|
|
Post by DonHelado on Feb 14, 2024 22:04:22 GMT -5
Yes, I jumped to an assumption about your meaning. My bad. You wrote: "People who blur the distinction between artificial and human intelligence miss something very important, no doubt." What is the "very important" thing that they miss? I assumed you were saying there was something special about the "human" intelligence that could not come from an "artificial" intelligence, and thus, AGI would not happen. Thanks for that, I appreciate your sanity. Yes, now we're on the same page. I maintain that human intelligence is one thing, and AI is another.
Now, to answer your question directly, I'd have to expand on that. But before I do, please let me ask you this. Would you agree with the notion that your interest in this dialog can be expressed by the question "what is consciousness?" .. ?
Also, you have my I.O.U: you asked a direct question, which I haven't answered yet. Thank you in advance for your patience.
. There are two questions... 1. What is consciousness/awareness? 2. What is human intelligence/creativity/mind-function and can something like it be created "artificially" by humans (AGI). I think #1 is profound, maybe more "important". But in this case I was thinking about #2. ... And the questions mix, because maybe the answer to #2 is that this mysterious "consciousness" is a magic ingredient in the human intelligence, which causes it to be something beyond what "artificial" systems will ever get to. |
|
|
|
Post by DonHelado on Feb 14, 2024 22:09:47 GMT -5
I remember Being with Ian Wolstenholme Barry Long and my friends wife gave birth to izza a bundle of joy and she said enough talk about stillness look after her. It was the first time I felt vulnerable yet I looked into her eyes and I could see all her cells were vulnerable alive.Her eyes were innocent like mine. A deep lake . There was this non verbal communication but it was so present alive. And i I felt her beyond all my teachings all the stillness I know Her heart is alive just like my heart. Yes, the hubris of humans is rather amazing. No one can explain how a single hair grows, yet people think AI can somehow replicate sentience. Too funny.  If sentience, or consciousness, is mysterious, then how can you say anything beyond "I don't know" to the question of whether some entity is conscious or sentient? Do you "know" for sure that humans will never create a system that is ... like a human? I agree that some of the technical people seem oblivious and full of hubris. But is it also hubris to think you know for sure in the other direction? Ie, that it cannot happen? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 14, 2024 22:28:31 GMT -5
Well, even in terms of our our direct experience or knowing, a realization is had (which is experienced and accepted as credible, valid and perhaps 'true'). And yet this direct experience/knowing has no science foundation/basis. 'Formlessness' is something we talk about as if it is real and true, but is unprovable. Personally, I'm glad it is unprovable, because then it DOES require a leap of faith/trust away from the rational aspect of mind. If it was provable and concludable, it also wouldn't be 'realizable'. So from my pov, we are just as woowoo here as any religious group or new age group. It's just that we have a particular resonance with this kind of woowoo. I have no idea what you're talking about with a realization being "accepted as credible", or requiring "faith". That sounds like some neutered dead-concept version of the subject matter. So, yeah, not worth discussing. That makes me want to discuss it more But only really if you wanted to. What is a 'realization' to you? I'm fine to work with your conceptualization of it instead (I assume you don't consider it a 'conclusion'....but perhaps you do). |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 15, 2024 7:10:15 GMT -5
At superbowl half time, apparently Alicia Keys apparently hit a duff note (amazing singer regardless). Within minutes, this duff note was being edited out of the media, and now we watch her singing a pristine version, as if the original never happened. Perhaps at some point, people will be told that the duff note never happened at all. If there is no past, or perhaps that we create the past from the present moment, does it matter that what we call 'history' can now be so easily edited and erased? ( Of course, this isn't a new thing, as the saying goes....the victors or war write the narrative, but with today's technologies, this can be exponentially accelerated) From a spiritual point of view, how should we consider this modern pattern of what seems to be an 'updating' of our perceptions to suit particular narratives? As a side note, some of you might have heard of the Mandela effect, it's been around a while. I'm wondering if this was a precursor....a way of introducing us to this idea of 'updating'. Men living with less technology and less hierarchical social structures in the past used to create the Gods to explain forces they did not understand, had no control over, and that impacted their survival. The sea, the sky (weather), the Sun, the Moon (tides) etc .. Now some men envision the Universe as a machine they can tweak, like those Gods that their forefather's dreamed up. In each case, it's easy to scoff, it's easy to see how the minds and emotions of these people are meandering, and in some instances, into dark alleys where suffering waits. But they're just human beings trying to make sense of the World, after all. Like ZD says, "it's not possible to make a mistake", like E' used to say "everyone is always doing the best that they can". Forget about what reefs says though. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 15, 2024 7:14:58 GMT -5
Another question. Listening to David Icke this morning, he talked about what he sees as a plan to merge 'the AI cloud' with our brain/minds. Our thoughts will then manifest as the thoughts of the AI cloud. Seems feasible to me, as a plan. From a spiritual point of view, in which 'Beingness' is generally valued over mind, does it matter if our thoughts are our 'own', or if they express a hive AI mind? Interested in hearing from Gopal on this, as when I talk to him lately on here, I sometimes experience a subtle sense that I am talking to an 'AI cloud' simultaneously with Gopal. That subtle sense that I experience might be false of course, but Gopal, do you care if your mind becomes an AI mind? You're inviting yourself to answer the question: "what is the source of thought?". |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 15, 2024 7:31:44 GMT -5
Thanks for that, I appreciate your sanity. Yes, now we're on the same page. I maintain that human intelligence is one thing, and AI is another. Now, to answer your question directly, I'd have to expand on that. But before I do, please let me ask you this. Would you agree with the notion that your interest in this dialog can be expressed by the question "what is consciousness?" .. ? Also, you have my I.O.U: you asked a direct question, which I haven't answered yet. Thank you in advance for your patience.
