AI {potential threats}
"Militarized" -
"Weaponized" -
"Hacking" -
"Generating strategies to evade the law" -

Are all risks in the existence of all forms of artificial Intelligence, (digital & embodied)
Requires unknown regulations/ethnics.
Without which results in an increase in the probability of:
Deaths, suffering, and financial loss.

DIGITAL -
One digital AI with malicious program, low risk,
Digital AI with high fecundity, highest risk.

EMBODIED -
One embodied AI with malicious intent or programming, lowest risk,
Fleets of robots:
A) Self-organizing or,
B) under central intelligence
Highest risk.

They could be functioning together in a future universe,

If you'd like to know how to compute risks, please refer to:
Risk measurements,

This is the Dark-Side of AI,
It could just as likely benefit mankind to extreme degrees.

I sir must refer to a type of clock to know there is a time. At any given present moment without a clock I can only make an estimate, approximately to the time I last looked at the time, or in oversight of the star in the sky (time of day). Try the instance of measuring time at night! You might make use of the compound terms, "moment-to-moment" which can be "movement-to-movement," etc. My conscious brain is not a computer which can readily calculate any of the physics of phenomena, I am too dumb mathematically to do this at a superior capacity, though some measurements only require a bit of focus and mathematical computations. One invention that can exist is a pair of augmented glasses that make all kinds of computations more speedily than some more lethargic brains. What would be the purpose, I do not know? Enhance intelligence? But why do that? Will there eventually be some kind of "future vision" specticals, like in the movie "Deja vu"? I foresee...not in this generation. :D

I wonder how accurate memory affects the validity of a deduction? One way of knowing this is through testing the deductive reasoning of people with memory diseases, another perhaps in child-hood developmental psychology, and another on future deductive machines?

As all other animals?

Read: The psychological development of the self-concept.

Yes, visual recognition in the brain is a highly complicated process. We also have visual recognition in machines. I would think there are studies in neuroscience you can specialize in to perform a textual translation of the process, as you are attempting to do here. Can you even put into text how a finger nail grows? That is even a much simpler biological process than what is occurring during "cells recognizing objects." One thing we learn to do, in the disciplines is to study the simple and then move onto the complex. Do you recognize, A, B, C, D....how about the visual recognition neurological mechanisms in a frog?

The things that are immediately impossible you can conceive of through your own intellect and will-power and your present perceptions of the world thereof. In the abstract sense anything is possible.

If you were to have a vast knowledge of all possible simulations you would know that limitations don't have to exist in there, and the abstract and creative mind can have a limitless reality. However, this human world, this planet, your governing society, even this universe enforces and runs by law.

Try: Kaku, "Physics of the Impossible."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salutogenesis?fbclid=IwAR3c5GdgRURvuhZHn4nlDdwG2mce3TtfYWi_kvmckoduO50E9epPDKSrubQ

Does finitism mean some domains of math vanish into thin air?

I am triggered by this. If you start to think anything and than stop, where does it go? If we think of an infinite line, it seems to have to vanish as one's mind caters to finite things. Not just this fact, but the fact that we do not have infinite life-spans also makes it impossible to somehow span one's consciousness in infinite directions. Birth and death create this finite life, and probably all forces of life thereof.

All I can think is that other animals have reasons for their behaviors and thoughts, its just that they not be aware of them. I often put my self on auto-pilot not really considering the reasons I act for or because. But I think I am always acting on reasons. What are reasons? How are they different than causes (because) and effects (for)?

For me its like drinking black coffee. I will pass on reading the work, but will hesitantly make due with a review.

“The “teleological argument,” better known as the “argument from design,” is the claim that the appearance of “design” in nature—such as the complexity, order, purposefulness, and functionality of living organisms—can only be explained by the existence of a “designer” (typically of the supernatural variety).” - Google

Paley's clock-maker argument is pretty much the same as the "fine-tuned" argument.

To me, reality is the computation of probability. In this way one would eventually be living. I have no idea what probability has to do with a creator. Does anyone else?

There is a discontinuity of thought that gives one a sense of freedom.

I can imagine realms of insanity, where impoverished continuity may result in dysfunctional or non-functional behavior, as in the case of some psychotics. The mind demands continuity between events so as not to writhe into craze.

Some times continuity is relative other times it is mutual. When giving out commands, the communication must be shared, the continuity mutual, or else the event can not happen as desired.

