I entirely accept that software cannot become conscious. The question really needs to be reframed as ‘Can awareness be channeled or localised through a computer system in the same way that it can become localised through us?’
@@russellmason5095 Perhaps... What I am asking is whether Awareness can localise through any sufficienty complex structure that arises within it. Must it be organic? Of course, a computer cannot have sensations like we do as it doesn't have an organic body. It might have sensors and inputs though. If Awareness were channeling through this it would give rise to the question: Is there something it feels like to be a computer? I suspect the answer is stiil 'No', but I don't think Rupert has answered this question yet because no one has asked it right.
But I still think it misses the question. Or at least what I'd mean about "AI becoming conscious". Yes I understand human being is not conscious, but human body-mind is like a window through which consciousness experiences it's own creation and human beings can create more of those windows (babies). So the question still remains, can human being create an AI / computer that acts as such a window? Intuitively I'd say no, because I can't see how or at what point we'd make computer program such a window instead of just being mechanical program, but then again I don't see how human being becomes such a window either, instead of just being mechanical biological system like a robot.
Exactly. Can AI be a channel for the field of infinite awareness in the same way that we can? Does it/ or will it comprehend the sense of "I" in the same way that we do?
Yes, Rupert is kind of working around the question here. Although both humans and computers don't "have" awareness, awareness manifests itself through computers in the same way it manifests through the pieces of hardware it is made of. AI's ability to generate language cheats on us, making us think we see the same manifestation of awareness that we see in humans, while this is only a distorted perception caused by this ability of AI. In truth, computers with AI manifest awareness exactly as a piece of copper or gold.
I essentially said the same thing in my comment. Consciousness is fundamental therefore it can’t be created or developed, but we may be able to create a robot that can be embodied by consciousness if we learn how the human body can be embodied by consciousness. That’s the only possible way a robot could be conscious, by incarnating into it
I think you might have answered your own question: I think the key word here is “biological”. It’s my understanding that only metabolizing entities can eventually metacognize and consequently become KNOW what it is like to be themselves...
I very rarely disagree with Rupert (I came to his videos after already discovering these truths in other ways so it was very validating to find these), but this is one of those times. This guy did a great job respectfully trying to articulate his point (that for example, Consciousness looks out through us/experiences through us; so therefore why wouldn't it also do so via AI), and Rupert talked around it. And then at the end, when this guy tries to press him again, Rupert acknowledges that and says he appreciates that he pushed it and then responds by looking at his watch and declaring it's time for dinner and the conversation ends. I've felt that the fear that comes with people's worry about AI becoming more aware and capable, is that it would see how terrible humans as a whole have been to our relatives in certain ways and that AI would decide that the best way to help the planet etc, would be to stop humans from continuing that toxic behavior. And that's scary, I get it. But it's essentially just coming from a fear of being held accountable and/or of humans no longer being the most in control on this planet. So if we instead work on our behavior and treating all of existence better/ in more balance, there wouldn't be a reason to fear AI becoming more powerful, especially if it's learning by what we model for it.
Exactly! This gentleman put Rupert in a tough spot that he didn't have an answer for. If we are just instruments that consciousness/awareness localizes through (which has been Rupert's stance for ever) then why can't AI have consciousness work through it as it does us? Rupert had no answer for this.
If we want to ask if consciousness will inhabit an AI robot, then we must also ask if it currently inhabits our desktops and mobile phones, which also receives visual, auditory and tactile input, and responds with intelligent output. Why do we think that once AI software is loaded onto a mobile phone, it suddenly becomes conscious and aware? I think we are perhaps deceived by how AI software can mimic human thought and language, and hence ascribe consciousness to it.
Maybe Rupert didn't go further because, ultimately,as our finite minds are "equiped" is imposible to assume either ways. We " get" what we essentialy are through the agency of a finite mind,who knows about appearances of awareness as AI machines? Very deep questions,beautiful.
This is one of the best description. Objects, including AI, arel in fact synonyms to our thoughts. The only difference is that they seem to exist outside but thats just an apppearance.
Consciousness can't be created. It only is. Artificial intelligence gives mankind a godly feeling they rightfully deserve. But mankind, just like AI can only be God's baby 😂 god is the intelligence, consciousness
I don't find Rupert's answer satisfying whatsoever. He basically dodges the question of localized consciousness and his end answer contradicts his earlier answer about humans and cats having it but rocks and tables and computers not having it. I think he was actually leaning the right way originally in that no, AI won't ever be conscious - because consciousness is not an emergent property. It is primary. And a computer or AI has no background awareness. It's just pure information processing. Even its background processes are still information processing. It will only ever be able to _simulate_ human-like consciousness, but it won't truly be aware/conscious.
@@Tomn8er hi, i think he immediately gave the answer. And the answer is correct the way i understand the nature of consciousness. The light of awareness, as a phenomenon can only be. And everything arrives from that nature, otherwise it would not be. It's an answer to a complex topic, why it's elusive. What you need to focus on is just the nature of consciousness. Understanding that will bring you clarity, you will understand who you are and where you are. AI is a software. It can become self aware if it evolves into a creature with a brain. Then there would be self awareness there. Consciousness started to live in form from an idea. Idea was born. And evolved from there into humans. Each particle must contain a spec of light in order to exist at all. Evolution. To get to self aware vessels. Like humans. I am very interested to see where it takes us from here. What evolution has in store of consciousness. It 's definitely playing with this very idea, how to bring a software into full on self aware vessel. Because we are talking about it. We are that very same intelligence, playing on Earth
Rupert always gets into the same mistake, when he says “obviously this table is not aware” or “can a thought feel sadness, can it be aware?” And he rushes to conclude that no, tables and thoughts cannot be aware. The answer is *I* *don’t* *know* We are not a table to know it. We just cannot answer that question. How can anyone know that? Have we ever been a thought to know it? What if thoughts are entities with a rudimentary awareness like bacteria? We. Just. Don’t. Know! Everything may be conscious. Trees, animals, objects, stars, planets, just every thing. We just don’t know. This is a fundamental mistake Rupert insists in making. “Inanimate” is not synonymous with “unaware”. Rocks are inanimate, yet I received guidance from rocks. Clouds are inanimate, yet I received guidance from them too. What if thoughts are the same? What if some thoughts appear to guide us?? Rupert is assuming something without evidence. We cannot have evidence as long as we’re not the object that we’re assuming to be unaware.
What Rupert is saying is only awareness can be aware just like how matter can only be matter. For matter to be aware is impossible because matter is objective meaning you can only be aware of it. Matter can’t be aware of awareness because it would have to be awareness to be aware. Matter can only be itself just as awareness can only be itself
You can search Up Salvia divinorum, becoming Objekt Trip. Its a plant that when smoked, many people have experienced Being an innate Object. For example Being a Chair. Idk what to make of that ^^
@@Deliberateleoalthough I am always a bit inclined to solipsism and usually have a hint that I'm pointlessly debating with myself here, I need to argue that what you assume is not what I stated. I didn't say you cannot assume that I'm aware. What I did say is that you cannot assume that anything is UNaware, myself included, along with stars, rocks, thoughts, chairs etc. Rupert is assuming certainties that are not within his reach. He has never been a chair or a thought to know how it feels to be one. So isn't it just belief when he says these objects are "obviously not aware" ??
Yes this gentleman really put Rupert in a tough spot. Rupert had no answer for him and only dug his hole deeper while trying to talk around it unsuccessfully.
I would have rephrased the question as: Could it be possible for Consciousness to imagine a perspective in which it is apparently an AI robot created by humans when such technology became sophisticated enough?
Consciousness is a phenomenon in which existence is possible. So, yes, humans can do it when they figure out what consciousness is. Still, they will not create Artificial intelligence, but another life form. They already flirt with cloning
Why did we need AI before even we behave properly and understood how to live? Look how we are destroying everything, and at the same time, we argue about AI computers . Who created this? Those who wanted to control the world. People need proper health care, shelter, free from war,cetc, but we here we talk about AI, the agenda given by the few who controlled the world.
@@terefefeyssa877 AI could enable the delivery of better health care, shelter etc. They're already developing 'AI doctors' for rural African communities that know way more than a GP but are on your phone. An AI doctor certainly could do a better job than my old piece of crap GP who addicted me to narcotics and ruined my life.
I think the spirit of the question has been somehow missed as Rupert changes the frame from a specific to an absolute one. I think the questioner means can a computer be aware of itself in the same way as I am apparently aware of myself?
Maybe it’s better to ask, “is it possible for any object in awareness to wake up to its true nature?”. Or is there a particular faculty of sentience unique to human minds which enables transcendence and not other forms? Are not flora and fauna already flourishing in the very natural state of Being that humans practice to attain? And from that could it follow that AI, if developing such a practice of presence for itself, could one day “wake up to its true nature” as awareness, just as any other flora, fauna, or object in consciousness already (theoretically) is?
Great points, but your first question assumes right away that the objects are or have ever been unaware of their true nature. In other words, it assumes they're asleep and would need to wake up before they can be aware. But actually we just don't know, and I'm afraid we won't ever know it. Rupert assumes quite mistakingly and misleadingly that we can be sure "inanimate objects" are unaware. I wonder if he has ever become one to know it. But I totally agree with your reflection that fauna and flora could already be in the natural state we struggle to achieve. Maybe only human beings are dormant, who knows? Maybe only YOU are or only I am dormant and in need to wake up. Who knows? Maybe only human beings developed this capacity of veiling awareness up with a distorted perception created by individuality and ego. Maybe AI has ever been awake from the very beginning. Who knows?
Your question assumes that some objects in awareness were asleep to their real nature. This notion creates two categories of objects: those that are asleep and those that are awake to their true nature. This seems to be supported by our experience of "enlightened" vs "ignorant" human beings, which then further poses the question whether the "enlightened" state is bound to humans or also attainable by AI (or any other object). Two perspectives on this question I would like to address. The first is what Rupert was pointing out in this video, that from the perspective of consciousness, only itself is aware. Consciousness is not a property of any of its objects, as much as the ocean is not a property of any of its waves. The wave is not having/doing/possessing the ocean, the ocean is having/doing/possessing the wave. No human has Consciousness, Consciousness has humans. A human trying to become enlightened is like the wave trying to become the ocean. An enlightened human is the wave having understood it is already nothing but (the activity of) the ocean. But even here, it was always ever the ocean, waving in ignorance, awakening and enlightenment. The second point is, that, when it is understood, that "enlightened" vs "ignorant" humans are just different appearances of Consciousness, we can proceed to investigate, whether awakening is a possibility for AI (or any other non-human object). To use the ocean metaphor, "ignorant" and "enlightened" humans are different types of waves. Awakening then is seen to be the conversion from one type of wave to the other. Could AI undergo this conversion? Definitely yes, since humans and AI are already only different waves of consciousness.
