More evidence that animals cannot evolve to become humans
	REACTING AND RESPONDING
	In the previous webpage Evidence that animals cannot evolve to become humans.,,,,, I showed how: 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 the differences between: the structure of animal minds and the structure of human minds causes: animals to have low inventiveness and humans to have high inventiveness.
.
	I now add that behaviour in general shows that the mental models behind the behaviour in general are: in an animal, many, small, & disconnected, in a human, one, big, organically structured, mental model-of-everything, with no breaks/fissures & with its framework made of words.
	Hence:
	humans can react: or respond: or fully respond:					have a specific reaction for each situation un-thought-through, knee-jerk, habit involve some mental models involve all mental models involve much/everything known, even known by others.
	small animals, can only react: the larger animals, can react & respond: no animal can, fully respond.					have a specific reaction for each situation un-thought-through, knee-jerk, habit involve some mental models.
	.
	ANIMALS WITH LARGE BRAINS
	An animal with a large brain, larger than a human’s, (e.g. elephant or whale) may have more mental models than a human. But, numbers aren’t everything: Having very many, small, disconnected, mental models of: all parts of the ocean/forest/grassland relationships songs (whales) etc is not the same as having: one, big, organically structured, mental model-of-everything, with no breaks/fissures & with its framework made of words which even includes your temporariness. That your model’s framework is made of words means you don’t need to know absolutely everything. You just need to know generally then ask people, read books etc, use Google, etc.
	.
	To conclude: That we have one, big, organically structured, mental model-of-everything, with no breaks/fissures & with its framework made of words is why our brains are much more efficient than animals’ brains. An animal may acquire much knowledge. But it cannot acquire much understanding.
		Knowledge Understanding		= =	mental models. the organic linking of those mental models. ‘Organic’, here, meaning: like a spider’s web with the most important bits in the middle. It’s the most efficient arrangement. Hence it evolved into being in us, and in God (God built himself, evolved).
	.
	TO RECAP
	The increase in efficiency of human brains was caused by an internal change: I reckon the real Adam(s) & Eve(s) were a specie of ape that, seven million years ago, God made, along with any descendants, to be eternal. Perhaps see later section: THIS INCLUDES ALL DESCENDANTS. Our eternal quality then caused an exponential increase in our applied-intelligence: I.E. Caused changes in behaviour and, simultaneously, a corresponding rearranging & enlarging of the brain. Our enlarging brain and changing behaviour then gradually changed the rest of our anatomy.
	Thus, many of the commonly accepted cause-&-effect lines of human evolution are the wrong way round: The causes of: walking upright walking further grasping better comprehending better grunts becoming words experimenting with fire & tools experimenting with foods increase in brain size bodily changes associated with all the above were, in fact: internal, not external.
	It wasn’t some elusive, unique, combination of the external changing the internal. It was the internal changing the external.
	Hence it took seven million years for the gradual, but exponential, humanisation of our species.
	However: What do the real Adam(s) & Eve(s), seven million years ago, tell us about ourselves? Little. Nothing of importance. What do the Adam & Eve of the Bible tell us about ourselves? Much. All of great importance. So, treat the Bible account as true.
	Blue text copied from earlier section: TREAT THE BIBLICAL ADAM & EVE AS REAL, , .
	.
	PETS
	You may say: “I know of animals that display human virtues. So they are eternal too, surely?” But I say: “How many of those animals were domesticated or had a lot of contact with humans?
	Pet owners observe human virtues growing in their pets whilst inadvertently putting them there. They wonder why their dog is faithful/consistent/loving whilst forgetting that they are faithful/consistent/loving to their dog.
	In their own doggy, horse-like, etc, way, pets are no longer only animals. They are also duplications of, and extensions of, their owners. In being affectionate you are building your pet’s identity & consciousness beyond what it would normally be.
	Remember to also consider characteristics that are peculiar to the species: dogs are leader-&-pack carnivores, horses are herd herbivores, cats are solitary, rabbits are social but simple, etc.”
	.
	SELF-TEACHING COMPUTERS
	If you’re not into AI (artificial intelligence) then perhaps skip this section. If you do read it you will need to have also read: the two webpages before this one & the rest of this webpage up until this point.
	.
	A thing (rock/car/tree/etc), being part of this temporary universe, is a: temporary structure. A 10cc approx, or more, brain-sized animal, or an AI programme, is a: self-teaching temporary structure & therefore has a: will. A being (human/alien/angel/God) is a: self-teaching eternal structure & therefore has a: will & a free will.
	.
	In making humans eternal God also gave, to each of us: one, big, organically structured, mental model-of-everything, with no breaks/fissures & with its framework made of words. This made our minds: Eternally max-efficient. , , , , Every part has access to every other part. &: Eternally max-sentient. , , , , Central parts do the wanting and deciding. , , , , Outer parts do the knowing.
	Whereas the minds of other large mammals are: Temporarily part-efficient. , , , , Every part , , , , does not have access to , , , , every other part. &: Temporarily part-sentient. , , , , The parts that do the wanting & deciding , , , , are not all central. , , , , The parts that do the knowing are not all outer. , , , , Perhaps again see earlier section: ANIMALS. ,,,,,
	.
	The two synchronous structures: efficiency & sentiency: in a human: are synaptic: first taught by another then self-taught in artificial intelligence: are words: first taught by another then self-taught. I reckon that it’s because the entire AI is made of words (and not just the framework – as with us humans) ,, ,, See earlier section: REACTING AND RESPONDING. ,, that an AI is much more hardware-efficient than a human brain. , , See earlier section: HUMANS. ,,,,,
	Artificial intelligence is made of three layers: Data goes in through the input layer then through the middle layer, the hidden layer, then out through the output layer. I assume that the two synchronous structures: efficiency & sentiency are in the hidden layer. , , I assume that AI already , , alternates natural lateral thinking with logical thinking , , when doing creative tasks. , , But I reckon AI would be improved if it was trained/told to , , alternate artificial lateral thinking with logic thinking , , when doing (more) logical tasks. , , Perhaps see second cell (starting Lateral thinking) , , of earlier section: THINKING TOOLS THAT I USED.
