementation of these blockchain systems coordinated by corporate-owned governments…

      Hashgraph would seem to be an incredible lubricant for such a process. Unless it takes the advantage out of the hands of those who dispose of formidable quantities of GPUs for mining coins…?

      However, that does NOT mean blockchain et al systems can’t be used for more liberating purposes.

      Interesting though.

  58. john.o says:

    “AI,” defined as powerful computational abilities, is real, and the implications of Chess “self-learning” programs e.g. Google’s proprietary AlphaZero vs. human informed programs e.g. open-source Stockfish are serious, obviously, but so is the HYPE in articles and “scientific” papers like these:

    Basically, they set the time at 1 minute per move, which greatly favored AlphaZero. For anyone who plays chess, think of a very bright quick minded expert level speed chess player who might beat an older grand master in a 1 minute speed game where moving fast is key. (Not the same 1 minute situation, but equivalent – winning in this situation does not constitute greater “chess mastery” in any meaningful way outside the time limits.)

    As it is, if you look at the game, it looks a lot like a speed chess game between stoned high level players. Still, the reality will probably catch up with the marketing collateral in this area soon.

    I was alive and playing chess when I, a B level player, could beat any machine on earth. I can recall the debate over whether a machine would ever beat a human. That debate was settled when I was about 30. Within 20 years it could beat ANY human. Soon it will beat any human without relying on any human chess knowledge, other than the rules of the game.

    But I still say those machines don’t know jack about Chess. They sure as hell will never enjoy it. If the loss of your King does not feel like a blow to the gut and temporary castration, or at least painful ego humiliation requiring revenge, that ain’t Chess.

    • mik says:

      “….that ain’t Chess”

      It is Chess, but without emotions.

      Regarding 1min per move.
      Speed chess is completely regular instance of chess.
      When played by humans it is played with clock that counts down until you make a move. Both players have less than 60 min at the beginning. There is no time limit per move, but if you will think too much (more then opponent) you will lose when spend all time.

    • manbearpig says:

      “that ain’t Chess”

      that’s psycho-warfare on humans by the transhumans controlling the machines.

      It occurred to me that Hashgraph inventor and Swirlds (shared worlds) co-founder Leemon Baird seemed to be striving to enact the mantras laid out in The Circle…“Secrets are lies, sharing is caring, privacy is theft.”

    • john.o says:

      No need to come up with a guilty pleasure vice.

      AI, as a corporate project (the only AI worth worrying about) is AVARICE and GLUTTONY, propagated with inhuman PRIDE by humanoids who ENVY real humans. I won’t get into LUST because that could lead to robot s_x or pornography, but AI’s WRATH is awakened when one tries to exit its reach.

      That unfortunately leaves us with SLOTH, but there is good news, guilt is not required for the technocracy to self-destruct.

  59. john.o says:

    ‘“Most real-world strategic interactions involve hidden information…I feel like that’s been neglected by the majority of the AI community.”

    -Noam Brown, Carnegie Mellon Computer Science, Phd candidate

    “You have to see, to my mind at least, what’s really a huge gulf between the real activities of thinking, creative exploration of ideas, and what we currently see in AI…That kind of intelligence is there, but it’s mostly going on in the minds of the great AI researchers.”

    – Josh Tenenbaum, MIT cognitive scientist

  60. HomeRemedySupply says:

    April 3, 2019

    IBM artificial intelligence can predict with 95% accuracy which workers are about to quit their jobs

    IBM artificial intelligence can predict which employees will leave a job with 95 percent accuracy.
    IBM CEO Ginni Rometty says methods used in the traditional human resources model are failing American workers and need assistance from machine learning.
    AI, which has replaced 30 percent of IBM’s HR staff, can help employees identify new skills training, education, job promotions and raises.

    …During Rometty’s seven-year tenure as CEO, IBM IBM has been improving its AI work devoted to the retention of its employees.

    “The best time to get to an employee is before they go,” she said.

    IBM HR has a patent for its “predictive attrition program” which was developed with Watson to predict employee flight risk and prescribe actions for managers to engage employees. Rometty would not explain “the secret sauce” that allowed the AI to work so effectively in identifying workers about to jump (officially, IBM said the predictions are now in the 95 percent accuracy “range”). Rometty would only say that its success comes through analyzing many data points.

    “It took time to convince company management it was accurate,” Rometty said, but the AI has so far saved IBM nearly $300 million in retention costs, she claimed. At present, the retention tool is only offered internally…

    … “I expect AI will change 100 percent of jobs in the next five to 10 years ,” the IBM CEO said…

    …IBM’s bet is that the future of work is one in which a machine understands the individual better than the HR individual can alone…

    …”It is at the individual level. You have to know the individual. Skills are your renewable asset, and you need to treat them like that,” Rometty said.

    (That last paragraph hit my grin-smirk reflexes.)

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to Top