Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can AI Machines Know Ethics?
Well, there are detailed accounts of individuals accessing the Akashic Records , but in a subjective, non verifiable way. Hence, here at least, I don't think you have anyone lobbying for its existence. I have read enough accounts to make me believe it exists. On the other hand, I have always enjoyed reading accounts of this sort, so it is always of interest. And, of course, what is said to be far fetched, or impossible at one point in time, has become the reality, and commonplace little farther down the line. Speaking of unexplained phenomena in the here and now, what would you make of something like this? “Buddha Boy” Goes 10 Months Without Food Or Water, Scientific Community Is Baffled http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/08/07/buddha-boy-goes-10-months-without-food-or-water-scientific-community-is-baffled/ http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/08/07/buddha-boy-goes-10-months-without-food-or-water-scientific-community-is-baffled/ “Buddha Boy” Goes 10 Months Without Food Or W... http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/08/07/buddha-boy-goes-10-months-without-food-or-water-scientific-community-is-baffled/ Is it possible for humans to not eat or consume water for longer than 3 or 4 days? What used to be scientifically impossible is now under great question ... View on www.collective-evolut... http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/08/07/buddha-boy-goes-10-months-without-food-or-water-scientific-community-is-baffled/ Preview by Yahoo ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : snip I agree with Michael, that the idea seems to be woo bullshit. In a scientific system (physics) the differential equations can show the state of a system past, present, and future, if you have some data to plug in, but the indeterminacy effect of the statistical uncertainty in quantum mechanics makes dredging up the past or predicting the future fuzzy. Also in Woo-land the mechanics of how 'akashic records' could be accessed does not seem to be described with any particular clarity. The only really certain thing is the strong belief that people have in what they imagine to be true. It seems to me the universe has properties that prevent us from finding out stuff beyond a certain level of detail. For example, the speed of light prevents us from knowing what is happening in distant galaxies now, we only can see the way they were millions of years ago. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 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] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 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
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can AI Machines Know Ethics?
Accroding to Wikipedia: 'Akasha is a Sanskrit word meaning sky, space, luminous, or æther, and it entered the language of theosophy through H. P. Blavatsky (1831-1891), who characterized it as a sort of life force; she also referred to indestructible tablets of the astral light recording both the past and future of human thought and action, but she did not use the term akashic. The notion of an akashic record is attributed to Alfred Percy Sinnett, who, in his book Esoteric Buddhism (1884), wrote of a Buddhist belief in a permanency of records in the Akasa and the potential capacity of man to read the same.By C. W. Leadbeater's Clairvoyance (1899) the association of the term with the idea was complete, and he identified the akashic records by name as something a clairvoyant could read. According to Marshal McKusick, former professor of Anthropology at the University of Iowa, the term Akashic record was created by Rudolf Steiner.' If this is correct, Blavatsky did not use the term 'akashic records'. I agree with Michael, that the idea seems to be woo bullshit. In a scientific system (physics) the differential equations can show the state of a system past, present, and future, if you have some data to plug in, but the indeterminacy effect of the statistical uncertainty in quantum mechanics makes dredging up the past or predicting the future fuzzy. Also in Woo-land the mechanics of how 'akashic records' could be accessed does not seem to be described with any particular clarity. The only really certain thing is the strong belief that people have in what they imagine to be true. It seems to me the universe has properties that prevent us from finding out stuff beyond a certain level of detail. For example, the speed of light prevents us from knowing what is happening in distant galaxies now, we only can see the way they were millions of years ago. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 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] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 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
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can AI Machines Know Ethics?
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] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 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] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can AI Machines Know Ethics?
I only bring it up, because evidently they did have cameras filming 24/7 for about a week. And if you listen to the explanation of how this could be from one of the Buddhist priests there, he does offer an explanation based on a phenomenon sometimes seen in this type of Buddhist meditation. I don't recall the exact mechanics. It is quite specific, and about half into it, IIRC. Of course, you can say it is fraud, and for all I know it is. However, at least this account is a little more air tight. As for living on fresh air based on belief? That would be an eye opener. . Speaking of unexplained phenomena in the here and now, what would you make of something like this? First of all, consider the source. Second, people can't live without burning calories, try it if you like - but not for long. Third, every other recent case of people living on air or sunlight has turned out to be a fraud. Four, why do people think it amazing or spiritual if people could live on fresh air? I think it's because this would be an outward symbol of inner changes that we don't understand. That eating is some sort of attachment and that they are now connected to some higher source that sustains them. It doesn't appeal to me anyway, life without chocolate cake isn't higher at all. “Buddha Boy” Goes 10 Months Without Food Or Water, Scientific Community Is Baffled http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/08/07/buddha-boy-goes-10-months-without-food-or-water-scientific-community-is-baffled/ http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/08/07/buddha-boy-goes-10-months-without-food-or-water-scientific-community-is-baffled/ “Buddha Boy” Goes 10 Months Without Food Or W... http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/08/07/buddha-boy-goes-10-months-without-food-or-water-scientific-community-is-baffled/ Is it possible for humans to not eat or consume water for longer than 3 or 4 days? What used to be scientifically impossible is now under great question ... View on www.collective-evolut... http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/08/07/buddha-boy-goes-10-months-without-food-or-water-scientific-community-is-baffled/ Preview by Yahoo ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : snip I agree with Michael, that the idea seems to be woo bullshit. In a scientific system (physics) the differential equations can show the state of a system past, present, and future, if you have some data to plug in, but the indeterminacy effect of the statistical uncertainty in quantum mechanics makes dredging up the past or predicting the future fuzzy. Also in Woo-land the mechanics of how 'akashic records' could be accessed does not seem to be described with any particular clarity. The only really certain thing is the strong belief that people have in what they imagine to be true. It seems to me the universe has properties that prevent us from finding out stuff beyond a certain level of detail. For example, the speed of light prevents us from knowing what is happening in distant galaxies now, we only can see the way they were millions of years ago. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 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
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can AI Machines Know Ethics?
@... 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] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 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] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can AI Machines Know Ethics?
