PDA

View Full Version : Evolution in Perspective



Ghislain
07-18-2013, 12:50 PM
Evolution in perspective has trillions of permutations that cannot be predicted by the limited power
of the human brain. Yesterday people would say “computers are powerful, but not as powerful as
the human brain”. I don’t believe this to be the case today. Technology has taken off in a big and
exponential way, so much so that if you blink you miss the latest growth. It won’t be long before
computers have the power to reason, if they don’t already; today Data is King.

Square Kilometre Array (SKA (http://memeburn.com/2012/03/why-competition-for-the-ska-telescope-is-important-for-tech/)) is a project in South Africa that is being built as we speak. The SKA
Telescope is a radio telescope that consists of over 3,000 radio dishes with a total surface area of
one kilometer squared. In order for it to be effective, these dishes will be dispersed across the
continent, extending out to distance of at least 3,000 km from a concentrated central core. From
a computing perspective, the SKA central computer will have the processing power of around one-
billion PCs, performing around 10^18 operations per second.

10,000,000,000,000,000,000 operations per second!

To put this into a perspective, one estimate of neurons in the human brain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuron#Neurons_in_the_brain) is at about 100 billion
(10^11) neurons and 100 trillion (10^14) synapses. Now imagine firing every neuron in your brain
simultaneously in one second and that wouldn’t be enough for SKA.

In his book, “Climbing Mount Improbable”, Richard Dawkins states that the evolution of the human
eye (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nwew5gHoh3E) took 500,000 years. If we look at the World as a living organism then SKA is another
stage in the evolution of the World’s eye, but if we take the start of this evolution from the first
crude telescope this evolution has been exponentially quicker.

At the beginning of evolution the materials an organism needed to grow and multiply came from
that organism’s immediate area. This soon placed limitation on the size and diversity possible for
these organisms; it would be those organisms that could move to fields of greater nutrition that
would grow and diversify. Some began to realise they could let others do the work of collecting
these scarce nutritious elements and then prey on them...can you see the similarities in today’s
societies?

Is it just a case of suvival of the fittest at every fractal level?

Is this the next stage of the Earth’s evolution, to reach out to fields of greater nutrition?

Will the Earth develop a mouth? Lol

What wonders are in store for us to see, even in our short lifespan?

Have we even scratched the surface of the information that will become available to us through
the evolving technology?

I would love this to become a great discussion thread into our future direction using the
knowledge that is available to us now in the shape of the www.

Even though there is already a thread on this subject,On a Planet's Evolution (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?3170-On-a-Planet-s-Evolution), I felt that thread was heading
in a different direction and thus created this one.

Ghislain

Andro
07-18-2013, 04:20 PM
The only type of 'evolution' I can resonate with is the 'Phoenix' type... From its own ashes...

(Also perfectly in line with Alchemical Principles)

Igni Natura Renovatur Integra

From 'Babylon 5':


Dying Centauri Emperor: How will it all end?
Kosh (Vorlon Ambassador): In fire.

Ghislain
07-18-2013, 05:25 PM
Science tells us that Androgynus, as our own Sun will become a Red Giant sometime in the future and consume the Earth.

What does the future hold for us until then?

Maybe we can rewrite our future. \o/

Ghislain

solomon levi
07-18-2013, 08:30 PM
There is collective and individual evolution. I'm sure there were individuals with evolved eyes (mutants/transmutations)
5000 years before humanity as a collective had them. The individual/part of the hologram contains the whole/collective.
Apparently, there is a spearhead in time... i have seen this. If you are in the tail of the comet, it is only a matter of awareness/
perspective to shift to the (spear)head, as they are absolutely linked.
Science doesn't understand what the brain is or what a human is.... so who can say what the "human brain" is capable of. :)
As within, so without; as without, so within... the brain made computers "without". It can also make itself "within" if it were inclined,
as many mystics have shown.

Krisztian
07-18-2013, 10:08 PM
Is it just a case of survival of the fittest at every fractal level?

I think this, survival, is a human invention. The belief of it, or buying into it, certainly creates that reality however.

If you imply Ghislain, it only exists on one level (among many), I think we're onto something then, so to speak.

Love I feel is a much more of a powerful force 'of the fittest', humanity starves for it daily, would drop all things to have it, and certainly has committed much crime to possess it.


