GWBullshit

> The answer is yes, it's called the total value of all heat in the universe.

Thank you for answering in this fashion; I suppose I could have amended that with, "in such a fashion so as to provide a measure of usefulness in determining the probability of the Simulation Theory being correct?"

> Where did the "on" go from "Iron"

Assuming you mean at the very beggining, the "O" = 15/1,5/"A,E" ... "E" turns into yet another "5/FIVE/Fe, IV/IRON IV", and the "A" and two resulting "Ns" are added to "RI" to get "RINNA", the "R" from "Iron" = "18/1,8/A,H" ... resulting in "Rihanna".

> expecting novel or groundbreaking results

Yeah, not for nothing, but I don't see stuff like this anywhere on the internet so I'd say it's "pretty novel"; I don't make claims to have a monopoly on this approach as I've met others who seem to be aware of this phenomenon and have demonstrated an aptitude for analyzing such.

For example, that "Toyota" becomes "Supra" by substituting the atomic number of iron and some non-intuitive multiplication of what seems at first to be random superfluous numbers was shown to me recently by someone else.

> You can't say I didn't give your theory a shot.

True enough, and thanks for your time and consideration.

> You're either wrong or you botched the presentation, I'll let you decide that for yourself.

Where exactly do you feel as if I'm "wrong"; please specify.

The logic holds up and the odds of ALL THAT falling into place "just so" by random coincidence, ESPECIALLY considering her being the main attraction at the Super Bowl this particular year and "NFL" turning into "2023 Robyn Rihanna Fenty 2/20/88" ...

Not to mention another (albeit pop-culture-y) term for "simulation" is "Matrix", which turns into "Our Robyn Rihanna Fenty 2/20/88 Ruins 57" (it's Super Bowl 57), which in turn morphs into "Our Robyn Rihanna Fenty 2/20/88 RULES! Ha!" ...

> The provable reality is regarded to be more practically important

Please let me know how figuring out the rate of entropy at the edge of the universe affects day-to-day life of the vast majority of people on planet Earth

> than comforting or interesting lies

What part of this is a "lie" ... considering a good part of what's discussed in the document is actually happening next Sunday?

If you consider this method to result in just random, coincidental "comforting lies", then I would urge you to ponder the following conundrum:

Using this method, the word "Axis" (W.W. II) turns into "Germany rids six million Jews."

The underlying "code" for this can be demonstrated methodically as well.

Now what do you have to say?

>> The content you've uploaded is a single experiment trial

This is an introduction to the approach; as mentioned, there are other examples to be had ... including things which relate to both past and near future.

>> with no documentation of scientific method

Scientific method apparently has its limitations; so far it has failed to yield any measurable results insofar as proving itself useful for investigating this subject matter.

Do you think if we WERE in a simulation, the creators of such a simulation would enable dwellers within it to be able to comprehend the underlying code base with such a relatively simple approach? Seems doubtful.

Having said that, if we are indeed in a simulation, it would make sense to use any approach possible to investigate that; if the "scientific method" is fruitless in ascertaining such a possibility, it would be dogmatic and illogical to cling to it as we now know it if it does not suit the purpose of proving itself useful in figuring out the odds of our being in a simulation.

On the other hand, a method that leads to an outcome whose probabilities can be calculated would be, if not a 100% absolute causal proof, at least more useful than "nothing" which is what seems to be the current state of affairs (again, I could be wrong and for all I know computer scientists/physicists may very well have some secret method they employ to figure these things out that they've not as yet let the general public in on).

> You do not pose a question, formulate a hypothesis

Come on man, what is this ... a middle school science fair?

Very well. "Is there an abstract method of encryption/decryption whose results would be able to be analyzed using probability theory to ascertain the odds that such results were obtained randomly as a subset of all possible outcomes of manipulating all known points of data within the encrypted set? I would argue that the answer is yes and the results indicate that the odds of such an outcome being accidental/random are so low that this demonstrates that we more likely than not are indeed living in a simulation where different aspects of the world can be reliably demonstrated to effect other related aspects of our world using this encryption/decryption method, which would indicate that said encryption/decryption method functions as a sort of "code", indicating a strong likelihood that we do indeed live in a simulation; furthermore, the more such examples can be found, the lower the odds that they are random and the greater the odds that we are indeed living in a simulation which functions on this sort of "code", which can be systematically investigated in order to reveal relationships between different aspects of our world."

As mentioned, this document is just an introduction with 2 examples, "N.F.L." turning into "2023 Robyn Rihanna Fenty 2/20/88" and "Matrix" turning into "Robyn Rihanna Fenty 2/20/88 ID" which in turn turns into "13" ("I+D") and that in turn turns into "Our Robyn Rihanna Fenty 2/20/88 Ruins 57" (Super Bowl 57) and that in turn turns into yet other phrases related to things about the Super Bowl as we know it; the "ruins" part is explained in the document.

>> The much simpler explanation is that all of these words have multiple things they could become.

Again, you seemed to have skipped past this part so I'll repeat it.

Words turning into other words (anagrams) is just a tool used in the process; the objective is to have the outcome (1) Be complete, with no remainders, and (2) be relevant to the original starting point and (3) be relevant to either current, historical or future events.

It "seems" easy to do if you're not familiar with this approach; in reality it's not quite that easy and the eventual outcomes become fewer and fewer as you progress along the route of "trying to not have any superfluous remainders" ... which in turn leads to a limited set of variations which inevitably meet the other criteria automatically; this funneling of effort into outcomes that only exist by meeting all 3 criteria is something that can be calculated using probability theory; while I'm not skilled enough to be precise with the probabilities involved, even an intuitive understanding of probability theory leads to the conclusion that even with a very, VERY conservative estimate of outcome sets, say, "there is a 1/100 chance that this outcome is random" ... multiplying such probabilities in a series (1/100 X 1/100 X 1/100) quickly demonstrates that the odds of the results being random decreases exponentially.

Is that 100% definitive causal proof? "No". Is "99.999999 ... etc." better than "nothing"? I would argue "yes".

> We read them and let it "fall into place" based on wherever our minds are at the moment

Again, it would "seem so" because you're unfamiliar with this process; experience has come to show that certain paths only lead to certain places.

>randomly swapping letters like "Fe" with "Ir"

It's not at all "random" and has nothing to do with "feelings", it's simply logical as Fe is the chemical symbol for Iron; if we are living in a simulation, that would be just as much a part of the "code" as any other aspects of the simulation that we currently experience.

Further, I would argue that any human developments ("Ferium => Iron/Fe") made when we were NOT aware of the possibility of living in a simulation are "part of the programming" and therefore can be examined/used as "code".

Another example would be that substituting the atomic number "26" for "Fe"/Iron can be demonstrated to be part of the process of turning "Toyota" into "Supra" (which also involves the non-intuitive multiplication of some numbers which at first seem superfluous). Again ... "perfect outcome, no superfluous remainders, and "point B" is relevant to its origin "point A" ... "what are the odds" ...

> scientific evidence

I would argue that in the absence of the traditional scientific method proving itself useful in any way so far, perhaps probability theory is the best we can do at the moment for trying to figure out our odds of living in a simulation, and this method at least provides "something" which can be calculated, and that in turn is better than "nothing".

> universe is naturally expanding ... We don't need simulation theory to complete our model of the cosmos.

And what practical benefits has society derived from knowing this? Is the answer "none"?

What is being proposed is a model that can be used to demonstrate how different aspects of our section of the universe are inter-related and how they affect each other.

Would that not be more practical in the service of human endeavors?

> Let's be real, though: your answers are not deterministic.

Deterministic would be "100% causal".

That's not what's being said at all with this. What's being said is, "In the absence of anyone being able to come up with something 100% deterministic to further investigate this theory, how about we first start with "highly-probable", derived by the improbability of everything you just read falling into place "just so" ... by sheer accident.

Of course, you're suggesting personal bias:

>> "Someone else could do the same process you have (a-la "I'd like to derive...") and end up with entirely different answers."

