|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 9, 2024 11:46:38 GMT -5
That’s not completely true. I just started to reread the first page of this thread and ‘the work’ of explaining the pointers to the primary I Am were quite clear. Melvin appears to want to keep on finding questions rather than seeing that the questioner is being generated. But there isn’t anyone that can change that. I agree. The pointers that AI produced in this thread, if pursued, would likely lead to significant existential realizations. There's a new koan in there!  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 9, 2024 11:48:09 GMT -5
‘If pursued’.. openly. With a need to recognise, that does not come from the mind of memories and comparison. So true.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 9, 2024 11:55:22 GMT -5
I have always been fascinated by Nisa's I AM quotes after I managed to attach/incorporate the word Krishna. Say, I AM Krishna. So, everytime Nisa points at an I AM quote, I felt I AM refers to Krishna whom devotees claim as the Ultimate Reality, the Parambrahman. That's my perception and this may not jibe with nondualistic reasoning since to a nondualist, the Absolute Truth is without form. SR to a nondualist means one has achieved the qualities of the Absolute Truth and therefore has become one himself. Niz taught both jnana and bhakti yoga. And while very different in style and approach, both teach essentially the same. You seem to resonate more with bhakti yoga. That's why conceptualizing THIS as Krishna seems to be your ideal path. In the end, it doesn't matter which path you follow. It's like trying to get to the roof of a building, you can take the stairs, the elevator or let someone else carry you there. Jnana yoga seems like taking the elevator, karma yoga like taking the stairs and bhakti yoga like letting someone else carry you there. But once you are on the roof, you are on the roof, and you'll share the exact same view, even though your experience of getting there is totally different. This forum is almost exclusively focused on the jnana approach. That's why you are probably inadvertently annoying some of the people here when you keep talking about Krishna being the solution for everything (including cancer), hehe. But it's good to have someone here with the bhakti approach balance that out a bit. The bhakti approach usually emphasizes the kensho aspect of SR (i.e. there is only what you are or seeing God everywhere, in everyone and everything), the jnana approach usually emphasizes the satori aspect of SR (i.e. seeing thru the illusion of the SVP). ETA: There was an analogy by Ramakrishna, the monkey approach vs. the kitten approach. Jnana is the monkey approach, bhakti the kitten approach. First time I ever heard this roof metaphor, gonna' steal it! |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 9, 2024 14:32:00 GMT -5
The absolute has 'no qualities' is an idea about the absolute just as the idea that the absolute 'has qualities' is.  That the ocean is salty is only an idea until the moment you taste it. Then it is a reality for you. Taste the Absolute and it is no longer just an idea. That would mean that the Ocean with no qualities, has qualities of salt. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 9, 2024 14:32:24 GMT -5
The absolute has 'no qualities' is an idea about the absolute just as the idea that the absolute 'has qualities' is. Correct, but it's a better pointer. |
|
|
|
Post by melvin on Nov 9, 2024 16:25:24 GMT -5
The Supreme Court of the Philippines is eyeing using AI to assist the institution resolve its cases. It is a fact. You can Google it. If you'd like, I can demonstrate open ai's free product making up cases that don't exist, and quoting ones that do for the opposite of what they hold. It also misinterprets statutes, especially ones with nested outlines. I'm not sure exactly what tweaks would have to be done to cure this, but I have my hunches. You'd have to pay good money to find out if anyone already has, but the non-open-ai legal-specific products I've tried don't have chat, which completely defeats the purpose. While AI can outperform humans in specific tasks, particularly those involving data and pattern recognition, human intelligence remains superior in areas requiring creativity, emotional insight, and ethical reasoning. By combining the two intelligences can lead to better outcomes in various fields. Do you agree or disagree? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 9, 2024 18:39:20 GMT -5