. There are two questions... 1. What is consciousness/awareness? 2. What is human intelligence/creativity/mind-function and can something like it be created "artificially" by humans (AGI). I think #1 is profound, maybe more "important". But in this case I was thinking about #2. ... And the questions mix, because maybe the answer to #2 is that this mysterious "consciousness" is a magic ingredient in the human intelligence, which causes it to be something beyond what "artificial" systems will ever get to. Magic dust! Yes, Excellent. Your decomposition of the questions is quite sound and I find it well expressed. The AI is the result of an evolving technology that was originally based on modeling the human mind, and the human brain. So there are going to be similarities. But, the "substrate" is different. Different limitations. This manifests in various ways, the most obvious being the amount of data the AI's can access and the speed at which that happens. There are still some instances where the individuated human mind has an edge, and the interesting thing to me about the development of the tech is watching those boundaries melting away (beyond and accounting for the hype, that is). But I digress with this, and I'm not really writing anything all that original here. I'd just add that the view that AI is ultimately just another amplifier of human capability is a view that I find has as much merit as the doomer warnings. Ultimately, Question #2 is answered by finer and more elaborate versions of the Turing Test, but with the twist that the AI would have to dumb itself down to pretend to be human in some aspects of the functioning. But, as you considered, the questions mix. Is Q2 really independent of Q1? Can we really expect engineers to answer what the Philosopher's and Scientists of the past, never really have? Can you think of one discovery or answer given by these cultures that hasn't resulted in more questions? Are you, a machine? |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Feb 15, 2024 7:43:42 GMT -5
Yes, the hubris of humans is rather amazing. No one can explain how a single hair grows, yet people think AI can somehow replicate sentience. Too funny. If sentience, or consciousness, is mysterious, then how can you say anything beyond "I don't know" to the question of whether some entity is conscious or sentient? Do you "know" for sure that humans will never create a system that is ... like a human? I agree that some of the technical people seem oblivious and full of hubris. But is it also hubris to think you know for sure in the other direction? Ie, that it cannot happen? A particular realization makes this obvious. It happened to Federico Fa grin as he contemplated how to design a sentient computer, but it can happen as a result of contemplating many other existential questions. People look at two trees, but never realize that the space between the two trees is also what the trees ARE and is also what is looking at the trees. As Pope wrote, "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Drink deep or taste not the Pierian Spring." The intelligence of THIS is incomprehensible to the intellect, but the intellect can be informed of that incomprehensibility by a realization of what lies beyond the capacity of the intellect. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 15, 2024 7:47:47 GMT -5
Yes, the hubris of humans is rather amazing. No one can explain how a single hair grows, yet people think AI can somehow replicate sentience. Too funny. If sentience, or consciousness, is mysterious, then how can you say anything beyond "I don't know" to the question of whether some entity is conscious or sentient? Do you "know" for sure that humans will never create a system that is ... like a human? I agree that some of the technical people seem oblivious and full of hubris. But is it also hubris to think you know for sure in the other direction? Ie, that it cannot happen? In one sense, the question of sentience is entirely misconceived. There are unusual states of consciousness that reveal that "the entire Universe is alive". There is a literal and visceral truth to not-two. Object boundaries really are nothing but a contrivance of mind. Don't expect me to prove this to ya' though.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 15, 2024 7:50:07 GMT -5
If sentience, or consciousness, is mysterious, then how can you say anything beyond "I don't know" to the question of whether some entity is conscious or sentient? Do you "know" for sure that humans will never create a system that is ... like a human? I agree that some of the technical people seem oblivious and full of hubris. But is it also hubris to think you know for sure in the other direction? Ie, that it cannot happen? A particular realization makes this obvious. It happened to Federico Fa grin as he contemplated how to design a sentient computer, but it can happen as a result of contemplating many other existential questions. People look at two trees, but never realize that the space between the two trees is also what the trees ARE and is also what is looking at the trees. As Pope wrote, "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Drink deep or taste not the Pierian Spring." The intelligence of THIS is incomprehensible to the intellect, but the intellect can be informed of that incomprehensibility by a realization of what lies beyond the capacity of the intellect. Always with such infinite arrogance! The nerve of ya'!  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 15, 2024 11:40:23 GMT -5
