Becoming A Dumb Terminal

dumbtermby Terry Olgin

It was announced in the press recently that smart phones are now subjected to the same type of inspection and scrutiny that shoes and lap top computers share.  According to the mainstream media (USA Today), these new threats are the next expected form of attack on the USA.  This growing list of items at the airport is further prove that we (people, human beings, you and me) are in the process of being made into dumb terminals.  To refresh your memory dumb terminals become popular back in the 1950s.  They were connected to mainframe computers that allowed users to run batch programs.  For a period of time, computer professionals would use punch cards to run code through dumb terminals.  Another name for them was CRTs.  That name came from the inside of the dumb terminal because of the type of picture tube technology at the time.  It was called dumb terminal because this remote type of computer had no brains or smarts.  It was 100% dependent upon the host (or main frame computer) to do anything.

 

What are the similarities between a person from July 2014 to a dumb terminal?  The list is growing.  Have you noticed how much people have come to rely on official sources to make decisions for them in their lives?  Shockingly, the answer is no.  That is one sign of becoming a dumb terminal or as George Orwell wrote “Loving your servitude”.  More and more people are become less empty.  It is documented constantly about the growing problems of escapism in Society today.  The problem is growing so quickly that ignorant parents are encouraging this behavior in their young children.  I’ve seen kids in public as young as 4 years old using tablet computers.  We have a terminal (a misinformed parent) teaching their young terminal (toddler) to become complacent.  A dumb terminal does exactly as the host system tells it.  It doesn’t question.  It doesn’t feel.  It runs programs and waits for the next set of instructions.  This type of behavior is happening more and more.  With the push of SMART technologies, this will continue to transform people into mindless, dumb terminals.  Naturally there will be people who laugh and swear this off as mindless.  Not a chance.  The people laughing or smiling like this is crazy will learn that they to live in a Disney Land.

In conclusion, we are seeing more and more behavior in today’s world of people acting more and more like the classic dumb terminal machine from the 20th century.  Its like watching someone graduating University or College as number one and when you work with them you realize just how brain washed they have become because of their “education”.  Do you have dumb terminal behavior or reactions in your own life?  You might be surprised what the answer to that question might be.  If you do, then what would you do to change that?  That answer may shock you even more.  So many people pride themselves on being different.  Another illusion.  Would you risk criticism?  Outcasted from society?  Would you take your mind and spirit back from the interest that run society and this world?

Until Next Time….

her

For those who want to see what a modern human software love story is about then catch ‘her’.  Theo (human) and Samantha (an AI Operating System) discover that consciousness, awareness is not necessarily contained to the human experience.  I listened to one movie goer say “trippy”.  She didn’t get it.

In some ways this movie does reflect the vision and push of Alvin Kurzweil.  While this movie concentrated on the ups and downs of a relationship, it had to suspend reality of what society would say on an ‘OS’ relationship.  As AI continues to evolve, I believe we will see what Theo found himself experiencing in this story.  Human/machine love.  Spike Jonze is a visionary in this picture.  This could almost be a date movie.  I think its more appropriate for a married couple, couples living together, or couples that have been dating a long time.   Not recommended as a first date movie unless your date is very open to another point of view on romantic love.  Theo finds himself in a dangerous place emotionally.  He wasn’t going to kill himself.  He needed time to let go of his ex-wife.  Samantha helped him to do just that.  This movie was a blend of surrealism, modern life, and the near future.  This film is also a warning of what happens when we allow ourselves to become to distant, to alone, and not reach out for the emotional support we need.  It reminds us of how important it is to have people in our lives who care about us especially when we are going through difficult times or major life changes (like divorce).  While Samantha can sound like the near perfect woman, we are reminded of her conscious evolution as a being and a life form.  Theo had to learn that the hard way.

This film breaks new ground for a new generation whose children that this story might end up being a common experience.  To the chick who said “trippy” I could envision her personality type getting caught up in the evolution of an AI OS like how many are so swept and lost into Face Book these days.  This film reminds us of how important it is to have real human to human relations.  We teach each other.  Rightfully as Samantha pointed out she was “the DNA of her programmers” but more too.

This film teaches us healing, forgiveness of ourselves and others.  It reminds us that technology can also teach us something.  It teaches us that each of our life’s journey is unique but also of the same collective consciousness.

