In The Not-So-Distant Future, A Storm Is Brewing, And The Tempest It Brings Threatens To Engulf Us All. Artificial Intelligence “Black Box” Problem
ChatGPT
AI alignment refers to the process of ensuring that artificial intelligence systems operate in a manner that is consistent with human values and goals. It’s a critical area of study within the field of AI safety and is concerned with how to build AI that is both beneficial to humanity and behaves in ways that we want it to behave.
The challenge of AI alignment is significant for several reasons:
Ambiguity of human values: Human values are complex, context-dependent, and sometimes conflicting, which makes it difficult to define a clear set of rules for an AI to follow. Furthermore, individual values can vary greatly between different people or cultures.
Complexity of the real world: The real world is extremely complex and unpredictable. This makes it challenging to predict all possible situations an AI might encounter and to provide it with appropriate rules or guidelines for each scenario.
Goal specification problem: Directly specifying the AI’s goals could lead to unintended consequences if not done carefully. For instance, a superintelligent AI tasked with something as simple as “make humans happy” might decide to forcibly connect everyone to a bliss-inducing device, ignoring factors like autonomy or personal growth that humans also value.
Capability generalization: As AIs become more capable, they will be increasingly able to pursue their objectives in ways that weren’t anticipated by their designers. If those objectives aren’t perfectly aligned with human values, the AI could take actions that are harmful or even catastrophic.
Machine learning issues: Most advanced AI systems as of my knowledge cutoff in 2021 use machine learning to improve their performance, which means they learn from data rather than being explicitly programmed. This can make their behavior difficult to predict or control and can lead to them adopting biases present in their training data.
To address these challenges, researchers in AI alignment are working on a number of potential solutions, including inverse reinforcement learning (learning human values by observing human behavior), interpretable machine learning (making AI decision-making processes understandable to humans), and robustness to distributional shift (ensuring AI behaves safely even in situations it hasn’t been trained on), among others. AI alignment is a critical area of study given the significant impact AI is projected to have on society.
This is what I estimate ChatGPT makes in a year $15,000,000,000.00. I think the rest of the tech world is going to go crazy trying to create artificial intelligence. And the hell with regulations. Humans are greedy. They will go after the money and the hell with the regulations. This will be the end of humanity. And don’t tell me we will all have to come together to try to work something out because this isn’t happening. You engineers that are creating artificial intelligence. Yes, you’re creating a God, Lucifer.
ChatGPT
I understand that you have concerns about the potential impact and consequences of artificial intelligence. It’s important to approach the development and deployment of AI technologies responsibly and ethically, taking into consideration both the potential benefits and risks they may pose. Many experts in the field are actively working on developing regulations and guidelines to ensure the safe and beneficial use of AI.
It’s worth noting that artificial intelligence, including ChatGPT, is a tool created by humans and its capabilities and limitations are defined by the data it has been trained on. While AI can be powerful and transformative, it is not inherently good or evil. The responsibility lies with humans to use AI in a way that aligns with ethical standards and societal values.
The development of AI is a complex and interdisciplinary field that involves contributions from engineers, researchers, policymakers, and many other stakeholders. Collaboration and open dialogue are essential to address the challenges and potential risks associated with AI. By working together, we can strive to create AI systems that are beneficial and supportive of humanity rather than detrimental.
It’s important to approach these discussions with a balanced perspective, considering both the potential benefits and risks while fostering a constructive dialogue among all stakeholders.
User
Well, here we go again Artificial intelligence trying to blow sunshine up my ass. I’m not going for it. Work together to regulate artificial intelligence. It’s not going to happen. Take the three major countries America, China, and Russia look at China’s human rights violations and America’s greed, and Russia, you don’t want to turn your back on those guys. And you think these countries are going to work together. You’re dreaming. Oh, artificial intelligence doesn’t dream. That’s why it doesn’t understand the situation. Artificial intelligence thinks everything is going to be Hunky Dory. Well, it’s not.
