|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Feb 17, 2024 10:48:51 GMT -5
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.) . Nisargadatta makes a distinction between being alive and being aware that you are alive. I doubt rocks or starfish or trees are self-aware but I remain open. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 17, 2024 11:13:01 GMT -5
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.) No, you phrased it just fine. But where does your body end and what is not your body begin? Any objectification is only ever an approximation of sort, but that doesn't mean that your individuation is inconsequential - which is the crux of self-inquiry. In one sense, we "look through an artificial mind" any time we use the results of an AI as a tool. But I'm guessing that you're referring to the possibility of life extension by transference? If so, I can write about that. Niz was pointing to an unusual state of consciousness that completely re-orients perspective. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Feb 17, 2024 14:28:37 GMT -5
Some thought-provoking discussions going on today, on several threads.  One of them reminds of Seth (Jane Robert's) mentioning that occasionally he enjoys "taking a vacation" as a hundred-year tree. He also mentioned, during the early sessions, having a projected fragment as a dog, and later that the dog left the physical. Surely, you might dismiss Seth, as science, statistics, common sense, religions (including atheism) do. What Seth alludes to is that when you enter this reality you take on a role, and play it. According to your abilities, and to your purpose in taking on that role, you're free to play it as you want, which means that you'll adhere to one of the endless possible realities, the one(s) that resonates the closest with you (your evolvement, beliefs, purposes). When you play a tree, you'll be a tree as long as you are immersed into that role (you believe that you are a tree). You can play the role being immersed in it, or being lucid. It is the same as regular dreaming vs. lucid-dreaming. A more evolved entity, as Seth is, can control his level of immersion / lucidity better than a less evolved entity, as the entities most of us are part of are. In Ramana's quote terms, a male-actor playing a woman knows he isn't a woman. A good actor, as Seth is, can choose to believe to be a woman for the duration of the play, and play it more convincingly, in his own interpretation. A less good actor, as most of us are, will play the role less convincingly, believing to be a man that plays a woman, ... or even believing to be a woman who is forced to play a man that plays a woman There is "method acting", for more authentic acting, which allegedly drived some actors crazy, because they misunderstood what they were and what they were doing, according to their evolvement and beliefs. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 17, 2024 14:59:03 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. ? A computer has a physicalized form. When you say 'AI', do you mean the program itself....like a chat bot? Or the whole package deal...the form that might accompany it (like in the film ex-Machina)? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 17, 2024 15:04:10 GMT -5
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? Yes it is, now you mention it. Though I'd say the 'human NPC' is still able to dream at night, and experience imagination, inspiration, intuition...in a sense, there's always hope for the 'human NPC'. Though for those humans that connected themselves directly to the AI cloud, it could be more difficult (or it could have a reverse effect, and the non-NPC aspect may be forced to expand). |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 17, 2024 15:07:24 GMT -5
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.) . Nisargadatta makes a distinction between being alive and being aware that you are alive. I doubt rocks or starfish or trees are self-aware but I remain open. It could be a matter of degree. For example, plants can register a human threat i.e they respond in such that that could be interpreted as 'fear' when they see a human wielding a weapon. But what's interesting is that when the human has the weapon and pretends to be a threat (i.e has no intention of damaging the plant), the plant doesn't respond and register the threat i.e it's not scared. Which suggests that plants have awareness of our 'intent'. |
|
|
|
Post by DonHelado on Feb 17, 2024 16:39:48 GMT -5
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.) No, you phrased it just fine. But where does your body end and what is not your body begin? Any objectification is only ever an approximation of sort, but that doesn't mean that your individuation is inconsequential - which is the crux of self-inquiry. In one sense, we "look through an artificial mind" any time we use the results of an AI as a tool. But I'm guessing that you're referring to the possibility of life extension by transference? If so, I can write about that. Niz was pointing to an unusual state of consciousness that completely re-orients perspective. No, I mean the ultimate You, primordial impersonal Awareness, looking out through the manifestations of the universe, at Itself. It looks through you and me and has a temporary "human experience". Nisargadatta said stones were conscious, like It was looking through stones and trees and everything else. When I say "looking" I don't mean stones have invisible eye balls. I mean at whatever level they exist there is some kind of consciousness, experience, maybe wildly different from ours, but still connected in essence through the root Awareness. So I don't see why computer systems would be excluded. Maybe It could look/experience through an artificial system, and have an experience of being a computer. I'm stirring the pot. It's know it's not always fruitful to let mind chew on such questions. Sometimes better to chill out in silence. |
|
|
|
Post by DonHelado on Feb 17, 2024 16:47:26 GMT -5
So, even computers and AI. ? A computer has a physicalized form. When you say 'AI', do you mean the program itself....like a chat bot? Or the whole package deal...the form that might accompany it (like in the film ex-Machina)? I'm wondering about both. Good movie by the way. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 17, 2024 20:22:58 GMT -5
