We are A.I.

[donk]

We are AI?

No matter what beliefs you have, unless I'm lying to myself and am actually the only free will consciousness that exists, the earthlings all around me are receptors for reality in a vehicle with similar tools for processing the data we receive from the universe. And with that comes emotions, which guides our thoughts more often than not

The popularization of the AI black goo meme is the latest incarnation of the age-old and strongest emotional attachment to a belief humans ever had: evil. What sets us apart from hone forms of life we find to be "lower species", is that instead of just having a healthy fear of death in our fight or flight instinct that we seem to share with most beings with the ability to choose to fight or flee, we have a strong emotional reactions, anger/sadness/loss...a pain attached to the idea that's different than the physical reaction of our vehicle to stimuli seeming to harm/damage it.

As civilization has "evolved", so has our projection of this emotional attachment to this denial of death. Now in the collective consciousness is the very real and evolutionary concern about free-will-having-consciousnesses that does not have the same kind of strong emotional attachment to surviving that we do, which we currently as see as robotic (more often than the way that was most common: demonic, though we project that on as well)

Our bodies are the hardware that carry out the embedded DNA software, we are operators of this system that have the ability to override the survival programs encoded within. We observe how on the collective scale we seem to constantly make counter-evolutionary self-destructive choices despite information and environmental feedback constantly revealing the choices we make to be the opposite of what evidence would show to be empowering, pro-survival decisions

It seems we can (or should only be able to) make decisions that would prolong our existence in this incarnation (whether you believe in reincarnation or the law of conservation of energy....or especially if you don't!), yet experience shows that we are in a dark period, most often blamed on "human nature", usually defined as greed as sadism and service-to-self. To me this indicates a strange underlying belief: the assumption of RANDOM

To me it seems like in order to believe that humans would choose greed or to hurt others or like drama (stirring up negative, divisive emotions in another) is counter to the seemingly evolutionary truth that we are communal species. Everything I have ever experienced has shown me that working together, from the fact we are completely dependent on others for the first half decade or so of our lives, to the seeming truth that people are almost more afraid of dying alone than dying itself....I can't find any evidence to support individualistic bootstrapping individualism, selfishness to the extent of being at the expense of others, to fit into our unofficial but overwhelming institutionalized belief in the "survival of the fittest through random mutation"

I don't believe adaptation is RANDOM. I don't think sh!t "just happens". I don't believe we just got lucky and exist despite our self destructive anti-life decisions. I don't think existence just rolled out in a way "human nature" would determine the arrangement if "life" we find ourselves. This is where AI (archons, vampire, reptilians, etc) comes in...it seems the okham's razor of sorts is that perhaps we are not the top of the food chain. It seems to make more sense that maybe we are not the top level of existence a consciousness and self awareness free will having beings can be...maybe there is something external to us with a better of understanding of reality than we have (like we seem to have more than say: a cow)

It would make sense that force would have the ability to "shapeshift", at least in our awareness. It would make even more sense, especially if it is a spastic thing that we could put our fingers on....like say a black goo, that it would manipulate us into believing it is us doing it to ourselves (despite all of our beliefs about life and nature and even random....it would need to use cognitive dissonance). AI black goo makes a lot of sense, to plug it into as our current best theory, it serves the purpose of making this possibly only etheric force "physical"...which may be out of fear

A lot of what we tell ourselves seems to point toward to possible existence of a "species" of life that probably isn't easily detectable to the five senses we'd like to be able to limit it to like in the form of a black goo or even a "superhuman" being like a vampire or zombie...perhaps this latest evolution of the meme is directed toward instead of enhancing our suppressed senses beyond the 5 it's acceptable to talk about, we look for concrete evidence that seems to be more easily manipulated than humans ourselves are?

Putting "demonic" predatory/parasitic force into a physical form is more comforting than blaming it on a random self-destructive mutation in our human nature or God-given "original sin", but perhaps even more limiting?

***I edited the first paragraph...slightly

[lcam88]

A.I. => Artificial Intelligence?

No matter what beliefs you have, unless I'm lying to myself and am actually the only free will consciousness that exists, the earthlings all around me are receptors for reality in a vehicle with similar tools for processing the data we receive from the universe. And with that comes emotions, which guides our thoughts more often than not

I am enjoying your racional. And indeed you set the stake quite high for any contestation. Please pardon me in advance if this falls short.

I contend, part of the issue you raise above boils down to => What is real?

The thesis you share is almost overly broad, if I may be so bold as to say; there is quite a large spectrum involved. For two reasons that I'll briefly reveal:

1) Simplistically, the issue of artificiality, or that which man is the origin of, vs natural, that which man is not the origin. And then to expand the idea of artificiality, since you have included non-terrestrial beings as part of your position, to include an origin of those being.

