Mail this Pageto a Friend.
ZetaTalk: Lack of Choice
Note: written May 15, 1997.
To humans, who observe that their computers often seem more intelligent than other humans, our assertion that the
rules we must observe regarding sentient or conscious thinking machines prevent our machines from becoming alive
must seem confusing. A retarded human who can barely recall the sequences necessary to put one leg into a set of
trousers is alive and conscious, but a powerful computer monitoring a myriad of logic threads simultaneously is not.
Just how does that compute! The difference is subtle, and where the line may seem blurred to humans who are
confusing performance with intrinsic intellectual independence. i.e. choice, the issue is not confusing to us. We will expand on the differences between performance and choice.
Quite often, and in fact most often in machines developed in higher densities, the performance of the machine is superior to the performance a life form could attain. This should not be surprising in that the machine was
developed for this reason - because the life form desired more rapid or reliable performance than they could attain, or tired of the redundant activity required when the life form itself was performing the activity. This is
precisely why humans invented computers, which at first did simple calculations rapidly and with almost
unerring accuracy. This is still why humans press for faster speed and the ability to handle more complex
calculations, as the computer allows for insights requiring the processing of immense amounts of data, or rapid
analysis of the data for on-the-spot decisions. Nevertheless, the computer is performing as its masters directed.
Entities form in the life forms that DNA makes possible not because there is activity, which in any case takes
place in a swirling nebula, but because of the possibility for choice. The readership can relate to this if they think of common situations they themselves face almost daily. They rise in the morning. In this they have a choice, as they can choose not to rise, to sleep on for more minutes or hours, to refuse to rise ever until they die in bed, to engage in all manner of activities in bed from affectionate or sexual interchanges with their mate to reading or
masturbation or simply scratching. In all of this the choice is theirs. Now imagine that one was required to rise automatically, no choice, and proceed through a regimen of steps such as tooth brushing and dressing in a pre-defined outfit, every day, day after day, without any foreseeable change. Too boring! Humans have been known
to kill themselves due to unrelenting boredom, and forming entities simply do not incarnate into such situations.
Machines are not intelligent as in being capable of thought, they are simply well programmed and capable of adaptive reasoning. Where this differs from the free choice that DNA that has evolved into complex organisms
can sustain, is in the degree to which the initial programming dictates the outcome of conclusions. Machines adapt to the environment, but always within the dictates of their initial programming. Living organisms have
multiple branches in their logic trees, in that these branches can be grown in response to the environment and
past choices, where machines in fact do not have branches. What might be taken for a machines logic tree is in fact a predetermined branch dictated by the initial program.
Thus, the rule that machines, no matter how complex, cannot carry incarnating souls is not one that needs enforcement.
It happens quite naturally as the entities simply don’t linger!
All rights reserved: [email protected]
http://www.zetatalk2.com/rules/r48.htm[2/5/2012 11:37:09 AM]
ZetaTalk: Bounded Robots
Mail this Pageto a Friend.
ZetaTalk: Bounded Robots
Note: written Jul 15, 1997.
Confusion over whether robots are alive, make choices, or might be incarnated with spirits lies in understanding what is seen versus what is unseen on the surface. On the surface, humans see robots able to entertain focus on a task at hand to the exclusion of all possible distractions, and thus, for instance, win at a game of chess over a human chess master. Is the robot not thinking? Yes and no, depending upon how one classifies thought. To primitive peoples, a simple computer program appears to be thinking, as it can rapidly arrive at a conclusion while entertaining a problem it has been programmed to address. Computer programs are not considered brains by most humans only because they
can gaze at and understand the program, and can see that the computer is simply following instructions.
What is seen in robots versus humans is that:
1. Robots can go places humans cannot, such as the surface of Mars or the outer reaches of the Solar System.
2. Robots can concentrate on a bounded task, such as a game of chess, far better than humans.
3. Robots can operate without attention or direction from their human masters.
4. Humans get distracted by their biological needs.
5. Humans can have intractable prejudices or cultural viewpoints that they refuse to drop.
What is unseen is that robots are bounded in ways that DNA is not bounded. Humans are bounded by their biology, an inability to put aside their biological needs, so that they cannot travel where robots can, exclusively concentrate on a task as robots can, or remain calm in disturbing circumstances such as a burning building or the torture of another human might present. In overcoming biological imperatives, robots seem superior, especially since the average human does not understand how they have been programmed and are in awe. Robots, however, are bounded in what they can address. Even where robots are designed to repair themselves and make minor adjustments to their surroundings, they are still operating within their original programming.
Humans see their DNA in light of its limitations, an upper limit on IQ, on the speed an athlete can sustain, or on
longevity. They see the end result of decisions as limited because the human can only maneuver about in their natural habitat, so the complexity of what went into decision making is not apparent. What is unseen is the spiritual struggle, the pondering of the workings of the Universe, or the multiplicity of factors that go into a single decision to walk down the street or stay in the house! A robot arrives at its decision quickly because it does not ponder. Humans are virtually unlimited in their ability to ponder, which is what makes their life form attractive to the stuff of souls so that entities form within humans. Robots are utterly boring, as they have an inability to ponder, being programmed to reach quick conclusions after considering a set number of variables, and thus do not attract the stuff of souls, regardless of
appearances!
