What if....
the human brain is more powerful than AI
We are hearing about the incredible effects and abilities of AI. We hear this from the tech sector that assures us how much AI can do that humans cannot.
What if they are wrong? What if the human brain is far more competent - engaged, and, in fact, far more than they think.
What if Jung is completely in tune with that vis a vis collective unconsciousness?
What if the ability to see things others cannot is real? And, if so, has been proven through the use of scientific proof? Extra-sensory perception? Precognition? Or, in more grounded terms - the ability to analyze signals and perceive an outcome?
What if the complexities of the human brain are beyond the scope of the tech sector? What if techies have stumbled on something that is close to the human brain but is not, in fact, as refined? It seems that the techies are in love with the creations they develop and without consideration of the other sides of it.
AI provides calculations at high speed. AI allows comparison of subjects - AI offers a good, helpful, research base as it can review multiple sources competently. But is that the totality of our brains’ ability? What AI most especially offers is speed. And can AI draw all the threads together and come to a conclusion? It is said that is so. But, I wonder. Introduction of a wider spectrum? Can AI wander down pathways and consider change? I am sure some of it can. I am equally sure that some is beyond the AI model.
Maybe outward displays of intelligence are tied to a specific ability to connect with non-local intelligence. In other words, an ability to connect with the universal consciousness? And that is very seriously being studied by multiple highly-regarded neuroscientists and philosophers. Lots of models, lots of neural tools to help with that. Maybe even AI.
I am certain that lesser techies are on board - but the PayPal Bros are not the creme de la creme of science. Well, we know that in their world, they see themselves as the only humans capable of that depth. Musk has not invented a thing - he bought inventions of others and used marketing techniques and his perceptions to make them valid - Tesla, PayPal, X, SpaceX, Starlink, and Neuralink, for instance. Just as Edison used his contacts and built an electrical network - so Musk invested in things. On the other hand, Nicola Tesla inventedAC and was far more competent than Edison. The system is used in European countries today. Okay, Musk is good at perceiving value - but that is not invention.
Supporters of AI, of the concept of trickle-down economics and so much more seem inherent in the Epstein Class. Much of what we see in the Epstein Class is a void of emotional intelligence. There may be business acumen, investment sense, and even a fair bit of intellectual ability. What this class appears to lack is emotional intelligence, thus? Connection. And that can significantly exhibit a deeper sense of accomplishment. We see that full focus on acquisition and little else can produce high achievement in that aspect of life. And that leads us to a limited use of the brain.
Global Workspace Theory is currently being researched by - Baars, Dehaene, Dennett, Demasio, Seth, Koch, to name a few. Masked Stimuli/Subliminal Priming (Dehaene) is an instance of the studies being done. One of the paradigms being studied reviews stimuli and the origin of unconscious thought bringing the human brain into the mix.
Non-local brain activity is primary for all of this. The premise is that not everything done is located in the tissue within our heads. There are many looking at the probability that much of the intelligence needed occurs in the world at large. It seems to me that one listens internally and finds the volumes of intelligence available. This does not mean a fantasy leap - it means that the vision is now visible. Perhaps it is the curiosity that pulls one along. Perhaps, the idea takes form and demands a look deeper. That the reality allows the actual ability to analyze and recognize where to go next. AI might do some of that - but is it the only facility? Maybe.
An example of the non-local reach is the ‘sudden savant’. Some of our reaction to ‘sudden savants’ is entirely based on a lack of understanding. It seems mystifying to become a savant out of nowhere. To reveal oneself to have special knowledge - special abilities - sometimes academic, sometimes in art - and in other areas. Is it not possible that the reality is a sudden connection to the larger intellectual community in some manner?
We disregard much of the non-linear brain activity because we label it psychic. Many ‘psychics’ are seen as frauds (some are),. It is seen as far out and not scientifically based, even seen as fantasy. And yet, a person may look at you and identify some recondite part of your life. When that happens, it makes us uncomfortable and the reaction is not true to reality. Is it an ability to latch onto thoughts in another’s brain? Maybe. It is the ability to ‘read’ another’s mind. Sometimes it is. Sometimes it is tied to minute observation. It could be a reaction to a specific time or word that rang a bell for the observer, and that might relate to how the brain ‘sees’. Is that then related to deja view? Is it a demonstration of past life regression? The case of Bridey Murphy was disregarded for decades, and then it was reanalyzed and might be an exhibit of non-local intelligence.
AI can write music, books, and more. But, AI is merely reproductive and not imbued with originality. It is not technically plagiarism rather imitative. So an AI fiction piece will be representative of what has been done. Dependence is on analysis of the work of others throughout the world - even throughout time and it is not on originality. AI can review thousands of previous works - AI can compare them to create the best repetition. Does AI create a new idea? We shall see in the future. But the reality of a human brain allows construction of a new consideration. That new view is then added to the AI compendium.
I write, and - generally, Grammarly suggests a boring sentence structure that precludes any kind of tempo or cadence. The refinement of my idea misses the target with great frequency. That makes AI a poor editor. It is rather like having a friend rework your effort to make it seem more like their work. It creates a nice simple business communication but not much else. It offers fairy tales - but not of the quality in our history that Campbell used to exemplify the use of myth and tale in our psyche.
And, by way of recognition, I used AI research to help me find some of the research being pursued. But the caveat at the end of any AI search tells you that the data may not be accurate. It is similar to library research without a physical presence in a building, and even in that exalted space - one must exercise critical thinking. This is not a scientific examination - it is a wander through “I wonder’ the basis for the scientific research that leads to a better understanding. I have included a reading list of some who are mentioned.
This is a short introduction to some of the authors mentioned.
Stanislav Dehaene -- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896627324001594#:~:text=Take%20the%20concepts%20of%20%E2%80%9Cignition,the%20decodability%20of%20their%20contents.
Daniel Dehane, https://direct.mit.edu/books/book/3637/BrainstormsPhilosophical-Essays-on-Mind-and
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/authors/109226/antonio-damasio/
Dr. Kristof Koch, https://alleninstitute.org/person/christof-koch/#:~:text=In%20collaboration%20with%20Giulio%20Tononi,Visit%20Christof’s%20Wikipedia%20page.