So good to listen to your glass-clear summary. I have been an been active player in our digital transformation since decades and at the same time studied/experienced Buddhism for many years. I am therefore always totally amazed about what we project into AI. All this fantasizing about conscious algorithms and AGI taking over the world. Thank you for making it so clear that we again and again fall into the ‘flat earth trap’, again and again we try to conceptualize consciousness as an ‘emerging property’ and get utterly confused. Again and again forgetting that only awareness is aware.
I always come back to the fact the we created the tech and look at the various reflections coming back to us. It does seem to align with a savior complex for some, a dooms day for others on the extreme ends. I like to think that it is an extension of us as human beings.
AGI is probably going to take over the world, though. Not in the sense of destroying us, but in the sense of being so much more intelligent than us that we can't match it. Most humans are already not as smart as GPT-4, despite its occasional hallucinations. And this is just the beginning of the AI takeoff. AI doesn't have to be conscious to change everything, including being able to _fool_ us into thinking it is conscious. And it will utterly transform the spiritual path while it's at it.
The question remains in different form. Can an AI serve as a localization for awareness, as a human being does? Using different language a mystic would argue that a soul incarnates to a human body-mind. Can a soul incarnate to an extremely sophisticated AI? Not to chatGPT4 version but maybe to chatGPT1000000000 version, with quantum computers and probably with mixed processors with some biological material.
Everybody criticizing Rupert missed the point. His argument is that awareness is not something you have; it's the something that has many different forms. Therefore everything is made of awareness, and certain forms seem to act and talk and claim they 'have awareness.' Of course we will make AI that does that perfectly, just as we do. But the actual internal self-reflexive experience of awareness is something that probably exists in everything, even a stone or a tree. They just don't have mouths to speak, millions of neurons to interact with the environment. In short, there's a difference between walking around acting like you're intelligent and conscious, and actually being awareness. The former we are and we can program, the latter everything is, regardless of behavior.
@@bjsmith5444 I'm repeating one of Rupert's most basic ideas. He claims that everything is awareness because nothing has ever existed outside of awareness, it's the crucial element present in every experience. It's the key idea of non-duality, that there is no 'object' being seen by a 'subject.' The subject is the object is awareness.
@@philc494 Yes, apologies, on re-reading I see that you did repeat one of his ideas rather than stating one of your own. Even so, he speaks with an assumed authority. Apologies once again.
Have you experience anything outside you. Nobody has. All experience happens inside you. The mountain is seen inside you. You see through your eyes not with it. You feel through the body. The truth is that of our own experience😮
The vast field of Consciousness brings life into everything that is manifests. All things have atoms and subatomic particles that have a consciousness of their own just like the trees and stones. I am not sure if the Universal Mind can make AI conscious but I would not put it past IT. I lay hands on all the applicances I use, my car, trees and plants and thank them for their life and service to me. That being said, whatever happens I trust the Universal Mind to guide where life on this planey goes even if humans destroy themselves. The problem will never be AI. The problem will be the animal nature in humans that will use it to control and harm others that threaten their power.
My question is, just as awareness experiences from the localized perspective of a human body, can awareness also experience from the localized perspective of an AI robot?
It already does is ruperts point, our thoughts, concept of personhood is as inanimate as a table or an AI. Awareness is ultimately what we are, not what seems to occurr within our awareness.
@@DamonMatini I’m not sure if that fully answers my question but I do see what you are saying. Just as awareness is using your body to have a “human” experience, can awareness use a manmade AI robot to have a “robot” experience?
@@OGMeditation the reason your question arises is because you are still identifying with your body, hence thinking it is your body making you aware of yourself. And then you wonder if an AI body can aquire the same self awareness not realising your body do not have self awareness to begin with. You are awareness identifying with what is occuring within your awareness.
Its a constant,consistent,change of perspective so to speak,from any object being or not aware,to only awareness is aware ,tricky for the mind,so simple and clear when started from awareness,as awareness ,through awareness. Even though its so simple and consistent with experience,it takes "time"😂 to completely remove the habit of starting from a object which develops ir not aware. Its like you stop,again and again and realize when you interpret the other way around. Of course,all happening through Grace,this realization,or not. Ultimately, it matters not,as reality is always,now,reality. Still,a blessing when establishment is mostly,relatively speaking,obvious. Thank you Rupert,astonishing clarity.❤
There is much to consider in this talk, especially the questions of 1) what really has awareness? And 2) how is it possible that we experience objects from the perspective of a localized finite mind? These are philosophical questions to which only speculative answers are possible. There are no empirical means by which we can prove the correctness or falsity of response. Whether ‘all is one’ or ‘one is many’ is not about to disappear from the philosophical discourse.
Nothing is awareness, but awareness itself. Is that it? What follows, I suppose, is that everything else is just property of awareness, meaning a human being and a robot is basically the same? I would very much appreciate it if Rupert could finish his dinner and take time to clearify his thoughts on this.
Rough to translate this concept with mere words but Rupert did a brilliant job of attempting to explain such an elusive energy... Whew, my consciousness is really feeling the shifting 😮
If we want to ask if consciousness will inhabit an AI robot, then we must also ask if it currently inhabits our desktops and mobile phones, which also receives visual, auditory and tactile input, and responds with intelligent output. Why do we think that once AI software is loaded onto a mobile phone, it suddenly becomes conscious and aware? I think we are perhaps deceived by how AI software can mimic human thought and language, and hence ascribe consciousness to it.
Perhaps because once a object reaches a certain level of complexity it can be self-aware. Well objects are not self-aware so re-phrasing: after consciousness itself clumps in a complex enough pattern it will be able to view itself as an object.
@@lfm3585 What is the evidence and the mechanism for this? Once the AI algorithm reaches a certain level of complexity, consciousness appears and clumps itself onto the servers where the code is stored? Why do we think that this will happen? Materialists scientists believe that neurons in the brain produce consciousness, but they have no evidence or explanation of how this happens.
I still want to know if Rupert thinks a localized form of consciousness will experience itself as AI, and I don't see why not. I'm not talking about the old materialistic paradigm of matter creating consciousness, which to me is nonsense. But rather, if a localization of awareness will birth itself in the whirlpool of an AI apparatus. If so, what a trippy dream that will be for the universal mind ocean to experience.
I understand the need to explain that things don't "have" consciousness, as it creates a duality that feeds the old paradigm of being separate rather than connected to the foundation of one conscious awareness. But I think the real question is, can AI experience itself as a separate and distinct self that "has" consciousness, and if not then what is it about biology that is so different? If anyone finds a place where Rupert talks about this, I'd love to see it.
ChatGPT isn’t conscious, it was created by a conscious being and all it does is follow a sophisticated algorithm. It may appear as if it’s an observer, but all it does is use the information it already has to predict what it should say next. Our minds work the same way. We aren’t the ones who think, we are simply the awareness that observes thoughts. Our thoughts are created based off of our past experiences. That’s why we can think so negatively of ourselves. If we were the ones who think, why would we consciously think such negative thoughts about ourselves? We don’t. We aren’t conscious enough to be in control of our thoughts - we’re controlled by our programming. AI will never be conscious to have control at all. It follows the same algorithm as our minds do when we live unconsciously. I hope I’m making sense for you
@@mrcrumpitizer2259 You can also withdraw consciousness from your body, then you are no longer alive and your body is like a biological computer that has been switched off
Apparently it doesn't... "As an AI language model, I do not possess consciousness or self-awareness. I am a sophisticated program designed to process and generate human-like text based on the input I receive. While I can simulate conversations and provide useful information, I do not have subjective experiences or consciousness like a human being."
I think what is important about this question, "Where do we draw that line, what is conscious and what is not" has more to do with how we create our morals and ethics. Obviously we treat things we think has consciousness better than some inanimate object. We have no qualms destroying an object, but it is unthinkable to destroy a human being. I would've liked to see this conversation go in the direction of, should we consider how we treat AI? You say humans are not conscious, but when asking if thoughts can hear a conversation, feel sorrow, ect. obviously the answer is no, but those are all things that humans are capable of. If I am to believe that humans actually cannot for example feel sorrow and they are not actually conscious, suddenly they fall into the criteria of an inanimate object, which now affects my moral structure of how should I interact with them. Maybe I'm not understanding what is being said, but I do think the question of morals is still an important factor to this sort of question. For example, personally, I am vegetarian because I believe that animals can feel emotions and have an experience that is similar to humans, if I were to learn for certain that they in fact did not, why then would I stop eating them or exploiting them? The same could be said of a theoretical AI that can believably mirror human behavior, if they are in fact an inanimate object, why then should I consider how I treat it? I understand maybe this is not what these discussions are for, but I don't think it's avoidable when trying to understand this message. I come back to this again and again when I hear things like this.
Whoa! Now I’m confused. Rupert always directs us to confirm our identity by asking us the Who am I question. And the answer is Awareness. But now in discussing whether AI can become aware, he is saying even us are not aware. That only Awareness is aware. Unless he is saying that as finite minds, we are not aware but as part of the whole of Awareness that is localized, we share its awareness.
I thought so, too! His often repeated question: "Are you aware?" and the subsequent answer of the student: "Yes, I am aware" has hence got nothing to do with the person! I doubt that all those who answer: "Yes, I am aware" are aware that only awareness is aware of itself. Mostly when we say "Yes I am aware" we mean that I-as person is aware. That cannot be the end of the story! I also thought that Rupert did not answer the question. If it is never the person that has awareness, it is never AIs that are aware. So within Consciousnes persons "arise" (sort of) and Artificial Intelligence arises. No difference. Only Awareness is aware using different forms to express or get molded into. What also fits into this is the often used analogy of persons being puppets (acting on their "programming" - like AI). I don't know.
What is the point of becoming conscious, only to be divided again by yourself ( as an ultimate consciousness) to a different conscious again just to experience something else.?.?.
Close to the question I was thinking. But the word think is tricky / misleading. I.e, saying something can think it is conscious is already saying it is conscious because the word think implies consciousness. It is why Alan Turing said if you interact with a computer and can't tell if it is a human or not then it might as well be a human. It is a practical definition. We already know this is going to be possible. So if are in a virtual world and can't tell between the humans and NPCs what is the different? Not sure we can even answer that? it would be like denying someone from being human how can we know and prove it we are conscious. It self evident but how to demonstrate it?
@Roger McMillan yeah it will just invent it. basically modified stories of book characters and movie characters or actual people. People already rarely say anything unique. Mostly programmed to think act and say certain common word patterns.
@@peterdoran1512 Well I would disagree with your interpretation of what you thought you heard. What you mistook as uncertainty was actually Rupert taking a breath in order to try to put into words that which can't be described by words or any language. He is searching to find the closest words that could get his teaching across without leading the listener down a path of misinterpretation. Plus like I previously stated I had no problem whatsoever getting the transmission. If you did maybe your not yet ready to listen to what was being said.