Is this the next stage of the Earth’s evolution,. . .

It seems that there're many Earths. I feel like, I live on another Planet than the way some people describe their reality. The propaganda machine has long lost it's interest to me, so what Earth is really for me is what I make it. This isn't philosophy or, philosophical.


. . . to reach out to fields of greater nutrition?

If one cannot live well in short span, what will it look like longer?

If one cannot enjoy the present, why would the future be better?


Will the Earth develop a mouth?

I believe, maybe I want to think like it, but Earth already has a mouth of sort, it's the ozone layer at the edge of our biosphere. The more toxicity is released in the atmosphere, the wider the mouth gets. And then, more radiation is eaten.


What wonders are in store for us to see, even in our short lifespan?

Probably same as before. Unless humanity grows up spiritually, it doesn't matter. Different colour and shade, but same story.


Have we even scratched the surface of the information that will become available to us through the evolving technology?

Technology can't save us. More of it just means the possibility for more control and destruction. The solution is an inner one I believe. But the moment one says that, the comment is lost because a soul-in-crises is always looking for salvation from the outside, in this case technology.

The whole iPhone world, that industry, plays off of people who're struggling with intimacy and fear of imagined abandonment. So, when one has a phone (with them at all times) that has a sense of peace about it because 'all people we love stays close to us.'

solomon levi
07-18-2013, 11:23 PM
:)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=q9ni9m2L_uI#at=69

Ghislain
07-19-2013, 07:54 AM
In the link that Sol posted above there is a quote:



"You are an explorer, and you represent our species, and the
greatest good you can do is to bring back a new idea, because our
world is endangered by the absence of good ideas. Our world is in
crisis because of the absence of consciousness."
- Terence Mckenna

Is this McKenna saying technology IS the way to go? Technology = Technical Knowledge <- why do some see technology as a dirty word?
What does he mean by “crisis because of the absence of consciousness”?
Are we not all conscious beings?

On consciousness...

If a machine was developed with the best in computing/mechanical technology and given the
rule that it must survive at all cost, would it automatically reproduce to give itself a better
chance?

Would it reproduce itself the same or change that which it found not suitable for a given task,
would it evolve?

Could a machine reason? After all what is reason but a method of weighing up the odds?

Is consciousness not just another word for reason?

Could anyone give a definite description of consciousness?

I don’t like my next question, but, “How does one define Life”?

If a machine can reason is it alive?

On love...


Krisztian: Love I feel is a much more of a powerful force 'of the fittest', humanity starves for it daily,
would drop all things to have it, and certainly has committed much crime to possess it.

What is love? IMO it is the need to have an advantage to share a burden. “You scratch my back and I’ll scratch
yours”,but trusting that the other will scratch yours if you have scratched thiers, so to speak; complete trust and
ability to compromise. You can add some fillers in between.

When one loses a loved one do you pine for them or for your own loss?

Swans pair up for life and if one should die the other pines for it...is this the same in all species...for
instance, do Ants feel a love for each other or the nest?

On technology...

Sol wrote:
Technology can't save us.

Technology certainly makes life more comfortable. Our ability to converse here is due to
technology. Can we be sure that technology isn't just an extension of Alchemical practice?

Androgynus quoted Babylon 5:


Dying Centauri Emperor: How will it all end?
Kosh (Vorlon Ambassador): In fire.

I believe it has been established that some time in our future the Sun will become a Red Giant
and consume all its satellites, but before this happens will mankind have moved on to pastures
new? I’m sure it will be technology that will aid us in that endeavor.


Sol: Science doesn't understand what the brain is or what a human is.... so who can say what the
"human brain" is capable of.

Sol do we lump all scientists together? There are some who have devoted their life to the study of the brain.
Do we know or understand what they have discovered? They may know a lot more than we realise.

On spirituality...

Is spirituality our brain's way of coping with that for which we don't have all the answers?

Don't shoot the inquirer. :( lol

Ghislain

Krisztian
07-19-2013, 06:44 PM
What is love? IMO it is the need to have an advantage to share a burden. “You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours”,but trusting that the other will scratch yours if you have scratched thiers, so to speak; complete trust and ability to compromise. You can add some fillers in between.

Love is to be free from our own neurosis to possess another, to give freely without needing anything else in return. I don't love to be loved. I already love myself.

