It doesn't scare me at all anymore. I don't believe they can create a true artificial intelligence... I believe a machine (vehicle) with that capacity would simply be inhabited by whatever level intelligence (I'm guessing 2nd or 3rd density), just the same as I am a 3rd density intelligence inhabiting a chemical vehicle typing this message.
As an aside, it seems like AI is a common fear of intellectual atheists. It certainly was a big fear for me when I was an atheist. Growing up, I was influenced by books / movies / TV featuring killer AI much more than I would have liked to admit at the time.
i'm not sure if i believe there's anything that's not artificial intelligence...(thinking of the tng ep where we discover data's sister doesn't know she's an android.)
(01-30-2015, 10:21 AM)isis Wrote: [ -> ]i'm not sure if i believe there's anything that's not artificial intelligence...(thinking of the tng ep where we discover data's sister doesn't know she's an android.)
Is intelligent infinity artificial?
(01-30-2015, 11:11 AM)Gemini Wolf Wrote: [ -> ] (01-30-2015, 10:21 AM)isis Wrote: [ -> ]i'm not sure if i believe there's anything that's not artificial intelligence...(thinking of the tng ep where we discover data's sister doesn't know she's an android.)
Is intelligent infinity artificial?
i cannot say. who knows such things? only the oracle
it could be
(01-30-2015, 11:11 AM)Gemini Wolf Wrote: [ -> ] (01-30-2015, 10:21 AM)isis Wrote: [ -> ]i'm not sure if i believe there's anything that's not artificial intelligence...(thinking of the tng ep where we discover data's sister doesn't know she's an android.)
Is intelligent infinity artificial?
If intelligent infinity is the byproduct of Creation just as much as it is the Source of it, then you can either call everything artificial or nothing artificial.
(01-30-2015, 12:51 PM)Minyatur Wrote: [ -> ]If intelligent infinity is the byproduct of Creation just as much as it is the Source of it, then you can either call everything artificial or nothing artificial.
My understanding is that Intelligent Energy is the by product that informs finite creation of its infinite source. From there I would suggest that artificial can be interchanged with false, or "that which is not".
I think the use of the term "artificial intelligence" is misleading. It gives the idea that intelligence itself can be artificially constructed, whereas I think this would be more of a case of creating a conduit through which intelligence is able to express itself. The intelligence wouldn't be artificial, just the medium through which it is expressed.
When a couple has a child, did they create that child's intelligence?
+1 to how Spaced phrased it.
To rephrase my previous post, I don't think it matters if you are inhabiting a chemical vehicle (such as a human) or an electrical vehicle (such as a robot or computer), you are still just a level of consciousness inhabiting a type of vehicle.
(01-30-2015, 11:24 PM)Spaced Wrote: [ -> ]I think the use of the term "artificial intelligence" is misleading. It gives the idea that intelligence itself can be artificially constructed, whereas I think this would be more of a case of creating a conduit through which intelligence is able to express itself. The intelligence wouldn't be artificial, just the medium through which it is expressed.
When a couple has a child, did they create that child's intelligence?
In thinking more about this, I've been wondering whether our concern is really about artificial intelligence.
It seems to me there's a huge difference between intelligence and consciousness; with our real concern more likely being the idea that humans can/will create consciousness in machines.
Or maybe I've just had one beer too many.
I would like to put a finer point on my comment that intellectual atheists have a tendency to fear the concept of 'killer AI'.
I think that concept stems from the very core of atheist vs spiritual beliefs. Atheists (generally) believe that matter gave birth to consciousness, while spiritualists (generally) believe that consciousness gave birth to matter. As a non-atheist, I believe that matter cannot give birth to consciousness. So the idea of us humans somehow 'creating' artificial intelligence by programming a machine seems quite false to me.
Actually, I'm more inclined to believe what Bashar had to say about this concept:
The idea of Artificial Intelligence is pretty interesting to contemplate in light of the Law of One. Parsons makes a great point about how it is usually the materialist atheists who are truly scared of AI, and I think that is actually a projection of the shortcomings of their own philosophies. Not to mention that, even based on a materialist philosophy, the idea of AI doesn't even make much sense.
I think the question comes down to what exactly we would define as artificial intelligence, and what an AI would need to possess in order to fulfill the fears of the new atheist crowd. I think that the primary concern that these people have is that the AI will gain motivations of its own, that it will evolve to have original desires and an ability to "think" on its own, independent of the motivations of its creators. Considering that material science has not even remotely determined the true source of motivation, inspiration, and desire, nor what exactly it is that creates a self-aware human being vs. an instinctive animal, the idea that an AI could evolve to become malicious and dangerous on its own accord has about as much basis as a belief in God. Pretty ironic.
What would be dangerous is if humans created a type of AI with the intent on having it become malicious and dangerous, and I think this is what needs focused on. And this is ultimately a spiritual topic - how we use science as it advances. Like MLK Jr. said: "Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men."
What could we do to prevent the creation of a dangerous AI? Address the disparity between our society's spiritual growth and our scientific growth. We discovered a primal form of energy in nuclear fission and fusion, and what did we do with it? Immediately weaponize it. So obviously, if our scientific knowledge advances to the point of creating an AI with truly dangerous potentials, it will be because of this disparity.
