---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <jr_esq@...> wrote :
Bhairitu, You seem to agree with Kurzweil that AI can surpass human intelligence. But would a Divine Being want to live in a cold silicon chip or a quantum computer? Surely if it's a quantum computer it's already enlightened, at least according to the idea that quanta reside in the unified field of pure consciousness? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <noozguru@...> wrote : Most humans don't even know what enlightenment is. Just look at FFL. Now for bots artificial enlightenment would be no electronic excitation just silence. If they like it then they'll just sit there doing nothing. Problem with robots taking over solved. On 07/20/2015 12:04 PM, jr_esq@... mailto:jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: Salyavin, Now everyone here would like to know if you are enlightened currently or is it possible to regress once the apex of human life has been attained? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Enlightenment is nothing. These mutha's are going to want the vote! Right for ROBOTS? Act now to regulate KILLER MACHINES Right for ROBOTS? Act now to regulate KILLER MACH... Ryan Calo, from the University of Washington’s School of Law warns that our laws will have to adapt to robotics and artificial intelligence or be faced with dif... View on www.dailymail.co.uk Preview by Yahoo ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <jr_esq@...> mailto:jr_esq@... wrote : Salyavin, Believing is the initial cognition of a Divine Being after experiencing all of the information from the world through the five senses. Knowing a Divine Being is the stage of believing in which the mind is convinced of Its existence through the information from the senses. Enlightenment occurs when the mind and It are one and coexist in the body as it lives in the world. Convinced is a worrying word for me in this instance, labeling experiences as some sort of "other" is making unwarranted assumptions. I could call it all-round superniceness and it would be the same thing, it's us who call it divine and thus dump our needy baggage all over it. An artificial machine cannot experience the Divine as the human body can. Therefore, it cannot believe nor experience enlightenment. How do you know? If we build a machine that mimics ourselves perfectly, who are we to say that it can't have joyous experiences. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> mailto:sharelong60@... wrote : Hi salyavin, it's neither knowing nor believing. It's experiencing and then interpreting or labeling. I bet "believing" happens in its very own section of the brain. (-: From: salyavin808 <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 7:14 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can Artificial Enlightenment Exist? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <jr_esq@...> mailto:jr_esq@... wrote : IMO, I don't believe artificial intelligence can know God. Knowing God requires a biological base, with a complicated connections of nerve cells in the brain and a body structure made of bones, flesh and blood. "Know" god? Don't we mean "believe"? I'm sure a computer could acquire beliefs about where it came from, probably worship it's creator, at least they won't be in error about who that is! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <emptybill@...> mailto:emptybill@... wrote : This article is full of inaccurate generalities about Buddhism and shows ignorance about the foundations of the varied darshana-s of the Indian subcontinent. Since most current Euro-American "thinkers" who consider consciousness and AI are philosophical amateurs, this article is a display of truncated post-empirical/analytic musings. How about this question instead? Can an artificial intelligence know God? This is an equivalent counter-question, which means it is a panapoly of foolish assumptions posing as intelligent inquiry.
