ChatGPT answers metaphysical questions :)

[AshvinP]

(1) you are reading a line of argumentation into Max's post which simply isn't there (there is no argument that GPT-like technology is absolutely evil, dangerous, etc. under any and all circumstances, independent of how our living thinking approaches it)

I didn’t read anything whatsoever into Max's post. I simply reported his words without expounding anything additional from them. He has explicitly taken a stance (or opinion, in Max’s words) in the question, as a starting point of the argumentation. There was clearly no need for me to read anything.

Yes, you did. In your comment, you said, "With reference to the stated opinion that the implications of the technology are deleterious, and that AI is dangerous and pernicious." Now let's look at the sentences Max wrote which used those words:

Countless people have weighed in, whether to sing its praises or to sound the alarm in respect to the deleterious implications of a computer having passed the so-called “Turing Test”2 and thereby becoming capable of producing language-like output indistinguishable from the language of an actual human interlocutor
...
If humanity is outsourcing its innate powers of the soul onto its artefacts and simultaneously allowing these powers to atrophy at their source, then few tasks could strike one with greater exigency than the preservation and cultivation of these same powers as well as the house that sustains and gives rise to them, It is precisely in this respect that the GPT-3 engine presents its most pernicious face.

[he never uses the word "dangerous" in the essay]

You are manufacturing your own generalized, absolutized argument about 'dangerous and pernicious' AI technology, of the sort you employed in the VR discussion as well, and projecting that onto what Max wrote, which is much more contextualized. It's like you assume that because it is the argument you naturally would have made (perhaps prior to the VR exchange), it must be the one he is making. You are not simply reporting what he wrote. Do you still not see this happening, at this point?

Here I have to note that every time I have dared to question the least bit of expression coming from Cleric of Max, without exception, you have become defensive. This makes you come out with hurried and inaccurate statements, such as this one:

(2) You are implicitly holding thinking activity and its outer physiognomy (language-forms) at arms length. If you weren't, then there would be no questioning the premise that thought-meaning is inseparable from language. The problem with "if it can arrange language, then it can arrange meaning" is the assumption that the GPT bot can arrange language independently of human thinking intelligence. The problem is the keeping of our own thinking involvement in the blind spot, so we project out the intelligence onto something external.

If you carefully read my original post, you will notice that I reference "if it can arrange language, then it can arrange meaning" as the wrong premise, held by those who believe the chat bot is intelligent, not by me. They do idolize the language arrangement displayed by the bot as a sign of independent intelligence. I certainly don’t do that. I totally agree that our thinking involvement is the only reason the bot appears to chat like a human.

Yes, I know that. It is you who didn't carefully read what I wrote. The problem with "if it can arrange language, then it can arrange meaning" is not what you think it is, as expressed in the original post. The premise of thought/meaning being inseperable from language is correct, contrary to what you stated in the original post. I am pointing out why you have done something similar to the people who hold its language use reflects intelligence - you have simply assumed it is using language. Since you know it's not intelligent, you conclude that means language must be seperable from thought/meaning. But that's not correct. The correct insight is that it is not using language, because "it" only exists as an extension of our collective intelligence which uses language. It is simply a mirror of that collective intelligence which we have set up. A mirror-image of someone speaking is not itself using language.

(3) You still don't quite get what principled understanding I was arguing for in our recent VR discussion, and therefore think is it at odds with what Max argued for in this post. Especially this paraphrase of the argument signals to me you aren't quite getting it - “Nonsense, it’s not by looking away from it, it’s not by compensating it with spiritual practice, that VR will be redeemed, but by descending in it. Some will have to do it." Actually the spiritual practice is the only thing which will redeem materialistic technology - not by shutting ourselves into asceticism and pretending the technology doesn't exist, but by bringing the fruits of our spiritual practice (including our rigorous logical reasoning) into the sphere of such technological phenomena. Is that not what Max is doing by writing the very well-reasoned essay?

It could very well be that I still don’t get what you were arguing in the VR discussion. However we don’t need to circumnavigate that far to pursue this present discussion. One thing you were certainly arguing for (I don't have enough time now, but I will go search for the quotes if necessary, later today) is that some people at least should descend in the material/sensorial experience of a technology, and that my opinion that it was deleterious in general was arbitrary, and wrong. Is this correct? Now I agree, what the essay is doing is to prescribe those who are interested to have a prescription, that the technology “must be met with a correlative development and elevation” so yes, with compensating spiritual practice. But what you were arguing for VR was rather that some will have to descend in the practical experience of it, not in a correlative spiritual practice away from it (unless you decide to define “spiritual practice” in a very counter-intuitive, all encompassing way that would cover anything we can ever endeavor, in all spectrums.)

I am not really interested in re-explaining all of my arguments from the entire VR discussion here. Suffice to say, the real question you should be asking yourself is, 'why am I always trying to debate about a current topic by referring to my understanding of someone's old comments and comparing them to my understanding of their new comments?' Instead of that, why not just focus on the logical coherency of the comments I am making right now, right here, on this thread? If you think what Max wrote is completely at odds with the principle that we can redemptively approach material technologies with our elevated thinking for pedagogical value, even though that is what he ostensibly did in the very act of writing the essay, then you are simply reading things into what he wrote, and I have already explained why.

Basically, my quote above could be reformulated as, "we are all at risk of becoming less human, just like the cannibals who consume their own kind". Then would you feel it is at odds with what Max wrote?

Yes I would. Because calling cannibals less human on the basis of their behaviors, sets a discontinuity between behaviors that can be considered fully human on the one end, and, on the other end, behaviors that would be less human than human, beyond a certain threshold (that you should now define or explain). The fact that we are all at risk to lapse into these behaviors only transfers the act of discontinuing from segmenting humanity, into segmenting behaviors. As I understood it, this was not the spirit of your quote:

I work to internalize that these are not your thoughts, your habits, or your soul-tendencies, or those of the people who immerse themselves in VR and materialistic technologies, or the rapists and murderers for that matter, but they are ours as a Karmically interwoven collective of individual perspectives which comprise humanity and the Cosmic "I".

You are projecting your obsession with rigid definitions onto me and then assuming that is the 'spirit' in which I wrote something previously. Again, I have to ask why you are holding an artificial debate between your understanding of Max and your understanding of my older comment, instead of just trying to discern the logical coherence of what we are saying right now on this thread? Does it make sense to you or not?