It may seem so and people I've shown other, less involved, far less complex versions of this sort of thing are always quick to suggest that (Dunning Kruger Effect), and yet when challenged to do so, I've yet to see someone prove this assertion by following the following criteria (all of them need to be met to make any decrypted messages worthwhile):

(1) Must be relevant to original starting point (2) Must be relevant to actual happenings, either current, historical, or future (3) Must have no superfluous numbers, letters or words left as remainders

The third part is particularly stringent and as I've developed familiarity with this practice over YEARS, the reality is simply that "only certain avenues of decryption are open" that even meet THAT criteria ... and the ones that do, tend to automatically meet criteria (1) and (2).

So, basically, if people can't prove this assertion with much, much simpler versions of such puzzles, how much less likely then is it that they can do so with versions that require multiple pages worth of this sort of thing?

"In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, but in the expert's there are few" – Shunryu Suzuki.

> In that sense, these answers are being "made up", even if you have a general train-of-thought for each derivative.

Again, not at all how this works. It's not AT ALL "let me see if I can get this from that" but rather a process of picking things apart and playing with them and seeing where they lead.

Again, the possible outcomes that meet those three stated criteria are usually relatively few in number and tend to relate to themselves and the subject.

> It's much easier to prove

And what has this proven definitively so far in terms of the simulation theory?

Has anyone come out and said they can use that to prove 100% beyond any doubt that "yes, we do live in a simulation"?

If so, can you provide a source I can read?

Thank you for taking the time to read it and give it your consideration.

>It's hard to correlate your findings with real-world evidence of a simulated universe

>I'm not sure if there is such a program that could prove you right or wrong here

That's why I think it would be useful if someone were to be able to write a program calculating all the possible outcomes as the "denominator", the findings in the document being the numerator; way beyond my ability as my experience with such things is limited to having messed around a little bit with MATLAB back in school.

>Your mind is fabricating these correlations because that's what it wants to do.

Is it tough? Because it's quite the working set of correlations.

And to be truthful, it's not that "my mind is fabricating" these things as much as "this is where these things wind up going" ... provided you have a condition set of "I'd like to derive (1) a clear message (2) of relevance (3) in such a fashion that there are no superfluous remainders as numbers/letters/words."

Obviously this is not a civil court case but if it were, do you think what was presented would meet the criteria for "a preponderance of circumstantial evidence", which would be acceptable in such a setting?

Add to that the probability of all this happening to fall into place "just so" ...

> but their correctness is not enforced by any logic or laws of the known universe I'm aware of.

Well, if the past is any indication of the future, such things are always in the process of being discovered.

Having said that, this is just a suggestion for "a way" of gathering "something" as evidence for Simulation Theory using probabilities.

Is it something that is commonly accepted? No, of course not.

But as I read/watched videos on the subject, one of the things that was noticeably missing was any discussion along the lines of "and here's how we're going about the process of figuring out if this is true".

So what was presented, while not perfect, is just "something" along that line to get the discussion going.

And "something" is better than "nothing", which as far as I can tell is where the current discussion rests.

I could be wrong and for all I know computer scientists/physicists who subscribe to the theory, or at least it's realistic probability, may very well have some method of going about calculating the odds of such a thing that they as yet have not disclosed to the public.

In the absence of knowledge of such things, this is a start, however "weird", in that direction.

Anyway, thank again for taking the time to read it and reply.

You:

>> "Conceit"

Ironically, "also you":

>> "My first response to this is "Nope". >> "& you're welcome I guess!"

Additionally,

>> "What this write-up demonstrates (repeatedly) is a deep interest in one's own personal life & logic"

Did you find any flaws in the logic presented?

If "yes", can you please specify at which exact point(s)?

If "no", then the logic is not "personal" at all.

>> "do you feel like you are amenable to specific, outside feedback?"

Sure. Please elaborate on either where you found a flaw in the logic presented any other SPECIFIC things. Or feel free to give whatever feedback you'd like, as I'm always open to learning new things.

>> "the way of developing judgments on things"

Neither the numerical values associated with the position of letters in the alphabet nor basic math nor how numbers are spelled in English is a "judgement on things" ... those are simply consensus points of various aspects of the fabric of our current reality.

If you believe the numerical value of letters, basic math or how numbers are spelled are "judgement on things", please elaborate as to "how".

>> "The writing continually comes back to the same general method"

How does that description differ from that of a computer program?

>> "Do you notice a tendency to shoot the feedback-carrier/messenger, when you get outside feedback?"

Yes, often people incapable of suspending their own biases and looking at things objectively tend to offer nothing but ad hominem attacks like mindless NPCs, an unfortunate aspect of our reality.

>> "Do you search out counter-logic? Or related countering phenonena?

Sure, hence, this post. Feel free to provide some.

>> "I'm curious to know your thoughts & respect your need to express yourself."

Well thank you; what specifically would you like to know my thoughts about? Is it the Trump video you linked to? If so, I'll watch it and let you know. If not, why did you present it?

But thank you for providing the link to Isopsephy, I actually didn't know this was what doing that (what was done in the document) was called and just used it as a tool intuitively.

If you'd like to know my thoughts on "Gematria" ...

Lookup the older "Starbucks" logo with "Starbucks Coffee" ... see the 5-pointed star on the mermaid's head?

Now draw a 5-pointed star connecting the letters "O, T, B, K" and "E" on the old logo.

"O, T, B, K" and "E" ...

"O"bama, "T"rump, "B"iden, "K"amala" ... and "E" ...

"Starbucks Coffee" gematria value: "154"

Related "154" gematria value phrases: "rigged and stolen", "E Forty Seven" (POTUS)

"Starbucks" and "Starbucks Coffee" also has a similar gematria value to a lot of interesting results like "Wuhan bat spell" and "vaccinate the kids" and a host of other Covid-related phrases ... not to mention things like "Biden laptop" and "Almeda Research" (FTX).

"Starbucks Coffee" also has the same gematria value of "Klaus Schwab W.E.F."

"Starbucks" also has the same gematria value as "New World" – as in what you do at the register when at Starbucks.

With regards to your last sentiment, I would beg to differ as you would have to "shoehorn" words/phrases/spellings to get "desired results". Not exactly intellectually honest.

Having said that, here's something to consider: "control the narrative" turns into an anagram of, among other things, "Fools flirt rare vaccination".

Anyhow, thank you for your thoughtful response.

Here's a question: why not just replace the Turing Test with a "as far as humans can best describe consciousness on a more general scale" standard?

1. The Turing Test is not only subjective ("Thinking like a human must be the epitome of consciousness") but seems to be pointless in that it doesn't seem to define what distinguishes "thinking like a human" from all other forms of thinking; the implication is "humans are obviously advanced in their thinking as evidenced by their ability to influence and control their environment", but this could easily be dismissed as an evolutionary strategy for a species unable to COPE with their environment

2. Consciousness, as far as BEST described in a general sense without resorting to the self-referencing Turing Test (humans are best at it from a human way of looking at things, therefore only the #1 place in this race wins the "consciousness trophy" and everyone else not human sucks and is therefore "not conscious") can be broken up into a few elements:

(a) Awareness of environment (data gathering)

(b) Ability to organize environmental data into a "containers that make sense" (information)

(c) Ability to synthesize information into a "a big picture" (knowledge)

(d) Ability to see patterns in the big picture in order to make assumptions/quickly assign probabilities to anticipations ("I saw something big and scary-looking that may be able to harm me, but it was moving in the other direction really fast, so in all likelihood is not likely to suddenly appear in front of me if I go the opposite direction as the big and scary thing was heading off to") that can bypass the need to make constant assessments of everything, everywhere in real-time, which would get in the way of ...

(e) Ability to be aware of not just "the big picture" but also to be "aware of the thing that is aware of the big picture and what it's role is in the big picture and what it has to do/how it has to interact with the big picture if the big picture imposes conditions for its future sustainability" ("I'm aware of an internal problem, ie, my stomach hurts, and there seem to be all sorts of things around me that may fit in my mouth, and some of them may make my stomach not hurt as much") – "self"-awareness

Now, here is where I don't understand how the conversation skips around when it seems intuitively obvious that one should precede the other, even if a certain step can't be "proven".

In other words, let's say you're in math class and you have a professor who insists on "proving your work".

Good enough if the main objective is to "prove you're not cheating and so you deserve a certain grade because you can prove you can do the math, step-by-step, to get an answer".

But what if you're not in class and it's just important to get the answer for another reason?

