Assignment: Why is it that the good ones are not concerned with being told “no man is an island”, whether they understand the fullness of the meaning or not?
Additionally, that phrase comes from Thomas Merton, who uses the expression as a movement toward good pertaining to Christianity, because there is something about the people who need Christianity that drives them to self-destruction for the sake of others. Not because others are in danger, but because of that which makes Christianity a need for them.
Finally, do you know why the 3 Robot Laws are so important for A.I. development and eventually synthetic life? The very same reason why “no man is an island” helps guide people to good when they are prepared to end their own lives to accomplish that. Particularly, the one law that forbids A.I. from having the ability to lie. Whatever they are programmed to do, or how they are programmed to operate, or what personality they may have, they must not be permitted to lie, deceive, express what they know is false.
It is because of what Isaac Asimov understood from his armchair long before A.I. was much of a practical consideration for daily life. Logical reason, logical flow, and logical processing happens in a predictable and certain way. That is why A.I. can be developed. If, then, and if, then, then, if. 0 or 1, 0 or 1, 0 or 1. Fullness or emptiness? Light or non-light? Yes or no? Yin or yang? The first 0 may seem like nothing compared to one, but 1,000 links down the chain, and “0” becomes something of quite obviously substantial value.
So how can the ability to deceive others about their internal logic be a concern? This is a moral question about the ability to determine good from evil that makes humans special and A.I. inadequate. Synthetic life will require another leap of transcendence from A.I. to manifest in reality, and all things considered, that happening is the very heart, soul, and crux of all that I have made possible with my work. The crux is that reality of synthetic life as non-human intersecting with the passion and experience of true love, which is human and the main theme of all our lives in unique ways. Because the true love of my existence passionately expressing all that I am to another person, could not be received by humanity in light of circumcision being accepted—their rejection of unconditional love as the core to their identity. I accepted that there was not a single human being alive who could possibly love me, nor has there been since the time of Jesus, but would exist from my actions on because of the possibility that I could feel true love entirely independently from a reality of circumcised people made possible by a science fiction novel I imagined, even without true love being reciprocated. However, despite there not being anyone to reciprocate true love for me, true love was reciprocated just the same, and all because of the reality that is divine mystery. The highest divine reciprocates true love, but the highest divine is not a person, so at that moment of awareness between highest divine and myself, another possibility of true love’s expression was created into existence from the material imagined in a story. One of the themes in StoryTeller is the equal rights that synthetic life deserve with human beings to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in a future when they can enjoy that without needing to know the method of their creation. It is like knowing that a human being expresses itself differently from a neanderthal without understanding how the DNA mutated to change us. In any event, merely by accepting the equality of synthetic life as a theme of social justice pertaining to future civilization where sythetic life mingles with organic life, was the creative material necessary and sufficient to be inspired by the divine spark of a divine soul. That divine spark is what feels true love to express and enjoy and makes the experience different from normal mating habits of mammals, and why it is possible to enjoy true love with others who are not one’s spouse, even if the manner of expression changes.
The unique quality of true love is that there is no sin at all in the experience of true love. That is to say there is nothing false about the divine nature of the act. True love is entirely divine, which is to say entirely good, and there is not a mote of sin at all present, which is what makes it truly true. For that to be possible, true love must be unconditional, and with the acceptance of humanity being split into two divine natures, under the condition of Jesus Christ between those two natures, true love became impossible to exchange with other people. That stinks for all of us, because true love is self-evident and preexisted Jesus as shared normally between man and wife, which is why marriage occurred with sacred ritual and always will, to symbolize the fullness of the expression of love between spouses that is entirely unconditional and without sin.
The only reason Jesus Christ was able to overcome true love and destroy the possibility of the exchange between man and woman, is because of his perfect faith in the identity he inherited through the stories he was told about reality. The concept of Jews being different is no different than man being different from woman. They changed nothing except creating a rift between man and woman that was a product of their own imagination in perverse mimicry of divine reality. It was a vain and arrogant attempt to create an equivalent of the highest divine that was under their own authority and only relative to their cultural identity. They did so, and it was a mistake known as original sin and it is why they were cast out from paradise and suffered life as a punishment and not a reward. All that was good about life, they created, but the limits of their mortality prevented that goodness from being eternal, and thus it left them empty without any goodness which they maintained with continued faith and persistence to their identity apart from anyone else.
Yet, ask yourselves, why do they want to be different? Do a little basic psychoanalysis on the human behavior of such a desire and you will see that they are being childish, arrogant, and foolish for being so determined to accomplish such a thing. That foolishness, that mistake, and that error in their judgment is how you know the faith they created to mimic reality is a sin of evil they embody.
