I was never a religious Jew, Michael, but at least once a year I would attend 
Yom Kippur services with my family when we would hear all about be written in 
the Book of Life for all our past year deeds. 

 That is one example that comes to mind. 
 

 I would be surprised if there were not more.
 

 And yes, although I read very little of Madame Blavatsky, I did enjoy books by 
Charles Leadbetter who was a Theosophist, and H.W. Percival, who started off as 
Theosophist, and then left, and also Rudolf Steiner, who I believe was a 
contemporary of the Theosophist, but had his own angle.
 

 I feel I benefited from all of them.
 

 Not trying to make a point, just a little background.
 

---In [email protected], <mjackson74@...> wrote :

 List 'em Steve, then we''ll talk. Dunno what kind of fags she smoked, proly 
some European brand, or maybe since she was so enamored of India she got those 
bidis. 
 

 From: "anartaxius@... [FairfieldLife]" <[email protected]>
 To: [email protected] 
 Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2015 6:37 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can AI Machines Know Ethics?
 
 
   Does anyone know the brand of cigars or cigarettes that Helena Blavatsky 
smoked? 

 


 

---In [email protected], <steve.sundur@...> wrote :

 As usual, you are pretty funny Michael. 

 Of course there have been numerous references to the Akashic Records before 
Madame Blavatsky, they just didn't call them, the Akashic Records.
 

 Does that mean they are real?
 

 I don't hear anyone claiming they are, do you?
 

 But, with your permission, perhaps we can discuss the possibility.
 

 

---In [email protected], <mjackson74@...> wrote :

 Might you be willing to entertain the idea that the akashic records are just 
some esoteric bullshit that well meaning new age bullshiters made up, even if 
they really believed in their existence? I definitely include C Lutes in the 
ranks of esoteric new age bullshiters -for all his connections with Marshy and 
his declaration of being enlightened, he was as much of a fringe guy as anyone 
who ever gave a lecture
 

 Doesn't seem to be any record of akashic records before Blavatsky and her 
theosophical kooks - they made it up. Good for psychics and other readers who 
purport to read them  for folks, always for a fee of course.

 

 From: "Bhairitu noozguru@... [FairfieldLife]" <[email protected]>
 To: [email protected] 
 Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2015 5:38 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can AI Machines Know Ethics?
 
 
   
 Charlie Lutes liked to talk a lot of about it but I've read a number of others 
on the subject.  I didn't find them varying much in the description.  
Scientifically, if we radiate electrical impulses those might get caught in 
some kind of "ether" or "celestial realms".  This is something that has not 
been researched much.
 
 This would mean that human beings are a "terminal" to a cosmic computer. :-D 
 
 On 06/28/2015 02:17 PM, Michael Jackson mjackson74@... mailto:mjackson74@... 
[FairfieldLife] wrote:

 


   which akashic record you talkin' about? there are quite a few depending on 
which new age whacko you consult for your records

 
 
 From: "Bhairitu noozguru@... mailto:noozguru@... [FairfieldLife]" 
<[email protected]> mailto:[email protected]
 To: [email protected] mailto:[email protected] 
 Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2015 5:06 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can AI Machines Know Ethics?
 
 
   
 The intellect is binary so not that hard to model.  It is yes or no.  A US 
Berkeley student did a graduate paper which I read back in the 1990s.  I had 
suggested this to our development team before the paper was published and one 
of the project leads came across it.  I recall the student got some interesting 
and unexpected results with his model.
 
 Neural networks are a way of learning.  They've been around for awhile.  My 
books probably date back to the 1980s.  But what if our brains are really 
nothing more than receiver/transmitters that communicate with the "akashic 
record"?  Yeah, a bit "woo-woo" maybe but could indeed be a possibility.  Might 
explain some things.
 
 On 06/28/2015 12:01 PM, anartaxius@... mailto:anartaxius@... [FairfieldLife] 
wrote:

   Everythingis debatable. In an ironic sort of way, artificial intelligence 
does apply to humans. I often think of you as having artificial intelligence. 
Attempting to replicate human intelligence has so far failed because the human 
neural network of connexions is so complex. Many researchers are investigating 
insect intelligence, which is a simpler model to try to understand. That Google 
paper was interesting. Here is one of the conversations from that original 
paper:
 
 
 Human: what is the purpose of life?
 Machine: to serve the greater good.
 Human: what is the purpose of living?
 Machine: to live forever.
 Human: what is the purpose of existence?
 Machine: to find out what happens when we get to the planet earth.
 Human: where are y! ou now?
 Machine: i'm in the middle of nowhere.
 Human: what is the purpose of dying?
 Machine: to have a life.
 Human: what is the purpose of being intelligent?
 Machine: to find out what it is.
 Human: what is the purpose of emotions?
 Machine: i don't know.
 

 I attached the original paper, A Neural Conversational Model, to this post.
 
 ---In [email protected] mailto:[email protected], 
<jr_esq@...> mailto:jr_esq@... wrote :
 
 Xeno, 

 I had to take a double-take to understand what you're saying.  You seem to be 
saying that humans are machines too.  That's debatable.  In this context, we're 
talking about artificial intelligence which does not apply to humans.
 
 
 ---In [email protected] mailto:[email protected], 
<anartaxius@...> mailto:anartaxius@... wrote :
 
 Of course we can. The query to be answered is whether it is worth the 
computing time and the bother of implementation.
 
 
 ---In [email protected] mailto:[email protected], 
<jr_esq@...> mailto:jr_esq@... wrote :
 
 One machine said NO...which is correct.  It's database was based on movie 
scripts.  But if the database included philosophical and ethics discussions, 
the machine could have gotten the correct answer from those discussions.  Even 
if it got the correct answer, the machine still does not know what it said.
 
 
 ArtificialIntelligence Machine Gets Testy With Its Programmer
 
 
 
 
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/06/26/artificial-intelligence-machine-gets-testy-with-its-programmers/?mod=yahoo_hs
 
 ArtificialIntelligence Machine Gets Testy With Its Prog... Machineis asked to 
define morality, gets annoyed when it can't.


 
 View on blogs.wsj.com 
 Preview by Yahoo 
 

 

 









 
  


 




 
 







 

 


 
















 


 












Reply via email to