Another question. Listening to David Icke this morning, he talked about what he sees as a plan to merge 'the AI cloud' with our brain/minds. Our thoughts will then manifest as the thoughts of the AI cloud. Seems feasible to me, as a plan. From a spiritual point of view, in which 'Beingness' is generally valued over mind, does it matter if our thoughts are our 'own', or if they express a hive AI mind? Interested in hearing from Gopal on this, as when I talk to him lately on here, I sometimes experience a subtle sense that I am talking to an 'AI cloud' simultaneously with Gopal. That subtle sense that I experience might be false of course, but Gopal, do you care if your mind becomes an AI mind? You're inviting yourself to answer the question: "what is the source of thought?". hmm I think it's more like.....'does the content of thought matter?'' |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 15, 2024 12:42:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 15, 2024 13:50:52 GMT -5
A particular realization makes this obvious. It happened to Federico Fa grin as he contemplated how to design a sentient computer, but it can happen as a result of contemplating many other existential questions. People look at two trees, but never realize that the space between the two trees is also what the trees ARE and is also what is looking at the trees. As Pope wrote, "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Drink deep or taste not the Pierian Spring." The intelligence of THIS is incomprehensible to the intellect, but the intellect can be informed of that incomprehensibility by a realization of what lies beyond the capacity of the intellect. Always with such infinite arrogance! The nerve of ya'! He's right. The point people keep missing in these "AI vs. humans" discussions is that humans have direct access to infinite intelligence. But to the intellect that thought doesn't even occur, nor does it to the AI. Because neither the intellect nor the AI can understand what sentience, consciousness or life is. Because both the intellect and the AI are finite. And as Zhuangzi has told us, pursuing what is infinite with finite resources is foolish. Now, of course, from a purely intellectual perspective, the SVP perspective, i.e. disconnected from Source and infinite intelligence, AI is looking more and more scary and Musk's "if you can't beat them, join them" strategy (see video above) may even seem reasonable. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Feb 15, 2024 22:19:34 GMT -5
Always with such infinite arrogance! The nerve of ya'! He's right. The point people keep missing in these "AI vs. humans" discussions is that humans have direct access to infinite intelligence. But to the intellect that thought doesn't even occur, nor does it to the AI. Because neither the intellect nor the AI can understand what sentience, consciousness or life is. Because both the intellect and the AI are finite. And as Zhuangzi has told us, pursuing what is infinite with finite resources is foolish. Now, of course, from a purely intellectual perspective, the SVP perspective, i.e. disconnected from Source and infinite intelligence, AI is looking more and more scary and Musk's "if you can't beat them, join them" strategy (see video above) may even seem reasonable. The AI is being operated by the same infinite intelligent. There is no separation anywhere in this universe. Once again, everything moves as one. There is only one horse in the race. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 16, 2024 6:17:47 GMT -5
Always with such infinite arrogance! The nerve of ya'! He's right. The point people keep missing in these "AI vs. humans" discussions is that humans have direct access to infinite intelligence. But to the intellect that thought doesn't even occur, nor does it to the AI. Because neither the intellect nor the AI can understand what sentience, consciousness or life is. Because both the intellect and the AI are finite. And as Zhuangzi has told us, pursuing what is infinite with finite resources is foolish. Now, of course, from a purely intellectual perspective, the SVP perspective, i.e. disconnected from Source and infinite intelligence, AI is looking more and more scary and Musk's "if you can't beat them, join them" strategy (see video above) may even seem reasonable. Of course he's right! Existential questioning can get quite intense, so I can understand how a questioner can ascribe hubris to someone who says that it's over for them. But it's not really even a matter of "certain/uncertain". Doubt, certainty, possibility .. these are all just mind noise that the realization transcends. But to someone engaged in the questioning it's sounds like a red flibberjibbet has yesterday maybe, and ding-dong. What is realized is common to what's looking out of every pair of eyes, so it's not an accomplishment, reward or gift. Not something gained. Seems that some seekers can get the drift of that message regardless of the foreign language, other's, not so much. And, of course, there are charlatan's. So, there's that. So they perceive hubris. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 16, 2024 6:19:11 GMT -5
He's right. The point people keep missing in these "AI vs. humans" discussions is that humans have direct access to infinite intelligence. But to the intellect that thought doesn't even occur, nor does it to the AI. Because neither the intellect nor the AI can understand what sentience, consciousness or life is. Because both the intellect and the AI are finite. And as Zhuangzi has told us, pursuing what is infinite with finite resources is foolish. Now, of course, from a purely intellectual perspective, the SVP perspective, i.e. disconnected from Source and infinite intelligence, AI is looking more and more scary and Musk's "if you can't beat them, join them" strategy (see video above) may even seem reasonable. The AI is being operated by the same infinite intelligent. There is no separation anywhere in this universe. Once again, everything moves as one. There is only one horse in the race. Yes and no. The entire Universe is alive, but the machines are finite. You, are not finite. You, are not a machine. |
|