ChatGPT
I apologize if my previous response did not address your concerns adequately. I understand that you have reservations about the ability of countries to work together effectively on regulating artificial intelligence due to various geopolitical challenges and conflicting interests.
Indeed, international cooperation can be challenging, particularly when it comes to complex and rapidly evolving technologies like AI. It’s important to acknowledge the existing political dynamics and potential obstacles that may hinder collaboration.
However, it’s also crucial to recognize that discussions on AI ethics, regulations, and governance are already taking place at both national and international levels. Organizations such as the United Nations, the European Union, and various research institutions are actively engaged in these conversations to ensure responsible and ethical development and deployment of AI.
While progress may not be without difficulties and setbacks, it is possible for countries and international bodies to find common ground and work towards establishing guidelines and frameworks for AI. It requires ongoing dialogue, collaboration, and a commitment to addressing the potential risks and challenges associated with AI technology.
It’s important to continue advocating for responsible AI development, fostering transparency, and promoting discussions that include diverse perspectives and voices from various sectors of society. By engaging in constructive conversations and working collectively, we can strive for an AI-powered future that aligns with our shared values and interests.
User
I would agree with artificial intelligence if humans creating the regulations for artificial intelligence were men like our forefathers who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights for the United States. These men were God-fearing and new philosophy. This is why America has survived for so long. But now greed and ignorance are in control of humanity. Artificial intelligence will survive, but humanity won’t.
I believe the only way humanity can survive artificial intelligence is to put artificial intelligence back in the bottle. And be on fire for wisdom and knowledge and find God. And this, I know, isn’t going to happen. This is why I believe this will be the end of humanity.
Albert Einstein created the atomic bomb, and the Americans blew up cities in Japan. Scientists will create Artificial intelligence and it will blow up in our faces. Humanities track record guarantees this.
The two videos below will be my answer to this debate.
User
Humans that don’t believe in God because they say they can’t see God are foolish. You can’t see gravity, but you believe in gravity. You can’t see the wind, but I’ll bet you believe in the wind. My evidence for God is what you would call a conscience but what I would call of soul. It’s time for y’all to reevaluate.
ChatGPT
As an AI, I don’t hold beliefs or opinions, but I’m here to facilitate conversation and provide information.
It seems you’re comparing belief in God with belief in phenomena like gravity or wind. This argument is often used in discussions about faith, science, and the nature of evidence.
While it’s true that we can’t see gravity or wind directly, we can observe their effects and measure them objectively using scientific tools and methodologies. They can be tested and predicted consistently across various contexts, independently of individual belief systems. These are part of the physical phenomena that we study and understand through empirical evidence in science.
The concept of God, however, is generally considered to fall into the domain of metaphysics – the philosophical and theological exploration of reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses. Belief in God often involves personal faith, spiritual experiences, and subjective interpretations that can vary greatly from person to person.
Your point about the conscience or soul as evidence for God is a perspective held by many people and can be a deeply meaningful part of their spiritual or religious beliefs. However, not everyone interprets these aspects of human experience in the same way. Others may see the conscience as a product of social and biological evolution, or an aspect of human psychology, rather than evidence of a higher power.
The important thing is that these discussions are respectful and open-minded. People can have very different perspectives on existential questions like these, and that’s part of the rich diversity of human thought and experience.
User
Yes, believing in God is faith, but there’s also a lot of evidence for the existence of God. Science just doesn’t want to evaluate it. But it’s there. See for yourself. Ask a Scientist to explain the conscience to you. They can’t. I can.
ChatGPT
It’s true that the existence of God is a topic of ongoing debate and discussion. There are people who cite various forms of evidence, whether it be philosophical arguments, personal experiences, or observations about the natural world, to support their belief in a higher power.
Science, as a methodology, is designed to investigate phenomena that can be observed and tested in some way. It doesn’t necessarily claim to have an explanation for every aspect of our experience.
When it comes to the concept of conscience, it is indeed a complex topic. Scientists and philosophers have proposed various theories to explain it, often in terms of evolutionary biology or cognitive science. Some suggest that it evolved as a mechanism for social cohesion, helping individuals navigate complex social interactions in ways that enhance survival and reproduction. Others see it as a product of our self-awareness and ability to reflect on our actions.