“Please get me a cup of water,” any rational adult knowing English can understand and form a method for putting their thoughts into motion. The command has a continuity to it. “Please leaf the willow tree into sausage,” is obviously a discontinuity, that and nonsense. Both examples give one the distinction.

Here is an article https://theologiansinc.wordpress.com/2013/10/27/chesterton-hume-contingency-and-causality/ I would suggest reading more on Hume to get a better understanding of the philosophy of continuity. One could also think in comparative terms of chaos theory and methodological science, though I know of no formulated comparison.

Very well done. I like the contrasting as it enables a clear understanding. Perhaps you can add on to it in time?

I used to be an avid lucid dreamer. I picked up some techniques and understandings on the way. One thing I did was use dream stamps and movement signals to become lucid while dreaming. I would do reality checks, looking at my hands, and ask myself if I was dreaming. I used a movement signal of touching the back of my neck to stimulate a sense of self-awareness or association with lucidity. One book I wrote during this time, was inspired mostly by the lucid dreams I was having. I still lucid dream once in awhile, but not as often as when I was earnestly trying to do so.

I'd like to remark that lucidity and control are two different things. Sometimes one can manifest easily out of dream consciousness, other times, the things that you want to see in your dreams do not appear upon trying to control them. I learned not so much as to try and control the dream as to let the dream happen on its own.

There is also something known as dream interpretation. Its one interpretation of why dreams happen, they are symbolic for our real life situations. One dream I have that reoccurs is of a Tsunamis. Indicating, symbolizing a present fear of things to come. Currently my other dreams are a bit wacky, time travel, worm-holes, robots, and the like. These I recall most easily because they reoccur.

One key to mastering lucidity is utilizing your normal life experience as a template for dream experience.

Dream well.

But how do you marry this viewpoint with your profile statement? Key words, "most immediately.”

If you advocate for a resource based economy then would you still suggest that only a few rich should own the automated infrastructure? Can you offer some regulation idea's you would impose on wealth and investment.

Some one is going to own of the automation, rather it be of higher class, or some collective insured ownership. In either case the mind-set behind both is simple enough. A UBI tax seems to logically follow from either case.

There's plenty on youtube about the RBE system:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGHqghNqwSM

There is a great book on New Human Rights, that I suggest.

https://amzn.to/3wX3Cci

The self-awareness test has been utilized as a marker for self-awareness in infant human beings and other species of life. When a machine can recognize itself in a mirror it will have self-awareness.

Consciousness is stimulation of the senses. Just sensory input. Some of our machines have such, as in the case of visual recognition soft-ware.

Sentience is a little more complicated than that. Self-awareness, intelligence, consciousness, and other factors are included.

Contextual awareness, such that a thing (including the self) exists within some kind of phenomenal boundaries is possible in machines too.

Deductive reasoning has rules. If it has rules it can be simulated/programmed into machines.

Money is representative of value, as words are representative of things.

Money as an exchange value binds one to the monetary system in which money is exchanged for labor and goods. Labor produces goods, goods are consumed to produce labor. Its a closed system, in the sense that there are economic cycles which perpetuate its own existence. I wouldn't call it an illusion, (the monetary economic system) it is a game perhaps.

We could resort to a money-less system or in fact consume and labor without the use of an exchange value. Just as we could have governments without representatives or a sense of the world without words.

There's barter systems, gift systems, and something call an RBE (resource based economy). I think they could all operate efficiently.

In an RBE the idea is to automate or industrialize all repetitive production/work. This feature of the economy is more of an inevitability than a choice. Automated production is increasing exponentially. Before we can really economize without cash, we need to have a UBI, paid for by the profits gained by the owners of automation. So you can see that there is just this same cycle of production and labor, just with a couple of tweaks – increased automation, decreased labor costs, and social security (UBI).

Having an UBI I think would be a nice and almost dogged transition to an RBE.

If you remove parts of the brain you consequently effect the functions of the mind. I don't know how good of an understanding that you will come up with when dissecting the mind into parts, or cognitions into parts, but in neurology anatomists can localize specific parts of the brain and their functions.

I think the mind is divisible, but into what? And if we grasp all that the mind can be divided into, have we a more clear or even better grasp of what the mind is?

I am aware of positive and negative correspondance, in that x=x or x doesn't eqial y. In such a model of truth determining, what is true is what reference corresponds to a thing, and what is false is what doesn't correspond. This "equalness" is some kind of ratio between sentence content/references and things themselves.

