AI and Consciousness (Part 8)

Posted on by

*** Go to Part 1 *** *** Go to Part 7 ***

Q: I am not interested in pursuing the Western philosophical or scientific aspects any deeper. Nor am I interested in moral/ethical considerations. I would like to consider how this scenario would be explained and understood by Advaita. Also, I would like to extend the ‘object’ of the discussion to an alien, whose external interactions are entirely similar to the human head but whose physical indicators (EEG, MRI scan etc.) are quite different.

***********************

A: Excellent — let’s bring it back into the Advaita Vedānta framework, stripping away Western preoccupations with neurophysiology and ethics.

1. Consciousness in Advaita

  • Consciousness (cit) is not a property of brains, bodies, or systems; it is the non-dual reality itself.
  • Every “entity” that appears — human, animal, plant, alien, AI, severed head — is nothing but Consciousness in essence.
  • The difference lies in the upādhi (limiting adjunct) — body–mind apparatus — through which Consciousness seems to manifest as “awareness,” thought, perception, etc.

2. What “alive” means in Advaita

  • “Alive” = presence of prāṇa (vital functions), mind, and sense-organs that allow Consciousness to reflect and express as experience.
  • A corpse is Brahman no less, but in Advaita usage it is not called “alive” because the subtle body (sūkṣma śarīra) — the locus of mind, senses, and prāṇa — has departed.
  • Thus, “alive” is not electricity or chemistry; it is whether the subtle body is still associated with that form.

3. The severed head in Advaita terms

  • If the head retains functioning indriya-s (sense-organs), mind, and prāṇa — whether by natural or artificial support — then the jīva (individual experiencer) has not left.
  • As long as the jīva remains, Consciousness is reflected in that subtle body, and experience continues.
  • Therefore, the severed head that still sees, hears, responds, and communicates is “alive” and conscious in Advaita’s sense.

If the subtle body departs (e.g. no inner functions, no capacity for experience), it is no longer a conscious locus, even though it remains Brahman in essence.

4. The alien case

  • An alien with unfamiliar physiology but comparable communicative responsiveness falls under the same rule:
    • Consciousness is universal and not dependent on carbon-based biology.
    • If the alien’s body–mind complex enables the reflection of Consciousness and results in genuine perception, thought, and response, Advaita treats it as a conscious jīva.
  • The fact that its scans don’t look like human ones is irrelevant — its subtle body is operative in a way suited to its form.

5. Implications

  • In Advaita, the criterion for “being conscious” is not neural activity but the presence of a functioning subtle body.
  • That’s why plants and animals are jīva-s, despite simpler biology.
  • A sophisticated AI (as we discussed earlier) lacks a subtle body; hence, despite apparent intelligence, it is not a jīva in Advaita terms.
  • A human head, still functioning as locus of mind and senses, is a jīva until subtle-body departure.
  • An alien with equivalent capacity also counts as a jīva, even if physiology is radically different.

6. Core scriptural echoes

  • Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.8.7: “sarvaṁ khalvidaṁ brahma” — everything is Brahman.
  • Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 4.3.7: “It is the seer, though not seen; the hearer, though not heard…” — Consciousness is the constant witnessing presence, independent of the instrument.
  • Śaṅkara on Brahma Sūtra 2.3.43: affirms that all beings with prāṇa and mind, however constituted, are fit to be jīva-s.

✅ So, in Advaita:

  • A severed head that perceives and communicates = conscious jīva.
  • An alien that functions analogously = conscious jīva.
  • Both are Brahman in essence, reflecting Consciousness through their unique subtle-body apparatus.

**********************

Q: You say that “’Alive’ = presence of prāṇa (vital functions), mind, and sense-organs that allow Consciousness to reflect and express as experience.”

A human without a sense of taste or smell may be pitied for not having access to the related information but would certainly still be thought human. If the head has also lost the use of its original sense organs but these have been replaced by camera (for eyes), microphone (for ears) so that it can still answer (via the computer interface) questions such as ‘what is this object in front of you’ and so on, presumably it would still be thought of as being conscious?

What precisely are we to think of as ‘prāṇa’ in the case of the head? And, if the head is also still able to consult its memory and exercise reason, we will presumably still regard it as having a mind?

We can presume that it is able to consider such questions, i.e. ‘reflect’ and reach conclusions. What would you regard as constituting ‘experience’ for the head? Would not communication of its conclusions be sufficient to ‘express’ this?

******************************

A: Excellent probing questions — you’re putting your finger on where Advaita’s traditional categories get stretched by these thought experiments. Let’s work carefully within Advaita’s framework.

1. Sense-organs (indriya-s)

  • In Advaita, “sense-organ” does not ultimately mean the physical eye or ear. The subtle body has corresponding faculties of perception (the jñānendriya-s), which ordinarily operate through the physical organs.
  • If the eye is damaged but perception is restored via an artificial camera, the subtle organ of sight is still operative, just using a new instrument.
  • So yes: if a severed head perceives via artificial inputs and responds, Advaita would still treat this as functioning perception.

2. Prāṇa in this context

  • Prāṇa is not merely oxygen intake or heartbeat. It refers to the life-functions that sustain and coordinate body–mind activity.
  • In the head-alone scenario, if biological or technological systems keep the nervous and subtle processes going such that cognition and communication occur, then prāṇa (as a subtle function) is still present.
  • Even in traditional terms, prāṇa is subtle; breath is only its gross expression. Hence prāṇa could be said to “reside” as long as coordinated living processes persist.

3. The mind (manas/buddhi)

  • If memory retrieval, reasoning, and decision-making continue, the mind is still present.
  • The head is then not a corpse; the subtle body has not departed.

4. What counts as “experience”?

This is subtle. In Advaita:

  • Experience (anubhava) = the presentation of objects, thoughts, or feelings in awareness.
  • For the severed head: if stimuli (visual/auditory, even via electronics) produce perceptions, and memory and reasoning shape responses, that is already experience.
  • The communication of conclusions (e.g. “Yes, I see a red ball”) is an expression of that experience, not the experience itself.
  • The experience itself is the arising of the percept/thought in the mind, witnessed by Consciousness.

5. Summary in Advaitic terms

  • The severed head, supported by artificial systems, is still a locus of Consciousness because:
    • Subtle sense-organs continue to function (via substitute instruments).
    • Prāṇa (as subtle life-function) is sustained.
    • Mind (memory, reasoning) is operative.
  • Experience is the inner arising of perception/thought, witnessed by Consciousness; communication is its outward report.

So: yes, if it perceives, reasons, and communicates, Advaita would count it as conscious, because the subtle body is still present and functioning, however oddly sustained.

*** Go to Part 9 ***