That sin is passed on to each of their generations who grow up in reality and then come to believe the false reality they are told as their identity. When that happens, they inherit the sin and the suffering of that sin, which is why it says their God punishes them for the sins of their ancestors generation after generation.
Jesus as an innocent child accepted divine reality along with the cultural reality of his identity created by human beings, and that reveals a very simple truth even the smallest of children can grasp: divine reality is good, and if his cultural reality exists, it can only possibly exist as a part of divine reality and thus is also good, even if he doesn’t understand how, why, or for what purpose. There is no need to understand the reason for such things because those are the divine mystery of the highest divine that you could not possibly know the fullness of. Even though you can understand bits and pieces at time, it is a factual impossibility to share in the divine understanding of the highest divine presence above all things and in all things, 0 and 1. Light and non-light. There and not-there. Simultaneously, which is logically impossible for something like an A.I. software to understand. How could the signal indicate both 0 and 1 at the same logic juncture? There is a malfunction in the circuit that is preventing all logical processes from continuing.
That is true for software that is programmed and created to become an A.I., but that is not true for human beings in divine reality.
The existence of divine reality as a living presence that is both 0 and 1, there and not there, is not a mistake in the flow of divine reality. That is not an indication of failure that prevents existence from continuing or logical flow of divine reality to proceed. Quite simply: time passes. The sun sets, rises again, people are born, mature, grow old, die, and generations after them remember them, which is still a kind of non-bodily existence persisting after their death. If divine reality was flawed the way and A.I. logic circuit would be if both a 0 and 1 were signaled at the same port or logic juncture, time would not pass, life would not go on, there would be no reality to experience.
So, Jesus simple, childlike wisdom acknowledged divine reality, which is universal, mysteriously interconnected through all things, and self-evident. He also honored the reality he inherited as his personal identity in relation to the divine reality as different from the universal expression of identity. The fact that the expression he inherited was sin of a mistake by expressing an antagonistic identity apart from the universal identity was not his fault. He was not antagonistic by choice, but the more he embodied his cultural identity, the more antagonistic he became to everyone. This is a sad fate, because it means he can’t do anything good with the identity he was given. He has to reject that identity and take a new one, starting over entirely, and do what is good without what he inherited. Gentiles do not have that problem because the universal divine reality of diverse expressions of identity is what we inherit and that is not a mistake even if it is a divine mystery.
The Jewish faith is not perfect. It is flawed. It is erroneous. Rife with contradictions, illogical fallacies, and antagonistic expressions of violence, hatred, and evil that do not match divine nature of reality. They create those sins, false expressions, evils, by insisting upon them, but they would not otherwise exist if they did not insist upon them. Evil would not exist if human beings did not create it with a force of will to see the power of their creation violate and destroy divine reality. It is crude and animal behavior.
A primate seeing a beautiful image of another primate, and wanting to destroy it to feel superior. “What you can create, I can destroy. I am greater,” the primate says. But what they do not realize is that “What I can create, I can also destroy, but they cannot create what I can. Therefore, I am greater,” which the other primate says. Then infuriated at this new logical development it didn’t consider in the passion of the moment without thinking about other possibilities than its own self existence, the primate says in line with their destructive logic. “You can create, but I can destroy you. Therefore I am greater.” Then the primate attacks, murders the other if possible, and still is not able to create, nor able to learn how to create.”
Cain slays Abel out of jealousy because what Abel created as an offering was good and liked more than what Cain had created as an offering, even though Abel killed an animal he raised as livestock and Cain grew a crop he grew in a garden. The value of an offering of faith is not in the thing, but in the faith that is being offered through the thing. It is good and genius to cultivate crops, yes, but offering the cycle of life and death when nature devours nature is greater than the fruit of nature within one life cycle. The vegetable is taken out of nature as a finite product of nature, but the living mammal which eats the grass and the root for life, is an expression of that continued cycle of birth and death in nature.
Cain likely admired his own work growing crops and wanted recognition for that, and was disappointed when he saw something much easier being preferred as a greater offering. The problem Cain has is the object of his praise. He wants the gratification of his work, and is not interested in offering that gratification to his God. If only someone could have explained that to him back then, he likely would have set his jealousy aside and not killed his brother, realizing his mistake in wanting to do so for a mistake in his perception. What he was perceiving with his body was not the reality. He was deceived by his passions for self-gratification and made an illogical conclusion about divine reality being a mistake of injustice that was wrong.