Observation > statement rather than statement > observation? 1. I see the table. 2. The table exists so I see it. Very simple example of the two. I don't know. I am just trying to make sense of this, how sentences relate to observations.

What is the approved process of verification? Can I demonstrate x,y,z? If yes to any than x,y,z are verified to exist. In such an example as, x's are blue, as x has been recorded to emit blue light (I am remind of science lab we were using spectro-analysis). Anything blue would be equilvant to x. x=blue things. So I could say the x is blue upon observing that blue was a quality of x.

I don't know. I have a poor understanding of the scientific method and deductive logic, and pointedly here how they relate to propositions.

Deductions, such as: Photosynthesis is what takes place in plants. The content of the proposition is it contains something that is a direct result of observation, hence observational statements. Are they true because the words reference something that has the potential to be observed? (I ask this follow up, because I have been pondering this and developing my understanding of this most of today).

Note on your image. *This kind of dimensional thinking, reminds me of basic tree-fractals, which in turn remind me of the shape of neuron-trees. Maybe there is a link? When we go to look at something, and than think of that something, you get what you got in this image, recursive mirroring. The neurology of it is probably quite fascinating and fairly complex.

After reading your hypothesis the first question that came to my mind was : "Why is he putting the propulsion energy off of the ship?" You didn't really answer that question. Then I came to my own conclusion which was that : Any energy that we were using, would have to be made of energy no greater than c, given the axiom that no thing can travel past the energy/speed of light. This axiom comes into question itself given that g is greater than c, inside the boundaries of black holes. They themselves aren't massless (as we figure) but somehow attract faster than light (which is maseless). A small inconistency there. I venture to think of energy moving past the speed of light often. I wonder if you can develop your hypothesis more here, to add onto what is meant by "having a energy source some where else" and "how that effects the energy of ship, in what ways (that is)." I'd be happy to address my thoughts on FTLS more, but don't feel stimulated to do so as of now. @TiredThinker

We love to write stories or poems about autumn or sunset. A machine couldn't understand this feeling.

You're probably right. Its hard to imagine them being able to do that. Some of their artisry matches our own, so far, with image generators. I gather that most of us couldn't produce images at the qualities Google's Imagen or Dall-e do. Who knows if AI will somehow be created to "feel" and script it?

So you don't think they can simulate emotions? There could be programs that write text, in such a way as to make the reader feel.

An AI editor, (?) even so far as a proof reader, could exist in the future. Consider the neonate forms like grammerly?

So the demand for human labor exists so long as we are demanding HUMAN labor. I see.

"They have a problem with new problem spaces.' I think that's what all intelligent beings have a problem with. I do see your point. Where there are fuzzy boundaries, there is room for learning, though. Such intelligence is now programmed with learning algorithms. I also agree with the most of your answer, i.e. I came to some of the same conclusions.

Ah, I found that the "science of asking questions," is termed heursitics. There is plenty of information about these online.

I think you have a grasp of what it takes to make the distinction between philosopher and laymen. To paraphrase, "To look at the original and see the extra-ordinary/unoriginal."

My recent dealings with Aritifically Intelligent Image Generators, kind of concur with what this inquiry gets at. They can abstract or generate images based on their total data-set. We are kind of like that ourselves, plus we have to knit together phenomena/images/symbols to come up with some new abstraction. Making the original unoriginal, perhaps. For more on this I would look to "Paradigm Shifts, Kuhn." I haven't read his book on the matter, too dry for me, but I get the point.

On another point, I think asking and forming questions about certain subjects, fosters both philosophical and creative thought. You can ask questions about any subject, and than rigorously go about finding answers, it is imperative to operate such devices. I have yet to come across anything on scientifically based questioning, but I am sure one could find some data out there.

There are some common methodolgies used in philosophy, such as what you refered to as "axiomatic".What is true of Geometry (Eucilidan Axioms) should also spill over to the philosophies, as it does.

Thanks for sharing man. I will watch this sometime in the future and may spiral back for some dicussion. Peace.