I also trust without needing something from the person to trust them. I'm aware because of my profession that most trust with time, "one needs to prove their trustworthiness" but I have never 'operated' that way.

What you list as the definition of love isn't love. It's just conditions, the mentality of the survival complex. That's my point, there's no evolution until humanity changes their perspective, and gives without expecting something in return, loves without needing to trust another first, and so forth. So the technology while helpful yes, it is irrelevant in the bigger picture because the cycle of this reality won't release their hold on humanity until that crippled mentality is broken.


When one loses a loved one do you pine for them or for your own loss?

There's no loss. All loved ones already occupy space and this moment in ourselves. If I may share something personal, majority of my physical family has passed on. But they're with me still.

zoas23
07-19-2013, 07:45 PM
Evolution in perspective has trillions of permutations that cannot be predicted by the limited power
of the human brain. Yesterday people would say “computers are powerful, but not as powerful as
the human brain”. I don’t believe this to be the case today. (...)

Square Kilometre Array (SKA (http://memeburn.com/2012/03/why-competition-for-the-ska-telescope-is-important-for-tech/)) is a project in South Africa that is being built as we speak. The SKA
Telescope is a radio telescope that consists of over 3,000 radio dishes with a total surface area of
one kilometer squared. In order for it to be effective, these dishes will be dispersed across the
continent, extending out to distance of at least 3,000 km from a concentrated central core. From
a computing perspective, the SKA central computer will have the processing power of around one-
billion PCs, performing around 10^18 operations per second.

10,000,000,000,000,000,000 operations per second!

To put this into a perspective, one estimate of neurons in the human brain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuron#Neurons_in_the_brain) is at about 100 billion
(10^11) neurons and 100 trillion (10^14) synapses. Now imagine firing every neuron in your brain
simultaneously in one second and that wouldn’t be enough for SKA.

Which one is the square root of 34073206754067894832456897345684736897345876854936 784396?
I don't know... and it would take me a long time to figure it out.

A good pocket calculator can calculate such thing very fast. So, for some very specific tasks, a pocket calculator is already "smarter" than a human.

The problem is that a human can do by far more "mental tricks" than a pocket calculator can. The pocket calculator is like the hyperbole of a savan.... with an absolute lack of skills, except for one thing that does by far better than the average human.

Computers are not "wise"... and the problem is not the hardware, actually it is the software.
It is possible for a computer to have the capacity of processing that a million human brains have... and yet the software is still a limit.

The software always works using logic... and the problem with that is that we, humans, have not designed yet any system of formal logic that works as our brain works. The systems of logic we have designed are very stupid if we compare them with the "logic" that our own brain uses.

So I don't expect the HUGE computer to be much more than a HUGE pocket calculator with some specific skills.... a huge savant.

Ghislain
07-19-2013, 10:27 PM
Off the top of my head Zoas an approximation of the root of the figure you posted is:

5,837,225,946,806,220,000,000,000,000.00

But when squared you may be out by a few Nonillion (or Septendecillion if in the USA). :)

Artificial Intelligence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence) is at a very basic stage at this moment in time, but there is a lot out there
being produced by different companies for specific uses and these are quite advanced in the chosen
specification. It won’t take long, moving at the pace we are, before these technologies become
compatible to work together.

If we look at Human beings the way we look at AI we find the same, albeit at a different level. You
wouldn’t want me performing surgery on your brain I can assure you. I believe we have, as Humans,
a limit of processing power, which if spread too far appears quite weak, but if focused, as with some
savants (not all :)) can perform some amazing feats.

Could Einstein cook a Soufflé? Maybe he could lol

There is a PC World article (http://www.pcworld.com/article/220685/tech_of_the_future_today_breakthroughs_in_artifici al_intelligence.html) that gives some examples of AI today. If you go to the end of the slides
they give another group of slides on computing today. It’s interesting.

A more likely move for technology is to integrate it with ourselves, but at what point are we still us
and not the technology we are adding? An exercise might be to ask yourself...how many friends’ telephone
numbers can you recall without the use of your phones address book? I used to know many, but
now very few.

To go into specific details would make this post too long, but there is a vast amount of advanced
technology out there already and it’s growing every day.