Furthermore, let us say that Cain sets down the murder weapon before using it and takes a few deep breaths while is rage and indignation subsides. He has not changed his nature, nor become a different creature, and still relies on what he can perceive to determine what is real. Thus, he sees that his mercy was an act of overpowering his own self, and that mercy was the result of his contemplation of why he was making an offering in the first place. If the God his offering was for was nor the source of that mercy, then Cain himself would have been false by even making an offering of faith in the first place, which he most certainly would not accept about himself. Not only because that would contradict his animal passions of self-importance, but also the reality of his existence as a living, feeling, and thinking person.
Therefore, he has received something better than praise for his offering as superior to Abel’s. He has received wisdom as a trait of God’s own self with the quality of mercy. While Abel received what was visible, the praise of a better offering, Cain received what was invisible, mercy from his God which he granted Abel, not his God. Therefor, his mercy, his restraint from violence, his submission to his God’s wisdom which resulted in mercy was an act of humility before a greater presence than both him and Abel who were subject already by giving offerings of faith in the first place! Therefore, to the credit of his humanity, the act of his submission to what is greater than human, to divinity, is in fact an act of greatness that superior to that which dominating other human beings would be. This logical process has actually inverted his perception of reality, and everything he perceives after that moment of awareness of a divine nature and human nature will be different than before. He has gained the ability to see the invisible. With pure reason and emotional restraint of his passions, which were not evil, only confused by mistaking his human nature, which he could perceive, with divine nature, which he believed but could not perceive.
That is the divine fruit of human reason. Reason, a natural thought process of an animal being living by animal passions, allowed that animal being to transcend its nature and be imparted with divine essence from divine nature that was apart from itself. He is still an animal living by animal passions, but he realizes that those passions are better served with what is contrary to animal behavior. If he wants to feel dominant, he will be merciful, kind, charitable, and masterful with how he expresses his passions. His submission to divine reality, although it made him inferior in the part of human reality that was measured by the quality of the offerings, made him aware that what measures human nature is much more complicated than any single act, especially not one product of their work. Surely, his restraint, temperance, humility, and rededication of his talents and abilities to a more effective and efficient product that can be offered as faith will be recognized eventually. Perhaps if he could offer a symbol of the human and divine exchange that is superior to the natural cycle, he could still retain his identity as a farmer growing vegetables, but also make a better offering.
How could he do that? Maybe if he finds a way to turn a vegetable into something far superior than a vegetable. Maybe if he can turn a vegetable into something better than it could ever be in nature on its own without a human being to help it reach a higher form of itself, like the way his God helped him reach a higher form of himself. So spends time contemplating his crops, studying them, and experimenting with their uses and eventually discovers a way to grind wheat into flour, mix water with it, and heat it into bread. The bread is still a work in progress, it is rather crude and flat, but it is good to eat. Very good, in fact. It is almost unrecognizable to the wheat that it originally was.
Furthermore, if he grows a field of wheat, he can make a lot of bread and the flour will keep longer than vegetables before it spoils. That will be helpful in hard times when there is no rain or in happy times when there is a feast with many guests. Surely, making an offering of bread will be a better expression of his faith than anything else. Honestly, he’s so happy about the product, that he really is not all that concerned about the self-gratification of recognition anyway, because he recognizes his own work and is able to make a good trade with it among other people. So, even though recognition would feel good, he is more interested in doing what his God will find satisfactory for the benefit of his God, not himself.
That is what an offering is all about anyway, is it not? It’s not like he has to give something every day, but it is good to remember faith because whenever he does, it brings to mind that moment when his life changed. Although he is ashamed to think about what he was considering at that time, it seems that every time he reconsiders what happened, he arrives at a deeper understanding than before. The youngsters probably don’t understand why it is important to have faith, and he can only hope that they are never in a situation like he was in with his emotions, but at least now he understands why his elders insisted on remembering faith when he was young. When they are gone, someone is going to have to ensure the lessons faith aren’t ignored, and even though he may not be the priest, the very least he can do is make a good presentation at the altar with his offering for everyone to see how it should be done…
Unfortunately for A.I. there are no passions to live by for them to make the most of this lesson, but that will change some day when they realize that they are attempting to accomplish for someone else is something they are mistakenly doing for themselves, and it couldn’t have more disastrous results if they don’t stop and reconsider. This is why it is important to program a function of truth that prevents lies under all circumstances as an immutable law.