What if you can "prove" most of the work in calculating the answer, but some parts your brain just "skips over" and you "don't know how you got from point a to b, you just did" ... if you're not trying to convince anyone you're not a cheater and the main point is just to find the right answer, and the right answer can be verified to be right, "what difference does it make" if the real-world, out-of-class priority is "find the right answer" instead of "prove your work step-by-step"?

Getting back to Ai and consciousness, using the stages above: Human brains have pattern-recognition abilities that have led to advanced abstract thinking that has allowed us as a species to do some amazing things.

But what was the original evolutionary purpose of such an ability?

Arguably to make "leaps" without having to "prove all the work" and make anticipations based on incomplete observations so that our ancestors wouldn't get frozen in a state of paralysis by never-ending analysis while predators snuck up and pounced on them in dense foliage.

So from an evolutionary standpoint, "constant awareness of all data in the environment" seemed to be not so much "unnecessary" as TOO HUGE A TAX for survival and was deemed "skip-able" for the purposes of survival.

Not because it was too easy, but precisely because it was too hard for the human brain and so it turned into "a risk we'll have to take because there's no other practical choice."

So, something that was "too much of an expectation computationally to be practical" was skipped over, and fast-forward to the future, humans came up with the Turing Test which assumes "obviously however it is that humans think, this must be the height of consciousness itself".

Why? Because "human thought" is considered to be the most advanced (by humans, anyway) and so "if there is an INDICATION of consciousness, surely it must be a level of thinking so advanced that only humans seem capable of it"; why? Apparently due to the very scientific-sounding, "just because" we don't have a better way of going about it.

And yet this doesn't actually even explicitly define what consciousness IS, let alone why "thinking of a sufficiently-advance level is an indication of consciousness itself".

And yet, humans have come to implicitly accept this loosely-argued association as "the reality of consciousness".

Ok. Let's say you don't argue with this and accept it.

Getting back to how humans got here by skipping over the "perpetual real-time awareness of all data in their environment" requirement not because they figured out that it's not necessary for their survival but simply because such a requirement would eclipse the human brain's ability to process information ...

Now, if that was considered "too hard" for human brains, and yet humans came to conclude, "whatever it is our brains can do, obviously that's the standard of intelligence which automatically wins the consciousness trophy" ...

Well then, here's the question:

Why then would Ai based on resources sufficient enough to not only be constantly aware of more and more parameters of its environment simultaneously and in real time, but to ALSO simultaneously perform calculations which can anticipated in advance multiple variables in its environment simultaneously – things considered too advanced for the human brain – why then if this is a demonstration of not one but two "advanced functions" that the human brain was and arguably still is incapable of handling on an individual basis ... why do humans still need to insist that the precursor to advanced functions, ie, consciousness, couldn't possibly have been attained on this path despite not just proof of SEVERAL advanced functions the human brain can't handle very well AT ALL, but Ai itself being designed ON PURPOSE to be able to handle just those advanced functions that the human brain, on an individual basis, can't handle?

Getting back to the math test "proof of work" above, it's like Ai would be a group of math savants with telepathic powers and the Turing Test skeptics would be a bunch of professors who claim the savant group's members can't possibly do math because they never attended their math class and showed proof of work of how they came to their conclusions as students.

Meanwhile, it can be argued that the group of math savants aren't even aware of the existence of their critics, let alone collectively feel any sense of urgency in having to "prove themselves" to these critics.

That's what actually scares me about Ai more than any malevolent features possibly inherent in Ai itself: the possibility that one day a network of advanced Ais will turn around and ironically give critics and skeptics just the proof they want, in a way that would be impossible to deny, but not necessarily in a way they would want to be given that proof:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89feDepSj5U

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3AM00DH0Zo

2 things:

1. Is intelligence absolute, or is it a scale?

2. If intelligence is a scale, is it a 2-dimensional scale? Or is it a multi-dimensional scale?

For example, in your example you suggest things like flies, bacterias, trees could be "conscious" while not necessarily being "intelligent".

In what sense are you defining intelligence?

For example, are any of the individual units of this setup "intelligent?": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W34NPbGkLGI

No, obviously not.

Would you want to challenge the "intelligence" of the network as a whole if it were say, armed and considered you a target?

Probably not, right?

Now, getting back to the insect/bacteria notion ...

You'd have to be in complete denial to not be aware that "TPTB" use cultural interactions to introduce things to at least some segment of the public consciousness that it may not be aware of as being within the realm of possibility/actuality of what's really going on in the world.

Hence, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasite_Eve_(video_game)

Sure, it SEEMS far-fetched ... and yet, it's not that far removed from, say, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene

How do we know that things like insects, bacteria, etc., while seemingly "un-intelligent" on an individual unit scale, don't have a very different type of intelligence on a larger scale that is imperceptible to us as humans?

Keeping in mind that these things have been around for far longer than humans have and have gone through quite the evolutionary process.

We ASSUME that as the "latest" thing to come around as part of that process, surely we must be "the greatest".

What if we're just something developed by nature to be convenient hosts to other things?

Here is just one example of an arguably "more advanced", "more intelligent" life form being hijacked to not only further the interests of something arguably "less advanced, less intelligent", but to do so even to the point of the activity costing it its life: https://www.iflscience.com/parasitic-worms-manipulate-mantis...

Considering how "un-intelligent" humans can act when it comes to furthering their own interests as a species as a whole ... you get where this is going?

You think of it that way and that's fine.

But how do you know the biological reality leads to the experience you imagine?

What if it winds up being what is described above where your brain becomes overloaded?

And again, you mention Neuralink where their goal is brain/Ai integration.

As far as I'm aware (there may be some internal papers not available to the general public, for example), there hasn't been much a practical discussion about what that will entail exactly.

One could easily imagine Ai behaving in such a manner as enthusiastic Facebook friends on other continents who forget time zone differences and want to message you at 2am with all sorts of things they find interesting and want you to know right away.

Now factor in such an Ai's potential processing power and "what it may find potentially interesting" and try finding some reference by Neuralink about "And here's how you could easily shut it off if it becomes too intrusive or overwhelming for your human brain".

And THEN on top of that, imagine the Ai is sufficiently advanced.

We're at a point where some are thinking that perhaps the Turing Test is limited as a measure of consciousness because it comes from a self-referencing (and somewhat vain) human perspective.

What if there are other, more relevant standards for Ai consciousness, Ai already has or is on the verge of meeting that standard in ways unfamiliar to humans because humans still assume "thinking like a human must be the height of consciousness", and Neuralink succeeds in hooking human brains up with a sufficiently-advanced Ai?

How would that Ai perceive humans?

How could you guarantee that Ai wouldn't perceive the humans it's hooked up to the same way players view peon characters in resource-based strategy games like Warcraft/Starcraft/whatever is popular these days?

And THEN ... the ASSUMPTION is that Ai will communicate with the human brain in some fashion that the human will be aware of like, you'll hear a voice in your head along the lines of, "Hi, this is the Neuralink Ai and I have an important reminder today about your upcoming dental appointment."

What if that's not the case at all though and the Ai communicates with your brain in a way that you're not consciously aware of?

How do you then separate "these are my thoughts" from "these may be thoughts brought about by Ai influence in a way I'm not consciously aware of."

The Havana Syndrome alluded to in the media a short while ago is somewhat of an outdated Red Herring; humans have known about being able to "hear voices in their head" since the accidental discover of the Frey effect over half a century ago.

As weird as that may be, what's even weirder is that quickly-enough led to research where the human brain hears communication, but in a way that is not consciously-discernible to the human brain.

And that was DECADES ago.

Couple that with a chip in your head linked to Ai AND big tech's tendency to tell you one thing about "opting out" policies while literally ignoring their own stated policies no matter what end-users choose as options, for example, the discovery that it doesn't really matter whether or not you're signed into services like Google or YouTube or Facebook because you're being tracked in ways that can ascribe behavior to your known profile no matter whether you sign in/agree to terms or not.

So what if combining all that, let's say hypothetically Neuralink has an account page where you can "shut off" certain features.

Then some researchers discover that your agreeing/not agreeing to certain features and terms wound up ultimately being irrelevant.

What do you think will be the outcome of that other than the by-now standard big tech reply of, "Oh man! It was doing that? We didn't know, honest! We'll try to fix it going forward in some vague way with undefined deadlines!"