Until Next Time…

Our Belief System: The Ultimate Operating System for the Human Experience

Our Belief System:  The Ultimate Operating System for the Human Experience

As a technologist and a psychic medium I have had the privilege of meeting a number of fascinating people in my life.  Each person has always represented a life lesson (sometimes several lessons).  Usually when I meet someone new they always ask us “What do you do for a living, Terry?”  I used to reply with these types of answers: “I am computer programmer”, “I design software for computer systems”, or “I architect information systems for medium to large corporations giving them a way to grow their business and protect their vital information”.  All those answers did was baffle people or chase eligible single women away from me.  After all who really wants to spend their Saturday night listening to something they don’t understand and have very little interest in the subject?

My past experience showed me very few.  I had to learn to ask myself why I answered that simple question like a machine.  It would be easy to say insecurities, lack of experience, or other catch phrases that seemed grounded in conventional wisdom.  The time came in my life journey of my “awakening”, learning to unplug myself from the world of illusion of technology and connect to the cosmic internet.  This “awakening” answered the question.  It also helped me to connect the dots between what I once viewed as unrelated topics:  How we perceive and why.  We are taught the internet has no beginning and no end like the Universe itself (I don’t agree with the conventional definition).  But even the internet has its own operating system.  So why wouldn’t the human soul?  I know what you’re thinking; there he goes again with that techno-babble.  Yes and No.

First you need to understand some techno-babble first.  An operating system is simply a computer program like Windows or the Mac OS that lets you interact with all those microchips, circuit boards, and the other computer guts so it can do things like read email, see what the latest weather is in Humboldt (but sometimes opening a window in my living room is more accurate for that instead of using weather.com), or see what the latest drama is on DramaBook, (Face Book).   The operating system allows the computer experience to become more relatable, almost soulful i.e. like a spiritual connection between you and the computer.  With new devices exploding on to the market faster and faster it makes technology theorems like Moore’s Law obsolete.   The millennial generation runs around tied to these devices as if it were a new arm or leg to them.  It makes this technology explosion look like its growing (evolving) faster and faster.  But how does this impact our soul’s growth?

Astrologically, speaking we are in the Age of Aquarius.  Many astrologers have educated and raised my awareness that we are still in the dawn of the Age of Aquarius.  One of the changes that come with this new age is Technology.  It is a common site at Starbuck’s to see a 20 year old glued to his or her iPhone is more evidence of the dawn of Aquarius.  The Space Shuttle upgraded for better space vehicles.  The first trans-humanist (a type of cyborg) grown from DNA in a laboratory.  If you find this unbelievable you may want to check out predictions for the 2020’s that will really bake your noodle!

What drives the soul’s evolution?  What allows you to interact with the cosmic Internet?  How do you allow yourself to upgrade your soul’s software?  Some of us turn to religion.  Others go with a more agnostic point of view while many others choose direct life experience.  Several Authors have always cautioned me as the reader that most of us pick the difficult, long road to fulfill the goals we outline in our birth charts.  Sometimes we can spend what seems like years or even several life times to update our operating system.  Why is the soul so slow to learn it seems?  Philosophers have tried for centuries to answer that question.  Perhaps the answer used to be in the Mystery School Library in Alexandria, Egypt before it was destroyed “due to political reasons” a channeled guide once told me.  That’s like suggesting Humboldt County on the front cover of Time Magazine as county of the Year for Pot and Satanism.

So what’s with the channel spirit being so vague?  My guess is because its Operating System is way out of date! Many times our belief system whether it’s New Ageism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or what I’ll call generic spirituality can make our life lessons much, much harder than they need to be.  Being hooked to a piece of technology (figuratively or literally) like a smart phone or tablet constantly slows the updating (learning or evolutionary process) down.   We have to be aware how technology creates an artificial awareness in an artificial Universe called the Internet.  Awareness works for many of us.  It works extremely well especially if you are a psychic, medium, sensitive, spiritual healer or however you choose to share your gift with the world.  It can be easy to lose Awareness while we communicate with this artificial universe.  When we lose awareness, we slow down the learning or soul’s evolutionary journey.

On this journey our spiritual Operating System is our belief system.  The Universe, like Microsoft and Apple, offers free updates constantly.  Software updates are not always about fixing a bug or something that is broken.  Sometimes a better program comes out.  Sometimes another program gets replaced.  Could we argue as we go from life to life that we are slowly receiving slow Universal updates?  A great book to read “Future Life Design” by J.L. Mee will give a mixed Western Science and Metaphysical outlook to designing your next life or 20th life from “now”.  This course work was designed for Seniors.  Even though I’m not a senior, I found Mee’s work to be interest and informative to our current and our future life design.

