"Intelligence" covers a lot of ground and many skills.
Computers can in fact BEHAVE intelligently in many ways; they don't have consciousness or comprehension, but just as machines can outrun you, they can also be made to outthink you in many ways -- as with a simple calculator. YOU can do math -- a mental activity -- and so can a computer.
And your belief that programming brings a one-to-one correspondence to a computer's actions is simply wrong, especially in larger software and doubly so when the software is working (as conversational AI in particular does) with inputs from humans (who have free will and behave in chaotic ways) and from the natural world, where the unexpected and nonlinear data streams are common.
Those are some of the reasons that even with millions of people beta-testing a new release of (say) MAC OS, and hundreds or thousands of programmers working to perfect the software, the program STILL does things no one expected it to (or wanted it to, in most cases).
Boomers get a bad rap, but starting in the 60s they damn near obliterated racism in the United States.
Well, that's an overstatement; racism never completely went away, but the dramatic shift in attitudes, from looking down on others based on skin color to "we're all brothers and sisters" was started in earnest by teens and others in the 60s. The Beatles refused to play for any segregated audience when they came to America in 1964, and I've never heard of a fan being upset by that. Racism was already on it's way to being disreputable.
By the the time Blazing Saddles came out in 1974, racism had faded to the point where making fun of it was commonplace enough that the often-hilarious Mel Brooks comedy wasn't even controversial.
Such a movie couldn't even be MADE today, here in the land of the Easily Offended and Triggered, where your skin color DEFINES you -- at least to those on the far Left.
I look forward to the return of sanity on this issue (and on plenty of others).
I agree. Sentience is not created by the action of subatomic particles in any system. Of course, computers don't HAVE to be sentient to create problems. And they can ACT convincingly like humans without being conscious.
https://greatawakening.win/p/17txagIphk/a-scientific-reminder-that-you-a/
. . . consciousness is a quantum phenomenon because it has all the peculiar characteristics of a pure quantum state, i.e., it is a definite and a private state, and so is a pure state which is not clonable., i.e., cannot be copied and therefore cannot be known by any observer. Therefore, such a state, if knowable at all, is knowable only by the system that is in that state. This crucial insight reflects remarkably the phenomenology of our inner experience.
If the current idea that consciousness emerges from the functioning of the brain were correct -- where the brain is thought to be like a classical computer -- then a computer could be conscious. But then consciousness could be copied like we routinely copy computer programs, which is classical information. Yet we know perfectly well that our experience is in constant evolution and is private, knowable only within ourselves. Moreover, the meaning we feel always exceeds any symbolic description we may produce to describe it. Therefore, even the owner of the experience (described by quantum information) can only translate a portion of its experience into symbols (described by classical information). [Emphasis in original]
Irreducible: Consciousness, Life, Computers, and Human Nature by Federico Faggin, 2024. Preface, p. 4
When I say digital computers will not become sentient, it's because I don't believe sentience is created by the action of subatomic particles in any system.
https://greatawakening.win/p/17txagIphk/a-scientific-reminder-that-you-a/
. . . consciousness is a quantum phenomenon because it has all the peculiar characteristics of a pure quantum state, i.e., it is a definite and a private state, and so is a pure state which is not clonable., i.e., cannot be copied and therefore cannot be known by any observer. Therefore, such a state, if knowable at all, is knowable only by the system that is in that state. This crucial insight reflects remarkably the phenomenology of our inner experience.
If the current idea that consciousness emerges from the functioning of the brain were correct -- where the brain is thought to be like a classical computer -- then a computer could be conscious. But then consciousness could be copied like we routinely copy computer programs, which is classical information. Yet we know perfectly well that our experience is in constant evolution and is private, knowable only within ourselves. Moreover, the meaning we feel always exceeds any symbolic description we may produce to describe it. Therefore, even the owner of the experience (described by quantum information) can only translate a portion of its experience into symbols (described by classical information). [Emphasis in original]
Irreducible: Consciousness, Life, Computers, and Human Nature by Federico Faggin, 2024. Preface, p. 4
I agree with you . . . digital computers will not become sentient.
They don't NEED to be sentient to ACT as if they were, however.
They don't NEED to be sentient to follow their million-line code in ways that the programmers didn't expect. And both real-world situations and human behavior throw things at an AI that simply cannot be anticipated or programmed adequately for.
Sentience isn't the issue here at all. Behavior is.
Mpox is what they're calling Monkey Pox now, and it IS being called a public health emergency in Africa. My guess is it's one of several candidates for the Big One to help steal the election and to restart / continue the Great Reset's destruction of Western Civilization (lockdowns, etc).
An outbreak of mpox has been declared a public health emergency in Africa with fears the virus may spill across international borders.
Scientists from the Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (Africa CDC) say they are alarmed by the speed at which a new strain of the highly infectious illness, previously called monkeypox, has been spreading.
