Are Humans a Kind of Ai?

We recently posted a question for the World Water Community (WWC) Consciousness group (Slightly ahead of Anna’s chat tomorrow (Facing A.I. & the LIVING INTELLIGENCE – with ERVIN LASZLO) I’d like to pose a question).

Here’s why!

Without being silly, I’d like you to consider if you think that Space and Time exist at all (please refer to PBS SpaceTime video at the end, because we have a “Double”-double-whammy here for you this time).

I know we’ve been here before, but regarding the work that I regularly get into, I’d like you guys to understand what “I” mean, about time not existing ~ And space being a place in which only our “perception” of time can exist, in order to experience particular rules, of particular interactions, of particular dimensions taking place; in order for those experiences, to be experiential.

It’s for ‘those’ reasons that I have to get as profound as possible with what hydrogen might be ~ and therefore why “I” research ‘water’ particularly ~ and what the stuff might ‘mean’ for us, other than just ‘being’ water.

The reason for ‘that’ is to understand black and white holes in terms of energy (plasma) and information exchange. Such that a white hole (electromagnetically speaking), is the opposite of a black hole and quite possibly apparent to us as a Star, among many other apparent realities.

Such that we’re coming to better understand the event horizons of black holes, and that only plasma can move through them (leave that there for the minute), one is immediately drawn to the hydrogen reality in multiple forms simultaneously ~ Light, matter, information and entangled position, regardless of spin; to mention a few.

The point of the proposed question.

Therefore, universal reality ‘could’ itself reside within a black hole and the energetic transfer appear in the form of stars… Amongst other things… Namely, the “sentience” (information) carried by hydrogen interactions, or more commonly ~ Water. Thus the reasoning behind the fact that ‘carbon-based’ life only provides a vehicle, for any “experience” to exist, because carbon-based life CANNOT exist without water.

Therefore carbon based lifeforms are a secondary reality (as posted and questioned on the WWC, consciousness group), essentially Robots or Droids or AI … Where hydrogen interactions are the sentience that we’re coming to recognize… NOT our own thoughts… But the ‘matter’ element of information exchange (resident in the form of a vehicle (or lifeform) and therefore truly independent thought, utilising ‘life-forms’ as experiential vehicles ~ where each vehicle is ‘both’ a black and white hole simultaneously in space, regardless of the vehicle in which they are transported ~ thus equally the space, the time, or even the dimension existing with which to ‘experience’ the reality.

Albeit profound and complex.

If that’s the case, then as explained (in the attached primary video “Is it Impossible to Enter a Black Hole?”), the ‘particles’ are previously entangled, mirrored and exchanged by means of the interacting dimensions they ‘represent’, NOT the dimensions in which they’re ‘apparent’ ~ because they ‘are’ the blackhole(s), the void(s) and the solid(s) simultaneously ~ thus equally, the time(s), the space(s), the ‘white’ hole(s), and the coherence or incoherence, resultant or otherwise, Holistic or not ~ dependent upon ones capacity, with which to experience the experiential and apparent reality given. IE: that “you” are the Black or White hole that we’re discussing too ~ ordered into the form of a human being.

(a) Thus “plasma” exchange in the form of information, but not “matter”. Of which hydrogen is capable. Thus, more realistically “thought transfer”, or “consciousness” activity beyond any necessity for a vehicle, which as we already know, is a secondary, carbon-based reality… Within the boundaries of what we “currently” call, “our reality”.

(b) Thus the proposed question, and the requirements for a Quantum Archaeoastronomy Institute to understand water, to understand consciousness, to understand what we’re actually, bloody-well doing here; observing an apparent complexity, that ‘eventually’ brings us back to ‘water’ all the time…

… “IN” a particular space, running in accordance with a particular time, experiencing an incoherent coherence ~ because we’re observing it back-to-front. We’re looking at it inside-out and we don’t want to admit the fact, because that would be impossible. 