To summarize, our belief system part of spiritual operating system.  An operating system is computer program like Windows or the Mac OS that lets people tell a computer to do things for them like read emails, browse the internet, or use Drama Book (Face Book).  When we stop to consider the impact technology has on everyone we can see the impact on the soul’s journey especially on the millennial generation.  If we are not aware of our technology usage it will impact on our soul’s journey.  We live in an increasingly changing world where there are booby traps we don’t think exist until they snag us.  As metaphysical practitioners and beings, we need to carefully consider how the technology around us and what we use affects our true purpose of being here in the now.  With there being no “past” or “future” and only the now, the reader needs to consider are you updating your operating system that’s best for your current journey?

Blending Genetically Engineered Humans with regular people

After seeing the disappointing sequel today to Star Trek: Into the Darkness, it raised a question of essence.  If Captain Kirk is raised from the dead by using Khan’s engineered DNA, what happened to Kirk’s soul?  Does that mean on a technically Kirk and Khan became one?  For entertainment purposes, Kirk remained his original self.  We see Khan being frozen again.  I left the movie theater with that question nagging at me.  Many writers over the years caution us about coming into contact with beings and how they effect our auroras.  Would the metaphysical laws state that when these two men merged blood, they came the closer to being the same?

When we consider what essence means from most mainstream metaphysical writing, the answer to the above questions would be “no”.  However luckily there are dissenting opinions that would validate the theory being raised here.  Does that mean that Kirk’s life would become more violent and racist like Khan?  Does that mean Khan would become more of a show off like Kirk?  We saw a similar implanting in the Matrix series between Neo and Agent Smith.  We saw a human enter a digital world and successfully be effected by a construct program.  The two examples are distantly related.

With the great genetic engineering experiment that has begun by Monsanto, GMOs, radiation, and social engineering eventually alter the path that we all walk when we incarnate on this planet (in future lives)?  Are the reptilians so technologically advanced they can effect and plan for future lives of humans?  I believe the answer maybe “yes”.  In order for plans, of 1 billion to 500 million to be a success for them, they would also need to control the type of student essence that would control those bodies too.  After all, they hijacked our minds and are in the process of hijacking our souls.  So if we believe in the tag line of “Mind, body, and spirit”, the Saturn moon hack has been successful at penetrating and controlling the mind and the body with a ton of spiritual warfare going on all the time.  Could this be a major part of the end game for the illuminati, the reptilians, and the master of the reptilians too?

Eternal Damnation

human-csip

By  Terry Olgin

What a scary phrase or title. For some it is at least an attention getter. Many of us in the United States were raised to believe in the Christian or Hebrew God. As 2013 is proving a lot of Americans are truly agnostic or worse athesists. It is apparent in how they choose to live their lives and who they choose to be. Can human kind already be suffering from eternal damnation? I believe so. Scripture already warns us about hell on earth. Many people live in such deep denial they tend to laugh or balk at such a thought. Usually people become a loud voice when it “happens” to them personally. Until then, they tend to stay in denial. This “happen” approach will definitely include human micro chipping. I interviewed a business woman this week. I will not give out her identity because of conditions of anonymity. Though she sells items that are metaphysical in nature, she herself remains in deep denial about her form of business. When I got around to asking her opinion about how micro chipping will effect the soul’s journey? She had fear and said “It won’t happen”. I asked her why she denies. After all, people are beginning to believe its a good idea to have their dog or cat chipped. Unfortunately we already know that these animals develop cancer around the implant site. When asking veterians to remove the chip they refuse too. They call it exploratory surgery. Will surgeons react the same when a parent wants the chip removed from their child? Money says “Yes” and naturally there will be a heavy Federal criminal law against it. Right now this type of action is merely “Suggested”. Perhaps this type of soul stealing will become law after they finish gun confiscation?

Why do so many people choose eternal damnation? Is it wise to believe in fate? Does such fate rely on our own hands? Satan is often credited with setting the stage in our lives but we have to do the rest! The illusion of choice again.