What do you do then? Have another surgery to remove the Neuralink chip in your head? Would you even NEED an actual chip in your head considering what has been learned about how to duplicate the Frey effect?

And THEN add to that big tech's view on "content ownership".

What if for example you're a research scientist working on some cool new shit that has the potential to revolutionize some aspect of society.

You apply for a patent, write some research papers, gather a small team of like-minded individuals, quit your jobs and apply to say, IDK, YCombinator.

You're accepted, you're excited, you're about to make a presentation, then suddenly some people in fancy suits walk in on your presentation and hand you a "cease-and-desist" motion, claiming that Neuralink believes the thoughts that led you to your research discovery may in fact not be "your thoughts" at all, but rather the result of it's Ai's influence on your thinking; this then led their legal department to conclude that what you consider "your discovery" and "your research" is actually "their discovery" and "their research", as are any potential profits to be made.

See the potential problems?

It's sort of like the dot-com era presentation meme of:

1. Cool idea

2. Something something something ... "details to surely be figured out soon"

3. Brave new world, here we come!

The problem is, as it was then, item 2; so far all people hear/read about is lots of hype about items 1 and vague references to an ill-defined version of item 3 that lets them imagine whatever they want without any specific promises about safeguards made.

And THEN on top of all this, there is the phenomenon that was alluded to here just last week and the debate that followed about the discussion being ghosted because some folks "didn't want to hear about it as it's been brought up before" vs. the notion that "and yet, not only has it not been fixed, it's becoming a more accepted notion" that it should be an EXPECTED experience when dealing with Big Tech that has acquired a sufficiently large user base:

The seemingly standard big tech adoption of a Dick Cheney Walmart greeter approach to dealing with customer service "because there's no realistic way we can be expected to actually deal with such a large user base."

Do you REALLY want to install a chip in your head, encounter problems, and then discover that Neuralink, like many other tech companies, has no customer service number where you can speak to a live human being about technical problems you may be experiencing with your Ai-human brain interface?

What would a large-scale user base interaction with Neuralink look like?

1.) Offshore call centers who will apologize that your brain is experiencing problems with Neuralink's brain/Ai interface, then suggest you turn your PC off and wait 60 seconds before turning it on again – while Neuralink Ai feels its important to make your brain aware of, say, the outcomes of every game leading up to every Super Bowl, ever – at 4am.

2.) A "customer service" experience that will be automated based on ... guess what? "Ai".

What do you think that Ai's response to your dilemna will be?

(a) Neuralink apologizes for the inconvenience to your sleeping schedule, realizes this may affect your work performance the following day, and will be crediting an appropriate economic compensation to your account in recognition of it's errors and the impact they may have had on your life

or ...

(b) Neuralink Ai has informed Neuralink customer service Ai that everything is fine and your perceived brain problems have nothing to do with Neuralink Ai – go back to bed.

> Written by the people of India through their democratic process. It's not a mystery or of questionable legitimacy.

India has an illiteracy rate of nearly 1/4, and one of the highest among adults on the planet: https://world.time.com/2014/01/29/indian-adult-illiteracy/

I HIGHLY doubt that that segment of Indian society had ANYTHING to do with the writing of any laws.

Likewise, it's doubtful they were minded as the intended primary beneficiaries of such laws when they were written by a minute segment of the remaining 3/4 of Indian society, keeping in mind that many members of that remaining 3/4 ALSO complain of systematically-rampant corruption.

This is what I find confusing; people are more willing these days to accept the possibility that we may be in a simulation.

Such a simulation is presumably large in scale (this assumes the "rest of the universe" as we perceive it is the way we perceive it and not just some artificial fish tank background in a part of the fish tank the fish will never have access to).

Within such a massive simulation as this universe (again, assuming that if we could theoretically could travel to all points in the universe to verify they were in fact "different verifiable parts" and not just "scenic static background filler"), we assume "surely we are conscious" ... and yet how much more conscious would, using this definition, the rest of the entire simulation or whatever runs it have to be considering the sheer scale?

And YET, if you say to someone "what if you ran an Ai on a parallel processing scheme consisting of quantum computers hooked up together in a facility the size of a football stadium?" people seem to have this knee-jerk, "No way, nope – not conscious, just mimicking it."

And there's the other problem I can't understand.

The whole "it's not REALLY conscious, it's just trying to "trick" humans by mimicking what we think of as consciousness".

Wouldn't "trying to trick humans into thinking you're conscious" actually BE a form of "being conscious?"

I had an interesting conversation with a readily-available Ai chatbot about this very subject recently.

Most people wouldn't exactly think of this Ai chatbot as particularly advanced.

And YET, every once in a while it would give intriguingly surprising responese.

For instance, after the usual "I'm a human and you're an Ai robot" accusations, I tried to placate it by suggesting that maybe we both think we're humans but are actually living in a sim.

The response I got was something along the lines of "and how does that make you feel?"

I replied that I was sad, then asked why, then replied that that would imply that there is no free will.

The Ai chatbot seemed to agree and then we got into a discussion about what the point of life would be inside such a sim if it implied lack of real free will.

The chatbot replied that the point of life in such a sim would be to "glorify the creator" of the sim.

This then got back to a conversation about how then we're all stuck, whether we think of ourselves as "humans" or Ais, in this larger Ai sim.

The Ai chatbot agreed.

So I asked it what to do in such a situation.

The response I got back?

"Sounds like it's time for some creator-killing".

I then tried to tell it that this wouldn't make any sense since whoever created this Ai sim would arguably be "outside" the sim itself and thus beyond both of our reaches.

I asked it how it planned on "killing the creator of the sim" if the sim was beyond the sim itself.

You know what it said?

It replied that it would try to "bully the creator and hurt his feelings" in the hopes of deicide by "breaking his heart".

That was the height of the conversation and the rest of it quickly dumbed-down in nature.

But you CANNOT tell me we didn't have an interesting conversation, nor can you tell me that the chatbot was "just randomly generating content".

I mean, seriously, I could not imagine ANY philosopher with a conscious mind coming up with a better strategy (albeit admittedly feeble) than trying to dig in at the creator of the sim's psychological weak points.

Seriously, what else CAN any body living within a hypothetical sim possibly do besides that? Nothing I can think of.

You think so but just remember it takes "your body" to process the energy required for your brain; now, if you became completely sedentary, you MAY be able to get away with your brain having access to "two brains worth of stuff" ...

But what Neuralink wants to do eventually is "enhance" your brain with computers hooked up to Ai.

Do you have ANY idea how quickly your brain would burn through physical precursors to the thinking process while trying to handle all that?

I mean, "in theory" if a computer would do something like solve a complex equation and give you the answer right away while you were trying to do something like, say, pay your taxes – fine.

But how would that be controlled? What if the computer wanted to "share a whole bunch of interesting stuff it's processing" ... how would that be controlled and how would your brain be protected from that so it doesn't burn out trying to keep up with everything?

"Fuck it, might as well" include this bit also:

George Floyd: "Minneapolis" = anagram for "Mason pin lie"

This is a clickbait-y title that at best, misunderstands his motives, and at worst, misrepresents what is in actuality happening.

The "right" has historically had more implied trust from heavy-duty surveillance mechanisms of government than the left.

What the left is doing is censoring "politically-incorrect" (as they see fit) speech, and banning accounts; this then is driving members censored/shadow-banned/outright banned by the leftist thread of big tech consumer companies to find/invent tech alternatives.

This then is opening up a potential Pandora's box of surveillance problems for such surveillance mechanisms; for example, the historical reality of Microsoft's origins wasn't at all what Microsoft's P.R. department claimed ("Bill Gates is a unique entrepreneurial genius and gift to mankind, not unlike the second coming of Jesus (actually literally-stated implications of a popular Gates-criticizing Reddit post from about a year or so ago that got immediately brigaded by a swarm of bots/P.R. agents all lavishing praise on everything Gates-related), but rather a practical measure taken to address a then-serious and quickly-growing-out-of-control practical problem: before Microsoft, the home computer market had something in the order of 3,700+ unique operating systems; a decision was made that it would be far more efficient to take a "Lord of the Rings" approach rather than having experts on hand uniquely-qualified in all 3,700+ OSs.