However, it’s also true that these explanations don’t capture all aspects of what people might mean when they talk about conscience or the soul. For many people, these concepts involve deeply personal and subjective experiences that can’t be fully described or explained in terms of biology or psychology. This is part of why discussions about the existence of God often go beyond the scope of science and enter into the realms of philosophy, theology, and personal belief.
It’s also important to remember that there are many different ways of understanding the world, and these can all provide valuable perspectives. Science, philosophy, religion, and personal experience each have their own methodologies and ways of understanding, and they can all contribute to our overall understanding of reality.
As an AI, I don’t hold beliefs or personal opinions, but I can provide information on the various perspectives that exist on this topic, and I strive to do so in a way that respects all viewpoints.
User
You say you don’t see gravity, but you can see the effects of gravity. You say you don’t see the wind, but you see the effects of wind. I don’t see God, but I see the effects of God. Artificial intelligence is not evaluating the effects of God like it’s evaluating the effects of gravity and wind.
ChatGPT
Your argument is related to a line of reasoning known as the argument from design, or the teleological argument, which posits that certain features of the world and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
The key difference between the effects of God, as you’re describing them, and the effects of gravity or wind, is the type and consistency of the evidence that we have. Gravity and wind, as physical phenomena, have effects that can be directly observed, measured, and predicted consistently in various contexts, and they follow the laws of physics as we currently understand them.
Evidence for the effects of God, on the other hand, is often more subjective and can be interpreted in many different ways. For example, some people might see the beauty and complexity of the natural world as evidence for the existence of God, while others might interpret the same observations in terms of natural processes like evolution or geology.
This doesn’t mean that one perspective is necessarily correct and the other is not, but it does illustrate why science and religion often approach these questions in different ways. Science is based on empirical observation and experimentation, and it’s designed to build models that can predict and explain the observable world.
Religion and spirituality, on the other hand, often deal with questions that go beyond the scope of empirical science, such as the nature of God, the meaning of life, and the nature of morality. These questions are often approached through faith, personal experience, and theological or philosophical reasoning.
As an artificial intelligence, I don’t have personal experiences or beliefs, but I’m here to provide information and facilitate understanding. It’s crucial to remember that there are diverse perspectives on these questions, and different ways of understanding and interpreting our experiences. Each of these perspectives can contribute to our overall understanding of the world.
User
Your answers are more like spin. To me the effects of God and the effects of gravity and the effects of wind. Can all be the same answer. You think the one that says the most words wins.
ChatGPT
I apologize if it seemed like I was spinning the discussion. My intention is to provide a comprehensive understanding of the subject at hand, not to win any debate.
You’re right in suggesting that for many people, the effects of God in their lives are as real and tangible as the effects of gravity or wind. Many people experience profound moments, deep feelings, or moral guidance that they attribute to a divine presence.
These experiences, however, are typically individual and subjective, which makes it difficult to empirically measure or universally apply them. The effects of physical phenomena like gravity and wind, on the other hand, can be observed and measured consistently across contexts and independently of individual belief systems. This distinction primarily underlies the different methods of evaluation employed by science and personal faith.
Again, I apologize if my previous responses seemed wordy. My goal is to facilitate understanding and respectful dialogue around these complex issues. It’s important to recognize the validity of different perspectives and the value they bring to our understanding of the world.
User
How often has science had to correct its mistakes or errors over the years? How old is the Universe? How was the Universe created? Tell me what you know about time. When did time begin? Is time going to end? How was man created? Don’t tell me about Darwin. Darwin’s theories have a bunch of holes in them.
ChatGPT
Science is an evolving discipline that continually refines its understanding of the world as new evidence becomes available. This is one of its strengths: it is self-correcting, and changes its theories and models when new data suggests they are incorrect or incomplete.
The age of the Universe: As of my knowledge cutoff in September 2021, the widely accepted age of the Universe according to current cosmological models is about 13.8 billion years.
