Russ Allen, Kyle Allen, Marty Garza, UFOs and ET |566|

The actions of this individual are nothing short of cyber-stalking. This individual has shown a pattern of reacting to commentary whereby he employs creative interpretation of the posts of another, then points the finger at his target and attributing the twisted and vastly redesigned interpretation to his target.
Diabolical
If this type of behavior is acceptable to Alex or any of the moderators of this forum, please, let me know.
Ya, let us know, because things could get very creative.
 

At 2 minutes and 5 seconds the narrator makes the exact point I made without using the term “anti-singularity” but I explicitly stated there needed to be a global counter-force “where we globally deem highly advanced artificial intelligence or transhumanistic brain augmentation to simply be too dangerous…”

Note the term “globally deem” – that, my friends, is a form of “globalism” – like it or not.

Just like the Nuclear Weapons treaties that went “global” (and for good), the above is another urgency, shall I say, emergency that was the basis for my statements in this thread that were taken out of context by Nelson. Hopefully, he can see this - I prefer it be understood, then argued against (if anyone can) than what has happened which was arguing against a fiction.
 
@Chester, your posts are so absurd that it's difficult to take them seriously. You've explicitly called for 'global government', and you've said Darius is your role model.

I then looked for what may be the best possible GLOBAL GOVERNMENT [...] And I believe we do and it was the Achaemenid Empire starting with Cyrus I and expanded to perhaps it's heights by DARIUS I

Those are your words... I won't say any more on the matter, except that others can read what you wrote and my responses, about your explicit call for 'global government', based on your role model(!) Darius, who admittedly mutilated the faces of his enemies and crucified them.
 
At 2 minutes and 5 seconds the narrator makes the exact point I made without using the term “anti-singularity” ... Just like the Nuclear Weapons treaties that went “global” ( and for good ), the above is another urgency, shall I say, emergency ...
Indeed. The only issue I see a problem with is the assumption that AIs will have consciousness. Intelligence and consciousness are two very different concepts, and it seems to me that a lot of people don't get how significant that difference is. It does at least make the point that having a copy of you isn't the same thing as having another "you". This is essentially the same problem as religious or mystical notions of afterlives.
 
Last edited:
Indeed. The only issue I see a problem with is the assumption that AIs will have consciousness. Intelligence and consciousness are two very different concepts, and it seems to me that a lot of people don't get how significant that difference is. It does at least make the point that a copy of you isn't the same thing as "you".

A copy of me would be the same thing as me at the instant the copy was made. Where both "me"s go from there are, I hope, a matter of free will for each.
 
Indeed. The only issue I see a problem with is the assumption that AIs will have consciousness. Intelligence and consciousness are two very different concepts, and it seems to me that a lot of people don't get how significant that difference is. It does at least make the point that having a copy of you isn't the same thing as having another "you". This is essentially the same problem as religious or mystical notions of afterlives.

Also, it is hard for me to rule out 'that an AI can't become conscious/self aware (thus individuated) when I speculate upon that from the perspective that consciousness is fundamental. How do we know our experience as bio-individuals (with extended psychic perceptions) were not produced by another intelligence? In other words, how did "soul" get attached to the rest of my experiential aspects as an individuated being?
 
A copy of me would be the same thing as me at the instant the copy was made.
I would argue against that assumption — or at least make an appropriate distinction between what is meant by the phrase "same thing". The person you are as the original, is by its nature not the "same thing" as a copy, no matter how exact such a copy is.
Where both "me"s go from there are, I hope, a matter of free will for each.
The copy never had any choice to be produced in the first place, so it follows from there that all subsequent causes and effects, being the result of initial conditions it had no control over — are themselves not really the result of a free choice — "free will" is an illusion.
 
Last edited:
Also, it is hard for me to rule out 'that an AI can't become conscious/self aware (thus individuated) when I speculate upon that from the perspective that consciousness is fundamental. How do we know our experience as bio-individuals (with extended psychic perceptions) were not produced by another intelligence? In other words, how did "soul" get attached to the rest of my experiential aspects as an individuated being?

This is territory where I tend to lose people. We went through literally thousands of pages spanning years over on The Paracast forum. It boils down to not having all the answers, and possibly never having them. However, we have enough data to suggest that some things are far more likely to be the case than others, and that given the data currently at our disposal, some situations may or may not result in consciousness.

The one situation we can currently make reliable predictions on is our own. Human consciousness is correlated so universally with functioning human brain-body systems, that we can predict that by making healthy copies ( babies ), we can safely assume that their conscious experience will be about the same as that of other similarly healthy humans.

