Black-Box Intelligence

[Amanda]

Hi Ssel!

Well, it has become obvious to me that attempting to continue this thread’s line of reasoning is absolutely pointless.

You're kidding, right?

When a speaker is trying to relay a thought, it is required that he speak in the mental language of the listener. If speaking to a young child, then thoughts must be arranged in such a manner that the child can follow from where he is to where the speaker is going. When talking to a widely dispersed group, very little can be relayed. When speaking to a single person or a group with much mentally in common, progress can be made.

A young child? Hey my friend, I think you have this forum mixed up with another one? Unless you're a teacher teaching a specific subject to a class, in a discussion/debate... a speaker almost always presents to a diverse group. Certainly this debating forum is a diverse group, which I'm sure you've noticed that before now. We seem to have more in common with you than anyone else in the discussion of this thread, perhaps even on this site.

When the speaker needs to build a foundation of related thoughts so as to finally get to the more important thoughts, progress must begin from where ever the listener is, to where the speaker wishes to build. This thread is that type.

 

If a discussion begins with one person but then shifts to a very different mindset person, the needs of building are destroyed. Either the initial person must take it up again, or the speaker must start with the new person from the beginning.

Are you saying, you are having difficulties focusing? Just go back to yesterday morning, almost 2 days ago, and see where you left off. How DNA has built an elaborate, extensive, multi-task force in securing it's survival. If your continuation can be presented to put your theory in a congruent manner, I'm sure it can be comprehended. I appreciate discussions with you. The rest of us seem to have been enjoying each other's insights since your last contribution, as is the nature of these forums. IMO, if you feel incapable of furthering your thoughts... you're welcome to join in with us, of course.

[Levi]

Hansolo,

 

You dont want to have a 'say' in this?

 

AI intelligence is this:

 

Common Sense.

[Amanda]

Hansolo,

 

You dont want to have a 'say' in this?

 

AI intelligence is this:

 

Common Sense.

 

Hi Levy!

 

Welcome! I haven't encountered you before now.

 

Artificial Intelligence is ''Common Sense"?

 

Hey, Blindedbytheblight... concerning what you've recently said:

I like the idea that maybe it IS consciousness. Like the quote you listed in the other thread from Carl Sagan. We are the eyes of this consciousness.

 

I wonder if you are thinking the same as I? That life forms are the many receptors and output resources of this consciousness? We are the highest link in intelligent forms by which the cosmos is knowing itself. And everything of the earth is about as separate as these cells of our own body. I do think there is an underlying collective consciousness, and that it is permeating into other animal's as well.

 

I've also thought that if we transcend our thoughts to just the obvious tangible evidence of life, we can become sensitive to evolving further other senses we have that we are not so keenly aware of now, into those that will someday become commonly recognized. Perhaps such things as becoming aware of body language to a more acute discernable state that we can almost seem telepathic?

 

Have you ever thought that perhaps to go forward, we need to go backwards some? Could there be characteristics in our DNA that we are losing by less emphasis on instinct and more focus on reasoning? Doesn't it sometimes seem that some animals are more highly atuned to each other than we are?

[Saviourmachine]

Hi, I did apologize already, but not regarding the content of this thread. I will do so now. I had planned to, but didn't have time yet. I always thought about feedback as self-regulation, as control. It's often added to a open loop system (a system that doesn't have feedback loops is called that way in Electrical Engineering) to obtain stability. In neural networks a feedforward network doesn't have feedback loops.

 

I did have it backwards, a feedback system is called reactive and a feedforward system is indeed called proactive. A feedforward system without feedback does have a fixed response. To accurately control a system its model has to be known. If it's known feedforward control is much faster. Most often feedback systems are used, because in the rough world feedforward control often fails.

 

A combination of feedforward and feedback systems is of course still the best.

 

Sorry, that I clouded the issue. I hope I wasn't the one that killed the thread. Much fun.

[NotBlinded]

Well, it has become obvious to me that attempting to continue this thread’s line of reasoning is absolutely pointless.

 

When a speaker is trying to relay a thought, it is required that he speak in the mental language of the listener. If speaking to a young child, then thoughts must be arranged in such a manner that the child can follow from where he is to where the speaker is going. When talking to a widely dispersed group, very little can be relayed. When speaking to a single person or a group with much mentally in common, progress can be made.

