|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 16, 2024 10:25:47 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. I don't see how that is related to my point. However, your point is very much related to your other perceivers dilemma and the limits of what can be known. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Feb 16, 2024 11:47:37 GMT -5
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. The machines are appearing in your focus, those are being created and its expression is created as well. God is the ultimate ruler without giving control to anything. Surprisingly well-educated Christian knows that even bible teaches the same. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Feb 16, 2024 11:48:11 GMT -5
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. I don't see how that is related to my point. However, your point is very much related to your other perceivers dilemma and the limits of what can be known. Everything is appearance, those appearances are creation. Nothing escapes. |
|
|
|
Post by DonHelado on Feb 16, 2024 18:38:45 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. I'm reading Fаggin's book. Should be interesting. I may post about it as I get further. I skipped ahead some and I see he talks about the "hard problem of consciousness" and the realization (maybe the term applies) that first-person conscious experience/qualia cannot be "explained" as coming from some unconscious mechanical process. I've had that same insight myself, so I'm with him (and you, I guess) on that point. But that insight applies to the human brain as well. You can't say: see, when you connect this neuron to this neuron, ta-da! - consciousness! .... and yet, here we are.... apparently... |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 16, 2024 20:11:20 GMT -5
Yes and no. The entire Universe is alive, but the machines are finite. You, are not finite. You, are not a machine. The machines are appearing in your focus, those are being created and its expression is created as well. God is the ultimate ruler without giving control to anything. Surprisingly well-educated Christian knows that even bible teaches the same. Read from a Catholic pamphlet: "don't settle for the God of your imagination". What's the verse that goes ? .. "my ways are not your ways" .. ? "God" as a "controller" is one way to try to make sense of what will never completely make sense.  God is neither personal, nor impersonal. Biasing a perspective one way or another leads to falsity. Best not to think about it. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 17, 2024 4:54:18 GMT -5
I don't see how that is related to my point. However, your point is very much related to your other perceivers dilemma and the limits of what can be known. Everything is appearance, those appearances are creation. Nothing escapes. Does the same infinite intelligence that 'operates' AI and Gopal also 'operate' Gopal's daughter and Gopal's wife? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 17, 2024 5:14:34 GMT -5
The machines are appearing in your focus, those are being created and its expression is created as well. God is the ultimate ruler without giving control to anything. Surprisingly well-educated Christian knows that even bible teaches the same. Read from a Catholic pamphlet: "don't settle for the God of your imagination". What's the verse that goes ? .. "my ways are not your ways" .. ? "God" as a "controller" is one way to try to make sense of what will never completely make sense. God is neither personal, nor impersonal. Biasing a perspective one way or another leads to falsity. Best not to think about it. There are different definitions of 'God'. When Gopal talks about God, he likely is referring to the Ishvara concept (supreme ruler). When you talk about God, you are likely referring to the Brahman concept (Self). Big difference. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 17, 2024 5:40:40 GMT -5
What consciousness is can't be understood from the perspective of the intellect/mind. Consciousness is the larger context, intellect/mind the smaller context, or as we usually say, consciousness is prior to intellect/mind.
So with the rational, analytical approach, which is the perspective of intellect/mind, consciousness will always be just a different version of intellect/mind. Which means that approach will always be missing the point and go nowhere.
Consciousness can only be understood from the context of consciousness, similar to the saying that to realize God, you have to be God.
Which means there has to be a shift of perspective, to the higher context, the impersonal, prior to intellect/mind context.
That's why there is, and never will be, a definition of 'consciousness' or 'being' or 'life' in the dictionaries (other than circular definitions). Because what these terms are referring to is prior to intellect/mind, which means prior to what can be categorized, analyzed and described.
|
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Feb 17, 2024 9:19:49 GMT -5
Everything is appearance, those appearances are creation. Nothing escapes. Does the same infinite intelligence that 'operates' AI and Gopal also 'operate' Gopal's daughter and Gopal's wife? Gospel of Thomas: "I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from me all came forth, and to me all attained. Split a piece of wood; I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there" Nisargadatta: In death only the body dies. Life does not, consciousness does not, reality does not. And the life is never so alive as after death. and this little gem by Nisargadatta and questioner. M: All life is conscious, all consciousness -- alive. Q: Even stones? M: Even stones are conscious and alive. Amritbindu Upanishad: "That in whom reside all beings and who resides in all beings, who is the giver of grace to all, the Supreme Soul of the universe, the limitless being -- I am that." |
|
|
|
Post by DonHelado on Feb 17, 2024 9:57:39 GMT -5
Does the same infinite intelligence that 'operates' AI and Gopal also 'operate' Gopal's daughter and Gopal's wife? and this little gem by Nisargadatta and questioner. M: All life is conscious, all consciousness -- alive. Q: Even stones? M: Even stones are conscious and alive. So, even computers and AI. ? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 17, 2024 10:04:02 GMT -5
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?'' Ok then let me backtrack to answering this: 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? Icke's concern is certainly not trivial. It reminds me of Roy Dops warnings. Remember those? (along the lines of "you will re-incarnate as a machine intelligence, further removed from reality than before"...). But aren't the sources of many common-mind-state thoughts similar to an AI hivemind as it is? Isn't what Icke envisioning just a sort of matter of degree in difference from the educational/cultural/media narratives that define your typical NPC on any given day at present? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 17, 2024 10:08:36 GMT -5
and this little gem by Nisargadatta and questioner. M: All life is conscious, all consciousness -- alive. Q: Even stones? M: Even stones are conscious and alive. So, even computers and AI. ? There is a crucial existential distinction, and it's based on the nature of object boundaries, and also relates to what you really are. The perspective that a given AI in an individuated expression of a universal consciousness involves an objectification of that "Consciousness". You, are beyond objectification. |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Feb 17, 2024 10:13:33 GMT -5
and this little gem by Nisargadatta and questioner. M: All life is conscious, all consciousness -- alive. Q: Even stones? M: Even stones are conscious and alive. So, even computers and AI. ? . Every atom whirls with alive intelligence, as I see it. |
|
|
|
Post by DonHelado on Feb 17, 2024 10:37:25 GMT -5
So, even computers and AI. ? There is a crucial existential distinction, and it's based on the nature of object boundaries, and also relates to what you really are. The perspective that a given AI in an individuated expression of a universal consciousness involves an objectification of that "Consciousness". You, are beyond objectification. Okay, but I'm not trying to raise "AI" to the level of "Consciousness". I'm saying it seems to have the same level of being as a human "body" object. So, yes, You (Being, Consciousness) are beyond objectification. And yet "You" are looking out through a human body-mind object. If you don't like that way I phrased that, then pick another phrase, but I think this will still apply. Nisargadatta just suggested You can look out through rocks or trees (with a very different "experience" of course). So... can You look out through artificial body-minds? (I'm not claiming to know the answer, one way or the other.) |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 17, 2024 10:43:47 GMT -5
Read from a Catholic pamphlet: "don't settle for the God of your imagination". What's the verse that goes ? .. "my ways are not your ways" .. ? "God" as a "controller" is one way to try to make sense of what will never completely make sense. God is neither personal, nor impersonal. Biasing a perspective one way or another leads to falsity. Best not to think about it. There are different definitions of 'God'. When Gopal talks about God, he likely is referring to the Ishvara concept (supreme ruler). When you talk about God, you are likely referring to the Brahman concept (Self). Big difference. Oh, no doubt. "Supreme ruler" is a personification. For some people that personification "works" in various ways at various times in their lives, but it's misconceived, ammo for atheists, and the seed of certain destructive ideations about reality. |
|
God is neither personal, nor impersonal. Biasing a perspective one way or another leads to falsity. Best not to think about it.