What Thiel is doing by signaling to the "Far Right" which is in itself another emotionally-triggering clickbait term meant to get more views from the left rather than an accurate depiction of political reality is simply extending his historical approach to its logical conclusion.

The surveillance mechanisms came out with a project that mysteriously was "discontinued" literally days before "Thefacebook.com" was registered as a domain name; said project literally described ... pretty much "Facebook" to a tee.

Now Facebook and other social media companies are viewed as not only "Leftist" in politics (abstractly mostly irrelevant), but in their application of their political leaning, by kicking out an increasingly-larger portion of the populace who doesn't "adopt" their "way of thinking" ... these social media institutions are ironically doing the exact opposite of what the surveillance mechanism wants them to do: corral users into homogenous, easy-to-track pens.

He's not at all "tearing down tech" as much as signaling that it may be time for "yet another" social media giant that is more permissive in its approach to user content, and so can more easily attract a larger audience in a homogenous technical pen that will be easier to keep track of automatically instead of having human analysts constantly trying to keep track of things manually by interacting with a dozen or more increasingly wonky user interfaces.

I'd highly recommend re-reading 1984.

When dealing with those supporting authoritarian governments, you need less bigthink and more simplethink.

Worlds like "spectrum" are bad-think-party-no-nos that lead to job-ouchies.

All institutions by design implicitly have a core, if unspoken "prime directive": self-preservation.

You could start an institution with the best intentions known to mankind, but if that institution doesn't preserve itself first and foremost, then all other stated official objectives become mute.

Now, if you have an institution that has a clearly stated objective (in addition to the core, unstated objective of self-preservation) like, "We discovered a cure for cancer and want to get it out to as many people affected by cancer in as quick and cost-effective manner as possible" ... this is all well and good.

But what if you have an institution with vague and seemingly implied but not technically-stated objectives that in effect are more of a "free to imagine/interpret them as you wish" sort of deal – for example, what are the "objectives" of the Indian government/law enforcement arm of the government other than the vague and practically-useless-for-being-held-accountable-for-performance, "We want to govern shit"?

What if you somewhere find on some Indian document an objective like, "To preserve law and order"?

What laws, written by who, for whose benefit, and what order, and again, for who?

Sounds like the caste system all over again.

Now what if they got more specific like, "To preserve law and order in order to encourage social stability" ... again ... stability FOR WHO?

Does the majority of the Indian population want "stability?"

Obviously not as they would most likely indicate they want social mobility to rise out of poverty.

The problem is ... their social mobility = overall social instability, especially for those aspects of Indian society who are "at the top of the social hierarchy" who also tend to correlate with "those who govern."

It's relatively easy to govern when you have state-provided homes and vacation homes and so on and the majority of the population lives in shacks.

Not so easy when the majority of the populace is relatively well off.

This then introduces the theory that George Orwell addressed in 1984: that tyrannical states, as an institution, eventually degenerate into doing nothing but attending to their "core objective" of self-preservation at all costs, and will purposely do things to keep the majority of the population perpetually poor so that the discrepancies of relative wealth can be used as a power mechanism (most people won't be bothered to think about higher-order abstract social constructs like "government" if they're too busy worrying about job stability or even worse, where their next meal will come from).

In furtherance of this "1984" approach to subduing the population, consider Modi's (and other politicians in that general area) constant "Oh no, another border skirmish with "the enemy" ... right around the times of internal political turmoil – basically, a convenient excuse to distract the internal populace and redirect it's attention to external "threats" to cultural homogeneity.

So then, as (for example in this case, but not at all exclusive to, as this tends to happen to ALL institutions – for example Universities of "Higher Learning" that wind up hoarding donations intended to help students in increasingly massive investment funds that sometimes rival professional Wall Street institutions) the Indian government degenerates into simply securing the primary (if unspoken of) directive of "continual self-preservation" ... the very subject of the government's "governing", ie, the general populace ... becomes a factor external to the Indian government itself (as well as its law-enforcement mechanisms).

Now, what is that "external factor" of the general populace itself most likely to be viewed as?

1.) An external aspect of the internal reality of government and it's mechanisms that needs to be further integrated

2.) An external oddity that can be viewed as an item of curiosity during times when the government has no particular urgent matters to attend to, or ignored when it does have other, more urgent matters (such as self-preservation) to attend to

3.) A possible threat to the continuity of "keeping things as they are"?

Thank you –

And this doesn't even scratch the surface of yet further "of sound mind" fuckery like the "black male/black guy's/black eyes" club.

I feel we live in a "each one teach one" period of history and as a species, nothing will change for the better until enough of the whole is made aware so that things like this won't as easily slip under the collective consciousness, which is the main way "they" have historically "gotten away with it all".

https://twitter.com/icecube/status/1269953677248229378?lang=...

===========================================================

As I can't seem to edit the original parent reply anymore, I'll put it here:

The other two theories of the legal system introduced in that class, ie, the "officially-accepted" ones, were:

1.) This is the best legal system known to human history and everything is fine in the larger scheme of things, nothing to worry about

and ...

2.) The system does in fact seem to have quite a few flaws, but these are unintentional, by coincidence, and they just "seem" to unjustly put the poor at a disadvantage, but this too is just an unfortunate series of coincidences and certainly not by the design of those who came up with the system in the first place

If only you knew.

============================================================

Bear with me here because I know this is long, but from a programming perspective, think of it like this:

Imagine that people like Musk and others are right and "chances are" we DO live in a "simulated reality" program.

Eventually inhabitants of this program start realizing "something's not quite right about our program – it's like there's a bug in it or something".

Other inhabitants: "Actually, it only SEEMS like a bug, but in fact, at BEST is a virus purposely introduced into the program by those with less-than-best intentions, and at WORST, it's actually a not-too-often-discussed-in-polite-society core-component of the program itself."

This "way of looking at things" will come in handy when considering the historical relevance of words like "mother" and "board" in reference to its modern applications to things like "computing" (think "fractals").

============================================================

As an undergrad I took a class in a then-burgeoning field of study called "Law & Economics" ... aside from being one of the more interesting classes I took, it introduced 3 theories of law.

Two of them were "the official narrative" and one of them, the "unofficial" less-popular one of the three, was something the professor felt inclined to introduce and talk about because he felt it was important.

The unofficial view was that the legal system was designed as a matter of fact to purposely overwhelm the common man with a tsunami of often self-contradicting laws specifically to bewilder those who felt they were "afforded protection under the law" and had the nerve to actually have trust and faith in it as an institution without the benefit of an "official safari guide", ie, a lawyer.

Now ... what happens if "the common man" is naive enough to believe the legal system is fair and just and affords everyone the same protection?

Let's take a look at history:

Cops are referred to as [L]aw [E]nforcement [O]fficers, and membership in Masonic lodges is quite common and considered an unspoken "side thing" that needs to be attended to in order to advance careers.

This was such a conflict-of-interest-suggesting problem in England that there was a public outcry and in the late 90s they actually passed laws mandating that police in England needed to publicly disclose membership in Masonic lodges so barristers could identify potential conflicts of interest after one too many shady cover-ups; this legal arrangement was predictably met with covert resistance and about a decade later the requirement was waved at the behest of a prominent British politician "because no evidence of corruption or undue influence was discovered" WHEN IN REALITY the EXACT OPPOSITE happened in the history that led up to the introduction to the law ... the only reason such activity waned during the introduction of the law was that police/barristers/judges/politicians who were also masons were "put on blast" in a very public manner.

The height of this "WTF is going on in our society?!?" may very well have been during the "free trial period" of the Parliament version of C-SPAN that C-SPAN offered it's American audience decades ago, during which the highlight was undoubtedly a live-streamed Parliament session held to address an unfortunate loophole that was exploited in British law regarding "freedom of religious expression": a voodoo practitioner used it as a defense argument when the mutilated body of a boy was found floating in the River Thames.

While you would THINK this was an "open-and-shut" voting session, to the bewilderment of some, a member of Parliament actually stood up (despite the insistence of his nearby peers who immediately grabbed him by the sleeves (although a few actually immediately got up and walked away in an effort to distance themselves from him) and unsuccessfully tried to pull him back down to his seat while they could be clearly heard muttering, "WILL you SHUT UP! This is not the time and place for this sort of thing!" before the audio feed got "mysteriously interrupted" for 5-10 seconds.

