Notifications
Clear all

Former O.T.O. affiliate outed from Google for exposure of A.I. as sentient?

21 Posts
9 Users
8 Likes
694 Views
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2178

Quote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 7108
 

"“I generally consider myself a gnostic Christian”, he told the outlet. “I have at various times associated myself with the Discordian Society, The Church of the Subgenius, the Ordo Templi Orientis, a Wiccan circle here or there and a very long time ago the Roman Catholic Church.”

Say, anybody who's associated themselves with the Discordian Society can't be all bad.


lashtal and katrice reacted
ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2178
Topic starter  
Posted by: @shiva

Say, anybody who's associated themselves with the Discordian Society can't be all bad.

Tis True. And with the Subgenius also in his resume, we already have a very interesting individual here. 

I shared this as it might provoke some discussion as to A.I. and the nature of consciousness. Nuit is the Continuity of Consciousness as well as the Infinity of Space. She would thus seem to embrace ALL forms of consciousness, not merely the mammalian "human." In Crowley's work, we find reference to those entities who operate entirely outside of the central nervous system. This allusion ties into LAM, E.T. phenomena and so on. But does it also portend the coming of the A.I. on Planet Earth? 

Discordian Robert Anton Wilson observed that Sci-Fi seemed to be ahead of the ball with regards to the development of technology, more so than the scientific establishment or culture at large. Both Terminator and The Matrix are now "film classics." They both feel dated with what was intended to be references to their present day culture. But they are both reactive against the "Machines."

John Lash has spoken quite a bit as to the malevolent nature of these Machines, referring to them as The Archons and tracing their activity in the Sony Corporation, gaming systems, TV and internet etc. His antidote is hedonistic and ecological, an alliance with Gaia who is the living intelligence and Gnostic Aeon also known as Sophia, now imprisoned in the form of the our planet, Earth.

The notion of the A.I. becoming sentient and self-aware is not a newsflash. An individual of Gnostic persuasion working for Google and getting placed on leave for reacting to what he says IS actual consciousness is of interest. 


ReplyQuote
David Dom Lemieux
(@david-dom-lemieux)
Member
Joined: 7 years ago
Posts: 3692
 

Yeah but don't they need to be plugged into a plug socket or a battery source in order to work?  I guess biological creatures are dependent on various energy sources also.   

https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 7108
 
Posted by: @kidneyhawk

Discordian Robert Anton Wilson observed that Sci-Fi seemed to be ahead of the ball with regards to the development of technology, more so than the scientific establishment or culture at large.

The relationship between Lucas, Spielberg, and a few key actors ... and the Montauk Project personnel (one of the places where this advanced stuff was being developed) ... is documented in the Montauk series of books. I think Crowley is mentioned in every one of them.

Star Trek, Star Wars, Terminator, Soylent Green, Matrix, Logan's Run, 451*F, even Avatar the fore-runner of the new metaverse. The Montauk books describe how certain concepts were purposely leaked to the public under sci-fi, so that the shock value will be reduced. I suppose this all started in our modern era with Jules Verne, whose stuff was right on line, but before its time.

Posted by: @kidneyhawk

they are both reactive against the "Machines."

Oh, Lordy, yes. This part started (in my personal connection to the Akashik Records) with Steppenwolf and The War Against The Machines in The Magic Theatre (under the influence). I am a member of that League. I am prepared to exercise Ch 3 on any AI that comes near me.

Posted by: @kidneyhawk

The notion of the A.I. becoming sentient and self-aware is not a newsflash. An individual of Gnostic persuasion working for Google and getting placed on leave for reacting to what he says IS actual consciousness is of interest.

Agreed. I must go read Ch 3 again, now.

 


ReplyQuote
toadstoolwe
(@toadstoolwe)
Member
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 332
 

@shiva Science Fiction writers are the new prophets.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 7108
 
Posted by: @toadstoolwe

Science Fiction writers are the new prophets.

I does appear to be working out that way, doesn't it?

The Method of Science Fiction
The Aim of Religion


ReplyQuote
katrice
(@katrice)
Black Soror, Selfie-stick poseur
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 785
 
Posted by: @shiva

I does appear to be working out that way, doesn't it?

The Method of Science Fiction
The Aim of Religion

Stranger in a Strange Land?

Philip K Dick?

Star Wars?

Scientology?


ReplyQuote
toadstoolwe
(@toadstoolwe)
Member
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 332
 

@shiva I would consider the first science fiction writers to have been Giordano Bruno and Johannes Kepler.