It all sounds like anthropomorphism to me. I don't get that the universe would be so interested in us that it provides a recording service. Belly laugh of the morning, thanks Sal! life without chocolate cake isn't higher at all. I will amend that statement only to the extent of replacing chocolate cake with coffee ice cream. From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 11:01 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can AI Machines Know Ethics? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : Well, there are detailed accounts of individuals accessing the Akashic Records , but in a subjective, non verifiable way. Hence, here at least, I don't think you have anyone lobbying for its existence. I have read enough accounts to make me believe it exists. On the other hand, I have always enjoyed reading accounts of this sort, so it is always of interest. And, of course, what is said to be far fetched, or impossible at one point in time, has become the reality, and commonplace little farther down the line. It all sounds like anthropomorphism to me. I don't get that the universe would be so interested in us that it provides a recording service. It's a nice idea though, I'd like to access the record of what happened on my 25th birthday so my autobiography will be complete. Speaking of unexplained phenomena in the here and now, what would you make of something like this? First of all, consider the source. Second, people can't live without burning calories, try it if you like - but not for long. Third, every other recent case of people living on air or sunlight has turned out to be a fraud. Four, why do people think it amazing or spiritual if people could live on fresh air? I think it's because this would be an outward symbol of inner changes that we don't understand. That eating is some sort of attachment and that they are now connected to some higher source that sustains them. It doesn't appeal to me anyway, life without chocolate cake isn't higher at all. “Buddha Boy” Goes 10 Months Without Food Or Water, Scientific Community Is Baffled | | | | | | “Buddha Boy” Goes 10 Months Without Food Or W... Is it possible for humans to not eat or consume water for longer than 3 or 4 days? What used to be scientifically impossible is now under great question ... | | |View on www.collective-evolut... | Preview by Yahoo | | | ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : snip I agree with Michael, that the idea seems to be woo bullshit. In a scientific system (physics) the differential equations can show the state of a system past, present, and future, if you have some data to plug in, but the indeterminacy effect of the statistical uncertainty in quantum mechanics makes dredging up the past or predicting the future fuzzy. Also in Woo-land the mechanics of how 'akashic records' could be accessed does not seem to be described with any particular clarity. The only really certain thing is the strong belief that people have in what they imagine to be true. It seems to me the universe has properties that prevent us from finding out stuff beyond a certain level of detail. For example, the speed of light prevents us from knowing what is happening in distant galaxies now, we only can see the way they were millions of years ago. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2015 5:38 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can AI Machines Know Ethics? Charlie Lutes liked to talk a lot ofabout it but I've read a number of others on the subject. Ididn't find them varying much in the description. Scientifically,if we radiate electrical impulses those might get caught in somekind of ether or celestial realms
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can AI Machines Know Ethics?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : Well, there are detailed accounts of individuals accessing the Akashic Records , but in a subjective, non verifiable way. Hence, here at least, I don't think you have anyone lobbying for its existence. I have read enough accounts to make me believe it exists. On the other hand, I have always enjoyed reading accounts of this sort, so it is always of interest. And, of course, what is said to be far fetched, or impossible at one point in time, has become the reality, and commonplace little farther down the line. It all sounds like anthropomorphism to me. I don't get that the universe would be so interested in us that it provides a recording service. It's a nice idea though, I'd like to access the record of what happened on my 25th birthday so my autobiography will be complete. Speaking of unexplained phenomena in the here and now, what would you make of something like this? First of all, consider the source. Second, people can't live without burning calories, try it if you like - but not for long. Third, every other recent case of people living on air or sunlight has turned out to be a fraud. Four, why do people think it amazing or spiritual if people could live on fresh air? I think it's because this would be an outward symbol of inner changes that we don't understand. That eating is some sort of attachment and that they are now connected to some higher source that sustains them. It doesn't appeal to me anyway, life without chocolate cake isn't higher at all. “Buddha Boy” Goes 10 Months Without Food Or Water, Scientific Community Is Baffled http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/08/07/buddha-boy-goes-10-months-without-food-or-water-scientific-community-is-baffled/ http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/08/07/buddha-boy-goes-10-months-without-food-or-water-scientific-community-is-baffled/ “Buddha Boy” Goes 10 Months Without Food Or W... http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/08/07/buddha-boy-goes-10-months-without-food-or-water-scientific-community-is-baffled/ Is it possible for humans to not eat or consume water for longer than 3 or 4 days? What used to be scientifically impossible is now under great question ... View on www.collective-evolut... http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/08/07/buddha-boy-goes-10-months-without-food-or-water-scientific-community-is-baffled/ Preview by Yahoo ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : snip I agree with Michael, that the idea seems to be woo bullshit. In a scientific system (physics) the differential equations can show the state of a system past, present, and future, if you have some data to plug in, but the indeterminacy effect of the statistical uncertainty in quantum mechanics makes dredging up the past or predicting the future fuzzy. Also in Woo-land the mechanics of how 'akashic records' could be accessed does not seem to be described with any particular clarity. The only really certain thing is the strong belief that people have in what they imagine to be true. It seems to me the universe has properties that prevent us from finding out stuff beyond a certain level of detail. For example, the speed of light prevents us from knowing what is happening in distant galaxies now, we only can see the way they were millions of years ago. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 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
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can AI Machines Know Ethics?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : Accounts without evidence are hearsay. The boy without food or water is interesting. These accounts always tend to be superficial investigation in which the person is not placed in a real scientific environment where variables can be constrained. The person tends to be in control to some extent. There are a number of things one can look for. The film crew (videos on YouTube are missing) only films up to the upper limit of what is known about people living without water (typically three or four days). Yogananda gives a report of a woman who never ate, under completely uncontrolled conditions, but Yogananda was pretty gullible. Basically you would look for hidden sources of food and water, and extend observation to the full time period, and check the person for hidden pockets in clothing etc. If you postulate an alternative record keeping source to the 'akashic records', say a made up 'quantum gap storage field', and have similar accounts of people accessing it, how do you tell the difference? The number of people attesting to something does not provide concrete evidence of its existence. This is a basic problem with spirituality, why people tend to have wide disagreement as to what is true and real. Subjective verification of say, a state of consciousness, does not provide verification for someone else who did not have that experience. Prior to being born, I spent billions of years without food and water. Food shmood. As far as I'm concerned anyone who would choose, voluntarily, to sit for six months or more meditating is pretty off the charts in my book. Now that's unbelievable.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can AI Machines Know Ethics?
On 06/29/2015 08:01 AM, salyavin808 wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : Well, there are detailed accounts of individuals accessing the Akashic Records , but in a subjective, non verifiable way. Hence, here at least, I don't think you have anyone lobbying for its existence. I have read enough accounts to make me believe it exists. On the other hand, I have always enjoyed reading accounts of this sort, so it is always of interest. And, of course, what is said to be far fetched, or impossible at one point in time, has become the reality, and commonplace little farther down the line. It all sounds like anthropomorphism to me. I don't get that the universe would be so interested in us that it provides a recording service. When you walk in sand or mud you leave footprints, right? It wouldn't be that the universe is interested in us, we're just leaving some footprints or mindprints in some cosmic mud. Look at it as a concept not a reality.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can AI Machines Know Ethics?