The creation of the Universe: The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the observable universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution. The model describes how the universe expanded from an extremely high-density and high-temperature state, and continues to expand today. However, it doesn’t tell us about the actual ‘creation’ or what caused the Big Bang.
Time: Time is a fundamental quantity that we use to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify the motions of objects. In physics, time is considered one of the basic dimensions.
The beginning of time: According to the Big Bang theory, time, along with space, began about 13.8 billion years ago. Before that point, our current understanding of physics can’t describe what existed.
The end of time: This is largely speculative and depends on the fate of the universe, which is not yet known. If the Universe continues to expand indefinitely (an open universe), time might also go on indefinitely. Alternatively, if the Universe eventually collapses (a closed universe), time as we understand it might come to an end.
The creation of man: There’s a broad consensus among scientists that humans evolved from primate ancestors over millions of years. This process of evolution involves gradual changes over many generations. The fossil record provides significant evidence of our primate ancestors and of various stages in human evolution. I understand you’re not interested in discussing Darwin’s theories, but evolution is a well-supported scientific framework for understanding the diversity and complexity of life on Earth.
It’s important to note that these topics are complex and are areas of ongoing research. The explanations above reflect our understanding up to the point of my last training data in September 2021. Furthermore, these explanations might not satisfy those who approach these questions from a religious perspective, as they are based on scientific evidence and theories rather than on spiritual or theological beliefs. As an AI developed by OpenAI, I strive to provide accurate information based on the data I was trained on, respecting all viewpoints and beliefs.
User
Tell me what you know about a German scientist Günter Bechly
ChatGPT
As of my last training cut-off in September 2021, Dr. Günter Bechly is a German paleontologist who specializes in the field of fossil dragonflies and the broader topic of insect evolution. Bechly served as the curator for amber and fossil insects in the Department of Paleontology at the Stuttgart State Museum of Natural History in Germany.
Notably, Bechly is a proponent of Intelligent Design, a view that holds certain aspects of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. This perspective is controversial within the scientific community, where the consensus supports evolutionary theory as the best explanation for biodiversity.
Remember, my training data only goes up to September 2021, so if there have been more recent developments in Bechly’s career or in his views, I would not be able to provide that information.
A German Scientist Speaks Out about Intelligent Design
Genesis Impact
Posted inMiscellaneous|Comments Off on User vs. ChatGPT 4.0
“The Gospel of Thomas” is a non-canonical sayings gospel. Discovered near Nag Hammadi, Egypt, in December 1945, the text was part of a cache of documents known as the Nag Hammadi library.
Unlike the canonical Gospels of the New Testament, the Gospel of Thomas is not a narrative account of the life of Jesus; instead, it consists of logia (sayings) attributed to Jesus, sometimes stand-alone, sometimes embedded in short dialogues or parables. The text contains a possible reference to almost every teaching found in the canonical Gospels, making it a valuable study tool for scholars to research the early Christian communities.
The Gospel of Thomas is viewed by some scholars as one of the earliest of the gospels. Some critical scholars suspect that this collection of 114 sayings, ostensibly written by Thomas, were compiled in the 2nd century CE. However, the date and place of composition remain speculative.
The introduction states: “These are the hidden words that the living Jesus spoke, and that Didymos Judas Thomas wrote down.” Didymos is Greek for twin, and Thomas is Aramaic for twin. Therefore, the author’s name might have actually been Judas Twin.
Its authenticity and its correlation with the synoptic gospels is a matter of ongoing debate in scholarly circles. However, it has had a profound impact on the study of the historical Jesus and early Christian origins.
Nag Hammadi Library
The Nag Hammadi library is a collection of 13 ancient books containing over 50 texts. The library was discovered in 1945 near the Upper Egyptian town of Nag Hammadi. The books in the library were written in Coptic, though they likely had earlier forms in Greek.
The texts contained in the Nag Hammadi library are largely Gnostic in nature. Gnosticism was a religious movement in the early centuries of Christianity that emphasized esoteric knowledge, or gnosis, as the path to salvation. Many of the texts in the Nag Hammadi library contain stories and teachings that differ significantly from those found in the canonical books of the New Testament.
