Andrew
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 8,345
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 22, 2023 21:08:48 GMT
|
|
Esponja
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Esponja on Feb 26, 2023 19:59:03 GMT
I asked it about LoA.
Additionally, some critics argue that the Law of Attraction is based on pseudoscientific or spiritual beliefs and lacks empirical evidence to support its claims.
š¤£š¤£š¤£
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 5, 2023 23:45:14 GMT
Am currently reading this book....written from pov of a robot.....that has feelings and other human like responses....that self-reflects and seemingly "cares"...hmmmm...  Am enjoying the unfolding story but there seems to me to be some operant erroneous premises behind the main character/robot.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 10, 2023 0:01:16 GMT
The very question: Can AI/robots ever become actual experiencers/perceivers, is a relative question only. From the transcendent/impersonal view, it's entirely misconcieved.
Ultimately, there ARE no boundaries. But relatively speaking, within experience, there are very much apparent boundaries. Absent boundaries, there can be zero experience....so boundaries are not something that we need to get rid of of deny so long as they are seen to be apparent only.
Even if it's all rendered down to a singular, experienced field, THAT is a distinction arising within/to the ground of awareness. The fact the singular, energetic field IS experienced, IS a perceivable, means it is relatively "bound/limited" BY mind. It has no fundamental existence in it's own right.
Individuated consciousness-es, are of the realm of the relative/personal viewpoint. Ultimately, even the first-hand, direct knowing of "my" so called 'personal/individuated' experience, relative to other, apparent experience, is at best appearance only, arising within/to, undifferentiated, abiding ground of awareness, at worst, assumed. (There can only be "individuated experiences" is there are multiple experiences."
Multiple, individuated conscious experiencers/experiences, are of the relative realm only. Seen from beyond the dream, appearance only....no abiding, inherent existence to that experiential facet.
The ground of awareness is not itself 'limited/bound,' all limitation is but an appearance only, arising as a temporal expression. No substance.
So, the convo about AI robots possibly "becoming" individually, sentient, aware, conscious, really has no place at all in Nonduality/Truth-talk.
Just as the question "are other people who appear, actually experiencers/perceivers?" That question is ultimately misconceived because actual "perceivers/experiencers" get seen through in SR/awakening. The SR vantage point reveals that while experience continues to arise, there is ultimately, NO experiencer. In actuality, Experience arises to no one, no thing.
Nonduality reveals all experiential content, including so called "personal consciousness" to be empty and devoid of inherent existence...empty and devoid of Truth. That continues to remain an important facet of the story though, of course...."I am personally conscious, and you are personally, individually, conscious," but ultimately, experiential....appearance based.
Bingo! So long as it stays within relative theorizing, we can indeed have that convo. When we shift into Truth-talk/Nonduality, AI,s becoming individually conscious, experiencers/perceivers, - delusion/misconception.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2023 12:58:58 GMT
The very question: Can AI/robots ever become actual experiencers/perceivers, is a relative question only. From the transcendent/impersonal view, it's entirely misconcieved. [...] Bingo! So long as it stays within relative theorizing, we can indeed have that convo. When we shift into Truth-talk/Nonduality, AI,s becoming individually conscious, experiencers/perceivers, - delusion/misconception. I wasn't asking about whether AI can "become conscious". It's an interesting question too, but I wasn't asking it. I was asking about the use of this word "intelligence". Some people use it on the forum talking about a unified field of "intelligence", and then they say that AI isn't, or can't be, "intelligent". That's a contradiction. These questions are not (always) misconceived or useless. It matters how you ask them, and where you're coming from, which isn't always obvious from surface language. Bumping up against the paradox and mystery - those can be good questions. They can also just be fun conversations. I don't think the forum should always talk about "non-duality". There are other "deep" topics that are interesting and fit in the forum, in my opinion. You seem to have this idea that there is a clear demarcation between "truth-talk" and something else, which has "no place" in "non-duality". But as we've seen on that forum, it's pretty easy for people who are kidding themselves, or trying to kid others, to babble and pontificate using the words of non-duality. So if there is a magic ingredient to a good discussion, it's not simply the use of certain words or the surface topic. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 10, 2023 18:37:01 GMT
I wasn't asking about whether AI can "become conscious". It's an interesting question too, but I wasn't asking it. I was asking about the use of this word "intelligence". Some people use it on the forum talking about a unified field of "intelligence", and then they say that AI isn't, or can't be, "intelligent". That's a contradiction. Ah, ok. As I see it, for an AI bot to BE "intelligent" in any other way than "intelligently programmed," would pretty much equal to "consciously aware/sentient." How would you describe the important different between "conscious" vs. "intelligent"? I agree completely that those questions are not always misconceived or useless. They are though misconceived from the transcendent viewpoint/impersonal viewpoint, Nonduality. Relatively speaking, not useless at all. It's true, we don't always talk specifically about Nonduality/Truth on this forum, and all kinds of so called "spiritual discussion" is allowed, and will continue to be allowed, however, as I created the forum, it was with Truth-talk in mind...Nonduality, and that continues to be my highest interest as I engage here. There are some existential questions/ideas that truly do get seen as misconceived in the shift of locus of seeing that is SR. Which means, there can still be relative theorizing, but with a clear seeing/knowing that there is no pat, Absolute, certain answer you'll ever be able to arrive at. In SR, it is revealed that ultimately, there is no "perceiver"....no "experiencer," and that Truth always trumps relative experiential ideas. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2023 20:03:58 GMT