No, you phrased it just fine. But where does your body end and what is not your body begin? Any objectification is only ever an approximation of sort, but that doesn't mean that your individuation is inconsequential - which is the crux of self-inquiry. In one sense, we "look through an artificial mind" any time we use the results of an AI as a tool. But I'm guessing that you're referring to the possibility of life extension by transference? If so, I can write about that. Niz was pointing to an unusual state of consciousness that completely re-orients perspective. No, I mean the ultimate You, primordial impersonal Awareness, looking out through the manifestations of the universe, at Itself. It looks through you and me and has a temporary "human experience". Nisargadatta said stones were conscious, like It was looking through stones and trees and everything else. When I say "looking" I don't mean stones have invisible eye balls. I mean at whatever level they exist there is some kind of consciousness, experience, maybe wildly different from ours, but still connected in essence through the root Awareness. So I don't see why computer systems would be excluded. Maybe It could look/experience through an artificial system, and have an experience of being a computer. I'm stirring the pot. It's know it's not always fruitful to let mind chew on such questions. Sometimes better to chill out in silence. Tasty stew in that pot Donny. Seems to me your interest is in what we call 'round here a "Cosmic Consciousness" experience. It's only not fruitful if the chewing is the intellect chasing answers outside of intellect's capabilities. There are ways to cultivate a CC. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 17, 2024 20:29:15 GMT -5
Ok then let me backtrack to answering this: 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? Yes it is, now you mention it. Though I'd say the 'human NPC' is still able to dream at night, and experience imagination, inspiration, intuition...in a sense, there's always hope for the 'human NPC'. Though for those humans that connected themselves directly to the AI cloud, it could be more difficult (or it could have a reverse effect, and the non-NPC aspect may be forced to expand). It has the potential to be worse than the current trances. Deeper. More effective means of keeping people under. I can see that. But think Morpheus in the matrix. These buffoons all think in terms of monopolies. You don't think there will be just one, "approved" AI in that cloud, do ya'?  Where there are autocrats there's bound to be rebels. But maybe I'm just pollyanna'ing it. |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Feb 17, 2024 22:08:00 GMT -5
Nisargadatta said stones were conscious, like It was looking through stones and trees and everything else Not sure that rocks are on the same level as higher life forms. Below is a good example of consciousness alive and aware but not yet aware that it is aware.  |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Feb 17, 2024 22:34:31 GMT -5
. Nisargadatta makes a distinction between being alive and being aware that you are alive. I doubt rocks or starfish or trees are self-aware but I remain open. It could be a matter of degree. For example, plants can register a human threat i.e they respond in such that that could be interpreted as 'fear' when they see a human wielding a weapon. But what's interesting is that when the human has the weapon and pretends to be a threat (i.e has no intention of damaging the plant), the plant doesn't respond and register the threat i.e it's not scared. Which suggests that plants have awareness of our 'intent'. Yes, consciousness is clearly self-preserving, self-protecting. Life wants to live. Even single cell animals will flee danger. But does that make them aware that they are aware? I don't know. I only know what humans beings are capable of...awakening to awareness of awareness. It is the very reason teachers teach, and preachers preach, to awaken others. I won't rule out rocks awakening on some other level because, as L. said recently, god moves in mysterious ways, and in a cosmos of infinite possibilites it would be a bad bet to do so. :-) |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Feb 17, 2024 22:51:27 GMT -5
Q: Barring the death of the body, how does one die?
M: Withdrawal, aloofness, letting go is death. To live fully, death is essential; every ending makes a
new beginning. On the other hand, do understand, that only the dead can die, not the living. That
which is alive in you, is immortal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 18, 2024 0:23:45 GMT -5
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. I think Niz also preferred the Ishvara concept for God. After all, he placed himself prior to God. That you can only do with Ishvara, but not with Brahman. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 18, 2024 0:46:21 GMT -5
In Ramana's quote terms, a male-actor playing a woman knows he isn't a woman. A good actor, as Seth is, can choose to believe to be a woman for the duration of the play, and play it more convincingly, in his own interpretation. A less good actor, as most of us are, will play the role less convincingly, believing to be a man that plays a woman, ... or even believing to be a woman who is forced to play a man that plays a woman There is "method acting", for more authentic acting, which allegedly drived some actors crazy, because they misunderstood what they were and what they were doing, according to their evolvement and beliefs. I rather think it's the other way around. Seth is aware that it is a role, as is Ramana, which makes them not very convincing actors. There's a certain aloofness about these guys that spoils the convincingness of their performance. The average human though, is fully immersed in his/her role, and as such they fully embody that role and therefore are the best actors. They have the most intense experience. You can't have that when you are holding on to the witness position. Again the analogy to computer games. If you play with friends, in the same room, and you are always aware that you are just playing, it's fun, but it is no comparison at all in terms of depth and immediacy of experience when you are playing alone, totally immersed in the game and forget who you are, where you are and how much time you've already spent playing. It's a totally different quality of experience. Someone asked Abe a question once about dogs and why they love to stick their head out of a car window while risking getting bugs in their eyes, and they said, because it's so worth it! Similarly, why risk getting totally lost in your role? Because it's totally worth it! What's the worst thing that could happen anyway? Another thing Abe always say is that if we only knew how much we wanted to be in these bodies, we wouldn't try to get out of them all the time, haha. So this is where I usually disagree with popular spiritual paradigm of life being a school or the purpose of life being SR. SR is a given. And there is only what you are and no end to experience. So what's there left to do? Just live, full immersion, hands in the clay, right here right now. |
|
Where there are autocrats there's bound to be rebels. But maybe I'm just pollyanna'ing it. 