Point well taken. Haagen Daz would be my choice. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote : I will amend that statement only to the extent of replacing chocolate cake with coffee ice cream. From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 11:01 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can AI Machines Know Ethics? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : Well, there are detailed accounts of individuals accessing the Akashic Records , but in a subjective, non verifiable way. Hence, here at least, I don't think you have anyone lobbying for its existence. I have read enough accounts to make me believe it exists. On the other hand, I have always enjoyed reading accounts of this sort, so it is always of interest. And, of course, what is said to be far fetched, or impossible at one point in time, has become the reality, and commonplace little farther down the line. It all sounds like anthropomorphism to me. I don't get that the universe would be so interested in us that it provides a recording service. It's a nice idea though, I'd like to access the record of what happened on my 25th birthday so my autobiography will be complete. Speaking of unexplained phenomena in the here and now, what would you make of something like this? First of all, consider the source. Second, people can't live without burning calories, try it if you like - but not for long. Third, every other recent case of people living on air or sunlight has turned out to be a fraud. Four, why do people think it amazing or spiritual if people could live on fresh air? I think it's because this would be an outward symbol of inner changes that we don't understand. That eating is some sort of attachment and that they are now connected to some higher source that sustains them. It doesn't appeal to me anyway, life without chocolate cake isn't higher at all. “Buddha Boy” Goes 10 Months Without Food Or Water, Scientific Community Is Baffled http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/08/07/buddha-boy-goes-10-months-without-food-or-water-scientific-community-is-baffled/ http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/08/07/buddha-boy-goes-10-months-without-food-or-water-scientific-community-is-baffled/ “Buddha Boy” Goes 10 Months Without Food Or W... http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/08/07/buddha-boy-goes-10-months-without-food-or-water-scientific-community-is-baffled/ Is it possible for humans to not eat or consume water for longer than 3 or 4 days? What used to be scientifically impossible is now under great question ... View on www.collective-evolut... http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/08/07/buddha-boy-goes-10-months-without-food-or-water-scientific-community-is-baffled/ Preview by Yahoo ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : snip I agree with Michael, that the idea seems to be woo bullshit. In a scientific system (physics) the differential equations can show the state of a system past, present, and future, if you have some data to plug in, but the indeterminacy effect of the statistical uncertainty in quantum mechanics makes dredging up the past or predicting the future fuzzy. Also in Woo-land the mechanics of how 'akashic records' could be accessed does not seem to be described with any particular clarity. The only really certain thing is the strong belief that people have in what they imagine to be true. It seems to me the universe has properties that prevent us from finding out stuff beyond a certain level of detail. For example, the speed of light prevents us from knowing what is happening in distant galaxies now, we only can see the way they were millions of years ago. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can AI Machines Know Ethics?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote : It all sounds like anthropomorphism to me. I don't get that the universe would be so interested in us that it provides a recording service. Belly laugh of the morning, thanks Sal! life without chocolate cake isn't higher at all. I will amend that statement only to the extent of replacing chocolate cake with coffee ice cream. Coffee? Not my cup of tea I'm afraid. There's a really first rate gelateria in Covent Garden, I always stop off for one on my way home when I've been out rambling. On saturday I had salted caramel and that was a real treat. From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 11:01 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can AI Machines Know Ethics? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : Well, there are detailed accounts of individuals accessing the Akashic Records , but in a subjective, non verifiable way. Hence, here at least, I don't think you have anyone lobbying for its existence. I have read enough accounts to make me believe it exists. On the other hand, I have always enjoyed reading accounts of this sort, so it is always of interest. And, of course, what is said to be far fetched, or impossible at one point in time, has become the reality, and commonplace little farther down the line. It all sounds like anthropomorphism to me. I don't get that the universe would be so interested in us that it provides a recording service. It's a nice idea though, I'd like to access the record of what happened on my 25th birthday so my autobiography will be complete. Speaking of unexplained phenomena in the here and now, what would you make of something like this? First of all, consider the source. Second, people can't live without burning calories, try it if you like - but not for long. Third, every other recent case of people living on air or sunlight has turned out to be a fraud. Four, why do people think it amazing or spiritual if people could live on fresh air? I think it's because this would be an outward symbol of inner changes that we don't understand. That eating is some sort of attachment and that they are now connected to some higher source that sustains them. It doesn't appeal to me anyway, life without chocolate cake isn't higher at all. “Buddha Boy” Goes 10 Months Without Food Or Water, Scientific Community Is Baffled http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/08/07/buddha-boy-goes-10-months-without-food-or-water-scientific-community-is-baffled/ http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/08/07/buddha-boy-goes-10-months-without-food-or-water-scientific-community-is-baffled/ “Buddha Boy” Goes 10 Months Without Food Or W... http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/08/07/buddha-boy-goes-10-months-without-food-or-water-scientific-community-is-baffled/ Is it possible for humans to not eat or consume water for longer than 3 or 4 days? What used to be scientifically impossible is now under great question ... View on www.collective-evolut... http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/08/07/buddha-boy-goes-10-months-without-food-or-water-scientific-community-is-baffled/ Preview by Yahoo ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : snip I agree with Michael, that the idea seems to be woo bullshit. In a scientific system (physics) the differential equations can show the state of a system past, present, and future, if you have some data to plug in, but the indeterminacy effect of the statistical uncertainty in quantum mechanics makes dredging up the past or predicting the future fuzzy. Also in Woo-land the mechanics of how 'akashic records' could be accessed does not seem to be described with any particular clarity. The only really certain thing is the strong belief that people have in what they imagine to be true. It seems to me the universe has properties that prevent us from finding out stuff beyond a certain level of detail. For example, the speed of light prevents us from knowing what is happening in distant galaxies now, we only can see the way they were millions of years ago. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can AI Machines Know Ethics?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote : On 06/29/2015 08:01 AM, salyavin808 wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... mailto:steve.sundur@... wrote : Well, there are detailed accounts of individuals accessing the Akashic Records , but in a subjective, non verifiable way. Hence, here at least, I don't think you have anyone lobbying for its existence. I have read enough accounts to make me believe it exists. On the other hand, I have always enjoyed reading accounts of this sort, so it is always of interest. And, of course, what is said to be far fetched, or impossible at one point in time, has become the reality, and commonplace little farther down the line. It all sounds like anthropomorphism to me. I don't get that the universe would be so interested in us that it provides a recording service. When you walk in sand or mud you leave footprints, right? It wouldn't be that the universe is interested in us, we're just leaving some footprints or mindprints in some cosmic mud. Look at it as a concept not a reality. A concept is exactly what it is, well put. It's just not a concept that bears much scrutiny sad to say. If we were leaving trails in the fabric of the universe they must be very far behind us by now, be cool if we could find it though but how would you sort out your own from everybody elses. Kind of the main problem I get with astrology, all those interacting fields must screw each other up a treat?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can AI Machines Know Ethics?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote : On 06/29/2015 10:59 AM, salyavin808 wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... mailto:noozguru@... wrote : On 06/29/2015 08:01 AM, salyavin808 wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... mailto:steve.sundur@... wrote : Well, there are detailed accounts of individuals accessing the Akashic Records , but in a subjective, non verifiable way. Hence, here at least, I don't think you have anyone lobbying for its existence. I have read enough accounts to make me believe it exists. On the other hand, I have always enjoyed reading accounts of this sort, so it is always of interest. And, of course, what is said to be far fetched, or impossible at one point in time, has become the reality, and commonplace little farther down the line. It all sounds like anthropomorphism to me. I don't get that the universe would be so interested in us that it provides a recording service. When you walk in sand or mud you leave footprints, right? It wouldn't be that the universe is interested in us, we're just leaving some footprints or mindprints in some cosmic mud. Look at it as a concept not a reality. A concept is exactly what it is, well put. It's just not a concept that bears much scrutiny sad to say. How do you know that? That's just your opinion. Considered opinion. If we were leaving trails in the fabric of the universe they must be very far behind us by now, be cool if we could find it though but how would you sort out your own from everybody elses. Kind of the main problem I get with astrology, all those interacting fields must screw each other up a treat? We already leave trails. Our radio and TV broadcasts supposedly just keep on going into deep space. There have even been some science fiction movies based on that. Yes, electromagnetic waves will go on forever but they fade with the square of the distance traveled and so are getting vastly weaker all the time. But it's a different thing to our memories, we know we are emitting EM waves into space and how they work but our memories and brainwaves or even just imprints from our actions? How would it work? We know brain waves can be picked up if you put very sensitive detectors on the outside of our heads but they aren't going any further unless they are also part of some completely unknown substrata of reality. But where is this mysterious place hiding and what evidence would make anyone want to try and postulate for it? Basically it's like the Marshy Effect, we'd have to dump everything we know and start introducing things that even contradict what we do know now just to incorporate something with no good evidence. I file it under not worthy of effort. Until someone can demonstrate it's efficacy with a tasty prediction or amazing bit of checkable history that we didn't already know. I'm all ears.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can AI Machines Know Ethics?
