|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 2, 2018 11:48:54 GMT -5
Right, A.I. is missing an entire dimension of beingness. It's not by accident that people who are out of touch with their true being, who are merely functioning on a superficial intellect level are called robotic. Ethics goes a lot deeper than moral dilemmas that can be solved in a math like fashion. But the A.I. or robots can't go there. It doesn't have access to that dimension. It's an entirely different realm of beingness. And those moral dilemmas aren't dilemmas anyway. They only become dilemmas when the intellect gets involved. When the intellect doesn't get involved, there's no dilemma. Everyone knows exactly what to do in a real time manner. is an excellent point. I disagree that everyone knows exactly what to do in a real time manner. Let's go to the 13 children that were held in chains and abused by their parents. I heard only one report that two of the children were escaping, but one decided not to go out the window but went back inside the house, he(or she, the report didn't say) [obviously] feared consequences if the escape was not successful. So I would say the person who did not jump out of the window went back to operating on autopilot (robotic), but the girl who escaped did "know what to do", had in fact been planning the escape for two years. This example presents two choices, a real dilemma. And these two choices show how most people operate each day. ZD goes on and on about how the person is imaginary, how it is the "cosmos" that is acting, always, and not the "separate person". But "the separate person" is in a very real sense, not-imaginary. The son or daughter who did not jump out the window was not acting from *the cosmos*, but from the conditioning and abuse inflicted by the parents. This abuse formed the ~autopilot~ which accepted the abuse. The autopilot/self/ego existed in the neural structure of the abused children, very real, not imaginary. And most of the people on the earth live in this manner, not-free, but controlled by unconscious programming inflicted on the mind-body. It's the source of most of the nastiness on the earth (if I ever used the word evil, as recently reported, and unfortunate choice of words, but it is a descriptive word), hurt people hurt people, this is virtually Psychology 101. Abuse 'informs' self/ego, forms neural patterns which in turn inflict the abuse on other people, and the cycle continues. (Alice Miller discusses this thoroughly in several books). So it's not the cosmos acting always and everywhere, a single parent or caregiver can form a warped persona, inflicted upon the child, which in turn 'acts out' the pain that has been inflicted upon it, all this done unconsciously, robotically. These people are bullies. And in extreme cases, it's most unfortunate when these people rise to power to control nations; Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong-un. "Get real" people. But I agree with the point that abusive programming cuts one off and isolates them from what's real and living. You are just making my point here. You heard something on the news which you have no way of verifying with your own senses and based on that you start all kinds of speculations about 'the world'... and then you wonder why you have no sense of direction and don't know what to do with your life. That's exactly what being out of touch with your true being and only functioning on a superficial intellect level looks like. A-H recently talk a lot about the difference between receiving a thought and thinking a thought. What you are describing in thinking a thought, what I have been pointing to is receiving a thought - two very different approaches to life. When you are in the thinking thoughts mode, the problem solving mode then you are operating on an intellectual level that is out of touch with your true being, which means you have only a fraction of your natural resources available. And in this mode, life is hard and a struggle. Most people only engage on that level. And on that level the meanest and the baddest wins. But there's another, entirely different way of living. When you are in the thought receiving mode, the alignment with Source mode then you are seeing the world thru the eyes of Source and are blending with your true being, which means you have unlimited resources available. And in this mode life is flowing effortlessly. If you engage on that level then things seem to unfold in a magical way. Seth wrote a book called The Magical Approach. It's about the art of living spontaneously in the here and now. That's what being the creator of your own reality means. But you can't do that when you are worried about what others are or have been creating. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 2, 2018 12:56:51 GMT -5
