|
|
Post by zendancer on May 10, 2024 13:43:55 GMT -5
Humans have already created intelligent machines, and in the future they'll be super-intelligent compared to the existing machines. No argument there. I think Federico's point is that we'll never create a computer that is conscious. The issue is that there's nothing separate from All There Is, or THIS, and although THIS can do anything, can it create anything equivalent to Itself without being Itself--a thingless thing that is incomprehensible to the human mind and beyond space and time? Federico talks about seeing a light come out of his chest and realizing that the light was pure love and that all of reality was composed of that love and light. Any human who sees into the true nature of THIS will come away in a state of awe because it will be immediately obvious that no microscopic aspect of THIS will ever come close to creating anything remotely equivalent to THIS. I suspect that this has to be directly seen to be fully appreciated. It would be like asking, "Can a human create anything that is beyond space and time and not dependent upon anything physical?" A particular realization makes it obvious that awareness would still exist even if the manifested universe disappeared. How would a human create something like that?  I'm pretty sure he thinks they can be conscious. I could dig up some quotes if you're interested, but they get a bit dense. It wouldn't be "creating" consciousness like creating another God or Universe or "THIS", as you say. Yes, I agree, that is impossible, or absurd. It would be more like the artificial system becomes connected somehow, like humans are, to this Ground of "quantum consciousness" or Awareness or Love or ??. In other words, humans might be able to build something "artificial" that has the same status of spirit/consciousness/intelligence as a "natural" human being. Perhaps you never denied that idea, that possibility. But there are people who do deny it -- they are convinced that humans have a kind of magic ingredient that no artificial system could ever have or participate in. No, I wouldn't claim that humans have "a kind of magic ingredient that no artificial system could ever have or participate in." What I'm suggesting is that humans, like everything else in the universe, are aspects (for want of a better word) of an unfathomable and aware intelligence that IS the whole show, and that awareness/consciousness/sentience is a fundamental aspect of that ISNESS that is not replicable because there's nothing other than that ISNESS. IOW, there is no separation of any kind, and this can be realized. From this POV it would be like asking, "Can the Infinite create awareness when all there is is the Infinite's awareness." In the case of Federico, he was contemplating how to build a conscious computer, and his contemplation apparently triggered a cosmic consciousness experience that revealed the impossibility of that endeavor. From what I remember, he stated that pretty explicitly in a particular YouTube video. In that video he pointed out that most scientists regard consciousness as an epiphenomenon that arises spontaneously when evolution reaches a certain level of complexity and intelligence. What he discovered via the CC event is that this idea is totally false, and is based upon a mechanistic interpretation of reality. He speculated that the intelligence manifested via all living creatures probably includes inanimate material to such a degree that consciousness is "built-in," so to speak, even at the quantum level. I remember discussing with some friends fifty years ago the possibility that even a rock might be conscious in some unimaginable way, and Federico seemed to be pointing to the same thing. After a CC in 1984, I remember thinking, "OMG, everything is alive, even the space between physical objects!" There didn't seem to be any boundary between animate and inanimate things, and it was "turtles all the way down." I suspect that's what Federico was pointing to, but I'd have to look at that video again to make sure he said what I think he said. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 10, 2024 14:35:48 GMT -5
I read Federico's book, and he doesn't say that humans can't create a truly intelligent system. He said he thinks that our current computer systems won't do it, because they operate by the rules of classical mechanics [*] and a classical system (according to him) can't be truly intelligent or creative like a human. But he doesn't preclude the possibility of constructing an artificial system that taps into the quantum realm, in the same way that he thinks true human intelligence also does. [*] by classical, he means that while the circuits have quantum properties and effects, they don't effect the outputs -- the overall behavior of the circuit follows completely deterministic rules, of the macroscopic world, without quantum "weirdness". Humans have already created intelligent machines, and in the future they'll be super-intelligent compared to the existing machines. No argument there. I think Federico's point is that we'll never create a computer that is conscious. The issue is that there's nothing separate from All There Is, or THIS, and although THIS can do anything, can it create anything equivalent to Itself without being Itself--a thingless thing that is