I don’t agree with you that software is a limitation for a couple of reasons...I brushed with
programming briefly and found it quite easy, there are many people capable of writing any code for
ideas the Human mind can come up with; it’s just going to take a lot of imagination. Secondly there
are already AI chips called Neural Networks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_neural_network) that only need to be taught and once taught
perform better than the person who taught them, however there are some criticisms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_neural_network#Criticism).

What is wisdom but the ability to formulate the best possible outcome taking into account the many
connected data inputs that all may affect that outcome. Chess comes to mind here and that must be
pretty basic for today’s standard of computing as I couldn’t even beat my spectrum Z80 on level 2; it
had 10 levels.

I guess you need to know why you want a particular outcome...survival comes to mind here.

When you start to link these different technologies you get things such as Cars That Drive
Themselves (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_car); a bit more advanced than a pocket calculator wouldn’t you say?

Ghislain

zoas23
07-20-2013, 03:28 AM
Ghislain... The problem isn't exactly related to computer programming... and mostly related to formal logic (then again, computer programmins IS formal logic applied to computers).
If anyone had developed a system of formal logic that could emulate the way in which our brain works, then it wouldn't take much time to translate such thing to computer programming.
A car that drives itself is still a "big pocket calculator"... which doesn't mean that it's not awesome in some sense (the pocket calculator is indeed quite awesome).

Those who were into astrology during the early 90's probably remember what a pain in the *ss was to do all the maths for a simple astrological chart. Nowadays we have a software that does it and it's very awesome to have such tool.

So I take it for granted that computers can do a lot of "tricks"... and they are by far better than humans doing some of those tricks (a pocket calculator already has that power...).

One of my favorite books in a "short version":

2.01 A state of affairs (a state of things) is a combination of objects (things).
2.0124 If all objects are given, then at the same time all possible states of affairs are also given.
2.04 The totality of existing states of affairs is the world.
2.1 We picture facts to ourselves.
2.11 A picture presents a situation in logical space, the existence and non-existence of states of affairs.
2.12 A picture is a model of reality.
2.221 What a picture represents is its sense.
3 A logical picture of facts is a thought.
3.001 'A state of affairs is thinkable': what this means is that we can picture it to ourselves.
3.01 The totality of true thoughts is a picture of the world.
3.11 We use the perceptible sign of a proposition (spoken or written, etc.) as a projection of a possible situation. The method of projection is to think of the sense of the proposition.
3.12 I call the sign with which we express a thought a propositional sign.And a proposition is a propositional sign in its projective relation to the world.
3.13 A proposition, therefore, does not actually contain its sense, but does contain the possibility of expressing it. ('The content of a proposition' means the content of a proposition that has sense.) A proposition contains the form, but not the content, of its sense.
3.14 What constitutes a propositional sign is that in its elements (the words) stand in a determinate relation to one another. A propositional sign is a fact.
3.141 A proposition is not a blend of words.(Just as a theme in music is not a blend of notes.) A proposition is articulate.
3.332 No proposition can make a statement about itself, because a propositional sign cannot be contained in itself
4 A thought is a proposition with a sense.
4.001 The totality of propositions is language.
4.027 It belongs to the essence of a proposition that it should be able to communicate a new sense to us.
4.06 A proposition can be true or false only in virtue of being a picture of reality.
4.1 Propositions represent the existence and non-existence of states of affairs.
5.5561 Empirical reality is limited by the totality of objects. The limit also makes itself manifest in the totality of elementary propositions. Hierarchies are and must be independent of reality.
5.61 Logic pervades the world: the limits of the world are also its limits. So we cannot say in logic, 'The world has this in it, and this, but not that.' For that would appear to presuppose that we were excluding certain possibilities, and this cannot be the case, since it would require that logic should go beyond the limits of the world; for only in that way could it view those limits from the other side as well. We cannot think what we cannot think; so what we cannot think we cannot say either.
5.62 This remark provides the key to the problem, how much truth there is in solipsism. For what the solipsist means is quite correct; only it cannot be said , but makes itself manifest. The world is my world: this is manifest in the fact that the limits of language (of that language which alone I understand) mean the limits of my world.
5.621 The world and life are one.
5.63 I am my world. (The microcosm.)
6.13 Logic is not a body of doctrine, but a mirror-image of the world. Logic is transcendental.
6.2 Mathematics is a logical method. The propositions of mathematics are equations, and therefore pseudo-propositions.
6.21 A proposition of mathematics does not express a thought.
6.41 The sense of the world must lie outside the world. In the world everything is as it is, and everything happens as it does happen: in it no value exists--and if it did exist, it would have no value. If there is any value that does have value, it must lie outside the whole sphere of what happens and is the case. For all that happens and is the case is accidental. What makes it non-accidental cannot lie within the world, since if it did it would itself be accidental. It must lie outside the world.
6.44 It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists.
6.45 To view the world sub specie aeterni is to view it as a whole--a limited whole. Feeling the world as a limited whole--it is this that is mystical.
6.52 We feel that even when all possible scientific questions have been answered, the problems of life remain completely untouched. Of course there are then no questions left, and this itself is the answer.
6.521 The solution of the problem of life is seen in the vanishing of the problem. (Is not this the reason why those who have found after a long period of doubt that the sense of life became clear to them have then been unable to say what constituted that sense?)
6.522 There are, indeed, things that cannot be put into words. They make themselves manifest. They are what is mystical.
6.53 The correct method in philosophy would really be the following: to say nothing except what can be said, i.e. propositions of natural science--i.e. something that has nothing to do with philosophy -- and then, whenever someone else wanted to say something metaphysical, to demonstrate to him that he had failed to give a meaning to certain signs in his propositions. Although it would not be satisfying to the other person--he would not have the feeling that we were teaching him philosophy--this method would be the only strictly correct one.
6.54 My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it.)
7 What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.

It's the Tractatus Logico Philosophicus by Wittgenstein, of course.

... And it perfectly explains the limit that computers have (which is the limit that Logic has).
Logic is unable to explain the sense of the world...

Alchemy books have always been written using metaphores and riddles.... why?
There are probably several theories about it:
1) All the alchemists have been sadist assholes who wanted to torture their readers (I don't think this is the case)
2) Alchemy wanted to explain something that transcends logic and explains the sense of the world... so the texts follow what Wittgenstein wrote: "6.54 My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it.) "

The thing is: this isn't true just for Alchemy, but it's true for mostly all the interesting human activities... and it's also true for the main activities of our brain.
We are logical creatures, except that using something that is beyond logic is what makes us wise (or clever).

A computer, since computer programmins is nothing but Logic, will always be limited by Logic... unless we manage to find a "system of Logic" that transcends logic (but such thing has not happened yet).

A computer, or a pocket calculator, is nothing but a machine that can process logical operations way faster than a human.... but that's its limit.

Ghislain
07-20-2013, 10:55 AM
Zoas: A car that drives itself is still a "big pocket calculator"... which doesn't mean that it's not awesome in some sense (the pocket calculator is indeed quite awesome).

We can extrapolate that statement to include us. We are big pocket calculators!...with delusions of grandeur

Again I am in a position where to explain my point of view would take far too long so I shall summarise:

• DNA ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dna) The Program; once thought to be ROM, but now realised to be RAM. :)
• Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming), The Input & Control.
• Brain Stimulation Reward ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_stimulation_reward), The Motivation/Drive.
• Fight or Flight Response ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fight-or-flight_response), The Survival Mechanism.
• Love ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love#Comparison_of_scientific_models), Sexual Attraction & Attachment (see Attachment Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachment_theory)).
N.B. This refers to personal Love between two people and not the fluffy mythical “Love” that has no
explanation as this probably has a thread all of its own.
• Emotion ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion), The Result
• Conciousness ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness), All the above.
• DNA Nanotechnology ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_nanotechnology), One Possible Future.


For anyone to agree with what I say they must feel comfortable with the information given.

Where does this feeling of comfort come from?

It is a chemical release in the brain. We may like to believe differently, but all your emotions can be
reduced to the effect of certain chemicals.

We work to a set of complex rules and those that know these rules can bend them and use them to
their advantage; one type of this control is NLP. It is used by Leaders, Advertisers, Religions,
Casanovas, Children etc...even dogs use it with their sweet bulging eyes looking at you while you eat. lol

We can fool ourselves that we are more than automatons and we are in control, but the
complexities run too deep for us to realise the truth and so we replace the truth with fantasy to fill
in the gaps– we are evolving predictable machines...(well I’m not, but you lot are ;)). Complex
though we may be, it is the truth.