This is an excellent point. I disagree that everyone knows exactly what to do in a real time manner. Let's go to the 13 children that were held in chains and abused by their parents. I heard only one report that two of the children were escaping, but one decided not to go out the window but went back inside the house, he(or she, the report didn't say) [obviously] feared consequences if the escape was not successful. So I would say the person who did not jump out of the window went back to operating on autopilot (robotic), but the girl who escaped did "know what to do", had in fact been planning the escape for two years. This example presents two choices, a real dilemma. And these two choices show how most people operate each day. ZD goes on and on about how the person is imaginary, how it is the "cosmos" that is acting, always, and not the "separate person". But "the separate person" is in a very real sense, not-imaginary. The son or daughter who did not jump out the window was not acting from *the cosmos*, but from the conditioning and abuse inflicted by the parents. This abuse formed the ~autopilot~ which accepted the abuse. The autopilot/self/ego existed in the neural structure of the abused children, very real, not imaginary. And most of the people on the earth live in this manner, not-free, but controlled by unconscious programming inflicted on the mind-body. It's the source of most of the nastiness on the earth (if I ever used the word evil, as recently reported, and unfortunate choice of words, but it is a descriptive word), hurt people hurt people, this is virtually Psychology 101. Abuse 'informs' self/ego, forms neural patterns which in turn inflict the abuse on other people, and the cycle continues. (Alice Miller discusses this thoroughly in several books). So it's not the cosmos acting always and everywhere, a single parent or caregiver can form a warped persona, inflicted upon the child, which in turn 'acts out' the pain that has been inflicted upon it, all this done unconsciously, robotically. These people are bullies. And in extreme cases, it's most unfortunate when these people rise to power to control nations; Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong-un. "Get real" people. But I agree with the point that abusive programming cuts one off and isolates them from what's real and living. You are just making my point here. You heard something on the news which you have no way of verifying with your own senses and based on that you start all kinds of speculations about 'the world'... and then you wonder why you have no sense of direction and don't know what to do with your life. That's exactly what being out of touch with your true being and only functioning on a superficial intellect level looks like. A-H recently talk a lot about the difference between receiving a thought and thinking a thought. What you are describing in thinking a thought, what I have been pointing to is receiving a thought - two very different approaches to life. When you are in the thinking thoughts mode, the problem solving mode then you are operating on an intellectual level that is out of touch with your true being, which means you have only a fraction of your natural resources available. And in this mode, life is hard and a struggle. Most people only engage on that level. And on that level the meanest and the baddest wins. But there's another, entirely different way of living. When you are in the thought receiving mode, the alignment with Source mode then you are seeing the world thru the eyes of Source and are blending with your true being, which means you have unlimited resources available. And in this mode life is flowing effortlessly. If you engage on that level then things seem to unfold in a magical way. Seth wrote a book called The Magical Approach. It's about the art of living spontaneously in the here and now. That's what being the creator of your own reality means. But you can't do that when you are worried about what others are or have been creating. The same answer I just gave ZD on another thread: But I'm not talking about myself (or you or probably most people here). I'm talking about the actual state of the world that most people interact with every day. I think answering (below) your earlier post will relate to this. (And it seems nobody got the point concerning my ~personal~ life). |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 2, 2018 13:33:18 GMT -5
It's not math. I think the point is that if you do nothing except watch, then you don't feel personally responsible for the death of the 5, events were already set in motion. But if you flip the switch, then you are personally responsible for the death of the one. The further point is that emotions are a different category (a different function) from conceptual thinking, a point I've made numerous times here on ST's, which almost nobody agrees with. Co-creation is an interesting topic. If you believe that others can mess up your reality (which seems to be at the basis of all ethics and moral standards) then it gets really complicated. If you believe, however, that you create your own reality (as do all others) and are only responsible to yourself (your self/Self) then it's all very simple. The question then is not 'Should I (or the A.I.) have better done this or that?' The question is rather 'Why do/did they all rendezvous at this point in time?' which takes into account things already in motion (as you say). That's the only way to see the perfection in everything that is unfolding. There isn't a perfection in everything