On 06/29/2015 10:59 AM, salyavin808 wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote : On 06/29/2015 08:01 AM, salyavin808 wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... mailto:steve.sundur@... wrote : Well, there are detailed accounts of individuals accessing the Akashic Records , but in a subjective, non verifiable way. Hence, here at least, I don't think you have anyone lobbying for its existence. I have read enough accounts to make me believe it exists. On the other hand, I have always enjoyed reading accounts of this sort, so it is always of interest. And, of course, what is said to be far fetched, or impossible at one point in time, has become the reality, and commonplace little farther down the line. It all sounds like anthropomorphism to me. I don't get that the universe would be so interested in us that it provides a recording service. When you walk in sand or mud you leave footprints, right? It wouldn't be that the universe is interested in us, we're just leaving some footprints or mindprints in some cosmic mud. Look at it as a concept not a reality. A concept is exactly what it is, well put. It's just not a concept that bears much scrutiny sad to say. How do you know that? That's just your opinion. If we were leaving trails in the fabric of the universe they must be very far behind us by now, be cool if we could find it though but how would you sort out your own from everybody elses. Kind of the main problem I get with astrology, all those interacting fields must screw each other up a treat? We already leave trails. Our radio and TV broadcasts supposedly just keep on going into deep space. There have even been some science fiction movies based on that.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Can AI Machines Know Ethics?
Why can't people click on the show message history at the bottom of the post they are responding to? It's not difficult and it renders your posts readable when they are seen in the context of the discussion. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill@... wrote : F*ck that obsessively objectified bitch ... little Aristotle the obsessive, the pedantic. Plato was unanimous - we are endlessly circulating souls (psyches) following in the train of a deity who leads us from absorption in the shadow world of apprearances to the direct, immediate sight of the primordial archetypes that are expressing us everything in the pan-cosmos. With sufficient discernment will, we shall overcome our delusions - especially if we have a just compassionate mentor who, having ascended to the realm of realiy, will lead us to likewise ascend dwell in the unmitigated spendor of the limitless sunlight of true being. Haven't you ever read the Phaedrus? Go read section 243a3 to 257a2 then brag that yer an enlightened rishi. Why you might even be like ... like ... Robin Woodsworth Carlsen. Awe.some.full.
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, anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: Everything is 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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. Artificial Intelligence 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/2015/06/26/artificial-intelligence-machine-gets-testy-with-its-programmers/?mod=yahoo_hs Artificial Intelligence 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 Machine is 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
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can AI Machines Know Ethics?
Empty seems to be replying to the digest version of FFL. This does not supply a
means to duplicate the message you are responding to. To do that you have to
manually copy the content of the message and paste it into the response, which
otherwise starts as a blank slate with just the title of the thread. There is
no message history mechanism in the digest if you reply to the group via
e-mail. So to clue people into who you are talking to you have to do some
additional work. I simply ignore most messages that do not contain message
history in the reply.
From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2015 6:25 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can AI Machines Know Ethics?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill@... wrote :
This msg was a reply to Duveyoung's post on the thread :
Can AI Machines Know Ethics?
