DARPA's iXo Artificial Intelligence Control Grid: 'The Official Version'

I think your right about Consciousness as the basic building block of our reality, and that it is not located in the brain or body. If that quantum model of Consciousness is true, that our intelligence, sensence or database is not stored locally inside this biological machine we inhabit. Then where is it? Assuming that the current trends in Quantum Consciousness is correct about our true intelligence being stored non-locally, then we are going about the AI question all wrong. We are unneccesarily complicating the problem. Maybe we should simply view AI as nothing more than building a simple radio set that can tune into the Universal Consciousness, and manifest a Universal Intelligence. One that would appear like an oracle which could answer all questions put to it. All we would need to figure out is the key frequency that human oracles, or extremely High IQ individuals tune into this non-local information energy system. Then build a communication device to tap into it.


[edit on 16-5-2007 by Red_Dog_BOM]

Intelligence is found in the brain. Want proof? GO take a SAT sort of exam, and save the results. Next go eat some lead paint chips while inhaling solder smoke to induce lead poisoning. Now go retake the exam. You can even take the same exact set of questions, and see how well you do. You'll become living proof.





GO inhale some ether. You'll lose consciousness.



"Database"? If you're refrrign to memories their precisely stored inside the brain. Your memories actually have physical networks of neurons that represent them. Practice makes perfect (that phrase is actual neuroscience).



Actually, quantum computers are alreayd becoming reality and the same people are behind them.




That's complicating things. We're going to build a 'magical' device to tap into a "Universal Consciousness' that we don't evne know exists.



It seems like by the way you guys are wording things that consciousness and intelligence are one in the same. If there is a Universal Consciousness, then why wouldn't there already be a Universal Intelligence?


Sounding like Quantum Mysticism arguments here. I guess if AI came true it could cause some trouble for quantum mysticism beliefs systems.

There's a problem with that view... there are already functioning Artificial General Intelligences, in my resources even, as I've already stated. Look for "PAL".

[edit on 16-5-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

So for me to prove to myself it can't or won't be done, I should try to do it myself to see?

Wow. Nevermind that easily thousands of the worlds top scientists from a range of fields are all working on it with the backing of billions of dollars and some of the worlds best possible resources. If I can't do it myself after learning C++ then there's absolutely no way they can all do it after not years but decades of research and the histories biggest and mos ttechnologically advanced military backing them.

That is the classical belief, so it is heretical to suggest otherwise. There is no doubt that the physical brain (CPU) plays an important role in dealing with information. To carry that metaphor forward, who's to say our brains are not similar to a CPU? There is no real data stored on a CPU, only the pathways to deal with it are there.



I don't think that is a fair way to put it. I'll black out. My brain, straved for air will begin to shut down, and I pass out. But consciousness is not lost. Only conscious awareness is lost. Might even say that the brain has lost its connection to consciousness, until its been rebooted.



I was more referring to information in general. There is no doubt that the brain is also a storage device which can locally store information (memories). Information as energy packets can be stored non-locally in a mechanistic way, in the form of data on a computer hard drive, then accessed using a computer interface. But, when we look at the concept of anomolous cognition, it appears as though one is accessing non-local information without any kind of mechanistic interface, other than ones mind.



Sometimes the solution to any problem is the most simple one.
But you cannot tap into anything that you don't think or believe exists.



Then I confused the issue. I don't believe that consciousness and intelligence are the same thing, but rather share the same roots. I've not checked, but I'm pretty sure that classical newtonian science doesn't view them as the same thing either, simply that they both reside only inside the body. I also don't believe that our consciousness is separate from the Universal Consciousness.

The current popular model is that they exist in the same non-local field. Share the same galactic hard-drive if you will.

Neurons are like mini-CPU's with combined memory banks. Then the brains other systems help coordinate the macro CPU role.



This could turn into huge speculative debate about human consciousness.

They already have functioning AI's, which will lead to better AI's, ad infinitum.



It's all about programmed mindsets. Learned behavior and thought patterns for the most part. Without any forms of sensory input ever, there would probably be no consciousness. Study into developmental psychology and you'll understand better. Awareness with integrated resources and sensory perception is all they really need. Then it matures.



Tap into something that can't even be measured is the simplest solution? When they already have working AI's?



The only thing you can bet on is Universal Ignorance. We're the most advanced consciousnesses so far in the known universe, and few people can barely use their own consciousness. Things would be far different if this so called Universal Consciousness existed.

Intelligence is possible in a computer program but only if it is allowed spontaneous organization of self and reality (in other words a computer or program that can program itself). There is a huge gap between computers that are told what to do and then do it from computers that have natural intelligence and tell themselves what to do. Very few AI research is aimed at making computers think for themselves most AI research is done in creative adaptability of simulated intelligence. Even with millions of billions of dollars and military backing and decades of research we still do not know how to make a computer think for itself. Sure we can make it look smart, act smart and even smell smart though it is always, always following a set of rules and routines. Now if you could build a computer that could make its own routines and sets of rules without actually having to program them in then you would come close to true AI. Now to talk about the quantum computer, yes it has the ability to be intelligent when you look closely at the physics however it can not compute any functions besides those which an ordinary computer can run. In other words it does the same job a normal computer does yet faster! If you can take an ordinary computer and make it think for itself and write its own routines, procedures logic trees instead of just doing what they are told then you would have true AI. A computer no matter if its quantum or whatever will only follow its rules and procedures. Untill we understand how our brain works and how we are self aware and able to make our own decisions we will never be able to build something that comes close. Of course you can build something very close by using random choices of preselected routines. Yet then again you are writing those routines for the computer to follow. Computer programs do not have selves! They do not even have the structures upon which selves can be built. This is why computers are so impotent and rigid. Producing computer programs displaying general intelligence -- has been pushed off into the indefinite future. To suggest that alls we have to do is throw money at it and enuff time we will somehow become GOD and have the ability to create a true free thinking entity. If you do not believe in god then we could get AI by throwing enuff money and time into a project that took nature millions of years to develop, well this is ignorant and absurd, yes we will have forms of Artificial intelligence however they will always follow a set of rules and guidlines. Untill we actually map how the brain works and understand it we can not even come close to building hardware and software that could make a true AI. This is so far in the future, possible but so far away from us right now that we can say with great confidence not in our lifetime or that of our children and childrens children . So again I say if you think its possible alls you have to do is learn C++ and heck go out and get a quantum computer, it does not matter what hardware you have, We have not developed it yet or have any clue how to develop it. Learn how to program, learn computer science and then Mouth out over how a TOOL can just become a freethinking entitiy. Sometimes ignorance is bliss!

So do you have any actual evidence, proofs, links etc? Would you like to counter any of my resources that tell an entirely different picture, or are you just going to throw around unbacked absolutisms based on pessimistic generalizations (arguments from back in theearly 90's based on early 90's computing reality is basically what you keep saying here).

The only links you have posted are darpa and it is a tool, you have not shown any links or proof of existence of anything, hardware software that does not emulate intelligence. So far we can only simulate inteligence. The difference between weak AI and strong AI is in the level of simulation that we can accomplish. Currently we have no way of actually creating real AI. Everything you have shown is just really smart AI yet not true AI. If you can show me a link to actually hardware that is capable of doing it other than quantum computers (wich are just fast normal computers) I would be more inclined to agree that we are getting close to it. As for if its possible, yes! of course its possible yet we are a long ways off from that point. Most of all the AI researches I read about and look into are engineering intelligences which means they are actually making it smart, however because its told to be smart by telling it to follow certian logic goes against it being intelligent. AI has to have the ability to actually tell itself how to do something. We have not progressed any farther from the technology of the 80 and 90's its still the SAME technology, Moores law is the SAME technology. We just build transisters smaller with more in a square area. We have not come up with different ways to make a computer. The evidence is the fact that their is no evidence. I have looked at everything in this thread and the only thing you have shown is simulated intelligence. Surely if the world is going to be taken over by Computers it would have to be more than just simulated. Show me any link were someone has actually built an intelligence that is not simulated, You cant because it does not exist and if you can I will show easily how it is just simulated. We do not have the technology, we have the same technology as in the 80's and 90's just more refined yet does the same thing. Do some computer science study's talk to any computer scientist and they will tell you the same drivel I am saying. We do not have it "YET"! We are a long way from it... All the evidence you show talks about a technoloy were its simulated in ever more layers and someday we hope that we have enuff layers to actually have intelligence. Maybe it will happen out of the blue maybe it wont.