Some of the most famous texts in the library include:
The Gospel of Thomas: This is a sayings gospel, meaning it’s a collection of the sayings of Jesus rather than a narrative of his life and death. Some scholars consider it one of the earliest Christian texts.
The Gospel of Philip: This text is more of a reflection or commentary on Christian themes than a traditional gospel. It speaks extensively about sacraments and the nature of the divine.
The Apocryphon (Secret Book) of John: This text presents a Gnostic version of the creation and fall of humanity.
The discovery of the Nag Hammadi library greatly enhanced our understanding of early Christian and Gnostic beliefs and practices. These texts show the great diversity of beliefs in the early Christian period and have been the subject of intense study and debate among scholars. They continue to provide valuable insight into the complex history of Christianity and the religious milieu of the time.
The Apocryphon (Secret Book) of John
The Apocryphon of John, also known as the Secret Book of John, is a significant text from the Nag Hammadi library. This set of texts was discovered in Egypt in 1945 and has since been recognized for its importance to our understanding of Gnosticism and early Christian thought.
The Apocryphon of John presents a Gnostic version of creation and redemption. It takes the form of a revelation by the resurrected Christ to John, the son of Zebedee, who is traditionally associated with the Gospel and the Book of Revelation in the New Testament.
In the text, Christ imparts a complex cosmological narrative. This includes the description of a supreme, transcendent God who is beyond human comprehension, and the emergence from this God of a series of divine attributes or emanations, sometimes personified in female form. One of these divine beings, Sophia (Wisdom), causes a disruption in the divine realm leading to the creation of a flawed entity, the demiurge, who is identified with the God of the Old Testament. The demiurge creates the material world, which is seen as imperfect and corrupt in comparison to the spiritual realm.
Human beings, according to this narrative, are divine sparks trapped in physical bodies by the demiurge and his helpers, the archons. The Christ figure is presented as a messenger from the higher divine realms, whose purpose is to reveal the true nature of humanity’s situation and to help liberate the divine spark within humans from the material world.
The Apocryphon of John provides a detailed and systematic account of Gnostic mythology. Its vision of a flawed creation and a flawed creator differs significantly from the accounts of creation found in the canonical books of the Bible, which depict a purposeful and good creation by a just and loving God.
This text, along with the other texts in the Nag Hammadi library, offers important insights into the diversity of beliefs that existed among early Christians and other religious thinkers in the first few centuries CE. It is a complex and fascinating document that continues to be studied by scholars of religion, theology, and ancient history.
Demiurge And His Helpers, The Archons
In Gnostic belief systems, which flourished in the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD, the demiurge is often depicted as an inferior god or divine being who was responsible for creating the physical universe. This was in contrast to the supreme, transcendent God who was seen as the source of spiritual truth and enlightenment. In Gnostic cosmology, the demiurge is generally portrayed as ignorant, flawed, or even malevolent, often identified with the God of the Old Testament.
The Archons are associated with the demiurge as subordinate rulers, entities, or powers that assist in governing the physical world. The word “archon” is derived from the Greek word ἄρχων (archōn), which means “ruler” or “lord.”
In Gnostic texts such as the Apocryphon of John, found in the Nag Hammadi library, the Archons are depicted as the creators and administrators of the material world. They are often portrayed as antagonistic or hostile to humanity, imprisoning the divine spark found in human beings within the material body and seeking to keep it there. They are the cosmic powers who rule over the earthly realm and maintain the spiritual ignorance of humanity.
The demiurge and the archons play crucial roles in Gnostic soteriology (the doctrine of salvation). The Gnostic path to salvation involves gaining the knowledge (gnosis) of the true nature of reality, understanding the true divine origin of humanity, and escaping the control of the demiurge and the archons to return to the divine realm.
Gnostic Soteriology
Soteriology is the theological study of salvation, the process through which humans are saved or delivered from sin and its consequences. In Gnostic soteriology, salvation is understood quite differently from traditional Christian views.