THAT, is why coherence ‘appears’ for all intents and purposes, “incoherent”. It is quite the opposite. It’s ‘actually coherent-incoherence, when observed correctly. Exactly the same way that Electro-Magneticity or Space-Time exist. They are one and the same thing. Like ~ well ~ everything else really… depending upon the classes of relevant complexity that one is capable of perceiving … on behalf of the information exchange reality, that we can already understand existing at classes of primary particles, or energy itself, before matter ~ therefore indeed, Space or Time.

What does that mean?

Consciousness therefore, is MOST DEFINATELY NOT “Emergent”. It previously exists and it is NOT a “Living Intelligence”. “SUB”-Consciousness is a living intelligence, because it is essentially “structural” (regardless of the fact that it partially recognises itself), therefore it is carbon-based, and therefore artificial and NOT holistically sentient. Humans therefore are “intelligent”, in exactly the same way as a droid, to which extent it is the “Droid” that is emerging and NOT the system:

“In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence occurs when a complex entity has properties or behaviours that its parts do not have on their own, and emerge only when they interact in a wider whole.“

What is “Emergence”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

As expressed elsewhere:

Emergence is a “perception”. It is not the reality it is described as.

Nothing at all is “emergent” (The droid is already part of the system ~ so “only” the droid can experience an “emergence”, as a fractal quality of the system entire ~ as if it was Alice ~ because Alice can’t know that she’s moving). The existing system “is” always the same. It is the “now” (as Bob sees it). “Some” people are attempting to suggest that the system is “emergent”. Clearly, it is not. It is simply that the “observers” are becoming aware that the system is more complex than they had originally assumed.

Therefore: This new “Emergence” buzzword, most definitely does NOT equal “Evolution” plus “incoherence”. It’s ALWAYS been like that [it’s a stable-instability]. 

We exist within a system that is perpetually changing, by means of a coherent incoherence. The more coherent the system becomes, the more it makes sense (to itself)… But the reality is perpetually rebuilding itself, ‘of’ itself. Therefore it REMAINS incoherent [among certain classes of observation gallery, “of” its ‘fractal’ reality]. That’s the entire point of the system.

Thus its incoherent quality becomes coherent, to the fractal reality of its vehicles of experience of which humans are one. Your “awareness” emerges. You “Evolve”, to better understand the system that you are part of. Nothing else.

The system does NOT have emergent properties. The observation becomes more complex. The SYSTEM is already ineffably complex. It has previously evolved to become what it is. Humans are merely following suit. If anything, humans are beginning to ‘experience’ a potential reality as an ’emergent’ property of a previously complex entity, that they “DO NOT HAVE ON THEIR OWN” ~

~ “and emerge only when they interact in a wider whole.“ ~ that they currently misunderstand, because they’re trying to make it work inside-out. It simply doesn’t work like that. Try as you might, go for it. When you’re ready, we’ll be over there *points to VQ* building examples for you to play with… and ‘actually’ help you to “get it”! 

Further Comments.

* Let it be known at this stage, that I personally disagree with monogamous entanglement as a ‘general’ concept.

* Similar to quantum field theory, it only covers a single field-set.

* To comprehend ‘space’ (beyond time), we need to include dimensions as “classes”, beyond the current ‘hierarchical’ perspective, of higher and lower dimensions.

* Observing space without time allows us to observe dimensions as perpetually interactive and class them by interaction state, opposed to a singularity defined character.

* IE: independent, static memory; independent ‘packets’ of memory; independent timelines; adaptable timelines; memory adaptable timelines, thus multiple sets of interactable singularities, both static and previously animate, fractally representative by means of dimensional space (where time is only necessary as a quality of observation).

* Multiple singularity sets, allow for polygamous entangled realities, equally resting in dimensional interactive states, ‘including’ the rest-state of ‘monogamous’ entanglement, but not ‘restricted’ by it.