The ultimate irony is that these material atheists encourage this disparity that they are so frightened of without even realizing the trajectory of their beliefs. They strive to promote scientific knowledge and awareness and fight to tear apart any sort of spiritual considerations in the process.
The fear of AI is similar to the a type of projection I've seen manifest as a trope in movies, that I wrote a bit about in reviewing the recent movie Lucy:
"Yet there is a slight twist with Lucy that I have recognized in at least one other Superhuman character, Dr. Manhattan from The Watchmen, though I know I recognize the theme from other places as well (Q from Star Trek comes to mind). In both instances, these humans gain access to a type of potential far beyond normal human ability. They gain a hugely expanded field of awareness, but within each of these characters, their expanded awareness results in a dehumanizing of their essential being, a disinterest in the 'lowly' matters of normal people, and an abandoning of compassion. As Lucy becomes more and more powerful, she seems to be less and less invested in the world of humans, a theme which is explored much more eloquently with Dr. Manhattan.
I feel like this theme is a projection of our current state of culture, particularly the culture of science. Material objectivism runs rampant in the scientific community, and there is nothing that can avoid the reduction into material processes, and a removal of the “inner” correlations and experiences. The New Atheist crowd which seems to form a majority of the scientific community views spirituality as an “enemy of science,” and would prefer to abandon all types of exploration of our human experience for the pure exploration of the material world, believing that this material world is truly all that really exists.
In this context, it seems natural to me that an individual who taps human potential on a superhuman level would then become more cold, more logical, more material, and less moral, less compassionate, less emotional. The material objectivist faction, like most other worldviews, feels that a maturing and evolving world will simply become more of its own values - more objectivist, more scientific, more material. A Superhuman archetype that leaves ethics, compassion, and humanity behind speaks to what is missing from this worldview. The potential that Lucy taps into is not a potential to be more compassionate, more ethical, more connected to the people around her, but rather more connected to the material of the universe and disconnected from the experience of Self and others within it."
I suppose the issue gets more complicated if we consider whether or not an AI could truly be a conscious being in the form of a mind/body/spirit complex, but this consideration is not something the material atheist crowd would even consider. In their view, humans are already a type of computer program simply executing algorithms and instinctual functions, matter reacting to matter void of anything truly significant to the universe. And it is this mindset that generates this fear of AI, I believe. The type of dangerous AI they envision is sort of an inevitability if you follow the materialist mindset to its conclusion. In reality, an AI would simply be an extension of human values. If materialism continues to hold the reigns of the scientific community, then I do think it's possible this type of AI could be created - we weaponize every type of new technology we can get our hands on. However, I don't believe that the scientific community will remain within its current paradigm for as long as it would take to create something like that. Things are already changing, albeit slowly, but they are. Ken Wilber once said, grimly, that scientific advancement happens one funeral at a time. The new atheist crowd will eventually be dead and their hold on science will be gradually loosened as values change in our culture.
Excellent input there Austin. There are a lot of superheroes in human imagination that surpass human ability. Their lives must be pretty lonely.
If scientists were somehow able to
create a true artificial intelligence out of material (I still maintain that probably isn't possible), I don't necessarily think it would develop some killer instinct. I don't want to spoil the movie because I think it is very good, but I think
Her is a great example of this.
If brilliant minds like Stephen Hawking and Bill Gates - who know incredibly more than I ever will about the capability of artificial intelligence - believe it could evolve to eventually threaten humanity, I don't give a rip whether or not they are atheists. I respect their knowledge and intelligence in their field of expertise.
(02-05-2015, 12:45 AM)Shawnna Wrote: [ -> ]If brilliant minds like Stephen Hawking and Bill Gates - who know incredibly more than I ever will about the capability of artificial intelligence - believe it could evolve to eventually threaten humanity, I don't give a rip whether or not they are atheists. I respect their knowledge and intelligence in their field of expertise.
My own point isn't exactly that, "They are atheist, so they are wrong." I think they are right, really. Like I said, if the objective materialist mindset continued to hold sway in the advancement of science, then it's probably an inevitability, because the objective materialist camp promotes the disparity between spiritual advancement and scientific advancement. AI technology will continue to advance and, like all technology, our use of it will be an expression of our social mindset. Our own harmful biases and distortions would inevitably, either consciously or unconsciously, be extended into the AI. My main point is that the new atheist crowd is ironically blind to the fact that it is their own biases which would make this inevitable.
So I agree with you about their knowledge and intelligence within their fields of expertise. They are great thinkers. But there is more to the equation than material science, which tends to be their field of expertise. Kind of like Maslow's hammer - if your entire perspective relies upon materialism, then you will address every issue from the material standpoint, which is what I think they are doing.
What I think is outside of their field of expertise is understanding how society will develop and evolve, and the role that will play in how we as a society develop and use AI.
Going on what Ra told us about becoming enspirited I can see no objection for this applying to a machine.
"The third category is mineral. Occasionally a certain location, place as you may call it, becomes energized to individuality through the love it receives and gives in relationship to a third-density entity which is in relationship to it"
There seems to be resistance by some forum members to the idea that machines may be sentient entities.
If we look at our own science fiction we find our fare share of machine 'villains" - it could be that their 'lock' on the negative pole
causes us to experience fear in the form of supressed negative higher density wisdom.