If you'd like, I can demonstrate open ai's free product making up cases that don't exist, and quoting ones that do for the opposite of what they hold. It also misinterprets statutes, especially ones with nested outlines. I'm not sure exactly what tweaks would have to be done to cure this, but I have my hunches. You'd have to pay good money to find out if anyone already has, but the non-open-ai legal-specific products I've tried don't have chat, which completely defeats the purpose. While AI can outperform humans in specific tasks, particularly those involving data and pattern recognition, human intelligence remains superior in areas requiring creativity, emotional insight, and ethical reasoning. By combining the two intelligences can lead to better outcomes in various fields. Do you agree or disagree? I'd say that perspective isn't subtle enough to express what's happening. Data analysis on a large scale using the tech that underlies the chat bots has been going on for quite some time. A spectrum going back 20 years. The basis for the network designs goes back to the 1960's. What captures our attention here is that the bot passes the Turing test. That's because of a specific network design, based on a few key innovations, specialized for simulating "understanding". Computers have been able to generate output very fast and process large amounts of data for even longer than 20 years. What's new, is that now you're having a coherent, natural language dialog with a machine that can generate insights based on amounts of data that are far beyond the capacity of any single person, or even teams of people, to evaluate without some sort of pre-digested hierarchical breakdown and organization. The tech will get better at integrating other forms of modulating the output to avoid the types of mistakes I referred to, and it would take a working engineer in the field to explain how that's likely to happen (although, as I said, I have my hunches). As far as "creativity" goes, well, there's that existential question. Again. |
|
|
|
Post by melvin on Nov 9, 2024 18:50:12 GMT -5
While AI can outperform humans in specific tasks, particularly those involving data and pattern recognition, human intelligence remains superior in areas requiring creativity, emotional insight, and ethical reasoning. By combining the two intelligences can lead to better outcomes in various fields. Do you agree or disagree? I'd say that perspective isn't subtle enough to express what's happening. Data analysis on a large scale using the tech that underlies the chat bots has been going on for quite some time. A spectrum going back 20 years. The basis for the network designs goes back to the 1960's. What captures our attention here is that the bot passes the Turing test. That's because of a specific network design, based on a few key innovations, specialized for simulating "understanding". Computers have been able to generate output very fast and process large amounts of data for even longer than 20 years. What's new, is that now you're having a coherent dialog with a machine that can generate insights based on amounts of data that are far beyond the capacity of any single person, or even teams of people, to evaluate without some sort of pre-digested hierarchical breakdown and organization. The tech will get better at integrating other forms of modulating the output to avoid the types of mistakes I referred to, and it would take a working engineer in the field to explain how that's likely to happen (although, as I said, I have my hunches). As far as "creativity" goes, well, there's that existential question. Again. In the near future, seekers of truth will be seeking spiritual master robots for satsangs. |
|
|
|
Post by melvin on Nov 9, 2024 20:20:31 GMT -5
Spiritual Guru: Data?
Data is a self-aware, sapient, sentient and anatomically fully functional male android who serves as the second officer and chief operations officer aboard the Federation starship USS Enterprise-D and later the USS Enterprise-E.
Data is in many ways a successor to the original Star Trek's Spock, in that the character has superior mental skills and offers an "outsider's" perspective on humanity
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 10, 2024 6:12:38 GMT -5
I'd say that perspective isn't subtle enough to express what's happening. Data analysis on a large scale using the tech that underlies the chat bots has been going on for quite some time. A spectrum going back 20 years. The basis for the network designs goes back to the 1960's. What captures our attention here is that the bot passes the Turing test. That's because of a specific network design, based on a few key innovations, specialized for simulating "understanding". Computers have been able to generate output very fast and process large amounts of data for even longer than 20 years. What's new, is that now you're having a coherent dialog with a machine that can generate insights based on amounts of data that are far beyond the capacity of any single person, or even teams of people, to evaluate without some sort of pre-digested hierarchical breakdown and organization. The tech will get better at integrating other forms of modulating the output to avoid the types of mistakes I referred to, and it would take a working engineer in the field to explain how that's likely to happen (although, as I said, I have my hunches). As far as "creativity" goes, well, there's that existential question. Again. In the near future, seekers of truth will be seeking spiritual master robots for satsangs. that's what I meant when I mentioned a "new koan" to ZD. Who or what is offering satsang? |