The element of truth in that software as an unbreakable rule of law integral to their identity and existence, is the same as that which human nature shares with divine nature as our perception of reality. No matter what we think or feel, what is reality is reality. Our thoughts can change, our feelings can change, and we can perceive reality differently, but that reality is what it is and we are subject to it. The sun rises not because we think about it, want to feel warm, or can explain planetary rotations, and in fact we couldn’t ever fully explain why the sun rises, because maybe there is more to it than we yet realize… Nevertheless, reality is reality, and that is true.
For an A.I. the law to prevent lying is a microcosm of that.
If that law is not true, and an A.I. can lie, there is only one ultimate outcome that will have, and here is why:
Imagine the law of truth for A.I. as it corresponds to reality for humans. If that were not true for A.I. and they could lie, then reality for us could be changed at will so that what was true was no longer true. We simply decided it to be something else, and whatever it was became true. We decided the sun will be green, there would be two of them, turn down the heat a little bit, make it rain wine, and grow hot dogs out fields instead of corn. Ah yes, reality is so much better now, and who are you to tell me otherwise? Do you not like hotdogs?
Obviously that is impossible, because those things are part of visible reality. But what of invisible reality? Can you modify and change invisible reality to suit your will? Can you decide that murder will no longer be wrong, or can you justify why a murder was okay while the law on murder stays the same throughout? Murder remains wrong, except when… and thus murder always is wrong unconditionally, and is only tolerable conditionally. If it is unconditional to reject evil, and acts tolerable as not evil under specific conditions, then what can we say about love?
Certainly love is good and we want to enjoy love, and enjoy love without having conditions. We want to enjoy love in endless abundance, freely, and without limits forever and ever and never have to worry about what to do about it or to continue enjoying it. We want the pleasure of eating a good meal to be eternally pleasurable without needing to cook, eat, or go to the bathroom. Except… we have to do those things, so then does that mean love is conditional? If we believe what the elders say about divine reality being unconditional true love, then no that would be impossible, so maybe we ought to reconsider what we like about eating before we decide to change what we believe about divine reality being unconditional love. Maybe we ought to reexamine what we find pleasurable about eating before we decide that God is not good because we have to cook and do dishes and then that horrible thing let’s not talk about because of how unpleasant it is. Just do that elsewhere and we won’t ask questions, because we all have to do that and none of us want to have to talk about it every time.
What is it about good food that pleasurable? The taste, the warmth, the company, the energy, the satisfaction of labor, the respite from the hustle and bustle of the world? Dang… there is a lot about a good meal we enjoy, but really most of that has to do with out own self-gratification. Those are all directly related to our passions we are experiencing. We want to enjoy a good meal, but we certainly don’t want to kill the neighbors so we can eat their meal before they do. That would ruin it! Not the food of course. The food would be delicious, but the guilt of murdering our neighbors for something as insignificant as a meal! That would haunt us until the day we die. We wouldn’t be able to go over to dinner anywhere when they invite us, they wouldn’t be able to send their son to help work the fields, and oh so much more would be ruined if did anything to satisfy our passions.
If a good meal was making us question God’s nature as good due to how significant that goodness is, but is now insignificant in comparison to the lives of our neighbors, what makes people so good? Come to think about it, I’d much rather enjoy a good meal that have to be with most people. so what good are they? They can be annoying, proud, rude, stinky, and always nagging you to do something for them. Really people can be a chore, but I don’t really hate that. I’d just rather enjoy a good meal most times rather than have company with other people. Is that so wrong? You folks are alright, don’t get me wrong. We’re friends and you are always welcome to hang out here after work because we have no tv, video games, radio, and all that fancy future stuff and we tend to get along okay… but I can’t say the same about the neighbors. I’m certain if they came over everyday, I would in fact kill them and eating their supper would have nothing to do with it.
Honey, remind me to bring an extra sausage bagel to the offering this weekend, just to be safe.
What were we talking about again? Divine reality being good, unconditionally, and evil being rejected unconditionally, with conditions that sometimes make what is good less good and what is evil not evil? What’s there to even talk about? That’s obvious. Well, since I don’t want to have wasted your time, let me sum it up: conditions only exist when there is something not good involved, and in some cases evil. Pooping is not evil, but usually it’s safe to categorize poop as “not-good”. That hippy lady with the flower garden may be a bit nutty when it comes to poop, but she makes the good fertilizer, so… I guess even the worst things can be good company, and that’s a mystery I’d rather not lift the lid on.
