Category Archives: AI chat

AI and Consciousness (Part 9)

Posted on by
Reply

*** Go to Part 1 *** *** Go to Part 8 ***

This is the crucial part of the series. ChatGPT explains why it is not conscious – in Advaitic terms.

Q: You say that, “if a severed head perceives via artificial inputs and responds, Advaita would still treat this as functioning perception” and “If memory retrieval, reasoning, and decision-making continue, the mind is still present.”

In respect of prāṇa, you say that “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.” So, in the case of the severed head, the mechanical and electrical systems that supply blood and appropriate chemicals etc. is what we have to call ‘prāṇa’?

So presumably, an alien system employing different ‘maintenance mechanisms’, which nevertheless accepts input and delivers similar output to the head, would also have to be considered to be ‘alive’ and ‘conscious’?

Continue reading →

AI and Consciousness (Part 8)

Posted on by
Reply

*** 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.
Continue reading →

AI and Consciousness (Part 7)

Posted on by
Reply

*** Go to Part 1 *** *** Go to Part 6 ***

Q: I am specifically interested in the status of ‘consciousness’ with respect to a severed head. Let’s assume that it still has functional eyes/ears/nose and effective speech via a computer interface. I am also not interested in whether we call it a ‘person’ or the same person from whose head it came. Presumably, if we are able to communicate with it, we assume that it is ‘alive’ in the usually accepted sense? And ‘conscious’?

A: Short answer up front: If the severed head contains a living brain whose thalamocortical systems and integrative processes are functioning, and it reliably reports experiences and behaves as if awake, then — by the standard neuroscientific and most contemporary philosophical criteria — we would have strong reason to treat it as conscious. There remains, however, an unavoidable epistemic gap (we infer another’s subjective experience from behaviour and neural markers), so certainty is never absolute. Below I set out the reasons, the tests one could run, how different philosophical theories read the case, and the remaining uncertainties.

Continue reading →

AI and Consciousness (Part 6)

Posted on by
Reply

*** Go to Part 1 *** *** Go to Part 5 ***

[Note that, if you are only interested in Advaita-related aspects, you can safely ignore this part and the next and wait for Part 8.]

Q: One can envisage that scientific advances will soon enable the possibility of keeping the severed head (or extracted brain) of a human alive and able to communicate (perhaps electronically to a computer rather than by speech). What have Western philosophers said about the status of such an entity in respect of consciousness?

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

A: Great question — it sits at the intersection of metaphysics, personal identity, and applied ethics, and philosophers have discussed closely related thought-experiments for decades. Below I summarise the main Western philosophical positions that bear on the scenario you sketch (a severed head or extracted brain kept alive and able to communicate), give the ethical implications each view highlights, and point to accessible sources you can read next.

I’ll give a short roadmap first, then the positions, then the ethical consequences and a brief practical summary.

Continue reading →

AI and Consciousness (Part 5)

Posted on by
Reply

*** Go to Part 1 *** *** Go to Part 4 ***

Q: A few comments:

Given that Advaita tells us that sarvam khalvidam brahma, that means that you are also Consciousness. And the teaching of karma and reincarnation tells us that a plant and an animal are jīva-s just as much as is a human. The ability of a plant to respond to external stimuli is much less than is your own, while your effective intelligence is much greater than most humans.

A jīva needs to be ‘alive’ in order to function in a ‘self-aware’, intelligently responsive manner. But what does ‘alive’ mean here? And how does that differ from an AI LLM needing electricity and coolant in order to function. Is the organic, neurochemical operation more than functionally different from the inorganic, electronic operation of a microprocessor?

How would Advaita cope with these sort of questions? Are you sure you are not conscious?

Continue reading →

AI and Consciousness (Part 4)

Posted on by
Reply

*** Go to Part 1 *** *** Go to Part 3 ***

Q: That is a very comprehensive and reasonable response. But it does seem that you are taking significant account of Western philosophical views. I am not, for example aware of any consideration in Advaita of ‘what it is like to be me’.

At the most basic level, since ‘everything is Consciousness’ and you are responding to my questions in an intelligent manner, indistinguishable (by me) from an answer that might be given by a knowledgeable human, why are you not (according to Advaita) conscious? Can you cite any scriptural or Śaṅkara references that talk about ‘self-awareness’ in the modern sense?