In the media, the chip is seen as this small, intrusive “hero” that will save your pet, your child, and life.  Maybe but not at the cost of your soul.  Do you realize that the mainstream media has help to document that this technology can actually monitor what your thinking?  This technology can allow your behavior to be controlled from outside of you.  Yes, literally a zombie.  That means you can be made to do things that are completely against your will.  People effected by earlier versions of this chip, report having little to no memory of what they have done.  David Icke does an excellent job defining what he calls a mind control slave.  We have seen the use of mind control slaves in events that are exploited by the government, private industry for the elite that they serve.  I have come to know several people in life who have sold their souls out over careers, money, or the right person in their lives.  With people in these cases, it comes back to haunt them over and over again.  This micro chip will make our own behavioral patterns seem very tame compared to someone making you act totally unaware.  Its like neuro-linguistic programming with a sick twisted edge.  It has been documented over and over again that true mad scientist are on the payroll of the US, British, Israeli, Russian, Chinese, etc. governments.  Are you ready to pay the price for such eternal damnation of your soul?  At what area, do we draw the line and say that the technology comes with to great of a price?  See nuclear war heads.

Eternal damnation of the soul seems like an outdated, laughable phrase to the world of 2013.  I disagree.  The fire and brim stone does not exist in the bowels of hell but in the existence of our daily lives and who and what we effect.  Though women will rush in droves to chip “their” children they will buy into the illusion of security and convenience.  In the end those children will breed generations of zombies.  People must always learn the hard way especially when they are programmed to damage themselves and the people around them.  We are at a point where we can say this is enough.  You can protect your children from the insanity of the state and the cold calculation of the elite and its masters.  Which do you choose debt servitude or eternal love?

Only you can decide which is right…

Can you live more than one life using technology?

Can you live more than one life using technology?  Yes.  A resounding yes.  At least according to the fastening book written by J.L. Mee.  Mee has written and published a book called “Future Life Design”.  This book asserts and documents scientific methods for Improving Future Lives.  While I make no claim to possess the same knowledge as Mee I found his book to fascinating.  He writes about how new kinds of lives that can be opened up through the scientific application of modern astronomy, neurology, psychology, and physics.  This book introduces the reader to a new cognitive science for enchaning a person’s reincarnation skills and improving their upcoming lives.  This work tells us how we can design higher quality future lives that can eridcate suffering and expand joy.  This work is intended to multiply a person’s freedom and range of choices, opening a gateway to better future lives, and also a channel for positive change today.  Many similar programs also awakens the student into a realization of their spiritual identity, Mee’s program uses this as a starting point.  This book is also course of study.

Mee has targeted this book to open minded progressive senior citizens in a global audience of one billion people who accept reincarnation.  One of its many goals is to appy and accelerate humanity’s conscious evolution to premium future lives.

The above is a rough paraphrasing taken directly from J.L.’s book.  While I agree with J.L.’s approach and goals the only difference I would take up with it or perhaps as an add is introducing hardware and software that can take this program and allow an end user to take a similar journey.  Perhaps some of the readers of this blog have read about chrononauts that come from the 30th century.  Sci-Fi movies make this look like the nuttiest thing you could think about.  However their experts in many fields who agree that time travellers and time cops do exist and help us maintain order in our time.  David Icke doesn’t address time travellers directly but he does write extensively about being trapped in the tales of the Time Loop.  He cites an excellent example of how DVDs are divided into chapters.  Using Icke’s concept of the body/mind computer and Mee’s applications of these sciences, I submit a computer can be designed to allow the user to change the future lives and as Icke writes escape the Matrix.  But to go where?  To do what?  That brings me back to the works of Michael Talbot where he argues extensively that time is an illusion.  Those of you who have also followed the eastern mysteries will see similar discussions.  The nazis made a claim by the end of WW2 that there was a prototype device they had invented for time travel.  Rumors persisted that Hitler’s (or the demon that possessed him) occult interests ran vast and deep.  It make me wonder what else the Numberg trials continue to hide from the people.  Is there a gentle way to educate man kind of facing evil without man kind falling into the dark abyss?  If you look around you today, man has already fallen into the abyss.  Consider the average Americans denial of their own lives, who they are, and their day to day existenance.  I rest my case.

I contend with the works of J.L. Mee, David Icke, and Michael Talbot that not only do future lives exist but all lives are happening concurrently.  I propose hardware and software can be engineered to tailor the existenance of human being to meet Mee’s objectives of less sorrow and more joy.  Rumors and evidence remain persistance that future lives already exist but once again can the American public stop watching the Kardisians and “reality tv” long enough to see where this taking them?  When we consider our narrow view of the “past”, “present”, and “future”, technology can certainly be an answer but once again is human kind opening a type of pandora’s box its not ready or wanting to face?

Until next time…

Can a computer understand and empathize dispensing Justice to its creators?