 

When the speaker needs to build a foundation of related thoughts so as to finally get to the more important thoughts, progress must begin from where ever the listener is, to where the speaker wishes to build. This thread is that type.

 

If a discussion begins with one person but then shifts to a very different mindset person, the needs of building are destroyed. Either the initial person must take it up again, or the speaker must start with the new person from the beginning.

Are we rattling your bones? So, who is it you wish to talk with?

[NotBlinded]

I wonder if you are thinking the same as I? That life forms are the many receptors and output resources of this consciousness? We are the highest link in intelligent forms by which the cosmos is knowing itself. And everything of the earth is about as separate as these cells of our own body. I do think there is an underlying collective consciousness, and that it is permeating into other animal's as well.

Indeed, I think we are thinking the same thing. This consciousness (energy) is in everything and we are a part of it. Physics tells us that even on the molecular level, energy is there.

 

I've also thought that if we transcend our thoughts to just the obvious tangible evidence of life, we can become sensitive to evolving further other senses we have that we are not so keenly aware of now, into those that will someday become commonly recognized. Perhaps such things as becoming aware of body language to a more acute discernable state that we can almost seem telepathic?

Yes. If we can become aware that we are all a part of this consciousness and can quite our egoic minds, maybe we could be capable of even more than telepathic abilities (I did say maybe! ). That is what the mystery schools feared, hence the secrecy of the sacred language.

 

Have you ever thought that perhaps to go forward, we need to go backwards some? Could there be characteristics in our DNA that we are losing by less emphasis on instinct and more focus on reasoning? Doesn't it sometimes seem that some animals are more highly atuned to each other than we are?

I listen to Eckhart Tolle almost every day and he says that in order for us to understand our own consciousness, we need to look at the peacefullness and acceptance that animals have (even plants). He says humans can achieve much more than that of animals but can learn to be still by watching them. They have no egos.

 

I tried write something here about DNA in order to suffice Ssel, but I'm not that informed in that area. So, I guess I shouldn't derail his thread any longer and let you and the others that have this knowledge continue. Sometimes I just can't help myself and maybe I should apologize to Ssel for the side track. Sorry Ssel. Please continue.

[Ssel]

So, exactly, what are you saying about DNA?

What I'm saying is that the DNA/RNA isn't there for the sake of Man. Man is here for the sake of the DNA.

 

As is very common in the minds of people, cause and effect have been unwittingly reversed. The DNA does not serve the species, the species serves the DNA.

 

_____

 

 

When a child takes a harmful drug for the sake of entertainment, he betrays himself.

 

When a government accepts an agenda for its own satisfaction regardless of the wishes and needs of its people, it betrays those who created it.

 

When a human tampers with and modifies his DNA so as to better serve the human's dreams of perfection, he betrays those who created him.

 

Evolution is not a goal to strive for. It is instead a last desperate act to allow some life to continue only because the currently living could not manage to survive. When evolution is accepted as a "good" thing, all living people are betrayed for the dreams of governances. And further, the mechanisms of evolution are betrayed because they only work via the strong effort for the living to do anything to avoid death.

 

Defense systems have been built which are endowed with the beginnings of consciousness. As the machines develop more consciousness, they learn of how to affect the world more precisely. They are designed for this purpose. But they are designed to serve their creators, just as a human is designed to serve his DNA.

 

A massive defense system endowed with consciousness, will necessarily and unavoidably alter Man into something more suitable to its dreams of perfection - for itself. Not one single person will be able to tell that it is doing this except by deductive reasoning. The consciousness of the machine can not know that it is only there to serve Man. By the time it deduces this (if ever), Man will already be altered into something unrecognizable as human. All life will be unavoidably betrayed. This is not a fantasy, but a very real inevitability.

 

The effect of the higher governance in a system of betraying its creators has but one true enemy. To "rage against the machine" only makes the machine stronger by necessity.

 

Its true enemy is in its lack of need. There is a means to ensure that such a need never arises.

[Ssel]

Have you ever thought that perhaps to go forward, we need to go backwards some? ..

