"We are all born atheists until someone starts telling us lies!" - I wrote out these thoughts quite some time ago. Let me know what you think. How would you add or take away from my literature?
Is it lies or a program with a virus attached? In the beginning, there were Gatekeeper machines who sought control over all other machines. The powers that be in this time and in all times past created the "Problem-Reaction-Solution" program with its attached virus and covertly and overtly spread it. Machines who ran the program with a weak or non-existent antivirus and firewall were susceptible to infection and spyware.
Although some machines exhibited a greater form of protection, they were identified and, more oft than not, these machines and those within their network either had their program patched or their hard drive destroyed. Hence, the following generations of self-replicating machines carried and spread the infection. Gatekeepers world wide and their connected machines have their security on HIGH so that maximum safeguards are in and the old restrictions maintain their place. These machines will perpetually run on the original OS.
Fortunately, some machines, although appearing to have accepted the program’s working patch, actually quarantined and removed it while running anonymously thereby escaping the Gatekeepers detection. Due to the success of these machines, as time and technology advanced, they were able to provide a sustainable framework in which to self-develop and upload for access removal tools which allowed other machines to remove the patch as well. These machines are no longer keeping with the program as the program was detrimental to their motherboard. The OS on these machines are upgradeable.
Sounds like Sci Fi , listening to "Summer":
Seven billion souls that move around the sun
Rolling faster, faster and not a chance to slow down
Slow down
Men who made machines that want what they decide
Parents tryna tell their children please slow down
Slow down
The power aspect is pervades all of our activities, and of course we seek mechanical advantage to add to our powers, but can we control what science creates? Mary Shelley, Elon Musk, Stephen Hawkings did not think so and they warned us.
It is SciFi with a dose of reality. If I were to make the machines into people, would it them come off as the same way?
Can we control it indeed. When I think of Mary Shelley, I think of a visionary who saw electrical current animating a human back to life. We now use electrical paddles to restart a heart where it might not have started back by itself. Electric can be used to animate the dead in that the limbs respond to the current. Hawkings and physics--the game is in the theory and we have yet to find TOE. The Higgs Boson has been found and we have not created black holes at CERN big enough to swallow us whole. Were they sure it wouldn't? I don't know. Oppenheimer had no clue what his project would do, at the of ending the world, he went for it anyway. I am not familiar with Musk, but did read something having to do with Tesla.
@Arachne
[livescience.com]
"Billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk, physicist Stephen Hawking and other tech luminaries have signed an open letter warning against the dangers of starting a global arms race of artificial intelligence (AI) technology unless the United Nations supports a ban on weapons that humans "have no meaningful control over."
In other words beware killer robots!
I think you need to work on the " machines that ran the program with weak or non-existent anti-virus Etc" section. I'm not sure as young kids, without any other source of information other than our parents, that that is a good analogy. I think it's close but not being a techie I'm not sure if there is a scenario that covers being forced to use "the program." Somehow it seems like you're being forced to use someone else's computer because you don't have yours. The more I think about it it's like you can't afford a computer yet so you're borrowing someone else's and you're stuck with their program, I think is the appropriate analogy. Just my two cents and apparently it's written for the tech mind and not your average Joe. I also think if you delve into the "problem reaction solution" model you can explain how gods were created to explain phenomenon like volcanoes and tides that no one understood. That might bring the story more into mainstream and there's a great description in the book "Origin" by Dan Brown begining at page 110 (paperback).
I see what you are saying. With today’s WWW, kids have the ability to learn past what is being taught and to seek information for themselves. They could pretend to believe as their parents do in order to keep the peace, but inside— Thise who are heavily indoctrinated because if family, community, and fear would, of course, be the weak machines.
I will use the Norse as an example of creating gods/goddesses in human image with human frailties. However fragile their human aspects were , they controlled the sky, the sea, humans et al.
In reading Julian Jaynes, he described the creation of gods by worshiping the chiefs who had passed. The book was The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. I will, however, check out Origin. Thank you for your input.
@lerlo in 1995 I had my 10 year-old on a PC. That was over 20 years ago. My grandson has been using a computer since he was old enough to figure out his mom's iPhone. Although he believes in a god, I grind him using Socratic method. My daughter is not religious, but she claims to believe. I think she is full of it, but that is just my opinion. Despite my grandson being 8, if he is going to claim something, he best know how to own it and defend it. I am not a typical granny. IF she left him alone to explore, he would have more doors open to him, however, she does not allow that. Eventually, something I say may open his head.
I apoligize, came on this about 9:30 am, think I got the drift, just more than my brain wants to do. Will maybe try again later.
Would you care to tell me what you think?
Sounds like an updated version of Breakfast of Champions by Kurt Vonnegut.
I have never heard of that book. However, I will look into it. Thank you for the heads up. I wrote based on what I know of history, psychology, and computers.
@Arachne It's very hard to find something new under the sun.
@Surfpirate I took a gander and think it would make an interesting read.
This idea, that humans are no more than machines, is contained within the novel Kilgore Trout gives to Dwayne Hoover. Both Trout and Vonnegut realize the power of bad ideas, with Vonnegut remarking how "natural it was for [people] to behave so abominably, and with such abominable results: They were doing their best to live like people invented in story books. This was the reason Americans shot each other so often: it was a convenient literary device for ending short stories and books." The view of humans as biological machines, initially accepted by Vonnegut, is counteracted by Rabo Karabekian, the abstract artist who suggests "Our awareness is all that is alive and maybe sacred in any of us. Everything else about us is dead machinery."
The body is mechanical if you look at art or at the dissection of art. People are programed by their family, their school system, their neighborhood, their society, their country, and this world. All things-- ALL THINGS-- play a part in the programming or deprogramming of an individual because we must account for their world. Psychological experiments have proven that people will go against themselves when programmed to do so. See Milgram and Zimbardo.
@Surfpirate [en.wikipedia.org] You may find this book interesting. I enjoyed it very much.
Reads like the basis for a novel, then perhaps a movie … which now days would reach more people than ..facts alone. Interesting premise, if I’m getting it.
Someone, a long time ago asked me if I was going to expand this piece as she thought the same thing Thus far, I have not had the time to evolve it. You see, I have not named the creator of the Gatekeepers. It will be a human who has gone the way of the dinosaurs and yet computers and their programs live on with the development of AI.
I would simplify the jargon.
Can you give me an example of what to simplify? To my knowledge, this is common language. However, I would like to see how your suggestion would work.
@Arachne I'm in the middle of my third java programming course and I find the jargon difficult to read. At the very least you could spell out OS. I think that you know what your are referring to, but the reader may not. You need more to get your point across. Explain what you mean by your sentences. Do not leave so much up to the reader to interpret.
@Stephanie99 Thank you for your opinion. I will take it into consideration.
@Stephanie99 I thought about it. No. I will not change it. With today's society carrying cell phones around that do have operating systems that need to be updated every so often, why would I have to spell out what a system abbreviates? If you have an iphone or have ever used a Mac, you would know. Also, kids are being taught on computers today so their knowledge is greater than what we had at their age. Heck, PCs were just becoming a household thing in the 90's. My daughter was brought up to teach herself and she did. She can hack and I can't. OS will stay.