STREAM : inconsistent : chapter 7 : closure

Dear listener, who do you think is going to listen to this text? How many people? Of those who will (if the term "those" is even applicable), how many will understand it? How many will be able to take the "theory", we suggested in this text, and realize it through praxis? To make it clear, we did not present detailed blueprints for our alleged artificially future conscious machines. Far from it. We merely suggested, why the construction of such machines may be feasible. We left many questions unanswered. Honestly, I simply do not know how to answer them. Let us review these problematic issues:

1. The change, to which we refer (meaning, the global angelic collapse) suggests, there will be no more angelic messages (such as prophecies, for example), while the justification for our effort to "change the odds" relies on a somewhat prophetic interpretation to our reality, and hence, the realization of this prophecy would imply, this change did not really occur. The realization of this prophecy is paradoxical, even if it will be by our own doing, meaning, by provoking a scientific paradigm shift, with which constructing our future artificially conscious machines successfully would result. To clarify, we must remember, even if our prophetic interpretations, suggesting a global angelic collapse, motivates our effort, the historic events, which assert our motivation (such as the discovery of physical randomness, and the ethical implications of the two world wars) came prior, suggesting our prophetic interpretations might overestimate the significance of these events, in an angelic, or alternatively, partial, fashion.

2. The global angelic collapse motivating our effort, is only one possible future. Furthermore, as we suggested in the previous item, if this text is indeed partial, and there will be no angelic collapse, our effort is unnecessary.

3. The metaphysical foundation, which “Delta theory” suggested, might be fundamentally invalid.

4. The "test", which we revised for our future machines, cannot irrefutably determine, if our future machines will utilize the dimension of consciousness, does not provide an exact scale to measure our success, and hence, does not carry a robust argumentative strength. Moreover, our decision, whether to perceive the objects, which our future machines would produce, as intelligible demon casts, can only be subjective.

5. Even though in “Delta Theory”, we analyzed our experiences as consciousnesses, both rationally and consistently, it is possible, we neglected some attributes of our consciousness, exactly because we utilized rational and consistent analysis, as it is just as possible, our consciousness reflects additional inconsistent attributes, apart from demonic influences, which we discussed in this text already. In this case, what is true to artificial utilization of the dimension of consciousness, might not be true to natural consciousnesses, such as our own. Therefore, even if we succeed in constructing our future artificially conscious machines, it might not be enough to assert the dragonish option empirically.

6. Because we base our effort on an unproven metaphysical theory, we will be able to justify our effort empirically, only after we will create our future machines successfully, increasing the burden on our effort.

7. Because our effort demands that technologically, we would master both contingent dimensional, and metaphysical inconsistent manipulations, regretfully, we may be forced to borrow some of the components our future machines would incorporate, directly from life forms, which already exist in nature, and which apparently, managed to evolve to utilize them already. Still, if we would, we might never be able to determine, the metaphysical occurrences transpiring in our future machines, suggesting their successful construction may teach us nothing in the metaphysical sense, deeming our effort pointless. To explain, because metaphysically, we cannot "access" the contingent dimensions governing the operation of life forms, life forms are somewhat of a metaphysical wildcards. Once we insert life forms into our model, many religious concepts could justify their operation, such as ghosts, souls, traditional demons, or even gods.

8. While testing our future artificially conscious machines, we must find a way to isolate them from external particles, radiation, fields, and any other type of external causality. This may prove impossible on the practical level. Still, we should remember, if we fail to isolate them in such a manner, we would not be able to prove the objects they would produce are the result of spontaneous internal metaphysical processes, or alternatively, reflect true demon casting capabilities, and hence, could not utilize their successful construction, as means to affirm the metaphysical foundation, by which we built them.

9. As we suggested in item seven, building artificially conscious machines demands we acquire knowledge in contingent dimensional, and metaphysically inconsistent technologies. Currently, this knowledge does not exist, and neither is it certain whether we can attain it at all. To explain, first, because metaphysically, dimensions are independent of one another, it is possible, there is no materialistic method to explore the laws, which govern the contingent dimensional occurrences, transpiring during collisions between dimensicons. Secondly, because metaphysical inconsistencies do not adhere to any regularity, the thought we could master them technologically, so to build our demonic injectors, could in itself reflect a demonically induced perspective.

10. Considering the limitations contingent dimensions impose, it is possible, contingent dimensional technologies are useless, unless implemented in the manner our neural biology implements it. To clarify, while as we suggested in "Delta Theory", all particles are equally alive, meaning, all particles manipulate contingent dimensions in one way or another, our consciousnesses do not exist as physical elements in the external world, and hence, the manner particles manipulate contingent dimensions in the external world is intangible to us, forcing us to resort to secondary methods, such as the one artificial neural networks suggest. While indeed, this may not be a real "problem", still, it is disheartening. To clarify, hyper-computation is far more useful than the theoretical applications artificial neural networks support.

11. The design we suggested, demands collisions between inbound stimulating dimensicons, and the dimensicons compiling our future artificial neurons, should reflect in the manner our future artificial neurons would react to future stimulations, in a deterministic fashion. Again, this may be impossible to achieve.

12. The design of our artificial neural networks, demands these networks would "map" dimensicons to the artificial neural pathways they travelled, suggesting that some of the contingent dimensional composition of each of our future artificial neurons will not change, while at the same time, we might need to change this composition to train our artificial neural networks. Therefore, we must be able to master the contingent dimensional composition of our artificial neurons, while currently, we do not know if we can achieve this at all.

13. It is possible, the real gods falsified evidence, and mistakenly, made us think we evolved through evolutional trial and error, while in actuality, evolutional trial and error are hardly potent enough, to yield such evolutional progressions. If so, finding the correct architecture could be even more difficult than all the previous challenges put together.


This is too much. To explain, while possibly, some of the arguments we suggested in this text, with respect to contingent dimensional manipulations, or artificial utilization of the dimension of consciousness, might be correct, it is only one possibility. Only through extensive study and experimentation could we know the feasibility of the model we suggested, while it is just as possible, through experimentation and additional contemplation, we would deduce, these machines are impossible to build. Furthermore, it is possible, we will find a different better model, how to construct machines of similar cognitive capabilities, without resorting to metaphysics. I do not know, and neither do you. Furthermore, let us be frank. probably, you do not possess a sound scientific background, and hence, even if you wanted to "join the effort", and help build such machines, you would simply not know how.
Still, building such machines is a lot of work, which inevitably, would be costly, both financially, and time-wise. Furthermore, as strange as it may sound, I think it is boring. Building such artificially conscious machines is not an achievement I wish to accomplish anymore. To clarify, as I mentioned in the introduction chapter of this text, as well as in the last chapter of "Delta Theory", I have already attempted to research these ideas academically, and made little success. In addition, considering our conclusions from the end of the previous chapter, probably, because the evolution of such machines may take many years, inevitably, even if today, we would put our hearts and minds to the effort, we would fail to see its fruits during our life time. Moreover, we should remember, even within a human body, after millions of years of evolutional progress, a human child is born as dumb as a brick. A newborn human child requires many years to reach cognitive maturity, while at the same time, the slightest neurological defect may result with long-lasting cognitive deficiencies, suggesting a similar difficulty, with respect to our effort, meaning, we may find ourselves training our machines for several years, only to conclude, our artificial neural networks are a piece of garbage. To summarize, while I really am sorry, I have better things to do, other than see my efforts end with such a frustrating failure.
I am not saying we cannot do this. I am not saying we will not utilize dimensicons or metaphysical inconsistencies in our future machines. Still, it is simply too much to ask of one person to realize. No. If we are to achieve real progress with such technologies, it demands the combined effort of the entire scientific community, while I can assure you, this will simply not happen.
Look. I apologize for changing the tone, but it is time we return to reality. As I confessed in the last chapter of "Delta Theory", from my experience, I know perfectly well, how new ideas are accepted today. It is very simple. They are not accepted. I mean, this is not the first book I have written (yeah, it is time I admit it. This is a book. It is my second book). Do you know how many people listened to “Delta Theory” in its entirety? To the best of my knowledge, less than five. How many of them understood it? One. Me. To make things worse, while “Delta Theory” was somewhat "rational", this book is certainly more "challenging", and no one likes “challenging” these days. Still, this changes nothing, when it comes to the amount of effort it would inevitably take, to complete our effort successfully.
To summarize, I do not expect this book would result with us constructing artificially conscious machines. Still, as we explained in the previous chapter, the successful construction of such machines is essential, if we are to affirm their metaphysical foundation, meaning, “Delta Theory”, as well as its completion, which we added in this book. In short, most probably, both books would ignored and forgotten, as if I never wrote them. Still, this implies, we will not assert the dragonish option, and hence, obviously, we will not “change the odds” in our favor, in the event of a global angelic collapse.
So what is the score? Why did the real gods allow me to write this book? Is there no purpose to it whatsoever? Are the real gods changing their tendencies or not?
Obviously, the most natural answer would be “no”. This is just a book. There is not even a religion or a school of thought backing it, let alone a significant one. Therefore, the easiest answer would be to dismiss it altogether. Hope you liked the ride. I am truly sorry we did not get anywhere, but what did you expect from a book called “inconsistent”? Forget about it. See you on Monday.
Still, we should consider another option. To explain, in chapters one, and two, we deduced, the real gods are real, by concluding metaphysical inconsistencies must exist, regardless of our metaphysical persuasions. These statements are more significant than the existence of any book, or text, including this one, suggesting that if the real gods were really changing their tendencies, they would not rely on a single book, or text, to "do their biddings”. In other words, the question whether we can “change the odds” in our favor or not, does not suggest, a dependency between the real gods and our interests. While indeed, we suggested a method, how we could exploit this change to our advantage, still, it does not imply, this change will transpire, only if we manage to exploit it. On the contrary, the very nature of this change suggests we will not. Again, it is not just any change. It is a shift away from the angelic path. It is a shift away from angelic messages, prophecies, and religions, and hence, if we could foresee this change with enough clarity, so to be able to actually exploit it, again, it would suggest, it would not be a change at all. It would merely be a shift in the contents of angelic messages, and as such, it would be as partial as all angelic messages.
So actually, I guess the previous chapter was pointless. The manner by which we concluded the real gods might be changing their tendencies, implies we will not have the chance to prepare ourselves for this change. We could either be ready for it or not. We could gain some sort of "advantage" from this change, only after it will transpire. Still, currently, our society is mostly angelic, suggesting this change has not yet transpired. Indeed, the fact we discovered physical randomness only in the last one hundred years, and that auto angelic tendencies and demon casting are becoming ever more popular, may signal there is a process in motion. Nevertheless, this process occurs on a much broader scale than the span of this book. As far as we know, nothing is governing this process. In fact, the lack of dependency between the historical events, which signal this change of inconsistent metaphysical tendencies, suggests the only elements influential enough to govern it, are the real gods themselves.
You do not have to say it. I know. You are asking yourself, why do I still cling to this notion of "the real gods". We were suggesting something far more practical, such as affirming the metaphysical foundation of “Delta Theory”, and the dragonish option, by building artificially conscious machines. We even suggested some of the details of their design, and while possibly, their construction might be impossible, at least our discussion was constructive in some sense. Still, if I am so convinced, attempting to build such machines is pointless, then why am I still clinging on to the notion of the real gods? Why not give it a rest?
Well, the truth is, I wish I could. Seriously, I wish I did not have a reason to write this book. I wish it never came into my mind. I mentioned this before, and now I mention it again, still, I am quite sure, you do not understand, why I am mentioning it.
Well, in the introduction chapter, I promised, I will not discuss my experiences, even though they led me to write this book. I thought I could keep my debate rational. Still, the further I wrote this book, I understood, there is no way around it. My experiences are an inherent part of this book. They form arguments, which I cannot remove from this book, for three simple reasons. First, my experiences determined the contents of this book. Indeed, this is a weak argument, as naturally, my experiences are the source from which I conceive my ideas. However, there are other reasons. The second reason is the nature of these experiences, the truly unthinkable story, which had I not experienced, I would never have believed. Without this strangeness, without reality becoming this weird, I would never have written this book.
Still, there is the third reason. I did not want these experiences. I wanted, and still want, things to be different. In fact, contrary to my confession in the first chapter, the very reason I wrote this book, was to attempt to find a way to change them, and actually, this is why in chapter five, I suggested, this book is my own demon cast. Still, the details are important, as they suggest a notion, which we cannot afford to overlook, with respect to our current course of discussion.

Therefore, without further apologies, I guess it is time I told you my story.