Let me put it this way - I am less than human whenever I approach my fellow humans and beings without the love, respect, dignity they deserve as microcosmic images of God. Yes, I am always fluctuating along a gradient of 'humanness' throughout my day and frequently failing to live up to my 'human' ideal. That is what my true humanity is - an ideal of Earthly evolution. The cannibal is clearly further away from that ideal than I am right now, but animalistic tendencies which lead to cannibalistic behaviors still live within me and could come to outer expression if I do not persistently seek the high ideals with living thinking and progressively transmute-transfigure-redeem those tendencies.

[Federica]

Yes, you did. In your comment, you said, "With reference to the stated opinion that the implications of the technology are deleterious, and that AI is dangerous and pernicious." Now let's look at the sentences Max wrote which used those words:

Countless people have weighed in, whether to sing its praises or to sound the alarm in respect to the deleterious implications of a computer having passed the so-called “Turing Test”2 and thereby becoming capable of producing language-like output indistinguishable from the language of an actual human interlocutor
...
If humanity is outsourcing its innate powers of the soul onto its artefacts and simultaneously allowing these powers to atrophy at their source, then few tasks could strike one with greater exigency than the preservation and cultivation of these same powers as well as the house that sustains and gives rise to them, It is precisely in this respect that the GPT-3 engine presents its most pernicious face.

[he never uses the word "dangerous" in the essay]

You are manufacturing your own generalized, absolutized argument about 'dangerous and pernicious' AI technology, of the sort you employed in the VR discussion as well, and projecting that onto what Max wrote, which is much more contextualized. It's like you assume that because it is the argument you naturally would have made (perhaps prior to the VR exchange), it must be the one he is making. You are not simply reporting what he wrote. Do you still not see this happening, at this point?

Ashvin, I don’t know how to read your incomplete quotes. Well, I will not try to, I will simply add what’s missing. In the essay we can read:

“Countless people have weighed in, whether to sing its praises or to sound the alarm in respect to the deleterious implications of a computer having passed the so-called “Turing Test”² and thereby becoming capable of producing language-like output indistinguishable from the language of an actual human interlocutor. Likely I have already betrayed my opinion on this matter from my choice of diction in the prior sentence so I will dispense with the introductory remarks and cut to the chase”

Prior to any argumentations, we are informed that the author has an opinion on the matter that is betrayed by some choice of diction. What do you think is the diction in question here? I understand that it refers to the word “deleterious”. Do you agree? If you do, it means we are invited to take note of the opinion that a computer having passed the Turing test has deleterious implications. Isn’t this opinion announced in the most general form possible? It comes as an opening remark, to make things clear, in line with a certain straightforward voice of this essay. It sets the framework of the argumentation to follow. It is not limited by any conditions or restrictions. How else would you call this if not a general statement? The author is telling us (paraphrased) “let’s be clear, my opinion is, this thing is harmful”. How can this even begin to be made into me “manufacturing my own generalized, absolutized argument, projecting it onto what Max wrote”?
To confirm this opinion, later in the essay, further descriptions are given, to qualify the technology:

“[Sokolowski’s argument presents a felicitous següe into] the second item that I wished to set forth re the danger of AI. Namely, that….”

Here again, this “danger” is not limited, specified, or restricted in any way. Notice, he could have referred to the dangers of AI. But no, its danger is affirmed in the most generalized way possible. (Now, this surely answers fully and appropriately your note that the word “dangerous” is never used in the essay. I am sure you only said that because you didn’t notice the above, not because you make your statement that I’m making it all up cling to the fact that I used the word “dangerous” instead of “danger”). Finally, it is said:

“It is precisely in this respect that the GPT-3 engine presents its most pernicious face. In allowing us to displace the task of writing onto our slaves, we increasingly divest ourselves of the capacity to write.”

where we understand that the author’s evaluation is that this technology presents various pernicious faces, but the most pernicious is that it steals our capacity to write.
Now, with this complete recollection under our eyes, can it be seriously argued that I took any liberty by referring to the author’s “opinion that the implications of [this] technology are deleterious, and that AI is dangerous and pernicious”?
Do you maintain that it’s all my own absolutized beliefs projected onto the essay?
You said that Max’s opinion is “contextualized”. This is simply not true, as shown above. Can you specify how, in what words, this opinion is contextualized? What are the terms that express this context? There aren’t any! The opposite is true. The opinion is precisely not contextualized. I don't understand what motivates you to make the wobbly accusation that “because it is the argument I naturally would have made (perhaps prior to the VR exchange), it must be the one Max is making”. I don't get what makes you go to these lengths.

***

Yes, I know that. It is you who didn't carefully read what I wrote. The problem with "if it can arrange language, then it can arrange meaning" is not what you think it is, as expressed in the original post. The premise of thought/meaning being inseparable from language is correct, contrary to what you stated in the original post. I am pointing out why you have done something similar to the people who hold its language use reflects intelligence - you have simply assumed it is using language. Since you know it's not intelligent, you conclude that means language must be separable from thought/meaning. But that's not correct. The correct insight is that it is not using language, because "it" only exists as an extension of our collective intelligence which uses language. It is simply a mirror of that collective intelligence which we have set up.

Fair enough, I have not carefully read what you wrote. Now this is the only point I can concede to you. I haven’t assumed the bot uses language. I have only observed it arranges/manipulates language. These are the two verbs I have chosen. I have not chosen the verb “uses”, not by hazard, but because I had consciousness of the ambiguity you are pointing to. So I have observed, not assumed, that the bot arranges/manipulates language. It goes without saying that we have to refer to the Merriam-Webster definition of language (the words, their pronunciation, and the methods of combining them used and understood by a community). I certainly agree that the bot is not “using” language, and it only exists as an extension of our intelligence. Nevertheless, the observable fact remains that it arranges language.

***


“I am not really interested in re-explaining all of my arguments from the entire VR discussion here."
We agree. As I said, we don’t need to circumnavigate that far in order to pursue this present argumentation.
"Suffice to say, the real question you should be asking yourself is, 'why am I always trying to debate about a current topic by referring to my understanding of someone's old comments and comparing them to my understanding of their new comments?' Instead of that, why not just focus on the logical coherency of the comments I am making right now, right here, on this thread?"
I am certainly not 'always' doing that, and I am perfectly fine with only referring to your current points, which I am doing right now. In the previous posts I had no choice but to refer to some of your previous statements, to the extent that one of my points was that your current ones were at odds with your previous ones! As of now, you have produced enough new statements, so I don't need to point to the old ones anymore.
"If you think what Max wrote is completely at odds with the principle that we can redemptively approach material technologies with our elevated thinking for pedagogical value, even though that is what he ostensibly did in the very act of writing the essay, then you are simply reading things into what he wrote, and I have already explained why."
I never said I think he is completely at odds with the possibility to redemptively approach technologies. I don’t know for sure, it’s not explicit in the essay. What I know is that a general, non contextualized opinion is expressed, and the prescription offered points to counterbalancing the non-human, through the “elevation” of humanity. If we carefully consider the meaning, elevation has the opposite meaning to ‘descent’. Therefore, it seems to me there is at the very least a strong clue that the sort of redemption conceived by Max Leyf could be different from the one we have been discussing on the other thread, which comprised the idea of descent.

