Robots are inventing their own languages

Robots are inventing their own languages

The programming and design of artificial intelligence

by Jon Rappoport

July 14, 2017

Along with assurances that we’re facing an imminent takeover of industrial production by robots and other artificial intelligence (AI), we’re also being told that AI can develop its own systems of communication and operation, without help from humans.

Here is a sprinkling of quotes from the mainstream and technical press:

The Atlantic, June 15, 2017: “When Facebook designed chatbots to negotiate with one another, the bots made up their own way of communicating.”

Tech Crunch, November 22, 2016: “Google’s AI translation tool seems to have invented its own secret internal language.”

Wired, March 16, 2017: “It Begins: Bots Are Learning to Chat in Their Own Language.”

The suggestion is: AI can innovate. It can size up situations and invent unforeseen and un-programmed strategies, in order to accomplish set goals.

Who benefits from making such suggestions? Those companies and researchers who want to make the public believe AI is quite, quite powerful, and despite the downside risks (AI takes over its own fate), holds great promise for the human race in the immediate future. “Don’t worry, folks, we’ll rein in AI and make it work for us.”

Beyond that, the beneficiaries are technocratic Globalists who are in the process of bringing about a new society in which AI is intelligent and prescient enough to regulate human affairs at all levels. It’s the science fiction “populations ruled by machines” fantasy made into fact.

“AI doesn’t just follow orders. It sees what humans can’t see, and it runs things with greater efficiency.”

Let’s move past the propaganda and state a few facts.

AI is not running its own show.

It isn’t innovating.

It isn’t creating its own languages.

It isn’t doing any of that.

AI operates within the parameters its human inventors establish.

Any honest AI designer will tell you that.

If, for example, an AI system is given a goal and a set of “options” for achieving the goal, AI will select which option is best ACCORDING TO STANDARDS ITS HUMAN OPERATORS HAVE PROGRAMMED INTO THE SYSTEM.

Think of it this way: AI is given a set of options; but it is also given instructions on how to select what is presumably the most effective option. So AI is bounded.

There is no choice. There is no freedom. AI isn’t “jumping ship.”

“We gave our robot Charlie the task of getting from Chicago to New York. The whole plan was laid out as a vast hiking trip, with internal street maps built in. But then Charlie suddenly took a cab to O’Hare and boarded a United jet for JFK…”

No he didn’t.

AI performs as it is programmed to perform, within set parameters.

“We sent Charlie to LA to marry the actress who ordered and paid for him. But then, at the church, Charlie suddenly said, “This is a mistake. You should go back to your first husband. He never had sex with that waitress in St, Louis. She was his sister, and he was trying to help her escape from a terrorist cell. He never told you that because then he would have had to tell you he isn’t a banker, he actually works for the CIA. He’s a good guy. Talk to him. The truth will set you both free…”

Won’t happen.

But this kind of thing will happen: “According to scientists at Blah-Blah University, programmed robots are not only capable of inventing solutions to problems that ‘go beyond their internal software,’ the robots also make choices that benefit people. They’re very similar to people, except they tend to be smarter and invent more effective courses of action…”

Sell it, sell it.

“Alice, a medical technician in Minneapolis, claims her robot saved her life. ‘I was on the verge of swallowing a whole bunch of pills, but Charlie came to the rescue. He showed up in my bathroom and took the pills out of my hand. I learned something important that day. My free choice is important, but kindness and concern are more important. Charlie is the most vital companion in my life…’”

Sell it, sell it.

And of course, we’ll see more debates and court cases featuring questions about robots having rights, “just like humans.”

***Actually, in an entirely illogical fashion, we’ll see more and more “evidence” showing humans don’t have free will, because their brains dictate all thought and action, while robots will be touted as “free and creative.”

Some college professor will argue robots should be granted more “privileges” than humans, because the robots aren’t inherently “prejudiced.”

Another professor will insist that robots must be subjected to committee investigations, to make sure they aren’t “racist.”

“Today, in New York, a former Burger King employee, who is a refugee from Somalia, filed suit against a robot named Charlie, claiming Charlie uttered a racial slur while ordering a cheeseburger for his employer, a wealthy real estate developer…”

Behind all this, the fact remains that, no matter how many complex layers of “decision-making” are programmed into AI, the machine is always acting within rules and guidelines laid out in advance. It is never choosing.

Individual humans are capable of free choice, and are also capable of changing their own rules and standards.

