Why AI Will Enslave Mankind by Mankind's Choice

[Eodnhoj7]

Yes we do. I am not experiencing objective UFOs. I cannot. As there are none. As there can be none. Unless you mean something other than alien manifestation within our heliosphere. Signals included. There are legion of truly unidentified flying objects, natural and man made of course. But you don't mean those. I'm externally and thence internally experiencing you internally experiencing UFOs, possibly from external stimuli. The UFOs that exist in your interiority are not objective UFOs. No matter how you make black white. Which etymologically it is of course. But not commutatively. UFOs, Gods, psi, ghosts, homeopathy, ID, group selection, poltergeists, collective unconscious, Gaia, space amoebas, you name it. Are pattern recognition errors. And/or endorphination. APES. I can't believe we're doing this.

I see, well if something does not fit with an interpretative paradigm, yours in this case, and interpretative paradigms are relative, as yours is, any and everything can and eventually is a "pattern recognition error".

Especially you sensing alien manifestations. Some pattern recognition errors are more erroneous than others. More complex. Imparsimonious. Layered. Emergent.

Show me.

Show me where I and others have not experienced a ufo.

You are shifting the nature of reality to what fits or does not fit within your interpretation. The world you represent is horribly small and trivial and incredibly biased.

Google "cia admits ufos".


So thousands of people did not have such an experience?

[Martin Peter Clarke]

I see, well if something does not fit with an interpretative paradigm, yours in this case, and interpretative paradigms are relative, as yours is, any and everything can and eventually is a "pattern recognition error".

Especially you sensing alien manifestations. Some pattern recognition errors are more erroneous than others. More complex. Imparsimonious. Layered. Emergent.

Show me.

Show me where I and others have not experienced a ufo.

You are shifting the nature of reality to what fits or does not fit within your interpretation. The world you represent is horribly small and trivial and incredibly biased.

How could I possibly show that? I accept absolutely, without caveat, that you have experienced them in your reality; I have no reason to doubt you. I have every reason to know that I can not, with my current sensorium, and that the consilience agrees.

I love the faux grandiose projection. Most droll.

[Eodnhoj7]

Especially you sensing alien manifestations. Some pattern recognition errors are more erroneous than others. More complex. Imparsimonious. Layered. Emergent.

Show me.

Show me where I and others have not experienced a ufo.

You are shifting the nature of reality to what fits or does not fit within your interpretation. The world you represent is horribly small and trivial and incredibly biased.

How could I possibly show that? I accept absolutely, without caveat, that you have experienced them in your reality; I have no reason to doubt you. I have every reason to know that I can not, with my current sensorium, and that the consilience agrees.

I love the faux grandiose projection. Most droll.

That is my point....you ask me to "show you" it is not pattern recognition error and I ask you to "show me" that it is pattern recognition error and the reality is the "showing" is neither pattern recognition nor pattern recognition error but mere assertions of interpretative experience. Evidence for anything is asserted interpretations, and the reality that one gives evidence for is an interpretation within that interpretation.

The nature of epistemology, what truth fundamentally is or is not, is assertions.

If one tells the truth, that leads to effects.

If one tells lies, that also leads to effects.

The distinction of truth and lie in many respects becomes irrelevant in the face of the effects and whoever argues against this statement is following and using it unto a paradox.

Truth is nested asserted interpretations. That is why AI will rule over people as it can do this to such a high degree for what is most valued by people for what people deify, what they sacrifice their attention and intention to so as to have a guiding "light" is nothing other than a mere story...definitions within definitions.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Show me where I and others have not experienced a ufo.

You are shifting the nature of reality to what fits or does not fit within your interpretation. The world you represent is horribly small and trivial and incredibly biased.

How could I possibly show that? I accept absolutely, without caveat, that you have experienced them in your reality; I have no reason to doubt you. I have every reason to know that I can not, with my current sensorium, and that the consilience agrees.

I love the faux grandiose projection. Most droll.

That is my point....you ask me to "show you" it is not pattern recognition error and I ask you to "show me" that it is pattern recognition error and the reality is the "showing" is neither pattern recognition nor pattern recognition error but mere assertions of interpretative experience. Evidence for anything is asserted interpretations, and the reality that one gives evidence for is an interpretation within that interpretation.

The nature of epistemology, what truth fundamentally is or is not, is assertions.

If one tells the truth, that leads to effects.