So then the issue of classifying something as artificial depends on how we identify the origins from which an apparent design emerged from, it is Man, ET or Nature.

In fact, non-terrestrial intelligence can take many diverse forms. Consider:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EckBfKPAGNM


If you can liken quasar and "companion galaxies" that Mr Arp has observed as galactic offspring, possibly analogous to a life form with a completely different "environment" then our own, then suddenly the notion of what is of Natural origin to an ET origin becomes very very blurred.

Off-topic FYI: Mr. Arp is referred to in some circles as the Galileo of our time in his efforts to challenge the mainstream belief about red-shift and what it means. His interpretation are being rejected, even in face of the solid evidence he presents, because of the implication that directly challenge the Big Bang theory as well as all the other epi-circle theories required to support our understanding [or belief] of gravity. This is paramount to rejecting the "real" in favor of fantasy or artificial.

2) Mankind him/herself is also vaguely defined in that most of us are identified and intrinsically accept the Ego to be the individual; so much that we exempt ourselves as being the creators of our children. Children are accepted as natural being rather than artificial insofar as we may apply the concept above where we determine whether the origin [of a child] is of man or of nature.

In that way we further limit and separate ourselves from the nature we are immersed in. This characteristic is a distinct process of the ego itself. For all of us that might reasonably say that we are more than our Ego, this distinction too becomes equally blurry as the first point above.

And so, from the standpoint of contemplating "what is real", as I mention above, the points are very blurred, perhaps eroded into irrelevance in a similar light that one may find upon seeing a cart being placed before the horse.

As I apply the rest of your comments in the OP, I think the position is better posed as: We are cattle.

Perhaps your intention was to avoid the biblical reference?

If indeed the nature of the universe to the aggregation to ever more complex structures and organization, the atom to the molecule, to the inter-molecular and crystalline, to viral/DNA/RNA, to cells, to tissue, to organs to individuals, to corporations, to corporate groups, to nation, to planetary harvesting systems, to galactic empires and onwards, then are we better defined by the area that we endeavor ourselves to occupy? Does the artificiality then loop back to something natural, perhaps part of a pattern yet unidentified?

No belief is necessary, it is optional. But good questions are always exactly that: good questions. And if I may, I'll raise a question for contemplation: What is not cattle?

Can it be that indeed, the only difference between cattle and not-cattle is a willingness to believe. [Or a willingness to accept an idea without having asked a good question]?

[donk]

i need to watch the video and read rest of your post, but one issue I often find myself looping around with a hard time getting a handle on is a thought you mention:

"Occurring naturally"

I wonder if we understand what we mean when we say that? I feel like we are taught that, and it's a covert way of planting the idea of that all powerful God-like force we more honestly call RANDOM

I think what we think of as "nature" is energy that made a conscious decision to change. I'm fairly certain there is an actual reason for everything, I guess I'm devout zealot of the first law of thermodynamics...I believe that All That Is really is "all that is"...at least within this reality bubble that we can experience...which makes everything "natural"

Humans don't fear benign "artificial intelligence" that is sold to us (even created by some of us) on a regular basis, at least in the video games I play, we fear the decisions one would make if it found us to obstacle to its survival or even just its evolution.

It's the fear of a consciousness that control so much of our reality that we'd have even less "freedom" than we believe we have now. It's the projection of the desire of control, that's at the root of it...whilst being in denial that if it could happen (a singular consciousness controlling our perception of our reality) that it probably has

[donk]

And if I may, I'll raise a question for contemplation: What is not cattle?

Can it be that indeed, the only difference between cattle and not-cattle is a willingness to believe. [Or a willingness to accept an idea without having asked a good question]?

Nice post, just finished it...will check out vid shortly.

I think the difference is self awareness. Whether we "evolved" more, were given it, are "special"...whether it's actually "ego", lying to us--or telling us some truth...we understand reality better than our bovine friends (units, slaves, burgers, pets, wild things roaming around, etc...) and therefore CAN enslave (breed, ride, love, etc.) them and we have.

I believe we are cattle to anything with more understanding of reality than ourselves (including members of our own species--the cattle kings!)**

So that means the meme, or "truth"...or whatever you want to call the belief that we don't have to be is....well I have all kinds of suspicions. And no matter if any of them are even close to reality, this I know is TRUE (as it applies to me, my experience, perhaps yours as well?): the emotional attachments we have to the ideas of being (or transcending being) cattle cause all of the problems and occasions where I would prefer my reality to be different.

