# Interact with Law Of One material via AI

**URL:** <https://discourse.bring4th.org/t/interact-with-law-of-one-material-via-ai/1428>\
**Category:** Wanderer Stories\
**Created:** [August 26, 2023, 7:34am UTC](https://discourse.bring4th.org/t/interact-with-law-of-one-material-via-ai/1428 "2023-08-26T07:34:54Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 10\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Kuiper](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/discourse.bring4th.org/kuiper/32/2859_2.png) [@Kuiper](https://discourse.bring4th.org/u/Kuiper)\
**Post date:** [March 12, 2024, 2:06am UTC](https://discourse.bring4th.org/t/interact-with-law-of-one-material-via-ai/1428/21 "2024-03-12T02:06:23Z")

</div>

> [@anon23924087](#):
>
> Thank you for the reply and I’m still thinking on your question. But I would like to ask your opinion: can algorithm be not in Turing machine way as we are usually used to think? Pure algorithm, for example? I’m asking it relating to the [mind](https://discourse.bring4th.org/t/mind-body-spirits-combinations/), I haven’t decided if Turing machine analogy is appropriate.

A Turing machine is a minimal theoretical computer that could compute any algorithm in principle. Back in the 40s when Turing proposed it, it was radical because machines until then had always been built for dedicated tasks. What he defined was a device that could be progrogrammed for any computation, assuming indeed that its task was computable in the first place. Modern computers are what could be considered extensions to a Turing machine in that they are more sophisticated.

An algorithm is a deterministic set of rules to deliver a result in a finite time. There’s that word again – deterministic. In other words, it’s just following rules. The word “finite” is important also. It doesn’t matter if takes a machine a long time, say millions of years, but it must produce a result which does not require infinite resources. An algorithm is therefore both deterministic and finite (whereas the “Infinite Creator” is not finite).

> But I would like to ask your opinion: can algorithm be not in Turing machine way as we are usually used to think? Pure algorithm, for example?

I’m not sure I quite understand you correctly. I think what you are contemplating should not be called an “algorithm”.

Algorithms cannot, in my view, generate “information”. They merely manipulate or transpose existing information using rules. I think all information to which we are exposed has an ultimate source – the Infinite Creator.

Back in 90s, Roger Penrose wrote a book called the “Emporer’s New Mind” in which he suggests animal brains have deep connections to the underlying quantum world (which is not deterministic).

Here he is discussing computation (aka algoritms) and consciousness:

[![](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/uploads/bring4th/original/2X/9/9a4abe3e9da7b72b43e6a1eee38c1e99f0e90325.jpeg "Consciousness is Not a Computation (Roger Penrose) | AI Podcast Clips") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXgqik6HXc0)

Hope that helps

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Vasilisa](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/discourse.bring4th.org/vasilisa/32/66_2.png) [@Vasilisa](https://discourse.bring4th.org/u/Vasilisa)\
**Post date:** [March 12, 2024, 5:55am UTC](https://discourse.bring4th.org/t/interact-with-law-of-one-material-via-ai/1428/22 "2024-03-12T05:55:17Z")

</div>

I’m sorry to interrupt your dialogue. I just wanted to say that many people have tried to get to the quantum world from the point of view of the psyche, but so far I have not seen convincing works that could be purposefully applied to a human being and human societies. Maybe you are more knowledgeable than I am?  
So far, Lynne McTaggart’s book _The Field: The Quest for the Secret Force of the Universe_ seems to me the most interesting at the moment.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![anon23924087](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/2bfe46/32.png) [@anon23924087](https://discourse.bring4th.org/u/anon23924087)\
**Post date:** [March 29, 2024, 1:41pm UTC](https://discourse.bring4th.org/t/interact-with-law-of-one-material-via-ai/1428/24 "2024-03-29T13:41:40Z")

</div>

> [@Kuiper](#):
>
> What you describe is the trauma of comprehending that your free-will is being taken away from you.

Will add this for now. Described very well as a “create condition”:

> [11](https://www.lawofone.info/s/11).[18](https://www.lawofone.info/s/11#18) **Questioner:** Then we have crusaders from Orion coming to this planet for mind control purposes. How do they do this?
> 
> **Ra:** As all, they follow the Law of One observing free will. Contact is made with those who call. Those then upon the planetary sphere act much as do you to disseminate the attitudes and philosophy of their particular understanding of the Law of One which is service to self. These become the elite. Through these, the attempt begins to create a condition whereby the remainder of the planetary entities are enslaved by their own free will.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Kuiper](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/discourse.bring4th.org/kuiper/32/2859_2.png) [@Kuiper](https://discourse.bring4th.org/u/Kuiper)\
**Post date:** [March 29, 2024, 2:09pm UTC](https://discourse.bring4th.org/t/interact-with-law-of-one-material-via-ai/1428/25 "2024-03-29T14:09:54Z")

</div>

If you some one threatens your livelihood, or even your life, or takes away all other options in order force you to do something that you would not otherwise do… and you eventually do it because you feel you have no other choice…

does that count as your own free-will?

I remember asking God that questions a couple of years back.

(I didn’t do it BTW)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![anon23924087](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/2bfe46/32.png) [@anon23924087](https://discourse.bring4th.org/u/anon23924087)\
**Post date:** [April 3, 2024, 9:19pm UTC](https://discourse.bring4th.org/t/interact-with-law-of-one-material-via-ai/1428/26 "2024-04-03T21:19:27Z")

</div>

There is a contradiction in your question I’m trying to untangle (but cannot). You’re saying “you have no (other) choice” and asking “does that count as your own free-will” at the same time. Maybe it’s a question does it count **by others** as your own free-will. So if you don’t count why you’re asking. Maybe because in this case it’s an issue because even if you don’t count you have not much to tell them against “but you did agree/sign etc.”.

The “trolley problem” is incorrect. If someone put people on rails it’s not your problem what to do. If you don’t touch it’s karma of who has put 'em on rails, but if you pull the lever you intrude. It’s a third choice to avoid the incorrect choice. Very often we don’t see the third choice and forget of who has created the situation, but **I’m not saying the third choice is always correct**.

So I’m not answering you but noting that the binary logic of the question’s choice is not always binary in fact.

Also it’s more or less generally accepted that tortures is an indication that such confession is not a free-will (“less” because it’s not always, as for example in [Crocus City Hall](https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/us-news/battered-moscow-terrorists-show-torture-32431832)). But it’s still an issue because such conditions are reached **gradually** by small steps when people say it counts as free-will.

And I have an observation that in this binary logic if (as you say) you did something they will say “you did it by your own choice”, if you didn’t do they will say “you didn’t do by your own choice”, so they are **trying to ignore** your third choice (which is ignore the wrong choice). Quiet quitting - is another example of the third choice.

> - We all know that you are news - but are you king King of the Jews?
> - Your words, not mine.
> - What do you mean by that? That is not an answer.
> 
> ( from [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKeGMk8jlUU) )

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Kuiper](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/discourse.bring4th.org/kuiper/32/2859_2.png) [@Kuiper](https://discourse.bring4th.org/u/Kuiper)\
**Post date:** [April 7, 2024, 8:58pm UTC](https://discourse.bring4th.org/t/interact-with-law-of-one-material-via-ai/1428/27 "2024-04-07T20:58:43Z")

</div>

Thank you very much for your reply.

I understand the issue of false dichotomies. Moreover, I agree with you about the trolley problem. But try expressing it in a real world situation, and watch how shocked people are and how they look on you as a moral misfit! 🙂

But there is some dilemma here in connection to the question of free-will. I grappled with it a couple of years back, as I have said, and I’m reminded of a piece I wrote in which I expressed the following:

“My consent may be taken by force, but I do not give it freely.”

Indeed, I am aware of the contradiction here but it alludes to the heart of matter.

Here’s another question I guess, but there’s no dilemma here for me…

If you feed poison to a trusting animal, could you then declare that the animal ate it because of its own free-will?

I think the answer lies in the intent.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![soup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/977dab/32.png) [@soup](https://discourse.bring4th.org/u/soup)\
**Post date:** [April 11, 2024, 7:31am UTC](https://discourse.bring4th.org/t/interact-with-law-of-one-material-via-ai/1428/28 "2024-04-11T07:31:30Z")

</div>

Something about this reminds me of  
vocabulary, as if the extent of a person’s  
vocabulary are like rails limiting where  
language can take them. The Ra Materials  
seems chocked full of obscure words  
I’d guess many people don’t comprehend  
well. But in the chance they strive to  
understand context and meaning then  
might that drag them along to new  
horizons? This spills into the idea of  
reading the Law of One in another  
language with a similar striving to seek  
context and meaning - which then may  
extend the reach of their rails. Language  
translation tools seem a growing  
beneficial influence of AI interaction,  
for many, many literary works. The  
effort to provide access to the Law of  
One in many languages seems admirable,  
thank you for multi-lingual outreach.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![anon23924087](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/2bfe46/32.png) [@anon23924087](https://discourse.bring4th.org/u/anon23924087)\
**Post date:** [May 30, 2024, 1:00pm UTC](https://discourse.bring4th.org/t/interact-with-law-of-one-material-via-ai/1428/29 "2024-05-30T13:00:51Z")

</div>

Maybe the answer is here, but I cannot go on further. If we talk about aggression we think it’s partial (they force to do, but you direct the hand to sign). But when the event is happened we treat it like boolean and don’t know how to deal with it:

 ![image](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/uploads/bring4th/original/2X/8/8b02c30dc8e16ad99d3b87dc8915054fce3ab437.png)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![anon23924087](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/2bfe46/32.png) [@anon23924087](https://discourse.bring4th.org/u/anon23924087)\
**Post date:** [June 9, 2024, 3:08pm UTC](https://discourse.bring4th.org/t/interact-with-law-of-one-material-via-ai/1428/30 "2024-06-09T15:08:27Z")

</div>

I know what’s wrong with copyright and why it has negative pattern. If one makes a chair he says he spent energy on that that´s why he wants it to be compensated. Similarly if one spent time on composing a song or he’s a Fraunhofer Society created mp3 algorithm and stating he wants payment for that (“do you want it for free or what?”) this payment question is addressed to those who takes. But let’s address the payment question to those who created: “How much do you want for that?”. Current status intends to say the amount is infinite, and that’s wrong just because it’s a slave concept. Even starting from such statement (it’s needed to be compensated) the demander does not says how much and he’s inconsistent in that.

Because information has different nature.

Edit: Also such concept requires all states in Earth’s map to support it, otherwise it tends to collapse (because it can be easily copied in a separate state - as I said because of nature of information). And it contradicts with statement each state has own policy (not saying about Universe).

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![anon23924087](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/2bfe46/32.png) [@anon23924087](https://discourse.bring4th.org/u/anon23924087)\
**Post date:** [July 1, 2024, 7:18am UTC](https://discourse.bring4th.org/t/interact-with-law-of-one-material-via-ai/1428/31 "2024-07-01T07:18:08Z")

</div>

> [@Kuiper](#):
>
> In my understanding, information is the fuel that allows mind to reverse “entropy”. And you cannot have information without mind or, in other words, knowledge requires a knower. And what does it mean to “know” something?

I think to know is an ability to recognize patterns (of illusion).

[Previous page](https://discourse.bring4th.org/t/interact-with-law-of-one-material-via-ai/1428.md?page=1)