Mankind, in short, is too dumb to create a handy-dandy version of intelligent, sentient life. One, per their desires, which would never break down or talk back, would always look good, be compliant in bed, foresee one's needs, repair the car, be infinitely loyal, smart as a whip but never look down on the master, and never suffer from neglect. The child's dream.
All rights reserved: ZetaTalk@ZetaTalk.com
http://www.zetatalk2.com/rules/r17.htm[2/5/2012 11:37:08 AM]
ZetaTalk: Robots
Mail this Pageto a Friend.
ZetaTalk: Robots
Note: written May 15, 1997.
Robots were first thought of during human development as workers, other humans. As in most 3rd Density worlds,
enslaving the other is a constant consideration, and this slavery takes many forms. Shackling the worker to his task and working him to death is the most obvious, but the shackles that are not obvious are still just as binding. The husband who cannot leave his wife without encountering a smothering monthly support bill will tolerate demands from his
master just as a shackled slave would. Both cannot think of escape due to the pain it would bring. With the advent of programmable machines such as computers, the thought of having machines as slaves is irrepressible. They don’t
require wages, never demand a day off, and can be relied upon to be consistent and do what they were told to do! Such a cooperative slave.
Programmed machinery is a natural occurrence in densities higher than 3rd Density also, and to a great degree. Where the passion to enslave another is not present in 4th Density Service-to-Other communities, the desire for a silent and reliable teammate to help one do one’s job better is more certainly ever present. Robots are developed and used up to but not beyond the point where they could be considered sentient or conscious, as the Council of Worlds does not
allow thinking machines, in essence biorobots, to be developed and enslaved by other intelligent species. The line is drawn where including the components of life would enter in - DNA capable of self initiated thought, emotion, and
most particularly a conscious sense of the self as separate from the surroundings.
Intelligent machines, no matter how remarkable, are always following their initial programming. Their ability to
learn from circumstances inevitably follows this initial programming, and cannot unshackle itself from this.
Robots are not constructed without programming, to form their own idea, so to speak, of what to do in this or
that circumstance. Such a master would be unleashing a monster, as the robot could conclude that the master
should be eliminated, for instance. Thus, where the urge to have silent slaves is frequently present, the urge to
allow them to decide their own tasks and purpose is never present.
The complexity of DNA, which breaks from the original coding to mutate, and frequently, has the capacity to
break from its original genetic programming. Only life, where the brain upon birth is unprogrammed, can sustain a truly original thought. Robots would be unreliable if allowed to mutate, and are thus never constructed in this
manner. Robots also do not have the complexity that DNA sequences allow, as the very complexity allows for
variance and unpredictability - the antithesis of the concept of a reliable mechanical and undemanding slave!
All rights reserved: ZetaTalk@ZetaTalk.com
http://www.zetatalk2.com/rules/r47.htm[2/5/2012 11:37:08 AM]
ZetaTalk: Lack of Choice
Mail this Pageto a Friend.
ZetaTalk: Lack of Choice
Note: written May 15, 1997.
To humans, who observe that their computers often seem more intelligent than other humans, our assertion that the
rules we must observe regarding sentient or conscious thinking machines prevent our machines from becoming alive
must seem confusing. A retarded human who can barely recall the sequences necessary to put one leg into a set of
trousers is alive and conscious, but a powerful computer monitoring a myriad of logic threads simultaneously is not.
Just how does that compute! The difference is subtle, and where the line may seem blurred to humans who are
confusing performance with intrinsic intellectual independence. i.e. choice, the issue is not confusing to us. We will expand on the differences between performance and choice.
Quite often, and in fact most often in machines developed in higher densities, the performance of the machine is superior to the performance a life form could attain. This should not be surprising in that the machine was
developed for this reason - because the life form desired more rapid or reliable performance than they could attain, or tired of the redundant activity required when the life form itself was performing the activity. This is
precisely why humans invented computers, which at first did simple calculations rapidly and with almost
unerring accuracy. This is still why humans press for faster speed and the ability to handle more complex
calculations, as the computer allows for insights requiring the processing of immense amounts of data, or rapid
analysis of the data for on-the-spot decisions. Nevertheless, the computer is performing as its masters directed.
Entities form in the life forms that DNA makes possible not because there is activity, which in any case takes
place in a swirling nebula, but because of the possibility for choice. The readership can relate to this if they think of common situations they themselves face almost daily. They rise in the morning. In this they have a choice, as they can choose not to rise, to sleep on for more minutes or hours, to refuse to rise ever until they die in bed, to engage in all manner of activities in bed from affectionate or sexual interchanges with their mate to reading or
masturbation or simply scratching. In all of this the choice is theirs. Now imagine that one was required to rise automatically, no choice, and proceed through a regimen of steps such as tooth brushing and dressing in a pre-defined outfit, every day, day after day, without any foreseeable change. Too boring! Humans have been known
to kill themselves due to unrelenting boredom, and forming entities simply do not incarnate into such situations.
Machines are not intelligent as in being capable of thought, they are simply well programmed and capable of adaptive reasoning. Where this differs from the free choice that DNA that has evolved into complex organisms
can sustain, is in the degree to which the initial programming dictates the outcome of conclusions. Machines adapt to the environment, but always within the dictates of their initial programming. Living organisms have
multiple branches in their logic trees, in that these branches can be grown in response to the environment and
past choices, where machines in fact do not have branches. What might be taken for a machines logic tree is in fact a predetermined branch dictated by the initial program.
Thus, the rule that machines, no matter how complex, cannot carry incarnating souls is not one that needs enforcement.
It happens quite naturally as the entities simply don’t linger!