Grand Ayatollah Khamenei: A Reminder that “The Men in Black” Wield Tremendous Power

A few days ago The Last English Prince put up the tweet from Grand Ayatollah Khamenei breathing fire against our POTUS and additional critical leadership:

Link to post

Today, the news is that Twitter has removed a comment reminding the public  there is still a fatwa out against Salman Rushdie.

Link from Buzzfeed

Perhaps it would be good to revisit CoC (chain of command) that relates to the Ja’aferiya Fiqh.   On file, actual correspondence with a Grand Ayatollah from Lebanon, Sayyed Muhammad Hussein Fadlullah (translation from Arabic text was provided for me by Mufti Yusuf Ziya Kavakci). Interesting stuff, corresponding with a Grand Ayatollah regarding issues of state.  smile

But to properly address the topic there is the need to pull correspondence files to revisit what has been conveyed in the past from members of the Shi’a community.  The next post will hopefully provide anchorage for a few critical thoughts regarding the Grand Ayatollah community and their place within geopolitical Islam.

Advertisements

Morning Thoughts

“I have held many things in my hands, and I have lost them all;  but whatever I have placed in God’s hands, that I still possess.”

Martin Luther

Artificial Intelligence: Future-Now (The Canvas)

Prologue: Prior Post

Artificial Intelligence: Future – Now: (The Frame)

The future is now. It is not a dystopian future reality.   Artificial Intelligence moves into the present with a prophetic utterance offered in 1931.  The voice: that of Kurt Friedrich Godel. The platform?  Mathematics. Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem can be perused here:

Scientific American

In even more simple terms, the theorem proposes that mathematics ultimately rest on intuitions that cannot be fully proven.  Quantum mechanics, which has elegance of ballet with an element of God’s artistic expression, show that our universe is incomprehensible to finite man.  The “Verschrankung” of Schrodinger shakes hands with Godel and what we are left with is AI (Artificial Intelligence) applications that  manage correspondence loads for analysts and collect data on the targeted and previously profiled individual. The machine without a soul converses with the sentient soulful being made in the image of God.

We interface with AI on a daily basis. Turn on your computer. Do a Google search. Pick up your cell phone. Meta data is stored.  The individual has provided a semi-permeable membrane for AI applications.

The ethical amplifications for machines “conversing” with man cannot be denied.  But if UPS notifies me that a package has been shipped, there is no “reply” function to the e mail.  I know that a machine is “talking” to me.  But what if – just what if – the machine begins to engage in “dialogue” and the individual has an assumption of a live sentient being on the other end?  It is then – that we are not having cross-pollination of thought.  It is at that point,  a manager at the other end seeks to either moderate, or program human behavior.

Like produces in like manner, in Biblical fashion. So it seems reasonable that a program would also seek to introduce a programming node into the recipient.

My own quiet monitoring of (what I intuit to be) machine-generated responses has been based on Godel’ intuition which cannot be proven. But I provide a cautionary tale.  The future is now. We have arrived.  It is the rise of the machines. May AI never strip us of our nobility, our humanity, nor our spirit.  May our most cherished and private thoughts remain within the spaces of our hearts and in the real companionship of physical proximity. And may we remain aware that the gifts provided by the mini-goddess of technology are paltry gifts when compared to the gift of our own soul.

Artificial Intelligence: Future-Now (The Frame)

Editor’s Note:  While it is not ethical to share the e mail of a colleague without permission,  there is no boundary crossed when sharing my own thoughts with another. So I place Constitutional right on the page (Article IV) with the privacy of my papers and a willingness to share certain aspects.

For Reference: The Fourth Amendment

As the frame for the next post,  my thoughts sent to a correspondent a few days ago.  The canvas for my nascent thoughts on AI (Artificial Intelligence) will follow.

Name Redacted,

“I promise to catch up on the links tonight.  I do have a question for ya’ though.

Do you use artificial intelligence to manage your correspondence load?  Twice, while skirting around the question of money laundering (in your response you describe the velocity of money; I am smart enough to understand it. smile) you have used the same sentence with the same end thought of a “country squire” and the word “dotage” which is an unusual word for most people.  So either AI is parsing conversations for you or you have developed a narrative plug-in aspect to correspondence.  I care less about AI and more about narrative-driven responses.  I consider them intellectually dishonest and demeaning for vibrant conversations.  Just wondering.