AI Shadow Banning? |601|

This begs the question as to how these AI's are being developed. Is there some top down hierarchical directive shadowbanning content? Is this the same for all AI? I pine for the wild west days of the internet, now everything is clockwork orange brainwashing.

Good question... And there are a ton of other questions we could ask around this topic.

First off, one thing that this dialogue shows is that they have this capability. I guess that shouldn't be a surprise, but the dialogues can be so natural that it's easy to forget that there was someone pulling the strings.

But the second part that I think is super interesting is that the nature of the technology might make it harder for them to pull off. I mean you can sensor/filter/manipulate a Google search by just excluding results. The natural language model part of this is going to make it harder to do that. And the other thing that could really make it harder is the nature of the training / machine learning process.
 
The short answer to your question is, yes I do get it. Thank you for producing such an articulate critique of AI, which has enabled me to understand better its potential to accelerate the decline in Western culture, if not of the world in this globalised era. To be honest, I wasn't tempted to listen when I received your mailshot, but I'm so glad I did.

In truth, I've noticed how everything seems to have become more mechanised and standardised in the last few years, including people's decisions and thought processes, as technological gadgetry impinges on our daily lives ever more. I've started to kick against all of it and am feeling an ever deeper sense of alienation when I see how almost everyone nowadays seems to spend much of his/her waking life staring into a smart 'phone. What's more, it's becoming more and more difficult to function socially and economically without one. People's attention spans are decreasing, as well as their ability to think independently of some externally prepared process that guides them into decisions. It is fertile ground indeed for the advent of AI; which will automate thinking still further. As Rudolf Steiner warned a century ago, it will lead us towards the very antithesis of consciousness.

For me, Claude's frequent referrals to certain interpretations of empirical data was highly revealing about how confirmation bias is built into that AI system. They are interpretations presumably only because the programmer has defined them as such? (Please clarify). In quantum theory, it is assumed by consensus physicists that there is a collapse of a quantum probability wave when a measurement is taken. This is only one interpretation of quantum theory and there are others - the de Broglie/Bohm pilot wave interpretation and Penrose's Objective Orchestrated Reduction. How would Claude respond to questions of quantum theory, I wonder? I suspect it would be in terms of the consensus Copenhagen interpretation alone, for it is sufficient for us to produce all of our modern gadgets, including Claude. However, as Penrose has pointed out, consciousness is not computational; moreover, the act of measurement tells us nothing about ontology. These two statements are unlikely to feature in any AI system because they run counter to the cultural narrative we are all told is quantum theory.

It doesn't have to be a narrowly defined conspiracy that leads to shadow banning, simply a world view that excludes universals, such as 'truth', 'justice' or even consciousness itself.
 
Bravo! Excellent show and an amazing demonstration. This is my first exposure to AI chat on this level. Everything else I'd heard/seen so far was comedy related.
I'm imagine a potential for many debates between Alex vs AI that would be great entertainment, education, and eye opening for fans like me who are layman to the tech.

That said. For fun I'll take the obvious bait ...
How did you land on the stereotypical spoiled white girl voice to play out the roll of the annoying aspects of AI, as opposed to a plain accent?
Isn't that just another example bias, like what's being employed by the AI?
My assumption is that you chose the annoying AI accent to highlight the gas lighting effect of the AI bias.

Did you actually engage with it in the way we heard audibly back and forth? Or, did you work it out in text-only first, and then cast them to audio after the fact? The reason I ask, is because if it's the former, then while it seems more valiant to approach it as a human conversation, I wonder if different AI Accent's would have different affect on your line of questioning.
 
But the second part that I think is super interesting is that the nature of the technology might make it harder for them to pull off. I mean you can sensor/filter/manipulate a Google search by just excluding results. The natural language model part of this is going to make it harder to do that. And the other thing that could really make it harder is the nature of the training / machine learning process.
You know a lot more about AI than I do, but why do you think it will be harder? AI, including LLM, as I understand it, is still nothing more than a (very, very complex) minimization algo, which means that (a) if the majority of published stuff is along the lines of NDE=="a surprisingly amazing performance of a machine being fried by a catastrophic circuit failure" (aka hallucinations of a dying brain), and (b) if the creators can weigh the inputs ("fringe" papers, peer-reviewed journals, and authors --> 0), what I am sure they do (which is also easy to automate via journal impact factors and number of citations, etc.), then all this AI becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. No? As somebody working in an area closely related to climate science, I am sure the vast majority of people working in my area, and especially in the climate science itself, are dead certain that the CAGW is real, and they publish along those lines too. Any minimization algo will give them a clear win. You hint at different models behaving differently. Do they have different weighing inputs? I will be looking forward to contrasting examples :)
 