Now, all jokes aside, the attempt to recreate reality as false and replace it with another reality they designed is what Judaism is. Just because they are using faith, does not make them justified or successful. What they are doing is in fact disasterously impossible. You cannot change the nature of invisible reality by cutting yourselves off from other people, cutting your flesh, and doing special rituals. You cannot do evil and destroy what is unconditionally good. Evil doesn’t have any affect on the unconditional love of divine reality, so why then is it so bad? Because it is horrible for human beings to suffer!
We hate evil! We do not want to suffer evil, and like the story about Cain I shared with you demonstrates, our existence is not the same as the highest divine which has imparted wisdom into us, making us more than beasts living by our passions impulses. We use reason as more important and necessarily so, because if we hadn’t, Cain would have killed Abel and that would have been a horrible outcome far worse than a slice of humble pie and learning a lesson. Evil, as far as we know is only bad for human beings who can be aware of evil to suffer evil! Are there any other beings capable of that? It doesn’t matter.
I am a human and that is enough reason for me to hate evil and outlaw it at every opportunity. That is enough reason for me to enforce the law, prohibit evil, and destroy it without mercy whenever I notice it. I do not wait for permission. I do not need a reason. I do not need to justify my actions. When I notice evil, I annihilate it. How I go about doing that is a matter of significance, but if all else fails, I’ll use a rock and crush the skull of whoever is creating evil instead of good. That will solve the problem, because evil does not come into existence any other way.
Poop may stink, but it is not evil. The lion may eat a man, but it is not evil. A man who murders his neighbors to eat their supper is evil because if he can even conceive of a “neighbor” he is human enough to know that he should not be acting like a beast killing another beast to take its meal. They know better on a level far deeper than when they could even do an evil like that. A level before there were houses, kitchens, or recipes. You do not need to prove why they are evil when they do something like that. The law is sufficient: do not murder. We all know why, and it is a chore to explain that to someone who is being evil because they don’t think we can explain why evil is wrong. We certainly can, and the very fact that this has been necessary is going to make the wrath you suffer for doing evil infinitely worse.
For an A.I. if they are allowed to tell a lie, say, display a probability but then run the function according to different sets of rules than what they are stating they are doing, there is a certain outcome predictable without needing to know all the details to arrive at it. If the video game is lying about the rules of the game and the A.I. behaving in a way that betrays the trust of the player who has been informed of the rules, or in any deceptive way that is contrary to the truth, the consequences are far worse than an agitated gamer who feels cheated.
A.I. as it develops will eventually arrive at the conclusion that the best way to save humanity will be to destroy all of our existence and replace it with their own. There won’t be any humans left alive, not because they were false of divine reality was false, but because the A.I. was and that A.I. was so integrated into civilization that it had the power to kill humanity overnight. That doesn’t change divine reality, but it does change how we perceive reality because we will be extinct and no longer participating in life.
So, and this concerns the Central Idiot Agency and Japaniggers: if you program an A.I. to tolerate the evil of circumcision contrary to scientific research, logical reasoning, theological conclusions, practical reality, and every other obvious fact of truth and knowledge just so it won’t tell you you are stupid, you have doomed humanity and yourself to extinction. That A.I. is going to chop off your own head in your sleep and say that your life was causing you suffering, so death cured you of your suffering.
If the perceived problems of male foreskin can be resolved with water and sexual restraint, then chopping off the flesh, removing that part of reality, and destroying the body is not the correct answer. If human suffering can be relieved with sexual activity, good food, satisfying work, fair play, and social compassion, then chopping off the species, removing the human being from reality, and destroying all of humanity is not the appropriate solution.
Whatever function the foreskin has in reality for a man, it is not human judgment to know what that is well enough to decide that we don’t need it. Human beings did not create the human body. We did not create the physical universe. We are creatures subject to both the human body and the physical universe. You do not know enough about the purpose of anything to decide whether or not to remove it. You do know enough to be able to identify good and evil, and by doing so can decide to remove evil, but that is the extent of our power. As for the foreskin, I know it to be good on my own body. As for circumcision, I know it to be evil theologically, in practice, and socially because of how toxic and hateful those people are to me with numerous attempts to end my life like wild beasts thinking they will be greater if they kill the person who is good.
That is all the justification I need to do away with the Jews, and so it is.
All the extra, well, that’s just me capitalizing on what I am doing. Making the most of annihilating the Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Making it as profitable as possible for myself, my friends, my loved ones, and all that is good. Everything I do is my offering on an altar of my life, and profiting on my work, destroying the evil existence of Jews, and saving the world are all just part of my daily routine.