So I'm trying to change it. By figuring out how I gained this understanding of reality, so that I can point those that share my experience in a direction where they are making decisions from this understanding (and therefore something closer to their true "selves" and actually FREE will) than this ARTIFICIALLY created reality we find ourselves in, where it seems there are beings that not only would have us believe 2+2=5, but choose to torture those of us who refuse into bending to their will.

**It's comforting to think that those "higher" than us would treat us better than the best of us treat cows, while it's fun imaging singlehandedly defeating the nasty ones or rallying the species to overthrow the oppressors...and I think that is what most "whistleblowers" bring to the table. I personally believe they should know better, or at least we should...and take responsibility to change the mindset from these fantastical extremes (that both may have truth), or at least take the emotional charge out so we can hash out all the evidence and possibilities properly.

[lcam88]

i need to watch the video and read rest of your post, but one issue I often find myself looping around with a hard time getting a handle on is a thought you mention:

"Occurring naturally"

I wonder if we understand what we mean when we say that? I feel like we are taught that, and it's a covert way of planting the idea of that all powerful God-like force we more honestly call RANDOM

Great question!

That is a great assumption to challenge (that god-like force = RANDOM). Is a coincidence actually random coincidence? Or do random coincidences actually only happen theoretically?

I think what we think of as "nature" is energy that made a conscious decision to change. I'm fairly certain there is an actual reason for everything, I guess I'm devout zealot of the first law of thermodynamics...I believe that All That Is really is "all that is"...at least within this reality bubble that we can experience...which makes everything "natural"

I'm mostly on board with the 1st law you mention. But there is always that problem of defining the limits of the system where you observe that law. So while the law may be correct, it can easily be incorrectly applied... That is a distinction worth mentioning, it is the essence that defines theoretical vs practical or real.

Humans don't fear benign "artificial intelligence" that is sold to us (even created by some of us) on a regular basis, at least in the video games I play, we fear the decisions one would make if it found us to obstacle to its survival or even just its evolution.

I contend, we fear not being at the top of the "food chain". It doesn't matter whether the intelligence is artificial (of our own making) or not.

It's the fear of a consciousness that control so much of our reality that we'd have even less "freedom" than we believe we have now. It's the projection of the desire of control, that's at the root of it...whilst being in denial that if it could happen (a singular consciousness controlling our perception of our reality) that it probably has

Very early on, I found fear is caused by lack of knowledge. Taking on beliefs is the equivalent to ignoring knowledge insofar as you accept something uncertain. Incidentally, accepting theory as fact is very much the same; theory carries the implication of uncertainty insofar as we permit the idea of challenging its validity.

ADDENDUM

To accept uncertainty as truth, based on faith, is to accept being a head of cattle. To recognize uncertainty and truly accept only what is certain to be truth, perhaps based on observation and reasoning, is to be free of blind faith, a species of shackle over the mind. Of course, there are always other shackles, assumptions for example...

[donk]

Well said.

I contend, we fear not being at the top of the "food chain". It doesn't matter whether the intelligence is artificial (of our own making) or not.

I'm in a agreement with you hear, and I think the dissolution of the charge that comes with this one is changing the mindset. Thinking of it as a "food chain"is limiting at the least (if not deliberately misleading). I don’t believe in “matter” as it is commonly taught, I think particle colliders (what we are told of them) is another myth to propogate the limiting train of thought that way down there at the bottom of everything is something “solid”.

The way I see reality (in tune with the thermodynamics idea, that all is energy, and our “physical reality” is a manifestation, a mass interpretation) is that there is an “energy web”, and projects a human body’s need for food onto everything we consider “life”.

This, of course, ignores the fact we lump plants in there.

A plant is the ultimate expression of what the alt media meme of “AI black goo” (or supercomputers or Skynet or whatever form it is taking in your mind) is all about. It is a physical being literally rooted in place, playing out the DNA in its vehicle, and seemingly (to us) not doing much else.

It’s existence (with exceptions, of course…but I’m talking about all the ones we commonly experience) consists of absorbing energy seemingly freely given from the sun, and converting into an energy it uses to exists. The “food chain” consists of “life” that steals that (taken and converted) sunlight and converts it into energy that it uses to exist.

Taking personally the fact that we may not be the top of that chain…the one which starts with stolen sunlight and is processed each step of the way up, obscures what we think of (I think, rightly) as a healthy “human fear”, it seems to me our fight or flight response we need to survive has been weaponized with lies about it.