Given the situation that we don't yet know how we as biological systems are able to experience consciousness, we cannot safely assume that a non-biological system will experience the same, no matter how closely it resembles us in all other respects. Even if every neurons could be replaced by synthetic relays that transmit signals perfectly, it could still be the case that consciousness still requires organic materials not present in synthetic relays.

In other words, for some things to work, only a particular arrangement of particular materials will work. For example, in theory, provided that the design and specs are accounted for, we can make a glider out of all kinds of materials — but not so with an electromagnet. We cannot take nylon fishing line and wrap it around a wooden core and expect it to work, even if it looks exactly like the one with copper winding and a ferrite core.

Similarly, it may be the case that no matter how good a microcircuit silicon based neural relay is, perhaps only a biological one can do the job where consciousness is concerned. Interestingly, what they're doing these days is growing artificial neural relays for AI learning modules out of silver that look very organic. But who knows what sort of experience those AIs are having ( if any ) ?

Perhaps in the future we can eventually know — like when we can actually replace biological neurons with synthetic ones and monitor the patient during the process. There's a lot about that sort of sci-fi that is fascinating to contemplate — and scary as Hell at the same time.
 
Last edited:
I would argue against that assumption — or at least make an appropriate distinction between what is meant by the phrase "same thing". The person you are as the original, is by its nature not the "same thing" as a copy, no matter how exact such a copy is.

If it were not, it wouldn't be a copy.

The copy never had any choice to be produced in the first place, so it follows from there that all subsequent causes and effects being the result of initial conditions it had no control over — that "free will" is an illusion.

Are you saying you chose, prior to your becoming, to be you? If you were not, before you became you, "you" couldn't make a choice because there was no "you." The key to it all is individuation that takes the opportunity to take personal responsibility for their choices. Those who don't haven't earned any rights and others who have will determine their outcomes, including annihilation.
 
This is territory where I tend to lose people. We went through literally thousands of pages spanning years over on The Paracast forum. It boils down to not having all the answers, and possibly never having them. However, we have enough data to suggest that some things are far more likely to be the case than others, and that given the data currently at our disposal, some situations may or may not result in consciousness.

The one situation we can currently make reliable predictions on is our own. Human consciousness is correlated so universally with functioning human brain-body systems, that we can predict that by making healthy copies ( babies ), we can safely assume that they will experience consciousness closely to the same way as other similarly healthy humans.

Given the situation that we don't yet know how we as biological systems are able to experience consciousness, we cannot safely assume that a non-biological system will experience the same, no matter how closely it resembles us in all other respects. Even if every neurons could be replaced by synthetic relays that transmit signals perfectly, it could still be the case that consciousness still requires organic materials not present in synthetic relays.

In other words, for some things to work, only a particular arrangement of particular materials will work. For example, in theory, provided that the design and specs are accounted for, we can make a glider out of all kinds of materials — but not so with an electromagnet. We cannot take nylon fishing line and wrap it around a wooden core and expect it to work, even if it looks exactly like the one with copper winding and a ferrite core.

Similarly, it may be the case that no matter how good a microcircuit silicon based neural relay is, perhaps only a biological one can do the job where consciousness is concerned. Interestingly, what they're doing these days is growing artificial neural relays for AI learning modules out of silver that look very organic. But who knows what sort of experience those AIs are having ( if any ) ?

Perhaps in the future we can eventually know — like when we can actually replace biological neurons with synthetic ones and monitor the patient during the process. There's a lot about that sort of sci-fi that is fascinating to contemplate — and scary as Hell at the same time.

And why I argue we set standards (which must be upheld globally). If this doesn't happen, the unscrupulous will create the next Frankenstein monsters.
 
If it were not, it wouldn't be a copy.
Note sure what you're saying there. If it were not ( what exactly? ) — The "same thing"?
Is the sheet of paper on the scanner the "same thing" that comes out of the printer? No.
Are you saying you chose, prior to your becoming, to be you?
I'm saying that one chain of logic results in free will being an illusion — and it only gets worse from there.
If you were not, before you became you, "you" couldn't make a choice because there was no "you." The key to it all is individuation that takes the opportunity to take personal responsibility for their choices.
The idea of "personal responsibility' is as much an illusion as "free will" — mostly used to assign blame to people for doing things they had no real control over in the first place. That being said, they're very convincing illusions — maybe even useful.
Those who don't haven't earned any rights ...
The "earning of rights" is yet another illusion.
... and others who have will determine their outcomes, including annihilation.
Determining outcomes is all done inside your brain before you ever become aware of it. It's a scientific fact. You never actually make a "conscious decision". It all begins someplace inside your brain with a few neurons. You have no idea which one's they are. From there, more and more connections form, and by the time you become aware that this has happened, the "thought" or "decision" has already been made.
 