Msg 8 of 11
June 27, 6:27pm
So you aren't going to click on show message history? It's a lot easier
#yiv6059738641 #yiv6059738641 -- #yiv6059738641ygrp-mkp {border:1px solid
#d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px 0;padding:0 10px;}#yiv6059738641
#yiv6059738641ygrp-mkp hr {border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}#yiv6059738641
#yiv6059738641ygrp-mkp #yiv6059738641hd
{color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px
0;}#yiv6059738641 #yiv6059738641ygrp-mkp #yiv6059738641ads
{margin-bottom:10px;}#yiv6059738641 #yiv6059738641ygrp-mkp .yiv6059738641ad
{padding:0 0;}#yiv6059738641 #yiv6059738641ygrp-mkp .yiv6059738641ad p
{margin:0;}#yiv6059738641 #yiv6059738641ygrp-mkp .yiv6059738641ad a
{color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}#yiv6059738641 #yiv6059738641ygrp-sponsor
#yiv6059738641ygrp-lc {font-family:Arial;}#yiv6059738641
#yiv6059738641ygrp-sponsor #yiv6059738641ygrp-lc #yiv6059738641hd {margin:10px
0px;font-weight:700;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}#yiv6059738641
#yiv6059738641ygrp-sponsor #yiv6059738641ygrp-lc .yiv6059738641ad
{margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}#yiv6059738641 #yiv6059738641actions
{font-family:Verdana;font-size:11px;padding:10px 0;}#yiv6059738641
#yiv6059738641activity
{background-color:#e0ecee;float:left;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;padding:10px;}#yiv6059738641
#yiv6059738641activity span {font-weight:700;}#yiv6059738641
#yiv6059738641activity span:first-child
{text-transform:uppercase;}#yiv6059738641 #yiv6059738641activity span a
{color:#5085b6;text-decoration:none;}#yiv6059738641 #yiv6059738641activity span
span {color:#ff7900;}#yiv6059738641 #yiv6059738641activity span
.yiv6059738641underline {text-decoration:underline;}#yiv6059738641
.yiv6059738641attach
{clear:both;display:table;font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;padding:10px
0;width:400px;}#yiv6059738641 .yiv6059738641attach div a
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv6059738641 .yiv6059738641attach img
{border:none;padding-right:5px;}#yiv6059738641 .yiv6059738641attach label
{display:block;margin-bottom:5px;}#yiv6059738641 .yiv6059738641attach label a
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv6059738641 blockquote {margin:0 0 0
4px;}#yiv6059738641 .yiv6059738641bold
{font-family:Arial;font-size:13px;font-weight:700;}#yiv6059738641
.yiv6059738641bold a {text-decoration:none;}#yiv6059738641 dd.yiv6059738641last
p a {font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}#yiv6059738641 dd.yiv6059738641last p
span {margin-right:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}#yiv6059738641
dd.yiv6059738641last p span.yiv6059738641yshortcuts
{margin-right:0;}#yiv6059738641 div.yiv6059738641attach-table div div a
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv6059738641 div.yiv6059738641attach-table
{width:400px;}#yiv6059738641 div.yiv6059738641file-title a, #yiv6059738641
div.yiv6059738641file-title a:active, #yiv6059738641
div.yiv6059738641file-title a:hover, #yiv6059738641 div.yiv6059738641file-title
a:visited {text-decoration:none;}#yiv6059738641 div.yiv6059738641photo-title a,
#yiv6059738641 div.yiv6059738641photo-title a:active, #yiv6059738641
div.yiv6059738641photo-title a:hover, #yiv6059738641
div.yiv6059738641photo-title a:visited {text-decoration:none;}#yiv6059738641
div#yiv6059738641ygrp-mlmsg #yiv6059738641ygrp-msg p a
span.yiv6059738641yshortcuts
{font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;font-weight:normal;}#yiv6059738641
.yiv6059738641green {color:#628c2a;}#yiv6059738641 .yiv6059738641MsoNormal
{margin:0 0 0 0;}#yiv6059738641 o {font-size:0;}#yiv6059738641
#yiv6059738641photos div {float:left;width:72px;}#yiv6059738641
#yiv6059738641photos div div {border:1px solid
#66;height:62px;overflow:hidden;width:62px;}#yiv6059738641
#yiv6059738641photos div label
{color:#66;font-size:10px;overflow:hidden;text-align:center;white-space:nowrap;width:64px;}#yiv6059738641
#yiv6059738641reco-category {font-size:77%;}#yiv6059738641
#yiv6059738641reco-desc {font-size:77%;}#yiv6059738641 .yiv6059738641replbq
{margin:4px;}#yiv6059738641 #yiv6059738641ygrp-actbar div a:first-child
{margin-right:2px;padding-right:5px;}#yiv6059738641 #yiv6059738641ygrp
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can AI Machines Know Ethics?
which akashic record you talkin' about? there are quite a few depending on
which new age whacko you consult for your records
From: Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife]
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
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, anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:
Everything is 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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.
Artificial Intelligence Machine Gets Testy With Its Programmer
|
|
|
| |
| Artificial Intelligence Machine Gets Testy With Its Prog... Machine
is asked to define morality, gets annoyed when it can't.|
|
| View on blogs.wsj.com |Preview by Yahoo |
|
|
#yiv6960752958 #yiv6960752958 -- #yiv6960752958ygrp-mkp {border:1px solid
#d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px 0;padding:0 10px;}#yiv6960752958
#yiv6960752958ygrp-mkp hr {border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}#yiv6960752958
#yiv6960752958ygrp-mkp #yiv6960752958hd
{color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px
0;}#yiv6960752958 #yiv6960752958ygrp-mkp #yiv6960752958ads
{margin-bottom:10px;}#yiv6960752958 #yiv6960752958ygrp-mkp .yiv6960752958ad
{padding:0 0;}#yiv6960752958 #yiv6960752958ygrp-mkp .yiv6960752958ad p
{margin:0;}#yiv6960752958 #yiv6960752958ygrp-mkp .yiv6960752958ad a
{color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}#yiv6960752958 #yiv6960752958ygrp-sponsor
#yiv6960752958ygrp-lc {font-family:Arial;}#yiv6960752958
#yiv6960752958ygrp-sponsor #yiv6960752958ygrp-lc #yiv6960752958hd {margin:10px
0px;font-weight:700;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}#yiv6960752958
#yiv6960752958ygrp-sponsor #yiv6960752958ygrp-lc .yiv6960752958ad
{margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}#yiv6960752958 #yiv6960752958actions
{font-family:Verdana;font-size:11px;padding:10px 0;}#yiv6960752958
#yiv6960752958activity
{background-color:#e0ecee;float:left;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;padding:10px;}#yiv6960752958
#yiv6960752958activity span {font-weight:700;}#yiv6960752958
#yiv6960752958activity span:first-child
{text-transform:uppercase;}#yiv6960752958 #yiv6960752958activity span a
{color:#5085b6;text-decoration:none;}#yiv6960752958 #yiv6960752958activity span
span {color:#ff7900;}#yiv6960752958 #yiv6960752958activity span
.yiv6960752958underline {text
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 mjackso...@yahoo.com [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 noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com *To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com *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, anartax...@yahoo.com mailto:anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: Everything is 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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. Artificial Intelligence 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/2015/06/26/artificial-intelligence-machine-gets-testy-with-its-programmers/?mod=yahoo_hs Artificial Intelligence 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 Machine is 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
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can AI Machines Know Ethics?
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 noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife]
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
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 mjackso...@yahoo.com [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 noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife]
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
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, anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:
Everything is 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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.
Artificial Intelligence Machine Gets Testy With Its Programmer
|
|
|
| |
| Artificial Intelligence Machine Gets Testy With Its Prog... Machine
is asked to define morality, gets annoyed when it can't.|
|
| View on blogs.wsj.com |Preview by Yahoo |
|
|
#yiv2625057368 #yiv2625057368 -- #yiv2625057368ygrp-mkp {border:1px solid
#d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px 0;padding:0 10px;}#yiv2625057368
#yiv2625057368ygrp-mkp hr {border
[FairfieldLife] Re: Can AI Machines Know Ethics?
Everything is 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 you 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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. Artificial Intelligence 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 http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/06/26/artificial-intelligence-machine-gets-testy-with-its-programmers/?mod=yahoo_hs Artificial Intelligence 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 Machine is 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: Can AI Machines Know Ethics?
This msg was a reply to Duveyoung's post on the thread : Can AI Machines Know Ethics? Msg 8 of 11 June 27, 6:27pm
[FairfieldLife] Re: Can AI Machines Know Ethics?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill@... wrote : This msg was a reply to Duveyoung's post on the thread : Can AI Machines Know Ethics? Msg 8 of 11 June 27, 6:27pm So you aren't going to click on show message history? It's a lot easier
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can AI Machines Know Ethics?