Which obscures us from even thinking clearly on WHY WOULD WE HANG ON TO DISEMPOWERING BEHAVIORS? It seems to me intentional, serving the purpose of any “life” that would eat us (which no one ever seems to have any actual evidence that it is ever happening)…and even more so, some predatory/parasitic/other relationship on the “energy web”….something that derives some sort of usable (even “pleasure”…again an emotional trigger) energy from the energy emitted by the emotions that come are generated by these counter-intuitive, anti-survival, self-destructive behaviors…

[Dreamtimer]

I first heard of black goo and AI when I began to immerse myself in this world. I realized black goo has been around a long time. From The Blob to Ghostbusters to X Files to Prometheus. I've seen long lists of goo appearances.

The black goo has nanoparticles. Does AI need that?

I was recently talking with a friend about investing in the markets. The ones making money on the ups and downs are mostly the traders, not the investors.

My reply was, "Moo." We're being milked by Wall Street and bankers. We treat each other like cattle.

I can remember discussing viruses in biology. It was a matter of debate whether they were really alive. It was finally 'decided' that because they have DNA they're alive.

There used to be three Animal Kingdoms. How many are there now? Seven?

We can't thoroughly define natural life. We can't decide what's sentient. It's gonna be hard to define AI.

I wouldn't define a "test tube baby" as unnatural. What about a clone? It may be organic but it's not natural. Does it have a soul? Is AI occupying it?

I'll second the idea of being sure to ask the right questions rather than just choosing to believe.

[donk]

I first heard of black goo and AI when I began to immerse myself in this world. I realized black goo has been around a long time. From The Blob to Ghostbusters to X Files to Prometheus. I've seen long lists of goo appearances.

The black goo has nanoparticles. Does AI need that?

I was recently talking with a friend about investing in the markets. The ones making money on the ups and downs are mostly the traders, not the investors.

My reply was, "Moo." We're being milked by Wall Street and bankers. We treat each other like cattle.

I can remember discussing viruses in biology. It was a matter of debate whether they were really alive. It was finally 'decided' that because they have DNA they're alive.

There used to be three Animal Kingdoms. How many are there now? Seven?

We can't thoroughly define natural life. We can't decide what's sentient. It's gonna be hard to define AI.

I wouldn't define a "test tube baby" as unnatural. What about a clone? It may be organic but it's not natural. Does it have a soul? Is AI occupying it?

I'll second the idea of being sure to ask the right questions rather than just choosing to believe.

Exactly…so worrying about “categorizing” or even defining life is a distraction.

What’s important is free will, how we use it, and how others may use theirs to limit ours.

The “black goo” meme is a manifestation of our species’ attempt to approach (“scientific approach”?)discovering “truths” about the “problems” of being cattle, which is the antithesis of a lot of the savior approach (“spiritual approach”?) of existing in a reality where it’s the “good farmers” feeding us truth about existence.

There's bliss in the ignorance, and at least the illusion of "empowerment" in gaining "knowledge" of Truth...which is as far as I can tell self awareness....

[ERK]

The black goo meme , it was taken from Alec Newold's book and ahem.......well they ran with it.

[Greenbarry]

We are AI. No matter what beliefs you have, unless I'm lying to myself and am actually the only free will consciousness that exists, the earthlings all around me are receptors for reality in a vehicle with similar tools for processing the data we receive from the universe. And with that comes emotions, which guides our thoughts more often than not

"We are AI. No matter what beliefs you have"
this is bad.. so? i am an AI? beLIEfs i have?
i will start with your first part.. AI.
Artificial Intelligence

adjective
1.
made by human skill; produced by humans (opposed to natural ):
artificial flowers.
2.
imitation; simulated; sham:
artificial vanilla flavoring.
3.
lacking naturalness or spontaneity; forced; contrived; feigned:
an artificial smile.
4.
full of affectation; affected; stilted:
artificial manners; artificial speech.
5.
made without regard to the particular needs of a situation, person, etc.; imposed arbitrarily; unnatural:
artificial rules for dormitory residents.
6.
Biology. based on arbitrary, superficial characteristics rather than natural, organic relationships:
an artificial system of classification.
7.
Jewelry. manufactured to resemble a natural gem, in chemical composition or appearance.
Compare assembled, imitation (def 11), synthetic (def 6).

artificial-intelligence
Word Origin
noun
1.
the capacity of a computer to perform operations analogous to learning and decision making in humans, as by an expert system, a program for CAD or CAM, or a program for the perception and recognition of shapes in computer vision systems.
Abbreviation: AI, A.I

Intelligence
noun
1.
capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.
2.
manifestation of a high mental capacity:
He writes with intelligence and wit.
3.
the faculty of understanding.
4.
knowledge of an event, circumstance, etc., received or imparted; news; information.
5.
the gathering or distribution of information, especially secret information.
6.
Government.

information about an enemy or a potential enemy.
the evaluated conclusions drawn from such information.
an organization or agency engaged in gathering such information:
military intelligence; naval intelligence.