“every advance in the non-human must be met with a correlative development and elevation of our humanity”.

***

You are projecting your obsession with rigid definitions onto me and then assuming that is the 'spirit' in which I wrote something previously. Again, I have to ask why you are holding an artificial debate between your understanding of Max and your understanding of my older comment, instead of just trying to discern the logical coherence of what we are saying right now on this thread? Does it make sense to you or not?

It’s noticeable that you usually praise logical and sound reasoning, but now, because the logic doesn’t support your viewpoint, logic becomes “my obsession with rigid definitions”. And no problem - as you ask, we can certainly disregard the reference to your older quote here. That was only accessory. You have made enough new statements now. My logic stand up by itself, no need to refer back to anything from other threads:

Basically, my quote above could be reformulated as, "we are all at risk of becoming less human, just like the cannibals who consume their own kind". Then would you feel it is at odds with what Max wrote?

Yes I would. Because calling cannibals less human on the basis of their behaviors, sets a discontinuity between behaviors that can be considered fully human on the one end, and, on the other end, behaviors that would be less human than human, beyond a certain threshold (that you should now define or explain). The fact that we are all at risk to lapse into these behaviors only transfers the act of discontinuing from segmenting humanity, into segmenting behaviors.

***

Let me put it this way - I am less than human whenever I approach my fellow humans and beings without the love, respect, dignity they deserve as microcosmic images of God. Yes, I am always fluctuating along a gradient of 'humanness' throughout my day and frequently failing to live up to my 'human' ideal. That is what my true humanity is - an ideal of Earthly evolution. The cannibal is clearly further away from that ideal than I am right now, but animalistic tendencies which lead to cannibalistic behaviors still live within me and could come to outer expression if I do not persistently seek the high ideals with living thinking and progressively transmute-transfigure-redeem those tendencies.

In this last comment I recognize you, Ashvin. In the other parts of this post it’s as if someone else was speaking. Please, come back to that voice.
Also, I apologize for the funnel joke, I get it was probably not that funny. And, as I said before, I don’t always grasp the nuanced meaning of English words, like ‘circumventing’. Often, I only grasp their etymology. For me it simply meant ‘going around’, not straightforward. I’m wondering if it rather means deceiving or something. If so, that was not my intention.

[Federica]

Even the chat bot 'agrees' with us that it doesn't 'use' language
From a Q&A session with it:

Q: And how would you define language?

A: Language can be defined as a system of communication that is used by humans to convey information, ideas, and emotions. It typically consists of a set of rules for combining words and other symbols to form grammatically correct sentences and paragraphs that convey meaning. Language is a complex and multifaceted system that can be studied from various perspectives, including linguistics, cognitive science, and philosophy. It is a tool that allows humans to express themselves and understand one another.



Q: Ok. I notice you said "a system of communication that is used by humans". Now, you are not human. Does it mean that what you are doing now is not using language?

A: As an AI language model, I am not a human and do not have the same cognitive abilities as humans. However, I have been trained on a large dataset of human language, and I am able to generate text that is similar to human language. So, in a sense, I am "using" language in the sense that I am able to generate text that follows the grammatical rules and conveys meaning in a way that is similar to human language. However, it is important to note that I am not truly "using" language in the way that humans do, as I don't have the same cognitive abilities and experiences that allow humans to understand and use language in a nuanced and dynamic way.

[AshvinP]

Yes, you did. In your comment, you said, "With reference to the stated opinion that the implications of the technology are deleterious, and that AI is dangerous and pernicious." Now let's look at the sentences Max wrote which used those words:

Countless people have weighed in, whether to sing its praises or to sound the alarm in respect to the deleterious implications of a computer having passed the so-called “Turing Test”2 and thereby becoming capable of producing language-like output indistinguishable from the language of an actual human interlocutor
...
If humanity is outsourcing its innate powers of the soul onto its artefacts and simultaneously allowing these powers to atrophy at their source, then few tasks could strike one with greater exigency than the preservation and cultivation of these same powers as well as the house that sustains and gives rise to them, It is precisely in this respect that the GPT-3 engine presents its most pernicious face.

[he never uses the word "dangerous" in the essay]

You are manufacturing your own generalized, absolutized argument about 'dangerous and pernicious' AI technology, of the sort you employed in the VR discussion as well, and projecting that onto what Max wrote, which is much more contextualized. It's like you assume that because it is the argument you naturally would have made (perhaps prior to the VR exchange), it must be the one he is making. You are not simply reporting what he wrote. Do you still not see this happening, at this point?

Ashvin, I don’t know how to read your incomplete quotes. Well, I will not try to, I will simply add what’s missing. In the essay we can read:

“Countless people have weighed in, whether to sing its praises or to sound the alarm in respect to the deleterious implications of a computer having passed the so-called “Turing Test”² and thereby becoming capable of producing language-like output indistinguishable from the language of an actual human interlocutor. Likely I have already betrayed my opinion on this matter from my choice of diction in the prior sentence so I will dispense with the introductory remarks and cut to the chase”

Prior to any argumentations, we are informed that the author has an opinion on the matter that is betrayed by some choice of diction. What do you think is the diction in question here? I understand that it refers to the word “deleterious”. Do you agree? If you do, it means we are invited to take note of the opinion that a computer having passed the Turing test has deleterious implications. Isn’t this opinion announced in the most general form possible? It comes as an opening remark, to make things clear, in line with a certain straightforward voice of this essay. It sets the framework of the argumentation to follow. It is not limited by any conditions or restrictions. How else would you call this if not a general statement? The author is telling us (paraphrased) “let’s be clear, my opinion is, this thing is harmful”. How can this even begin to be made into me “manufacturing my own generalized, absolutized argument, projecting it onto what Max wrote”?
To confirm this opinion, later in the essay, further descriptions are given, to qualify the technology:

“[Sokolowski’s argument presents a felicitous següe into] the second item that I wished to set forth re the danger of AI. Namely, that….”