|
|
|
Post by melvin on Nov 10, 2024 7:27:51 GMT -5
In the near future, seekers of truth will be seeking spiritual master robots for satsangs. that's what I meant when I mentioned a "new koan" to ZD. Who or what is offering satsang? At present, various spiritual leaders, teachers, and organizations offer satsangs. In 2034, it will be the AI'S ran by AI gurus. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 10, 2024 7:41:12 GMT -5
that's what I meant when I mentioned a "new koan" to ZD. Who or what is offering satsang? At present, various spiritual leaders, teachers, and organizations offer satsangs. In 2034, it will be the AI'S ran by AI gurus. That is a somewhat accurate, conventional answer. The details of the accuracy don't interest me, but the potential for a non-conventional answer, does. |
|
|
|
Post by melvin on Nov 10, 2024 8:21:49 GMT -5
At present, various spiritual leaders, teachers, and organizations offer satsangs. In 2034, it will be the AI'S ran by AI gurus. That is a somewhat accurate, conventional answer. The details of the accuracy don't interest me, but the potential for a non-conventional answer, does. An AI could facilitate online gatherings where participants engage in discussions based on spiritual texts or philosophies, moderate discussions, provide insights, and answer questions based on a vast database of spiritual knowledge ( virtual ). |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Nov 10, 2024 11:35:30 GMT -5
That the ocean is salty is only an idea until the moment you taste it. Then it is a reality for you. Taste the Absolute and it is no longer just an idea. That would mean that the Ocean with no qualities, has qualities of salt. AI: Let’s look at the reasonableness and soundness of each person’s points. Person 1’s Points: Conceptual Ideas About the Absolute: Person 1 argues that whether the Absolute is thought of as “with qualities” or “without qualities,” these are ultimately ideas or constructs rather than direct experiences of the Absolute itself. This point is reasonable and highlights the limitations of conceptual thought when dealing with non-dual or absolute reality. Many spiritual traditions agree that language and mental constructs cannot fully encapsulate the Absolute, so this point is fairly sound. Critique of the Ocean Analogy: In responding to Person 2’s analogy, Person 1 suggests that saying the Absolute can be “tasted” implies it must have qualities, similar to how salt gives the ocean a distinct quality. This critique is less reasonable, as it treats the analogy too literally. Instead of engaging with the intended point—moving beyond ideas to direct experience—Person 1 interprets the analogy as an assertion that the Absolute must have qualities. This weakens their argument, as they miss the experiential aspect that Person 2 is emphasizing. Person 2’s Points: Direct Experience Over Conceptualization: Person 2’s central idea is that direct experience is more reliable than conceptualization for truly understanding the Absolute, similar to how tasting salt makes its existence real for the taster. This is a widely supported perspective in mystical and experiential traditions, where direct realization is seen as transcending mental constructs. This point is quite reasonable and resonates with many spiritual approaches that emphasize “knowing by being.” Use of Metaphor (Ocean and Salt): Person 2 uses the ocean analogy to imply that experiencing the Absolute brings an undeniable reality to it, just as tasting salt removes any doubt about its presence in the ocean. The analogy is reasonable as a metaphor; it doesn’t imply that the Absolute literally has qualities but instead suggests that encountering it is a transformative, undeniable experience. Overall Assessment: Person 1’s Argument: Conceptually sound in its analysis of ideas versus experience, but weaker in its literal interpretation of Person 2’s metaphor. Person 1’s focus on logical consistency in ideas is reasonable but doesn’t fully address the experiential dimension Person 2 presents. Person 2’s Argument: Reasonable and sound in suggesting that direct experience transcends ideas and provides a truer understanding. The analogy successfully conveys the essence of this perspective, though it risks misinterpretation, as seen in Person 1’s response. In summary, both arguments have merit within their respective frameworks. Person 1 brings a valuable critical perspective on the limitations of ideas, while Person 2 emphasizes the primacy of direct experience in understanding the Absolute. Each has a sound point, though Person 1’s critique could benefit from a broader engagement with Person 2’s experiential perspective. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Nov 10, 2024 13:44:13 GMT -5
That would mean that the Ocean with no qualities, has qualities of salt. AI: Let’s look at the reasonableness and soundness of each person’s points. ... 's a limiting approach. |
|