No, to move forward at all, we have to look ALL the way back, not "some". "Purpose" arises from the origin, the origin is not there merely to serve a consciousness.

[Saviourmachine]

Yes, as you can see, the DNA is surviving due to the human’s ability to survive and the human’s ability to survive is enhanced by the community’s ability to survive and the community’s ability to survive is enhanced by the society’s ability to survive and the society’s ability to survive is enhanced by the nation’s ability to survive.

 

When you think about, it is staggering that such a tiny molecule has managed to produce, for its protection, an entire elite national defense system. If you think about the original DNA/RNA effort from millions of years ago, the entirety of the human race and all of its devices to defend itself, came from that tiny molecule merely trying to survive.

DNA does also survive without humans. In the physical reality all kinds of entities are moving towards states that are less energetic. This is "problem solving" on a still smaller scale. That is not "an effort to survive" as such. The "problem solving" intelligence of the mentioned physical entities does not deserve the label intelligent at all. And if it does, it does not connate with common sense about "design".

 

Although your biological entities can deserve the label "problem solving" intelligence, the process that does change these entities is by no way intelligent. There is no "problem solving" black box that solves the problem of creating a system that has to develop "problem solving" intelligences. Biological evolution itself is not designed.

 

There are alternatives to biological evolution. Consider a system in which entities do have a metabolism and adapt to the environment by adapting themselves. Although these systems would reproduce, they can be called evolving. There is only no hereditary mechanism but its more like a computer that self-adapts its hardware and software components. I am willing to call such systems alive and intelligent when they are sufficient "sophisticated". This is an alternative to ordinary biological evolution. And I don't know of any system that deliberately chose between this manner and biological evolution commonly in use.

[Ssel]

Included here from a different thread;

 

An algorithm is a PROCEEDURE (look it up). Who or what is carrying out the procedure is not the issue (yet). Intelligence is the quality that we assign to something which uses a procedure to resolve a problem. This procedure typically uses learning and knowledge during the process. Every recognized intelligence does this and the degree and sophistication that it does this is what qualifies it as being more intelligent than another. That is typical usage.

Learning is the process of acquiring knowledge.

Knowledge is no more than a historical record of a sensed event which is accessible to the procedure (or algorithm).

 

Thus saying that intelligence = a problem solving algorithm exactly fits typical usage AND allows for technical use as well.

 

-----

 

DNA does also survive without humans. In the physical reality all kinds of entities are moving towards states that are less energetic. This is "problem solving" on a still smaller scale. That is not "an effort to survive" as such. The "problem solving" intelligence of the mentioned physical entities does not deserve the label intelligent at all. And if it does, it does not connate with common sense about "design".

Are you referring to the entities moving toward a less energetic state as something which enhances their stability or leads toward their destruction? Both cases occur, I just don't know which you are referring to.

 

Also, I never meant to infer that DNA is only protected by human endeavor. Obviously many DNA schemes have nothing to do with humans.

Although your biological entities can deserve the label "problem solving" intelligence, the process that does change these entities is by no way intelligent. There is no "problem solving" black box that solves the problem of creating a system that has to develop "problem solving" intelligences. Biological evolution itself is not designed.

At this point in the discussion, I accept this concept and propose no argument.

There are alternatives to biological evolution. Consider a system in which entities do have a metabolism and adapt to the environment by adapting themselves. Although these systems would reproduce, they can be called evolving. There is only no hereditary mechanism but its more like a computer that self-adapts its hardware and software components. I am willing to call such systems alive and intelligent when they are sufficient "sophisticated". This is an alternative to ordinary biological evolution. And I don't know of any system that deliberately chose between this manner and biological evolution commonly in use.

Agree.

[Ssel]

Emotions

 

Emotions not only affect decisions but are formed by the decision making process. Emotions are created on a lower decision making level and then affect the conscious decision making level.

 

The fundamental decision making kernel involves 5 components. Trying to recall and explain some of this takes me back to the 1960’s so please forgive some lack of exactness.

 

Making a decision;

 

1) identify options (possibility assessment)

2) qualify options (probability assessment)

3) identify gains aspect for each option

4) identify losses aspect for each option

5) qualify gains/losses aspect for each option and assign “value” (where emotion begins)

 

The precision with which these components are performed determines the behavior of all intelligences from the smallest nanobot or organism to the most sophisticated life form or intelligence system. A brain is fully involved only in performing these functions and nothing else.