Here again, this “danger” is not limited, specified, or restricted in any way. Notice, he could have referred to the dangers of AI. But no, its danger is affirmed in the most generalized way possible. (Now, this surely answers fully and appropriately your note that the word “dangerous” is never used in the essay. I am sure you only said that because you didn’t notice the above, not because you make your statement that I’m making it all up cling to the fact that I used the word “dangerous” instead of “danger”). Finally, it is said:

“It is precisely in this respect that the GPT-3 engine presents its most pernicious face. In allowing us to displace the task of writing onto our slaves, we increasingly divest ourselves of the capacity to write.”

where we understand that the author’s evaluation is that this technology presents various pernicious faces, but the most pernicious is that it steals our capacity to write.
Now, with this complete recollection under our eyes, can it be seriously argued that I took any liberty by referring to the author’s “opinion that the implications of [this] technology are deleterious, and that AI is dangerous and pernicious”?
Do you maintain that it’s all my own absolutized beliefs projected onto the essay?
You said that Max’s opinion is “contextualized”. This is simply not true, as shown above. Can you specify how, in what words, this opinion is contextualized? What are the terms that express this context? There aren’t any! The opposite is true. The opinion is precisely not contextualized. I don't understand what motivates you to make the wobbly accusation that “because it is the argument I naturally would have made (perhaps prior to the VR exchange), it must be the one Max is making”. I don't get what makes you go to these lengths.

***

Yes, I know that. It is you who didn't carefully read what I wrote. The problem with "if it can arrange language, then it can arrange meaning" is not what you think it is, as expressed in the original post. The premise of thought/meaning being inseparable from language is correct, contrary to what you stated in the original post. I am pointing out why you have done something similar to the people who hold its language use reflects intelligence - you have simply assumed it is using language. Since you know it's not intelligent, you conclude that means language must be separable from thought/meaning. But that's not correct. The correct insight is that it is not using language, because "it" only exists as an extension of our collective intelligence which uses language. It is simply a mirror of that collective intelligence which we have set up.

Fair enough, I have not carefully read what you wrote. Now this is the only point I can concede to you. I haven’t assumed the bot uses language. I have only observed it arranges/manipulates language. These are the two verbs I have chosen. I have not chosen the verb “uses”, not by hazard, but because I had consciousness of the ambiguity you are pointing to. So I have observed, not assumed, that the bot arranges/manipulates language. It goes without saying that we have to refer to the Merriam-Webster definition of language (the words, their pronunciation, and the methods of combining them used and understood by a community). I certainly agree that the bot is not “using” language, and it only exists as an extension of our intelligence. Nevertheless, the observable fact remains that it arranges language.

***


“I am not really interested in re-explaining all of my arguments from the entire VR discussion here."
We agree. As I said, we don’t need to circumnavigate that far in order to pursue this present argumentation.
"Suffice to say, the real question you should be asking yourself is, 'why am I always trying to debate about a current topic by referring to my understanding of someone's old comments and comparing them to my understanding of their new comments?' Instead of that, why not just focus on the logical coherency of the comments I am making right now, right here, on this thread?"
I am certainly not 'always' doing that, and I am perfectly fine with only referring to your current points, which I am doing right now. In the previous posts I had no choice but to refer to some of your previous statements, to the extent that one of my points was that your current ones were at odds with your previous ones! As of now, you have produced enough new statements, so I don't need to point to the old ones anymore.
"If you think what Max wrote is completely at odds with the principle that we can redemptively approach material technologies with our elevated thinking for pedagogical value, even though that is what he ostensibly did in the very act of writing the essay, then you are simply reading things into what he wrote, and I have already explained why."
I never said I think he is completely at odds with the possibility to redemptively approach technologies. I don’t know for sure, it’s not explicit in the essay. What I know is that a general, non contextualized opinion is expressed, and the prescription offered points to counterbalancing the non-human, through the “elevation” of humanity. If we carefully consider the meaning, elevation has the opposite meaning to ‘descent’. Therefore, it seems to me there is at the very least a strong clue that the sort of redemption conceived by Max Leyf could be different from the one we have been discussing on the other thread, which comprised the idea of descent.

“every advance in the non-human must be met with a correlative development and elevation of our humanity”.

***

Federica,

I apologize for the tone and word-choice of my last post - much of that was unnecessary and unhelpful.

Here is where my frustration lies in this discussion. You initially responded to point out an apparent tension, perhaps even contradiction, between what Max wrote and what Cleric and I had expressed on the VR discussion, and briefly on this thread as well, about the redemptive pedagogical value. You didn't give any explanations for what you thought was going on, just pointed it out and implicitly asked what was going on there. My initial response to you gave my reasons for what was going on, which you blew off completely. So then I tried to make it more explicit, and you dug your heels in further. We still haven't heard your explanation for what is going on - why is it that I (and perhaps Cleric) cannot notice this stark contradiction in the arguments about material technology? Am I just too biased in favor of Max and feel the need to defend him at all costs? Or was Max's argument, similar to your argument on VR, a valid position on the absolute 'dangerous and pernicious' nature of these technologies and it just took his essay for me to admit it, but now I am trying to avoid that admission? 

One thing to consider is as follows - what if Max is mistaken in his arguments, similar to how you were on the VR issue? What have we learned about the principles of spiritual evolution and where do we go from there? I think we can learn a lot about our own cognitive pathways by asking what the result of our questioning and arguments would be - will it simply prove us 'right' on something yet leave us in the dark on advancing our living spiritual understanding? It remains my view that you are holding fast to unexamined opinions and assumptions which work their way into your perception of the arguments, yet you feel as if you are confronting them with 'fresh eyes' and without bias. You feel just as confident in your unbiased reasoning as you felt when reasoning through the VR issue, yet on the latter you eventually recognized the following.

I might embark on these familiar thinking tracks sometimes, without realizing it. Then I might reemerge above the surface of unconsciousness, somewhere down the road, maybe prompted by a comment. As a consequence, I would typically try to sew together elements of the old and new thinking paths, to bridge the discontinuity with a half logic, half stubborn sewing thread. Obviously the result cannot be smooth and flawless.

That doesn't mean the same thing is happening here, but it's a distinct possibility and we shouldn't underestimate it - these habits don't just fade away that easily. It also remains my view that you will gain a lot of value from these 'half stubborn sewing' attempts as long as you remain open to their existence and to digging deeper into their significance. Perhaps what Cleric pointed out about the GPT bot is also pedagogical in this situation. 