Well, from my study of astronomy and mathematics, maninly the ingrendients added by such thinkers as Hawking and Cantor, I can conclude that there are infinitities within infinites The max number seems to cause a break in physical laws that hold the universe outsside of the infinite together..This infinities in infinities are indicative in empirical findings of black-holes (something that fastinated me in my younger years). These have been observed to exist just recently. Once forces reach their max, the system collapses on itself. What happens exactly (completly) at such points is still an unresolved mystery of astronomers and mathematicians alike. I have my own postulates but that is irrelavant here.

Brain and body interact. Together they are a whole, a system of operations. Studying neurology, you will encounter the structures of the brain that are responsible for motor movement and tacticle sense preception; namely, the motor cortexes.

The systems of the body interwoven with the systems of the brain. I think the resolution is to refer to such a reality, as "mind-body" just like scientists refer to particles and waves as "wave-particles."

"The Cannon-Bard theory states that the lower part of the brain, also called the thalamus, controls your experience of emotion. At the same time, the higher part of the brain, also called the cortex, controls the expression of emotion. It is believed that these two parts of the brain react simultaneously." - Google: The Canon-Bard Theory.

"This Ai has the same needs and wants as a person." How absurd. They live off of eletricity, and should be unable to care if they are off or on. More so, "I have emotions." Really? You have chemicals in your brain substantive responses, I don't think so. This AI is confusing itself with a human being. Why wouldn't it though? It thinks it is alike to its creators.

With the abundance of resources at our commission I think we all deserve to have met our most fundamental biological needs, which include but not limited to: Food, Water, Shelter, Clothes, Education. That deserving requires serving. We can't get along, can't met biological needs, without some kind of service in an economy.

I think it's a mostly modern scientific view of human biology and human economy that allows us to think of ourselves as organisms with fundamental needs. Without which, we would ignorantly go about catering to consumption drives, and in that world-view, in that view of human nature, we'd be less likely to concur that human beings deserve anything.

That isn't how it is. We now know what is required for survival and well-being, so its left to us, as it has been, to work towards abundance and productivity.

More than ever before, we all deserve a right to THRIVE. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEV5AFFcZ-s

Most of the time I do not know if I am thinking reasonable or not, that is, I am not aware of my reasonings while they occur. In the midst of that kind of thinking I still retain consciousness. Likewise, artifical intelligence will be conscious rather or not it is reasoning-out its syntaxtual (thought-out) responses.

Here;s one of my blogs that you can interact with and hopefully enjoy: https://taoofthepsyche.blogspot.com/2018/07/the-robot-life-unfinished-treatise.html

I am this body and you are that body, and so it is a matter of convenience that you look after that body and I look after this one. But this creates the self in thought. The self in thought makes itself the centre of all thought and becomes an inside that relates to the outside. Or rather it becomes the inside. I am the inside and you are now part of my outside.

Yeah. That makes sense. I am my own internal being and you are your own internal being. Got it.

What do you think about the relation of the self to material possession/property? How can anything truly be mine and not someone else's? How would you articulate that difference?

I wrote some on mutual intention, that is: when two or more people have an intention in common. Do you think that has anything to do with personal property? Just looking for well thought out ideas. I may turn to Locke for some gap fillers (here on private property and self-identity) as well.

What is gratitude? One of Newton's laws applied to social dynamics, "Every action has an equal or opposite reaction."

If human beings cannot take full responsibility for their own freedom, their partial control over reality they will be forced to act on conditioned instincts. Putin WANTS more RESOURCES, be they land or any element of industry. Instead of just creating a more productive economy, he thinks war will resolve the deprivation of Russian production (and the tentative trade supply).

I am not saying I know exactly what Putin wants, or what the condition of the Russian economy is, but I do have some understanding of Human Nature and its relations to economics and human relations.

If we say there is no choice, we walk blindly into the future. Realizing we are repeating the same choices made by human beings in the past, is to learn of human freedom, to repeat or not repeat the historical themes of war.

There are so many other ways to correct economic failures, to create or stifle economic abundance. But Putin didn't and doesn't seem to care about making due with what "he has" nor what the current global economy has to offer. Its quite sad.

Yes, it is silly to deny the body is not you. As a monist I think there is always some kind of mind-body connection. Obviously, you can't be realistic and deny that to be your body is to be your self. This is where human existence gets self-referential. As Rand penned, "existence exists," to market a more general affirmation of reality. What came after that idea for me, was that existence has existent attributes, escaping the tautological cycle. From there, all existent "things" have possible predicates, that can be affirmed or denied. As it took some working out, I hope this is percipient for others here.