incomprehensible to the human mind and beyond space and time? Federico talks about seeing a light come out of his chest and realizing that the light was pure love and that all of reality was composed of that love and light. Any human who sees into the true nature of THIS will come away in a state of awe because it will be immediately obvious that no microscopic aspect of THIS will ever come close to creating anything remotely equivalent to THIS. I suspect that this has to be directly seen to be fully appreciated. It would be like asking, "Can a human create anything that is beyond space and time and not dependent upon anything physical?" A particular realization makes it obvious that awareness would still exist even if the manifested universe disappeared. How would a human create something like that? Isaac Asimov wrote a story about this. The Last Question. But by my memory it still expressed a perspective limited to the mechanistic, defining reality in terms of the functional.  One of my college roommates met Isaac, and said he was a jerk. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 10, 2024 14:43:09 GMT -5
Humans have already created intelligent machines, and in the future they'll be super-intelligent compared to the existing machines. No argument there. I think Federico's point is that we'll never create a computer that is conscious. The issue is that there's nothing separate from All There Is, or THIS, and although THIS can do anything, can it create anything equivalent to Itself without being Itself--a thingless thing that is incomprehensible to the human mind and beyond space and time? Federico talks about seeing a light come out of his chest and realizing that the light was pure love and that all of reality was composed of that love and light. Any human who sees into the true nature of THIS will come away in a state of awe because it will be immediately obvious that no microscopic aspect of THIS will ever come close to creating anything remotely equivalent to THIS. I suspect that this has to be directly seen to be fully appreciated. It would be like asking, "Can a human create anything that is beyond space and time and not dependent upon anything physical?" A particular realization makes it obvious that awareness would still exist even if the manifested universe disappeared. How would a human create something like that? I'm pretty sure he thinks they can be conscious. I could dig up some quotes if you're interested, but they get a bit dense. It wouldn't be "creating" consciousness like creating another God or Universe or "THIS", as you say. Yes, I agree, that is impossible, or absurd. It would be more like the artificial system becomes connected somehow, like humans are, to this Ground of "quantum consciousness" or Awareness or Love or ??. In other words, humans might be able to build something "artificial" that has the same status of spirit/consciousness/intelligence as a "natural" human being. Perhaps you never denied that idea, that possibility. But there are people who do deny it -- they are convinced that humans have a kind of magic ingredient that no artificial system could ever have or participate in. I used to conceive of existential unity through the filter of the interconnected nature of the material world. It's a common perspective. It's also a stage of "arrested development". Not that the realization that clears that up is really any sort of progression, mind you. But I still think it a good metaphor, "arrested development". It's a useful perspective from which to answer the question of "can a machine be conscious?" These machines are as interconnected as any other object that we perceive. But the source of that connection to "consciousness" is always going to be human, regardless of whether or not the machines can continue on indefinitely after all the humans are long gone. Deeper water is found out beyond the point of inquiring as to the distinction between humanity and the mechanics of the situation. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 10, 2024 14:48:25 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure he thinks they can be conscious. I could dig up some quotes if you're interested, but they get a bit dense. It wouldn't be "creating" consciousness like creating another God or Universe or "THIS", as you say. Yes, I agree, that is impossible, or absurd. It would be more like the artificial system becomes connected somehow, like humans are, to this Ground of "quantum consciousness" or Awareness or Love or ??. In other words, humans might be able to build something "artificial" that has the same status of spirit/consciousness/intelligence as a "natural" human being. Perhaps you never denied that idea, that possibility. But there are people who do deny it -- they are convinced that humans have a kind of magic ingredient that no artificial system could ever have or participate in. No, I wouldn't claim that humans have "a kind of magic ingredient that no artificial system could ever have or participate in." What I'm suggesting is that humans, like everything else in the universe, are aspects (for want of a better word) of an unfathomable and aware intelligence that IS the whole show, and that awareness/consciousness/sentience is a fundamental aspect of that ISNESS that is not replicable because there's nothing other than that