I am not saying that there is nothing more than this. I don't know if there was a creator or if it is all down
to evolution. I don't know what undiscovered forces are out there, but accepting what we are right now
is a good place to start and build upon.

We have travelled through a myriad of beliefs and gradually science has produced explanations...

Need I use clichés such as Galileo?


We live in a world full of Misinformation. Did you know the burning of witches in Salem ( http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/salem-witches-burned-at-stake)
never happened; they were hung, but that didn’t make for good movies; and Krakatowa is West of Java!

I don’t see science as a dirty word...that would be the same as saying I don’t like white people...it’s bigoted.
I do agree there has been some good science and some bad science, but that is the same in all walks of life.


I realise that science is still crude and probably hasn’t even scratched the surface of knowledge yet,
but that is the beauty of it all...there is so much more to be discovered.

Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus was published in 1921, what would Ludwig have to say if he were
alive today? Come ooon he didn’t even have television! :confused:

What I think Wittgenstein was trying to say in 6.54 was that once a truth is known there is no going back.

I'm sure the Church realised this when the world could see that Galleleo was right.

The above is written in response to previous posts, but the question still remains, can we put
evolution into perspective?

Ghislain

Ghislain
07-20-2013, 04:44 PM
Krizstian: That's my point, there's no evolution until humanity changes their perspective, and gives
without expecting something in return, loves without needing to trust another first, and so forth.

I think you could be right Krizstian, but how long would it take others to realise they could abuse people that
thought and lived that way? Are we not our own worst enemies.

Look at the film, "Slumdog Millionaire",where the child is blinded so he can get more revenue from his
begging. The world is full of arseholes and not all of them are obvious.

What I write here is just trying to put forward a case for argument. I think I feel as you do, but life gets in
the way.

I have pondered on love...a lot of people have made money out of the line, "Love is...", because everyone has
their doubts...I do love, but have to question my reason for doing so.


Krizstian:Love is to be free from our own neurosis to possess another, to give freely without needing
anything else in return.

I have never felt the need to possess another so I cannot relate to how one may link that to love, even
mistakenly.

To give freely without needing anything in return I can relate to as I love to give, but I also always get something
in return...satisfaction...but I don't need or seek that satisfaction, its a by product.

Is it foolish to blindly trust?

Ghislain

Krisztian
07-20-2013, 06:49 PM
. . . . Are we not our own worst enemies.

That's one way of saying it. That is good point.


Look at the film, "Slumdog Millionaire", where the child is blinded so he can get more revenue from his
begging. . . .

I have not seen the film you mentioned but - yes - that's quite sad and disturbing.

Ghislain
06-23-2015, 11:30 AM
check this out...

http://www.iflscience.com/sites/www.iflscience.com/files/styles/ifls_large/public/blog/%5Bnid%5D/the%20carnival%20of%20the%20animals%20and%20goodne ss%20knows%20what%20else.jpg?itok=Z6wD1W7r (http://www.iflscience.com/technology/artificial-intelligence-dreams)

Ghislain

Awani
06-23-2015, 12:15 PM
Yes I have seen those computer images. I find them very interesting as they personally remind me in "tone" of a lot of my own psychedelic experiences. They say the computer pulls these images freely out of "white noise". Perhaps this is what psychedelics do as well. They tune in to the frequency of the white noise that makes up all of reality?

:cool:

Ghislain
06-23-2015, 01:21 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njDlhdeAook

This is only going to get better...should we worry?

Ghislain

Ghislain
06-23-2015, 01:29 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FG5Tz06tcQ

Ghislain

Awani
06-23-2015, 03:23 PM
...should we worry?

Should pre-historic man worry about modern man. Yes.

Should we, no? I am all for evolution.

:cool:

Ghislain
06-24-2015, 05:52 AM
Should pre-historic man worry about modern man. Yes.

Should we, no? I am all for evolution.


Dev, not sure what you meant by "Yes" above. Are you saying pre-historic man should have worried about modern man?

If so why?

Ghislain

Awani
06-24-2015, 03:58 PM
Yes because now pre-historic man is extinct, like we will be when the AI droids take over.

:cool:

Ghislain
06-25-2015, 05:42 AM
but AI may be the reason for our extinction...is that not something to worry about?

Ghislain