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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 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] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can AI Machines Know Ethics?
At the risk of engendering some blowback from MJ, I feel we could have done worse with the first major Russian immigrant to these United States. Trotskies Unfiltered, maybe. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : Does anyone know the brand of cigars or cigarettes that Helena Blavatsky smoked? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 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] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... mailto:anartaxius@... wrote : Of course we can
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can AI Machines Know Ethics?
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 noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 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, steve.sun...@yahoo.com [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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 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@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: whichakashic record you talkin' about? there are quite a few depending on which new age whacko you consult for your records From: Bhairitu noozguru@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2015 5:06 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can AI Machines Know Ethics? Theintellect 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@... [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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can AI Machines Know Ethics?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... 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. It's certainly the beginning of something and the end of something else. But the end of humanity - I don't think we're that lucky yet. From: Bhairitu noozguru@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 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, steve.sundur@... mailto:steve.sundur@... [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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 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] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: Can AI Machines Know Ethics?
The conversation looks logical. But apparently it's still lacking something that would convince everyone that the machine has achieved human sentience. Otherwise we would have heard elaborate news coverage to proclaim the birth of true AI. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : Everything is 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 you 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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. Artificial Intelligence 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 http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/06/26/artificial-intelligence-machine-gets-testy-with-its-programmers/?mod=yahoo_hs Artificial Intelligence 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 Machine is 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
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can AI Machines Know Ethics?
I have read some interesting postulations of how the Akashic Records underlie our memory, and make memory possible, but I cannot recall the mechanics. From: Bhairitu noozguru@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 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: Everything is 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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. Artificial Intelligence 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 Artificial Intelligence Machine Gets Testy With Its Prog... Machine is asked to define morality, gets annoyed when it can't. View on blogs.wsj.com Preview by Yahoo
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can AI Machines Know Ethics?
Does anyone know the brand of cigars or cigarettes that Helena Blavatsky smoked? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 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] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... mailto:jr_esq@... wrote : One machine said
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, steve.sun...@yahoo.com [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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com *To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com *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] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com *To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com *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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can AI Machines Know Ethics?
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: anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2015 5:38 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can AI Machines Know Ethics? Charlie Lutes liked to talk a lot ofabout it but I've read a number of others on the subject. Ididn't find them varying much in the description. Scientifically,if we radiate electrical impulses those might get caught in somekind of ether or celestial realms. This is something that hasnot been researched much. This would mean that human beings are a terminal to a cosmiccomputer. :-D On 06/28/2015 02:17 PM, Michael Jackson mjackson74@...[FairfieldLife] wrote: whichakashic record you talkin' about? there are quite a fewdepending on which new age whacko you consult for yourrecords From:Bhairitu noozguru@... [FairfieldLife]FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent:Sunday, June 28, 2015 5:06 PM Subject:Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can AI Machines KnowEthics? Theintellect is binary so not that hard tomodel. It is yes or no. A US Berkeleystudent did a graduate paper which Iread back in the 1990s. I had suggestedthis to our development team before thepaper was published and one of theproject leads came across it. I recallthe student got some interesting andunexpected results with his model. Neural networks are a way of learning. They've been around for awhile. Mybooks probably date back to the 1980s. But what if our brains are reallynothing more than receiver/transmittersthat communicate with the akashicrecord? Yeah, a bit woo-woo maybebut could indeed be a possibility. Might explain some things. On 06/28/2015 12:01 PM, anartaxius@...[FairfieldLife] wrote: Everythingis debatable. In an ironic sort ofway, artificial intelligence doesapply to humans. I often think ofyou as having artificialintelligence. Attempting toreplicate human intelligence hasso far failed because the humanneural network of connexions is socomplex. Many researchers areinvestigating insect intelligence,which is a simpler model to try tounderstand. That Google paper wasinteresting. Here is one of theconversations from that originalpaper: 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 ofexistence?Machine:to find out what happens when weget 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 beingintelligent?Machine:to find out what it is.Human:what is the purpose of emotions?Machine:i don't know. Iattached the original paper, ANeural Conversational Model,to this post. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,jr_esq@...wrote : Xeno, I had to take a double-taketo understand what you'resaying. You seem to be sayingthat humans are machines too. That's debatable. In thiscontext, we're talking aboutartificial intelligence whichdoes not apply to humans. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,anartaxius@...wrote : Of coursewe can. The query to beanswered is whether itis worth the computingtime and the bother ofimplementation. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,jr_esq@...wrote : One machinesaid NO...which iscorrect. It'sdatabase was basedon movie scripts. But if thedatabase includedphilosophical
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can AI Machines Know Ethics?
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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 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] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 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
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can AI Machines Know Ethics?
well, you keep peeling back the layers of the onion, there's bound to be some surprises. how could there not be? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote : 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, steve.sundur@... mailto:steve.sundur@... [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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 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] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... mailto:jr_esq@... wrote : Xeno, I had to take a double-take
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can AI Machines Know Ethics?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : Does anyone know the brand of cigars or cigarettes that Helena Blavatsky smoked? No but it looks hand rolled. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 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] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can AI Machines Know Ethics?
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 mjackso...@yahoo.com [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 noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com *To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com *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, steve.sun...@yahoo.com mailto:steve.sun...@yahoo.com [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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com *To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com *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] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com *To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com *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
[FairfieldLife] Re: Can AI Machines Know Ethics?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote : The conversation looks logical. But apparently it's still lacking something that would convince everyone that the machine has achieved human sentience. Otherwise we would have heard elaborate news coverage to proclaim the birth of true AI. What is interesting here is that the machine says there is a greater good. What could this mean? It could mean any number of things because greaterwould imply something bigger than one person. It could also imply a higher power or universal rules. That statement also indicates that it (the artificial intelligence) recognizes the characteristic of good but as opposed to what? Evil? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : Everything is 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 you 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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. Artificial Intelligence 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 http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/06/26/artificial-intelligence-machine-gets-testy-with-its-programmers/?mod=yahoo_hs Artificial Intelligence 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 Machine is 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
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can AI Machines Know Ethics?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote : 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. Yes indeed. On 06/28/2015 05:09 PM, Michael Jackson mjackson74@... mailto:mjackson74@... [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 noozguru@... mailto:noozguru@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 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, steve.sundur@... mailto:steve.sundur@... [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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 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 akashicrecord 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]FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2015 5:06 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can AI Machines Know Ethics? The intellectis 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: Everythingisdebatable. 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: Can AI Machines Know Ethics?