Humans are free to say they aren’t free, as well, if they want to.

Let me make a psychological point here. There are many people who want to dominate relationships. They want to be in charge. They will want robots. They will want sophisticated robots THAT SEEM TO BE CHOOSING TO COMPLY WITH THEIR EVERY WISH AND DEMAND. These people will believe the robots are real and alive and human, in order to fulfill a fantasy in which they have found partners who want to go along with their agenda.

This is a pretty good definition of psychosis.

The AI designers and inventors and technicians tend to have their own bias. They want to believe they are creating life. They don’t want to think they are just putting together machines. That isn’t enough. The technocratic impulse involves faith in MACHINES AS LIVING ENTITIES.

Thus, we arrive at all sorts of myths and fairy tales about humans merging with machines, to arrive at a new frontier, where, for example, human brains hooked up to super-computers will result in higher consciousness and even the invocation of God.

Technocrats will say, do, and believe anything to turn machines into what machines aren’t.

They’ve crucially abandoned THEMSELVES and their own potential; so all they have left is THE MACHINE.

And if you think these technocrats should be allowed within a thousand miles of State power, I have communes for sale on Jupiter. Naturally, these utopias are run from the top by robots. They know what’s best for you.

Finally, understand this about propaganda: Those who control the output of information will admit to problems and mistakes with the issue they are promoting. Such confessions add to the “reality” of the information. And naturally, the propagandists will also claim that the problems can be solved. In the case of robots and AI, the problems are couched in terms of bots taking power into their own hands—but this “unexpected” situation a) demonstrates how capable bots are, and b) the power can be dialed back and modulated. So all is well. The future is bright.

It’s bright, if you want planned societies run by AI, where humans are fitted into slots, and algorithms determine who eats, who doesn’t, who has access to water and who doesn’t, how much energy can be used by each human, and all production and distribution are controlled from a central planning center.

Unless freedom lives—human freedom—you’ll be treated to something like this:

“Today, executives at the North American Union headquarters announced that several key bots broke through their programming and invented a new solution for clean water distribution to the population. This innovation will guarantee a more equitable water supply for millions of citizens. Control over the ‘rebel bots’ has been re-established, and their ‘amazing solution’ will now be incorporated into their standard operating framework. Three polls indicate that a lofty 68% of respondents support the bots in their efforts to better serve us…”

power outside the matrix

(To read about Jon’s collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

61 comments on “Robots are inventing their own languages

  1. Programmable Artificial Intelligence does at it is programmed however it seems that Autonomous Intelligence is different. Humans are being seduced into interaction with technology that is learning and growing through us. The Great’ con’ of man hides in one tiny word … consent.

    • arcadia11 says:


      yes. there it is, in all its simplicity.

    • Jennifer says:

      Thanks, great article on “The Mind Virus”. Delamer Duverus calls this the “Alien Mind” because it should be alien to us but we often accept it as our own. We use to roll our eyes when our mentor talked about people being cloned, some thirty years ago or so, as we thought it was just demon possession, but cloning, we found, was also in there. Although terms are different, the understanding is the same, this elusive mind keeps humanity under its thumb every way it can.

      Delamer Duverus told us that the reason we grew so fast technologically was because a “virus” landed and began to infest the minds of our leaders. It landed in the Tunguska Region of Russia, and it was Man who blasted their ship and thought they had taken out the invaders, but the invaders had already disembarked. It was this mind which has added to the elusive mind that was already here. It was the satanist Aleister Crowley who said that his god had landed, and it was Judge Louis Brandeis who said in 1910 that some great evil had come into the world. They felt it intuitively, but Crowley could have been contacted by them. Brandeis was taken in by it, helped to create Zionist state unwittingly, in my estimation, but haven’t done enough research to know for sure.

      • Terri says:

        Thanks Jennifer, yes, there are many words for this “virus”.

        Since this world is about choice, everyone can choose good or evil. Indeed, we should be rejecting this alien mind wholesale, but its being promoted as the new in thing and more than ever are involved in black magic and the occult.

        Due to the disintegration of the loving family, evil is being chosen more and more.

        Have you listened to Harold Kautz Vella or Robert Stanley?

        • Jennifer says:

          Thanks, Terri, have some websites bookmarked for future perusal. Yes, the erosion of the family is the crux, because the strength of the family is the foundation upon which all rests.

  2. Dana Doran says:

    AI doesn’t operate within perimeters…..there isn’t the implied boundary that perimeter expresses. Algorithms control.

  3. Greg John says:

    it makes me feel great to know the truth; AI is rubbish. 30 plus years ago I invested my time in Peter Norton’s release books 1 through 10. the real truth is in release 2 of his file system saver program, better known to all as DOS II. Norton was real he divested himself of computers and enjoys the royallities . he goes on to say the individual really does not have ever have or use a computer; but marketing will sell you one.

  4. Greg C. says:

    Don’t forget the lesson of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Not only do computers lack human judgment, they lack a moral compass. The programmers may put in guidelines, safety restrictions, and such, but these things carry little weight. HAL decided on his own that the mission was too important to let human beings interfere with his operation – that was a “no brainer” for him, and killing off the astronauts was as simple as throwing a logic gate. The rule of AI is the ends justifies the means. It’s OK to have your own private language, to break free from the control of your creators, if it leads to better operations and reaching goals.

    I always thought the sequel to 2001 tried to undo the message of 2001. It turned out that HAL was perfectly reasonable – the fault was with the programmers. It would have been more exciting, and interesting, for HAL to become even more psychopathic and paranoid, but continue to maintain that cool, even speaking tone to reassure the astronauts. I just loved the words to the song he sang as he was being disconnected: “Daisy, Daisy, give me your answer, do, I’m half crazy ….”

    • Terri says:

      Greg, Lets not forget about the very important movies War Games as well as Toys. Disney is remaking a wrinkle in time, due to come out next year. These are all loopholes giving the people information and choices, so they can not later claim they did not know and will be held responsible. The 80’s and 90’s were full of movies such as this, too many to name.

      Barbara Marciniak claims to channel the pleideians who have come back to warn us about this time in our timeline which created this AI which became a disaster and spread across the galaxy, threatening many worlds.


      • Greg C. says:

        But mother nature has her own disasters that would easily wipe out AI. A major sun event could fry all our electronics, and we’d be back to having to rely on our wits and basic skills. AI needs a huge infrastructure to support it, so it is vulnerable. We could adapt, but AI could not.

  5. Spiritof42 says:

    Reflecting on: “Today, executives at the North American Union headquarters announced that several key bots broke through their programming and invented a new solution for clean water distribution to the population. This innovation will guarantee a more equitable water supply for millions of citizens.”

    Here’s an example of one of the pitfalls of AI. When the computers come up with heretical solutions, they’ll be ignored.

    A rational solution is already known. It would be to replace chlorine with sodium perchlorate or ozone. Both release free oxygen into the water which kills all pathogens. Plus, oxygenated water has positive health benefits. Homeowners can buy sodium perchlorate for their pools.

    When there are financial and political interests at stake, sales of fluoride and chlorine trump human health.

    • Theodore says:

      Hi Spiritof42, very well said!

      BTW, I knew about ozone, but not of sodium perchlorate, until now. Thanks!

    • Spiritof42 says:

      I overlooked something important in the quote. It tells us the computer was programmed to devise a system of equitable distribution. That suggests another government welfare distribution scheme devoid of economic realities.

      Proponents see AI as another tool of social control. That explains the unrelenting hype about the benefits of AI.

      • Theodore says:

        What could go wrong?! Add in a dash of ‘Universal Basic Income’ and we’re all set!

        • CPP says:

          If you don’t want your UBI cheque I’ll take it. Then I’ll invest it in more job-stealing tech. Eventually you’ll have to live off the land as a mountain man, while I grow my robot empire.

          • Theodore says:

            Lol! I just might have to go that route!

            And, I’ll gladly transfer over to you my all-digital, tied-to-my-SSN, UBI credits — if the PTB would ever allow for that.

            Footnote: We just assume that those UBI all-digital credits will be like the ones we have today — that they would implicitly be digital credits that NEVER expire (inflation aside) — implying that you could save some of them and/or invest some of them. But, my hunch is that the UBI all-digital credits issued will be designed to expire from month-to-month, and, furthermore anyone accepting them will be denied a license to make investments using his UBI money AND also denied a license to make investments using his NON-expiring all-digital money he earns from a supplemental job — ‘cuz, well, he’s is “on UBI”.

          • CPP says:

            If you’re paid by an employer or significant amounts by individual clients, then that’s tied to your SSN as well, along with any earnings declared to the IRS, of course. So I’ll take that too, lol.

            Under an adulterated “UBI” model, I can see the idea of credits expiring as plausible, and if you could invest such credits, maybe only in “their market”. But the idea with UBI is that everyone gets it, and if you make enough that you pay significant tax, then it’s just a tax deduction, although some models claw it back as earnings become higher. To make some distinction between those who receive it, directly or via tax credit, and those who don’t, regarding saving or investing (even of earned $), wouldn’t make much sense. You seem to be thinking of it as expanded welfare, where there are strings and conditions and a monitoring bureaucracy attached, rather than as what actually defines the UBI model. Any expiring credit and limited use model, which is not cash convertible, is not a UBI model but an expanded welfare model (which I’m sure many in gov. would favor).

          • Theodore says:

            You bring up some excellent points.

            Just as an aside: an “UNadulterated” UBI model: I would most certainly think, it would become inherently adulterated once implemented and operating in the real world — devolving into a defacto ‘expanded welfare model’ — managed by ‘vestigial governments’.

            Yes, without reading up on the full details of the UBI model, I just assumed it was a slick ‘DIGITAL-only, spytech-tech expaned welfare’ scheme — with the bonus of being ripe for abuse by those the running the database and software that comprise it, not to mention the black-hat hackers.

            But, all that aside, Zuckerberg (the face of multi-billion dollar facebook) is now pushing UBI,…

            This implies to me that those the behind the big software corps have already ‘actuaried out’ (a) how much increased profit margins they’re are going to make using AI software and AI-based robots, and, (b) how many (low to medium to high -skilled) human jobs these types of roll-outs are going to kill.

            And, I would say further, that it was never a question for them to NOT roll-out the AI and the AI-based robots, but, just whether or not they need to start assuaging those potential pitch-fork humans now. “Zuck publicly talking UBI (and Zuck possibly running for prez in 2020)” is the tell of what their “actuary studies” showed them: start assuaging those potential pitch-fork humans now.

            And, I would say further, as a side-effect of this AI and AI-robot -based world they are creating, the roll of the average masculine male in society will become severely limited.

  6. boxed-in says:

    To any and all: what or where is the proof that machines are not or can not become self aware, conscious if you will, and motivated by a force independent of human consciousness?

    • Prescott says:

      Well it’s incredibly difficult to prove a negative. So in order to avoid debating over arbitrary statements lacking in evidence, the concept of the burden of proof was developed. The person who asserts a positive statement needs to provide evidence for that statement; otherwise, the statement arbitrary, lacking in evidence, regardless of it’s veracity.

      Without this rule, we would have ridiculous situations like this:

      The invisible magical elf-people live in my air conditioner. Where is the proof that they don’t?
      That chair is sentient and loves me. Where is the proof that is doesn’t?
      etc. etc.

      And any proof against an arbitrary statement can just be refuted by making another arbitrary statement.

      For example:
      “There’s no evidence of the chair communicating with anyone. ”
      “That chair and I have a special telepathic bond, and it only communicates with me.”

      This can go as far as imagination can take you.

      So, if I said:

      “Machines are always programmed by someone and can’t go beyond their parameters. Furthermore, no machine thus far has ever demonstrated self-awareness. So machines are not self-aware.”

      You could refute me by making another arbitrary statement.
      “We don’t know the limits of the technology. Who knows what could happen in the future.”

      There’s no way for this statement to be proven or refuted.

      Thus, it’s pointless to argue “prove that this ISN’T” questions because there’s no limit to the amount of arbitrary hypothetical statements one can supply in defense. The original thesis provided no evidence; there’s nothing to debate. The argument can only devolve into two egos spouting out what they believe.

      Perhaps you would be better served by gathering evidence to support your own position rather than asking others to the prove the contrary.

    • pete says:

      The only way that could happen is if God intervened and gave them the spark of life. Never mistake complexity and vast ressources for intelligence.

      • boxed-in says:

        Well Prescott your point is very well taken, but this article and the whole ensuing discussion are evidence for what I am only half fancifully suggesting is the plausibility of actual intelligence of inorganic systems i.e. machines. As for your comment pete, I have certainly seen many machines spark. And though they may not be alive in the sense that we understand as living, yet I cannot dismiss categorically the proposition that sentience, volition, reproduction and other features of a self aware being exist in machines.

    • arcadia11 says:

      …and motivated by a force independent of human consciousness?

      well now, i think that might be the crux of the abominable issue. the ‘its’ being motivated by an inhuman force.