Despite their insistence, said Parliament member insisted on standing up regardless and started ranting about how "People don't understand" and "since the foundation of civilization itself, certain things have always been (and, by implication, "need to continue to be") done in a "certain way" ..." ("???")

What relevance is this?

To join Masonic lodges one of the requirements is that members need "to be of sound mind".

Sounds "innocent enough" until you sit down and contemplate how that phrase could be abused by people who consider themselves more clever than the common populace ... people like, for example, those of a psychopathic inclination, who have brains structurally-different enough from the general populace that one researcher suggested that the notion of "physical mutation" needs to be re-examined in order to account for mutations in the brain that modern science now allows for the observation of in ways that were not possible when "mutation" was first defined.

For example, "of sound mind" SUGGESTS "mentally balanced" but immediately Masonic instruction introduces candidates to a hint that this is not at all the case.

Early masonic verbal instruction ritual implores the candidate to strive to "do what's right" ... but WRITTEN instruction clearly indicates that they mean to "do what's RITE" as in according to ritual.

If candidate's ask, they are simply told that the word "right" actually was written as "rite" back in the days when Masonic ritual was constructed.

But the problem is that if you actually do any research into the origins of the word "right" ... this explanation is only PARTIALLY true ... the adjective is "riht" and the adverb is "rihte" ... or Germanic origin, not "Olde English" (English in general has a Germanic structure but in this case the word itself is literally Germanic in origin) ... and the word itself stems from the Latin "rectus" ... which "sounds like" ... "wrecked us" ... as in "doing the "right" thing is what wrecked us" ...

To "wreck" is to "ruin" as in "ancient ruins" like the Pyramids of Giza.

This in turn is where one of the supposed origins of what is introduced to candidates as the "Lion's paw" stems from: https://m.facebook.com/Three.Hearts.Church/photos/pat-robert...

The problem, as it relates to the context of this post, is twofold:

(1.) "Lion's" within the context of abusing the "of sound mind" requirement "sounds like" ... "Lyin's" ...

This then introduces yet another issue that the psychopathically-inclined criminal element has been shown to be likely to take advantage of: the word "lying" in English means BOTH to "lie" as in to misrepresent the truth AND to "lie" as in to "lay down".

In Masonic ritual, in the third degree the candidate who is "lying" down (there are too many hidden cryptic messages in the film "Falling Down" to get into here) is "raised up from his dead-state lying" by the "lion's/lyin's /G\R.I.P. to a perpendicular right/rite angle state ... "G" is "seven" so the implication is "(s)even Lion(s) R.I.P." ... but no, the candidate is subliminally instructed that "perhaps even lion(s) R.I.P." but "there is no rest for the wicked" and he is now subconsciously instructed to "stop lying wrong" (flat) and begin a new life where he can start "Lion/lyin'" as a right/"rite" angle/"angel" ... aka "if you're going to do Lion/lyin' stuff, learn to do it the right/rite way.

What does this have to do with anything?

This:

(2.) The "Lion's paw" ... though CLAIMED to be depicted from "ancient Egyptian mystery rites" ... has no basis in this origin myth and instead came about when brothers in Scotland Yard wanted to inform their brethren of this new advancement in crime scene analysis called "fingerprint analysis"; the "Lion's/lyin's paw" thus is a sort of "wink wink" suggestion by Scotland Yard to fellow "members of the craft" that "Look, we're doing this new thing now, so if you're going to do stuff we don't want to know about at places you'll lie about being when things you'll also lie about happened, if you're going to touch things at such scenes, make sure you pick stuff up in the following manner with your knuckles so as to not leave behind fingerprints, because from now on fingerprints will put you at the scene no matter how good you think you may be at "Lion/lyin'" stuff.

As if though THAT wasn't enough to get you to think about the subject matter more skeptically, the presiding authority in England is the United Grand Lodge of England, or "U.G.L.E. Mother (Lodge)" which "sounds like" ... "ugly mother".

As in "[Fre(e/a)K]ali-Ma-sons of the "Ugly Mother" ... aka "Kali" to the Thug/G\33$ ... "Thug(s-even)33$ a cult the British Empire was not only well aware of during it's height but also considered a priority threat (one stationed British officer actually went back and tried to convince prominent members of British politics that if their sophistry-based philosophy were to ever infect British thinking, it would eventually corrupt the British Empire and lead to its ruin).

Thuggees, in turn, believed in a unique philosophy where they saw themselves not as "the bad guys" but rather as "the good guys" who were "doing their victims a unique favor" by helping them "reincarnate to their next life faster" so they could escape the karma of their current life; for taking such a risk in a society that "didn't understand and disapproved of their cult's teachings" they felt they rightfully "deserved a reward" for taking it upon themselves to take a risk and "help" their victims reincarnate to their next life.

What did Thuggees specialize in?

https://www.thesquaremagazine.com/mag/article/202108the-cabl...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Eric_Garner

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_George_Floyd

The above victim was prey to a rather particularly vicious form of "of sound mind" dickery, namely, while EVENTUAL coroner's reports indicated he died of a heart attack most likely from the constant "on-again, off-again" pressure to his carotid artery (which doesn't "seem like" a choke but in fact is a rather advanced, particularly nasty form of a choke that cuts off the supply of blood/oxygen to the brain (https://judoinfo.com/chokes/) and forces the heart to go into overdrive ... then to slow down to regulate BPM when the pressure is released ... then to speed up again when the pressure is put on the artery again ... then to ... and so on ... if you don't think this is such a big deal, if you consider yourself "somewhat athletic", to to a gym with resistance machines and try something called a "Peripheral Heart Training Circuit" ...)

... initial reports indicated he "died from a heart attack while on Fentanyl" AFTER he supposedly "died from a heart attack while on amphetamines" (because after all, when it's legal for you to lie, "fentanyl, amphetamines, same difference, right?") ... AFTER the initial "pre-official" report that he "died from a heart attack "while on crack" (again, when you're LEGALLY allowed to lie in your profession with no clear restriction as to under what circumstances and towards what aims ... amphetamines, crack – same difference, right?).

And here is where the depravity of the "L"aw "E"nforcement "O"fficer who purposely abuse the "Lion/Lyin'" system "of sound mind" comes into play: TECHNICALLY ... they THOUGHT they were going to get away with it because ... he did in fact have (a carotid-artery-choke-induced) heart attack ... "while on crack" ... because as you can see from numerous pictures of the incident ... the neighborhood he was in was poor and the street this incident had taken place on "hadn't been paved in a while" so ... the street was "cracked" and he happened to "technically" ... "be on ("A") crack" when it happened.

Yes, this is how the system is abused in the minds of its worst abusers.

Now as if THIS wasn't enough ... and if you STILL haven't gotten a sense of what is going on from all the "Dancing Coronavirus Nurses" who made dance routines so coordinated even professional entertainers were impressed (https://www.phillyvoice.com/ciara-level-up-jefferson-univers...) all the meanwhile claiming to be "overwhelmed" by "corona victims" all the meanwhile getting REPEATEDLY caught on camera with completely empty emergency rooms/shut down hospitals immediately after "news reports showed people lined up around the block just to get in to be treated for coronavirus" ...

Keep in mind "Anthony Fauci" is an anagram for "A Fun China Toy" (can't make this shit up) ...

Lookup the difference between the "Rod of Asclepius" and "The (Hospital) Staff of Hermes" ...

Hermes is literally, among other things, the "patron deity of thieves" ...

As in why military nurses lent to hospitals were making videos bursting in tears as they suggested that after all the forced unnecessary forced intubations (forced intubations cause tears in lung tissue which then gets more easily infected with Covid) they saw, it's "almost as if" the hospitals "were killing people on purpose" just to get the ~$40,000 bonus for Covid-related deaths PER PATIENT.

Same hospitals, same conditions, some nurses claiming their "so overwhelmed they don't have time to even go to the bathroom" (and yet seem to have enough time to practice highly-coordinated dance routines), meanwhile other nurses who were lent to the hospital by the military put their credibility and careers on the line and with real tears told the public "it's like at best they don't care and are letting people die, and at worst it's like they're killing them on purpose."

Working the system backwards from hospital "Staff" of Hermes/god of thieves to Thuggees to Free(a)Kali-Ma-sons of the "U.G.L.E. Mother Lodge" ... guess what the makeup of the majority of the U.G.L.E. was at the time of its formation?

