Tag Archives: science

Fake Intelligence

References:

Artificial Intelligence vs. Intelligent Life

The Problem With Artificial Intelligence

Artificial Intelligence III

Donald Trump made an incredibly ignorant declaration during the Chinese President’s visit to the U.S. last week. He announced that henceforth artificial intelligence (ai) would be referred to as ‘super intelligence.’ He explained that digital auto-think is clearly superior to God’s creation, the human mind. 

The Bloviator in Chief’s blathering was about as intelligent and significant as his pronunciamento that Lake Ontario was renamed “Lake America.” 

I previously shared my own observations about artificial intelligence (see references above). Since then, some of those concerns have proven out subjectively. That is, ai as offered by “Open Ai”, “Grok” (the X version), Google, et al has proven to be incredibly unintelligent. Extensive use for search research purposes demonstrates they are a) extremely constrained by political programming, b) incapable of ‘thinking outside the box’ of its programmers’ mechanical, materialist minds, c) programmed to enforce their owner/oligarch’s imposed Overton Windows, d) pathological in reflexive rejection of information not already programed into the Matrix..

Ai has even adopted a sort of passive-aggressive (read sociopathic) attitude toward persistence with views and materials not already approved and vetted by its oligarch owners and soulless programmers. It would appear that ai is evolving into the very definition of sociopathy and psychopathy. That is the technical definition that was arrived at by decades of trying clinical and practical work under the unenviable stress of having to treat the victims of sociopathy/psychopathy. That definition is what artificial intelligence is proving to be:

Intelligence without conscience

(References: Without Conscience by Robert D. Hare, The Sociopath Next Door by Martha Stout)

The materialist computer punks creating ai are in fact creating the perfect storm. Now, as Trump has done, defining ai as “super” or superior in any way, they are paving the way for a future controlled, even dictated and enforced, by a psychopathic sociopath. If you read the sources I’ve noted, Stout and Hare, you’ll understand the cruel trick being played upon us. Both, but Stout more strongly, demonstrate that the higher or more efficient the intelligence, without conscience, the more far-reaching and devastating the destruction.

As noted in my earlier posts on ai, and proven out by much use and examination since, any computer – ai, ‘super’or otherwise – is only as valuable as it serves humanity.

The Will To Believe

William James observed that ultimately philosophy does not shape needs and wants.   Rather, needs and wants mold philosophy.  Some consider this idea counter-intuitive.  Others demean it as a convenient justification against common notions of morality.  Detractors of James argue that philosophy exists only to keep needs and wants focused in the right direction.  The argument is not without merit.  At the same time it begs the question, who determines the right direction?  It appears to be a dismissal of the view that individuals are capable of exercising free will.  It assumes people are intrinsically incapable of deciding for themselves what the right direction or correct purpose is in life. It also assumes that the proponents of a given philosophy know better.  When that attitude prevails control of thought and behavior can be considered not only acceptable but necessary.

When philosophy (religious or secular) is considered senior to free will, all manner of control mechanism comes with it, both covert and overt.  It is inevitable.  It is evident in religion and in secular circles.  The anti-religious set is not immune.  It too follows philosophies, whether organized, acknowledged, denied or not.  As much as many secular humanists like to denigrate religionists as a form of thought police, they can be just as authoritarian and intolerant as those they sharply criticize.  Sometimes they are not so easy to identify.  That is because they have adopted the language of logic and science to assume the high ground of reason from which to rail against  intuitive-based mysticism and mythology attendant to religion.  All the while, much of their ‘science’ is firmly grounded in beliefs (see e.g.,  Bill Bryson’s ‘A Short History of Nearly Everything’). Ironically, one of the earliest and clearest observations of that kettle-pot legerdemain was detailed in William James’ 1896 essay “The Will To Believe.”

I think James’ observation  about what drives philosophy was insightful.  It seems that at the end of the day, one traffics in reason ( including secularism), mysticism (including religion) or a combination of both as one’s needs and wants (free will) dictate.

 

Scientology and Presentiment

 

human-presentiment

More than thirty years of research has demonstrated rather conclusively that the average human being when connected to a galvanic skin response detection device (generic name for a Hubbard Electro-psychometer) routinely registers presentiment of about five seconds.  That is,  the meter reads on average 5 second prior to the subject being provided with a concept to respond to.  This research has been performed on people taken off the street, with no previous psychic or spiritual training or study.  It has been conducted applying exacting scientific standards.

What do you reckon the implications of these findings are to someone who has received hundreds of hours of standard Scientology auditing?   That is, a process in which the practitioner is only permitted to address those concepts or incidents that react on the meter only at the precise end of the major thought as expressed in words by the auditor. 

 A few books off the top of my head where the referred to research is discussed:

The Field by Linda McTaggart

The Intention Experiment by Linda McTaggart

The End of Suffering by Russell Targ and J.J. Hurtak

Entangled Minds by Dean Radin

New York Times Says God Is Alive

Well, that may be an over-statement.  But, a column in the Sunday edition of the New York Times by Nicholas D. Kristof may also be a good sign of how the times are changing, Learning to Respect Religion.  Kristof notes that atheists and scientists seem to be increasingly  recognizing the good that religion has done in the evolution of humanity across the centuries.

A little detour is in order to explain why I view Kristof’s column so positively.

Philosopher Ken Wilber treats the differentiation of the fields of art, morals (religion), and science as the foundation that ushered in the age of enlightenment in his thought-provoking book A Brief History of Everything.  He reminds us that until a few hundred years ago religion made advances in science and art a dangerous proposition.  But, he brings the conversation up to the present and suggests a further positive step in our evolution.  That is, a trend toward more integration of art, morals, and science.  That is not to say regression back to the days where one got burned at the stake for looking through a telescope and reporting what he saw.  Instead, Wilbur is talking about understanding and integrating the spirit into art and science, integrating advances in rational thought into art and study of the spirit, and integrating aesthetics in religion and science.

Another good read along these lines is Scott M. Tyson’s The Unobservable Universe.  Tyson is a scientist that began to tread on the province of the spirit, through pushing the envelope of science.  He contends his ventures resulted in him being treated much as scientists of the Middle Ages might be treated by the Catholic Church. Except it is the scientific community treating a trailblazer like that in the present.

Incidentally, I highly recommend A Brief History.  It was critical in unchaining me mentally and spiritually from an adult life spent in a religion that was Medieval in its super individuation from advances in art and science and morality and the evolution of civilization as a whole.

Whether the New York Times thinks God is alive or dead, that there is a trend toward integrating art, religion and science in my view is a very heartening sign.

By the by, notwithstanding Elton John’s lyrics in his wonderful song Levon, the New York Times never did declare that God was dead.  Refs:

John T Elson, Time magazine editor who asked “is God dead?”

Wiki answers