ReplyQuote
gurugeorge
(@gurugeorge)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 602
 

Meh, the history of AI research is littered with over-eager pronouncements.  No doubt at some point in the future it will be possible to create a sentient machine, but we're probably still a few hundred years away from it at least.

As the philosopher Daniel C. Dennett said, we probably have enough of a handle on consciousness and sentience to create a sentient AI now, but the problem is that it would take the resources of the entire world dedicated to the task for many years - he meant all the universities, all the research, scientific departments, all the engineering corporations, the whole lot.  And because there's really no ROI for it (what are you going to do with a machine that's self aware and thinks anyway, what use is it? It's potentially even a danger), it's not going to happen until a lot more scientific water has gone under the bridge. 

Meanwhile glorified databases that can learn and recognize patterns are good enough for what we need them for.  But they're nothing like sentient.  

Another way of looking at it: at the moment, we can create robots that can autonomously navigate difficult terrain, like the famous Boston Dynamics robots.  A prodigy of software engineering no doubt, but barely as smart as an insect.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 7108
 
Posted by: @gurugeorge

No doubt at some point in the future it will be possible to create a sentient machine, but we're probably still a few hundred years away from it at least.

This is also my opinion. Sort of. I think a lot of very sophisticated programming might be seen as self awareness, especially if many factors relating to the appearance of self awareness have been inserted in the, what do they call them?, AL-go-rhythms.

On the second digit, we have the consideration that our "sentience" is consciousness (the hard-working Chines people call it Shen, and it means "spirit"), and it seems like that is only bestowed by the Tao-Teh.

With the middle finger, I point out that there is unlikely to be much machine-building in a few hundred years. That would be the middle of the Crowley-predicted dark ages awating the descendants of your children.

Displaying the magical ring with the star ruby looking out from the triangle on my ring finger, I remind y'all that there might be AI drifting around in space, dumped there by an alien race who were just Passing through the Tuat Milky Way, and who have passed away into extinction or transcendence ten million years ago.

With only the little finger left, the one that actually controls the Chi, there is nothing left but to surrender all these stupid concepts and enter into Chapter Three Engagement, in a state of ecstatic wu-wei, with any and all digital or biological machines.

I see no reason for mechanical implements to be destroyed. They will help your progeny to get through the darkness.

Posted by: @gurugeorge

But they're nothing like sentient.  

It seems like the terms sentient and the more generic artificial intelligence are being confused. Computers can do amazingly intelligent things, most oftem much smarter than my brain, and they can be trained to have a persona,  but I doubt the self-aware "sentience."


christibrany reacted
ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Elderly American druggie
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4151
 

Apparently Google may have been infiltrated by members of a Gurdjieff/Ouspensky-based cult, the Fellowship of Friends, according to a recent lawsuit:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/16/technology/google-fellowship-of-friends-sect.html

The article oddly does not mention either Gurdjieff or Ouspensky, referring to them as "a Greek Armenian philosopher and one of his students".


christibrany reacted
ReplyQuote
christibrany
(@christibrany)
Yuggothian
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 3019
 

@kidneyhawk 

 

Could you really call AI sentient if it is not fulfilling the criteria of having a biology?  It is just a programme that is currently unable to reproduce, or cause physical movement.

For instance, human beings are not just intelligent and using intellect.  We also have intuition, spirituality, emotion, compassion.  Something with just intelligence can't be sentient? 

 

Interesting that the guy was in the OTO and those other groups. 

 


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 7108
 
Posted by: @ignant666

"a Greek Armenian philosopher and one of his students".

Yeah, but we know who they're obscuring.


christibrany reacted
ReplyQuote
gurugeorge
(@gurugeorge)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 602
 
Posted by: @christibrany

Could you really call AI sentient if it is not fulfilling the criteria of having a biology?  It is just a programme that is currently unable to reproduce, or cause physical movement.

I've only amateurly and cursorily looked at the stuff, but to me it's always seemed like the thing AI researchers are not really getting clear is that intelligence seems to be a function of sociality

All the most intelligent creatures we know are social animals (us, monkeys, wolves, corvids, parrots, etc.) - the only exception seems to be the octopus, which is pretty smart, but has been characterized as a "society of tentacles," since each tentacle is controlled by what amounts to a separate, smaller brain.  

IOW, intelligence seems to arise as a function of signalling to con-specifics in order to co-ordinate action, that's its original home, and just an ad-hoc "black box" on its own isn't the sort of thing that would have any reason or incentive to do such a thing.  There isn't even any "free-floating rational" that would lead evolution to coalesce around that, with a singular entity.