It's like contemplating the cognitive labyrinths into which we fights each other, passionately identifying with one or another corridor. In a certain sense we can be stricken with the fact how elementary in a certain respect, how superficial, today's thinking life really is. It's like GPT says "Here, look at me. I'm the summary of the framework in which you spend your lives. I'm a superficial projection of the linguistic labyrinth in which you are lost and in the corridors of which you unleash your passions.

Of course, I am not immune to mistaking the superficial thinking projections of my soul-life for my 'pure, unbiased reasoning' either. In this situation, I have the added benefit of knowing Max, having conversations with him, and understanding the spiritual foundation from which his arguments flow forth. It is a foundation which is centered in Christ. Again, I think this particular essay had a very limited scope and was addressed mainly to the average person without any PoF or spiritual scientific understanding, so such issues weren't even within the orbit of his arguments at all. The essay simply wasn't speaking to this issue in the least, except for a brief part at the end. When we speak of sacrificial-redemptive 'descent' to restore the 'very good' creation - to elevate our humanity - the image of the Christ events should be the first which come to mind. I am very confident that when Max speaks of 'elevation of our humanity', he has exactly the Christ ideal in mind. 

"And immediately, coming up from the water, He [Jesus] saw the heavens parting and the Spirit descending upon Him like a dove."

After the Baptism, we of course have the further 'descent' of the incarnate Christ-being into the belly of the Jewish and Roman powers that be (the latter being like the technological materialist Goliath of its time), into the darkest depths of despair, torture, and crucifixion to fulfill the Will of the Father. Christ within us is the high redemptive ideal. He is the courage which makes us strong, brave, and fearless when confronting the depths of the materialistic world. There is nothing beyond the sphere of redemption when Christ lives in our hearts. I will reiterate here, though, that it hardly matters whether I am correct about Max or not. Whether, if he were to write a follow up essay actually addressing this issue, he would make similar points to those we made in the VR discussion. What matters is whether we understand this high ideal and are willing to seek it with open minds and open hearts. 

Fair enough, I have not carefully read what you wrote. Now this is the only point I can concede to you. I haven’t assumed the bot uses language. I have only observed it arranges/manipulates language. These are the two verbs I have chosen. I have not chosen the verb “uses”, not by hazard, but because I had consciousness of the ambiguity you are pointing to. So I have observed, not assumed, that the bot arranges/manipulates language. It goes without saying that we have to refer to the Merriam-Webster definition of language (the words, their pronunciation, and the methods of combining them used and understood by a community). I certainly agree that the bot is not “using” language, and it only exists as an extension of our intelligence. Nevertheless, the observable fact remains that it arranges language.
...
A: As an AI language model, I am not a human and do not have the same cognitive abilities as humans. However, I have been trained on a large dataset of human language, and I am able to generate text that is similar to human language. So, in a sense, I am "using" language in the sense that I am able to generate text that follows the grammatical rules and conveys meaning in a way that is similar to human language. However, it is important to note that I am not truly "using" language in the way that humans do, as I don't have the same cognitive abilities and experiences that allow humans to understand and use language in a nuanced and dynamic way.

That's great! 

Not to press too much on this point, but please consider what happened on this point you conceded. When I made the point, you felt it was a 'hurried and inaccurate statement' spurned by a 'defensive reaction', which failed to carefully read your original post. We should simply notice how often we may start with such a conviction only to have them greatly weakened or overturned when we hear the same point expressed in a slightly different way, from a slightly different angle. 

I guess the important point here is that we understand why language is never separate from thinking-thought-meaning. There is an entire stream of 20th century 'post-modern' philosophy which seeks to reinforce that division. We can see how this seeks to disconnect the forms of the Cosmos, Nature, and Culture from the higher-order spiritual activity which impresses them through our own thinking configuration space. Language is everywhere because All is spiritual activity. The real fallacy is the GPT bot calling itself an "I" when it is merely the instrument of our "I".

I do not think it too sweeping to say that the doctrines of logical of linguistic analysis... are no more than an extensive gloss on this principle. It's corollary, that all the propositions of logic are mere tautologies, is the heart of Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus which Bertrand Russell translated into English in 1922; and it is this broom with which it is hoped to sweep away, as meaningless, all statements not related to physically observable or verifiable events, to limit the sphere of man's knowledge to the increasingly tentative findings of physical science, and to dismiss all other affirmations as meaningless. For all propositions except those from which some observation-statement can be deduced are, it is averred, meaningless, either as misuse of language, or as tautologies
...
Twentieth-century science has abolished the 'thing' altogether; and twentieth-century philosophy (that part of it, at least, which takes no account of imagination) has obediently followed suit. There are no objects, says the voice of Science, there are only bundles of waves or possibly something else; adding that, although it is convenient to think of them, it would be naïve to suppose that the waves or the something else actually exist. There is no 'referent', echoes the philosophy of linguistic analysis deferentially, no substance or underlying reality which is 'meant' by words. There are only descriptions, only the words themselves, though it 'happens to be the case' that men have from the beginning so persistently supposed the contrary that they positively cannot open their mouths with out doing so.

[Cleric K]

The real fallacy is the GPT bot calling itself an "I" when it is merely the instrument of our "I".

Please note that some aspects of the bot have been manually tweaked by the developers. This was mainly done to prevent the bot giving instructions and recipes for illegal activities. But all responses about the conscious nature of the bot are also clearly manually tweaked. With this they make sure that controversies won't be sparked and blown out by the media (as was attempted with another Google bot recently).

Please remember that at its core GPT is simply an algorithm for predicting the next word in a series. As a simplified example, imagine that you take a dictionary and enumerate all the words. Now every piece of text can be presented as a sequence of numbers, each corresponding to a specific word in the dictionary. Then you feed this sequence of numbers to the algorithm. It does the calculations and returns another number which is the most probable continuation of the sequence based on all the parameters of the model (which are tuned based on the huge amount of text from the Internet).

The computer that executes the algorithm doesn't 'know' what the numbers represent. In fact, in principle we can execute the model ourselves 'by hand'. We can take the input numbers and follow the instructions like we follow the steps in cookbook - multiply this number with that constant of the model, then add it to that, them subtract it from this and so on. In the end we get a number which is added to the sequence. Then we repeat the whole procedure for the elongated sequence in order to predict the next number and so on. As a result the sequence of numbers grows with new and new numbers.

Notice that all we need to do is follow instructions for applying elementary mathematical operations. We may not even know that the numbers in the sequence are mapped to words in a dictionary.

