Tag Archives: consciousness

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 →

Q.560 The 3 Levels of Reality

Posted on by

Q: It seems to me that so many questions on Advaita Vedanta are explained with reference to the 3 levels of reality: pratibhasa, vyavahara and paramartha – why then do we not see more reference to these levels in books about Advaita? I have found in my reading very few that mention them up front, or as a matter of great importance. And, of course, hardly ever mentioned, if at all, in Neo-Advaita tomes. 

A: That’s a good question.

The ‘bottom line’ of Advaita is that there is only Consciousness (sarvam khalvidam brahma – all this is Brahman). So the ‘teaching’ of the neo-Advaitin – ‘this is it’ and similar pronouncements – is not, strictly speaking, wrong. The problem with it is that it is not very helpful!

The point is that, as soon as we separate out a form in perception and give it a name, we are apparently in the realm of duality. And it is difficult to move from that position to one of accepting the truth of non-duality. So traditional Advaita takes things very slowly. For the new seeker, it begins from our present experience and understanding and moves one step at a time, as it were, supplanting the initial teaching with something more refined and nearer to the truth.

Continue reading →

ChAndogya Upanishad (Chapters 6 to 8) Part 5

Posted on by

Part 4
6.9.1 to 6.9.4 and 6.10.1 to 6.10.3
During sleep, mind is resolved and jiva’s individuality is suspended and therefore he does not know his merger with Brahman during sleep.  Bees collect juices from different flowers and make honey by mixing the juices. In the honey, there is no trace of individual juice. Eastern and western rivers flowing towards east and west respectively merge in ocean and lose their individuality. Similarly, during sleep, at the time of death, and dissolution of a cycle of creation, all the creatures lose their individuality, and they resolve in Brahman. During sleep, the karmAs are in potential form. On becoming awake, they become live and functional. Hence going to sleep does not mean moksha. There are two types of entry of an individual into pure Being:  involuntary and voluntary. In deep sleep, one’s entry is involuntary.  There is no knowledge of the entry, and it is not permanent, and one comes back from that state.

Continue reading →

BrihadAranyaka Upanishad (Part 2)

Posted on by

Part 1

Part 3

1.4.7
The mantra has core teaching of Vedanta, namely, Brahman is satya, jagat is mithya, and jiva is not different from Brahman. Brahman is all-pervading pure existence. Pure existence is same as pure consciousness. Existence and consciousness are two aspects of Brahman. It is eternal and changeless. It has mAyA power which is a relative reality because it borrows existence from Brahman. MAyA is the aggregate of sanchit karmAs of all the jivAs at the end of one cycle of creation which rests in Brahman in unmanifest and potential form. At appropriate time, the world is projected due to mAyA power. The creation unfolds in stages starting from five elements in nascent forms. The undifferentiated Brahman appears as differentiated names and forms called world. At some stage, jivAs with gross and subtle bodies are created which are inert and they enclose the all-pervading consciousness. It is like a pot enclosing space. The enclosed consciousness is jivAtma. This phenomenon is figuratively described as entry of Brahman. It is like a waking man entering the dream. When the dream is over, the waking man says that he has experienced the dream. It means that the entity which experiences the waking state also experiences the dream.

Continue reading →

Q.559 – Atman and intellect

Posted on by

Q: Does Atman make use of intellect? Or does intellect function automatically with Atman just being the witness?

This is because, identification with body mind is possible only when we think. Liberation is possible when we overcome this wrong idea. Either way, it appears that Atman makes use of the intellect to get bound or liberated. 

It is said that Atman is ever free and illusion and bondage are concepts only. But this concept can appear to Atman only when intellect is used.

A: First of all, you must clearly differentiate between the ‘absolute reality’ and the ‘empirical’ (worldly) appearance.

 In reality, there is only non-dual Brahman. The world, including ‘you, the person’, is not real in itself. It is ‘name and form of’ Brahman, just as ring and necklace are not real in themselves, being name and form of gold.

Continue reading →

Tat Tvam Asi (Part1)

Posted on by

Part 2

In the commentary on Ch Up 6.1.3, ShankarAchArya says that even if a person has studied all the Vedas and knows all other things which are to be known, he indeed remains unfulfilled if he does not know the Self. As the word ‘unfulfilled’ is not explained, let me do. Unfulfilled means unfulfilled desires. Though a particular human desire is finite, there are countless desires and in this sense they are infinite. A person will have to take infinite births to fulfil them, and he will be in bondage forever. Conversely, with Self-knowledge, a person is complete and has no desires or alternatively all desires are subsumed in his ‘completeness’. He is free in the present life and is also free from rebirth.

Continue reading →

Eight Upanishads (Topic-wise) Part 33

Posted on by

Part 32

Chapter 6 JnAna and moksha
6-9 Tattiriya Upanishad- BrahmAnanda Valli
6-9-4 AnuvAka 7 (Pt 2) The universe is made of matter and is essentially inert. But living and non-living beings are found in the universe. It means that there is an outside source of sentiency. This source is Brahman. Consciousness is the nature of Brahman. The consciousness is reflected in the subtle body of a jiva and the latter becomes sentient. Brahman is also the source of happiness. When consciousness is reflected in a calm mind, happiness is felt. Vedanta claims that there is not an iota of happiness in worldly objects. If happiness is the essential nature of an object, it should give happiness to everybody all the time. But it is not so. An object liked by a person may not be liked by another person. And an object liked by a person now may not be liked later.

Continue reading →

Quantum Mechanics

Posted on by

Q (Quora): How does the theory of quantum mechanics affect our picture of consciousness?

A (Martin): The two notions (QM and consciousness) are incommensurable in all respects, which should be obvious:
a) QM is a theory referable to reality or an aspect of reality (the microcosm); consciousness, on the other hand, is a known reality, not a theory – not only a fact but that which is behind, the substratum of, all facts and movements of the mind.
b) The reality that is consciousness does not need to be proven for it is immediate, direct, unstultifiable or unsublatable. Everything else – objects or phenomena, thought-constructions, etc. – are stultifiable.

That means that there is not even an approximation between the theory of QM and reality per se. It would be a category mistake to relate one to the other unless using such exercise as analogy or suggestion. In this sense, there are two or three things that can be said:
1) Reality/consciousness is limitless, like the referent (or an aspect thereof) of QM, but the former is un-measurable, unlike QM which is amenable to measurement/quantification and statistical verification
2) Reality is non-local (Bell’s theorem), like QM.
3) Consciousness/reality does not depend on anything, while QM is theory-dependent.

Brain and Mind

Posted on by

Q (Quora): How does the brain understand philosophy?

A (Martin): The brain… understanding philosophy? My reply to this is similar to the one I gave recently to another question, which was based on Socrates’ answer to an observation that someone was making. The man saw a pool of water being stirred by a stick held by a man and said that the stick was stirring the water. To which Socrates replied: ‘Is it the stick, or the man moving the stick?’ (Which one is the real agent – the material, or the instrumental cause, in Aristotelian terms?).

Equally, is it the brain, or the mind that which ‘moves’ the brain which moves the stick, which stirs the water?

Is it the brain, or the mind that which (using the brain as an instrument) understands philosophy?

Rather, it is consciousness (as a substrate) using the mind using the brain… Consciousness itself does not do anything