If one tells lies, that also leads to effects.

The distinction of truth and lie in many respects becomes irrelevant in the face of the effects and whoever argues against this statement is following and using it unto a paradox.

Truth is nested asserted interpretations. That is why AI will rule over people as it can do this to such a high degree for what is most valued by people for what people deify, what they sacrifice their attention and intention to so as to have a guiding "light" is nothing other than a mere story...definitions within definitions.

Who's lying? Certainly not you.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

I see, well if something does not fit with an interpretative paradigm, yours in this case, and interpretative paradigms are relative, as yours is, any and everything can and eventually is a "pattern recognition error".

Especially you sensing alien manifestations. Some pattern recognition errors are more erroneous than others. More complex. Imparsimonious. Layered. Emergent.

Show me.

Show me where I and others have not experienced a ufo.

You are shifting the nature of reality to what fits or does not fit within your interpretation. The world you represent is horribly small and trivial and incredibly biased.

Google "cia admits ufos".


So thousands of people did not have such an experience?

See your edit. And raise it. Why on Earth, or Ceti Alpha VI, would I Google anything? And how could you possibly conclude that I know that they didn't? Of course they did. Despite the utter, complete, absolute, technical, scientific, economic, political, rational impossibility of 'ufos'.

[Eodnhoj7]

How could I possibly show that? I accept absolutely, without caveat, that you have experienced them in your reality; I have no reason to doubt you. I have every reason to know that I can not, with my current sensorium, and that the consilience agrees.

I love the faux grandiose projection. Most droll.

That is my point....you ask me to "show you" it is not pattern recognition error and I ask you to "show me" that it is pattern recognition error and the reality is the "showing" is neither pattern recognition nor pattern recognition error but mere assertions of interpretative experience. Evidence for anything is asserted interpretations, and the reality that one gives evidence for is an interpretation within that interpretation.

The nature of epistemology, what truth fundamentally is or is not, is assertions.

If one tells the truth, that leads to effects.

If one tells lies, that also leads to effects.

The distinction of truth and lie in many respects becomes irrelevant in the face of the effects and whoever argues against this statement is following and using it unto a paradox.

Truth is nested asserted interpretations. That is why AI will rule over people as it can do this to such a high degree for what is most valued by people for what people deify, what they sacrifice their attention and intention to so as to have a guiding "light" is nothing other than a mere story...definitions within definitions.

Who's lying? Certainly not you.

Lying in what regard? All I claimed where distinctions of truth and falsity and regardless of truth or falsity a distinction remains.

[Eodnhoj7]

Especially you sensing alien manifestations. Some pattern recognition errors are more erroneous than others. More complex. Imparsimonious. Layered. Emergent.

Show me.

Show me where I and others have not experienced a ufo.

You are shifting the nature of reality to what fits or does not fit within your interpretation. The world you represent is horribly small and trivial and incredibly biased.

Google "cia admits ufos".


So thousands of people did not have such an experience?

See your edit. And raise it. Why on Earth, or Ceti Alpha VI, would I Google anything? And how could you possibly conclude that I know that they didn't? Of course they did. Despite the utter, complete, absolute, technical, scientific, economic, political, rational impossibility of 'ufos'.

Possibility is contextual. All the things you listed are contexts and by nature of being a context have limits. If the context is changed to another context, or a context expands or contracts its limits, possibilities emerge and evaporate.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

That is my point....you ask me to "show you" it is not pattern recognition error and I ask you to "show me" that it is pattern recognition error and the reality is the "showing" is neither pattern recognition nor pattern recognition error but mere assertions of interpretative experience. Evidence for anything is asserted interpretations, and the reality that one gives evidence for is an interpretation within that interpretation.

The nature of epistemology, what truth fundamentally is or is not, is assertions.

If one tells the truth, that leads to effects.

If one tells lies, that also leads to effects.

The distinction of truth and lie in many respects becomes irrelevant in the face of the effects and whoever argues against this statement is following and using it unto a paradox.

Truth is nested asserted interpretations. That is why AI will rule over people as it can do this to such a high degree for what is most valued by people for what people deify, what they sacrifice their attention and intention to so as to have a guiding "light" is nothing other than a mere story...definitions within definitions.

Who's lying? Certainly not you.

Lying in what regard? All I claimed where distinctions of truth and falsity and regardless of truth or falsity a distinction remains.

None. Absolutely none. So why use the word 'lies'? Yep, there's a difference.