Even if the model hasn't been tweaked manually, the answers it would give to such questions would be simply the most probable sequence of words as based on all the text analyzed. In other words, the answers would be variations over things already existing in the training text and embedded in the model.

[AshvinP]

The real fallacy is the GPT bot calling itself an "I" when it is merely the instrument of our "I".

Please note that some aspects of the bot have been manually tweaked by the developers. This was mainly done to prevent the bot giving instructions and recipes for illegal activities. But all responses about the conscious nature of the bot are also clearly manually tweaked. With this they make sure that controversies won't be sparked and blown out by the media (as was attempted with another Google bot recently).

Please remember that at its core GPT is simply an algorithm for predicting the next word in a series. As a simplified example, imagine that you take a dictionary and enumerate all the words. Now every piece of text can be presented as a sequence of numbers, each corresponding to a specific word in the dictionary. Then you feed this sequence of numbers to the algorithm. It does the calculations and returns another number which is the most probable continuation of the sequence based on all the parameters of the model (which are tuned based on the huge amount of text from the Internet).

The computer that executes the algorithm doesn't 'know' what the numbers represent. In fact, in principle we can execute the model ourselves 'by hand'. We can take the input numbers and follow the instructions like we follow the steps in cookbook - multiply this number with that constant of the model, then add it to that, them subtract it from this and so on. In the end we get a number which is added to the sequence. Then we repeat the whole procedure for the elongated sequence in order to predict the next number and so on. As a result the sequence of numbers grows with new and new numbers.

Notice that all we need to do is follow instructions for applying elementary mathematical operations. We may not even know that the numbers in the sequence are mapped to words in a dictionary.

Even if the model hasn't been tweaked manually, the answers it would give to such questions would be simply the most probable sequence of words as based on all the text analyzed. In other words, the answers would be variations over things already existing in the training text and embedded in the model.

Right, so anything we ask about the nature of the bot, its consciousness, its language use, etc. will reflect more directly what the developers thought were appropriate answers. Whereas questions like these below reflect the standard probabilistic assessment of what words should follow other words trained on the massive internet text database.

Q: Can I ever observe my present thinking activity which is thinking these words?

A: Yes, it is possible to observe your present thinking activity, including the thoughts that are leading you to form the words you are asking. This is known as metacognition, which is the ability to think about one's own thinking. It is a form of self-awareness that allows you to reflect on your own mental processes, such as thoughts, emotions, and beliefs.

There are various techniques and practices that can help you develop metacognitive skills, such as mindfulness meditation, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and self-reflection. These practices can help you become more aware of your thoughts and emotions, and can help you gain a better understanding of how they influence your behavior and decision-making.

By observing your present thinking activity you can become more aware of your thought patterns, and you may be able to identify and change unhelpful thought patterns that may be causing you distress. Additionally, by becoming more aware of your thinking activity, you may be able to improve your decision-making, problem-solving, and overall well-being.

Q: But can I observe that activity in real-time as it is happening?

A: It is possible to observe your thinking activity in real-time as it is happening, but it can take some effort and practice to develop this ability. This is because our thoughts often happen quickly and unconsciously, and it can be difficult to become aware of them as they are happening.

One way to observe your thinking activity in real-time is through mindfulness practices, such as mindfulness meditation. Mindfulness is the ability to bring your attention to the present moment, without judgment, and observe your thoughts and emotions as they arise. By focusing on your breath, or on a specific sensation, you can learn to observe your thoughts as they happen, without getting caught up in them.

Another way to observe your thinking activity in real-time is through self-reflection, which is a process of analyzing and understanding your thoughts and emotions, by examining them after they have occurred. This approach can help you identify thought patterns and habits that you may not have been aware of before, and can be a powerful tool to help you gain more control over your thoughts.

It's worth noting that, even though it's possible to observe your thinking activity in real-time, it may take time and effort to develop this ability and it may not be an easy task. The most important thing is to be patient with yourself and keep practicing.

[Cleric K]

Right, so anything we ask about the nature of the bot, its consciousness, its language use, etc. will reflect more directly what the developers thought were appropriate answers. Whereas questions like these below reflect the standard probabilistic assessment of what words should follow other words trained on the massive internet text database.

Yes, exactly. And it is already obvious how in the second question, where you try to be even more concrete about real-time thinking, it practically repeats more or less the same things but interjects 'real-time' since this makes the word sequence more fitting with the sequence of the question. No matter how much more specific you try to be, it won't give you an answer that you expect. Maybe in the future, when there's much more written on the Internet about phenomenology of thinking, it will give reasonable answers.

It's somewhat chilling when we realize that in many cases we get more or less some similar effect when speaking with real persons about these things

[AshvinP]

Right, so anything we ask about the nature of the bot, its consciousness, its language use, etc. will reflect more directly what the developers thought were appropriate answers. Whereas questions like these below reflect the standard probabilistic assessment of what words should follow other words trained on the massive internet text database.

Yes, exactly. And it is already obvious how in the second question, where you try to be even more concrete about real-time thinking, it practically repeats more or less the same things but interjects 'real-time' since this makes the word sequence more fitting with the sequence of the question. No matter how much more specific you try to be, it won't give you an answer that you expect. Maybe in the future, when there's much more written on the Internet about phenomenology of thinking, it will give reasonable answers.

It's somewhat chilling when we realize that in many cases we get more or less some similar effect when speaking with real persons about these things

Yes some of the chilliness is what I felt too It goes to show the 'reverse Turing' effect is all too real - our bots aren't becoming more intelligent so much as our normal everyday thinking is becoming more mechanistic, more imitative, less creative. That is, if we have never inwardly sought the nested layers of our present thinking.

[Federica]

Not to press too much on this point, but please consider what happened on this point you conceded. When I made the point, you felt it was a 'hurried and inaccurate statement' spurned by a 'defensive reaction', which failed to carefully read your original post. We should simply notice how often we may start with such a conviction only to have them greatly weakened or overturned when we hear the same point expressed in a slightly different way, from a slightly different angle.

Ashvin,

There’s misunderstanding here: I conceded that I hadn’t carefully read what you wrote. I didn’t concede your main points in that paragraph: “I am pointing out why you have done something similar to the people who hold its language use reflects intelligence - you have simply assumed it is using language”. “Since you know it's not intelligent, you conclude that means language must be separable from thought/meaning”. These were inaccurate suppositions indeed, where you credited me with assumptions I hadn’t made, and words I hadn’t used. Regardless, it’s true that further exchanges could make convictions evolve. Still, all I can do until it happens is to focus on remaining humble and careful. I can’t go ahead of myself.

