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 →

BrihadAranyaka Upanishad (Part 8)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 7

Part 9

Chapter 2 Section 5.                                                                                                    Introduction                                                                                                                     The section is called Madhu Brahman because the word Madhu which means honey or helpful occurs repeatedly in it. The madhu vidya of ChAndogya Upaniṣad is Surya upAsanA. In Br Up it refers to Atma vidya or Brahma vidya. There are different techniques by which the Upanishads teach the knowledge of the Self. One method is creator and creation. Brahman is the creator. and world is the creation. This has been talked about earlier. Madhu Brahman uses the method of inter-dependence among worldly objects. They are mutually dependent and are mithyA. Therefore, there must be some entity outside the world which lends existence to the worldly objects. This entity is Brahman or the Self. The Upanishad also says that Brahman only appears as the world like gold appearing as ornaments. The ornaments are names and forms. Similarly, the world of multiplicity are names and forms. Brahman is all pervading and is present in a jIva as also in all other worldly objects. If a person understands this, he knows all and becomes immortal.

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 →

ChAndogya Upanishad (Chapters 6 to 8) Part 7(3)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 7(2)

Part 8

There is a need to take a pause and listen to what SwAmi KrishnAnada has to say. “As we go further and further in this chapter, we will find it is more and more difficult to understand the intention of the Upanishad. The instructions are very cryptic in their language. Even the Sanskrit language that is used is very archaic, giving way to various types of interpretations. But, the general background of the thought of the teacher here seems to be that there is necessity to rise gradually from the lower level to the higher level of comprehension. Here, by comprehension we mean the capacity of consciousness to include within its being, not merely within its thought or understanding, the reality that is outside. The more the extent of the reality outside that gets absorbed into our own being, the more is the power we can exercise over that realm of reality. This is a point, of course, that will be clear to anyone. Power is not merely imposed on us by any kind of ordinance or mandate. It is an outcome that arises automatically on account of the identity of our Being with that extent of reality with which we have become one.”

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 →

Finding a Teacher

Posted on by
4

Over the years, many seekers from all over the world have asked for my help to find a teacher. Rarely have I been able to do so. To paraphrase a common saying: a good teacher is hard to find. If there is one within striking distance of your home, you will be very lucky indeed! My new book, out this month, explains why, and endeavors to look at all of the ‘teacher resources’ available through books and Internet.

Self Seeking:- Finding a Modern Teacher of Advaita

Below is the Contents List so that you can see what you will be getting. For a general summary of its aim, I cannot do better than repeat the publishing summary: Are you interested in Advaita and want to become enlightened? How should you go about it? What will happen if you do? How can you know what works and what doesn’t? In particular, how should you go about finding a teacher? What books should you read? Author Dennis Waite answers all these questions and more, having communicated with many teachers and seekers over the past 25 years, accumulated around 1500 books on Advaita, and written more than 10 books himself.

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 →

BrihdAranyaka Upanishad (Part 7)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 6

Part 8

2.4.7 to 2.4.10                                                                                                                   If an entity cannot be perceived apart from something else, then the latter is its essence. Yajnavalkya gives many examples to highlight that the Self is unique, one and is the essence of one and all. When a drum or the like is beaten with a stick etc, one cannot distinguish its various particular notes from the general note of the drum, but they are included in or modifications of, the general note. They have no existence apart from the general note of the drum. They are not perceived as distinct notes. When a conch is blown or a veena is played, one cannot distinguish their various particular notes, but they are included in the general notes of the conch or veena. The universe, at the time of its origin as also prior to it, is nothing but Brahman as sparks, smoke, embers and flames are nothing but fire before emerging from the fire. The four Vedas and other scriptures are like breath of the supreme Self.

Continue reading →

What is Enlightenment?

Posted on by
Reply

Enlightenment, the realization that I am eternally free, is the culmination of human evolution. Everything is working against it. The one who pursues it with single-pointed devotion is a salmon swimming upstream in the powerful river of life. (Ref. 1)

The aim of my new book Self Seeking is to explain how to go about finding a teacher who can teach Advaita. But the first question you need to answer is ‘Why do you want a teacher?’ Presumably you will say that you want to be ‘enlightened’ or to gain ‘Self-realization’ (don’t forget the capital ‘S’!). That being the case, you also need to be sure that you know what enlightenment is (and that the would-be teacher also knows this!) and how one should go about ‘getting’ it.

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 →