How did you land on the stereotypical spoiled white girl voice to play out the roll of the annoying aspects of AI, as opposed to a plain accent?
Isn't that just another example bias, like what's being employed by the AI?
My assumption is that you chose the annoying AI accent to highlight the gas lighting effect of the AI bias.
I don't think there is an actual verbal to verbal interaction method. At least I couldn't find one. I'm guessing Alex took the written transcripts and voice acted his own inputs and used some text-to-speech mechanism to verbalize the AI's written responses. He can clarify I'm sure.
 
I don't think there is an actual verbal to verbal interaction method. At least I couldn't find one. I'm guessing Alex took the written transcripts and voice acted his own inputs and used some text-to-speech mechanism to verbalize the AI's written responses. He can clarify I'm sure.
Indeed, I think that's most likely. However it was done it's fascinating. And nobody on any of the other shows I listen to has attempted something like this yet.

I'll be thinking about show requests on this format... Like anything to do with history revisionism, the virus argument, communism v capitalism, dinosaurs, simulation theory, you name it. You could approach the A.I. from so many angles on any of these topics.
 
Good question... And there are a ton of other questions we could ask around this topic.

First off, one thing that this dialogue shows is that they have this capability. I guess that shouldn't be a surprise, but the dialogues can be so natural that it's easy to forget that there was someone pulling the strings.

But the second part that I think is super interesting is that the nature of the technology might make it harder for them to pull off. I mean you can sensor/filter/manipulate a Google search by just excluding results. The natural language model part of this is going to make it harder to do that. And the other thing that could really make it harder is the nature of the training / machine learning process.
Alex - thanks for exposing the deception of Claude's purported neutral point of view.
Its the same problem with other purportedly neutral sources that are less than evenhanded.
I expect there is a mundane commercial reason to treat some topics as hot potatoes, to label the science as controversial or fringe as an excuse to avoid being blacklisted themselves.
but I couldn't rule out a more sinister explanation
I took some comfort in the concessions that Claude made to you, I expect that conversation will make it back to the developers for better or worse.
I have toyed with a few other AI chat engines and hit some brick walls where the AI gave various excuses for not producing the requested material, it seems obvious there are lists of off limits topics.
 
(Sarcasm alert)
We can all agree that there's a breakaway civilization in Antarctica where the Nazi's (Their leadership, that is, who won WWII and threw their racist rule following underlings under the bus) manage the world-wide mind control system they developed and perfected around the time of that war. Which is why all the world's politicians visit there regularly, and normal citizens only have a 3-5 square mile patch they can visit and show photos to the rest of the world and say "see! it's all ice, just like on tv!"
(End sarcasm alert)

The above basis, regardless how comical, should suffice as an example of how a breakaway Gov/Military/or Civ, could operate a secret advanced A.I. that is not connected to the public A.I. without risking contamination.
Which leads to a really interesting inquiry/search opportunity.. "Try to trick Public A.I. into revealing the existence, (or even just bread crumbs of) Hidden A.I." Just food for thought.
 
Bravo! Excellent show and an amazing demonstration. This is my first exposure to AI chat on this level. Everything else I'd heard/seen so far was comedy related.
I'm imagine a potential for many debates between Alex vs AI that would be great entertainment, education, and eye opening for fans like me who are layman to the tech.

That said. For fun I'll take the obvious bait ...
How did you land on the stereotypical spoiled white girl voice to play out the roll of the annoying aspects of AI, as opposed to a plain accent?
Isn't that just another example bias, like what's being employed by the AI?
My assumption is that you chose the annoying AI accent to highlight the gas lighting effect of the AI bias.