Last edited:
Note sure what you're saying there. If it were not ( what exactly? ) — The "same thing"?
Is the sheet of paper on the scanner the "same thing" that comes out of the printer? No.

I'm saying that one chain of logic results in free will being an illusion — and it only gets worse from there.

The idea of "personal responsibility' is as much an illusion as "free will" — mostly used to assign blame to people for doing things they had no real control over in the first place. That being said, they're very convincing illusions — maybe even useful.

The "earning of rights" is yet another illusion.

Determining outcomes is all done inside your brain before you ever become aware of it. It's a scientific fact. You never actually make a "conscious decision". It all begins someplace inside your brain with a few neurons. You have no idea which one's they are. From there, more and more connections form, and by the time you become aware that this has happened, the "thought" or "decision" has already been made.

I think I now understand you. You do not even wish there be such a thing as free will (and personal responsibility as they do go hand in hand).

I operate under the assumption I have free will and for that reason, I also hold myself 100% responsible for all my thoughts (that I choose to own), words and actions.

If I don't have free will, then I don't care to exist. I can only speak for myself.
 
I think I now understand you.
If by the above, you accept that all decisions are fully formed in the brain before we become aware of them, therefore the notion of free will being the ability to make conscious decisions must be false — then yes, you understand.
You do not even wish there be such a thing as free will (and personal responsibility as they do go hand in hand).
Not exactly. I accept that the notion of free will as most people generally think of it is in fact an illusion. I also think that it changes the nature of personal responsibility, but doesn't eliminate it. We are still the agents responsible in a cause and effect fashion for the decisions that we make, whether we're aware of them or not, and therefore the issue of accountability is still valid — just not quite the same way as people generally formulate it.
I operate under the assumption I have free will and for that reason, I also hold myself 100% responsible for all my thoughts (that I choose to own), words and actions.
That's very different than the way I operate. I recognize that virtually all decisions are influenced by forces beyond people's control, and that the responsibility for that is shared proportionally among those influences. So if someone lies or manipulates someone into thinking something false, the liars and manipulators share a far greater portion of the responsibility for the thoughts of their victim than the victim themselves.
If I don't have free will, then I don't care to exist. I can only speak for myself.
The concept of free will and the concept of existence are two very different things. Our existence allows us to experience the world around us. It is one of the greatest wonders in the universe. Once you get in tune with that, the subject of free will becomes increasingly less relevant — and paradoxically much more interesting at the same time.
 
Last edited:
If by that, you accept that all decisions are fully formed in the brain before we become aware of them, therefore the notion of free will being the ability to make conscious decisions must be false — then yes, you understand.

Not exactly. I accept that the notion of free will as most people generally think of it is in fact an illusion. I also think that it changes the nature of personal responsibility, but doesn't eliminate it. We are still the agents responsible in a cause and effect fashion for the decisions that we make, whether we're aware of them or not, and therefore the issue of accountability is still valid — just not quite the same way as people generally formulate it.

That's very different than the way I operate. I recognize that virtually all decisions are influenced by forces beyond people's control, and that the responsibility for that is shared proportionally among those influences. So if someone lies or manipulates someone into thinking something false, the liars and manipulators share a far greater portion of the responsibility for that thoughts of their victim than the victim themselves.

The concept of free will and the concept of existence are two very different things. Our existence allows us to experience the world around us. It is one of the greatest wonders in the universe. Once you get in tune with that, the subject of free will becomes increasingly less relevant — and paradoxically much more interesting at the same time.

I have a completely different metaphysics than you. Regardless, I hope you are well, do well for others and enjoy your life.
 
I have a completely different metaphysics than you.
That's good. It means there should be room for us to illuminate some new things for one or other or both of us.
  • In what way would you say our metaphysics differs?
  • Are we even using the word "metaphysics" in the same way?
I take a fairly standard view that metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that deals with the nature of being, beings, time, space, and causality. What about you?

Metaphysics — Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Regardless, I hope you are well, do well for others and enjoy your life.
I appreciate the sentiment, and the same in return.
 
Back
Top