I'm not talking about the end of humanity as the feeble minded may
believe but in reference to the article I posted a few days ago about
the extinction event. Only very stupid people would think that gay
marriage is the end of humanity.
On 06/28/2015 05:09 PM, Michael Jackson [email protected]
[FairfieldLife] wrote:
There are a number of people here in SC that are convinced the end of
humanity is nigh because of the gay marriage ruling and the removal of
the flag movements.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* "Bhairitu [email protected] [FairfieldLife]"
<[email protected]>
*To:* [email protected]
*Sent:* Sunday, June 28, 2015 6:45 PM
*Subject:* Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can AI Machines Know Ethics?
Yup, it's just a theory for now. But there's a lot we don't know
about our universe and how things work. People who might discount the
notion might be the same kind of soul at one time who wouldn't believe
that the world was round.
There are a probably a lot of surprises coming that is if the human
race survives.
On 06/28/2015 03:25 PM, [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> [FairfieldLife] 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]
<mailto:[email protected]>, <mjackson74@...>
<mailto: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]> <mailto:[email protected]>
*To:* [email protected]
<mailto:[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>
image
<http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/06/%21%0A%2026/artificial-intelligence-machine-gets-testy-with-its-programmers/?mod=yahoo_hs>
ArtificialIntelligence Machine Gets Testy With Its Prog...
<http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/06/26/artificial-intelligence-machine-gets-testy-with-its-programmers/?mod=yahoo_hs>
Machineis asked to define morality, gets annoyed when it can't.
View on blogs.wsj.com
<http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/06/26/artificial-intelligence-machine-gets-testy-with-its-programmers/?mod=yahoo_hs>
Preview by Yahoo