It is passed on through close contact with infected people, including via sex, with the latest outbreak in the continent beginning with the spread of an endemic strain known as Clade 1.
The United Nations health agency said there have been more than 14,000 cases and 524 deaths this year, which already exceeds last year’s figures. So far, more than 96% of all cases and deaths are in the Democratic Republic of the Congo but it has spread to neighbouring countries and been detected in at least 13 African nations.
Compared with the same period last year, the CDC said cases are up 160% and deaths have increased by 19%. The World Health Organisation said mpox was recently identified for the first time in Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda and Uganda — with all of those outbreaks linked to Congo.
From the Alex Jones article posted by ashlanddog:
Now, when I try to log into my account, “X” has no memory of me and no record of my email. People who can see my “X” account say that my face has been removed and my name, replaced by a blank head and shoulder icon, and that all my posts are posted by “dot”. As in “. posted on August 11, 2024.”
So her account IS up, but she can't log on or even see her posts, much less post new material, and when I visited her existing posts were shown as posted by ". @naomirwolf".
. . . "the number of his name"
THAT always seemed odd, but now that we have everything computerized and computers ONLY operate on digital languages -- languages written in base-2 numbers -- it seems chillingly prescient.
prescient | ˈpreSH(ē)ənt | adjective having or showing knowledge of events before they take place: a prescient warning.
. . . love love love as God does.
Yes! -- Whatever we do, it must come from a foundation of love, because love causes no harm to others yet leads us to reject and oppose evil.
That foundation of Love is SO important that Jesus told us it was how others could tell if we were Christians. Not words -- demons and psychopaths can proclaim they are Christians without blinking an eye -- but living a life guided by love of others.
That is also how I know Donald J. Trump is a Christian. Not by his profession of faith; by his actions in the real world.
John: 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. 13:35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
I understand, but of course the interview wasn't aimed at you -- or the rest of us who have been on-board with making America sane, prosperous, free, and great again for years.
The interview was for everyone else -- the millions who are in the process of waking up or even just now STARTING to open their eyes to reality. THEY are the ones who need to hear the truth, not those of us who have already awoken to it.
This program is for developers, the people who create non-Apple-brand software that you find for sale in the App Store and elsewhere on the web.
They won't become Apple employees (for the most part; it's always possible that some will apply for a job there and get hired). They won't be redesigning MAC OS or anything.
Ben Carson, Rand Paul, and possibly Mike Huckabee would likely have done well -- although nowhere as near as well as did Trump -- but the rest?
A nightmare.
I was had a horrible pit in my stomach for months leading up to the election, knowing what would happen to America (and thus the world) if Hildog won.
forswear | fôrˈswer |
verb (past forswore | fərˈswɔ(ə)r, fɔrˈswɔ(ə)r |; past participle forsworn) [with object] formal
agree to give up or do without (something): he would never forswear the religion of his people.
• (forswear oneself/be forsworn) swear falsely; commit perjury: I swore that I would lead us safely home and I do not mean to be forsworn.
In a hypothetical with the above assumptions, I see no moral dilemma.
I don't either. No harm, no foul.
But with all the close-in and many thousands of further-out real-time witnesses, I don't believe the scenario is credible.
Perhaps Q will let us in on the details at some point. I doubt it, but there's a lot I'd love to know about MANY situations and events that Q might choose to share with us later, and I hope that happens, at least for some things.
I agree with most of your points.
I keep getting stuck on the (seeming) fact that actual bullets were flying around and that four people were shot: Trump and three in the audience, one of whom died. Again, hard for me to believe that was part of The Plan by our guys.
I also don't believe that even having Trump's security being overseen by military intelligence would make Trump 100% safe from assassins. I don't believe ANYTHING can make someone 100% safe from assassins, anymore than I believe traffic fatalities or other types of tragedy can be 100% avoided. Put simply (and crudely): Shit happens. You can't predict or prevent everything. This is war, and war NEVER goes as planned.
My belief is that somehow or other, security at Trump's public events had been eroded despite White Hat efforts.
That's scary because it suggests other important elements (the military generally, for instance) are in FACT compromised to the extent they visibly seem to be, instead of being mostly intact except for outward-facing masks of incompetence and Wokeness.
I could be wrong and of course hope to Hell that I am.
Good point. I've always looked at the millions of innocents over the years and centuries, Christians and otherwise, who beseeched God to save them from one horror or another, and died anyway. For that matter, we've all known good and decent people, including loved ones in some cases, who died or were horribly harmed but "could have been saved" if only God intervened. There's WAY too much of that for me to believe that God is both loving AND personally involved in everything that happens here on Earth. One or the other, perhaps, but not both.
Not a popular viewpoint here, but it's not something I can't shake.
https://qalerts.net/