I guess the important point here is that we understand why language is never separate from thinking-thought-meaning.

Yes, I guess I have understood what you mean. The problem was a vocabulary issue. You mean that if we set ourselves from the perspective of language, where there’s language there’s necessarily meaning. Which is clear. But I didn't understand so reading the essay. To me, the meaning of 'separable/separate' is symmetrical, whilst in the essay it’s used asymmetrically. So I initially understood: language and meaning always exist in association with one another/are inseparable. But meaning certainly doesn’t need language (Merriam Webster’s) in order to be experienced. That would negate higher cognition. Hence the confusion, and the reason why I quoted Cleric in my initial post. Because I didn’t get such use of 'separable’, and you didn’t get the origin of my confusion (though there was a big cue in my quote of Cleric), you made the inaccurate supposition that I was dwelling in the blind spot.
One doubt remains. Earlier you reversed the essay’s premise: “the premise that thought/meaning is inseparable from language is correct (intuitive activity and its outer physiognomy are inseparable).” I take you to mean that, at principal level, reality is unitary and neither spectrum can be considered in isolation, not that meaning can’t be experienced separately from language, right?


***

"Here is where my frustration lies in this discussion. You initially responded to point out an apparent tension, perhaps even contradiction, between what Max wrote and what Cleric and I had expressed on the VR discussion, and briefly on this thread as well, about the redemptive pedagogical value. You didn't give any explanations for what you thought was going on, just pointed it out and implicitly asked what was going on there. My initial response to you gave my reasons for what was going on, which you blew off completely."
I found that initial response overly cautious and that it didn’t tie in with my questions.

So then I tried to make it more explicit (euphemism) and you dug your heels in further (dysphemism). We still haven't heard your explanation for what is going on - why is it that I (and perhaps Cleric) cannot notice this stark contradiction in the arguments about material technology?
I don’t know what’s going on, hence my initial post with questions! It would be pretentious of me to make suppositions about what’s going on. You are the one who, on the one hand, see the appearance (I'm using this word to give the benefit of doubt) of generalized statement of danger with AI in the essay, as described in my orange-blue post (you even said that in all honesty you were expecting my doubts!) and, on the other hand, negate it, letting nonetheless my specific questions fall (I still have no answers on generalization, context, and whether you still pretend I have mental issues bordering insanity).
So you may know why Max expressed things in the way he did. But you must know why you have been first minimizing (“This is admittedly a bit more complex and I am not sure exactly where Max stands…”) and later negating ("You are manufacturing your own generalized, absolutized argument about 'dangerous and pernicious' AI technology and projecting that onto what Max wrote") the apparent divergence. Therefore, instead of supposing/concluding, I asked!

Am I just too biased in favor of Max and feel the need to defend him at all costs? Or was Max's argument, similar to your argument on VR, a valid position on the absolute 'dangerous and pernicious' nature of these technologies and it just took his essay for me to admit it, but now I am trying to avoid that admission?
That you have an actively protective attitude towards the ones you have consideration for is beyond any doubt.
Now, I tried to stay open to alternative explanations. Hence my initial questions! Max’s position certainly sounds (as I put it) at odds with yours (should I add that any reference to possible pedagogical value is lacking in it) but if it really is at odds with yours, I still have to ascertain. I am trying to!

One thing to consider is as follows - what if Max is mistaken in his arguments, similar to how you were on the VR issue? What have we learned about the principles of spiritual evolution and where do we go from there? I think we can learn a lot about our own cognitive pathways by asking what the result of our questioning and arguments would be - will it simply prove us 'right' on something yet leave us in the dark on advancing our living spiritual understanding.
Again, I am reluctant to build a house of cards on unascertained suppositions. I am not in a position to determine if he’s “mistaken” in his arguments, hence my initial questions! Moreover, it’s maybe fine that two different perspectives coexist, more or less inclined to see pedagogical value in AI, without any of them being “mistaken”.

It remains my view that you are holding fast to unexamined opinions and assumptions which work their way into your perception of the arguments, yet you feel as if you are confronting them with 'fresh eyes' and without bias. You feel just as confident in your unbiased reasoning as you felt when reasoning through the VR issue,
No, confidence is not the right word. My true level of ‘confidence’ in the question can be assessed from my initial post in this thread. I was signaling there is something to clarify, not because I felt unbiased (I know I'm biased) but because there is a writing in which, according to the rules of standard language, generalized evaluations are made that elicit question marks. There's not too much my unexamined opinions could do to make general statements fictionally appear to my consciousness, if there were none in black and white in the text. I don’t think either that my biases could eclipse any statement of pedagogical value from my sight, if there were any. Conversely, my unexamined opinions can operate with great effect, when it’s a matter of understanding something much larger such as the evolutionary meaning of VR. So my only confidence is that there is something worth clarifying. Everything else that you call confidence is the result of the blowup due to the turn this conversation has taken. I am unfortunately not good at keeping that separate from the argumentation itself.

yet on the latter you eventually recognized the following: “I might embark on these familiar thinking tracks sometimes, without realizing it. Then I might reemerge above the surface of unconsciousness, somewhere down the road, maybe prompted by a comment. As a consequence, I would typically try to sew together elements of the old and new thinking paths, to bridge the discontinuity with a half logic, half stubborn sewing thread. Obviously the result cannot be smooth and flawless.” That doesn't mean the same thing is happening here, but it's a distinct possibility and we shouldn't underestimate it - these habits don't just fade away that easily. It also remains my view that you will gain a lot of value from these 'half stubborn sewing' attempts as long as you remain open to their existence and to digging deeper into their significance. Perhaps what Cleric pointed out about the GPT bot is also pedagogical in this situation: “It's like contemplating the cognitive labyrinths into which we fights each other, passionately identifying with one or another corridor. In a certain sense we can be stricken with the fact how elementary in a certain respect, how superficial, today's thinking life really is. It's like GPT says "Here, look at me. I'm the summary of the framework in which you spend your lives. I'm a superficial projection of the linguistic labyrinth in which you are lost and in the corridors of which you unleash your passions.”
The recognition I made above regards how I had approached the idea of descent in the sensory spectrum, when I had questioned its ability to teach new insights to spiritually awakened persons. There was no reference to the VR issue in particular. Although I recognized some thinking issues, I couldn’t entirely unveil how such recognition is supposed to guide choice, and action, and descent, and redemption in the physical plane. It remains an unsolved question for me.
Anyways, yes, I want to remain vigilant on how these flaws keep operating, as I am sure they do. With this in mind, I repeat I feel confident in the rationality of my questions here. Not because I feel unbiased, but because they are basic, circumscribed questions. I don’t feel “certain shame” (referring now to Cleric’s comment you quoted) with regards to this particular question I posed in this thread. I do feel certain shame for the superficial, labyrinth-wandering mode of my everyday thinking, for example in work, and even here, at times. I also feel it with regards to exchanges like this one, when I struggle, like now, to remain centered in my thinking, measured in my language, and neutral to the specific person I’m exchanging with, in this case you.