I wasn't asking about whether AI can "become conscious". It's an interesting question too, but I wasn't asking it. I was asking about the use of this word "intelligence". Some people use it on the forum talking about a unified field of "intelligence", and then they say that AI isn't, or can't be, "intelligent". That's a contradiction. Ah, ok. As I see it, for an AI bot to BE "intelligent" in any other way than "intelligently programmed," would pretty much equal to "consciously aware/sentient." How would you describe the important different between "conscious" vs. "intelligent"? Consciousness (or awareness) is very difficult to talk about, but I'll say it means the subjective experience of life, the "light" of experience. Consciousness might contain only raw sensation with no intellectual "thoughts" at all, or a super simple "dumb" thought, like just feeling "attraction to food smell" or something like that. There are "AI" systems that are very much "programmed", and I agree that when you pull back the curtain and see the mechanistic rule-based logic of something, like say a chess program, it kills the magic of it in a way. On one hand it is "intelligent", because it is doing something we consider intelligent (like winning at chess), but in another way it is dumb, because it's "just" following the programming. But there is another kind of "programming" used more recently for the systems that are having more natural-sounding conversations, writing poems, making paintings, or recognizing images. With these they build a neural net like the human brain and then turn it loose on "training data". And this system, which they don't fully understand, learns and starts to behave with apparent "intelligence", by performing the behaviors I just mentioned. It's still mechanistic, but it's kind of a gray area between programming and not programming. Some people on the other forum were suggesting that humans have some kind of magic something that a "machine" will never have. I was probing that and wondering about that might be. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 10, 2023 20:31:33 GMT
Consciousness (or awareness) is very difficult to talk about, Yes, agreed! If we're talking 'fundamental, ground of consciousness/awareness, absent all experiential content', there are no words that will do it justice....it's is entirely non-conceptual in nature. Ah, see to me, what you are describing there is "experiential content," and not that which lies fundamental. Awareness can exist absent experiential content, but where there is experiential content, it is always grounded in, arising dependent upon Awareness. Raw sensation, simple/dumb thought, all feelings, All senses, are 'perceivables.' Temporal, appearance, an arising 'within/to' the ground of Awareness. In order to see/know that 'ground of Awareness' that is NOT 'experiential/a perceivable/an appearance,' there must be seeing/realizing that is "prior to/beyond" any and ALL content...however subtle. This is why I delineate between seeing that is 'within the dream,' vs. 'beyond.' Awareness as the ground, abides, unwavering, as temporal appearances come and go...Awareness does not arise within experience, but rather, experience arises in Awareness. That remains inherent in "I am all of it...awareness and content." It remains Absolute Truth that content requires awareness, but awareness does not require content to BE. Cool. I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for explaining the diff. between the two kinds of programming/systems. Yes, it gets interesting when we consider the degree to which humans are apparently 'programmed' by conditioning. It could be said that that is similar to the 'programming' that gets applied in an AI bot. As I keep saying though and will continue to say, as Truth trumps all relative seeing/knowing and most certaintly trumps delusion/illusion, being awake has a way of quelling or at least mitigating the degree of interest in those kinds of ideas. We don't know the direct experience/perceptions of the apparent person before us....just because someone says "I am conscious" that doesn't equal Absolute proof of "being conscious." And that can be seen purely from the relative/personal position. From the transcendent position of being awake, it's crystal clear that ultimately, there is no some-thing that is 'perceiving/experiencing. That the some-thing that 'seems to be' experiencing/perceiving, is itself, a mere perception...erroneous at that! |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 11, 2023 22:03:12 GMT
|
|
Esponja
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Esponja on May 10, 2023 10:27:06 GMT
No, the COVID-19 vaccination is not bad for us. In fact, the COVID-19 vaccines have been extensively tested in clinical trials involving tens of thousands of people and have been found to be safe and effective in preventing COVID-19 infections and reducing the severity of illness.
The vaccines have undergone rigorous testing and regulatory processes before being authorized for emergency use by various health regulatory agencies around the world, including the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and the World Health Organization (WHO).
It is normal to have questions or concerns about the vaccine, but the overwhelming scientific evidence suggests that the benefits of vaccination far outweigh the risks. COVID-19 has caused significant illness, hospitalization, and death around the world, and vaccination is currently the best tool we have to prevent the spread of the disease and protect ourselves and our communities.
Chat gpt š¤š¤”š¹
|
|