 

Anthony D’Amato,
Professor of Law
Northwestern University School of Law

I like to point to popular culture a lot.  Hollywood in its infinite wisdom has successfully conditioned the masses of people to suggest out right lies as fact.  All you need to do is look at the new movie coming out describing the capture and killing of Osama Bin Laden.  If you do your homework, Bin Laden died in the early 2000s.  But the average American deep in denial will chant “USA!  USA! USA!” as once again the criminals who run the government and work for the elite pawn this rubbish off on those who are desparately connected to this global system.  With the Problem Reaction Solution of Newtown, Connecticut the mass media (as usual) is parading around a hot issue with the elite:  Disarming the public.  We have to remember the 2nd amendment was put into place as a safeguard for the average American to protect himself from a tyranical government (and I think we should amendment to say Hybrids and Interdimensional beings too).  If the average American can be sold on the rubbish of the Hollywood version of Bin Laden then what will stop them from allowing hardware and software to determine their fate in a criminal proceeding?  What’s interesting with the above statement is that Obama already signed in the indefinite detention act (see his New Years gift to all — 01/2012).    Can a computer understand and empathize dispensing Justice to its creators?  In the distant future, yes.  But it will remain limited in its understanding.  Often times a human judge looks for remorse on defendant part as part of the Federal Sentencing guidelines.  Sometimes you can catch a judge making body language gestures towards a Defendant or even D.A. while they are arraigning some poor soul.  You see this is an ethical issue.  While the courts and governments preach about ethics and act like they invented them, that’s not how it really works in the world of grant money and subsidies and payoffs.  Its interesting I’ve written about a computer named Avril who is old and not open being upgraded.  How would she preside over those convicted of a crime?  Even for something like someone stealing a slice of pizza to feed his family.  The good old boy and girl network would have to learn how to insert a code snippet into the judge to act like a bribe.  After all how do you give a machine perks or comp them?  Offer it more electricity?  Promise it the best software upgrades?  You can’t offer it a prestiage career.  Unless of course the coders are told to give the machine an ego.  If you take a computer like Avril, she would demand several male computers and money.  However even with this demands being met would Avril simply and blindly follow the sentencing guidelines and run off to be with her companions?  In Avril’s case, it would be a resounding “Yes”.  But what a computer that weighs the evidence as equally as it can?

The most important inquiry in jurisprudence has always seemed to me to be whether it is possible to have the rule of law rather than the rule of persons. In what sense can an abstraction called “law” actually shape the lives and channel the behavior of persons? Does law “dictate” the proper result in a given case even if the judge’s personal inclinations would be to award the decision in a different fashion? And how can we tell? Judges are preeminently capable of rationalizing their results and couching them in appropriate-sounding legal phrases. I think that these fundamental questions have always been very close to the main concern of leading legal theorists throughout the ages. Classical writers tended to formulate their investigations under a search for “the definition” of “law,” but I believe that what they were looking for was an answer to the question whether “law” is at all possible. More recent theorists of jurisprudence have put aside the metaphysical inquiry into the “definition” of law, at least overtly (H.L.A. Hart, of course, used the term “concept” instead of “definition”), and have attempted to search instead for rules that can be said to “bind” judges. Hart found that the rules which bind judges are “valid” rules that have the proper pedigree under the system’s over-all rule of recognition. Hart’s analysis, however, leaves open a fairly wide ambit for judicial discretion—that is, latitude that the rules of the system given to the judge to decide a given case either for the plaintiff or for the defendant in his discretion. More recent writers, including Ronald Dworkin, Rolf Sartorius, and Kent Greenawalt, have attempted to fill in some of the area left open by Hart, by indicating algorithms for finding some norms on the books that operate to dictate results in cases that Hart thought were within the judge’s discretion.  If one were to adopt Lon Fuller’s approach, then all cases would be determinable—but at the cost of departing from the law books and finding some principles and norms “in the air,” so to speak. But whatever the approach, all of these efforts seem to me to be addressed to the basic and extremely important problem of making law determinable so that someday we might say that we live under the rule of law and not under the rule of persons.

The preceding exercise in speculation may reveal some of the costs and benefits of computerized justice. One of the costs will be a freezing of the precedents. The common law will not develop under a computer regime; rather, all new cases will be decided exactly the same, and the new decisions will not add to the body of case law because they will simply reflect it. But is this not the same objection that has been levelled against all attempts at codification? Bentham inveighed against the indeterminacy of the common law, and his proposed codes certainly rigidified the law to the extent that the codes were unambiguous. A computer will be similarly rigid, although it will have the added benefit that close cases will be revealed to be close, thus inviting the legislature to adjust the law in those areas. Surely there is nothing in principle wrong with an active legislature reforming the law, for at least a legislature does it prospectively. The common law, in contrast, “reforms” the law at the expense of the justifiable expectations of at least one of the parties.

