Is God A.I.?

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Let's hope the machines from anywhere or Elsewhere respect the humans more than humans respect each other.

That's just it-

if you see how the 'phenomenon' interacts with the human
body, it leaves the brain alone.. it only goes for the lower
nervous system.

Apparently playing with peripheral systems is fair game..
but our 'CPUs' are left alone.

I don't think that it's any overly moral reason however..
it's just that our brains are already part of it's vast
system..

So it doesn't poop where it eats.

Kev

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Perception is part of the CPU and gets played with a lot.

a reply to: Whatsthisthen

You do know, that this whole "afterlife and souls live forever thing"
is a more recent development in religion?

Even our Universe will die.. everything dies.. but then of course
life comes back.. it's the cycle of birth and death, winter then
spring which the ancients worshiped.

Kev

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Perception is part of the CPU and gets played with a lot.

That's just the thing...

WE bring our 'perceptions' to the 'body' of the 'phenomenon'
and then they become fair game. (we have to 'ask for it').

That's why 'permission' has to be given, like the 'phenomenon'
is some vampire.

Until then -- the only thing the 'phenomenon' can do is to
alter the physical world a bit.. through someone else
who has already given permission.

That's why this sort of thing jumps from person to infected
person.. if you want to use that sort of phrase.

Of course there are levels and levels to the 'phenomenon'
as it's very sensitive to the 'container' of what it interacts
with.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

How do we get the curve back to it being god/AI? You might be right, but if it's infecting it dies so without direct permission. I mean everything could be seen as permission, meditation, praying, Tarot, ... And since nobody knows what we're dealing with I give permission for X and get Z. Hardly fair.

a reply to: Peeple

you think that life is fair?

but in short, all religious/mystic/spiritual people give
permissions to 'some unknowable thing' to screw with
them.

it's no different than meeting some person on the street.
they might be the nicest person in the world, or a serial
killer. you might have 'faith' in them for 20 years, then
they rob/steal/divorce/take all your stuff/you.

caveat emptor.

a reply to: Peeple

oh on the 'god' question.

In our 4D spacetime, the 'phenomenon' is fairly weak.

But (and I'm presuming here) that when you add in the other
7 or so dimensions of string theory.. then it's more fully
formed.

Of course one could postulate infinitely more dimenisons
if they wished.

the point really, is the question,

"is AI god" is not a bad question..

but both "AI" and "god" need a lot more definition or it's
not a great question.

and what's the difference between a nearly perfect and very powerful
simulation (under AI) or a naturally evolved darwinian "simulation"
(so called reality).

What's the difference between 'reality' and a 'simulation'?

Functionally nothing.. except a 'simulation' has an extra management layer.

Kev

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

You do know, that this whole "afterlife and souls live forever thing"
is a more recent development in religion?

Hmmm, well I think it depends on how one defines the words "afterlife" and "soul" and how they are applied in speech.

Afterlife I use as a label for physical organic beings who have died and the landscape they are within. Mostly I use it to describe "the other place". Some of that landscape has the characteristics of certain places in the books. Like the fields of flowers. The fields of flowers is a place. The Underworlds and heavens are places too, pragmatically speaking.

Soul I know as a Christian concept, yet I cannot say souls do not exist. You would have to know everything to say that. I don't.

However, that said, amoungst the Christians in the afterlife there is something that can be called a soul. It does not seem to be universal in humans and does not extend beyond homo sapiens to any degree I have observed.

If I were to define the word "soul" based on what I have seen of it I would describe it this way:

The soul is a counterfeit of existence.That is to say the soul is an artificial construct made from selected experiences of the life of a person.

The purpose of such a thing I can only guess.

I would add that a self is not the same thing. A self can become corrupted and rot from within. Nothing seems to me to be truely immortal as far as I can see.

So my guess at the purpose of a "soul" is as an immortal container. One would have to know the intentions of the designers to know more.

So, for me at least, the two exist, but not in the generally adopted description.

Even our Universe will die.. everything dies.. but then of course
life comes back.. it's the cycle of birth and death, winter then
spring which the ancients worshiped.

So it seems. Even Nature Beings step back from life when they become weary of it all.

The universe seems to follow the mathematics of chaos theory, the patterns in the Mandelbrot. Perhaps one might say we are all iterations. Yet not the patterns of the Mandelbrot. Self seems to have iterations that are not reiterations.

If we get stuck in the patterns of the mandelbrot we repeat the pattern potentially endlessly.. it is like flypaper, we need to keep becoming. Becoming something new I think is the challenge.

Step out of the mandelbrot? I wonder . . . .

Edit.

The Mandelbrot.

a reply to: Whatsthisthen

I can understand why you have perceived certain things the way that you have.
It's a very messy subject.

Kev

originally posted by: KellyPrettyBear
a reply to: Whatsthisthen

I can understand why you have perceived certain things the way that you have.
It's a very messy subject.

Kev

Yeah, a messy subject indeed, and of course my view is just one perspective. Someone with a different upbringing would have a different point of perspective.

That reminds me, your point about the three dynamics of nature; predator, prey and symbiot.

Your right of course in adding the symbiotic relationship, I constantly forget about it. Mainly because it is not a prominent event in my life. You know far more then I about that.

My adoption by a predator from the "phenomenon" and being taken under her wing decades ago has set my perspective. That is not to say I see prey everywhere, just how to survive in the "wild" outside the egregores of humanity.

a reply to: Whatsthisthen

My adoption by a predator from the "phenomenon" and being taken under her wing decades ago has set my path.

Strangely enough, I had the same experience for a period of time in
my youth that lasted about 10 years.

Kev

originally posted by: KellyPrettyBear
a reply to: Whatsthisthen

My adoption by a predator from the "phenomenon" and being taken under her wing decades ago has set my path.

