Tag Archives: consciousness

BrihdArnyAka Upanishad (Part 9)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 8

Part 10

Chapter 3 Section 1- Asvala brahman
3.1.1 and 3.1.2 King Janak of Videh performs a sacrifice in which many Vedic scholars are present. The king desires to know the most erudite scholar whom he will reward with 1000 cows with gold covered horns. None of the scholars comes forward except Yajnavalkya (in short Yvk), a Vedic scholar who straight away asks one of his disciples to drive home the cows indicating that he considers himself the best. Naturally, other scholars object.

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

*** 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

*** 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

*** 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

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

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

*** 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

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 →