Anne, I don't believe the computer was writing anything it understands. The words were probably taken out of a database of conversations relating to philosophy or movie scripts. The conversation merely mimicked human conversation. The sign of sentience would be if the computer knows that it knows. I don't believe any of the computer scientists have built a computer with this attribute. By the way, welcome back to the forum now that Pastor Barry has departed for better or worse. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote : The conversation looks logical. But apparently it's still lacking something that would convince everyone that the machine has achieved human sentience. Otherwise we would have heard elaborate news coverage to proclaim the birth of true AI. What is interesting here is that the machine says there is a greater good. What could this mean? It could mean any number of things because greaterwould imply something bigger than one person. It could also imply a higher power or universal rules. That statement also indicates that it (the artificial intelligence) recognizes the characteristic of good but as opposed to what? Evil? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : Everything is 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 you 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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. Artificial Intelligence 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 http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/06/26/artificial-intelligence-machine-gets-testy-with-its-programmers/?mod=yahoo_hs Artificial Intelligence 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 Machine is 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: Can AI Machines Know Ethics?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote : Anne, I don't believe the computer was writing anything it understands. The words were probably taken out of a database of conversations relating to philosophy or movie scripts. The conversation merely mimicked human conversation. The sign of sentience would be if the computer knows that it knows. I don't believe any of the computer scientists have built a computer with this attribute. By the way, welcome back to the forum now that Pastor Barry has departed for better or worse. Thanks Jr_esq. You are one of the consistently kind and gentle people here. I am hoping this place can continue to move toward a state where feelings and sentience becomes stronger than the machine that is characterized by volatility and unkindness. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote : The conversation looks logical. But apparently it's still lacking something that would convince everyone that the machine has achieved human sentience. Otherwise we would have heard elaborate news coverage to proclaim the birth of true AI. What is interesting here is that the machine says there is a greater good. What could this mean? It could mean any number of things because greaterwould imply something bigger than one person. It could also imply a higher power or universal rules. That statement also indicates that it (the artificial intelligence) recognizes the characteristic of good but as opposed to what? Evil? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : Everything is 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 you 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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. Artificial Intelligence 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 http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/06/26/artificial-intelligence-machine-gets-testy-with-its-programmers/?mod=yahoo_hs Artificial Intelligence 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 Machine is 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: Can AI Machines Know Ethics?
http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/1948/3013/original.jpg http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/1948/3013/original.jpg http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/1948/3013/original.jpg http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/1948/30... http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/1948/3013/original.jpg View on a.disquscdn.com http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/1948/3013/original.jpg Preview by Yahoo
[FairfieldLife] Re: Can AI Machines Know Ethics?
The word know makes this a primal question. My answer: no. New question: can a human nervous system know ethics? My answer: no. The ego lies to itself. IT IS NOT SENTIENT. It is a process. An artifact of a vastness. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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. Artificial Intelligence 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 http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/06/26/artificial-intelligence-machine-gets-testy-with-its-programmers/?mod=yahoo_hs Artificial Intelligence 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 Machine is 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: Can AI Machines Know Ethics?
Of course we can. The query to be answered is whether it is worth the computing time and the bother of implementation. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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. Artificial Intelligence 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 http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/06/26/artificial-intelligence-machine-gets-testy-with-its-programmers/?mod=yahoo_hs Artificial Intelligence 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 Machine is 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
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can AI Machines Know Ethics?
Human being are machines too, just not the familiar wires and microchips. Consciousness is probably just an artifact of the operating system. On 06/27/2015 07:45 AM, Duveyoung wrote: The word know makes this a primal question. My answer: no. New question: can a human nervous system know ethics? My answer: no. The ego lies to itself. IT IS NOT SENTIENT. It is a process. An artifact of a vastness. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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. Artificial Intelligence 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/2015/06/26/artificial-intelligence-machine-gets-testy-with-its-programmers/?mod=yahoo_hs Artificial Intelligence 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 Machine is 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: Can AI Machines Know Ethics?
Edg, That's a heavy conclusion. So what do you say to philosophers, like Plato and Aquinas, who have tackled questions like this and wrote books on the subject? Are you saying that they're egotistical and not sentient? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : The word know makes this a primal question. My answer: no. New question: can a human nervous system know ethics? My answer: no. The ego lies to itself. IT IS NOT SENTIENT. It is a process. An artifact of a vastness. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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. Artificial Intelligence 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 http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/06/26/artificial-intelligence-machine-gets-testy-with-its-programmers/?mod=yahoo_hs Artificial Intelligence 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 Machine is 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: Can AI Machines Know Ethics?
Plato and Aquinas believed in a core person who is imagined having some sort of eternal existence, and more, that that core's history was responsible for itself. This requires free will. I don't believe in causality. It's not a matter of free will vs determinism. I don't believe that the soul exists -- except as a construct. To me, it's not an entity of some as yet unknown materiality that transmigrates to another body/incarnation or that journeys in astral realms or that enters an eternal heaven or hell.or other explanations -- all of which seem to propose that individuality must necessarily imply continuity because: karma. How can God be fair if a soul doesn't live again and again in order that IT gets corrected from having a tilted POV (warped plus attachment) due to damage from previous incarnations? We ask. Gotta be the same exactly entity that gets its rewards or comeuppance -- this is a basic moral tenet of most scriptures: evolution. We insist. But, BAH. This addiction to explaining and understanding the content of consciousness in MY nervous system is simply tawdry. Better to read tea leaves than take a snapshot of your mind at any given moment and then predict its future. Picasso said, Why ask me what a painting means if you're not asking a bird what its song means? Or something like that. Same deal for every thought that arises -- the divine intent is not something that can be sussed. We are witness solely -- but not at all soully. And even the witness is a bogus entity in that it comes and goes as needed (heh). It is merely the least unit of identification -- not identity. Only awareness is identity -- everything else is a symbol of it...even the witness. Only awareness is generally defined in such a way that it is truly transcendental to all definitions. Ask Godel about this. Consciousness always implies individuality because all such entities seem easily differentiated from the others; whereas, awareness is the same for all reporters. Every mind. Every entity is witnessed. Awareness is an all time reality even if the consciousness is in a deep resting phase...or for that matter just now dead. Heh. Awareness isn't some THING that can be imagine as having an off switch. Careful consideration about awareness forces a logical conclusion: it is the only worthy concept with which one can build an understanding about identity. To identify with any particular nervous system is to be in error. It is the act of NOT seeing that boundaries are projected and never truly validated by any looksee by any discipline; be it scientific method, scriptural syllogisms, or whatever. To identify is to NOT KNOW THE SELF. If you think you're Krishna or Joe Schmoe, you've just lost the game. The same awareness informs both nervous systems. To me, awareness and the Absolute are as close to being the same concept as possible for two different words. Heh. To me, every speck of ALL THIS springs into existence moment by moment as does any thoughtas we easily see in a dream...where all the characters and even the chairs they sit on and the air they breathe and the laws of physics they obey ALL THAT is sprung/spun wholly -- in one piece -- by the brain. There are not parts that caused other parts in that dream -- no true individuality of any item in any dream. A ball doesn't fall to the floor because of dream gravity. Same with waking life. Exactly the same. Dead dog's smegma or ojas entering Lord Indra's duodenum -- it's all divinely dreamed.only entities in the dream can care about which qualities are present in any given moment in the dream. Entities are liars addicted to certainties. Self blinkered. Bubble jailed minds. Egos are exactly like Moriarty in Picard's holodeck -- we all think we can walk out of the holodeck. As if. Bottom line: I'm not a scholar, but I'd be sorely disappointed if Plato and Aquinas had not at least considered the above -- but in their terms. Anyone here up on Plato or Aquinas? I see the Absolute in all the scriptures, but it's usually a fuzzy snapshot. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote : Edg, That's a heavy conclusion. So what do you say to philosophers, like Plato and Aquinas, who have tackled questions like this and wrote books on the subject? Are you saying that they're egotistical and not sentient? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : The word know makes this a primal question. My answer: no. New question: can a human nervous system know ethics? My answer: no. The ego lies to itself. IT IS NOT SENTIENT. It is a process. An artifact of a vastness. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: Can AI Machines Know Ethics?