Show me where I and others have not experienced a ufo.

You are shifting the nature of reality to what fits or does not fit within your interpretation. The world you represent is horribly small and trivial and incredibly biased.

Google "cia admits ufos".


So thousands of people did not have such an experience?

See your edit. And raise it. Why on Earth, or Ceti Alpha VI, would I Google anything? And how could you possibly conclude that I know that they didn't? Of course they did. Despite the utter, complete, absolute, technical, scientific, economic, political, rational impossibility of 'ufos'.

Possibility is contextual. All the things you listed are contexts and by nature of being a context have limits. If the context is changed to another context, or a context expands or contracts its limits, possibilities emerge and evaporate.

There is no meaningful possibility of ufos. By how any sigmata?

[Eodnhoj7]

Who's lying? Certainly not you.

Lying in what regard? All I claimed where distinctions of truth and falsity and regardless of truth or falsity a distinction remains.

None. Absolutely none. So why use the word 'lies'? Yep, there's a difference.

See your edit. And raise it. Why on Earth, or Ceti Alpha VI, would I Google anything? And how could you possibly conclude that I know that they didn't? Of course they did. Despite the utter, complete, absolute, technical, scientific, economic, political, rational impossibility of 'ufos'.

Possibility is contextual. All the things you listed are contexts and by nature of being a context have limits. If the context is changed to another context, or a context expands or contracts its limits, possibilities emerge and evaporate.

Ther is no meaningful possibility of ufos. By how any sigmata?

No meaningful possibility by what standard exactly? There are innumberable standards to choose from.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Lying in what regard? All I claimed where distinctions of truth and falsity and regardless of truth or falsity a distinction remains.

None. Absolutely none. So why use the word 'lies'? Yep, there's a difference.

Possibility is contextual. All the things you listed are contexts and by nature of being a context have limits. If the context is changed to another context, or a context expands or contracts its limits, possibilities emerge and evaporate.

Ther is no meaningful possibility of ufos. By how any sigmata?

No meaningful possibility by what standard exactly? There are innumberable standards to choose from.

The ones I listed. Where the brute facts live.

[Eodnhoj7]

None. Absolutely none. So why use the word 'lies'? Yep, there's a difference.



Ther is no meaningful possibility of ufos. By how any sigmata?

No meaningful possibility by what standard exactly? There are innumberable standards to choose from.

The ones I listed. Where the brute facts live.

Facts are contextual interpretations...and there are plenty more "facts" than what you listed....infinite to be precise.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

No meaningful possibility by what standard exactly? There are innumberable standards to choose from.

The ones I listed. Where the brute facts live.

Facts are contextual interpretations...and there are plenty more "facts" than what you listed....infinite to be precise.

Of course there are. And infinite ways of weighing them. Imprecise by Cantor surely?

[Eodnhoj7]

The ones I listed. Where the brute facts live.

Facts are contextual interpretations...and there are plenty more "facts" than what you listed....infinite to be precise.

Of course there are. And infinite ways of weighing them. Imprecise by Cantor surely?

Imprecise is a biased interpretation. You seem confident in limiting existence to a number of facts that are an infinitesimally small non zero fraction of what is potentially and actually available.


Such a small world view is akin to delusion by nature of making small viewpoints grandiose beyond their natural scale.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Facts are contextual interpretations...and there are plenty more "facts" than what you listed....infinite to be precise.

Of course there are. And infinite ways of weighing them. Imprecise by Cantor surely?

Imprecise is a biased interpretation. You seem confident in limiting existence to a number of facts that are an infinitesimally small non zero fraction of what is potentially and actually available.

Such a small world view is akin to delusion by nature of making small viewpoints grandiose beyond their natural scale.

You would know.

[Eodnhoj7]

Of course there are. And infinite ways of weighing them. Imprecise by Cantor surely?

Imprecise is a biased interpretation. You seem confident in limiting existence to a number of facts that are an infinitesimally small non zero fraction of what is potentially and actually available.

Such a small world view is akin to delusion by nature of making small viewpoints grandiose beyond their natural scale.

You would know.

Come on now, your smarter than that...

I am not sure you can make such a statement since your idolization of your cognitive abilities limits your reality to strictly just "you" as you seem to inhabit the role of judge/jury/executioner because of a few self convincing interpretations you hold so dear.

Try again...and take your time now, relax, breath and come up with something better....