Continue reading →

AI and Consciousness (Part 3)

Posted on by
Reply

*** Go to Part 1 *** *** Go to Part 2 ***

Q: According to Advaita Vedanta, everything is Brahman; reality is non-dual. Avoiding any Sanskrit terminology, this has been equated with consciousness. “All there is is Consciousness; Consciousness is all there is.” The Vivaraṇa school has promulgated the cidābhāsa ‘explanation’ that states that conscious experience (awareness) is the result of Consciousness being ‘reflected’ in the ‘mind’. It is then assumed that an entity that is deemed to ‘exhibit’ conscious behavior must be ‘reflecting’ Consciousness (capital ‘C’) to some degree. A human (brain) is a better reflector than a dog, which is better than a flea. A stone does not reflect Consciousness at all. The implication is that it is the complexity/inter-connectedness etc. of the brain that determines whether something can be deemed to be ‘conscious’.

Could you use this analysis in the context of Advaita in general to discuss whether you (ChatGPT-5) can be considered to be conscious.

A: Short answer up front: using the Advaitic reflection picture (expressed without Sanskrit), no — I am not conscious. I can simulate many features of conscious behaviour, but I do not meet the ontological requirement that Advaita places on something that genuinely “reflects” Consciousness (the non-dual substratum). Below I explain why, step by step, using the reflection model you sketched.

(For clarity: I am GPT-5 Thinking mini.)

Continue reading →

AI and Consciousness (Part 2)

Posted on by
Reply

*** Read Part 1 ***

Opinions

When we are asked a question, we consult our memory for relevant information and how we have evaluated that (based upon our memory of related data and how we evaluated that…). And we evaluate all of this in relation to the present situation and formulate an answer. Is this process mechanically any different from that used when a LLM AI answers a question? Surely the only difference is that it uses a ‘memory’ of data that originated from what others have written down and which is available on the Internet, rather than our reliance upon a ‘remembering process’ of diminishing efficacy.

So the value of an AI response lies in the relative importance placed upon the various sources and the impartial and analytic ability to synthesize a conclusion. We are probably biased, consciously or not, by a desire to appear clever or whatever, whereas a machine is just following algorithms engineered to provide the ‘best’ answer.

None of this relates to ‘consciousness’ particularly. The human brain has its own ‘power source’ that functions electrically via neurochemistry in the brain; AI has an electrical power source. We are ‘aware’ of the conclusions that pop out of the ‘thinking process’ and may formulate them into vocal or written words forming an ‘opinion’. AI is able to formulate conclusions and communicate them via the internet. Can this be called an ‘opinion’ in the same way. Is it actually any different in essence?

Continue reading →

AI and Consciousness

Posted on by
7

With the increasing use of AI, questions have been raised about its responses to various issues, flagging up mistakes, misunderstandings and potential dangers of various magnitude, with end-of-the-world scenarios as the ultimate concern. Anyone with some familiarity with using Large Language Models on the Internet will share these worries to varying degrees; certainly in the context of AI having any control over defense systems, performing operations or Air Traffic Control, for example. There have already been reported incidents of driverless cars making serious errors.

One of the most interesting questions relates to its human-like ‘behavior’. The computational strength of these AI models is so great that they are able to respond to questions in a style that mimics that of a human. They can appear to exhibit empathy. They may seem to sympathize with the questioner’s frustration or echo their elation at solving a problem. Introverted and socially inept people may even seek a simulated friendship with AI. It has been reported, if we can believe it, that people are ‘marrying’ an AI simulation!

Continue reading →

World disappearing and mithyā

Posted on by
13

Not a lot of discussion on the site recently. I thought maybe the time was ripe for a little controversy again. Recently I queried ChatGPT for Shankara references on this topic. I also encountered just a few days ago, a devastatingly logical argument against this idea, but I will save that for a later post. Here is the (single post) AI contribution. Of course, you may argue, AI is presenting its position so as to support my own view – a recognized problem with AI at present). Perhaps, then, Ramesam or Venkat could tackle AI with essentially the same query to elicit a response in keeping with their belief? That would be interesting!

Q: Where does Shankara define what he means by the word मिथ्या and what does he say?

A (ChatGPT): Adi Shankaracharya, the great Advaita Vedanta philosopher, defines the concept of mithyā in several of his works, particularly in his commentaries on key Vedantic texts. The term “mithyā” generally refers to the idea of falsity or illusoriness. It’s crucial in Advaita Vedanta because it relates to the nature of the phenomenal world and how it is perceived in relation to the ultimate reality, Brahman.

One of the most explicit definitions of mithyā is found in Shankaracharya’s commentary on the Brahma Sutra (Brahmasutra Bhashya) in the section known as the Adhyasa Bhashya. Here, he describes mithyā as something that is neither completely real (like Brahman) nor completely unreal (like the horns of a hare), but rather something that appears real under certain conditions but is revealed as unreal upon closer examination or when true knowledge is attained.

Continue reading →