ISNESS. IOW, there is no separation of any kind, and this can be realized. From this POV it would be like asking, "Can the Infinite create awareness when all there is is the Infinite's awareness." In the case of Federico, he was contemplating how to build a conscious computer, and his contemplation apparently triggered a cosmic consciousness experience that revealed the impossibility of that endeavor. From what I remember, he stated that pretty explicitly in a particular YouTube video. In that video he pointed out that most scientists regard consciousness as an epiphenomenon that arises spontaneously when evolution reaches a certain level of complexity and intelligence. What he discovered via the CC event is that this idea is totally false, and is based upon a mechanistic interpretation of reality. He speculated that the intelligence manifested via all living creatures probably includes inanimate material to such a degree that consciousness is "built-in," so to speak, even at the quantum level. I remember discussing with some friends fifty years ago the possibility that even a rock might be conscious in some unimaginable way, and Federico seemed to be pointing to the same thing. After a CC in 1984, I remember thinking, "OMG, everything is alive, even the space between physical objects!" There didn't seem to be any boundary between animate and inanimate things, and it was "turtles all the way down." I suspect that's what Federico was pointing to, but I'd have to look at that video again to make sure he said what I think he said. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2024 16:11:14 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure he thinks they can be conscious. I could dig up some quotes if you're interested, but they get a bit dense. It wouldn't be "creating" consciousness like creating another God or Universe or "THIS", as you say. Yes, I agree, that is impossible, or absurd. It would be more like the artificial system becomes connected somehow, like humans are, to this Ground of "quantum consciousness" or Awareness or Love or ??. In other words, humans might be able to build something "artificial" that has the same status of spirit/consciousness/intelligence as a "natural" human being. Perhaps you never denied that idea, that possibility. But there are people who do deny it -- they are convinced that humans have a kind of magic ingredient that no artificial system could ever have or participate in. No, I wouldn't claim that humans have "a kind of magic ingredient that no artificial system could ever have or participate in." What I'm suggesting is that humans, like everything else in the universe, are aspects (for want of a better word) of an unfathomable and aware intelligence that IS the whole show, and that awareness/consciousness/sentience is a fundamental aspect of that ISNESS that is not replicable because there's nothing other than that ISNESS. IOW, there is no separation of any kind, and this can be realized. From this POV it would be like asking, "Can the Infinite create awareness when all there is is the Infinite's awareness." In the case of Federico, he was contemplating how to build a conscious computer, and his contemplation apparently triggered a cosmic consciousness experience that revealed the impossibility of that endeavor. From what I remember, he stated that pretty explicitly in a particular YouTube video. In that video he pointed out that most scientists regard consciousness as an epiphenomenon that arises spontaneously when evolution reaches a certain level of complexity and intelligence. What he discovered via the CC event is that this idea is totally false, and is based upon a mechanistic interpretation of reality. He speculated that the intelligence manifested via all living creatures probably includes inanimate material to such a degree that consciousness is "built-in," so to speak, even at the quantum level. I remember discussing with some friends fifty years ago the possibility that even a rock might be conscious in some unimaginable way, and Federico seemed to be pointing to the same thing. After a CC in 1984, I remember thinking, "OMG, everything is alive, even the space between physical objects!" There didn't seem to be any boundary between animate and inanimate things, and it was "turtles all the way down." I suspect that's what Federico was pointing to, but I'd have to look at that video again to make sure he said what I think he said. Yes, I think I know what you are saying there. I had a similar insight years ago. It was not accompanied by a Cosmic Consciousness event, but I remember it felt "significant". I kind of take it for granted now, but if I get into conversation with people who have the mainstream material view, I notice the difference. I don't know the percentages, but a fair number of people do see or sense this to some degree. I remember the two camps showing up in a philosophy class once. And of course the important part of Federico's story, is that he had that direct experience, which you mentioned. After that, one may or may not have an interest in AI or other topics. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2024 16:25:14 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure he thinks they can be conscious. I could dig up some quotes if you're interested, but they get a bit dense. It wouldn't be "creating" consciousness like creating another God or Universe or "THIS", as you say. Yes, I agree, that is impossible, or absurd. It would be more like the artificial system becomes connected somehow, like humans are, to this Ground of "quantum consciousness" or Awareness or Love or ??. In other words, humans might be able to build something "artificial" that has the same status of spirit/consciousness/intelligence as a "natural" human being. Perhaps you never denied that idea, that possibility. But there are people who do deny it -- they are convinced that humans have a kind of magic ingredient that no artificial system could ever have or participate in. I used to conceive of existential unity through the filter of the interconnected nature of the material world. It's a common perspective. It's also a stage of "arrested development". Not that the realization that clears that up is really any sort of progression, mind you. But I still think it a good metaphor, "arrested development". It's a useful perspective from which to answer the question of "can a machine be conscious?" These machines are as interconnected as any other object that we perceive. But the source of that connection to "consciousness" is always going to be human, regardless of whether or not the machines can continue on indefinitely after all the humans are long gone. Deeper water is found out beyond the point of inquiring as to the distinction between humanity and the mechanics of the situation. Depends on what you mean by machine. In Federico's book he talks about classical machines (which include normal computers), and he agrees with you, their only connection to "consciousness" is via the humans. However, he also talked about "machines" like the body/brain that appear to me more than classical. They have one foot in the quantum world, and consciousness. And potentially, an artificial system ("machine") could also be like that, instead of being like the classical machine. |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on May 10, 2024 19:22:45 GMT -5
I agreed with tenka recently that some conditioning is bound to fall away after realizing the truth. I can't imagine how a narcissistic personality could still exist on the other side of the gateless gate, but then again, perhaps that's just a failure of imagination on my part. .. even allowing for that, I'd discount the "realization status" of anyone exhibiting those sorts of characteristics. But these "DSM" type abstractions are always a matter of degree, and situational / relational (someone might be perfectly normal with certain specific exceptions based on topic or individual/group ). |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 12, 2024 6:22:50 GMT -5
I used to conceive of existential unity through the filter of the interconnected nature of the material world. It's a common perspective. It's also a stage of "arrested development". Not that the realization that clears that up is really any sort of progression, mind you. But I still think it a good metaphor, "arrested development". It's a useful perspective from which to answer the question of "can a machine be conscious?" These machines are as interconnected as any other object that we perceive. But the source of that connection to "consciousness" is always going to be human, regardless of whether or not the machines can continue on indefinitely after all the humans are long gone. Deeper water is found out beyond the point of inquiring as to the distinction between humanity and the mechanics of the situation. Depends on what you mean by machine. In Federico's book he talks about classical machines (which include normal computers), and he agrees with you, their only connection to "consciousness" is via the humans. However, he also talked about "machines" like the body/brain that appear to me more than classical. They have one foot in the quantum world, and consciousness. And potentially, an artificial system ("machine") could also be like that, instead of being like the classical machine. He's not the first to posit a theory of consciousness based on QM. Here's another example. There's a Stanford philosophy page on the topic. Curiosity is a beautiful thing, it really is. The nature of the known and unknown seems to be that for every question we answer we open up a door to .. more questions. Certainly, there's always at least the possibility of some way forward for intellectual exploration that accounts for the existential truth. A way that recognizes the nature of the subject/object split, even as it employs it. But there is a pitfall. If that employment isn't done consciously then we simply replace material realism with a version of idealism. Instead of consciousness emerging from the activity of the brain, we have the brain forming as a phenomenon in/as consciousness. This is all very well and good, it's all fun and games until someone get's an "I" poked out, after all. But resting the mind on an objectified monism simply is .. what it is. The existential truth is that no boundary is real. That's why your dialog with ZD about Fredrico's experience is important. I haven't read the guys book or watched his vids, so I can't comment on the specifics of his ideas. But that combination of an intellect that can do original work on that frontier along with significant existential insight is a perhaps a promising potential. I also haven't read that particular Stanford article yet, but the use of the word "correlated" there, is significant. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 12, 2024 7:18:42 GMT -5
I agreed with tenka recently that some conditioning is bound to fall away after realizing the truth. I can't imagine how a narcissistic personality could still exist on the other side of the gateless gate, but then again, perhaps that's just a failure of imagination on my part. .. even allowing for that, I'd discount the "realization status" of anyone exhibiting those sorts of characteristics. But these "DSM" type abstractions are always a matter of degree, and situational / relational (someone might be perfectly normal with certain specific exceptions based on topic or individual/group ). Great vid right up until about 10min. |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on May 12, 2024 10:43:52 GMT -5
Great vid right up until about 10min. What did you see happening after 10 mins? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 12, 2024 14:53:07 GMT -5
Great vid right up until about 10min. What did you see happening after 10 mins? It wasn't any one particular thing that the narrator said, just a cumulative understanding based on the content to that point. Ironically, he uses the term "brutally honest" a few seconds after I stopped watching the first time. If I were to pick one turn of phrase that reveals a fixed attachment on the part of the creator(s) of the content, it's at 12 min : "to stabilize and integrate samadhi requires countless awakenings, countless humblings of the mind, countless little deaths". What I wrote here was about someone who realizes the existential truth, but without having first done what the narrator referred to as "shadow work". The vid is about doing that work before having realized the truth. I'm sure it can happen similar to the way the narrator describes it, and I'm equally as sure that the realization can happen without having done that first. "Stabilization" isn't really a thing. There is no predictable process out past the gateless gate. Just things we can say that are not true, and, in the case of narcissism (as one example), things we can acknowledge are at least cause for an adverse inference as to what the individual has actually realized. Someone can understand, quite deeply, this terrain of the seekers mind. But it has to happen completely differently "afterward". A caterpillar might have some decent advice for a butterfly on how to flap its wings, but it's still all just conjecture, and not based on direct experience. Also, the kind of constant vigilance he talks about after that other quote isn't something I'd recommend to a seeker without a pound of salt, and then only to someone at a particular point, in a particular state. |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on May 12, 2024 16:46:07 GMT -5
What did you see happening after 10 mins? It wasn't any one particular thing that the narrator said, just a cumulative understanding based on the content to that point. Ironically, he uses the term "brutally honest" a few seconds after I stopped watching the first time. If I were to pick one turn of phrase that reveals a fixed attachment on the part of the creator(s) of the content, it's at 12 min : "to stabilize and integrate samadhi requires countless awakenings, countless humblings of the mind, countless little deaths". What I wrote here was about someone who realizes the existential truth, but without having first done what the narrator referred to as "shadow work". The vid is about doing that work before having realized the truth. I'm sure it can happen similar to the way the narrator describes it, and I'm equally as sure that the realization can happen without having done that first. "Stabilization" isn't really a thing. There is no predictable process out past the gateless gate. Just things we can say that are not true, and, in the case of narcissism (as one example), things we can acknowledge are at least cause for an adverse inference as to what the individual has actually realized. Someone can understand, quite deeply, this terrain of the seekers mind. But it has to happen completely differently "afterward". A caterpillar might have some decent advice for a butterfly on how to flap its wings, but it's still all just conjecture, and not based on direct experience. Also, the kind of constant vigilance he talks about after that other quote isn't something I'd recommend to a seeker without a pound of salt, and then only to someone at a particular point, in a particular state. Ok. I hear you. In the end anything can happen at anytime. A bolt of realization could strike a potential murderer seconds from a kill. I use to question the whole shadow work thingy. My daughter would come to make me realize that there are as many paths as there are people, and each path to the gate as unique as a fingerprint, so I leave it to others to be true to themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 12, 2024 17:16:42 GMT -5
It wasn't any one particular thing that the narrator said, just a cumulative understanding based on the content to that point. Ironically, he uses the term "brutally honest" a few seconds after I stopped watching the first time. If I were to pick one turn of phrase that reveals a fixed attachment on the part of the creator(s) of the content, it's at 12 min : "to stabilize and integrate samadhi requires countless awakenings, countless humblings of the mind, countless little deaths". What I wrote here was about someone who realizes the existential truth, but without having first done what the narrator referred to as "shadow work". The vid is about doing that work before having realized the truth. I'm sure it can happen similar to the way the narrator describes it, and I'm equally as sure that the realization can happen without having done that first. "Stabilization" isn't really a thing. There is no predictable process out past the gateless gate. Just things we can say that are not true, and, in the case of narcissism (as one example), things we can acknowledge are at least cause for an adverse inference as to what the individual has actually realized. Someone can understand, quite deeply, this terrain of the seekers mind. But it has to happen completely differently "afterward". A caterpillar might have some decent advice for a butterfly on how to flap its wings, but it's still all just conjecture, and not based on direct experience. Also, the kind of constant vigilance he talks about after that other quote isn't something I'd recommend to a seeker without a pound of salt, and then only to someone at a particular point, in a particular state. Ok. I hear you. In the end anything can happen at anytime. A bolt of realization could strike a potential murderer seconds from a kill. I use to question the whole shadow work thingy. My daughter would come to make me realize that there are as many paths as there are people, and each path to the gate as unique as a fingerprint, so I leave it to others to be true to themselves. Hey, feel free to share what you mean about your daughter, but I can understand if you'd rather not do that out here in public. Sounds interesting.  |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on May 12, 2024 18:56:40 GMT -5
Ok. I hear you. In the end anything can happen at anytime. A bolt of realization could strike a potential murderer seconds from a kill. I use to question the whole shadow work thingy. My daughter would come to make me realize that there are as many paths as there are people, and each path to the gate as unique as a fingerprint, so I leave it to others to be true to themselves. Hey, feel free to share what you mean about your daughter, but I can understand if you'd rather not do that out here in public. Sounds interesting. I once had a teacher who swore his job was to help heal broken people. Believed that a healthy ego (mind) was better suited to the pathless path than an unhealthy one. My daughter was raised by her mother. A manipulating narcissistic character who loved to party. I don't want to go into the details but will say that my daughter's first several years of meditation involved examination of countless unconscious assumptions and unforgiveness' that would spontaneously bubble to the surface for resolution. She apparently needed that because these days are different. Her mind is far more docile and she is able to and often does enjoy meditating in long periods of silence. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on May 13, 2024 6:34:41 GMT -5
Laughter and JLY: I, too, was struck by the statement, "to stabilize and integrate samadhi requires countless awakenings, countless humblings of the mind, countless little deaths." This process may be applicable to some people (especially if the word "samadhi" is interpreted more broadly than NS), but I know two or three young people who have contemplated ND and suddenly awakened without ever spending any time in either NS or shallower forms of samadhi. One young man, for example, after contemplating ND issues was playing with his cat one afternoon when he suddenly realized that there is no separation, and when that happened, he saw that his sense of selfhood had been an illusion and various self-referential thought patterns simply fell away. He had not meditated in any formal sense and had never experienced NS. Furthermore, his realization was not like a kensho and was not dramatic at all. It was just a sudden seeing that THIS is all there is, and that THIS is a unified whole.
If the word "samadhi" is interpreted more broadly to mean directly interacting with reality by staying psychologically present without much reflection, then the above statement is probably applicable to a lot of people. However, I suspect that the writer is referring to a more Zen-like pathway of formal meditation involving NS and many kenshos because Zen people think of the pathway from that POV.
I'm not sure that the idea of "integrating and stabilizing in samadhi" is meaningful unless that phrase points to gradually becoming increasingly action-oriented and free from the intellect until attention stays primarily focused on what's happening NOW and SR has occurred.
Dilullo interviews people who suddenly wake up, like the man above, as well as people who follow a progressive pathway more like the one pointed to in the video. The one thing that's becoming increasingly clear via social media and youtube videos is that there are an infinite number of ways that people discover "what's going on."
|
|
One of my college roommates met Isaac, and said he was a jerk. 