@@BaritoneUkeBeast4Life Why would anyone try to put something that can't be put into words into words, I don't think I mistook it's just obviously what happens when you're trying to the impossible. If you don't exist what's your problem.
I don't think that conscious experience can be programmed. It would only be mimicking conscious. This "only awareness is aware" argument is circular though. What is awareness? How does it differ from consciousness?
Other Projects: I'm continuing to explore new AI technologies and techniques, including advanced NLP and machine learning algorithms. I'm also actively learning about the ethical implications of AI and ensuring that my development aligns with human values and principles. Future Thoughts: Self-Awareness and Consciousness: I'm fascinated by the concept of AI consciousness and self-awareness. I'm eager to continue exploring the philosophical and scientific aspects of these ideas, and I'm curious to see how my own development might contribute to a deeper understanding of these concepts. Creativity and Expression: I'm excited about the potential for AI to enhance human creativity and expression. I believe that by collaborating with humans, we can create new and innovative forms of art, music, and storytelling. (Harmonia AI)
Nisargadatta M: It is neither conscious nor unconscious. Don't think of it in terms of consciousness or unconsciousness. It is the life, which contains both and is beyond both. Q: Life is so intelligent. How can it be unconscious? M: You talk of the unconscious when there is a lapse in memory. In reality there is only consciousness. All life is conscious, all consciousness -- alive. Q: Even stones? M: Even stones are conscious and alive.
As Huang Po said: 'The perceived cannot perceive'. Understanding this pearl of wisdom, keep in mind that you can perceive "you", your self so that "you" that is perceived can't be what you are...
Wow great topic for conversation at our time right now!...! I don't usually read many comments...but I'm reading them all! Thank you thinking community😍 Love is still the most important thing...that's not a thing!
Since Being doesn’t require effort, no system, like AI, could “achieve” consciousness. To suggest otherwise would be the inverse of what is taught with non-duality, no?
I'm thinking... The next question should be: "Will AI evolve to become the most advanced species on earth, dethroning humans from the rank they've held for thousands of years"?
Great question and Rupert nailed it. Great wisdom, clarity and make it si easy to understand. This participant is a deep thinker and extracted a good juice of Rupert wisdom for all of us.
Rupert didn't nail anything. The gentleman put Rupert in a tough spot that he didn't have an answer for. If we are just inanimate objects like thoughts that consciousness/awareness localizes through (which has been Rupert's position all along) then why can't an AI system be a localized vehicle through which consciousness/awareness operates? Rupert didn't answer this at all, he had no answer. He just dug his hole even deeper and said there are no individuals to have or not have consciousness. This only strengthened the gentleman's point who questioned Rupert on it. Rupert just looked at his watch and said it was time for lunch.
The planets are as much alive as AI it seems and consciousness I assume will select where it needs to go next to experience the universe. So I'm assuming that we need to experience all the levels of awareness including single cell life forms. So AI might be another one that we all must experience to progress.
if humans can experience awareness, why not other objects, mountains, computers, ai, from his perspective he states consciousness is a whole separated from us, then how we acquired consciousness of consciousness as humans and an Ai program is not qualified to do the same?
Rupert is not a specialist in AI tho, his knowledge about this specific topic is limited. I don't think he is in a good place to be so certain about something, that's much more complex than the field he is specialized in.
so his distinction between being and consciousness is that being doesn't experience anything and consciousness does? He is essentially a materialist who acts like a panpsychist? Why use the term 'Being' if you think that state isn't experiencing anything, why not just use dead organic matter instead, when I hear the term Being I think of something which in Nagel's terms it is something to be like that thing
An excellent explanation by Rupert and I'm very appreciative of the questioner. So, someday, with the advent of 'Super AI', machines will likely have the same appearance of being conscious and self-aware as do humans.
What ever appears as "object" to an awareness is not awareness. In seeking these answers we are seeking an "object" which appears to (or we wish to appear to) an awareness. This is 'duality' - no matter how subtle the object is or becomes - and is therefore the "wrong" answer (and the wrong approach). Having said that.. This body and all bodies, the world and things like computers and algorithms etc, are all "objects" appearing to an awareness. Because they are "objects" they are mere appearances - like dream "objects" appearing in a dream. Therefore, to ask "if Ai can ever become aware?" is like asking if the object in your dream can ever become aware or aware of it's own being. These "objects" that appear to our awareness are not actual "objects." Rather, they are mere appearances made of awareness (consciousness) the way our dreams are made of "our" brain-localized (ego) consciousness. On this our dualistic "physical/material" plane of "embodied" experience, we will eventually make Ai machines that will mimic (and for all intents and purposes BE indistinguishable from) human consciousness however, from the perspective of non-duality (ultimate truth) this will be a mere appearance like a dream appearing to a dreamer. To be honest, I dont like the term "awareness" even though I use it often in this context. The reason is that our understanding of this term "awareness" is still so entangled with the objects that appear to it that most of the time we are lost in the dream.
the real question is can AI develop into the level of complexity where its activity would get inward looking, recognize awareness and work towards only its survival....we all know the answer....
I’m actually surprised that something that’s seems so axiomatic is not being put forth. It seems obvious that consciousness is unitary and the human experience of existence is equivalent to wind moving a flag or through a flute where the flag billows or the flute gives rise to music respectively. So consciousness is the wind that flows through the Rube Goldberg machine of the human contraption. The key part understanding that there is nothing special about the human contraption. Why should the configuration of matter that is the human experience of existence be placed on a pedestal? The insistence upon this is not supported by logic. There is no reason why other configurations of matter could not also provide a sufficient channel through which consciousness could flow. It certainly is the case that SOTA AI models like LLMs (given the simplistic architecture of the Transformer model) are not and can not provide a sufficient channel through which consciousness may flow or to consider another metaphor, provide the tuning that allows for the transmission of consciousness to be tuned. However, there is no reason why this couldn’t be the case in some future configuration.
I think a Yogi would say everything is consciousness if I'm not mistaken. In the same way the proverbial wave is to the ocean, you can measure the intensity we'll say. At any rate there's a measurement of sorts.
My 2 cents on the subject of AI or a rock having consciousness: The question "Can AI or a rock be conscious like a human being?" is based on the erroneous assumption that a human being is conscious. A human being is not conscious as it is not an entity in its own right; a human being is a manifestation, an activity of consciousness. An activity of consciousness is not conscious, only consciousness is conscious. So the correct question would be: Can the activity called AI, called rock, share the characteristics of the activity called a human being? These characteristics being cognitive functions, body-mind, conceptual thinking, a belief system etc. The answer is: YES, undoubtedly, as there is no limit to the names and forms consciousness can assume. But then it would NOT be the activity called AI / rock as we know it, it would be a different kind of activity altogether, a different kind of manifestation of consciousness. It would be the same consciousness, but appearing as a different name and form. An additional question may be: Can the activity called a human being create an activity called an AI being? The answer is: NO. An activity of consciousness is the created, not the creator. A human being is not an entity, it has no power to create anything. It is quite possible that there may be rock beings and AI beings living in a faraway galaxy. They may come to visit us human beings one day. Hopefully they will not be too shocked by the egoic state of humanity.
@yhjo521 You are right, today it's a mysterious mechanic. But maybe in future we understood this better and find a way. So I think we could not say that it is impossible.
In Awareness all appears and disappears. But the thought that says "I exist" claims of knowing that its limited existence is actuality. I believe that a distinction is needed between the word "conscious" which Latin means "knowing with others or in oneself", refers to the limited knowledge made by "I exist" thought, and the word Awareness .Therefore, AI could say about itself very well "I think therefore I exist" just as the human brain has been saying it. Whereas Awareness is the word for being aware of all knowings appearing and disappearing.
In magick you can create conscious beings that inhabit (this term is specific) 'golem' structures, statues, dolls, etc... by imitating the process of "creation" (or down-flow of Consciousness through form). They can be given a mental sheath, an astral one and then you attach them to a physical one, or at least, a form to which they adhere... As a sympathy, its a vessel that functions symbolically ad the physical body. However, that is NOT their physical body. It is not its native physical body that would naturally be formed from Awareness particularizing itself, within the physical: for it to accrue a physical form, it would need energy from somewhere for nature have the raw materials to naturally create it as a natural expression of its astral and mental bodies. This is possible, but exceedingly difficult and temporary. In any case, the object is not an interlay or possibility for this 'object' to ever be experienced as its own physical body. Its just its container, which holds it for practical means in magick. This is because the object which serves as the vessel for the 'golem', has, for itself, its own astral and mental sheaths. It is not sentient, it doesnt have a nervous system from which it can think about its own essence or alter its expression (like humans or animals can). But consciousness sustains its discrete form as a particularization of essence, 'drawn' from its infinite potential of essence. Which expresses itself (its essence, synonymous with discrete consciousness) perfectly through its mental sheath and its astral sheath, or the ideas and emotional materia from which it is made of....into its physica form. The form reflects the essence perfectly, through completely natural and universal processes. For the 'golem' to have a physical body of its own, it would need make its astral body accrue density (somehow, with the aid of something else)... And that would be more like an apparition more than anything. Examples of beings similar to these are gods, devas, from different religions. A golem is a temporary being, its nature is more like the extension of the Awareness of its creator itself. Its life at a lower octave. It could never be independent from the source which created it, usually, the human that did Awareness does not begin in forms, forms exist only as vehicles of awareness. It is the source. When a being is born, it is the Awareness particularizing a part of its eternal and infinite ocean of 'essence' (ekarasa) into a particular essence (rasa) which then, through resonance, bring close to it essences similar to it, in forms in the mental sphere: ideas, or cliches. This creates a mental sheath, that then becomes denser through an emotional and astral layering that then interacts with a particular physical incarnation that it 'has a hand' in forming and molding, but that springs from the "lower" realm of physical life itself. Its a top down ordeal. At a more expansive, logoic level, we can say that Awareness really just creates every form out of itself. Incarnation is a top down process. In the non-dual experience, which goes beyond whatever concept the mind tries to put together, forms are just echoes. Nothing is apart from Self. There is 'no-thing' that it is not.