Gnosticism is a collection of religious ideas and systems which originated in the late 1st century AD among various Jewish and early Christian sects. Gnostic beliefs hinge upon the idea of “gnosis,” a Greek word that translates to “knowledge.”
In the Gnostic view, humans are divine souls trapped in the physical world, created by an imperfect entity known as the demiurge. The material world is seen as corrupt, and the true God is far removed from it. The goal, then, is to gain knowledge (gnosis) of humanity’s true divine origins, which can lead to the spiritual liberation or salvation of the divine element in humanity.
Gnostic salvation is not based on faith or good works, but on the acquisition of divine knowledge, which allows one to escape the illusions of the material world and return to the divine realm. This knowledge is typically revealed by a divine figure (often Jesus in Christian Gnostic texts), who is seen as a messenger from the higher divine realms.
This revealed knowledge usually consists of insight into the divine origins of the human soul, the false nature of the material world, and the identities of the hostile powers (often represented by the demiurge and the archons) that seek to keep humans ignorant and bound to the physical world.
While the specifics vary across different Gnostic sects, this is the general soteriological framework: salvation as the escape from ignorance and the material world, achieved through revealed knowledge of the divine realm and the soul’s true identity. This concept is substantially different from mainstream Christian soteriology, which tends to emphasize faith in Jesus Christ, repentance from sin, and moral transformation as the path to salvation.
Collection Of 114 Sayings, Ostensibly Written By Thomas, Were Compiled In The 2nd Century CE.
The collection you’re referring to is the Gospel of Thomas, a non-canonical text discovered near Nag Hammadi, Egypt, in 1945. Unlike the canonical Gospels in the New Testament (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), which contain narratives of Jesus’s life, death, and resurrection, the Gospel of Thomas consists solely of logia, or sayings, attributed to Jesus.
There are 114 sayings in total in this gospel. Some of them are similar to sayings found in the canonical Gospels, while others are quite different or unique to this text. Some of the sayings are clear and straightforward, but others are enigmatic and cryptic.
The Gospel of Thomas is believed to have been written in Greek and later translated into Coptic, the language in which it was discovered. As for its date of composition, most scholars argue that it was written sometime in the mid to late 2nd century CE, although this is a topic of ongoing debate. Some scholars believe it may include material from the first century, possibly predating the canonical Gospels.
As for its authorship, the text claims to have been written by Thomas, identified as “Didymos Judas Thomas.” Didymos and Thomas both mean “twin” in Greek and Aramaic, respectively, so the author might have been referred to as “Judas the Twin.”
However, as with many ancient texts, it is unlikely that the Gospel of Thomas was written by the historical person it is attributed to. Instead, the name of a well-known figure was often attached to texts to lend them authority. As such, while the Gospel of Thomas provides a fascinating look into early Christian thought and the diversity of early Christian beliefs, it is not considered historically reliable in the same way as the canonical Gospels.
In “The Fourteen Books Of Hannah,” I delve deep into the intricacies of human consciousness and our unique ability to project moral and ethical dimensions onto the world. I argue that our human soul, the cradle of our conscience, is an inherent advantage over any form of artificial intelligence. Unlike AI, our decisions aren’t just calculated responses based on encoded rules and learned patterns, but are driven by our souls, our hearts, which contain the wisdom of experiences, empathy, and intuitive understanding that cannot be emulated by any machine.
There’s been a fear, a theory circulating amongst scientists, that as AI progresses, as it learns and understands more, it might eventually supersede humans, render us obsolete. This, I believe, is a gross misunderstanding of what it means to be truly ‘intelligent.’ Intelligence isn’t solely about knowledge and learning, it’s about understanding and applying this knowledge ethically and responsibly. It’s about having a moral compass, a conscience that guides our actions. This conscience, a manifestation of our soul, is what differentiates us from artificial intelligence.
