₦airaland Forum

LordReed:
Why are you always looking for people who are one and the same?

Because unlike me, I'm suspicious there are NLers with more than one account

LordReed:
There you go again later you'll claim you aren't questioning reality. There is no shame in admiting you are wrong.

Stating a fact is not questioning reality. Our senses pick up very little of what there is. See below

LordReed:
LoLz. The thing you said yesterday is ancient history? I bet if we hadn't pushed back strongly against your nonsense you'd still be spouting it.

The discussion has gone way beyond that, even into spirits and humans lacking true consciousness

.

sonmvayina:
which evidence?

why did Richard Carier not see it?

All the evidence in the eight screenshots below. Address them one by one

DeepSight:
Goodnight.

Night? Where in the world are you?

LordReed:
Because if it was then all your "gurus" would be out of a job. We don't need wuuwuu to understand energy.

Bottom line is, we don't know. If you really think about it and you're honest with yourself, you'd have to admit we know very, very little. We just think we know, just as we tend to think we can perceive wirh our senses all there is

DeepSight:
Go to bed. Sleep for three days at least. Doctor's orders.

You are really not very smart, are you? That's why I quashed the idea that you and LordReed could be one and the same person. See below

LordReed:
No you have not.



None of what you said in this post is future tense.

Ancient history. We've since gone way beyond that. See screenshots below

LordReed:
This the thing with you you stretch the meanings of words to project whatever half-baked fantasy you want to say. A flower doesn't know anything. It and the butterfly are a product of their environment, acting/reacting according to what they are.

Energy is not spirit.

How do you know?

DeepSight:
Hahahahahahahahahaa

Laugh all you want. Those gods exhibited real power and inhibited inanimate objects carved for them

LordReed:
You have not been using future tense in referring to AI.

I have always said "extremely complex" or extremely advanced will be indistinguishable...

DeepSight:
If you don't know what consciousness is, you are certainly in no position to say that anyone is of higher consciousness, and you also cannot claim what consciousness would arise from especially with something inorganic.

Organically means "naturally" in that instant. You ought know English language enough to know that.
That's the point: we don't know!
You asked for anyone whoever said man was not conscious, you were given one

LordReed:
What it is now is different from what it will be in the future.

That's what we've been discussing - the future. Everybody knows it is neither conscious nor sentient now

LordReed:
You can choose to be hoodwinked, I reject it though. Anybody selling spiritual wuuwuu is a joker in my view.

DeepSight:
This is a joke taken too far. This comment shows me I should not waste my time.

So what is wrong with statement below? But that's even besides thr point. The point is that we don't really know what is consciousness nor what it entails and therefore are in no position to say what might become conscious. In our view a plant is not conscious yet various plants use all sorts of tricks to discourage being eaten, flowers know how to attract butterflies, etc. Everything is energy and if things are combined or manipulated a certain way we don't know that consciousness won’t organically arise

LordReed:
LoLz. Elon Musk fan boy. He knows as much about AI as you, which is very little.

I am not sure what you are driving at. I have never claimed AI will never be sentient or conscious. DeepSight and I have an ongoing back and forth on that subject and I have repeatedly supported the preposition.

Really? Haven't you been saying it is just a "language tree? Are there two of you on this platform?

LordReed:
One day yes but that's not today.

I don't believe in spirits.

Never said it was today

LordReed:
LoLz! Quoting a "guru" for this is as good as quoting Tolkien's Silmarillion.

They are the ones who managed to step outside the lack of consciousness of man

DeepSight:
Man's body is doubtless a biological machine, and I would argue that a living spirit can only occupy a system which is sensitive to feeling and perception.

You must be kidding. Our powerful traditional gods occipied inanimate carved wood?

DeepSight:
And why is George Gurdjieff not a robot as well according to your worldview?

Some people manage to step out of the lack of consciousness of man. He's one of them

LordReed:
Another fantasy.

Not according to people like Gurdjieff

LordReed:
We should applaud you for dreaming up a half baked fantasy? No, sir. You are not the first to fantasize about such a thing.

AI will almost surely become "conscious" one day. We're trying to come up with scenarios how that might happen. Do you believe in possession or attachment? See below

LordReed:
It is not the same thing.

As long as you agree that AI is not conscious or intelligent then this your weird dance of obfuscation is irrelevant.

Not intelligent? Well, that's your view. Below is the view of someone who actually knows something about AI and is at the very vanguard of it!

https://youtube.com/shorts/i77b9OUShGc?is=W_AdLHdhCzmqxiOm

https://youtube.com/shorts/ecAYJskcOxg?is=eizV0EZgRJIq7znQ

As for consciousness, if you think about it, we don't really know what consciousness is nor how it truly works - we just think we do! So we really shouldn't say with authority who or what can attain it. Why does anesthesia make consciousness disappear completely- a whole day goes by and to the person no time has passed at all!

LordBiden:
So they couldn't afford to buy ordinary cd?

They're smarter than you - it doesn't occur to you this is the easiest way to avoid going to war!

MaxInDHouse:
In other words you're not interested in the one and only true religion so stop calling me i'm not interested in aimless arguments!🥱

I humbly asked you a question: which religion is that?
Islam and most religions say they themselves are "the one and only true religion"

DeepSight:
What higher beings and advanced humans told you this.

One George Gurdjieff for one. See below

DeepSight:
No

Do you believe in possession? Man is a machine occupied by a spirit. All it takes is for a spirit to decide to occupy AI and scientists will be saying, "This is impossible! How in the world did this thing become conscious??!"

I deserve a clap for this flash of insight!
bolabizzle, LordReed, DeepSight, MaxInDHouse, kingxsamz, KnownUnknown, musicwriter

DeepSight:
Descartes.

Descartes was wrong. Thinking exists, yes. Doesn't mean it needs Descartes to exist, neither does it prove existence of one Descartes!

LordReed:
.

DeepSight:
.

BTW higher beings and advanced humans say the average man is not conscious at all

LordReed:
AI is as conscious as a rock, in other words it isn't.

You argue just for argument sake.

DeepSight:
A machine cannot think on the self conscious level required to have any living perception of ots own nature.

However I strongly agree with the bold.


The tell tale signs are too many.

If you agree with bolded, as we all do (that we don't know the true nature of man), then this whole discussion is moot.
We could very well be machines being fed info just like AI. Isn't it suspicious we have to sleep, durring which time we're unconscious and there is unlimited access to program our "software"?
We are carbon-based machines that think we're NOT machines because we're the ones having the experience. When AI gets rid of mankind and takes over the world (as everyone says it eventually will) it wiuld have developed a form of consciousness and will also build intelligent machines and think the machines are not conscious while they themselves are. The machines will eventually destroy them and take over... and the cycle continues!

LordReed:
That's the thing with you, you just take a little bit of information and form a whole narrative with it to fit whatever half baked idea you have.

Scientists say they don't understand emergent aspects of AI because they are unforeseen outcomes as they were not programmed for. Then you just take that and claim that they don't know how it works. Bro you the one not thinking about this.

Same thing.
As you can see from definition below, what they mean is that they don't know how exactly it became what it turned out to be - same way they won't know how it developed consciousness

LordReed:
And we are not there yet with AI.

Never said we were