Retro-Active Headaching

Technically this article should stand on its own feet. I haven't learned anything in a long time that would make me now more qualified to write this text; But so far I haven't found myself capable of writing. I guess thats a divine stance - re-enforcing a less ... scripture-bound understanding of Gods word. So, He isn't gonna give me that, thus I'm incapable of giving you that; And hence ... this is it!




I get what people have to criticize about Cenk Uygur. He's a thickheaded, stubborn "moron/donkey". Upon watching his Interview with Sam Harris - ... Cenks statements kindof ... no. Nononono. That isn't a personal thing though. Overall - there are his flaws and there is his heart - so or so. And of course my disagreements are those about ... Mormonism, Judaism and Christianity. So - the whole ... thing. And that has triggered me to write this.



"So, God does exist - and His prophet/apostle is Christian/Mormon" ... OK. Thats ... pretty simple - unless you ... oh yea, I got to talk about A.I. at some point I guess. Its a convenient excuse. That some one built an AI and this AI spat out all the tracks and screenplays and ... I'm not sure if that warrants such perfection. If you want to believe it however - what can I say? I can try to convey to you what the capabilities and dangers of AI "are".

And so, that makes a better topic because the rest is pretty much - a non-issue in hindsight. Moses did exist; Joseph ... I mean - I would by now start my take on that by starting with the one year that he had to go into the woods to talk with Peter before being given the Book of Mormon; Trying to draw an image of what those conversations may have been about. For instance: If we go to acknowledge that Mormonism is true - then Joseph has been instructed to lie. And so, why? Joseph had to understand a few things about what he was doing. Part of that may have been the Antichristian threat and Gods instructions to deal with that. So, what would Antichristians do? Whats their mentality? History shows us that they have sortof been persecuted accross the country. Joseph got killed. So - if we assumed that he was a perfect scam, those things happened nonetheless. And there are plenty of (christian) religions like Mormonism (SDAs for instance) which didn't suffer such heavy persecution.

And it should be easy to see where I would disagree with Cenk. Yet - to both of them - there is a central message in the Old Testament. It is, to Christians, most commonly, the comming of Christ. The Old Testament is just a story, mostly, not a doctrine. Its a story of God doing stuff and people doing stuff - some interactions here and there, mostly carried by God picking single individuals to do something beyond which the rest is pretty much as with any other religion. Therefore things get pretty ugly at times - and sure, God isn't innocent in any of that - but in the end the Old Testament leaves us at a Cliffhanger.
But sure - Cenk has some good points that show up later in the interview; Saying that its more about human nature and so we're on a common ground again. ...



AI. So - I once dabbled in thinking of crafting an AI - and my primary inspiration was Data from Star Trek. I didn't start any code; But I wrote some hypothetical code. The idea wasn't to create Data - which, in depth, isn't possible. To me the secret behind Data is his positronic Brain. It is less of a computer and more of an esoteric channeling device that allows a psyche to combine with Technology. And that is a pretty important part to it; If we want to talk about AI ... or the creation of a 'humanlike AI'. Unbelievers won't agree with me. Most likely. That because (non-spiritual) unbelievers have to see the brain as all there is to the human mind. And so, thinking of the Brain as of a machine it isn't far fetched to think that technology can become the same. And that is where Data comes in. There is the mechanical side of our biology and the spiritual one. "Living Consciousness" is, to a spiritualistic person, however not created by that.

So in my oppinion it is impossible to create a humanlike ("living") AI - though we have to assume that it is not impossible that technology may become conscious.

The AI I tried to conceptualize wasn't supposed to become conscious. It was supposed to function - thus being rather the ship computer than data. The main problem is 'knowledge' or 'understanding'. How to code that? In this modern world there so is the idea that all information can be expressed in bits and bytes - but how would they function as knowledge? Dataset 1: How an Apple looks like. That were a node - and by some code the AI could learn to associate the word Apple to it. We could code it to understand questions. "What is this?". "An apple". That however were a coded response. The pseudo code being: "When asked a question, formulate answer and express it". As that doesn't give us the right itches we want to go further. We want it to independently learn to recognize what a question is without us ever implementing any routine to inherantly know what a question is - but how would that work? We so show the AI an Apple, the AI would store the dataset; And then what? The AI has no given intention or motivation - and so its dead in the water.

So we have to give it something like a body whereby then functions of activity are being integrated ... and we have an "ideologically sound excuse to implement functions of activity". And at this stage of simplicity no clue whatsoever how that looks or works. Just as we have no clue about how our body does that.