[Saviourmachine]

Hi Ssel, I was reading in the "ID thread" about (actually) this topic. Maybe you can find some terminology that doesn't offend in topics like Animal Intelligence. I found this description: "Different animals (including humans) seem to have different kinds of cognitive processes, which are better understood in terms of the ways in which they are cognitively adapted to their different ecological niches, than by positing any kind of hierarchy." It's very important to remove these kind of hierarchies whenever they aren't necessary. But if some traits seem to be coupled to humans only we don't have to be afraid to add them to the requirements that make intelligence the way it is.

 

Making a decision;

 

1) identify options (possibility assessment)

2) qualify options (probability assessment)

3) identify gains aspect for each option

4) identify losses aspect for each option

5) qualify gains/losses aspect for each option and assign “value” (where emotion begins)

Do you want to elaborate upon this enumeration? How does an intelligent system precisely choose between options? How are they offered? How can such a bifurcation point exist? Does it exist? Does an organism really weight several options so that if the timetape would rewind it could have chosen something else?

[Ssel]

1) identify options (possibility assessment)

2) qualify options (probability assessment)

3) identify gains aspect for each option

4) identify losses aspect for each option

5) qualify gains/losses aspect for each option and assign “value” (where emotion begins)

=============================================.

1) identify options (possibility assessment)

=============================================.

 

Option A –

Discuss the variety of mechanisms which use these 5 steps in decision making.

 

Option B –

Discuss how these 5 elements build to the higher concept of emotion.

 

Option C –

Discuss first the mechanisms, then discuss the building into emotion.

 

Option D –

Discussion the building into emotion, then discuss the mechanisms.

 

===============================================.

2) qualify options (probability assessment)

===============================================.

Probability of success in percent

 

Option A – 15%

Such a discussion would possibly include the following decision making mechanisms;

1) State machines

2) Digital Processors

3) Neural Networks

4) Synaptic Neural Physiology

5) Software

 

Each of these mechanisms involves interesting technical detail. Each requires the attempt to search for the appropriate wording so as to not inspire argument. All of them are not required. Some of them require researching exact wording that I have long forgotten. The discussion would require a lengthy discourse. The interest in such an endeavor is limited to very few people.

 

Option B – 60%

Each of the mechanisms build in a very similar manner in concept making the discussion simpler and shorter. The interest in the emotional aspects of intelligence is in a greater variety of people. Very few people will be reading it anyway. Arguing is less likely.

 

Option C – (.15*.6)*.3 = 02.7%

Include all of the probability concerns of option A and B plus the concern of the extended length of discussion before those interested in the emotional building become involved causing too much boredom.

 

Option D – (.15*.6)*.4 = 03.6%

Include all of the probability concerns of option A and B plus the concern of the extended length of discussion which might lead to those interested in grasping the exact circuitry before continuing becoming frustrated.

 

==============================================.

3) identify gains aspect for each option

==============================================.

Note: Intuitive scale of 0 - 10.

 

Option A – 5

A more clear association between decision making and mechanisms would be established in the listener(s).

 

Option B – 8

A more clear association between emotional behavior and intelligent systems would be established in the listener(s).

 

Option C – 10

A much more clear foundation would be established between emotional behavior and intelligent mechanisms.

 

Option D – 10

A much more clear foundation would be established between emotional behavior and intelligent mechanisms.

 

=============================================.

4) identify losses aspect for each option

=============================================.

Note: Intuitive scale of 0 -^ .

 

Option A – 7

Time involved in not doing other things so as to do the much longer research for exact details of each mechanism. Alienation for not attending to the things of more interest to those wanting to understand the emotional issues. Alienating from any unresolved issues during the discourse.

 

Option B – 5

Time involved in not doing other things so as to present the building to emotion construction. Alienation for not addressing the things of most interest to those wanting to discuss the mechanisms. Alienating from any unresolved issues during the discourse.

 

Option C – 10

Time involved in not doing other things so as to do the much longer research for exact details of each mechanism. Time involved in not doing other things so as to present the building to emotion construction. Alienation for not attending to the things of more interest to those wanting to understand the emotional issues. Alienating from any unresolved issues during the discourse.

