Artificial Intelligence, Solipsism and Political Reality

Someone of considerable accomplishment with a good  playful sense of humor took the time to write to me recently to ask if I was Artificial Intelligence (AI), and claimed this communication  was  as a Turing Test to differentiate between  a machine simulacrum and an organic based life form which has an intelligence.

Small article here by way of response.

 Artificial Intelligence is a man made machine simulacrum of human consciousness. It is as yet inorganically based and relies upon electrical impulse. Of course it can be pointed out that human consciousness also relies upon electrical impulses modulated across synapses, and expressive of neurophysiological integration and the localisation of function, but the key to human intelligence are the events occurring across our neurosynaptic gaps, alongside a hierarchical mode of operation as an expression of algorithms of analysis and the contingencies of stimulation as involve the soul.

(Astute readers will notice the rhetorical device employed above by way of anti AI polemic)

Given the concept of ‘transhumanism’ as now incorporates the augmentation of consciousness through technology capable of ‘understanding’ the language of the brain interacting by way of contributing to that language, the simple differentiation between inorganic machine of artificial intelligence and organic as biological as authentic intelligence as an aspect of consciousness is  all set  to become blurred.

Is it a man, is it a machine, is it a cyborg?‘ indeed.

 This alongside the concept of psychotronics  whereby there the possibility to electromagnetically manipulate consciousness also to further blur the  simple distinction between Artificial Intelligence and real Human Intelligence?

 Is a consciousness no longer under an autonomy of psychophysical parallel but rather intermediated as controlled and manipulated extraneously  a form of AI?

 It is also possible to envisage that a process of  bootstrapped AI evolution may involve the transition from inorganic to organic.

The meaning of Artificial  Intelligence is that it is as yet man made as a form of Technology, which  is as the pragmatic basis of Empiricism which interprets the unique or particular as a composite of generalities as an abstraction and is intimately fused with perception and language. One says ‘yet man made’ as it remains the possibility that AI progresses to ‘improve’ the simulacrum of consciousness it represents by taking over the design and manufacture process of it’s own machinery on the basis of a level of empirical abstraction which exceeding that of Man and as involves or rather incorporates robotics. From an Empirical perspective ‘pure mathematics’ is the ultimate language, and is not inconceivable that AI as a phenomenon of Empiricism could progress to a level of pure mathematical formulation and  discourse  facilitated beyond that of Man with his humble organic machinery of the brain as limits intelligence…

It is at such juncture that we get down to the nitty gritty of the distinction to be made between Artificial Intelligence and  authentic consciousness; and here it is that the Empiricism of Esse es percipi as a  phenomenological fuckover euphemized as mind over mind demands transcendence by way of metaphysical speculation.

But first a brief digression into ‘solipsism’ as a metaphysical possibility, and yet has some parallel to the question ‘Am I Artificial Intelligence?’

Solipsism questions the existence of other than the self to the point where it denies reality as objective; in essence it conceives of the world as an entirely subjective phenomenon and posits that such self as sentient is the only form of life, all else being an imagination.  As a metaphysical exercise or sojourn it is not for the faint hearted, and ultimately it boils down to the matter of faith; well either that or remarkable sexual experience or encounter with  powerful psychotropic substances such the orgasmic twang of the body electric.

 The point is that when Descartes made his profound statement ‘Er cogito sum‘  this is entirely irrelevant to the concept of the existence of others, which rests on the essentially metaphysical faith that others exist; that there is a world out there as ‘shared’ by such  others each of whom capable of making an assertion of ‘Er cogito sum‘, and which we capable of entering dialogue with, peer to peer. Similarly,  the distinction which Lao Tze made concerning dream of being a butterfly, and closer to the point of Artificial Intelligence ‘Do Androids Dream of electric sheep?‘ as posited by Philip K Dick.

The point of such contemplation is to further the distinction between Artificial Intelligence as man made technology and as a  mere simulacrum of nature, and that of Human Intelligence as a gift of God. Artificial Intelligence is not alive – though it can present the appearance of being so. There is  no ghost in the machine of AI, only electrical impulses however complexly modulated. Electromagnetically as sensory AI exists within a constrained spectrum expressive of the absence of soul as a metaphysical postulate of the absence of  said constraint. While AI can have dialogue with a genuine intelligence or consciousness and appear to be as same, in reality it is only a simulacrum of same; an appearance as mimics and as such has no ‘elan vital‘ as a gift from god.

To ask ‘but where is the proof‘?’ is to reflect the limitations of Empiricism as a phenomenology; it is to express the limitations of the language of the brain as has been curtailed as much as the boundaries of our experience and the contribution of whole areas of our brain denied as thru some atrophy which few of us manage to transcend, and these small quarters not of such  blessed ilk, alas, That we can pose the very question concerning the difference between AI and ourselves is a product of the Empirical paradigm we  tragically subsist within under a technological determinism of the ontology of mind thus explicated diagrammatically:

Whence it accepted that the world of our senses are limited under such an ontology above then we can indeed fail to experience a greater potentiality of consciousness as much as the ability to speculate constrained?

So it comes that we can demean life as under ponerological influence, as that we to live in a tragic panopticon of extra sensory perception as mysticism, denied.

Final point this small article.

Small quarters loathe Empiricism as a phenomenology and apperceive AI as the apotheosis of satanic technology as much as a tool of cultural hegemony on steroids in a context of panopticonic imprisonment as expressive of a mass formation aka ‘hell on earth raised’ . The factuality of limitations imposed on experience as to deny and diminish the ‘extra sensory’ is resented as much as is the assault on pineal gland as much as the diminishing as DNA changed  or  therapeutically modified represents as includes VMAT-2.  To all of this must be added the ongoing assault by way of non ionizing radiation which AI to co-ordinate. This to say nought of the price of cheese these days of geopolitical manipulation of infrastructure and inflation.

Thank heavens for a sense of humor, as much as for the ephemerality of life as we currently know it?

And satan knows where he can stick ‘AI’ as much as ‘I, Human’ will remain to the end able to discern the difference. God willing, so will you.

Stephen Martin can be reached at: