AI and NS

Interacting with a computer with a voice doesn’t mean that we are looking at a generation of Artificial Intelligence (AI) that is taking steps towards becoming a conscious entity, say, like HAL 9000 from Kubrick’s film (I recently saw again 2001: A Space Odyssey on Blu-ray).

I recently said that Alfredo Jalife is the only one talking on Mexican social media about the JQ. Yesterday I watched a programme by Jalife, who speaks Arabic, where he mentioned how much the pro-Zionist media in Mexico hides about the Gaza conflict. In the same way, the System constantly bombards us with false information about science. Those who are under the impression that what the System calls AI is similar to HAL 9000 or the boy David of the Spielberg-Kubrick production film A.I., should watch the videos of Roger Penrose, of whom I have already spoken more than once on this site and even read one of his books. Having cleared that up, I would like to comment on a few things in Gaedhal’s recent communiqué:

Someone posted on Linkedin concerning AI diversity. That person had a number of grievances against AI. One of the grievances was that AI was too atheistic. AI should be representative of ‘all humanity’. If only 23% of the planet is atheistic, then AI should reflect this. However, in my view, AI is simply practising Methodological Naturalism. The non-theistic answer, as per Ockham’s razor, is always more parsimonious than any theistic answer. This is why Hitchens is correct in saying that to understand Ockham’s razor is to end religion.

But it is here that we see the tremendous power of total autobiography and a one hundred percent Aryan religion, with its injunction to know thyself in order to know the universe and the Gods (something that today’s Christian commenter on this site still fails to understand).

The point is that when one gets into the depths of one’s psyche through decades of introspection, retrospection and sorting through all the rough autobiographical material in ordered books, it becomes more than clear that religion, and the notion of a personal god, are parental introjects.

We are not like the fictional HAL 9000. The human is not a Homo sapiens sapiens but Homo sapiens fidelius, as is more than clear from the mutually exclusive worldviews held by man in so many different cultures. Even atheists are not sapiens sapiens but sapiens fidelius because their psyche is imbued with a religious egalitarianism that is nothing but malware inherited from Christianity. Only he who really knows himself can be said to be Homo sapiens sapiens. The rest of humanity is at the stage of blind faith in the face of parental and social programming: something that atheists like Hitchens never realised. Gaedhal continues lecturing us about Occam’s razor:

Why don’t the dead visit us after they die? One can multiply entities to explain why our loved ones would move heaven and earth to communicate with us on Earth, and why, after they die, and move on to post-mortem felicity, all we get is radio silence. In the words of William Lane Craig ‘moves can be made’ to explain both an afterlife and the total silence of our loved ones after death. However, the explanation with the least moves made is simply that there is no afterlife. And again, I am not a pure atheist. I am not a strict materialist. I hope against human hope that there might be some sort of afterlife. However, I can hope for whatever I want. Hope is an evolved survival mechanism. What I hope for, and what is evident are two separate things. The fact is that the most parsimonious explanation for why we don’t hear from our loved ones after death is because there is no afterlife.

And so when AI is asked a question, the most parsimonious answer will always be non-theistic. This might be ‘warmed over Humeanism’, however, once we begin to multiply entities then there is no logical stopping point to this. I was on Wikipedia, and I got the sense that it is an epistemic mystery why the simplest explanation is the most probable explanation. However, one way to demystify this a little is, if we add one explanatory entity needlessly… then why not two? Does the warpage of space-time explain gravity best or do the noodly appendages of the Flying Spaghetti Monster pressing everything down best explain it—the ‘theory’ of intelligent falling. Once we begin to ‘make…’ needless Craig-ian ‘moves’ then there is no logical stopping point between adding one needless explanatory entity and The-Flying-Spaghetti-Monster-dunnit.

And besides: this isn’t even true. I was asking Bing AI about the Trinity, and it informed me that certain ideas about the Trinity are ‘heretical’. An atheistic AI would not say such a thing. An atheistic AI would laugh at the nonsensical notion of a Trinity of gods. There are no ‘correct’ or ‘incorrect’ views of the Trinity. ‘Trinity’ is an Orwellian word. Trinitas in Latin means ‘three-one-ness’. However, if something is three then it cannot be one. If something is one, then it cannot be three. ‘Trinity’ is as Orwellian a concept as ‘black-whiteness’ or positive-negativity’ etc.

Once again: precisely because what the deceptive System calls AI has no more conscience than a washing machine, but is a sort of encyclopaedia of accepted knowledge, it can only regurgitate what humans programmed into it. It’s true that Penrose’s seminal book on this subject, The Emperor’s New Mind (i.e., it’s a collective illusion that computers have minds), contains a lot of mathematics but I am surprised that a Nobel laureate like him can explain his ideas in such a didactic and comprehensible way in his YouTube videos.

However, as I said before, wokeness such as this is atheistic hyperchristianity. There are always more and more lowly specimens of humanity to exalt. There are always ‘oppressors’ out there who must be humbled. That Marxist Hymn, the Magnificat, has simply been secularised. Even the thoughts of AI must be policed. Even AI must not commit adultery of the heart. Even AI must treat the first as last and the last as first. But does wringing one’s hands about the lack of diversity in AI really make the lives of the disadvantaged any more tolerable? The perceived lack of diversity in AI seems like a very boutique thing to be ‘sore vexed’ in one’s spirit, about.

And again: there are real issues with things like predatory capitalism and there are real dangers to AI. There are people being exploited and abused out there. However, in my view, the perceived bias towards atheism in AI is neither a problem nor a danger. Bing AI, at present, just seems to be a glorified search engine, and search engines, as we well know, are way way way too skewed and biased towards theism and apologetics. When I was asking AI about what the belief that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost were each a third of God called, AI listed its sources. Apologetics websites, and even a Fatima-extremist Catholic website were its sources. If anything, AI is way too biased in favour of theism and Christianity in particular.

One of the reasons why, although Hitler endowed us with the best worldview ever devised, I do not use the term National Socialism to describe myself is because National Socialism had two facets: the exoteric, in which Providence was spoken of in a Christian sense, and the esoteric, where Hitler manifested his pantheistic ideas to his inner circle.

This double facet of National Socialism, necessary in the Germany of the last century, is no longer necessary now since, although many whites remain Christians, none of us has political power as Hitler did. In other words, it is time to talk about the esoteric facet of Hitler’s legacy repudiating the exoteric one since if the Aryan doesn’t wake up to the truth about Christianity (which includes the egalitarian scale of values that atheists like the late Hitchens have maintained), he will become extinct.

I call myself a priest of sacred words because it is time to dismiss the exoteric facet (say, American white nationalism) and promulgate the esoteric side of Hitler’s legacy. If I used the term ‘National Socialist’, a reader of Mein Kampf or the Führer’s public speeches could point out to me quite a few quotes in which Hitler appears to be a Christian. In fact, some years ago Mark Weber made a collection of those religious quotes, omitting what Hitler told to his inner circle of his friends.