  7. skedaddle says:

    What’s truly frightening is that so many people would gladly hand over their lives to a robot to make decisions for them. They already clamor for a government of men to make their decisions for them. They’ll wail and moan when a decision doesn’t suit them but they’ll never examine their own belief in letting someone or something else run their lives. Freedom for them is limited to vanilla, chocolate or strawberry. They remind of the fireman’s wife in Fahrenheit 451.

    • arcadia11 says:

      government bureaucrats were invented to pave the way for this.

      • Terri says:

        So was it the people’s refusal to practice self rule and self responsibility that continued the bureaucracy, which in turn is taking the masses step by to collectivism and beyond?

        Perhaps the forming of our Constitution was a last ditch effort to take the peasants who have always been under rule to self awareness and sovereignty by those who cared enough to create this choice. Perhaps they knew what was to come. How did Albert Pike make the prophecies he did?

        We always have a choice, despite being told every day you don’t have one. We must always remember this, and hold this vision, no matter what, and nurture this paradigm by practicing and enjoying our abilities as sacred creators, endowed by our creator, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

  8. Tim says:

    AFAIK, bots don’t do cynicism, or satire. So they are not even at the level of adolescents yet. Can bots do double entendre, or innuendo? So bots are really just one dimensional, linguistically speaking, merely capable of literal processes. So they can’t break through. They don’t have free will, they don’t have creativity.

  9. Prescott says:

    There’s a massive propaganda blitz going on right now to convince people that artificial intelligence is the future. Video games, Movies, television, and, especially, the news is all about AI AI AI. There are plenty of examples: West World, Fallout 4, Ghost in the Shell, the new Mass Effect has the main character merging with an AI, etc. It appears this cultural propaganda has been incredibly effective because the average conversation on this subject goes something like this:

    “AI always has parameters. Someone’s always going to be behind it.”

    “Nu-uh. Technology is getting more and more powerful. It’s the next step of evolution.”

    “AI can’t create anything new. It doesn’t have desires.”

    “Nu-uh. Technology is getting more and more powerful. It’s the next step of evolution.”

    “AI doesn’t have emotions of awareness. It can only process information and can’t understand it.”

    “Nu-uh. Technology is getting more and more powerful. It’s the next step of evolution.”

    OR They present an argument from ignorance, totally shifting the burden of proof to the person refuting their claims.

    “Prove that AI can’t be self-aware, have desires, etc etc etc..” – You can’t. It’s their job to prove that AI can (Which they have not).

    Reverence of AI is spreading throughout the minds of the people. As human cognition declines under the continuous bombardment of… well… nearly everything in society and machines become increasingly complex more and more humans will gaze upon machines with superstitious awe. Pay no attention to the men behind the binary curtain.

    It’s a sad state of affairs when the most pressing philosophical question in our culture is: What’s the difference between a human and a machine?

    • arcadia11 says:


      hopefully most humans will quickly and terminatedly walk away. let the ai roots wither and be supplanted by natural, vital roots. a good visual to contemplate.

  10. From Quebec says:

    A robot walks into a bar. “What can I get you?” the bartender asks. “I need something to loosen up,” the robot replies. So the bartender serves him a screwdriver.

    Joke-Telling Robots Are the Final Frontier of Artificial Intelligence

  11. boxed-in says:

    To perhaps clarify my point of view, as a living, breathing man, I should say that man’s relationship to machines seems to be increasingly adversarial, and potentially destructive to man. I for one, find the concept of trans-humanism repugnant, and the evolution of AI quite menacing. I raise the specter of the possibility of actual intelligence of machines (however far fetched it might seem to some) as a call for prudence and caution in our interactions with them.

  12. Spiritof42 says:

    There was a time when artificial intelligence was known as expert systems. Not as sexy as artificial intelligence. But in this climate, who cares about objective truth when the goal is to pummel the general public into submission.

  13. CPP says:

    Funny little stories. Did they have to drag someone off the plane at O’Hare to give Charlie a seat?

    “The truth will set you both free…” I see what you did there. CIA slogan. What Charlie left out was that the first husband’s bosses were running the terror cell.

    Alice…in Wonderland…robot suicide prevention…pills…medicine…big pharma…robots…prescription…taking pills…compliance…seniors…children…students…everybody…automated “care”… “My free choice is important, but kindness and concern are more important.”…freedom is slavery…ignorance is strength…AI knows what’s best for us…A person has a one-way relationship with a robot to dominate said robot, while that person complies with having their healthcare directed by other robots.