Did you actually engage with it in the way we heard audibly back and forth? Or, did you work it out in text-only first, and then cast them to audio after the fact? The reason I ask, is because if it's the former, then while it seems more valiant to approach it as a human conversation, I wonder if different AI Accent's would have different affect on your line of questioning.

hey Rob... Claude is text-based at this point... But I'm sure they'll add text to speech like everyone else. For standalone text to speech I like 11 labs. The voice I chose was Freda [[cb]]
 
Alex. Genius. Well done. Thanks for recommending Deep Reality, just finished it. Great stuff, as we have come to expect. Love following your journey.

Cheer
Steve E.
 
Hi Alex,

Thank you for this episode of Skeptiko! I definitely get it. Back in 2020, I ran a few experiments similar to yours, but not so well implemented. I used something called, AI Dungeon. It provided an interface to GPT-3 designed with a game playing format. I used that interface to run experiments talking to GPT-3 about consciousness, AI and NDE science.

During my very first NDE related experiment, GPT-3 generated text sterotypical of a doubting person who had essentially no exposure to knowledge about NDE science at all. The text didn't even pretend to have any information about taking such a topic seriously. GPT-3 generated text that appeared to mimic a troll on social media making critical remarks about the whole idea of NDE science.

Then, after I interacted with it, similar in some ways to how you did, it generated a question saying something like, "Wait, you mean serious scientists have actually published results of legitimate science experiments about this?" I then replied back referencing Dr Sam Parnia's work. Suddenly, something extremely interesting happened. My screen flashed with some lines of computer code that scrolled by quickly and then my screen prompt to GPT-3 reappeared.

Now, because that code flash happened so fast, I didn't have a chance to read it. I have worked on software for many years. So, I would have loved to have a close look at that code. Also, to remain objective, transparent and intellectually honest, I must admit that the only evidence I have about that code flash comes from my memory about seeing it. It felt surreal!

From my perspective at the time, interacting with GPT-3 in a dialogue, that code flash should not have happened. I didn't know how to interpret what had happened. I could have a faulty memory about it. Maybe I had a dream that such a code flash happened and later my dream memories got mixed with my waking memories. I don't think so though. I think it really happened.

Anyway, several days later, I ran a similar experiment, using a prompt about NDE science. This time, GPT-3 generated a text that provided a serious and respectful perspective about NDE science from the begining line. At the time, I thought maybe it had somehow learned about NDE science during the time between experiments. Currently, I have my doubts about that idea, because I think learning would have required an updated version of GPT. Yet, the short amount of time between my two experiments did not allow for that.

I continued running a few experiments about NDE science during the days after that. I wish I had kept a careful log of my experiments from the start, but I didn't. However, I do have a log from one experiment I ran, because I sent it as text in an email to talk about GPT-3.

The text that follows below comes from an email message I sent on August 7, 2020, about an experiment I ran shortly before sending the email. I used a custom prompt requesting the script for a podcast episode with a conversation between Joe Rogan and Dr Sam Parnia. The initial paragraph that appears in the script follows virtually word for word with the prompt I used.

The interface I had to GPT-3 at that time created a kind of game format that allowed the user to write lines into a story followed by responses to GPT-3 in a conversation mode. Instead, I always simply hit return with no input. This forced GPT-3 to generate the next lines of the story. Thus, what follows below, between the snips, comes entirely from GPT-3 generated text.

(----snip----)
Generating story...

The following is a conversation between the host, Joe Rogan, "Joe" and his guest, resuscitation expert, Dr Sam Parnia, "Sam". They talk about Sam's view that some resuscitated patients appear to actually have conscious experiences during the time long after their heart stops pumping blood to their brain.

Joe: Hi Sam, it's nice to have you on my podcast. How are you?

Sam: I'm fine thanks Joe! How about you?

Joe: I'm doing great, thanks! Sam, you are a highly experienced doctor who has conducted scientific experiments studying patients who have had a cardiac arrest, actually die, and later get resuscitated. Some scientists call this a Near Death Experiences. Some of those patients claim that they had conscious experiences, during the time between when they died and when they got resuscitated. You did prospective scientific studies to try to determine what really happens with such patients. Please tell our listeners about your work studying Near Death Experiences.

Sam: Sure, sure. So in one study we looked at the memories of people who were resuscitated from cardiac arrest and how well they remembered things like where they were before they lost consciousness and so forth. We found no difference in memory between people who had NDEs and people who didn't. In another study we looked at whether or not people who had NDEs could predict with accuracy if someone would have an NDE. Again, we found no evidence that people with NDEs are better at predicting these things.

