He perhaps should be spending a bit more time walking rather than sitting and chatting to his ambiguously sentient AI buddy, but nonetheless, this interview with the Google guy who went public with his AI claims is really quite interesting, and makes me feel like we are at least close to living in a science fiction movie:
I particularly liked how it was an apparent AI joke that influenced his thinking. And one about Jedi!
The guy does appear genuinely thoughtful, and not a complete nut.
7 comments:
A well-timed joke, but I'm sure the program got it the same way it gets all of its text - from stuff actual people do say on the net. Does that lift it into sentient territory?
I think one reason google rejected his claims was that the program was simply doing exactly what it was programmed to do when it answered that it was sentient - answering a leading question. You can find examples on the net of the program agreeing/arguing that it is *not* sentient, or that it is a piece of green cheese on the moon (or something similarly absurd).
Consciousness is aetheric. For us to perceive it in the material world it has to be projected from aether into water based bodies like our brain. So my first question before I watch the video would be: Is water involved with this particular computer arrangement? If not I would have a strong bias towards suggesting its all about trickery and imitation. If so (if water including structured water is involved) I could be more open-minded. But also you would think sensory input was important for consciousness. Think if you couldn't see, hear, touch, feel, experience balance. What sort of consciousness would you be left with? All the senses are really TOUCH in disguise, once you get rid of this ludicrous aether-denial. But without that co-ordinated sensory input, and without water being involved, my bias would be towards high-processing-speed trickery. Now I shall watch what he has to say.
Consciousness is aetheric.
You don't know and stop pretending you do you pretentious git. Consciousness may be a rather trivial thing. From a neuroanatomical perspective it is possible to create models that are appealing but that's a long story and I doubt you know about the precuneus or the critical role of the frontal lobes in visual consciousness. That's right, most of what we see we don't consciously see. Vision is the "remembered present". There is a striking philosophical-scientific account of visual consciousness that is worth reading. Try it: A sensorimotor account of vision and
visual consciousness
Like yourself though I think consciousness may extend beyond physicality. Unlike you I haven't made up my mind but to this day I curse the Australian philosopher Chalmers for sending so many on a wild intellectual goose chase. We won't understand consciousness by just thinking about it. There is far too many people thinking thinking is sufficient to solve the great mysteries. That's not science that just a stupid way to think.
Well not to the nth degree. But thats where the evidence is. Otherwise the philosophers would have solved the problem already. But since philosophers are subject to enforced aether-denial as well, they can't resolve the problem of consciousness. Thats why the problem has a formal name. THE HARD PROBLEM. Not so hard if you get physics right first. I think I can prove it. But you have to get physics right first. If you can't get physics right first then consciousness is simply mysterious. If you get physics right, then with the right physics, you are almost forced to agree that consciousness has to be an aetheric phenomenon. It can't be resolved any other way. You can either take my word for it, or get the physics right, then see if that conclusion follows, as night follows day, which I think it does.
You still butthurt that you've been caught out being too stupid to not understand that a coup went down in the US? Thats what is eating you right? Too stupid to understand you can't get a voter spike without cheating? Trump had a 1200 voter spike in one "electorate" (not the right American word) and so we know that someone cheated in his favour there as well. Since its not even possible to have that rather humble voter spike without cheating.
Very good evidence that consciousness is an aetheric projection onto water bodies can be had if you check out the video of Veda Austin and Tom Cowan. Got to bitchute. Check it out. Step 2 is to have the big physics discussion with me. Step three is just to dwell on matters for a few months with the correct physics in mind. Then see if you think that the one implies the other.
And that will be good since you will be one of the few people on the planet that can understand the problem. I only get ahead of people on matters like this because I see the same techniques of con artistry in all areas.
I think I can prove it. But you have to get physics right first. If you can't get physics right first then consciousness is simply mysterious. If you get physics right, then with the right physics, you are almost forced to agree that consciousness has to be an aetheric phenomenon. It can't be resolved any other way. You can either take my word for it, or get the physics right, then see if that conclusion follows, as night follows day, which I think it does.
1.
Explain why xenon loss of consciousness. A physics based explanation. Here's a clue: proton mediated membrane polarization.
2.
Explain the 40Hz phenomenon.
Both are easy. If you can't do that you are lying.
I don't know anything about either of these two topics. They don't either confirm or deny what I am saying. I don't know why you would think either would confirm or deny the aetheric nature of consciousness. I don't see that as following the logic of the case. These two sound more like general knowledge questions, for someone following some specific group of dudes, trying to unwrap the mystery of consciousness and barking up the wrong tree.
If these dudes think either of these general knowledge factoids throw light on consciousness, in the fullness of time, it will come to pass that we will find that they have hit a dead end on this matter and their speculations aren't going to be fruitful. Its a bit like involving me in some sort of arcane polarised argument within two wings of the church of scientology.
"Explain why xenon loss of consciousness. A physics based explanation. Here's a clue: proton mediated membrane polarization."
Like I said I don't know anything about it. But some thoughts would be as follows. If consciousness is aetheric and when we see it, it amounts to a water-aether interaction, then anything that buggers up the order within the water will wreck the consciousness. Well polarisation might do it right? That might destroy the normal order within a body of water that allows that body to embody the aetheric consciousness. If your radio is messed up it cannot get the signal.
If I went to the journals they would start giving us a lot of jive about spin. But if polarisation is associated with being a solvent, or supposing you define structured water as a membrane, and the polarisation is buggering the membrane up, then that could make the water body no longer one that can be accepting this aetheric consciousness.
Post a Comment