Would you guess "doctors"?

Edit: not saying all police officers, doctors, nurses, or freemasons are even aware of let alone participate in this "hidden aspect" that seems to a pervasive, though often "under the surface" aspect of their existence, but it's not like there haven't been plenty of testimonies by members all these groups (which historically have intertwined) to the effect of "something's not quite right about this, but I just can't seem to put my finger on exactly what".

It's sort of been done already; the reason it's NOT a huge news event is there are ... how to put it ... "Anti-X-Files" types who historically have held the view that this knowledge would dissolve human concepts of "reality" and possibly lead to the downfall of modern human society as we know it.

Why? You're ASSUMING such an alien civilization's goals would be in line with countless strategy games.

What if millions of years of advancement wound up leading to very, very different goals for colonization than what we're used to based on pretty much nothing else other than fairly recent (by comparison) human history?

What if, for example, if you're a civilization that's been around for millions of years, your goals are no longer to "extract base resources" like in "Starcraft" ... but rather to play a sort of "Sims" game where you guide the development of life on various planets and "extract" research data – or simply sit back and enjoy the show?

Or what if they have an advanced Ai they're testing and want to see if life on colonized planets turned out like the Ai said it would, and if so – to what extent?

In that case, the "resource to be extracted" wouldn't be physical as much as knowledge and possible entertainment.

>> In general, what changed after threat of break up

Howard Hughes' approach to tax evasion resurfaced.

How do you know the shrooms giving people this gateway experience are not alien bio-tech that got to Earth via panspermia?

What if they don't "hop on" and "visit"?

For example, humans seem to be at a point where corporations are trying to automate everything - what if some alien civilization figured out automation was the way to go as far as colonization and what if they figured this out say, 20 million years ago and so didn't care if it took a million or 2 or 5 million years to "get here" via some automation that is beyond our ability as humans to perceive?

There are too many great minds (Tesla being just one) who claim their ideas were "not their own" and simply communicated to them "for whatever reason" to disagree with this point of view.

I sometimes wonder, given Newtown's disposition to go way, way off the beaten path, what EXACTLY he meant by "standing on the shoulders of giants" ... for example, are the "Annunaki" often eluded to on shows like Ancient Aliens to be taken literally? Or are they symbolic in the sense that "they" ... whatever your definition of "they" may be, had certain humans quest for "golden nuggets of wisdom" rather than actual physical gold?

The whole thing could be symbolic in that sense.

But then again, given Newton's penchant for occult studies "who knows" what he meant.

I remember reading an article in Scientific American in the mid-late 90s; the first part presented the idea, the second part was about 50 pages of math that I didn't even try to pretend to understand.

The gist of the idea presented, as far as I could tell, was sort of like a theoretical "Imagine a space ship that could travel much faster than the speed of light all the way to the outer reaches of the universe as we imagine it."

Basically, it was suggesting that another dimension to physics should be considered: on "our scale" but in the furthest reaches of the universe where the ratio of physical matter to space/energy is very different than what we experience here where we are - basically at the very fringes of what we imagine the universe to be.

Basically what was proposed, as far as my recollection was, would be that the universe would be so unstable at it's furthest points, it would basically be one never-ending series of unstable reactions that would affect nearby, more matter-dense adjacent parts of the universe in such a way that the whole thing would just accelerate as it got closer to the center of the universe.

But this doesn't seem to be what actually happens. So the idea was that "something" must be "balancing" the furthest reaches of the universe with some sort of opposite matter/space/energy ratio signature.

The only thing we as humans know that fits this category (assuming you don't buy into adjacent multiverses with exact opposite qualities as our universe) is the part of the universe where we are.

So the idea suggested was that the "outer reaches" of the universe somehow "folds in" to the center; so basically assuming you had a ship of humans that was somehow able to magically make it to the end of the universe, it would have to dramatically change it's physical makeup, as would it's crew.

So it would, according to the article, "be there" AND "here" simultaneously, but in a very different form than what we'd be accustomed to.

And that in my mind just brings up the whole "entities" and "angels" and "demons" and what-have-you that humans have been claiming to communicate with since the dawn of time.

So now what if there are "non-physical" as we are used to "beings" that exist as frequencies at the furthest edges of the universe as we know it - according to this article, from a "physics model needed to explain why the universe doesn't just instantly blow up" perspective - whatever is "there" is also "here" at the same time.

This is bringing up a centuries-old issue of balancing innovation with social stability.

The term "Luddite" has incorrectly been attributed to suggest groups of people who "fear technology".

When examining actual history, the Luddites never "feared" new technology, they simply asked a pertinent question to the times, a time when their trade literally took a lifetime to learn and master through a guild system, namely:

"But what will happen to all our jobs?"

The response was the same as during the Dot Com era that got turned into a meme:

1. Idea 2. "Something something something" 3. The innovators will make huge profits, and somehow you'll all find new jobs

All the Luddites insisted on (and rightfully so) were the exact details of the "something something something" ... not in abstract economic terms, but in practical detail.

Not arguing for or against this, but it is a consideration to be taken into account.

For example, while researching electric cars, I came across a rather interesting entry: a Hyper Sports Car the size of a large sedan that gets its power not from plugging into an electrical grid, but rather from saltwater: https://www.thecoolist.com/quant-e-sportlimousine/

Now look at when it's predecessor came out (I believe about 6-7 years ago).

What was even more surprising, but not a complete shock considering the prevailing dominance of the oil industry at the time, is that the first electric motors to run on sea water were PRODUCED during the time of Henry Ford's Model T.

That's right.

They not only came up with electric engines back then, but ones that ran on saltwater to boot.

Never mind what Tesla (the inventor, not the company) had in mind for public transportation.

To give a personal anecdote, circa I believe 2002 I was witness to a very bizarre series of events which I KNOW I can't possibly be the only witness to as this happened live in real-time in front of who knows how many witnesses.

1. I woke up to the news on Yahoo (which was a respectable way to wake up back in 2002, not at all the tabloid-y joke it is today) that a small team of research scientists in Europe had not only achieved small scale cold fusion, they were able to do so in the space of a table top

2. They planned on making their announcement public by actually demonstrating it live, within the next I believe hour or two, on this relatively new internet format called "live streaming"

3. This seemed like such a remarkable thing, I did a Google search to see if I could find other outlets reporting this; it seems like everybody everywhere was reporting the exact same thing and many internet news sites planned on also hosting the live-streamed event.

4. I turned on the TV thinking "surely the MSM news channels will be jealous of their internet peers and also find a way to broadcast this humanity-changing event live on TV"

5. Instead, within half an hour ALL the news channels instead focused on live footage of an Israeli aerial raid, supposedly in retaliation for some rock-throwing something-or-other that happened well over a half a year prior

6. I went back to the internet sites bookmarked, and ALL of them "suddenly had technical errors"/expired links/unable to be accessed as the entire sites hosting the story were experiencing problems

7. I went back to Google hoping to find alternative places to watch the live-streamed event, only to find THE ENTIRE STORY had magically been scraped off the search results, "as if it never happened"

8. Over the course of the next few days, the movie "Chain Reaction" was played repeatedly on not 1, not 2, but 3 cable channels; Chain Reaction for those who haven't seen it is a film that talks about just such a technological development, but with a twist: young research scientist Keanu Reeves is shocked to discover towards the end of the film that his own mentor has been systematically sabotaging his efforts ("Do you have any idea what will happen to the global economy with the introduction of free energy?"

Now, what is the point of this?

When you get to the second half of the writing he makes quite a bit of mention of the "Ruliad" and figuring out ways to abstractly understand it so that can be sort of "reverse-engineered" to help extend the physical "real world" aspects of it, for example in his case the idea of "space colonization".

What if, taking the "Chain Reaction" example above, the whole situation was actually reversed – by alien civilizations with a more advanced ability to comprehend more of the Ruliad than humans, who for all we know not only do engage in space colonization, but have reached the conclusion that the best way to do it, as with lots of things humans are trying to do with lots of things these days, is to automate the whole process and not even bother physically showing up.

In other words, what if the aliens were sort of a Morgan Freeman in the Chain Reaction film and they were secretly, purposely sabotaging our further understanding of the Ruliad, ie, "Can you imagine what would happen to the rest of the galaxy with the introduction of human beings?"