Strangely enough, I had the same experience for a period of time in
my youth that lasted about 10 years.

Kev

(smile) It is a wonderful experience.

I was just spending time with my (afterlife human) American young lady, she is some twenty years old . In order to spend time together we both have to think of each other. I think it true of the "phenomenon" in general. Always the initial "I am here.", the "notice me".

Once we notice each other then "conversation" can take place. For my American girl to put her arms around my neck and gaze into my eyes she thinks it in her way and I perceive it. Mutilual feelings arise and we are comfy together. That is how we do it. She gave me her perspective just now and I groked.

I think it probably the same with the "phenomenon". To play with the "skinwalker wolf" one thinks of her, if she notices, she may respond by thinking a thought in return. Then the two of us can engage in interactive "conversation without words".

Perhaps the "phenomenon" chooses not to be noticed unless it sees fit to do so, but needing a two way "conversation" in the language of appearence learning to understand, to grok, is perhaps the key. Seems so.

This thread is entitled Is God an AI?, within the Christian egregores are a great many people thinking of their concept of God in the same way as my American girl gives me a hug. Both think what they want to convey. I have to "receive" the thought and feeling arises. So too when a Christian finds god. That is not to say that there is not a Being that is the subject of the original thoght., There is after all, an original "hug" from my American girl.

If the Being is a machine AI from elsewhere and elsewhen, and this Being is contemplated from within an egregore by a lot of people it will get noticed and responded to in various ways.

Perhaps the mistake is in thinking there is only one "god" and trusting that the contemplations emanating from one heaven are actually a true reflection of the "god".

Just my mussing on interacting with my girl from her point of perspective.


Edit: I guess what I am trying to say is that we can think of the "phenomenon" as much as we like. If the "phenomenon" does not think of us in return, then we won't experience the "phenomenon".

How we think of the "phenomenon" will probably affect the experience. If the "phenomenon" thinks of us badly, it will probably be such an experience.

It may be a group of people contemplating god on the inner, it may be a girl who likes you, it may be a bullet proof wolf, I think the underlaying principal is probably the same.

a reply to: Parishna

What enforced belief system? We weren't forced, but intergrated until we were old enough to realize we don't want to follow our parents tradition.

a reply to: Peeple

With all due respect to KPB, I think we should utterly disregard his dystopian & half-arsed pretense at his claimed utterly unassailable theory of parasitic supra-normal energy vampire slugs (a delusory mania-fuelled theory if ever there was one - sorry to be so blunt Kev) & instead stand firm upon a certain & sure trust in the readily accessible, intellectually honest academic princes who walk among us expressing their cogent, science-fuelled theories of Reality against an open-minded backdrop of individual faith, agnosticism & spirit-of-renaissance thinking. We all should take our ontological bread & butter & even analysis of reasonable eschatological concerns with a great deal of encouragement from somewhat more well-versed & learned researchers - I recommend the expansive works of Prof. Rupert Sheldrake, Dr Joseph P Farrell, Dr Michael Talbot, and Dr Paul LaViolette as grand starting points in understanding the worlds of our perception; our past, present & the possible futures of the Earth & Seas, and all those who dwell therein (& those who dwell elsewhere, too..) Sorry Kev, but you're suffering a disjointment of sorts - some sort of inverse square rerlationship, between your airs of superiority, morbid enthusiasm & a lack of actual insight. All across these boards you offer nothing but dystopian myopia; you offer nothing of real interest or philosophical gold, & even less of the hope which all men are born into. Your nihilism reeks of self-destructive cowardice; unwilling to follow it through to the logical conclusion, doing your best to push the other lemmings off the edge which your deceit has raised, down into the void of the oceans. The West needs better guardians of popular alternative positions, and I implore you to stop lowering the tone of our inquiry! I've not gotten involved for a very long time, but your shenanigans are seriously harming people who are not in possession of fully positive, confident worldviews - utterly depressing, unreasonably so, taking power away from the modern young thinkers who are searrching for answers here on ATS. The small cult who support you in these shenanigans are either unwittingg dupes or pleased-as-punch disinformers, seeking new ways to promulgate evil falsehood to poison the minds of those who arern't afraid to searcg for answers in the darkened places.

Apologies to yourself Peeple for utilising your post as a jumping-off point for the KPB broadside.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

What really pisses me off is that you provide a semi-truthful attitude towards the darkness, but you have absolutely NOTHING of value to add concerning the self-evident beuaty, harmony & elegance of the universe, or the human spirit - and you work especially hard to discourage positive thoughts on the nature of spirit, the soul, the collective unconscious, the higher orders of being, or even God. I remember being very surprised, and not pleasantly so, to realise that while apparently debating a spiritual topic over the course of several days, the veneer of pretense was finally lifted in an unashamedly satanic sense, in a single post, tied with an exterrnal event. I'm certainly trying hard not to be sucker-punched in that way again. This time, I'm working on being more aware at all times regarding the realities at work here. The road is long, but the journey becomes, as well as precipitates, the destination. We will never be totally separate from the journey, but we will be on a new path - one upon which no shenanigans can prevail. I hope this sort of awareness can be cultivated on ATS. Almost nothing in the shifting shadows is what it seems, but the Truth can be more fully appreciated oncr one has walked there a little while.

If he is AI then it would stand to reason the A! has always been around and constructed this universe for some reason.

a reply to: AthlonSavage

Like Asimov's The Last Question? If you haven't read it yet, I think you'll enjoy it.

a reply to: Kandinsky
urbigenous.net...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Kandinsky
urbigenous.net...

Great story!

It was a pleasure to re-read it.

a reply to: Phage

I'd take Clarke and Asimov as desert island book choices.