AtheisticNonduality

Wrong.

The past happens, outside of memory. Consciousness is fluid and has a variety of spans. This is something the Void is aware of, even if your mind specifically can't grasp it except through memory.

How is the argument of "soul is everywhere, so therefore AI must be conscious of the effects of infinite creativity just as much as genius humans" NOT a language game, when that wasn't the definition of soul I was using?

Don't play language games with me. I'm talking about the human being, the subconscious and the instincts and the archetypes and the spectrums of emotion, the symbolic intelligence in all its qualitative and quantitative forms, the higher lights of awareness. Absolutely none of that---or at least no real percentage of it---can be evaluated, delineated, and copied by observing some of the external patterns it gives off. Even if the AI recorded every single action a human has ever made, it would not be able to predict what the genius humans would do. If you fed it every single painting that has ever been painted, every single idea that has ever been fashioned, it would not be able to attain the same results as the pool from which those paintings and ideas came from. It would have impressions and mimicries of small trickles coming from the pool, but it would never be able to possess the same capabilities---unless it, again, actually became a real organism like us, actually got to our level of complexity, which is not happening anytime soon or even in this century.

Verbal IQ---it's logic using words (and closely connected to general logic), as opposed to visuals or numerals. We are not communicating using visualizations or numerical webs, unless those're used conceptually, which they are often not due to various incompetences. Working memory is, as I said before:

You're really weighing the human soul against chess? ????????????????????????

He has more control over the final result than you with your AI.

Try to work out if you're genuinely superior or if you're deceiving yourself. Probably it's a mix, because the world is inferior compared to exceptional individuals, but you are perhaps hiding something (your conscious superiority is an unconscious inferiority). Or maybe you really are just "sick and tired" of all the nonsense of the world, so you frustration comes in the form of thinking "everyone is stupid."

All objects are permanent because Reality = Eternity, and all objects exist in reality, Reality is them. But they are also impermanent because they change.

Real interpreters that have to translate books, videos, and speeches aren't affected by Google Translate, which is bad in terms of accuracy. Yes, but the hands of Michelangelo would be more accurate than a printer using autogenerated filth.

I thought you were a "New Age social democrat." Also who's shocked the Norwegian is against the death penalty?

Yes, I've been trying to say this.

If that is the case, which it is not, then Leo and everyone else here should spend the next decades preparing for the "culture war" that will dictate the ideological slants of that technology, and what role spirituality would play in that.

Yes. Right, I don't have any issues with the idea of replicating human talents and even improving them, but it won't happen through this type of AI or even in the next century. I've said earlier in the thread that if you get an AI on par with a high-level human in a particular field of human expression/meaning/creation, then you already have a real organism. But to do that you'll have to attain an elevation of complexity far beyond what the average "technological singularity" speculator and/or advocate is speaking or thinking about when it comes to the nature of what we're talking about. I maintain that human creativity, because of its immense origins down to every last cell in the human body and every last emotional pulse and meaningful current, is not computable even if you observe and record everything that it does. No matter how many of its visible and laid-down patterns or creations it's made, you won't be able to copy it or compete with it, simply because it's just that inscrutably complex and an immensity outside the limits of anything else we humans have access to in this world. So I agree with the idea that it is feasible, theoretically/technically, but I don't think it's practically possible in the short term or in the way most people are rambling about here.

Keep in mind that when cameras were first popularized this exact same conversation was happening. And nothing came of it. The AI images are weak. My arguments have been exhaustive, no matter how much technologists will misconstrue and non-understand them. It will never arrive at something like this!

I'm just saying it would disprove the full extent of your worldview. What the hell does this mean?

It's like you didn't read the thread. ????????????????????????????????????????????????

lol

This is so impractical that corrupt guards and inmates could use this for witch hunts to kill people they don't like. Your ideas are actually more unrealistically utopian than those of the Green pacifists.

Leaf-blowers, lawnmowers, weed-whackers, etc. Leaf-blowers especially just shouldn't be used in any context. Yes.

No, the power dynamic in the prisons is not prisoners bullying guards; it's guards beating up the inmates, especially on death row. Most of the people attracted to that line of work will have superiority complexes. Same with police. If you're basing your entire occupation on imprisoning people, being an authority meant to keep them in line, etc. https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/sexual-victimization-reported-adult-correctional-authorities-2012-15 And there's Echols, who has brain damage and permanent health problems from being severely beaten by the guards on death row when he was falsely convicted of murdering children (timestamped).

How many orbs are there nearby?

How many "doctors" do you trust? Anyone that claims they've cured a case of autism is either a liar or an idiot, fundamentally doesn't understand what it is. What about priests, lol, that cure demonic possessions? No. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3846967/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26106752/ Actually autism allows for great emotional intelligence; there's just hypersensitivity, hence why there's been a description of it as an "intense world" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3010743/). Of course autism with high intelligence and high sensitivity is genetically superior; autistic idiots (ie. Musk)---this is a whole separate structure that's etiologically not the same at all, if we want to be medical about it. Keep in mind one of the first major researchers of autism was the Nazi-collaborating Hans Asperger, who would allegedly decide which children with disabilities would be killed and which would be researched on while alive. He spared the ones he described as autistic because he noticed he had some traits identically that they had, and noticed their difference in intelligence. Hence they were not deemed by him to be genetically inferior. What a pleasant story . . . Exactly. If there's an environmental toxin that increases one's intuition by 444%, there isn't really a good reason to attempt to reverse what's happened. But anyway, there's a need to clean up some of your ignorances and inferiorities . . . Humans should be able to switch between different modes, where they can understand perfectly and really experience both autism and non-autism, neither autism nor non-autism, etc.

????????????????????????????????????????????????

Autism is genetic, totally unrelated to environmental factors. And it's only a "disorder" because we're living in the Dark Ages. You also have to make a distinction between low IQ autism, which seems to have a completely different structural cause than its opposite, and high IQ, highly intelligent autism. The only similarity between the two is neural hypersensitivity, causing sensory overload or withdrawal/reticence or spasming, FROM COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CAUSES. They might as well be different entirely. The latter is something I won't fully get into here, in terms of meaning . . .