New Surveillance Measures to Monitor and Restrict Bathroom Use By Deviants

restrict bathroom use

Proposed security measures that aim to prevent improper public bathroom use by abusers are creating a stir. The concern by many that our public bathrooms are being shared with people whose deviance, indecency and poor character has led lawmakers to finally address the leniency that has allegedly been disastrous to our standards and way of life. The senate is now considering a bill which would ban people who leave their urine, feces, vomit and other excreta on (instead of in and down) toilets and other bathroom surfaces from using those public facilities.

Garrett Nordberg from Citizens for Sanitation spoke favorably about the proposed legislation:

“I think it is about time that somebody did something about this. It is a tragedy that in this day in age there are still adults whose mental instability and neurosis causes them to defile public bathrooms in such juvenile ways. The risk that their behavior provides to public health and our standard of living is beyond reproach and must be responded to as firmly as possible.”

It is guessed that about 1/3 of Americans suffer from Infantile Bowel Syndrome. These sufferers were subject to a deficiency of proper parenting during the toddling stage and potty training and as a result just unleash their bladders and bowels with no proper consideration of others or their environment, as do infants.

Vallisa Reed of the IBS Advocacy Center calls the legislation draconian and heartless.

“We would be essentially punishing people for conditions that they did not choose. They are victims of their upbringing and environment. They do not have a choice to use bathrooms like you or I, their compulsions and psychological make-up mean that not sullying bathrooms is beyond their capacity to choose.”

Bud Alanson of the Association of Bingo Callers also had some strong opinions about the pending legislation.

“I could give a crap less if you are a cross-dressing werewolf that has sex with dead cats, you should be able to use any public tax-funded bathroom you like so long as you can be a responsible human being and keep from smearing your feces everywhere or pissing on the seat.”

The issue has become a hot button topic at a time when conservatives bigots are decrying the ‘wrongful’ use of bathrooms by people who may not agree with the gender they were assigned. Similar legislation meant to enforce biological obedience to bathroom use is based on fears that if people are allowed to use the restroom they are most comfortable in, pedophile orgies and dick shaming could become rampant.

Elbur Wutzisnutz is one of the people that harbors these concerns.

“A bathroom is just like a NASCAR race, ya see. If everyone doesn’t stay in their assigned lanes before that green flag drops, ya gonna have chaos on the track!”

When asked what the green flag dropping equivalent of restroom use was Elbur responded that I should shut my faggot-loving face before he pisses in it.

Mandy Dawson, a custodian at a local county building that houses several public offices, gave me her two cents.

“These same people that want to set up genital checkpoints at bathroom doors are the same ones who invariably shit and piss all over everything. These uptight, anal-retentive neurotics are so focused on their own germophobia and other compulsive and repressed ideologies that they never consider those who have to use the bathrooms after them or clean them up. They just fire away wherever they please and leave the consequences of their mental issues for other people to deal with, without any guilt, remorse or shame. In fact, I once confronted a police officer who had clearly shit on the seat while pulling a paranoid hovering maneuver moments after I cleaned the stall. Not only was he unapologetic, but seemed to think he was superior to others for refusing to endure the same risks that anybody using public facilities takes. While increasing those risks.”

The details of the monitoring systems being proposed have yet to be released, nor have any details of how officials plan to enforce penalties for infractions yet surfaced. Stay tuned to AdvancedApe.com for updates on this totally true story and many more.

 

Towards A Non-Materialist Theory of Artificial Intelligence

non materialist theory of artificial intelligence

While true believers like Ray Kurzweil tell us that the artificial intelligence singularity is just around the corner, critics argue that we will never be able to replicate consciousness because we are unable to create the required complexity from which it arises. A common thread between the believers and non-believers is that consciousness is an emergent property of matter. This is the metaphysical dogma known as materialism, of which I write about frequently, and which permeates nearly every aspect of modern thought.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has also been addressed by non-materialists, such as Bernardo Kastrup, who works within that field. He makes a clear distinction between artificial intelligence and artificial consciousness, although most materialists tend to equivocate the two, being that they believe sentience is a product of mechanistic intelligence that has reached a critical mass of complexity. Bernardo’s argument against artificial consciousness is premised on the non-dualist model, essentially stating that consciousness is primary to matter, and so matter cannot give birth to it’s own parent. Yet within his own model, there still remains a possibility for AI.

Like myself, he has argued that consensus reality is a construct of beliefs, most of which lie in deep unexamined layers of our egoic and collective minds. Certain premises and assumptions create a framework of boundaries for possibilities within this reality. What we expect at the most primary level of consciousness becomes manifest in the universe. Yet we cannot simply decide to change a single belief and see a change in reality because beliefs are all connected and must relate consistently in order for the corresponding paradigm to emerge. That is, we cannot just decide to fly, because other beliefs like the necessity of wings, aerodynamics, atmospheric tolerance and others all negate a belief in flying. In order to fly, we would have to change every corresponding belief about flight, and those beliefs would themselves need to restructure their own corresponding beliefs, creating a ripple that spread out and changed the very structures of human belief and reality. Despite what New Age gurus tell you, you can’t just change reality with good intentions and meditation.

Change can, however, occur over time. The beliefs which program our reality change over time as we accumulate and/or replace information via new symbols and archetypes. Since a widespread belief in AI has been flourishing within our memetic landscape, all it requires is a shift in the corresponding beliefs which estimate its arrival. Strangely enough, materialism may be just that set of corresponding beliefs. Materialism provides a narrative, or mythology, from which the memetic interconnectivity of consciousness could correspondingly allow new conscious entities (AI) to emerge.

The narrative of materialism is often sanctified by it’s ability to produce novel technologies. This does not mean that the materialist narrative is true, however, only that it has great utility in producing results. Things that produce great results are often untrue, as political propaganda clearly demonstrates. The power of mass suggestion creates self-fulfilling prophecies. Scientific progress in the last several centuries may owe more to the narrative and belief in science than to the method itself.

Yet this does not mean that the materialist model is superior, either in overall truth, or in its ability to produce results. It is still very much weighed down by it’s limitations and faulty premises. To observe phenomena within consciousness under the premise that those phenomena occur outside of it means we have to create a mass illusion like materialism in order to evolve within consciousness. What would we be capable of if our narratives corresponded more closely with the nature of our existence? What sort of new methods, technologies and realities might emerge if we cut out the literal interpretations of objects within consciousness and replaced them with an understanding of those objects as interacting agents of consciousness?

The success of materialism does not indicate the truth of that belief system. At the same time, the fact that materialism is untrue does not negate the power of its mythologies. AI, or artificial consciousness, may someday appear to arise out of the complexity of matter invented by humans. Yet in actuality, those entities may owe their genesis merely to the narrative of materialism. In this way we can view materialist science as complex set of rituals whose magic appears mundane because of the symbols and archetypes we have clothed it in. A magic that only works when we can describe it in non-magical language, and believe that we are doing the opposite of magic. Again, imagine the wizardry possible when no longer require such illusory roundabouts?

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” – Arthur C.Clarke