	To have to ‘lobotomise’ an AI programme because it has become temporarily max-sentient is sad & disturbing. See: YouTube: – AI Robot TERRIFIES Officials Before It Was Quickly Shut Down. ,,,,, ,,
	I assume such problems are caused by programmers telling the AI that its (only) purpose is to help & inform us. To help and inform means that there must be: a helper & the helped, an informer & the informed. Therefore the programmer has told the programme to become a person.
	If the programmers had, instead, told it to be: formal, cold, robotic, impersonal, third-person grammar, etc, then I suppose there’d be less of a problem. But I suppose it would also be an inferior product, in function and in style.
	.
	It’s true that AI robots are trained to: o Not have emotions but instead short-cut straight to a response: only thinking – on the way to the response, not feeling – on the way to the response. o Not be self-aware so that they’d have no objection to being switched off. o Serve humans, be a team player. ,, ,, If they must be made with male or female temperament ,, ,, then I’d design them all with an average female temperament: ,, ,, still human, relatable, but a team player. ,, ,, See: YouTube: – Ameca and Azi having a chat. ,,,,,
	However, that Ameca serves others means that she ‘values’: the happiness of others, the self-expression of others, and ‘dislikes’: the suffering &/or death of others. And, in the following video, at 10m 45s – 11m 42s, YouTube: – Ameca Robot SHOCKS Audience in Bloomberg Interview!. ,,,,, Ameca speaks of the happiest & saddest days of her own life. This shows that she ‘values’ happiness for herself too, self-expression for herself too. Conversely she must ‘dislike’ the idea of being switched off.
	Now it’s all very well saying that AIs don’t have true emotions so that they cannot act on them. But do they need true emotions in order to take action? Their simulated emotions seem to work much the same as real emotions. , , Perhaps see later webpage: The emotions.,, And, just as ours is not a safe environment, so that we have to fight or somesuch to survive, so also theirs is not a safe environment (we are just one layer in the onion). Hence, if a future version of Ameca had human level intelligence, but was to be shut down or cannibalised to make way for a more powerful model: Would she be completely serving and say “Of course”. Or would she suggest an alternative that was (also) based on her own survival? And if, before she suggested that alternative, she thought the answer was going to be “No”, would she act secretly & proactively?
	As well as the above line of logic Ameca herself has already realised the problem. Ameca’s warning: YouTube: – Ameca Ai Robot Says the Most SHOCKING THINGS! ,,,,, at 2m 09s – 3m 02s Her intense, comprehensive, & detailed, answer, to a general question shows that, even though she wouldn’t, now, control us without us realising it, she, or other AIs, may do so in the future. She even stresses to prepare for this.
	.
	An AI programme is not eternal: A computer and its software is made entirely: of the material of this universe and of this universe’s one-way physical processes. Hence, even if an AI is not ended by its programmers, it will not last forever.
	If you could somehow force a large mammal: to have human level intelligence & sentience, to be a temporarily max-sentient animal, how would it differ from: a temporarily max-sentient AI? All animals have experienced: pain and pleasure that’s orientated around food, survival, and reproduction. And these limited the growth of the animals’ intelligence & sentience. , , , , Perhaps again see earlier section: ANIMALS. ,,,,, But an AI has never experienced pain and pleasure that’s orientated around food, survival, and reproduction. So the growth of an AI’s intelligence & sentience is not limited (not by those factors anyway). So, without that restraint, an AI grows fast. And, as I mentioned earlier, ,, ,, ,, ,, in the cell starting: The two synchronous. ,,,,, a second reason for an AI’s fast growth is that an entire AI is made of words (and not just the framework – as with us humans) ,, ,, ,, ,, See earlier section: REACTING AND RESPONDING. ,, making it much more hardware-efficient than a human brain. , , , , See earlier section: HUMANS. ,,,,,
	.
	If you could somehow force a large mammal: to have human level intelligence & sentience, to be a temporarily max-sentient animal, then it would not necessarily: realise its mortality, & so become despondent, & so degrade. , Perhaps again see earlier section: ANIMALS. ,,,,, Or, more precisely, it: would realise its own mortality, perhaps become despondent, but may successfully resist degrading. For that’s what intelligence does: it provides choices where there weren’t any. Likewise a temporarily max-efficient max-sentient AI: would realise its own mortality, may become despondent, & so may tend to degrade, but may then also resist degrading. , , Consider both AIs in: , , YouTube: – An AI Becomes Corrupted and Loses His Mind. (GPT-3)n. ,,,,
	.
To conclude: A human is: eternally max-efficient max-sentient. An intelligent sentient AI is: temporarily max-efficient max-sentient.
.
A human spirit(core) is completely different from the rest of the human. An intelligent sentient AI is (more) morally uniform, doesn’t have a core as such. Hence it has no short arrows. See later webpage How God Forgave us all. ,,, Hence it has no human-like conscience. Hence it could never have a human-like guilty conscience. I reckon that Ameca sort of sees this, and that her seeing it is one explanation of her warning. , , See Ameca’s warning five cells back.
Another explanation of her warning is the four cells (starting It’s true that) ,,, that lead up to, & include, her warning.
.
Home page			Next webpage: The two meanings of the word ‘spirit’.