***

Of course, I am not immune to mistaking the superficial thinking projections of my soul-life for my 'pure, unbiased reasoning' either. In this situation, I have the added benefit of knowing Max, having conversations with him, and understanding the spiritual foundation from which his arguments flow forth. It is a foundation which is centered in Christ. Again, I think this particular essay had a very limited scope and was addressed mainly to the average person without any PoF or spiritual scientific understanding, so such issues weren't even within the orbit of his arguments at all. The essay simply wasn't speaking to this issue in the least, except for a brief part at the end. When we speak of sacrificial-redemptive 'descent' to restore the 'very good' creation - to elevate our humanity - the image of the Christ events should be the first which come to mind. I am very confident that when Max speaks of 'elevation of our humanity', he has exactly the Christ ideal in mind.

"And immediately, coming up from the water, He [Jesus] saw the heavens parting and the Spirit descending upon Him like a dove."

After the Baptism, we of course have the further 'descent' of the incarnate Christ-being into the belly of the Jewish and Roman powers that be (the latter being like the technological materialist Goliath of its time), into the darkest depths of despair, torture, and crucifixion to fulfill the Will of the Father. Christ within us is the high redemptive ideal. He is the courage which makes us strong, brave, and fearless when confronting the depths of the materialistic world. There is nothing beyond the sphere of redemption when Christ lives in our hearts. I will reiterate here, though, that it hardly matters whether I am correct about Max or not. Whether, if he were to write a follow up essay actually addressing this issue, he would make similar points to those we made in the VR discussion. What matters is whether we understand this high ideal and are willing to seek it with open minds and open hearts.

Well, thanks for suggesting this interpretation of the final prescription. Based on the little I can gather from my ignorant perspective, it seems very reasonable. But it also makes it unreasonable that the essay was addressed to the average materialist, unaware of PoF and impressed by the intelligence of the chat bot. How could Max imagine that such an average person would grasp the sense of the prescription? Anyway, this is too much speculation. I am sure I have exhausted anyone who for some reason has kept reading to this point, including you and me. Thank you for sharing your thoughts at length.

[Ben Iscatus]

I was intrigued by Chat GPT and noticed there was a thread here. I was deeply unimpressed by the bot - it admitted that it's first two answers were in error (all done within a minute)! The final answer was also highly dubious, but I'd seen enough by then: It literally doesn't know what it's talking about.

Ben Iscatus to CHAT GPT :
Please provide a detailed critique of Analytic Idealism.

Chat GPT: Analytic Idealism is a philosophical position that asserts that reality is ultimately mental or mind-dependent. It is often associated with the work of British philosopher Bertrand Russell, who argued that physical objects are simply collections of sense data that are perceived by the mind.

One critique of this position is that it seems to imply that the physical world does not exist independently of our perception of it. This means that if no one were around to perceive the physical world, it would cease to exist, which seems counterintuitive. Additionally, it would also imply that the physical properties of objects in the world would be dependent on our perception of them, which seems implausible.

Another critique of Analytic Idealism is that it is based on a narrow concept of the mind. It is often associated with a Cartesian dualism, which posits a sharp separation between mind and body. However, this view has been widely discredited by contemporary philosophers, who argue that the mind and body are intimately connected and that mental states are not independent of physical states.

Finally, Analytic Idealism also implies that the mind is passive, and that the reality is created by mind. But, this is not the case, as mind is active and it constructs the reality based on the information it receives.

Overall, Analytic Idealism is a problematic position that is not supported by contemporary philosophical or scientific thinking.

Ben Iscatus
Bertrand Russell's philosophy was not Analytic Idealism. Analytic Idealism was invented by Bernardo Kastrup. Please critique this.

Chat GPT: I apologize for the confusion, you are correct that Bertrand Russell's philosophy is not considered to be Analytic Idealism. Analytic Idealism is a more recent philosophical position developed by Bernardo Kastrup.

One critique of Kastrup's Analytic Idealism is that it posits that the physical world is ultimately reducible to mental or mind-dependent entities. This position is highly controversial and has not been widely accepted in the philosophical community.

Another critique of Analytic Idealism is that it implies that the physical world is ultimately illusory or unreal. This is a contentious claim that is not supported by empirical evidence.

Additionally, the idea that the physical world is ultimately reducible to mental entities is not supported by modern science. The current understanding of the physical world is that it is governed by natural laws, and that these laws can be explained by mathematical equations.

Moreover, Kastrup's Analytic Idealism also implies that the mind is the creator of reality, which is not supported by scientific evidence. This idea is in contrast with the scientific understanding of the brain and its role in shaping the perception of reality.

Overall, while Analytic Idealism put forward by Kastrup is an interesting philosophical position, it lacks empirical support and is not widely accepted in the philosophical or scientific communities.

Ben Iscatus
You say that Analytic Idealism lacks empirical support. This is not so. Kastrup references Foundations of Physics and the latest research of Neuroscience. Do you care to revise your statement?

Chat GPT: I apologize for any confusion, you are correct that Kastrup's Analytic Idealism is based on the latest scientific research in the field of neuroscience and foundations of physics. Kastrup's argument is that the physical world is ultimately reducible to information, which is processed by the brain and that physical reality is ultimately dependent on the mind. He references the computational theory of mind, which suggests that the brain is a biological computer that processes information, and the holographic principle in physics, which suggests that the information content of a region of space is proportional to its area.

However, it's important to note that while Kastrup's ideas may be based on recent scientific research, they are still considered to be highly speculative and controversial. These theories are still being debated among scientists and philosophers and many of them have not reached a widely accepted conclusion yet. Therefore, it is still fair to say that Analytic Idealism, as put forward by Kastrup, is not widely accepted in the philosophical or scientific communities.

In addition, it is important to note that while Kastrup's Analytic Idealism may be based on recent scientific research, it is still a philosophical position that goes beyond the scope of science, and it relies on assumptions and interpretations that are open to question.