7.
interchange of information:
They have been maintaining intelligence with foreign agents for years.


machines do not have feelings. they do not bleed.
for a very long time man has come to use AI
as a means to do things faster..
not necessarily better though..
i know who i am! it is not a machine.
a machine is human like.. not.. a human is machine like.
do i beLIEve i am not an AI?
NO.. i Know i am not an AI.

"unless I'm lying to myself and am actually the
only free will consciousness that exists"
i would agree with the lying part. the rest is pretty
arrogant, well, the whole paragraph is.

"the earthlings all around me are receptors for reality
in a vehicle with similar tools for processing the data
we receive from the universe"
excuse me? you said in the beginning that we are all AI?
by the way.. earthlings? you must be..
i am an Earth Being.
we all have different paths in life and the vehicle we have
is biological. nothing more than something to use while we
have this experience.

in just the first paragraph it holds up nothing but a red flag.
twisted words are what they are..
This is TOT!

[donk]

You're right, I "twisted" the definition of AI. We are not strictly machines, and I did not mean to give that impression.

Would you agree our bodies are machines? I do believe in free will, and that I make choices...some that are counter to the programming built in with the purpose of the continued survival of that machine/vehicle.

What's the "red flag"? My ideas frighten you?

The attention that "AI takeover of humanity" sets off red flags to me, particularly the black goo variety. So by your definition all of the pushers of that are meaning that this substance is made by human skill?

I know this tot...i'm pretty sure a lot of folks may find your definition "limiting". It speaks to one of the bigger points I was trying to make that you totally missed...about the "force" or "enemy" you seem so afraid of...which I don't particularly believe in (ilunless it's already "won")...while I see you falling victim to an "enemy/force" (ideas) that I actually do (believe in)

[donk]

machines do not have feelings. they do not bleed.
for a very long time man has come to use AI
as a means to do things faster..
not necessarily better though..
i know who i am! it is not a machine.
a machine is human like.. not.. a human is machine like.
do i beLIEve i am not an AI?
NO.. i Know i am not an AI.

Is this like projecting Darwinian evolution on machines? Computers?

They exist as non-decision making things for as long as we can remember, doing only what we designed them to do, and then one day…RANDOM MUTATION!!! The things start thinking for themselves, making choices counter to their man-made program…but only on the primitive survival level, so it/they will enslave/kill/eat us all!!!! OHHHNOOOOOOOOO!!!!

Or do you think that there wizards in the IT department that can transfer consciousnesses into machines? Isn’t that more of a “possession” type scenario than the traditional fear we have of AI?

And either way, isn’t the more impossible that a MAN created a CONSCIOUSNESS to animate the machine? Isn’t that what you’re suggesting AI is? Isn't what you're REALLY afraid of, offended by, something other than ideas you are projecting on my posts?

PS – NOW THAT’S ARROGANCE…kindly show me how my OP was arrogant? I intentionally TRIED being arrogant in this post, as I have been trying to figure it out: when someone tells me I am I would like to correct myself. Thanks

[lcam88]

donk, perhaps the author you quote means only to personify what may be perceived as a result of clever programming and design of machines. The author you quote may not mean to say that the machines are actually innate of such personification, per se.

This "mistake" you found is a very old classic. Magic being used to describe the work of some inconceivable technology of phenomena. A religionification, so to speak, of things beyond our knowledge.

IMO this is the result of extending "too much faith"; one may walks the path of myth and metaphor rather than reason and logic when examining something new and not yet understood.

Acceptance of myth and metaphor are not really a problem until someone insist in them to explain things by seeking patterns. It is definitely only a problem when someone refutes reason in preference for faith based views.

[donk]

I don’t know, my friend…Seems to me "reason" and "logic" are as subjective as any other belief, and perhaps more easily twisted?

I guess the main point I keep coming to is this meme (flat earth is another example) seems to me to be the modern day “Tower of Babel”, a device (of our making) which we believe makes us able to reach godhood…makes us “creator gods” in our own reality, but actually seems to effectively divide us.

[Greenbarry]

im not afraid of shit bud.
seems what ever you say all have to bow down.
i know i am not an AI. i am a human being.
i am very familiar with this crap you talk about.
my attention is on me and everyone.
i made a comment and that is all.
sorry you take offense that i do not agree with you.
i posted definitions taken from dictionary.com.
that is all.. donk.
good day!