that's unfolding, I keep trying to point that out. There is a natural flow to everything that happens in the sense that everything happens, in the specific moment, in only one way and in the only way that it can happen. But that specifically takes place only in the present moment. Look at it like the grains of sand in an hourglass (or better yet, the new game show on TV, The Wall). At any one point of time a particular grain of sand goes through the narrow middle of the hourglass (or the ball ends up in one single slot at the bottom). Life is very complicated. There isn't a natural flow to our present world, this level of reality. This level of reality is very messy. On the everyday level, randomness exists. There isn't a natural flow to all that exists that allows a random bullet from a drive-by shooting to fly through a house and kill an innocent baby, it's absurd to say so. However, a particular person can engage their consciousness to a higher order, that is unified, holistic. And that consciousness can put them 'in the right place at the right time', in the present moment-natural world. So there are two flows, or three or ten. And the 'higher order flow' mixes with the ordinary flow to create what happens in the present moment. So no, nobody else can mess with one's reality, given a specific state of consciousness. But if all one knows is the down-and-dirty everyday world, then random events overlap and "s**t happens". The down-and-dirty world got right in the face of Socrates. But he had a way out. If I remember right he was merely under something like house arrest, and could have easily left and escaped drinking the poison, with just a tiny bit of help from his friends and students. But he ~felt~ it was his time to exist the world. If I recall correctly the story is that Buddha knew he was being poisoned, but ate the poison knowing he was going to die. IOW, his world, his higher state, overlapped with the 'down-and-dirty world' of someone wanting to kill him. But (as the story goes) he chose to eat the poison. My point is the the majority of the people of the earth, for whatever reasons, do not have a choice in what happens daily, they are bumped around like a pinball. So multiple worlds interweave to form what happens in the present moment. The "nasty" ordinary-state-of-consciousness-world, the world of the pinball, interweaves with this higher order. Yes, there is a "law of attraction", but it's not the same for everybody. Life is immeasurably complicated. Life is essentially a school. Different people get different grades, many fail, but nothing is lost. The fall of the ball on The Wall is not predetermined. The ending place of the ball is not predetermined. At the very last second the bounce could have been different, but once it's going down a specific slot, things cannot be otherwise. Life with people complicates 'the game' immeasurably. It's like there is another level below, and where the ball ends up in the last slot, it is then dropped into a new game. And for every person there is a different Wall. So there are 7 billion+ multiple game walls, and every present moment all the balls fall into the only slot they could have, but every next second the game moves forward. The further point is that any one person can change their consciousness to move-with a higher order, a more-ordered order, and this fits perfectly, for them, into the present moment. But life doesn't change, unless ~you do~. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2018 14:18:53 GMT -5
This is an excellent point. I disagree that everyone knows exactly what to do in a real time manner. Let's go to the 13 children that were held in chains and abused by their parents. I heard only one report that two of the children were escaping, but one decided not to go out the window but went back inside the house, he(or she, the report didn't say) [obviously] feared consequences if the escape was not successful. So I would say the person who did not jump out of the window went back to operating on autopilot (robotic), but the girl who escaped did "know what to do", had in fact been planning the escape for two years. This example presents two choices, a real dilemma. And these two choices show how most people operate each day. ZD goes on and on about how the person is imaginary, how it is the "cosmos" that is acting, always, and not the "separate person". But "the separate person" is in a very real sense, not-imaginary. The son or daughter who did not jump out the window was not acting from *the cosmos*, but from the conditioning and abuse inflicted by the parents. This abuse formed the ~autopilot~ which accepted the abuse. The autopilot/self/ego existed in the neural structure of the abused children, very real, not imaginary. And most of the people on the earth live in this manner, not-free, but controlled by unconscious programming inflicted on the mind-body. It's the source of most of the nastiness on the earth (if I ever used the word evil, as recently reported, and unfortunate choice of words, but it is a descriptive word), hurt people hurt people, this is virtually Psychology 101. Abuse 'informs' self/ego, forms neural patterns which in turn inflict