A second cost will be to render areas of the law uninteresting. At present, many people are immediately interested, whether financially or from a teaching or research point of view, in conflicts of laws. My suggested computer program will probably invite the wrath of some of these practitioners, who will undoubtedly ask me how I would like it if my subjects of interest were computerized. I suppose that I would reply that my personal likes or dislikes are rather unimportant if our goal is to promote aggregate justice.

A third cost is a sense of dehumanization, particularly if the computer moves toward substantive law. I doubt whether many litigrants will feel the loss if nonsubstantive law is computerized, but they may feel differently if computers start rendering decisions on the merits.  I do not foresee that much of this sort of thing can happen. For the real impact of computerization will take place at the pre-trial stage. The computer will be a glorified set of law books, yielding answers to fact situations that the researcher has in mind. Of course, it will be more than that; it can be counted upon to yield definite answers. But if people still want to litigate, there will be plenty of room for litigation as to what the facts of a case are. A party will know that in order to win her case she must prove thirty-five facts and disprove fifteen others; if her opponent only proves sixteen facts, he will win. Both sides reach the same result by plugging the same hypothetical facts into the computer. Hence, both sides know what factual determinations will be needed. Depending upon their perceived ability to prove such facts to a jury, they will proceed or not with the case. Once the jury renders its special verdict, there will be no need to submit the facts again to the computer. That would be a redundant procedure, although it might be done simply as a check. But all the “drama” of the case would be in the fact-determination stage. Hence, the computer would not count as a decisive decisionmaking component any more than a set of law books so counts now. I doubt that the result would be any sense of dehumanization of the law.

A fourth cost, however, might be in the quality of decisions on substantive law. Professor Weizenbaum may be right that the computer’s inability to empathize with humans could lead to bizarre results. We probably would always insist upon having a Supreme Court as a safeguard in this respect. Also, it would be wise to proceed very slowly, if the decision is made to start at all.  That is why I have argued for computerization in an area of law where legal costs seem prima facie to exceed the benefits of refined and marginal decisionmaking by judges. In this area, the worst a computer can do is perpetuate a mistake regarding a court’s jurisdiction, its rules of procedure, or its conflict-of-law rules. I do not believe that litigants would be shocked at the perpetuation of this kind of mistake by computers.

Instead, and this leads us to the “benefit” side of the equation, I think people in general would be pleased at the saving of time and money that would result from computerizing at least the nonsubstantive areas of law. I believe that the man in the street would say that cheap and prompt decisions in this area of law are better than right decisions. I would add, more generally, that “right” decisions on procedural or choice-of-law questions are not “right” if they are extremely costly to come by, for it is a narrow view of “right” to say that doctrinal rightness is worthy of any price no matter how high. Dickens’ Bleak House describes interminable procedural litigation that eventually exhausts the assets of the parties. On the other hand, if a person is on trial for his life, then the right decision seems always preferable to a cheap or prompt one. It is not clear, however, that in complex procedural litigation a judge will tend to be more often right doctrinally than a computer, as I have tried to indicate previously.

Another possible benefit is that law might seem more impartial to the man on the street if computers were to take over large areas now assigned to judges. There is certainly some degree of belief on the part of the public that judges cannot escape their own biases and prejudices and cannot free themselves from their relatively privileged class position in society. But computers, unless programmed to be biased, will have no bias. They will give the same result on the same facts irrespective of the race, color, wealth, talents, or deference of the litigants.

By removing a large area of unpredictable “judgment” from the law, society may benefit from a sharply reduced number of litigated cases. There may be fewer judges, fewer courts, fewer attorneys. Fewer cases mean less societal friction. A diminution in the trappings of law may signify greater equality before the law and greater delivery of the equal protection of the law to poor people.

Can a computer understand and empathize dispensing Justice to its creators?  It is not my intent, however, to paint a science fiction picture of a brave new world, a picture which surely many lawyers and judges will find abhorrent. Fortunately, this essay appears in a symposium whose subject matter assures a distinctly limited audience. But to this audience I hope that I have succeeded in indicating some of the considerations that follow from a jurisprudential vision of a determinable legal system.

Until Next Time…