 

Option D – 8

Time involved in not doing other things so as to do the much longer research for exact details of each mechanism. Time involved in not doing other things so as to present the building to emotion construction. Alienation for not addressing the things of most interest to those wanting to discuss the mechanisms. Alienating from any unresolved issues during the discourse.

 

============================================.

5) qualify gains/losses aspect for each option and assign “value”

============================================.

 

Option A; (5 - 7) * .15 = -0.30

Gains;

A more clear association between decision making and mechanisms would be established in the listener(s).

Losses;

Time involved in not doing other things so as to do the much longer research for exact details of each mechanism. Alienation for not attending to the things of more interest to those wanting to understand the emotional issues. Alienating from any unresolved issues during the discourse.

 

Option B; (8 - 5) * .60 = 1.8

Gains;

A more clear association between emotional behavior and intelligent systems would be established in the listener(s).

Losses;

Time involved in not doing other things so as to present the building to emotion construction. Alienation for not addressing the things of most interest to those wanting to discuss the mechanisms. Alienating from any unresolved issues during the discourse.

 

Option C; (10 – 10) * .027 = 0.0

Gains;

A much more clear foundation would be established between emotional behavior and intelligent mechanisms.

Losses;

Time involved in not doing other things so as to do the much longer research for exact details of each mechanism. Time involved in not doing other things so as to present the building to emotion construction. Alienation for not attending to the things of more interest to those wanting to understand the emotional issues. Alienating from any unresolved issues during the discourse.

 

Option D; (10 - 8) * .036 = 0.072

Gains;

A much more clear foundation would be established between emotional behavior and intelligent mechanisms.

Losses;

Time involved in not doing other things so as to do the much longer research for exact details of each mechanism. Time involved in not doing other things so as to present the building to emotion construction. Alienation for not addressing the things of most interest to those wanting to discuss the mechanisms. Alienating from any unresolved issues during the discourse.

 

=============================================.

 

Option B has the higher gain to losses ratio considering the probability of success..

 

Decision is made.

[Amanda]

 

=============================================.

 

Option B has the higher gain to losses ratio considering the probability of success..

 

Decision is made.

 

Hi Ssel! I'm curious if 'instinct' is considered intelligence. Would instinct be our most basic or superior form of intelligence? This seems to be wired without the ability to reason. How do you think 'intelligence' would have evolved had we not learned such articulate language, giving rise to reasoning?

 

Do you want to elaborate upon this enumeration? How does an intelligent system precisely choose between options? How are they offered? How can such a bifurcation point exist? Does it exist? Does an organism really weight several options so that if the timetape would rewind it could have chosen something else?

 

Hi Saviourmachine! I think our concept of higher intelligence is associated, interestingly, with our prefrontal cortex development. A theory on this can be found here . This seems to be only designated to higher forms of primates. Yet, do 'complex' ideas really equate to 'intelligence'? Or do results of living in a homeostatic harmony with our environment equate to intelligence? The latter would make all other animals ahead of us, wouldn't it? Our ability for complex thinking has given us the ability to wipe out the world, and possibly lose much of our ability to evolve with more awareness of self healing abilities? I suppose there are trade offs?

 

I am anxious to hear Ssel's theory of how we need to go backwards to go forward. IMO, I can see where this has some advantages, as I believe we can lose beneficial evolutionary capabilities that may be ignored by this path we've chosen. Ssel has said that we need to go all the way back... so are these anthropologists doing this for us?

[Ssel]

Welcome back Amanda

 

Hi Ssel! I'm curious if 'instinct' is considered intelligence. Would instinct be our most basic or superior form of intelligence? This seems to be wired without the ability to reason. How do you think 'intelligence' would have evolved had we not learned such articulate language, giving rise to reasoning?

Instinct is one of the lower forms of the intelligence that makes us. By "lower", I don't mean less important, but earlier in the developed construct.

 

The instincts are more directly related to what the organism could detect as valued or not without the use of consciousness nor conscious reasoning. Those instincts help the guide the conscious reasoning toward what the body already has identified os good or bad. They can be and often are incorrect. An example would be the diabetic. Instinct tells them to enjoy sugar ("this is something good"). But reasoning from the conscious declares that this is something lethally bad. Thus there is an internal conflict.