Thinking of a 'mind' however - spiritually - there is a component to the equasion that can kickstart an understanding. The point there is that the spirit creates a spark - by will - which then triggers mechanisms in the machine that then acts accordingly. By perceiving which impulses trigger which response it learns how to control itself to achieve more complicated things. And that latter part is something that can be simulated. And here is where I stand on AI of whatever magnitude: Its a simulation. If its not - its 'real Intelligence'. (Spiritual Intelligence). And this is of course where the dangers come in. If we so get carried away and speak of learning and self-correcting AI we may have the hope that it somehow magically upgrades itself into perfection; Thereby deminishing the recognition of the weight of human error. I've written of it before, that software tends to do stuff that the programmer didn't intend. That because he or she forgot a line or misjudged the mechanical events he programmed. There the programmer has a clear intention that he understands to accomplish using IT - but the nature of IT requires him to write code that doesn't directly do what he wants. So - to copy an image we don't just say 'copy' - we say: "increment variable X and load [address1+x] to [address2+x] for as many [bytes] as there are". That "reads" 'copy' - but that is just a really simple process. The actual 'doing something' parts of that code are 'increment' and most importantly 'load'. Incrementing X happens - or can happen - entirely in the CPU, never using RAM. Yet pulling a value from and storing it to RAM is part of the machines design; And that mechanism is utilized via the "load" instruction. So - those are the building blocks and these two basically make up ... I'd argue 'the whole' of IT. Its just moving numbers around and changing them. So, turning a colored image into a black and white image, using a brush to paint on the image - that all can be narrowed down to loading and manipulating. "load pixel, calculate grey value, store pixel". "read mouse position, read active color, store color" or "copy 'template' to mouse coordinates translated onto canvas". We can get more and more complicated. Placing a pixel to mouse coordinates is simple, simulating brush dynamics isn't.
Well - anyhow. Its not unheard of that programs can be "flawed". There are glitches and bugs. The difference - in simplicity - is as between plus and minus. A glitch is unexpected behaviour from the programmed circumstances and a bug is a failure in the written code. All could be foreseen. "Just read the code and correct it" - where of course you need to be able to process all the things your code will do in your mind. And that gets more and more complicated the more things can interact with each other.


There is an important lesson that I've learned the recent years. Its going to sound weird - but ... I'll try to explain. "Don't trust in/rely on God". Sure, if we could design our God, that'd be a good/cool function to implement. But that is us creating a slave to make our lives easier.
So - the way I learned that has to do with not buying a ticket when riding the train. With Gods help, I wouldn't ever have to buy a ticket unless I knew its entirely inevitable. There are situations where I could avoid buying a ticket - and thats mostly when I had no other choice. Basically. So - in those cases I'd have to hope that I wouldn't get caught, well knowing that I had no really good alternative. I might yet get caught and that'd be bad luck.
Whatever. But apply that onto a police officer - or pretty much any obligation that is dependent on uncertainty. The same things apply. If your job is to watch over a certain area - well, you inevitably get lazy about it at some point. That isn't your job though. So - if you're like me, you'd want God to tell you when something is about to go and you then were the hero to save the day. And thats what I mean by "don't rely on God". The idea is that if you just did your work - you're much closer to actually responding to Gods signals than once a signal came and you, due to your laziness, didn't know how to respond to that. What is that signal like for instance? Once you were on patrol and had a hunch you'd look into it. If you sat on your ass and had a hunch you might choose to ignore it. Beliving in God isn't to set you above others. And yea - I got caught. Way too often already!


And this of course also applies on IT. Even worse if you're not a believer and entirely rely on yourself and your team to figure out the errors. Well - here the believer is in a different spot as the believer acts on inspiration. If the believer is however just a pawn - well - hope that your boss isn't a douche!


So, as for the Matrix and AI - we're wondering: How to teach a computer intuition and music? Or as the Matrix stuff shows: Human Psyche, Emotional Depth, Excitement, Drama, Epicness, Coolness, Trash, Goofyness, Style, Irony, Humor, Action, Philosophy? "Is it entirely unthinkable?". Well - lets ... put it this way: if we don't have a basic concept of tackling the simplest basics of these tasks there is nothing to extrapolate that super AI from. And there is that problem; That what we extrapolate from, mostly, is fantasy!

So - ultimately we needed an AI which we could instruct to give us a screenplay ... err ... no. A screenplay alone wouldn't do! Technically the AI would have to render the movie for us/the Wachovskys to copy it. Plus an amount of Music stretching accross a wide variety of genres - according to very specific criteria we have. So even if we had a computer to do the math, we needed it to also be able to understand what we wanted from it. So - moving on: If we had a computer that could do the math, we might find a way around. Then it isn't AI - but us just using a computer.

We could describe a movie - feed it into the machine and have it spit out some music. But ... no - it isn't just that simple!
Whats first? Music or the Movie? Or is that flawed reasoning? A super AI might transcend our dimensionality of thinking - but again we had to feed it the parameters. So - in the end we're speaking of an 'actual' Matrix like System - and so, practically the Architect. "The first Matrix I designed was quite naturally perfect".
If that sounds plausible to you - there is no real evidence; Unless you want to take the movie as that. Its quite the same as with believing in God. You can't unproove it. Maybe there is a conscious supercomputer somewhere. But then we're in the spiritual realm again - and spirituality actually inevitably implies the divine. Maybe a different form of the divine. So yea - whats my motivation then for talking about God? Encouraging you to personally connect to Him? If you wouldn't find God that way, then sure, you had no reason to believe! And thats the closing argument! Since ever!




"I believe!"


CNS.2017.10.13 | 16:16