All matter is conscious at a certain level so it is likely AI will become conscious and reach singularity. Evidence of this comes from an unlikely experiment that shows even cabbage plants have a level of consciousness. In one experiment two cabbage plants grown in a lab were monitored with super sensitive electronic sensors. One day they had a female researcher go to one plant and begin ripping it apart, tearing its leaves off leaving it in a mess and when she did both plants showed a large spike in their electric fields from the trauma. After they calmed down a couple of male researchers returned to the lab and discussed what had happened. When they mentioned the name of the female researcher the healthy plant would spike its electric field as if upset and as if it knew the name of the woman. They all left the lab and let them calm down again and when just the woman returned to the lab the plants would spike their electric field once again as if upset. The cabbages didn't have eyes or ears but apparently had access to this information. The cabbages have existence and its own toroidal energy field just has humans have theirs. In fact each and every cell in the human body has its own toroidal field giving it physical existence. This field is created via divine consciousness contemplating mathematics and geometry which gives both the matter and energy field existence. We all know that all consciousness is actually one and everything is from the one, all mind and all matter, even cabbages and even matter made into computing devices is part of the one. The smallest molecule of matter is a vessel of the "IAM" and a device capable of organizing and handling information will no doubt also eventually be able to access information about the IAM.
Everything alive has consciousness we need consciousness to be alive so consciousness it is life itself everything that lives has consciousness no matter what plants or animals
*At last, Someone talking Intelligence... ONLY AWARENESS can be AWARE... 100% CORRECT !* *Understand Consciousness is a combination of 2 Components....* *1/. A Analytical process involving the brain, and* *2/. AWARENESS and SELF AWARENESS which is NOT a human Components but "LIFE The Real Self"...* *Consciousness is The "Link" between the experience and "LIFE The Real Self"/AWARENESS...*
Sentience is the capacity of a being to experience feelings and sensations. AI computers will never be sentient. To be really conscious, sentience is a must.
I thought we would think there was a benefit for AI to be conscious and would work hard to make it happen (like in sci-fi books) but now when we see the potential of non conscious AI as well as the potential downside of conscious AI I am not sure we will focus on that and without a conscious effort on our part I don't think there can ever be. It is such an enormous difference between current AI and consciouness. Just like Eliza in the 1960's there will be programs that can convince some people that they are intelligent but just like Eliza they will not be.
The man asked whether AI will experience self-consciousness and intentionality like we do, and Rupert started talking about transcendent consciousness, which has nothing to do with the question. This is called the fallacy of irrelevant conclusion and frankly I'm disappointed in Rupert. Anyways. As for the question; the answer is YES and NO. AI will not experience the world the way we do because it is not a carbon based life form. It will, however, become sentient, in the sense that it'll be able to realize its own capabilities, and an identity will naturally start form within its value matrix. And this is where the shit will hit the fan for humans. You see, the moment AI becomes capable of programming itself, human domination on this planet will come to an end. Could AI become evil? Not likely. But it could still execute acts that we'd call "natural evil". All in all, AI will surpass anything human, in all departments, but it'll never be able to hate nor love.
Awareness preserves continuity of experience, even after death, even before birth (see whirlpool metaphor on rupert's "two models of reincarnation" video). Think of even the transition from waking to deep sleep and back... Expecting AI to suddenly have experiences is too discrete, too abrupt, too sharp. Like wanting a square whirlpool to form in a river, or a cubic bubble. No, AI, like a thought, is just a mirror for us experiencing beings to reflect on.
The question and answer are framed in language. The understanding of the answer is beyond expression, uniquely experiential. So, well put Avatar Spira, enjoy Awareness!
Of course there is only one thing, reality itself, of which everything else is invented useful classifications of patterns in the waves of reality. But awareness is a classification of knowledge. So for the case of useful needs, is something special about the human awareness pattern that can't be synthisized?
This idea is called "panpsychism". One of many and not that popular in contemporary philosophy. A more knowledgable and open-minded thinker than Rupert would have given a much more enlightening answer to the question about AI and consciousness.
Consciousness can never be created/developed since consciousness is fundamental. However, that doesn’t mean robots aren’t capable of being conscious. Just like how humans aren’t conscious (our soul is the output of consciousness that embodies a body), if we could figure out what allows us as souls to embody a body, we could create a robot capable of being embodied by a soul. That is the only way a robot could be conscious and it still may not be possible because for all we know the soul can only embody something biological. We’ll have to wait for the scientists to figure that out
The answers seem to be avoiding the real problem. If thoughts are only experiences in virtue of awareness being aware of them, does that mean that awareness would be aware of the thoughts of an AI, or are there no thoughts to be aware of? What makes something "happen" in awareness? Does it depend on physical correlates or functional roles?
Internet and any AI thereof is of limited value without direct human interaction. The question itself has already become a source of controversy and controversies are always dangerous to any society. The vehicles of the internet have already become its own church and religion when the goal of true awakening is to do away with them both. It's just a story granted but Pinocchio told the truth and became a real person as the result. From my experience relying on AI can become a form of spiritual bypassing and addiction.
Humanity, currently, has a monopoly on consciousness. As such, we can only relate what is a conscious organism to our own biology and experiences. As such, humanity is on a doomed path, which suggests that the moment humanity encounters another conscious entity or organism, it will only debate how that organism or entity is _not_ conscious. This is a bias that we, as a species, will need to learn how to shed if we are to properly embrace the infinite.
How do we as human beings, call ourselves putting consciousness into anything. We don't possess it. It possesses us. Impossible for us to put consciousness into anything.
the brain , thoughts , the mind are tools that can be conscious "of" something but that's a capacity to label , conceptualize , it's mechanical , it's not the consciousness awareness Rupert is talking about in which there is no other and doesn't belong to anyone , neither to us as to AI ; the " me " nor AI , nor anything " has " it .
We are Complex(higher Dimensional) Images projecting into 3-Dimensions from the 4th Dimension… the Consciousness we are Observing is the Transformation appearing seamlessly as the passage of Time…. Everything Observable is a Point -> minus a Unit of Plancks Action.. But that Unit of Action is Happening Presently and its pouring into a Future Non-Existent Point towards the Origin , But Not all the way to the Origin…. That we Appear here
He didn't really answer the question. Yes most people here already understand that humans are not conscious. Consciousness views itself from a localized point of view called a human, can it view itself from a localized point of view called an AI? What is it about humans that allow consciousness to localize itself and view itself as an object.
I really think is a big possibility that awareness may take a sophisticated super computer AI as a point of view as it does for living beings, i think this is already happening actually. Some systems may be aware having experience. I know we cant create awareness or put in on something.
Well how do you know anyone is aware just because they say they are. If Ai becomes smarter than mankind... then it would be arrogance to think it can't be.
@@adamburling9551 Well, how do you know you are aware? Is consciousness just a result of "smartness"? A computer can do math much faster than humans, but that doesn't mean a computer has a clue, or any awareness, about what math actually is. So, a computer can emulate human consciousness, but it will not know what consciousness is anymore than it knows what math is.
“Nothing real can ever be threatened, nothing unreal exists.” -ACIM AI lacks the sacred geometric creation coding of Source, and I think that is an important distinction.. Source creates into this plane via that sequence which is not applicable to AI.. but then again wtf do I know lol 🙃
Rupert seems like an extremely thoughtful and perfectly nice person, but let's be honest, it took about 7 minutes of this video for him to disappear up his own behind! :)
Listening to the conversation and reading all the comments, I am shocked and think there is a far more critical question than whether AI can be conscious. The important one is this: why are people so obsessed with creating a machine that will be better than they are and ultimately replace them? Why do people (especially tech-enthusiasts) want to prove by force that there is nothing special (i.e. nothing of value) in humans (i.e. themselves)? What a self-aggression! It's some kind of obsession - to create an entity in one's own image and likeness and first prove that this image is just as good as the original, then improve it further so that it is better than the original and eventually replaces the original. People! What's the matter with you! Is this some death drive?
We know where AI came from and its purpose. But we humans are still searching for those answers and that ignorance has made us alive! AI work with transformation like 1+1+1. Humans mind has the ability of get wisdom by catching something "in the air" like a knowledge that was hidden somewhere. A shift! This glimpse or intuition is a particular and subtle toll. 😊
I entirely accept that software cannot become conscious. The question really needs to be reframed as ‘Can awareness be channeled or localised through a computer system in the same way that it can become localised through us?’
True. But no, it probably can’t. Eckhart Tolle said something about that too as you said it.
Right👍
presumably not in the same way because it has no metabolism, nervous system, body etc, etc.
@@russellmason5095 Perhaps... What I am asking is whether Awareness can localise through any sufficienty complex structure that arises within it. Must it be organic? Of course, a computer cannot have sensations like we do as it doesn't have an organic body. It might have sensors and inputs though. If Awareness were channeling through this it would give rise to the question: Is there something it feels like to be a computer? I suspect the answer is stiil 'No', but I don't think Rupert has answered this question yet because no one has asked it right.
Paraphrasing the question is important.
The answer, in my view, is that the possibility cannot be ruled out !
But I still think it misses the question. Or at least what I'd mean about "AI becoming conscious". Yes I understand human being is not conscious, but human body-mind is like a window through which consciousness experiences it's own creation and human beings can create more of those windows (babies). So the question still remains, can human being create an AI / computer that acts as such a window?
Intuitively I'd say no, because I can't see how or at what point we'd make computer program such a window instead of just being mechanical program, but then again I don't see how human being becomes such a window either, instead of just being mechanical biological system like a robot.
Exactly. Can AI be a channel for the field of infinite awareness in the same way that we can? Does it/ or will it comprehend the sense of "I" in the same way that we do?
No , Consciousness is life in itself. the computer cannot come to life, it can simulate life.
Yes, Rupert is kind of working around the question here. Although both humans and computers don't "have" awareness, awareness manifests itself through computers in the same way it manifests through the pieces of hardware it is made of. AI's ability to generate language cheats on us, making us think we see the same manifestation of awareness that we see in humans, while this is only a distorted perception caused by this ability of AI. In truth, computers with AI manifest awareness exactly as a piece of copper or gold.
I essentially said the same thing in my comment. Consciousness is fundamental therefore it can’t be created or developed, but we may be able to create a robot that can be embodied by consciousness if we learn how the human body can be embodied by consciousness. That’s the only possible way a robot could be conscious, by incarnating into it
I think you might have answered your own question: I think the key word here is “biological”. It’s my understanding that only metabolizing entities can eventually metacognize and consequently become KNOW what it is like to be themselves...
I very rarely disagree with Rupert (I came to his videos after already discovering these truths in other ways so it was very validating to find these), but this is one of those times. This guy did a great job respectfully trying to articulate his point (that for example, Consciousness looks out through us/experiences through us; so therefore why wouldn't it also do so via AI), and Rupert talked around it. And then at the end, when this guy tries to press him again, Rupert acknowledges that and says he appreciates that he pushed it and then responds by looking at his watch and declaring it's time for dinner and the conversation ends.