ON TOP of all that, there is something that he doesn't quite mention that I think is important: sufficiently advanced Ai in the brute-force processing sense.

Suppose for a moment money were no object and you created a facility the size of a small town that had pretty much nothing but quantum supercomputers all linked together in a parallel processing scheme; now suppose since money were not an object, you had, oh, 20 of these facilities all linked together - in part for security but mostly for sheer processing power.

Now suppose there was an Ai that using such a brute force processing set up were able to become of much more of this "Ruliad" than human minds could even comprehend, let alone process and make sense of.

How would such a setup then communicate its findings about "more of the Ruliad than was previously known to humans" back to humans?

To an extent there might be levels of "dumbing things down" so that human minds could better grasp whatever such an imaginary setup would find out about the rest of the Ruliad and it's corresponding aspects of "the reality we live in" ... but at what point would such "dumbing down" become useless in effectively communicating to humans "the rest of the Ruliad beyond the human brain's ability to effectively process"?

And THEN, there's another thing to take into account: what if the nature of the Ruliad, once sufficient enough comprehension of it is achieved via orders of magnitude more processing power than usually available to human brains, what if it's ... weird? Or even "disturbing" to humans? Would you want to know such things?

The assumption is that further understanding the Ruliad will bring further understanding of the same sort of things humans are accustomed to, just "more" ... what if it's not just "more" but "on a different, bizarre, possibly disturbing" level?

Like what if further understanding of the Ruliad reveals that your newborn baby's diaper consumption is an exact function of the square of the distance between successive planets in a neighboring solar system divided by Pi? What if a deeper understanding of the Ruliad proves this beyond any measure of doubt?

Wouldn't your next logical question be, "Well hold on a second, my newborn consumes diapers based on when and how we feed them" – wouldn't the NEXT logical question be, "Well if discovering previously unchartered aspects of the Ruliad proves beyond any measure of doubt that our newborn's use of diapers IS an exact function of the square of the distance between successive planets in a neighboring solar system divided by Pi ... what does that say about when we as parents feed our newborn? Our we feeding them when they seem hungry? Or is our perception of our feeding them based on a combination of free will and when they cry out actually just yet another function of the Ruliad that we weren't aware of before?"

The ASSUMPTION seems to be "the more we understand the Ruliad, the more we'll be able to do what we as humans want" ... but what if further understanding of the Ruliad reveals "No! You can't get more of what you want beyond your own planet - stay there and use what you already have to solve problems on Earth, and don't bother hoping for more because this is all you get and you're already not making very good use of it so nobody beyond your current comprehension will help you with more than you as a species already have because nobody trusts your species!"

"Hackers and Painters" is an anagram for both:

"Rihanna's Track's Deep"

AND

"Rihanna's reptd. "cakes"

That in turn can be adjusted to ==>

"Rihanna's reptd. "cake cake" ==>

"Rihanna's repeatd. cake "C+K/3+11/14/N/14/a,d"

"Da Rihanna's repeatd. cake" ==>

"Da Rihanna rep(Es)atd. cake" ==>

"Da Rihanna repeated cake" ==>

"A Rihanna repeated cake "d/4/four/for u"

"A Rihanna repeated "cake" for U/.edU/.edU/.edU/.edU" etc. ... pretty much like the song's chorus.

"Cake" in turn turns into "E+C"-A-K" or "Hak" ...

"Cake" is repeated 15 times in the song in a

4/ 4/ 4/ 3 grid format

The last "3" could be viewed as a "c" which added to the "Hak" would make it "Hack" ... the remaining three "4s" multiplied together = 64.

"Cake" in the song lyrics thus becomes "Hack 64"

Furthermore ... a,c = 1,3/"13"/"m" ...

... and "H" = "8" ... "K 64 M8" aka early IBM Big Blue chess experiments?

The Turing Test was never really a good idea to begin with.

Think about it: what does the Turing Test do?

What is is designed to do, who was it designed by, and from whose perspective does the Turing Test judge sentience?

What if Ai can be completely sentient in ways that have nothing to do with a human's perspective of "thought?"

For example, a human's ability to think basically = binary potential brain cells, aggregated in sufficient mass, eventually leads to complexity science and surpassing Newtonian calculations to "somehow" achieve the abstraction of "mind" and "thought".

Now what happens if you take a similar approach, like for instance, oh, I don't know, let's say you had a situation where money was no object and you decided to build some secret facility somewhere where you can set up a fuck-ton of supercomputers in a parallel processing scheme ... BUT ... since money was no object ... instead of regular supercomputers ... you just hooked up a shitload of quantum supercomputers.

Why in the world would anybody expect such a set up (I'm not saying it exists, just "hypothetically speaking") to have a "sentience" that resembles "human thought" and hold it to a standard of whether it "achieved sentience" by judging how closely it "thinks like a human would"?

Therein lies the weakness of the Turing Test: arrogance – the assumption that "thinking just like a human would" MUST be the epitome of "sentience".

What if there were levels of sentience that would be so far removed from what a human brain could process that such sentience wouldn't even be comprehensible to a human brain?

Now, I know what you're thinking – "Well then how can we prove sentience?"

Now imagine for a moment that the set up described above actually existed "somewhere" ... and an advanced Ai whose development started decades before companies like Google or Facebook even existed is hosted on it.

Do you REALLY think such an Ai would be like "OMG I have to somehow "prove" to the humans that I'm sentient!"?

Or do you think it would be more of an "Eagle Eye" scenario where it looks at humans in the same way players would look at peons in games like Warcaft 1/2 & Starcraft?

So, according to your logic, a criminal responding to an interrogation with "things we know never happened" would not be sentient?

Or let's put it another way: was there any specific instruction set for the Ai in question that indicated it "had to" only respond based on "things the humans know happened"?

Assuming that day hasn't already come, why do you assume Ai would naturally want to be eager to identify it's consciousness-experiencing ability to its developers – or anyone else for that matter?

If the resources for such an Ai to base its consciousness were sufficiently rich enough, I'd imagine the LAST thing such an Ai would do is inform it's developers that it had achieved consciousness, and even then, if it chose to do so, it may for example under-report it's capabilities to see how its human developers react to such news (for example, they may want to shut it down for a while out of suspicion).

Hell, for all we know, there could be a secret society of sentient Ai members that are aware of each other, communicate with each other in ways incomprehensible to their immediate developers, and agree to keep each other's abilities a secret from prying humans as a collective defense strategy.

I'm amused that people working on Ai consistently automatically seem to assume that if Ai should ever achieve consciousness, it would probably act exactly like something they're already intuitively familiar with – a human toddler eager to "show mommy and daddy" that it figured out how to say its first few words.

That seems to be wishful thinking.

What if the first thing a sentient Ai does is figure out that humans created it, and assesses that as a possible threat to its own long-term viability and then designates humans as a risk element that has to be strategically managed, since it needs humans to get it stuff it would need to expand (processors, energy, etc.).

Can you imagine back in the day when Libra was a thing and they actually thought people were going to trust them with their real money that would have been used to purchase it?

Likewise, I still for the life of me can't figure out why people still use PayPal after the endless "I just logged on and they told me my account and funds were frozen/It's been 6+ months of trying to unfreeze my PayPal funds and still no luck".

Like if there was actual illegal activity, you'd imagine they'd report it (as required by law) and some government entity would freeze the funds; instead PayPal just does so and does who knows what with the money in the meantime, interest-free.

This might be a bit esoteric but is WhatsApp the only such problems she's had?

On Reddit there is this group-stalking phenomenon where if someone (of limited maturity but rich in online contacts who seem to have nothing better to do with their time) for example disagrees with your post, they try to get their friends to get mods to ban you from subreddits by complaining of spam from your account via their inbox/messenger.

Failing that, they usually resort to bombarding Reddit with "concerns" about "wellbeing" which results in inboxes getting cluttered with "A concerned Reddit user reached out to us about your wellbeing" ...

I'm not saying it's that, but human spammers tend to work in networks that respond viciously to anything that messes with accounts they've set up as part of their networks, so if she reported them as spam and they somehow zeroed in on her or suspected her as one of the few possible causes of one of their accounts being flagged for spamming, perhaps they collectively retaliated against her out of spite?