Jesus, Edg, you've been doing some deep thinking during your hiatus. I'm trying to find some place to plug in here, but not having much luck. But maybe a few comments below, on a re-read. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Plato and Aquinas believed in a core person who is imagined having some sort of eternal existence, and more, that that core's history was responsible for itself. I guess, I believe this too, that I have an individualized soul, that does transmigrate. This requires free will. I don't believe in causality. It's not a matter of free will vs determinism. I don't believe that the soul exists -- except as a construct. To me, it's not an entity of some as yet unknown materiality that transmigrates to another body/incarnation or that journeys in astral realms or that enters an eternal heaven or hell.or other explanations -- all of which seem to propose that individuality must necessarily imply continuity because: karma. Yes, karma. I can't make sense of things without it. How can God be fair if a soul doesn't live again and again in order that IT gets corrected from having a tilted POV (warped plus attachment) due to damage from previous incarnations? We ask. Gotta be the same exactly entity that gets its rewards or comeuppance -- this is a basic moral tenet of most scriptures: evolution. We insist. But, BAH. This addiction to explaining and understanding the content of consciousness in MY nervous system is simply tawdry. Better to read tea leaves than take a snapshot of your mind at any given moment and then predict its future. Picasso said, Why ask me what a painting means if you're not asking a bird what its song means? Or something like that. Same deal for every thought that arises -- the divine intent is not something that can be sussed. M commented one time, when asked why the experience of PC is blissful, and when continually pressed, said, why is water wet, why does fire burn. It is its nature That answer impressed me. As an aside, in the Upanishads, I always like the answer to unrelenting questioning about an entity which really can't be described, the response by Yajanakvalka, or maybe it was Gargi, You are asking questions about an entity about which further questions cannot be asked. If you ask further quesstion, your head will fall off And Sure enough her head fell off and robbers took it away, thinking it was something else (or something along those lines. We are witness solely -- but not at all soully. And even the witness is a bogus entity in that it comes and goes as needed (heh). It is merely the least unit of identification -- not identity. Only awareness is identity -- everything else is a symbol of it...even the witness. Only awareness is generally defined in such a way that it is truly transcendental to all definitions. Ask Godel about this. Consciousness always implies individuality because all such entities seem easily differentiated from the others; whereas, awareness is the same for all reporters. Every mind. Every entity is witnessed. Awareness is an all time reality even if the consciousness is in a deep resting phase...or for that matter just now dead. Heh. Awareness isn't some THING that can be imagine as having an off switch. Careful consideration about awareness forces a logical conclusion: it is the only worthy concept with which one can build an understanding about identity. To identify with any particular nervous system is to be in error. It is the act of NOT seeing that boundaries are projected and never truly validated by any looksee by any discipline; be it scientific method, scriptural syllogisms, or whatever. I am clueless about Advaita, or Neo Advaita. It sounds like these are concepts from those philosophies, based on some of the things you've posted in the past. To identify is to NOT KNOW THE SELF. If you think you're Krishna or Joe Schmoe, you've just lost the game. The same awareness informs both nervous systems. To me, awareness and the Absolute are as close to being the same concept as possible for two different words. Heh. To me, every speck of ALL THIS springs into existence moment by moment as does any thoughtas we easily see in a dream...where all the characters and even the chairs they sit on and the air they breathe and the laws of physics they obey ALL THAT is sprung/spun wholly -- in one piece -- by the brain. There are not parts that caused other parts in that dream -- no true individuality of any item in any dream. A ball doesn't fall to the floor because of dream gravity. Same with waking life. Exactly the same. Dead dog's smegma or ojas entering Lord Indra's duodenum -- it's all divinely dreamed.only entities in the dream can care about which qualities are present in any given moment in the dream. Entities are
[FairfieldLife] Re: Can AI Machines Know Ethics?
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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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. Artificial Intelligence 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 http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/06/26/artificial-intelligence-machine-gets-testy-with-its-programmers/?mod=yahoo_hs Artificial Intelligence 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 Machine is 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: Can AI Machines Know Ethics?
Bhairitu, It's debatable to say that humans are machines, although some people call humans as biological machines. A few days ago, I posted a video clip of Tom Campbell who states that the universe is a virtual reality. He backs this up by using the results of the famous double-slit experiment in physics. But he believes that Consciousness is the main computer that makes this virtual reality possible. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote : Human being are machines too, just not the familiar wires and microchips. Consciousness is probably just an artifact of the operating system. On 06/27/2015 07:45 AM, Duveyoung wrote: The word know makes this a primal question. My answer: no. New question: can a human nervous system know ethics? My answer: no. The ego lies to itself. IT IS NOT SENTIENT. It is a process. An artifact of a vastness. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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. Artificial Intelligence Machine Gets Testy With Its Programmer Artificial Intelligence Machine Gets Testy With Its Prog... Machine is asked to define morality, gets annoyed when it can't. View on blogs.wsj.com Preview by Yahoo
[FairfieldLife] Re: Can AI Machines Know Ethics?
F*ck that obsessively objectified bitch ... little Aristotle the obsessive, the pedantic. Plato was unanimous - we are endlessly circulating souls (psyches) following in the train of a deity who leads us from absorption in the shadow world of apprearances to the direct, immediate sight of the primordial archetypes that are expressing us everything in the pan-cosmos. With sufficient discernment will, we shall overcome our delusions - especially if we have a just compassionate mentor who, having ascended to the realm of realiy, will lead us to likewise ascend dwell in the unmitigated spendor of the limitless sunlight of true being. Haven't you ever read the Phaedrus? Go read section 243a3 to 257a2 then brag that yer an enlightened rishi. Why you might even be like ... like ... Robin Woodsworth Carlsen. Awe.some.full.