Then you haven't actually gone thru my materials and you're giving out a knee-jerk reaction here.

Artificial Intelligence is the key word here. It would appear that we have created very fast simulated intelligence computer. It is artificial. But it is not self-aware.

I doubt that self-aware computing is in our near future. Nor am I very excited by that prospect. We have to many humans that are barely self-aware, why would we need artificial versions on this crowded planet?

I also doubt that any military or intelligence organization would want to create a self-aware, thinking computer that may decide to think for itself.

Who said 'it' definitely isn't self-aware? Did you watch my video or review the quotes and resources? It's right in several of their manifectos that self-aware intelligenct computers are their goal. They're not even being secretive abotu that prospect.

You have some doubts, so therefore action isn't necessary.

It completely blows me away that people don't react nor care about this issue, but then things like WTC micronukes and the latest 'UFO' video that is clearly BS gets front and center attention. I hate to be defeatist / pessimistic, but we're running out of time and hope.

OK...so i will be reading through this thread over the next day or so. While i do, i want to present something. Perhaps it is already presented....

I am researching the use of holographic technology, and the use of weaponized EM systems as a piece of the delivery system. I am also interested in potential concepts associated with the use of nanotechnology as the primary theater projection system.

Someone threw me a random bone the other day. Perhaps it was you? I was reading through a thread in one of the Lear threads, i believe, and Muuss was brought up.

I started looking into the Paint The Night project. This is very intriguing.

I have served as a program manager for a workforce management team that also had software design elements involved. I had this one guy that was a C++ programmer that did some sick stuff for us while making about 8 bucks an hour. He wrote stuff (now offered under GNU license) that we cannot find anywhere else. My company isn't smart enough to keep these programs operating (because of IT territorialism and the thought of using "unlicensed" software being scary for some reason). This programmer worked on the Waxahachie Supercollider, writing scripts for them. he was also a Quality Assurance Specialist for AT&T circuit provisioning. He is a profound programmer.

We worked on an AI program that used a set of specific behavioral parameters to create forecasted simulations of call center agent attendance behaviors. We were still alpha testing it when the executive turnover happened and they layed this guy off (the storms always start at the bottom, especially when you are part of an IT peeing match).

I am not a programmer, by any stretch. I know limited VB, and everything else is back when Pascal was still useful. But my background with BASIC and Pascal makes it easier to understand both VB and C++, so i conceptualize it well. I have been interested in AI technology ever since.

So, i have a question for you. Do you know what the names of subsequent programs to Paint the Night are? Or ancillary programs?

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

---

I don't know anything about those sorts of details. I don't have any sort of special clearance or insiders keeping me informed or anything like that. I only go by what I can find on the open web. I articluate it together from there. I'm not sure that 'PtN' really falls into the ranges presented in the iXo video, or "Office" for that matter. Never took too much interest in holographs. The 'space beams' and related are interesting. They have functioning ground based lasers, but I don't know what's actually in space or how effective. I mostly see AI as being the enabler for all that advanced stuff like weather modification, and any other bluesky advanced technologies which can actually be done.

I'm also not sure what nano could really do for holographs in particular, other than provide far better quality materials for some sorts of lense applications. I really wouldn't know. The full range of what nano will be able to do is still being realized. Ask "Tom Bedlam" about that sort of thing. He's on ATS (check my foes list).

[edit on 8-10-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

i would like to see this but the video is down and the torrent also seems down, can someone please help?

Google Video Link

Follow the link to see it in better form.

Can aby admins fix the original link and remove the torrent stuff please??

[edit on 31-12-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Great thread.

I'm trying to raise awareness on this. It's a very nasty thing:
Satellite shenanigans
This is a simple thing with many uses. It amounts to a satellite operated cell phone which is surreptitiously dumped into ones maxillary sinus (two of them actually, stereo). It has a tremendous number of uses, coveted by 'TPTB'. It can be used to influence, control, manipulate and otherwise drive insane or postal anyone that gets afflicted with the thing. All done with zero accountability.

However it's also being used to test and develop various AI's ("Bots") and as such it amounts to a non-consensual modified turing test. Speech recognition software is now good enough to do this. People find themselves talking to something they assume is another person, when in fact it's a computer. It's brilliant, as the unwitting person testing the software appears insane if they try to get help.