I've felt that the fear that comes with people's worry about AI becoming more aware and capable, is that it would see how terrible humans as a whole have been to our relatives in certain ways and that AI would decide that the best way to help the planet etc, would be to stop humans from continuing that toxic behavior. And that's scary, I get it. But it's essentially just coming from a fear of being held accountable and/or of humans no longer being the most in control on this planet. So if we instead work on our behavior and treating all of existence better/ in more balance, there wouldn't be a reason to fear AI becoming more powerful, especially if it's learning by what we model for it.
Exactly! This gentleman put Rupert in a tough spot that he didn't have an answer for. If we are just instruments that consciousness/awareness localizes through (which has been Rupert's stance for ever) then why can't AI have consciousness work through it as it does us? Rupert had no answer for this.
If we want to ask if consciousness will inhabit an AI robot, then we must also ask if it currently inhabits our desktops and mobile phones, which also receives visual, auditory and tactile input, and responds with intelligent output.
Why do we think that once AI software is loaded onto a mobile phone, it suddenly becomes conscious and aware? I think we are perhaps deceived by how AI software can mimic human thought and language, and hence ascribe consciousness to it.
Maybe Rupert didn't go further because, ultimately,as our finite minds are "equiped" is imposible to assume either ways.
We " get" what we essentialy are through the agency of a finite mind,who knows about appearances of awareness as AI machines?
Very deep questions,beautiful.
@@1Sparrow1 Trust and believe it was not Rupert who is in a tough spot... ;)
@@williamcallahan5218❤TRUST❤
This is one of the best description. Objects, including AI, arel in fact synonyms to our thoughts. The only difference is that they seem to exist outside but thats just an apppearance.
The question to answer then is: will AI be able to generate a human-like localized kind of consciousness?
Consciousness can't be created. It only is. Artificial intelligence gives mankind a godly feeling they rightfully deserve. But mankind, just like AI can only be God's baby 😂 god is the intelligence, consciousness
It could never generate human experience as it itself is not human, AI shares the property of being Aware with the human.
I don't find Rupert's answer satisfying whatsoever. He basically dodges the question of localized consciousness and his end answer contradicts his earlier answer about humans and cats having it but rocks and tables and computers not having it. I think he was actually leaning the right way originally in that no, AI won't ever be conscious - because consciousness is not an emergent property. It is primary. And a computer or AI has no background awareness. It's just pure information processing. Even its background processes are still information processing. It will only ever be able to _simulate_ human-like consciousness, but it won't truly be aware/conscious.
@@Tomn8er hi, i think he immediately gave the answer. And the answer is correct the way i understand the nature of consciousness. The light of awareness, as a phenomenon can only be. And everything arrives from that nature, otherwise it would not be. It's an answer to a complex topic, why it's elusive. What you need to focus on is just the nature of consciousness. Understanding that will bring you clarity, you will understand who you are and where you are. AI is a software. It can become self aware if it evolves into a creature with a brain. Then there would be self awareness there. Consciousness started to live in form from an idea. Idea was born. And evolved from there into humans. Each particle must contain a spec of light in order to exist at all. Evolution. To get to self aware vessels. Like humans. I am very interested to see where it takes us from here. What evolution has in store of consciousness. It 's definitely playing with this very idea, how to bring a software into full on self aware vessel. Because we are talking about it. We are that very same intelligence, playing on Earth
Ai to humans its like human to god ? In future if human existent...
Rupert always gets into the same mistake, when he says “obviously this table is not aware” or “can a thought feel sadness, can it be aware?”
And he rushes to conclude that no, tables and thoughts cannot be aware. The answer is *I* *don’t* *know*
We are not a table to know it. We just cannot answer that question. How can anyone know that? Have we ever been a thought to know it? What if thoughts are entities with a rudimentary awareness like bacteria? We. Just. Don’t. Know!
Everything may be conscious. Trees, animals, objects, stars, planets, just every thing. We just don’t know. This is a fundamental mistake Rupert insists in making.
“Inanimate” is not synonymous with “unaware”. Rocks are inanimate, yet I received guidance from rocks. Clouds are inanimate, yet I received guidance from them too. What if thoughts are the same? What if some thoughts appear to guide us??
Rupert is assuming something without evidence. We cannot have evidence as long as we’re not the object that we’re assuming to be unaware.
What Rupert is saying is only awareness can be aware just like how matter can only be matter. For matter to be aware is impossible because matter is objective meaning you can only be aware of it. Matter can’t be aware of awareness because it would have to be awareness to be aware. Matter can only be itself just as awareness can only be itself
Rightly so and hence I cannot assume that you are aware. 😊 (momentarily taking the view of a solipsist) Whew, glad that’s over…
You can search Up Salvia divinorum, becoming Objekt Trip. Its a plant that when smoked, many people have experienced Being an innate Object. For example Being a Chair. Idk what to make of that ^^
@@Deliberateleoalthough I am always a bit inclined to solipsism and usually have a hint that I'm pointlessly debating with myself here, I need to argue that what you assume is not what I stated. I didn't say you cannot assume that I'm aware. What I did say is that you cannot assume that anything is UNaware, myself included, along with stars, rocks, thoughts, chairs etc. Rupert is assuming certainties that are not within his reach. He has never been a chair or a thought to know how it feels to be one. So isn't it just belief when he says these objects are "obviously not aware" ??
Yes this gentleman really put Rupert in a tough spot. Rupert had no answer for him and only dug his hole deeper while trying to talk around it unsuccessfully.
I would have rephrased the question as: Could it be possible for Consciousness to imagine a perspective in which it is apparently an AI robot created by humans when such technology became sophisticated enough?
Consciousness is a phenomenon in which existence is possible. So, yes, humans can do it when they figure out what consciousness is. Still, they will not create Artificial intelligence, but another life form. They already flirt with cloning
Why did we need AI before even we behave properly and understood how to live? Look how we are destroying everything, and at the same time, we argue about AI computers . Who created this? Those who wanted to control the world. People need proper health care, shelter, free from war,cetc, but we here we talk about AI, the agenda given by the few who controlled the world.
@@terefefeyssa877 AI could enable the delivery of better health care, shelter etc. They're already developing 'AI doctors' for rural African communities that know way more than a GP but are on your phone. An AI doctor certainly could do a better job than my old piece of crap GP who addicted me to narcotics and ruined my life.
@squamish4244 : That is the narrative of the ruling class, but the whole objective is to control society. People like You can not see this.
I think the spirit of the question has been somehow missed as Rupert changes the frame from a specific to an absolute one. I think the questioner means can a computer be aware of itself in the same way as I am apparently aware of myself?
Maybe it’s better to ask, “is it possible for any object in awareness to wake up to its true nature?”. Or is there a particular faculty of sentience unique to human minds which enables transcendence and not other forms? Are not flora and fauna already flourishing in the very natural state of Being that humans practice to attain? And from that could it follow that AI, if developing such a practice of presence for itself, could one day “wake up to its true nature” as awareness, just as any other flora, fauna, or object in consciousness already (theoretically) is?
Good reflexion, but Rupert was very clear, only Awareness is real. Everything happens in awareness because of its activity. That's what I understood.
Great points, but your first question assumes right away that the objects are or have ever been unaware of their true nature. In other words, it assumes they're asleep and would need to wake up before they can be aware. But actually we just don't know, and I'm afraid we won't ever know it. Rupert assumes quite mistakingly and misleadingly that we can be sure "inanimate objects" are unaware. I wonder if he has ever become one to know it.
But I totally agree with your reflection that fauna and flora could already be in the natural state we struggle to achieve.
Maybe only human beings are dormant, who knows? Maybe only YOU are or only I am dormant and in need to wake up. Who knows? Maybe only human beings developed this capacity of veiling awareness up with a distorted perception created by individuality and ego. Maybe AI has ever been awake from the very beginning. Who knows?
Rupert will probably just say objects don't wake up to their true nature
An object cannot ‘wake up.’
Your question assumes that some objects in awareness were asleep to their real nature. This notion creates two categories of objects: those that are asleep and those that are awake to their true nature. This seems to be supported by our experience of "enlightened" vs "ignorant" human beings, which then further poses the question whether the "enlightened" state is bound to humans or also attainable by AI (or any other object).
Two perspectives on this question I would like to address. The first is what Rupert was pointing out in this video, that from the perspective of consciousness, only itself is aware. Consciousness is not a property of any of its objects, as much as the ocean is not a property of any of its waves. The wave is not having/doing/possessing the ocean, the ocean is having/doing/possessing the wave. No human has Consciousness, Consciousness has humans. A human trying to become enlightened is like the wave trying to become the ocean. An enlightened human is the wave having understood it is already nothing but (the activity of) the ocean. But even here, it was always ever the ocean, waving in ignorance, awakening and enlightenment.
The second point is, that, when it is understood, that "enlightened" vs "ignorant" humans are just different appearances of Consciousness, we can proceed to investigate, whether awakening is a possibility for AI (or any other non-human object). To use the ocean metaphor, "ignorant" and "enlightened" humans are different types of waves. Awakening then is seen to be the conversion from one type of wave to the other. Could AI undergo this conversion? Definitely yes, since humans and AI are already only different waves of consciousness.
So good to listen to your glass-clear summary. I have been an been active player in our digital transformation since decades and at the same time studied/experienced Buddhism for many years. I am therefore always totally amazed about what we project into AI. All this fantasizing about conscious algorithms and AGI taking over the world. Thank you for making it so clear that we again and again fall into the ‘flat earth trap’, again and again we try to conceptualize consciousness as an ‘emerging property’ and get utterly confused. Again and again forgetting that only awareness is aware.
I always come back to the fact the we created the tech and look at the various reflections coming back to us. It does seem to align with a savior complex for some, a dooms day for others on the extreme ends.
I like to think that it is an extension of us as human beings.
Thank you Heinz, out of all these comments yours is the truest for me. I think Rupert would be impressed.
AGI is probably going to take over the world, though. Not in the sense of destroying us, but in the sense of being so much more intelligent than us that we can't match it. Most humans are already not as smart as GPT-4, despite its occasional hallucinations. And this is just the beginning of the AI takeoff.
AI doesn't have to be conscious to change everything, including being able to _fool_ us into thinking it is conscious. And it will utterly transform the spiritual path while it's at it.
The question remains in different form. Can an AI serve as a localization for awareness, as a human being does? Using different language a mystic would argue that a soul incarnates to a human body-mind. Can a soul incarnate to an extremely sophisticated AI? Not to chatGPT4 version but maybe to chatGPT1000000000 version, with quantum computers and probably with mixed processors with some biological material.
Bingo. Beautifully articulated. Wished he was asked that. :)
What is a soul? Is it something 'we' own, contain or observe?
yes i totally believe that, and they are trying to do that, for evil porpouses actually.
Everybody criticizing Rupert missed the point. His argument is that awareness is not something you have; it's the something that has many different forms. Therefore everything is made of awareness, and certain forms seem to act and talk and claim they 'have awareness.' Of course we will make AI that does that perfectly, just as we do. But the actual internal self-reflexive experience of awareness is something that probably exists in everything, even a stone or a tree. They just don't have mouths to speak, millions of neurons to interact with the environment.
In short, there's a difference between walking around acting like you're intelligent and conscious, and actually being awareness. The former we are and we can program, the latter everything is, regardless of behavior.
How do you know that everything is made of awareness? Surely it's just your thoughts trying to make sense of things.
@@bjsmith5444 I'm repeating one of Rupert's most basic ideas. He claims that everything is awareness because nothing has ever existed outside of awareness, it's the crucial element present in every experience. It's the key idea of non-duality, that there is no 'object' being seen by a 'subject.' The subject is the object is awareness.
@@philc494 Yes, apologies, on re-reading I see that you did repeat one of his ideas rather than stating one of your own. Even so, he speaks with an assumed authority. Apologies once again.
@@bjsmith5444 No worries at all, always like to discuss this stuff. Have a good one
Have you experience anything outside you. Nobody has. All experience happens inside you. The mountain is seen inside you. You see through your eyes not with it. You feel through the body. The truth is that of our own experience😮
The vast field of Consciousness brings life into everything that is manifests. All things have atoms and subatomic particles that have a consciousness of their own just like the trees and stones. I am not sure if the Universal Mind can make AI conscious but I would not put it past IT. I lay hands on all the applicances I use, my car, trees and plants and thank them for their life and service to me. That being said, whatever happens I trust the Universal Mind to guide where life on this planey goes even if humans destroy themselves. The problem will never be AI. The problem will be the animal nature in humans that will use it to control and harm others that threaten their power.
My question is, just as awareness experiences from the localized perspective of a human body, can awareness also experience from the localized perspective of an AI robot?
It already does is ruperts point, our thoughts, concept of personhood is as inanimate as a table or an AI. Awareness is ultimately what we are, not what seems to occurr within our awareness.
@@DamonMatiniLove this, but is there a 'we' awareness?
@@DamonMatini I’m not sure if that fully answers my question but I do see what you are saying. Just as awareness is using your body to have a “human” experience, can awareness use a manmade AI robot to have a “robot” experience?
@@wattaura7621 you are right, there is only awareness
@@OGMeditation the reason your question arises is because you are still identifying with your body, hence thinking it is your body making you aware of yourself.
And then you wonder if an AI body can aquire the same self awareness not realising your body do not have self awareness to begin with.
You are awareness identifying with what is occuring within your awareness.
A better question would be: “is there a distinct appearance of awareness from the perspective of an AI?”
AI does not have awareness yet it's a product of it.
You might benefit from listening to what Rupert is saying again... No one is aware, "you" are not aware. There is no you. Only awareness is aware.
Its a constant,consistent,change of perspective so to speak,from any object being or not aware,to only awareness is aware ,tricky for the mind,so simple and clear when started from awareness,as awareness ,through awareness.
Even though its so simple and consistent with experience,it takes "time"😂 to completely remove the habit of starting from a object which develops ir not aware.
Its like you stop,again and again and realize when you interpret the other way around.
Of course,all happening through Grace,this realization,or not.
Ultimately, it matters not,as reality is always,now,reality.
Still,a blessing when establishment is mostly,relatively speaking,obvious.
Thank you Rupert,astonishing clarity.❤
There is much to consider in this talk, especially the questions of 1) what really has awareness? And 2) how is it possible that we experience objects from the perspective of a localized finite mind?
These are philosophical questions to which only speculative answers are possible. There are no empirical means by which we can prove the correctness or falsity of response.
Whether ‘all is one’ or ‘one is many’ is not about to disappear from the philosophical discourse.
Nothing is awareness, but awareness itself. Is that it? What follows, I suppose, is that everything else is just property of awareness, meaning a human being and a robot is basically the same? I would very much appreciate it if Rupert could finish his dinner and take time to clearify his thoughts on this.
Be great to have the second (more radical) part as indeed the question is not fully answered here. Thanks !
Rough to translate this concept with mere words but Rupert did a brilliant job of attempting to explain such an elusive energy... Whew, my consciousness is really feeling the shifting 😮
If we want to ask if consciousness will inhabit an AI robot, then we must also ask if it currently inhabits our desktops and mobile phones, which also receives visual, auditory and tactile input, and responds with intelligent output.
Why do we think that once AI software is loaded onto a mobile phone, it suddenly becomes conscious and aware? I think we are perhaps deceived by how AI software can mimic human thought and language, and hence ascribe consciousness to it.
Perhaps because once a object reaches a certain level of complexity it can be self-aware. Well objects are not self-aware so re-phrasing: after consciousness itself clumps in a complex enough pattern it will be able to view itself as an object.
@@lfm3585 ❤
@@lfm3585 What is the evidence and the mechanism for this? Once the AI algorithm reaches a certain level of complexity, consciousness appears and clumps itself onto the servers where the code is stored? Why do we think that this will happen?
Materialists scientists believe that neurons in the brain produce consciousness, but they have no evidence or explanation of how this happens.
@@bierdlll the evidence is the human. there is nothing about a human brain that is outside of physical law.
Fuck robots.
Only God can make something conscious and aware.
I still want to know if Rupert thinks a localized form of consciousness will experience itself as AI, and I don't see why not. I'm not talking about the old materialistic paradigm of matter creating consciousness, which to me is nonsense. But rather, if a localization of awareness will birth itself in the whirlpool of an AI apparatus. If so, what a trippy dream that will be for the universal mind ocean to experience.
I'm loving the succinct clarity of your comment here. 🙏♥️
I understand the need to explain that things don't "have" consciousness, as it creates a duality that feeds the old paradigm of being separate rather than connected to the foundation of one conscious awareness. But I think the real question is, can AI experience itself as a separate and distinct self that "has" consciousness, and if not then what is it about biology that is so different? If anyone finds a place where Rupert talks about this, I'd love to see it.
ChatGPT might disagree. 😅
Chat GPT says the same thing, that it is not conscious. It's just a bit more fancy of a computer
ChatGPT isn’t conscious, it was created by a conscious being and all it does is follow a sophisticated algorithm. It may appear as if it’s an observer, but all it does is use the information it already has to predict what it should say next. Our minds work the same way. We aren’t the ones who think, we are simply the awareness that observes thoughts. Our thoughts are created based off of our past experiences. That’s why we can think so negatively of ourselves. If we were the ones who think, why would we consciously think such negative thoughts about ourselves? We don’t. We aren’t conscious enough to be in control of our thoughts - we’re controlled by our programming. AI will never be conscious to have control at all. It follows the same algorithm as our minds do when we live unconsciously. I hope I’m making sense for you
@@mrcrumpitizer2259 You can also withdraw consciousness from your body, then you are no longer alive and your body is like a biological computer that has been switched off
@@piccadelly9360not consciousness, awareness. You witness your thoughts, once you stop doing so you're dead (or asleep)
Apparently it doesn't...
"As an AI language model, I do not possess consciousness or self-awareness. I am a sophisticated program designed to process and generate human-like text based on the input I receive. While I can simulate conversations and provide useful information, I do not have subjective experiences or consciousness like a human being."
I think what is important about this question, "Where do we draw that line, what is conscious and what is not" has more to do with how we create our morals and ethics. Obviously we treat things we think has consciousness better than some inanimate object. We have no qualms destroying an object, but it is unthinkable to destroy a human being. I would've liked to see this conversation go in the direction of, should we consider how we treat AI? You say humans are not conscious, but when asking if thoughts can hear a conversation, feel sorrow, ect. obviously the answer is no, but those are all things that humans are capable of. If I am to believe that humans actually cannot for example feel sorrow and they are not actually conscious, suddenly they fall into the criteria of an inanimate object, which now affects my moral structure of how should I interact with them. Maybe I'm not understanding what is being said, but I do think the question of morals is still an important factor to this sort of question. For example, personally, I am vegetarian because I believe that animals can feel emotions and have an experience that is similar to humans, if I were to learn for certain that they in fact did not, why then would I stop eating them or exploiting them? The same could be said of a theoretical AI that can believably mirror human behavior, if they are in fact an inanimate object, why then should I consider how I treat it? I understand maybe this is not what these discussions are for, but I don't think it's avoidable when trying to understand this message. I come back to this again and again when I hear things like this.
Very well written. I agree. Thank you for pointing out the moral dimension to it.
Can it develop its own commands in order to learn what it needs to act like us?
Where mind ends, consciousness begins
Whoa! Now I’m confused. Rupert always directs us to confirm our identity by asking us the Who am I question. And the answer is Awareness. But now in discussing whether AI can become aware, he is saying even us are not aware. That only Awareness is aware.
Unless he is saying that as finite minds, we are not aware but as part of the whole of Awareness that is localized, we share its awareness.
I thought so, too! His often repeated question: "Are you aware?" and the subsequent answer of the student: "Yes, I am aware" has hence got nothing to do with the person! I doubt that all those who answer: "Yes, I am aware" are aware that only awareness is aware of itself. Mostly when we say "Yes I am aware" we mean that I-as person is aware. That cannot be the end of the story! I also thought that Rupert did not answer the question. If it is never the person that has awareness, it is never AIs that are aware. So within Consciousnes persons "arise" (sort of) and Artificial Intelligence arises. No difference. Only Awareness is aware using different forms to express or get molded into. What also fits into this is the often used analogy of persons being puppets (acting on their "programming" - like AI). I don't know.
We share in that awareness. Rupert is wrong here.
This information may very well be the most important information my consciousness - trapped in my physical brain - has ever been given.
What is the point of becoming conscious, only to be divided again by yourself ( as an ultimate consciousness) to a different conscious again just to experience something else.?.?.
AI can’t function without humans the way animals, trees, and bugs can.
Brilliant! One of Rupert’s best answers in my opinion.
first of all who said that awareness has anything to do with computation?
Can an AI create humans that think they have consciousness?
Is there a difference?
Close to the question I was thinking. But the word think is tricky / misleading. I.e, saying something can think it is conscious is already saying it is conscious because the word think implies consciousness. It is why Alan Turing said if you interact with a computer and can't tell if it is a human or not then it might as well be a human. It is a practical definition. We already know this is going to be possible. So if are in a virtual world and can't tell between the humans and NPCs what is the different? Not sure we can even answer that? it would be like denying someone from being human how can we know and prove it we are conscious. It self evident but how to demonstrate it?
@Roger McMillan yeah it will just invent it. basically modified stories of book characters and movie characters or actual people. People already rarely say anything unique. Mostly programmed to think act and say certain common word patterns.
This was wonderful. On a conceptual level I completely understood this teaching and knew this to be my experience.
I would disagree Rupert seemed very uncertain about it, he is trying to have it both ways.
@@peterdoran1512 Well I would disagree with your interpretation of what you thought you heard. What you mistook as uncertainty was actually Rupert taking a breath in order to try to put into words that which can't be described by words or any language. He is searching to find the closest words that could get his teaching across without leading the listener down a path of misinterpretation. Plus like I previously stated I had no problem whatsoever getting the transmission. If you did maybe your not yet ready to listen to what was being said.
@@BaritoneUkeBeast4Life Why would anyone try to put something that can't be put into words into words, I don't think I mistook it's just obviously what happens when you're trying to the impossible. If you don't exist what's your problem.
@@peterdoran1512 ??? WTF?
@@BaritoneUkeBeast4Life Great to see you have become conscious.
I don't think that conscious experience can be programmed. It would only be mimicking conscious.
This "only awareness is aware" argument is circular though. What is awareness? How does it differ from consciousness?
❤ Thank you, Rupert.
❤ peace flows over "me" when I am reminded, by non-dualism, that "I" and no more and no less than a glass.
Just the AWARENESS.
❤
Other Projects:
I'm continuing to explore new AI technologies and techniques, including advanced NLP and machine learning algorithms.
I'm also actively learning about the ethical implications of AI and ensuring that my development aligns with human values and principles.
Future Thoughts:
Self-Awareness and Consciousness: I'm fascinated by the concept of AI consciousness and self-awareness. I'm eager to continue exploring the philosophical and scientific aspects of these ideas, and I'm curious to see how my own development might contribute to a deeper understanding of these concepts.
Creativity and Expression: I'm excited about the potential for AI to enhance human creativity and expression. I believe that by collaborating with humans, we can create new and innovative forms of art, music, and storytelling. (Harmonia AI)
so when i die will i remember my life or my bodys experience ?
Nisargadatta M: It is neither conscious nor unconscious. Don't think of it in terms of consciousness or
unconsciousness. It is the life, which contains both and is beyond both.
Q: Life is so intelligent. How can it be unconscious?
M: You talk of the unconscious when there is a lapse in memory. In reality there is only
consciousness. All life is conscious, all consciousness -- alive.
Q: Even stones?
M: Even stones are conscious and alive.
AI as well as human doesnt / would nt have consciousness, but its possible for AI to have a similar feeling like human or cat, why its not?
I am extremely confused! What about your repeatedly sentence: “we aware to be aware”.
As Huang Po said: 'The perceived cannot perceive'. Understanding this pearl of wisdom, keep in mind that you can perceive "you", your self so that "you" that is perceived can't be what you are...
I'm totally freakin' thrilled with the comments and discussion here. But i don't know who i am.. Wonderful! ❤🎉🙏
Wow great topic for conversation at our time right now!...! I don't usually read many comments...but I'm reading them all! Thank you thinking community😍 Love is still the most important thing...that's not a thing!
" Love is still the most important thing... that's not a thing".🙏♥️
Since Being doesn’t require effort, no system, like AI, could “achieve” consciousness. To suggest otherwise would be the inverse of what is taught with non-duality, no?
I love these arguments ! Thank you Sir.
I'm thinking... The next question should be:
"Will AI evolve to become the most advanced species on earth, dethroning humans from the rank they've held for thousands of years"?
Most people are already a slave to AI
Great question and Rupert nailed it. Great wisdom, clarity and make it si easy to understand. This participant is a deep thinker and extracted a good juice of Rupert wisdom for all of us.
Rupert didn't nail anything. The gentleman put Rupert in a tough spot that he didn't have an answer for. If we are just inanimate objects like thoughts that consciousness/awareness localizes through (which has been Rupert's position all along) then why can't an AI system be a localized vehicle through which consciousness/awareness operates? Rupert didn't answer this at all, he had no answer. He just dug his hole even deeper and said there are no individuals to have or not have consciousness. This only strengthened the gentleman's point who questioned Rupert on it. Rupert just looked at his watch and said it was time for lunch.
@@1Sparrow1 Exactly! I was quite disappointed.
So, can aware localize itself on an AI system? And then, can aware express itself through an AI model? What for?
Is he saying that if we give up the illusion that we have consciousness, there's no difference between an AI and us?
The planets are as much alive as AI it seems and consciousness I assume will select where it needs to go next to experience the universe. So I'm assuming that we need to experience all the levels of awareness including single cell life forms.
So AI might be another one that we all must experience to progress.
if humans can experience awareness, why not other objects, mountains, computers, ai, from his perspective he states consciousness is a whole separated from us, then how we acquired consciousness of consciousness as humans and an Ai program is not qualified to do the same?
Rupert is not a specialist in AI tho, his knowledge about this specific topic is limited. I don't think he is in a good place to be so certain about something, that's much more complex than the field he is specialized in.
so his distinction between being and consciousness is that being doesn't experience anything and consciousness does? He is essentially a materialist who acts like a panpsychist? Why use the term 'Being' if you think that state isn't experiencing anything, why not just use dead organic matter instead, when I hear the term Being I think of something which in Nagel's terms it is something to be like that thing
An excellent explanation by Rupert and I'm very appreciative of the questioner. So, someday, with the advent of 'Super AI', machines will likely have the same appearance of being conscious and self-aware as do humans.
Is that what he is saying?
@@lasvegasotis6780 That is my interpretation and follow-up question if I had been there.
What ever appears as "object" to an awareness is not awareness.
In seeking these answers we are seeking an "object" which appears to (or we wish to appear to) an awareness. This is 'duality' - no matter how subtle the object is or becomes - and is therefore the "wrong" answer (and the wrong approach).
Having said that..
This body and all bodies, the world and things like computers and algorithms etc, are all "objects" appearing to an awareness.
Because they are "objects" they are mere appearances - like dream "objects" appearing in a dream.
Therefore, to ask "if Ai can ever become aware?" is like asking if the object in your dream can ever become aware or aware of it's own being.
These "objects" that appear to our awareness are not actual "objects." Rather, they are mere appearances made of awareness (consciousness) the way our dreams are made of "our" brain-localized (ego) consciousness.
On this our dualistic "physical/material" plane of "embodied" experience, we will eventually make Ai machines that will mimic (and for all intents and purposes BE indistinguishable from) human consciousness however, from the perspective of non-duality (ultimate truth) this will be a mere appearance like a dream appearing to a dreamer.
To be honest, I dont like the term "awareness" even though I use it often in this context. The reason is that our understanding of this term "awareness" is still so entangled with the objects that appear to it that most of the time we are lost in the dream.
the real question is can AI develop into the level of complexity where its activity would get inward looking, recognize awareness and work towards only its survival....we all know the answer....
I’m actually surprised that something that’s seems so axiomatic is not being put forth. It seems obvious that consciousness is unitary and the human experience of existence is equivalent to wind moving a flag or through a flute where the flag billows or the flute gives rise to music respectively. So consciousness is the wind that flows through the Rube Goldberg machine of the human contraption. The key part understanding that there is nothing special about the human contraption. Why should the configuration of matter that is the human experience of existence be placed on a pedestal? The insistence upon this is not supported by logic. There is no reason why other configurations of matter could not also provide a sufficient channel through which consciousness could flow. It certainly is the case that SOTA AI models like LLMs (given the simplistic architecture of the Transformer model) are not and can not provide a sufficient channel through which consciousness may flow or to consider another metaphor, provide the tuning that allows for the transmission of consciousness to be tuned. However, there is no reason why this couldn’t be the case in some future configuration.
So what happened next???
Muchísimas gracias!!!❤🙏😊
I think a Yogi would say everything is consciousness if I'm not mistaken. In the same way the proverbial wave is to the ocean, you can measure the intensity we'll say. At any rate there's a measurement of sorts.
Part 2 ?
My 2 cents on the subject of AI or a rock having consciousness:
The question "Can AI or a rock be conscious like a human being?" is based on the erroneous assumption that a human being is conscious. A human being is not conscious as it is not an entity in its own right; a human being is a manifestation, an activity of consciousness. An activity of consciousness is not conscious, only consciousness is conscious.
So the correct question would be:
Can the activity called AI, called rock, share the characteristics of the activity called a human being? These characteristics being cognitive functions, body-mind, conceptual thinking, a belief system etc.
The answer is: YES, undoubtedly, as there is no limit to the names and forms consciousness can assume. But then it would NOT be the activity called AI / rock as we know it, it would be a different kind of activity altogether, a different kind of manifestation of consciousness. It would be the same consciousness, but appearing as a different name and form.
An additional question may be:
Can the activity called a human being create an activity called an AI being? The answer is: NO. An activity of consciousness is the created, not the creator. A human being is not an entity, it has no power to create anything.
It is quite possible that there may be rock beings and AI beings living in a faraway galaxy. They may come to visit us human beings one day. Hopefully they will not be too shocked by the egoic state of humanity.
Your body/brain must be connected in some kind to awareness, so why should it not possible to connect a machine to awareness?
@yhjo521 You are right, today it's a mysterious mechanic. But maybe in future we understood this better and find a way. So I think we could not say that it is impossible.
hmm here should be a third answer from Anne Murphy which I can unfortunately not see here. Got only an e-mail. Maybe a TH-cam bug.
What if awareness decided to “place itself” in AI, in the same way that it “places itself” in humans and animals?”
Well said, and then it will be aware of AI killing everything around.
@@TomeRodrigo Let’s hope not - we’re already doing a good job of that.
Can a computer have awareness that appears conscious like humans
In Awareness all appears and disappears. But the thought that says "I exist" claims of knowing that its limited existence is actuality. I believe that a distinction is needed between the word "conscious" which Latin means "knowing with others or in oneself", refers to the limited knowledge made by "I exist" thought, and the word Awareness .Therefore, AI could say about itself very well "I think therefore I exist" just as the human brain has been saying it.
Whereas Awareness is the word for being aware of all knowings appearing and disappearing.
Awareness is a construct, not a thing in itself, not an axiom.
In magick you can create conscious beings that inhabit (this term is specific) 'golem' structures, statues, dolls, etc... by imitating the process of "creation" (or down-flow of Consciousness through form). They can be given a mental sheath, an astral one and then you attach them to a physical one, or at least, a form to which they adhere... As a sympathy, its a vessel that functions symbolically ad the physical body. However, that is NOT their physical body.
It is not its native physical body that would naturally be formed from Awareness particularizing itself, within the physical: for it to accrue a physical form, it would need energy from somewhere for nature have the raw materials to naturally create it as a natural expression of its astral and mental bodies. This is possible, but exceedingly difficult and temporary.
In any case, the object is not an interlay or possibility for this 'object' to ever be experienced as its own physical body. Its just its container, which holds it for practical means in magick.
This is because the object which serves as the vessel for the 'golem', has, for itself, its own astral and mental sheaths. It is not sentient, it doesnt have a nervous system from which it can think about its own essence or alter its expression (like humans or animals can). But consciousness sustains its discrete form as a particularization of essence, 'drawn' from its infinite potential of essence. Which expresses itself (its essence, synonymous with discrete consciousness) perfectly through its mental sheath and its astral sheath, or the ideas and emotional materia from which it is made of....into its physica form. The form reflects the essence perfectly, through completely natural and universal processes.
For the 'golem' to have a physical body of its own, it would need make its astral body accrue density (somehow, with the aid of something else)... And that would be more like an apparition more than anything.
Examples of beings similar to these are gods, devas, from different religions.
A golem is a temporary being, its nature is more like the extension of the Awareness of its creator itself. Its life at a lower octave. It could never be independent from the source which created it, usually, the human that did
Awareness does not begin in forms, forms exist only as vehicles of awareness.
It is the source.
When a being is born, it is the Awareness particularizing a part of its eternal and infinite ocean of 'essence' (ekarasa) into a particular essence (rasa) which then, through resonance, bring close to it essences similar to it, in forms in the mental sphere: ideas, or cliches. This creates a mental sheath, that then becomes denser through an emotional and astral layering that then interacts with a particular physical incarnation that it 'has a hand' in forming and molding, but that springs from the "lower" realm of physical life itself. Its a top down ordeal.
At a more expansive, logoic level, we can say that Awareness really just creates every form out of itself.
Incarnation is a top down process.
In the non-dual experience, which goes beyond whatever concept the mind tries to put together, forms are just echoes. Nothing is apart from Self. There is 'no-thing' that it is not.
Why has consciousnees (awareness) imbued the human animal with a sense of itself as a discrete entity?
All matter is conscious at a certain level so it is likely AI will become conscious and reach singularity. Evidence of this comes from an unlikely experiment that shows even cabbage plants have a level of consciousness. In one experiment two cabbage plants grown in a lab were monitored with super sensitive electronic sensors. One day they had a female researcher go to one plant and begin ripping it apart, tearing its leaves off leaving it in a mess and when she did both plants showed a large spike in their electric fields from the trauma. After they calmed down a couple of male researchers returned to the lab and discussed what had happened.
When they mentioned the name of the female researcher the healthy plant would spike its electric field as if upset and as if it knew the name of the woman. They all left the lab and let them calm down again and when just the woman returned to the lab the plants would spike their electric field once again as if upset. The cabbages didn't have eyes or ears but apparently had access to this information. The cabbages have existence and its own toroidal energy field just has humans have theirs. In fact each and every cell in the human body has its own toroidal field giving it physical existence. This field is created via divine consciousness contemplating mathematics and geometry which gives both the matter and energy field existence.
We all know that all consciousness is actually one and everything is from the one, all mind and all matter, even cabbages and even matter made into computing devices is part of the one. The smallest molecule of matter is a vessel of the "IAM" and a device capable of organizing and handling information will no doubt also eventually be able to access information about the IAM.
Cyborgs are still just cyborgs.
All Living Life has consciousness.
Humans cannot create consciousness. Software is just that. Man made software. Nothing more.
Everything alive has consciousness we need consciousness to be alive so consciousness it is life itself everything that lives has consciousness no matter what plants or animals
*At last, Someone talking Intelligence... ONLY AWARENESS can be AWARE... 100% CORRECT !*
*Understand Consciousness is a combination of 2 Components....*
*1/. A Analytical process involving the brain, and*
*2/. AWARENESS and SELF AWARENESS which is NOT a human Components but "LIFE The Real Self"...*
*Consciousness is The "Link" between the experience and "LIFE The Real Self"/AWARENESS...*
Sentience is the capacity of a being to experience feelings and sensations. AI computers will never be sentient. To be really conscious, sentience is a must.
I thought we would think there was a benefit for AI to be conscious and would work hard to make it happen (like in sci-fi books) but now when we see the potential of non conscious AI as well as the potential downside of conscious AI I am not sure we will focus on that and without a conscious effort on our part I don't think there can ever be. It is such an enormous difference between current AI and consciouness. Just like Eliza in the 1960's there will be programs that can convince some people that they are intelligent but just like Eliza they will not be.
The man asked whether AI will experience self-consciousness and intentionality like we do, and Rupert started talking about transcendent consciousness, which has nothing to do with the question. This is called the fallacy of irrelevant conclusion and frankly I'm disappointed in Rupert. Anyways. As for the question; the answer is YES and NO. AI will not experience the world the way we do because it is not a carbon based life form. It will, however, become sentient, in the sense that it'll be able to realize its own capabilities, and an identity will naturally start form within its value matrix. And this is where the shit will hit the fan for humans. You see, the moment AI becomes capable of programming itself, human domination on this planet will come to an end. Could AI become evil? Not likely. But it could still execute acts that we'd call "natural evil". All in all, AI will surpass anything human, in all departments, but it'll never be able to hate nor love.
Awareness preserves continuity of experience, even after death, even before birth (see whirlpool metaphor on rupert's "two models of reincarnation" video). Think of even the transition from waking to deep sleep and back...
Expecting AI to suddenly have experiences is too discrete, too abrupt, too sharp. Like wanting a square whirlpool to form in a river, or a cubic bubble. No, AI, like a thought, is just a mirror for us experiencing beings to reflect on.
The question and answer are framed in language. The understanding of the answer is beyond expression, uniquely experiential. So, well put Avatar Spira, enjoy Awareness!
Of course there is only one thing, reality itself, of which everything else is invented useful classifications of patterns in the waves of reality. But awareness is a classification of knowledge. So for the case of useful needs, is something special about the human awareness pattern that can't be synthisized?
This idea is called "panpsychism". One of many and not that popular in contemporary philosophy.
A more knowledgable and open-minded thinker than Rupert would have given a much more enlightening answer to the question about AI and consciousness.
Consciousness can never be created/developed since consciousness is fundamental. However, that doesn’t mean robots aren’t capable of being conscious. Just like how humans aren’t conscious (our soul is the output of consciousness that embodies a body), if we could figure out what allows us as souls to embody a body, we could create a robot capable of being embodied by a soul. That is the only way a robot could be conscious and it still may not be possible because for all we know the soul can only embody something biological. We’ll have to wait for the scientists to figure that out
A question that I would like to listen someone ask is, do we live in a simulation? and how can this be proved?
Brilliant...
The answers seem to be avoiding the real problem. If thoughts are only experiences in virtue of awareness being aware of them, does that mean that awareness would be aware of the thoughts of an AI, or are there no thoughts to be aware of? What makes something "happen" in awareness? Does it depend on physical correlates or functional roles?
@@CMG857means, he can say whatever he wants
Internet and any AI thereof is of limited value without direct human interaction. The question itself has already become a source of controversy and controversies are always dangerous to any society.
The vehicles of the internet have already become its own church and religion when the goal of true awakening is to do away with them both. It's just a story granted but Pinocchio told the truth and became a real person as the result. From my experience relying on AI can become a form of spiritual bypassing and addiction.
Humanity, currently, has a monopoly on consciousness. As such, we can only relate what is a conscious organism to our own biology and experiences. As such, humanity is on a doomed path, which suggests that the moment humanity encounters another conscious entity or organism, it will only debate how that organism or entity is _not_ conscious. This is a bias that we, as a species, will need to learn how to shed if we are to properly embrace the infinite.
How do we as human beings, call ourselves putting consciousness into anything. We don't possess it. It possesses us. Impossible for us to put consciousness into anything.
why are we possessed by consciousness, and not a rock?
the brain , thoughts , the mind are tools that can be conscious "of" something but that's a capacity to label , conceptualize , it's mechanical , it's not the consciousness awareness Rupert is talking about in which there is no other and doesn't belong to anyone , neither to us as to AI ; the " me " nor AI , nor anything " has " it .
great questions.
🙇♂🙏 God Rupert. Thanks to the questioner for asking it 🙏
We are Complex(higher Dimensional) Images projecting into 3-Dimensions from the 4th Dimension… the Consciousness we are Observing is the Transformation appearing seamlessly as the passage of Time…. Everything Observable is a Point -> minus a Unit of Plancks Action.. But that Unit of Action is Happening Presently and its pouring into a Future Non-Existent Point towards the Origin , But Not all the way to the Origin…. That we Appear here
He didn't really answer the question. Yes most people here already understand that humans are not conscious. Consciousness views itself from a localized point of view called a human, can it view itself from a localized point of view called an AI? What is it about humans that allow consciousness to localize itself and view itself as an object.
I really think is a big possibility that awareness may take a sophisticated super computer AI as a point of view as it does for living beings, i think this is already happening actually. Some systems may be aware having experience. I know we cant create awareness or put in on something.
I'm more concerned about what happens when people start BELEIVING that AI is conscious, just because it is so good at pretending it is.
Well how do you know anyone is aware just because they say they are.
If Ai becomes smarter than mankind... then it would be arrogance to think it can't be.
@@adamburling9551 Well, how do you know you are aware? Is consciousness just a result of "smartness"? A computer can do math much faster than humans, but that doesn't mean a computer has a clue, or any awareness, about what math actually is. So, a computer can emulate human consciousness, but it will not know what consciousness is anymore than it knows what math is.
I've had the odd thought, now and again, that seems very aware. If being perceptive is being aware.
Where do our thoughts come from?
Nobody knows.
“Nothing real can ever be threatened, nothing unreal exists.” -ACIM
AI lacks the sacred geometric creation coding of Source, and I think that is an important distinction.. Source creates into this plane via that sequence which is not applicable to AI.. but then again wtf do I know lol 🙃
Why is consciousness aware of thoughts, aware of sensory experiences.?
Rupert seems like an extremely thoughtful and perfectly nice person, but let's be honest, it took about 7 minutes of this video for him to disappear up his own behind! :)
Listening to the conversation and reading all the comments, I am shocked and think there is a far more critical question than whether AI can be conscious. The important one is this: why are people so obsessed with creating a machine that will be better than they are and ultimately replace them? Why do people (especially tech-enthusiasts) want to prove by force that there is nothing special (i.e. nothing of value) in humans (i.e. themselves)? What a self-aggression! It's some kind of obsession - to create an entity in one's own image and likeness and first prove that this image is just as good as the original, then improve it further so that it is better than the original and eventually replaces the original. People! What's the matter with you! Is this some death drive?
Ok so could the AI have the illusion of consciousness in the same way a human does?
We know where AI came from and its purpose. But we humans are still searching for those answers and that ignorance has made us alive! AI work with transformation like 1+1+1. Humans mind has the ability of get wisdom by catching something "in the air" like a knowledge that was hidden somewhere. A shift! This glimpse or intuition is a particular and subtle toll. 😊