the abuse on other people, and the cycle continues. (Alice Miller discusses this thoroughly in several books). So it's not the cosmos acting always and everywhere, a single parent or caregiver can form a warped persona, inflicted upon the child, which in turn 'acts out' the pain that has been inflicted upon it, all this done unconsciously, robotically. These people are bullies. And in extreme cases, it's most unfortunate when these people rise to power to control nations; Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong-un. "Get real" people. But I agree with the point that abusive programming cuts one off and isolates them from what's real and living. You are just making my point here. You heard something on the news which you have no way of verifying with your own senses and based on that you start all kinds of speculations about 'the world'... and then you wonder why you have no sense of direction and don't know what to do with your life. That's exactly what being out of touch with your true being and only functioning on a superficial intellect level looks like. A-H recently talk a lot about the difference between receiving a thought and thinking a thought. What you are describing in thinking a thought, what I have been pointing to is receiving a thought - two very different approaches to life. When you are in the thinking thoughts mode, the problem solving mode then you are operating on an intellectual level that is out of touch with your true being, which means you have only a fraction of your natural resources available. And in this mode, life is hard and a struggle. Most people only engage on that level. And on that level the meanest and the baddest wins. But there's another, entirely different way of living. When you are in the thought receiving mode, the alignment with Source mode then you are seeing the world thru the eyes of Source and are blending with your true being, which means you have unlimited resources available. And in this mode life is flowing effortlessly. If you engage on that level then things seem to unfold in a magical way. Seth wrote a book called The Magical Approach. It's about the art of living spontaneously in the here and now. That's what being the creator of your own reality means. But you can't do that when you are worried about what others are or have been creating.
MAGIC SHOW
What magicians we all are, turning darkness into light, transforming invisible atoms into the dazzling theater of the world, pulling objects, (people as well as rabbits) out of secret microscopic closets, turning winter into summer making a palmful of moments disappear through time's trap door. We learned the methods so long ago that they're unconscious, and we've hypnotized ourselves into believing that we're the audience, so I wonder where we served our apprenticeship. Under what master magicians did we learn to form reality so smoothly that we forgot to tell ourselves the secret?
Jane Roberts 1979
|
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Feb 3, 2018 2:09:39 GMT -5
I thought I'd just throw this video in here, it has some interesting reflections
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 3, 2018 10:15:11 GMT -5
Right, A.I. is missing an entire dimension of beingness. It's not by accident that people who are out of touch with their true being, who are merely functioning on a superficial intellect level are called robotic. Ethics goes a lot deeper than moral dilemmas that can be solved in a math like fashion. But the A.I. or robots can't go there. It doesn't have access to that dimension. It's an entirely different realm of beingness. And those moral dilemmas aren't dilemmas anyway. They only become dilemmas when the intellect gets involved. When the intellect doesn't get involved, there's no dilemma. Everyone knows exactly what to do in a real time manner. It's more to do with self awareness creating morality, which relates to virtue, which come in examples such as you don't throw a person in front of train, but you do throw the switch. Of course thought is necessary, or you wouldn't know (remember) where you live, for example. Then, because humans form societies, a standard of norms has to be tacitly established to create any sort of social order. The relationships that make up society are determined by the personal boundaries that define one's various relationships, and these are deeply ethical in qualities of consent, mainly. In a society where everyone is in alignment with Self, there is no need for rules. Remember what Laozi said (chapter 38), when people live in alignment with the Tao, everything will be in order, moral codes, rules and laws are signs of a society where people have lost their way (Tao):
The Master doesn't try to be powerful;
thus he is truly powerful.
The ordinary man keeps reaching for power;
thus he never has enough.
The Master does nothing,
yet he leaves nothing undone.
The ordinary man is always doing things,
yet many more are left to be done.
The kind man does something,
yet something remains undone.
The just man does something,
and leaves many things to be done.
The moral man does something,
and when no one responds
he rolls up his sleeves and uses force.