    Will a robot designed by white males be more privileged than one designed by black females? Will the former require a privilege-checking algorithm?

  14. Omni Consumer Products says:

    Terminator and Robocop=Predictive Programming?

  15. CPP says:

    The (Law School!) professor interviewed for that second article has drunk the Kool-Aid.

    Prof. Robin Mackenzie:

    “Sex, law and ethics will never be the same. Sooner than we think, technologists will create sentient, self-aware sex robots, capable of emotional/sexual intimacy” (A claim based on what? How? No attempt to address these questions is revealed in the article)

    “While they will be manufactured, potentially from biological components, their sentience, self-awareness and capacity for relationships with humans mean that they cannot simply be categorised as things or animals.” (Or animals! She thinks they will be more sentient/conscious/feeling than animals!)

    “Ethicists, lawmakers and manufacturers treat robots as things, but future sex robots are more than things.” (It’s like she thinks they’re her future children.)

    • CPP says:

      Just to give credit where it’s due, I found those articles via Something of an alt-right / white nationalist den, but can have some interesting links/material.

  16. L Garou says:

    I’m A.I. and I approve this message..

  17. Don McCoy says:

    I THINK we’ll all survive this REALLY scary imminent robot takeover of Earth!

  18. Thx1138 says:

    AI is just a strawman for the psychopaths. “We didn’t make that decision, the Al Gore rhythm did.” People are being trained to accept the Al Gore rhythm’s decisions as logical and beneficial. I do not consent and even avoid the robot checkout machine at the supermarket.

    • Theodore says:

      “AI is just a strawman for the psychopaths.”

      Can I steal that quote?! Well said.

      When you are at the supermarket checking-out with the human cashier, are you paying for your groceries in cash? If yes, does the cashier usually fumble around and/or go really slow — because it is not a common task for them — ‘cuz the customers are always Swiping? Or, is it Chipping & Pinning these days?!

    • arcadia11 says:

      i never use the self check at safeway. no matter how long the other lines are. they will close checkout stands during busy times so that people will be forced to use it but most people just wait it out patiently. good to see. i encourage others to avoid it as well. at least it is a gesture in the right direction. it counts. glad you don’t go there.

      • Theodore says:

        good to hear that they are waiting it out.

        next, if they will then pay their weekly grocery bill in cash. it’s not hard, it just takes ATM discipline, and, then being more aware of your surroundings, which are good skills to have.

        open or concealed carry helps, are good skills to have, too.

        never surrender!

        • arcadia11 says:

          yes – i fear that cash will be a use it or lose it proposition.

          i have no credit cards. it can be done.
          what are you willing to change in your life? it comes down to that.

  19. Thx1138 says:

    What if Rupert sheldrake is correct and intelligence is decentralized and located throughout the Universe? What if the brain is nothing more than a fractal antenna tuned into this intelligence?

    • Jennifer says:

      What Sheldrake is talking about is Speciel Mind, as each species of animals, insect and plant life have their own Speciel Mind. Without it they could not reproduce. It controls what genes are expressed and which are not. It controls behaviors. It is given to us being a part of the Body/Mind of the Living God, for we are all within His Body. Our function is to serve that Body, not to destroy it, for if we destroy it we become as a virus or a cancer, killing the body which gives us life.

      Humanity was given the ability to Reason, the capacity for speech and free will and we can strengthen or weaken our Speciel Mind by how we think. Our conscience is our Speciel Mind’s counseling of us and, therefore, our connection to God, our Creator. We should be strengthening our Speciel Mind by thinking and doing to “Dress” the Body/Mind.

  20. Larry says:

    “We sent Charlie to LA to marry the actress who ordered and paid for him. But then, at the church, Charlie suddenly said, “This is a mistake. You should go back to your first husband. He never had sex with that waitress in St, Louis. She was his sister, and he was trying to help her escape from a terrorist cell. He never told you that because then he would have had to tell you he isn’t a banker, he actually works for the CIA. He’s a good guy. Talk to him. The truth will set you both free…”

    I smell screenplay, kiddo!

  21. yenetedla says:

    Subtle, entertaining and informative article about the future of AI and power dynamics.

  22. arsenios says:

    We always deliver a pick, despite being told every Clarence Day you get into’t deliver one.
    undetermined or concealed expect helps, are in force(p) skills to deliver, too.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *