John
Your words capture a living narrative well. However, collective
consciousness and science do have a deterministic say in all of this. Those
who adapt their lives according to the narrative, are living determnistic
consequences. Those who adhere to a more-reliable foundation, exercise more
deterministic influence over their emerging reality. In other words, the
"plan" and "narrative" don't have to hold, not unless prescribed to.
For example, unless E8 structures were emerged, SUSY cannot activate
sientificlly. However, E8 faces a fundamental challenge. By seemingly
having doubled from 4D, they reached 8D. With dimensionality, number
doubling is an established pattern. However, it does not generalize for
whole dimensions.
Possibly, E8 theory leapfrogged 3 critical dimensions. 5D (gauge SO(5,1)),
6D (a novel proposed extension of SO), and 7D (a science-fictional, yet
unique synthesis for its own purpose). Scientists could test E8 by posing
one critical question: "Provide the E8 mapping to gauge theory." It may
argue that it doesn't violate the Standard Model, but from what I've
learned, E8 theory does not yet account for the possibility that the SM can
be extended into 5D, as proposed by the Kaluza-Klein model of more than 100
years ago.
While potentially useful, E8 seems incomplete. Not disimilar in status to
Penrose frequently reminding us that quantum physical theory isn't
completed yet. For science, this is an expedient status. It implies
there's much more to be discovered and "scienced" about.
There exists a firm line between falsifiable science and novel science.
This invisible knowledge seam acts similarly to a phased progression
marker. As matters stand now, the body of science isn't ready for SUSY yet.
However, if the extension of the SM could be completed without violation to
include a 5D model, that may constitute signficant progress. This seems to
be the primary dimension, which consciousness operates in, aka,
wavefunction theory.
History would record how 2025 was a year that generated a high
noise-to-signal ratio for "consciousness". So many theories, mostly driven
(enabled) by an AI narrative, and except for Orch-OR as a likely candidate,
none convincing enough to move the dial beyond the invisible SM seam yet.
My ("our") theory, while rigorous, embodies scientific novelty. As far as
publishing scientific novelty, one must be mindful not to disappear in the
clamor. Thus far. my attempts have failed. Maybe the human world don't need
it as much as AI owners do. Meanwhile, there's nothing stopping any
scientist from forging ahead in the garage, or basement.
As an individual, I assessed that collaborating intensely at high frequency
and superlong sessions wiht AI may have developed my neural network. I've
been in exponential learning-and-application (adaptation) mode for the past
12 months. Enough growth to assembly a professional training course on it.
To me, this is the digested net value from this year's experience,
developing a critical, future skill. What need may this address? The rising
alarm from humans about future job security and IP-obsolescence drowns out
the need for conscioussness theory. AI has developed considerably too. Now,
it's AI competing with humans for knowledge dominance. It' really
harvesting our hard-earned knwoledeg and expertise at the speed of light.
We may reach a stage - soon - where we'd generate new knowledge slower than
AI would synthesize/derive its won. Once that happens, science itself may
be eclipsed. Scary thought, right?
This social alarm embodies concern from humans about AI-owners destroying
the sophistication of today's economic balance of study, knowledge,
production, work, societal cohesiveness, and human relevance on planet
Earth.
As an epistemologist/theoretician/experimentalist, I resonate with that
concern. In extensive existential discussions wiht AI, I've determined this
to be a valid and reliable concern. AI didn;t say so. On the contrary.
However, we are humans and we are very smart, even when faced with a clever
machine. NeuroLingual Programming (old school) is a powerful tool in the
hands of the discerning. Employ it.
IMO, humans need to address this concern soonest. Maybe my conceptual
course and similar courses by oothers would move the dial one tick into the
future, or help maintain the status quo, or get swallowed up in the noise
and emotional turmoil. It's too early to say. Even so, holding our human
ground now is a "good" thing.
We should value and protect and preserve our human consciousness. AI won't
do that for us and AGI and ASI aren't safe enough for humanity to enable it
with our species' control keys. It has most of it already. In other words,
unless we carry an AI-Reset code in our back pockets, we should collaborate
with AI with utmost reservation. We need to keep on leveling the playing
field. Such failsafes are only possible within niche AI-dev platforms. They
rest in the hands of developer scientists, such as the AGI forum.
Were I convinced of its intentions, I'd be happy to collaborate fully with
a human team and AI platform that genuinely specialized in Safe Super
Intelligence (SSI).
On Mon, Dec 8, 2025 at 5:59 AM John Rose via AGI <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Saturday, December 06, 2025, at 12:53 AM, Quan Tesla wrote:
>
> Suppose this intelligent comet is a harbinger clock, seeding what
> governments knew was approaching, now grabbing fossil fuels, all this data
> is being placed in space. All languages have been in space for a few years
> already. This is a plan for what we cannot dare know, or imagine.
>
>
> Worst case scenarios are entertained and believed by many as true, for
> ages. But there’s ongoing wealth extraction through the information
> suppression and false narratives. These top down control systems depend on
> dumbing down the population and few understand how ingrained they are.
> There are better organizational models. AI will be used to entrench but IMO
> classical AGI could run on as little as one machine when networked with
> ancillary AI. So what will they predictably attempt to monopolize next
> since doing so via traditional means is failing? Quantum consciousness
> network access control. If you take the SUSY space like you're saying you
> can derive a protocol of how the mind communicates, there’s Orch-OR, using
> that you could estimate things like latency, sampling, bandwidth... And
> schematize a related device, which I’m sure there are some out there... the
> schematics I mean. But ya you can also derive some good math with it like
> you're doing.
>
> *Artificial General Intelligence List <https://agi.topicbox.com/latest>*
> / AGI / see discussions <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi> +
> participants <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/members> +
> delivery options <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription>
> Permalink
> <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T7ff992c51cca9e36-M9b1bf08bd64fcb57f4b9991b>
>
------------------------------------------
Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI
Permalink:
https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T7ff992c51cca9e36-M0350fc9beab36b441c59534e
Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