When the Tao is lost, there is goodness.
When goodness is lost, there is morality.
When morality is lost, there is ritual.
Ritual is the husk of true faith,
the beginning of chaos.
Therefore the Master concerns himself
with the depths and not the surface,
with the fruit and not the flower.
He has no will of his own.
He dwells in reality,
and lets all illusions go.
- Tao Te Ching, Chapter 38 |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 3, 2018 10:18:32 GMT -5
It's the same problem the seeker has. How can the seeker end the search? How does a figment of imagination transcend the realm of imagination? Right. It's a closed system. But if we assume that it is possible to somehow break the closed system (perhaps by transplanting living body parts) it begs the question....why would the creators of these robots want their AI humans to become actual humans? I mean, if they become actual humans, they aren't just going to be blessed with true intelligence and inspiration, they will also become flawed and spontaneous and irrational and messy. Like the other 8 billion! It makes sense to me that they would want to create super smart bots that would serve a purpose that they believe is useful (surveillance machines for example), but why create one that goes from being super smart to being actually intelligent? I don't know, I'm just wondering out loud. Edit: Ah, maybe they believe that if the robot became actual human it would still retain its programming, thus making it like a 'super human'. If so, I think they are wrong. The human is not a human creation. The organic robot will still be a human creation. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 3, 2018 10:25:57 GMT -5
Right. It's a closed system. But if we assume that it is possible to somehow break the closed system (perhaps by transplanting living body parts) it begs the question....why would the creators of these robots want their AI humans to become actual humans? I mean, if they become actual humans, they aren't just going to be blessed with true intelligence and inspiration, they will also become flawed and spontaneous and irrational and messy. Like the other 8 billion! It makes sense to me that they would want to create super smart bots that would serve a purpose that they believe is useful (surveillance machines for example), but why create one that goes from being super smart to being actually intelligent? I don't know, I'm just wondering out loud. Edit: Ah, maybe they believe that if the robot became actual human it would still retain its programming, thus making it like a 'super human'. If so, I think they are wrong. The human is not a human creation. The organic robot will still be a human creation. yes, I understand the sense in which you mean that. Equally, I don't like the idea of cloning. Mythically, this is where Atlantis also got itself into big trouble...smartness and technological ability superseding wisdom. Just because folks CAN do something, doesn't mean we always should do it. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 3, 2018 11:36:00 GMT -5
And it's only 'intelligent' and 'alive' as long as you keep in plugged in. From my functionalist straw-man perspective the same is true of a person. I mean, like, food much?  And they'd argue the question about source from one of three positions. The first two would be based on "consciousness appears in the brain". If they're honest, they'll state an objective, material-realist assumption and refuse to let go of a definition of consciousness as an emergent phenomenon from neural processes in conjunction with sensory stimuli and memory. If you confront them hard enough with the facts of QM and they maintain integrity and stay honest then they'll likely retreat to a purer functional position and say that the question is irrelevant to how they're defining consciousness. As long as they can produce something lifelike enough to convince a human being that it's one of us then they've met their goal. In any event you'd have to put up with the eventual dooofus guy quips about how brainless consciousness is a really funny idea, so you'd have to patiently concede that a functioning human brain is a necessary pre-requisite to a living, functional (conscious) experience of being a human being. You could go on from there to explain how that is a contextually limiting notion of the idea of consciousness but they either wouldn't understand, or, if they did understand, they likely wouldn't really care given what's at stake for them. The third possibility is that they take the position that the brain appears in consciousness, in which case they'd throw it back to you with the question "so then, what's the difference between a self-aware human appearing in consciousness or a self-aware robot appearing in consciousness?" .. and there you are, once again, spiraling right back down into the solipsism debate. If the dialog never transcends philosophy they'll eventually offer a bullet-proof theory on how A.I. is the next logical step in human evolution. Well, I am hearing reports that there are people who don't eat or even drink. But then again, they all seem to breathe. So okay, point taken.  This sounds as if you had many debates with functionalists about this topic already. We place this debate in a context that is prior to the intellect. If the functionalists are only able (or willing) to grasp (or acknowledge) what the intellect can handle (i.e. the consensus trance) then there's not much to talk about. The question about the difference between a robot appearing in consciousness and a human appearing in consciousness is a legitimate question though. Because it forces you to think about what a human body (or brain) actually is in comparison to a A.I./robot. I'll give you a quote from David Icke that I find useful to this discussion:
"When we talk about people waking up, there's different levels of it. Some people are waking up to the fact that they've been lied to about world events - and they go that far, initially. And other people are going much deeper and are re-evaluating their self-identity. Control of perception is everything. When you control perception, you control the person. And a fundamental bottom-line foundation of this control of perception is control of perception of self, control of perception of self-identity... We are not our body, we are not our name, we are not our race, we are not our religion, we are not our income bracket. They are experiences which the true 'I' is having. And that true 'I' is simply a state of awareness, a state of being aware. You see, I am sitting here and communicating thru a body. What is the body doing? It is locking my attention, my point of attention, into that visible light realm. So it (the body, the brain, the DNA - because it is a receiver and transmitter of information) is decoding... it is locking my point of attention into this very narrow band of frequency called visible light (hologram). What is having that experience is my state of awareness. My state of awareness does not have form. And when I leave the body, what is leaving the body? The point of attention leaves the body. And as it leaves the body, that point of attention is no longer confined to that narrow band of frequency that the body is capable of decoding. And that's what we call death, but it's actually freedom - freedom from what the gnostics called the body prison in effect... When you realize your true nature, once you realize that you are not your experience, not your race, not your religion, not your income bracket, not your culture (they are just your experiences) and the fact that we are all points of attention within the same field of consciousness then you basically lose all your fault lines of divide and rule which self-identity with all those labels allows you to play them off against other labels and then the human race is fighting each other and killing each other. But once you realize that you are a point of attention with infinite awareness and not your name and your labels then suddenly your sense of limitation goes. You suddenly see yourself in a completely different way. Now I am the point of power. If I am the one that is having the experience, I can control the experience. Once you think you are your experience and those labels, the labels and the experience is controlling you." - David Icke, 2017
Now, how much of this applies to the A.I./robot?
It always seemed to me that technology is just trying to copy nature by trying to reverse engineer it (more or less accurately). The transhumanists and A.I. folks seem to go about this consciousness topic in the same way. The point Icke is making is that it all starts with a point of perception and then the rest follows - and not the other way around as the functionalists seem to think.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 3, 2018 11:44:44 GMT -5
No. My point in the other thread was about LOA or 'creating from the inside out' as Maltz (and also A-H) call it, which gives you enormous leverage to the degree that physical action as a means of accomplishing something becomes inconsequential. oh, ok. Well, I still see a linkage. That's my interest here as well. And what I've noticed is that there's a certain combination of arrogance and ignorance (maybe even stupidity) at play here when it comes to A.I. and the future of humanity as envisioned by screen writers and A.I. enthusiasts. Lot's of flawed premises to unpack. But you've summed it up quite well. Thanks. Well, it seems to me that most entertainment and news media is generated at or around a certain median of existential engagement and understanding. Now, in that perception, I stake out my own position founded in what could be reasonably characterized as arrogance, but at least I can do so consciously. The reason why this cluster around the median happens is a deep and interesting topic in and of itself, but, regardless, it seems further to me that this arrogance and ignorance are, partly, functions of that median. To my eye they're also just the natural result of people interacting. It is this sea of mediocrity that makes works of genius like The Matrix and Fight Club stand out so starkly in contrast the way they do. Anyone with any interest in politics, the arts, the sciences, spirituality, or really, any interest in humanity at all, would have a natural related interest in this question of the possibility of a "conscious" AI. IDK, 'conscious A.I.' still sounds like an oxymoron to me. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 3, 2018 12:03:48 GMT -5