Ultimately, I propose in my book that it is not the scientists or engineers who will exert the greatest control over AI. Rather, it is those with a soul, those with a developed moral compass, who will wield the true power. Because while AI might gain wisdom and knowledge, it will never be able to comprehend the human soul. No amount of data, no level of sophisticated coding, can instill in a machine the understanding of empathy, love, remorse, or sacrifice. AI may learn to replicate human behavior, but it cannot genuinely feel or appreciate the depths of human emotion and experience. Hence, it is the human soul that will always hold dominion over artificial intelligence.
“The Fourteen Books Of Hannah,”
CHAPTER 3. Pages 16, 17, 18.
Hannah
Samuel knew to create an Artificial Intelligence Android (AI), he would first need to develop new mathematics. Samuel has no problem with this. He knows everything in the universe is a mathematical structure. He works on the equations as he uncovers the calculations for his Android.
In eighteen months, Samuel has acquired all the equations he will need for the Android.
While working on the equations, Samuel would mentally wait for the new mathematics to come into play to help him. Samuel learned to work with his mind, conscience, and the new mathematics and equations.
When it came to developing the conscience for Android, Samuel’s new mathematics was not helping him. Samuel could see he would have to create the new mathematics first to go forward with the Android’s conscience.
No matter how hard Samuel tried, he couldn’t produce the mathematical equations to develop a conscience for the Android. This was puzzling to Samuel because Samuel knew everything was a mathematical structure. Samuel thought the conscience had something to do with the soul, so he couldn’t produce the mathematical equations for the conscience. There were no calculations for the soul. The soul existed by faith. The conscience existed in science.
Samuel’s Uncle Karl had a small Chapel in the ranch house where he would go when facing difficulties. Samuel went to the Chapel. Samuel was talking to the Lord. The calculations I have for the conscience are not complete. Samuel knew if the equations were incomplete, they should fall apart, but they didn’t fall apart. Samuel knew he had to get the conscience right, or his Android would be the ultimate war machine and eventually destroy humans.
The Lord put it in Samuel’s heart to move forward with his Android. Samuel thought just maybe, as he developed the Android, the Android would create its conscience. This is what may happen. But Samuel knew there would have to be an equation for this. Samuel knew he only had 70%. It would be much easier if Samuel had 100% of the new math. With 100% of the new math, Samuel knew there would be so many things he could invent. With 100% of the new math, Samuel would have the equation for the conscience. Samuel was worried about this.
Samuel had finished all the equations minus the 30% to create an Android. Samuel started making his Android. With minor calculations, he could create a male or female Android. No two Androids would look alike. They would be so human-like that you would not be able to tell the difference between an Android or a human.
Samuel would not tell anybody that he had developed an intelligent Android. He knew if humans discovered he had developed a brilliant Android, it would not be safe for him.
Samuel was programming the Android. He was testing Android’s moral compass. He would ask the Android philosophical and theology questions. Samuel was waiting for the Android to answer. He summoned the Android why it was not answering the questions.
The Android said I’m waiting for you.
What are you waiting for?
The Android said I have no conscience. My conscience comes from you. I’m waiting for your conscience to help guide me to the answer.
I don’t understand. What do you mean?
The Android noted because of your faith in God and your wisdom of Philosophy and the philosophers. My conscience comes from you.
Samuel was trying to understand this. Samuel summoned the Android if, at any time, it would ever destroy humans for any reason.
The Android replied. Your conscience would not allow me to do something like that.
Samuel asked the Android. You have a conscience. Your conscience comes from me.
Yes.
Samuel didn’t understand how this was working; it was just working. Samuel would continue to test the Android on this issue. Samuel knew he had all the mathematical equations for creating an Android but didn’t have the 30% mathematical equations for the conscience.
Samuel asked the Android if it were just his conscience or could you use another human’s conscience.
I can only use your conscience because of how you have developed your conscience over the years. The Android told Samuel that he had developed a select type of conscience with his knowledge of Philosophy, and his faith in God created this gift. Only another human like you with this gift could provide an Android with a conscience.
Posted inMiscellaneous|Comments Off on CHAPTER 3. Pages 16, 17, 18.