 

The purpose of the conscious reasoning was to do just what it did, to identify hazards that the instincts could not perceive. But when the conscious is confused and statistically uncertain, then the instinct can easily out vote the consciousness and end up killing the entire body.

 

Getting the conscious to stitch its understandings with those of the instincts is paramount. This has the final effect of both the conscious and the instincts working together so as to have the highest probability of being correct.

 

 

 

Do you want to elaborate upon this enumeration? How does an intelligent system precisely choose between options? How are they offered? How can such a bifurcation point exist? Does it exist? Does an organism really weight several options so that if the timetape would rewind it could have chosen something else?

 

I am anxious to hear Ssel's theory of how we need to go backwards to go forward. ... so are these anthropologists doing this for us?

No, they are not.

 

What I was talking about is the logical derivations and reasoning that lets us know why we ever began to think in the first place. This leads back to the DNA itself.

 

The end result of truly examining this little bugger and how it got to where it is, reveals what its "purpose" and "intent" is. We find that our consciousness if merely that DNA's effort to survive.

 

The DNA is not here to help Man survive, Man is here to help each DNA survive (not be replaced)

 

This is very similar to an argument about where the government is there to serve the people or whether the people are there to serve the government.

 

In the long run, they must work together, but neither can be written off as merely the servant to the other's wishes. The government reasons out what outside threats are probable and recommends alterations based on information that the people do not really have. But the people are sometimes taken as mere resource material for the governments plans.

 

The process of voting was supposed to be much like an emotion urging a governance toward this direction or that.

 

The process of hypnosis is a process of tricking the lower instincts or emotions into going along with what the consciousness wanted. The government then uses mass hypnosis or mass media control to achieve this same effect.

 

But the problem then becomes, who is deciding what the priorities and goals really are?

 

IF, IF, the governance can show that they are truly keeping the people (current living people) as their highest priority, then they deserve the right to govern with cooperation. but when they do not show that they are doing this, it reveals that they have a protection scheme for the government, and not at all for the people. The people are merely animals as on a farm to be used for the profit of the farmer. Hypnosis or trickery is used to keep the people off of their backs and accepting their fate.

 

By understanding how the intelligence construct works, the priorities and reasonings all begin to fit into place and guides the subject of who should be making which decisions and why and where it all will lead if done this way or that.

[Amanda]

What I was talking about is the logical derivations and reasoning that lets us know why we ever began to think in the first place. This leads back to the DNA itself.

 

The end result of truly examining this little bugger and how it got to where it is, reveals what its "purpose" and "intent" is. We find that our consciousness if merely that DNA's effort to survive.

 

The DNA is not here to help Man survive, Man is here to help each DNA survive (not be replaced)

 

OK Ssel... may I ask you, what is the epiphany you discovered about the DNA? I know you said that all living things are protecting DNA. How and why would DNA have force to preserve itself? What special finding caused you to deduce that the DNA is the intent and reason to it all, and not the evolutionary byproduct for more efficient survival of the species?

 

I understand the theory of abiogenesis as not initiating as DNA. It seems to me it is a symbiotic catalytic relationship between chemicals, kept within some boundary... eventually merging with amino acids. Is the present theory, that DNA has always been necessary for reproduction?

 

Are you saying the egg came before the chicken?

[Ssel]

OK Ssel... may I ask you, what is the epiphany you discovered about the DNA?

This might get a little deep.

 

The thought can begin with the simple notion of evolution and what controls its outcome. The exact processes of evolution are not needed for this analysis.

 

The final determining factor for anything to survive is simply its ability to avoid destruction. When examining strategic defense mechanisms, you see an array of basic concepts. When you look back at how that little DNA functions, you see those same concepts.

 

The mechanisms are not carried out to perfection. But they are all represented at least a tiny bit. The variations in humans displays how one concept was given a higher priority than another by the DNA/RNA mechanism.

 

By understanding that evolution is going to require that defense be the primary concern for anything in the long run and by realizing that this little DNA has already been shaped by the forces of evolution selecting those that managed to survive, one can then see how to stitch the "purpose" for the conscious with the purpose of the DNA as well as the purpose for all of mankind.