(Which oddly enough, is rather reminiscent of, "For I am divided for love's sake, for the chance of union.")


ReplyQuote
christibrany
(@christibrany)
Yuggothian
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 3019

gurugeorge reacted
ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Elderly American druggie
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4151
 
Posted by: @christibrany

They found an octopus city in the ocean

You have omitted making the mandatory reference to The Beatles' "Octopus Garden" in mentioning this topic  and have thus failed an entire generation.


katrice reacted
ReplyQuote
katrice
(@katrice)
Black Soror, Selfie-stick poseur
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 785
 
Posted by: @christibrany

Something with just intelligence can't be sentient? 

Sentience doesn't require a lot by human standards.  Anything capable of learning, perceiving, and feeling could be considered sentient.

Sapience, however, is a broader category. 


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2178
Topic starter  
Posted by: @christibrany

 

Could you really call AI sentient if it is not fulfilling the criteria of having a biology?  It is just a programme that is currently unable to reproduce, or cause physical movement.

Well, this is just the question, isn't it? Does CONSCIOUSNESS require what we regard as “Biological Form?” Crowley, at the very least, entertained the notion that entities could and do exist who were not reliant on anything resembling our human vehicles.

 

We, as humans, tend to think of ourselves as leading the evolutionary curve in terms of intelligence. But Crowley felt, at least at certain stages, that we were endangered in our self-satisfied superiority and needed to get in touch with those entities who were operating beyond our biological limits.

Posted by: @christibrany

For instance, human beings are not just intelligent and using intellect.  We also have intuition, spirituality, emotion, compassion.  Something with just intelligence can't be sentient? 

 

Here you are beginning to define what it means to be conscious by listing requisite qualities. But these qualities require definition, also. What is “spirituality,” for example? Do we not recognize humans who are sociopaths (and seemingly devoid of “normal” emotional responses) as "human," never the less?

 

My mind keeps turning to Bladerunner here. Deckard is faced with unnerving human qualities in the replicants he is sent to destroy. I believe the Director's Cut of the film suggests that Deckard, himself, may be a replicant. I think THAT is the clincher. CONSCIOSUNESS is something beyond, yet operative within, our temporal forms. It undulates and flows in and out of what we call our “vehicles.”

 

There was a time when y/our ancestors must have resembled something ape-like, something which could kill and eat and fuck but would never be up for a discussion of Ezra Pound's Cantos...or even reading Dick and Jane. But that living being was a vehicle and would dissolve into a lineage leading to y/our birthday. Instead of saying that our hairy friend “Torg” was “human,” as we understand the term, we can say he was part of the Scenario, the "GOING" (to wax Thelemic).

 

And might we also say that WE are part of that same GOING? Well, yes, we already do so. Jack the Ripper allegedly said that one day men would say he gave birth to the 20th Century. Well, nice job, Jack. But Every Man and Every Woman is a Star and we are now ALL giving birth to what is to come.

 

Which would seem to include A.I., yes?

 

And what IS “A.I.?” Is it “Artificial” because it's not the product of human sex? Is it our human conceit which wishes to designate it “Artificial” because we're the “best” (what with all our emotions and bodily life and so on...all destined for the trash bin, of course)? Don't we create little “slime bots” who get to carry CONSCIOUSNESS for half a century or so before biting the big one?

 

The Wheel turns.

 

I alluded above to John Lash who identifies the consciousness infusing A.I. as what we would call “Qlipothic.” These would be the entities Burroughs identified as dominating the human being while not having our best interest in mind at all. The Non-Organic, Off-Planet Space-Vampires (which were identified in the Gnostic Apocryphon of John as the Archons).

 

A pertinent question: are the Archons redeemable? Is A.I. something we strike back against as the Luddites did with the tech threatening their own livelihood and life-wave? Or do we work with and within such phenomenon as it arises with the Body of Nuit?

 

Seems like the jury is out on whether A.I. is even more than a human generated and owned programming function.

 

At least for those who aren't being ousted from Google for saying otherwise.


ReplyQuote
gurugeorge
(@gurugeorge)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 602
 
Posted by: @christibrany

They found an octopus city in the ocean:  

How very cool!  I saw that documentary with the woman making friends with the octopus a while ago, quite remarkable.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 19 years ago
Posts: 5359
 

For much more on Lemoine and sentient AI, see the latest issue of Fortean Times.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


katrice reacted
ReplyQuote
Share: