Believing Non-Sense in Safety

imageI saw a classic this week in the Neuroscience Newsletter the other day. Of course, such propositions that AI have emotions or feelings is complete and utter nonsense.

Last time you dropped a laptop did it cry in pain? When you switched it off and restarted it, did it tell you of its dreams? Was your laptop ‘jealous’ of your phone? Did your computer tell you about its own self-consciousness and its embodied self? Was it offended when you called it a ‘machine’? Was it ‘distressed’ because you loved another computer?

It is astounding that the word ‘science’ is attached to such a non-sense assertions that AI has ‘feelings’. This just shows how insane the ideology of Transhumanism ( has penetrated the science world. Well, its not science anyway, but Scientism. Transhumanism is an ideology and cult.

It seems today in our post-truth Qanon world (Kakutani The Death of Truth), you can say whatever you want and believe whatever you want, but it doesn’t make it true or reality. What is more, I don’t have to agree or affirm your delusion just because you state that something is true for you.

The foundation of mythology is based in the idea that we make something true and symbolically true, that has no evidence other than faith.

We will be workshopping the nature of Mythology in Risk in Canberra Convention in September ( What also accompanies mythology in risk are: rituals, symbols, gestures, metaphor and cultic rites that also have nothing to do with tackling risk or helping keep people safe. Most of these are exposed by the courts ( as useless in the face of a fatality and ‘faith in paperwork’ is on full show. Yet there are endless beliefs and rituals in Safety that have nothing to do with tackling risk and are little more than evidence of cultic faith.

Myths are beliefs made true by intent, mostly through semiotics, but they are neither true nor real. Myths are made real by the believer, who by faith affirms myth as truth. There is however, no matching fact or evidence for any mythical assertion. Myths are believed by acts of faith, and such faith is so strong it is able to deny reality. Such belief is also deeply embedded through Cognitive Dissonance.

We see this in commonly in safety mythology that asserts:

  • People are super heroes (spruiked by regulators)
  • The impossible is possible (DuPont)
  • Zero is possible in denial of fallibility (global Safety)
  • All accidents are preventable
  • Safety is a choice you make

There is no evidence for any of these propositions. Indeed, such propositions are delusional and demonstrate a disconnectedness with reality, a mental health condition.

In order to tackle risk, we don’t need any of these silly memes or the ethic behind them.

Yet, here is Safety proudly preaching non-sense to people as if somehow this is rational, but this is how memes work ( ). Memes regenerate cultural beliefs automatically and normalise: faith as rationality, myth as truth and the crazy idea that something is real, simply by repetition. We see this all the time in the anxiety of Safety to make sure the word ‘professional’ is repeated endlessly. No amount of repetition of the word ‘professional’ makes an industry professional, especially an industry that delights so much in the dehumanisation of persons.

The real problem with all of this, is the denial of faith and silence about mythology. This is how safety mythology is enabled, through silence ( ).

This kind of thinking is common to any cult.

And, just as AI does NOT have feeling, so too, there is no possibility of zero!

You can wish all you want, hope all you want, talk all the non-sense you want – none of it will ever bring about the embodiment of computers or zero ( ).

The delusions of disembodiment and the hopes of Transhumanism are founded on myth! Indeed, the ideologies of Transhumanism and Zero have much in common.

Similarly, the delusions of zero and the hopes for perfection, are founded on myth!

This is why an understanding of mythology is essential for tackling Real Risk ( If you want to be intelligent about risk, the place to start is with demythologizing safety myths.

You can trace much of this safety mythology all the way back to Heinrich who basically just made s*#t up to fulfil his strange disembodied idea of how humans get injured ( ). Indeed, the title of Heinrich’s text that uses the language ‘A Scientific Approach’ has nothing to do with Science.

And of course, the myths of Heinrich are created through symbol that have no connection to reality. It makes just as much sense to call an Ouija board a ‘scientific approach’.

Stating the word ‘science’ doesn’t make something Science, but this is how Safety seeks to assert something by what it is not. The good old safety code ( Heinrich’s text is overloaded with so much emotive assertion, reductionist semiotics and faith-based statements that are coded with the language of ‘facts’. There are no facts. As sure as Safety states something, you know it is the opposite.

However, in an industry that neither studies critical thinking, ethics, politics or mythology, Heinrich is made the anchor point for so many of the non-sense mythical assertions of Safety.

This brings us back to the assertions of the Neuroscience Newsletter that computers have feelings. Calling AI ‘affective computing’ makes no difference to the reality that computers and AI will never be fallibly human persons.

The same applies to the myths of safety.

Source link

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.