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

by | Aug 25, 2017 | Videos | 260 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


  1. 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…

    • 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
      Good post. Thank you.

      This comment brought to you by AI…
      …and so is the following image. 😉

  2. 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.

    • 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.

        • 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.

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

    • 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….

  3. 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.

    • 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?

  4. 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”:

    • 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.

    • 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.

      • 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.

    • “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.

      • 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.

        • 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!

  5. 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 …

  6. 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.

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

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

    • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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)

      • 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.

    • 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).

      • 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.

        • 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

          • 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.

    • 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.

      • Good information, I don’t know how correct it is, but it sure sums up.

    • That is some wacky shit right there.

    • 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?

      • 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.

        • 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.

          • 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.

            • 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.

              • 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.

              • 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.

              • 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.

              • 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. 🙂

            • 5G
              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.

  7. 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!

    • 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!

      • 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.

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

  8. 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

    • Like this one too:
      The ORCH Or theory of consciousness and its Critics with Stuart Hameroff

      One interesting point is that he tells that deep-learning is close
      to the model that they are presenting.

      Also interesting is the field of quantum biology,

      This seems to suggest that real-world consciousness needs quantum mechanics to function. What really causes consciousness is still unclear.

  9. 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.

    • 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.

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

      • 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?

        • 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. 🙂

        • 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.

          • 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.

            • 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.

              • 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.

              • 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.

  10. 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.

    • mrsoapdish, Thanks. More insight for me!

  11. Very good post!

  12. Composer,

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

  13. 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.

    • 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.

    • 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

  14. 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.

  15. 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…

    • 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!

      • 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!

    • 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

      • 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.

        • 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.

      • 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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

    • “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.

      • 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.

        • OK, sorry if I came across as a dick. I did not get your humor (I regularly don’t) and again apologise for putting a dent in your day. Rock on.

          • Okay. I too will cease my dick-head programming.

  18. ~ 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.)

  19. 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.

    • 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.

      • 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. 🙂

        • 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.

          • 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.

            • 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!

              • 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.

              • 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!

  20. 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.

    • 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.

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

        • 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.

          • 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.

            • Ganja. Blow gives me gas.

              • 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).

    • 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.

  21. 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.

    • 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.

      • 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.

        • 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.

          • 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.

            • 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.

              • 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.

              • 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?

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

                I like seeing a friendly community.

              • 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.

              • 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.

              • 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.

        • 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. 🙂

          • 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.

          • 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.

          • stoffa,
            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.”

    • 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.

      • 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.

        • 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.

          • 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.

  22. 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”

    • 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.

      • 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.

        • 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.

          • 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. 🙂

            • 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.

  23. 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.

    • 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.

      • Isn’t the wireless network AI?

        • No. It’s a wireless network. No more AI than a telegraph line. Does take a lot of computers to run it though. Plus, it’s probably going to really mess with the actuary tables.

    • 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.


      • It’s because we are all stupid.

      • 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.

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

          • 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.

            • 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.

              • 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.

              • 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.

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

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

      • 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.

        • Its hard not to be full of hate these days. I too am a country boy, lets stick together. I hope you have a good night.

  24. 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.

  25. 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)}

    • 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!:

      • 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.

        • 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.

          • 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.

            • 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

            • 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.

              • 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

              • 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

  26. 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.

    • 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.

  27. 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).

    • 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.

      • 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,

        • 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.

          • 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

  28. 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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

      • 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

    • 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….

      • 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.

        • 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.

  29. – 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…

  30. 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.

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

      • Sure it can be viewed as one. For me as an spiritual extremist of a kind, there may exist as many universes as there are beings which are able to perceive. Or there can be even more 😉

        • Yeah, we never see the universe we didn’t imagine! 🙂

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

      • 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.

  31. 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.

  32. 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)

    • 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.

      • 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?

        • 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.

        • 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.

          • 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.


            • 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.

              • 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….

              • 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.

            • 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.

              • 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.

              • 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!

  33. “…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

    • 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……

      • 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.

        • 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.

        • 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!

          • 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.

            • 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.

              • 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!

    • 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

  34. 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.

    • 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”

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

  35. 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.

  36. 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.

  37. 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.” …

    • 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.

    • 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.

  38. 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.

    • 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.

      • Thank you, I agree entirely.

    • 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.”

      • 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.

      • 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.

        • 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.

        • 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.

  39. 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.

    • 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 🙂

        • 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 🙂

    • “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?

      • 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.

        • 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.

      • 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.

        • 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!

  40. Very interesting observation regarding observing.

  41. 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.

    • “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? 😛

    • 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.

  42. 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? 🙂

  43. What a GREAT talk!!!

  44. There was a “scientist” whom managed to transplant a head from one wretched animal to another, but I can’t recollect the name. I don’t think these people will stop at anything.

    • 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.

      • 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.

  45. ONES & ZEROS

    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.

    • 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.


      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.

      • You don’t like the Rolling Stones? Ghastly!

      • 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.

      • 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,

      • 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.

  46. 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 🙂

  47. We, the asleep, led by the insane. Situation normal, all effed up.

  48. 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! 🙂

    • 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

  49. “….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.

  50. 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.)

Submit a Comment


Become a Corbett Report member