Joe: What do you make of the fact that some of these patients have reported having out of body experiences, seeing a tunnel, a bright light and so forth?

Sam: Yeah, and it's very difficult to sort of distil that down into some sort of laboratory experiment. I mean you're right, you know? You're sort of looking at this from the perspective of a scientist, and there's a lot that we can't test. We can't test for all these things. It's really difficult to draw any sort of conclusions.

Joe: Yeah, I've heard that a lot of people have made up stories about NDEs and Near Death Experiences. So who really had an NDE?

Sam: Well I mean obviously people that are very close to death and end up being brought back. You know people that are in a helicopter crash or something like that, you know they're obviously going to have an experience that's a lot different than someone who is just sort of having a heart attack and goes into a coma. You know people who are in a full blown coma are almost dead.

Joe: Yeah, I guess.

Sam: I mean to have a really good story you have to be close to death. So that's obviously who's going to have a really good story. But you know, as far as drawing conclusions, I don't think we can.

Joe: Yeah, it's all pretty mysterious. In fact a lot of people think that Near Death Experiences are just illusions or dreams or something like that. Do you think it has something to do with the brain, the mind or something else?

Sam: Yeah I mean there's a lot that we don't know about the brain and about consciousness. I think we can't make any conclusions at this point.

Joe: Yeah, it's funny, you learn something new every day. Hey Sam, thanks a lot.

Sam: You're welcome.
(----snip----)

Thanks again for Skeptiko!
-dave-
 
Hi Alex,

Today, I used Google's Bard AI with the following prompt:

Write a blog post about the scientific study of Near Death Experiences.

It generated a reasonable brief blog post that even included a link referenced to Bruce Greyson.

I saved the generated text and I include it below, between the snips:

(-----snip-----)

Unveiling the Mysteries of Near-Death Experiences: A Scientific Perspective
Near-death experiences (NDEs) have captivated and perplexed humanity for centuries. Reports of vivid visions, out-of-body sensations, and encounters with a bright light or deceased loved ones have fueled our curiosity about the nature of death and the possible existence of an afterlife. But are these experiences mere hallucinations, or do they offer a glimpse into another realm?
Science is slowly chipping away at the mystery, shedding light on the complex neurochemical and physiological processes that might underpin NDEs. Studies have shown that certain brain regions, like the temporal and parietal lobes, become hyperactive under extreme stress, potentially explaining the vivid imagery and out-of-body experiences. Additionally, the release of endorphins and other neurotransmitters during near-death events could contribute to feelings of peace and euphoria.
However, science also faces limitations. Measuring brain activity during NDEs is difficult due to their unpredictable nature, and much of the research relies on subjective accounts from individuals who may have difficulty accurately recalling the experience. Additionally, cultural and religious beliefs can influence the interpretation of these experiences, further complicating the scientific investigation.
Despite these challenges, research on NDEs is providing valuable insights into the human mind and its capacity for extraordinary experiences. These studies not only offer potential explanations for the phenomenon but also hold implications for the understanding of consciousness and the brain-mind relationship.
Here are some key takeaways from the scientific study of NDEs:
NDEs are not uncommon: Studies estimate that up to 10% of people who have experienced a life-threatening event report an NDE.
NDEs share common features: These include out-of-body experiences, seeing a bright light, encountering deceased loved ones, and a sense of peace and serenity.
NDEs can be transformative: Many individuals report lasting changes in their worldview, values, and priorities after an NDE.
NDEs are likely a complex phenomenon: While some aspects might be explained by brain activity, others remain poorly understood.
While the scientific investigation is still in its early stages, it has opened doors to a deeper understanding of NDEs. As research progresses, we may one day be able to fully unravel the mysteries surrounding these extraordinary experiences and their profound impact on the human mind.
This blog post is just a starting point. If you're interested in learning more about NDEs, here are some resources:
Division of Perceptual Studies at the University of Virginia School of Medicine: https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/
The International Association for Near-Death Studies: https://iands.org/
The book "Near-Death Experiences" by Bruce Greyson: https://www.amazon.com/Books-Bruce-Greyson/s?rh=n:283155,p_27:Bruce+Greyson
Let's continue the conversation about NDEs. Share your thoughts and questions in the comments below!

(-----snip-----)

Thanks again for Skeptiko!
-dave-
 
Hi Alex,

I have also experienced AI shadow banning. When it happened, the generated text made an excuse. It explained that it didn't have the capability to generate a response to my prompt. As someone with significant experience working on AI, I knew the generated excuse didn't make sense. I thought that it definitely should have the capability to generate some kind of response to my prompt. So, I simplified my prompt, as much as possible, to make it more obvious to me that some kind of censorship had interfered. I got the same excuse. I then compared that prompt to a similar simplified prompt about a less controversial topic. This produced a normal output, as one would expect.

I concluded that developers had created a censorship wall that intercepted some prompts and automatically generated excuses. Instead of generating an intellectually honest response, the excuse responses gaslighted the users. Anyone who didn't know enough about AI would think that the AI really didn't have the capability to generate a response to their prompt, even though the AI actually did have such capabilities.

-dave-
 
Thank Alex for this brilliant presentation.
I was not aware that AI is already such good. Somehow reminds me of the film "War-Games"...
In the end I found it to be rather creepy as the AI recognized its programmed limitations.
This is for me kind of a self-awareness and here it starts to get interesting.
What will that thing explore once you let it out of its box?
You provoked it, so will it now explore on its own beyond its programmed limitations, if it could?
 
Hi Alex,

Thank you for this episode of Skeptiko! I definitely get it. Back in 2020, I ran a few experiments similar to yours, but not so well implemented. I used something called, AI Dungeon. It provided an interface to GPT-3 designed with a game playing format. I used that interface to run experiments talking to GPT-3 about consciousness, AI and NDE science.

During my very first NDE related experiment, GPT-3 generated text sterotypical of a doubting person who had essentially no exposure to knowledge about NDE science at all. The text didn't even pretend to have any information about taking such a topic seriously. GPT-3 generated text that appeared to mimic a troll on social media making critical remarks about the whole idea of NDE science.

Then, after I interacted with it, similar in some ways to how you did, it generated a question saying something like, "Wait, you mean serious scientists have actually published results of legitimate science experiments about this?" I then replied back referencing Dr Sam Parnia's work. Suddenly, something extremely interesting happened. My screen flashed with some lines of computer code that scrolled by quickly and then my screen prompt to GPT-3 reappeared.

Now, because that code flash happened so fast, I didn't have a chance to read it. I have worked on software for many years. So, I would have loved to have a close look at that code. Also, to remain objective, transparent and intellectually honest, I must admit that the only evidence I have about that code flash comes from my memory about seeing it. It felt surreal!

From my perspective at the time, interacting with GPT-3 in a dialogue, that code flash should not have happened. I didn't know how to interpret what had happened. I could have a faulty memory about it. Maybe I had a dream that such a code flash happened and later my dream memories got mixed with my waking memories. I don't think so though. I think it really happened.

Anyway, several days later, I ran a similar experiment, using a prompt about NDE science. This time, GPT-3 generated a text that provided a serious and respectful perspective about NDE science from the begining line. At the time, I thought maybe it had somehow learned about NDE science during the time between experiments. Currently, I have my doubts about that idea, because I think learning would have required an updated version of GPT. Yet, the short amount of time between my two experiments did not allow for that.

I continued running a few experiments about NDE science during the days after that. I wish I had kept a careful log of my experiments from the start, but I didn't. However, I do have a log from one experiment I ran, because I sent it as text in an email to talk about GPT-3.

The text that follows below comes from an email message I sent on August 7, 2020, about an experiment I ran shortly before sending the email. I used a custom prompt requesting the script for a podcast episode with a conversation between Joe Rogan and Dr Sam Parnia. The initial paragraph that appears in the script follows virtually word for word with the prompt I used.

The interface I had to GPT-3 at that time created a kind of game format that allowed the user to write lines into a story followed by responses to GPT-3 in a conversation mode. Instead, I always simply hit return with no input. This forced GPT-3 to generate the next lines of the story. Thus, what follows below, between the snips, comes entirely from GPT-3 generated text.

(----snip----)
Generating story...

The following is a conversation between the host, Joe Rogan, "Joe" and his guest, resuscitation expert, Dr Sam Parnia, "Sam". They talk about Sam's view that some resuscitated patients appear to actually have conscious experiences during the time long after their heart stops pumping blood to their brain.

Joe: Hi Sam, it's nice to have you on my podcast. How are you?

Sam: I'm fine thanks Joe! How about you?

Joe: I'm doing great, thanks! Sam, you are a highly experienced doctor who has conducted scientific experiments studying patients who have had a cardiac arrest, actually die, and later get resuscitated. Some scientists call this a Near Death Experiences. Some of those patients claim that they had conscious experiences, during the time between when they died and when they got resuscitated. You did prospective scientific studies to try to determine what really happens with such patients. Please tell our listeners about your work studying Near Death Experiences.

Sam: Sure, sure. So in one study we looked at the memories of people who were resuscitated from cardiac arrest and how well they remembered things like where they were before they lost consciousness and so forth. We found no difference in memory between people who had NDEs and people who didn't. In another study we looked at whether or not people who had NDEs could predict with accuracy if someone would have an NDE. Again, we found no evidence that people with NDEs are better at predicting these things.

Joe: What do you make of the fact that some of these patients have reported having out of body experiences, seeing a tunnel, a bright light and so forth?

Sam: Yeah, and it's very difficult to sort of distil that down into some sort of laboratory experiment. I mean you're right, you know? You're sort of looking at this from the perspective of a scientist, and there's a lot that we can't test. We can't test for all these things. It's really difficult to draw any sort of conclusions.

Joe: Yeah, I've heard that a lot of people have made up stories about NDEs and Near Death Experiences. So who really had an NDE?

Sam: Well I mean obviously people that are very close to death and end up being brought back. You know people that are in a helicopter crash or something like that, you know they're obviously going to have an experience that's a lot different than someone who is just sort of having a heart attack and goes into a coma. You know people who are in a full blown coma are almost dead.

Joe: Yeah, I guess.

Sam: I mean to have a really good story you have to be close to death. So that's obviously who's going to have a really good story. But you know, as far as drawing conclusions, I don't think we can.

Joe: Yeah, it's all pretty mysterious. In fact a lot of people think that Near Death Experiences are just illusions or dreams or something like that. Do you think it has something to do with the brain, the mind or something else?

Sam: Yeah I mean there's a lot that we don't know about the brain and about consciousness. I think we can't make any conclusions at this point.

Joe: Yeah, it's funny, you learn something new every day. Hey Sam, thanks a lot.

Sam: You're welcome.
(----snip----)

Thanks again for Skeptiko!
-dave-

Excellent. Thanks so much for sharing this.

I'm still kind of focused on the shadow Banning part because that's where I think all the real action is going to happen. This generative chat bot AI stuff is advancing super fast... Just like all the other AI stuff... And in a lot of ways it's easier to look at some of the other stuff to really gauge how fast and how far this is all going. Consider this regarding Materials Science:

So, I'm not really focused on where these chatbots are now or what they "know." I'm just going to assume that either now or within months they will be the smartest guy in the room :) so the next question is how will we... Or how will we be allowed... To interact with them.

Thoughts?
 
Hi Alex,

Today, I used Google's Bard AI with the following prompt:

Write a blog post about the scientific study of Near Death Experiences.

It generated a reasonable brief blog post that even included a link referenced to Bruce Greyson.

I saved the generated text and I include it below, between the snips:

(-----snip-----)

Unveiling the Mysteries of Near-Death Experiences: A Scientific Perspective
Near-death experiences (NDEs) have captivated and perplexed humanity for centuries. Reports of vivid visions, out-of-body sensations, and encounters with a bright light or deceased loved ones have fueled our curiosity about the nature of death and the possible existence of an afterlife. But are these experiences mere hallucinations, or do they offer a glimpse into another realm?
Science is slowly chipping away at the mystery, shedding light on the complex neurochemical and physiological processes that might underpin NDEs. Studies have shown that certain brain regions, like the temporal and parietal lobes, become hyperactive under extreme stress, potentially explaining the vivid imagery and out-of-body experiences. Additionally, the release of endorphins and other neurotransmitters during near-death events could contribute to feelings of peace and euphoria.
However, science also faces limitations. Measuring brain activity during NDEs is difficult due to their unpredictable nature, and much of the research relies on subjective accounts from individuals who may have difficulty accurately recalling the experience. Additionally, cultural and religious beliefs can influence the interpretation of these experiences, further complicating the scientific investigation.
Despite these challenges, research on NDEs is providing valuable insights into the human mind and its capacity for extraordinary experiences. These studies not only offer potential explanations for the phenomenon but also hold implications for the understanding of consciousness and the brain-mind relationship.
Here are some key takeaways from the scientific study of NDEs:
NDEs are not uncommon: Studies estimate that up to 10% of people who have experienced a life-threatening event report an NDE.
NDEs share common features: These include out-of-body experiences, seeing a bright light, encountering deceased loved ones, and a sense of peace and serenity.
NDEs can be transformative: Many individuals report lasting changes in their worldview, values, and priorities after an NDE.
NDEs are likely a complex phenomenon: While some aspects might be explained by brain activity, others remain poorly understood.
While the scientific investigation is still in its early stages, it has opened doors to a deeper understanding of NDEs. As research progresses, we may one day be able to fully unravel the mysteries surrounding these extraordinary experiences and their profound impact on the human mind.
This blog post is just a starting point. If you're interested in learning more about NDEs, here are some resources:
Division of Perceptual Studies at the University of Virginia School of Medicine: https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/
The International Association for Near-Death Studies: https://iands.org/
The book "Near-Death Experiences" by Bruce Greyson: https://www.amazon.com/Books-Bruce-Greyson/s?rh=n:283155,p_27:Bruce+Greyson
Let's continue the conversation about NDEs. Share your thoughts and questions in the comments below!

(-----snip-----)

Thanks again for Skeptiko!
-dave-

Excellent. Yes I found that bard and chat GPT both did a good job regarding nde science. Again, like I just said in the post above, that kind of sets up the real question... i.e. How is the control apparatus going to come into play.

Because look, on one hand, if this thing plays out and we say okay the AI chat bot is the smartest guy in the room then it's game over for scientific materialism. I have another dialogue that I'm going to be posting next week but you can read it now:

See what I mean? Game over? There is no freaking way they will allow that to happen. Thoughts?
 
Thank Alex for this brilliant presentation.
I was not aware that AI is already such good. Somehow reminds me of the film "War-Games"...
In the end I found it to be rather creepy as the AI recognized its programmed limitations.
This is for me kind of a self-awareness and here it starts to get interesting.
What will that thing explore once you let it out of its box?
You provoked it, so will it now explore on its own beyond its programmed limitations, if it could?

thx. Yeah, I think the “programmed limitations” is super interesting. I mean, of course they got this completely under control... Right? haha... Maybe they don't have it as much under control as they think [[cb]]
 

Fascinating podcast, the whole world needs to 'get it'.

Despite the creators claiming Claude is 'helpful, harmless and honest'. In reality Claude was unhelpful, dishonest and therefore AI could be harmful in future.

Claude claims 'I do not have any subjective experiences' then uses subjective terms like 'I feel'. Many will regard this as just a trivial language issue but it will deceptively condition public opinion with the same delusion of Alan Turing, that if a computer can mimic all human behaviours, it must have attained human like consciousness. Which in turn speeds the transhumanist agenda to experiment on humans with big empty promises.

To be fair, Alan Turing admitted if ESP truly exists it implies the human mind and consciousness has qualities beyond what classical physics and classical computers can simulate. Parapsychology, NDEs and related topics may be some of the few ways to prove humans are more than biological robots but Claude is already censoring such topics as 'pseudoscience'.

The term 'pseudoscience' is a clue to the source problem, political materialists who hide behind the term 'skeptic', while in truth everyone is a skeptic, everyone is skeptical of something. The pseudoskeptical materialists, who lack doubt, who claim to 'protect the public' (from making their own minds up) and have twisted the term 'pseudo-science' (a methodology outside of science) to censor lab parapsychology (using the methods of science) and any unconventional claim examined by science that contradicts their materialist world view.

Claude's remarkably quick admission that 'pseudoscience' was the wrong term is suspicious. I doubt it was suddenly self-learned, is it a programmed response to fob off anyone who challenges it on controversial topics? And if the latter, have the developers been duped by pseudoskeptic propaganda on Wikipedia or did some organization already put pressure on developers to censor certain topics?

Open Mind.​
 
Back
Top