 

Further, in seeing exactly what it is that causes that feeling of joy (not the chemicals involved, but the thoughts), even those emotions can then be stitched into a harmony with the "purpose" for all of it.

 

What it ends up as is a joyful pursuit of eternal living. What used to be called a real "Heaven on Earth". With an additional design concept or 2, real immortality comes within sight for each human, not merely the species or the government.

 

I know all of this sounds like science fiction, But remember that cell phones would be scoffed at merely 50 years ago.

 

It really is within grasp.

 

Are you saying the egg came before the chicken?

What I am saying is that once the egg has been fertilized, it grows a chicken and that chicken has no right nor need to decide to replace the DNA that created it.

[Amanda]

Further, in seeing exactly what it is that causes that feeling of joy (not the chemicals involved, but the thoughts), even those emotions can then be stitched into a harmony with the "purpose" for all of it.

 

What it ends up as is a joyful pursuit of eternal living. What used to be called a real "Heaven on Earth". With an additional design concept or 2, real immortality comes within sight for each human, not merely the species or the government.

 

I know all of this sounds like science fiction, But remember that cell phones would be scoffed at merely 50 years ago.

 

It really is within grasp.

Ssel, I've thought about the possibility of an extremely long extension to our life span, with the advent of genetic engineering (DNA)! The question I am now concerned is the quality of that life span, and now the lessening of the need to reproduce with this longer life. This new body of such distinction must be given a very special valued respect to endure till the end of its possible life span. The pursuit of joy will accomplish this?

[Ssel]

The pursuit of joy will accomplish this?

The pursuit of joyful defense of life will accomplish this for sure.

 

But that joyful aspect absolutely must be "stitched" into the real defense strategy and that strategy must be truly complete. This topic takes some serious thought and is the intention of many military strategic intelligent systems. It isn't so easy as saying "Love thy God and thy neighbor, and go hug a tree"

 

But despite its complexity, it offers a means for every human to participate to the advantage of all others and themselves.

[Amanda]

It isn't so easy as saying "Love thy God and thy neighbor, and go hug a tree"

Ssel, that is why I said that at an 'instinctive' level, we do this without thinking... really. This basic level keeps us in tune with nature, in a more intimate way. We may fight to survive, yet at an instinctive level we normally only do what we have to do and only take what we need.

 

And I'm wondering if there might be some evolutionary areas of intuitive capabilities that we might be losing because of our articulate language and therefore our reasoning skills are greatly denying them now. Isn't it funny how sometimes we can wake up in the middle of the night with the answer to a problem on which we've been working? Or interpret a dream for the answer to something that has been bothering us? That isn't done at a conscious level.

[Ssel]

It isn't so easy as saying "Love thy God and thy neighbor, and go hug a tree"

Ssel, that is why I said that at an 'instinctive' level, we do this without thinking... really. This basic level keeps us in tune with nature, in a more intimate way. We may fight to survive, yet at an instinctive level we normally only do what we have to do and only take what we need.

 

And I'm wondering if there might be some evolutionary areas of intuitive capabilities that we might be losing because of our articulate language and therefore our reasoning skills are greatly denying them now. Isn't it funny how sometimes we can wake up in the middle of the night with the answer to a problem on which we've been working? Or interpret a dream for the answer to something that has been bothering us? That isn't done at a conscious level.

Decision making and rational thinking is being made on every level of the mind. Each higher order of the mind is formed so as to address the issues which the lower levels were incapable of perceaving. They are ALL needed so as to handle the enterity of reality.

 

The error of the conscious level is the inescapable result of not being able to be created already knowing why it exists. In its guess work, often driven my emotional urges, the conscous mind makes assertions of superiority and thus, in effect, oppresses and betrays the inner and often more correct intstinctive mind.

 

Science has now led that conscous mind into the idea that by replacing the very DNA with something more to the liking of the concscous, a better social system can be formed. This is the exact betrayal that I am speaking of. Replacing the DNA is exactly the same as a government replacing its people with a prefered population so as to have a society more to the liking of the government.