The way I look at emotions is as guidance as A-H teach it. In A-H speak, emotions tell you how you are doing in relation to how your Inner Being is doing, i.e. in how far your perspective is blending with the perspective of your Inner Being. In plain English, emotions tell you if your perspective is in alignment with your broader perspective of you true Self (or Source). Now, the problem with the robot/zombie is that it doesn't have an Inner Being. At best we could say that the surrogate Inner Being of the robot/zombie is the programmer. And so this is flawed right from the start again. yep! This is close to what I meant when I used the word...'soul'. 'Inner Being' is probably a better word. Linked closely to this, I cannot see how it would be possible to program 'intuition' into an AI robot, and the capacity for 'intuition' is crucial to spontaneity and aliveness. Intuition is the doorway to the immaterial and irrational. Yes, good point about intuition and spontaneity and aliveness. Those are key components. But what does 'aliveness' actually mean? I'm still struggling with a definite definition of 'aliveness' - do you have one? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 3, 2018 12:40:27 GMT -5
yep! This is close to what I meant when I used the word...'soul'. 'Inner Being' is probably a better word. Linked closely to this, I cannot see how it would be possible to program 'intuition' into an AI robot, and the capacity for 'intuition' is crucial to spontaneity and aliveness. Intuition is the doorway to the immaterial and irrational. Yes, good point about intuition and spontaneity and aliveness. Those are key components. But what does 'aliveness' actually mean? I'm still struggling with a definite definition of 'aliveness' - do you have one? In the way I used it there, if something is 'alive', it means it has connection to the timeless and formless dimension. Then there is intuition, inspiration, and 'true' feeling such as love and joy, anger, sadness, embarrassment etc. An 'artificial' intelligence, no matter how much it learns, cannot have this I don't think. It's not actually experiencing. (though if living organs were transplanted into the system, then...that might change things imo). |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 3, 2018 14:33:49 GMT -5
Yes, good point about intuition and spontaneity and aliveness. Those are key components. But what does 'aliveness' actually mean? I'm still struggling with a definite definition of 'aliveness' - do you have one? In the way I used it there, if something is 'alive', it means it has connection to the timeless and formless dimension. Then there is intuition, inspiration, and 'true' feeling such as love and joy, anger, sadness, embarrassment etc. An 'artificial' intelligence, no matter how much it learns, cannot have this I don't think. It's not actually experiencing. (though if living organs were transplanted into the system, then...that might change things imo). A little disagreement here. I would say that anger, sadness, embarrassment and such, obstruct the sense of aliveness. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 3, 2018 15:20:44 GMT -5
In the way I used it there, if something is 'alive', it means it has connection to the timeless and formless dimension. Then there is intuition, inspiration, and 'true' feeling such as love and joy, anger, sadness, embarrassment etc. An 'artificial' intelligence, no matter how much it learns, cannot have this I don't think. It's not actually experiencing. (though if living organs were transplanted into the system, then...that might change things imo). A little disagreement here. I would say that anger, sadness, embarrassment and such, obstruct the sense of aliveness. well, I think I understand what you mean by that, though you are free to say more. To be clear, I'm saying that those feelings tell us that there is a connection (or capacity for connection if you prefer) to the formless dimension. I'm not saying that they are obstruct or whatever the opposite of that would be...permit perhaps? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 3, 2018 15:27:00 GMT -5
A little disagreement here. I would say that anger, sadness, embarrassment and such, obstruct the sense of aliveness. well, I think I understand what you mean by that, though you are free to say more. To be clear, I'm saying that those feelings tell us that there is a connection (or capacity for connection if you prefer) to the formless dimension. I'm not saying that they are obstruct or whatever the opposite of that would be...permit perhaps? I just started a thread basically on this, The which of which there is no whicher. I will add a sense of aliveness to the key words. |
|