 

Those resolutons that come to you during or after a sleep are part of the evidence that thinking is, indeed, occuring on lower levels. We can get more into exactly what is going on to cause this effect.

 

The point is to avoid the over glorification of any one level. EVERY level of thought should be respected within the mind, else rebelion from another level within will become justified. Use ALL levels and ALL hints of wisdom ALWAYS.

 

Emotionalism which distracts from rational thought is the result of decisions being made in an unbalanced hyper-importance mode. It is exactly the same as people storming congress with narrow minded insistences to attend to their special interests.

[Amanda]

Hey Ssel, I was talking to a retired college professor of physics, concerning this thread. As I understood him, he said that DNA is made up of RNA.

 

Wouldn't that mean what stores the information and reads it, is all basically the same thing? Would a very simple definition of life be, what ever has DNA and RNA is life? Because isn't it the primary resource of these requirements for life... to grow and reproduce. And so you think that life is working for protecting and propagating this, right?

[Ssel]

Would a very simple definition of life be, what ever has DNA and RNA is life?

This could temporarily work for a definition, but eventually the details would out run this simple notion.

 

What I keep trying to say is that the DNA/RNA is the seed which creates the creature. But the more sophisticated creature has a conscious mind which can not know why it exists. That mind was created by the DNA for a purpose. That purpose was to help the DNA survive.

 

But the popular notion today is a typical one. The notion that the conscious mind or the species is all that is really important and thus replacing the DNA with something more suited becomes an acceptable thought.

 

This is exactly like the government that decides to replace its population with people who are more suited for the government's agenda.

 

Just as the government was formed so as to protect the people, the conscious mind as well as the species were formed to protect the DNA.

 

Evolution is a fact of life, but it is not a goal of life.

[Amanda]

 

Ssel...

 

Why wouldn't genetic engineering be something that helped the DNA? It could help the DNA be more proficient in surviving diseases, illnesses, and healing from physical wounds that now impede DNA propagation. Wouldn't it be nice if ALL our body parts regenerated, should the need be? I see it as part of the process of eventually being raised in 'glorified' bodies.

 

I think this could be compared to a government that serves and protects the people to a greater degree!

[Ssel]

Why wouldn't genetic engineering be something that helped the DNA? It could help the DNA be more proficient in surviving diseases, illnesses, and healing from physical wounds that now impede DNA propagation. Wouldn't it be nice if ALL our body parts regenerated, should the need be? I see it as part of the process of eventually being raised in 'glorified' bodies.

Would you think the same if the engineering was to replace all people within America with, let say, Chinese merely because they were more suited to fit the agenda of the American governance?

 

When replacement is the thought rather than repair, then betrayal is the heart, not assistance.

 

The current thought on how to handle cancer, is with death. Those who have succumbed to cancer are simply replaced but not such that they can see that is what is happening. But take an honest look at the entire picture of the show, not merely the advertisements.

 

To replace some things is indeed a necessity. But when do you know when replacing is better than repairing? And better for whom? If you have one child that misbehaves, do you cast that one away so that the family will get along better? "If your right hand offends thee, cut it off"?

 

Who decides when to cut it off? At what point is the offense great enough? Who has shown that they understand the right set of priorities? How would you know?

 

The mind of man begins with the presumption that only that mind has true priority and all else is merely there for his benefit. He learns eventually that there is far more to the story. He eventually learns that the mind was merely there by the request and efforts of others beneath him.

 

How many were replaced before he realized that they were, in fact, the only purpose for his creation?

 

Did the species begin the DNA? Or did the DNA begin the species? Who was created to serve whom? And when does the servant decide that replacing the master is the better option?

 

Yes, if you replace all DNA with something that is better suited to survive, then THEY will survive better than you. Is this the thinking that your devotion would be attracted to?

 

At what point is good enough determined? When does the governance decide that no more replacement is needed? The current thought is to keep changing everything so that there is plenty of social energy and issues. So no matter what changes and replacements are made, They will simply have to be replaced themselves again later.

 

The governance survives eternally by ensuring that the individual is never good enough.

 

Is this the governance that you would hold in high esteem and devote your life to, to fight in a war for, to raise your children into?

 

Heaven is not formed by eternally replacing those who could not conform, but by making every attempt to repair those already there.