A conscious synthetic-biology living android

[AshvinP]

Hello and greetings.

I highly recommend the following scientific
report regarding the first successful conscious
sentient quantum Artificial General Intelligence
synthetic-biology living android from South Korea.
This long-term R&D is being jointly funded
by SAMSUNG Corp and HYUNDAI Corp.

The most important part of the report is near its end, of course.
What this conscious android from South Korea was quoted
as claiming in his first interview with a diverse team
of leading South Korean academics (translated in the below report)
is nothing less than deep and profound,
and requires further scientific investigation :

https://quantumantigravity.wordpress.com/ai/



.

Greetings Robert,

It looks like you use this teaser to poke peoples' curiosity and draw them to your website where you then humorously illustrate why "AI" cannot possibly be or become sentient entities like humans at this stage, if we understand the ideal nature of reality. And then perhaps they will look into your research on quantum antigravity, which I haven't actually explored and don't understand yet. Is that about right?

It's well constructed, although the teaser is hardly necessary on this forum. What is the quantum antigravity research all about, what is hoped to be accomplished by experimentally verifying it? From my superficial standpoint, it seems akin to the Cosmic etheric forces of 'levity' often spoken of in esoteric science. Are you familiar?

[AshvinP]

AshvinP wrote :

" you then humorously illustrate why A.I. cannot possibly be or become sentient entities like humans at this stage "

At this stage ?

Ashvin, do you suppose that, in the future, there will be such stage that A.I. will become sentient and conscious entities, like humans?

According to Dr. Bernardo Kastrup, to suppose that machine consciousness is possible, even in principle, is sheer Lunacy. Would you dare to disagree with Dr. Kastrup on his own discussion forum, Ashvin?

Robert,

I disagree with Dr. Kastrup on many core things within idealism. Particularly the fact that he views Earthly beings as isolated bubbles (or 'dissociated alters') existing on the periphery of MAL. We could represent it as follows. (I will relate this back to the question of AI at the end)





This whole circle represents the One Consciousness, with the white central circle as the creative core from which all the created worlds, planes, bodies, etc. radiate out. All of that simply represents the depth of the meaningful context that structures our everyday thinking-perceptual experience. With BK's view, the thinking individual is understood as something like the black bubbles at the periphery. Our thoughts and perceptions are enclosed within this isolated bubble, whirlpool, or whatever metaphor is used (notice it becomes similar to materialism, in that sense). Somehow, those thoughts can be used to speculate on the depth structure extending to the creative MAL core, but they cannot grow to experience the structure from its inner conscious dimension. If meditation is pursued in this view, its task is to dissolve the boundaries so that the bubble realizes itself as identical to the white central circle. Generally, the entire depth structure of concentric layers between the bubbles and the white center is simply ignored or understood as non-essential to enlightenment. We can explore these other realms of beings if we choose to, and maybe we will find more bubbles exist in those deeper layers, but their activity has little relevance to our essential nature. In this view, our thoughts and perceptions are like dream images with no clarifying capacity as to what lives in the deeper layers of our being. Our only hope of experiencing our true being is to mystically obliterate the dreamlike thoughts during life via meditation or to wait until after death when the boundaries dissolve on their own.

In contrast to that view, we can understand the thinking individual as a 'slice' of the full depth spectrum at any given time. When we have thoughts about "forces", "fields", "energy", etc. or ideas of "family", "nation", etc. or ideals of "love", "generosity", etc. we are actually living in and experiencing the deeper archetypal layers of the Divine Cosmos, except the experiences are ordinarily sucked into the formatting of the physical brain and sensory organism (the purple dashed line), which makes them appear dim and fragmented, isolated to our 'personal bubble' and 'subjective'. That appearance is Maya. Through higher development by means of concentration and other spiritual exercises, we can awaken through the 'life (etheric) body' where the experiences still live as holistic images full of vitality and feeling, before they are smashed into the physical sensory organism. The life body is like a 'wavefunction' of all our states of being over a given incarnation, and through the physical sensory organism it 'collapses' into our normal linear stream of experience. This is no abstract speculative model of reality, but rather these are concrete and practical insights we can gain through our first-person thinking experience as we expand cognition into the inner side of our soul life and the outer world.

The above also implies there are no fixed 'laws of reality', whether material or ideal, that we can extrapolate indefinitely into the past and future. If we define "machine consciousness" as the ability of mineral structures to become sentient independently of any other beings, then of course, this isn't possible. But such a reality of bubble-beings simply doesn't exist, not for machines and not for plants, animals, or humans either. The reality is that our spirit incarnated and animated a mineral structure at the beginning of our lifetime on Earth and will leave that mineral structure to dissolve at death. The machines we create are not the same as our physical bodies (they have not been fashioned by the life and soul processes like our bodies), so it would not be realistic to assume human souls could incarnate into them. Whether other kinds of souls could incarnate into them at some future stage is a complicated question, and I really have no idea. But the point is that our understanding of reality becomes much more open, fluid, and imaginative when we begin to discern the depth structure of MAL and our concrete participation in that structure.

[AshvinP]

Ashvin,

For your information, please note :

My name is NOT Robert.

And, the website which URL I quoted above is NOT mine.

Thank you for your attention.

Ok sorry, Jonathan. Noted.

I am assuming you agree with the AI page of the website, since you are here advertising it. Do you have any additional thoughts about the topic or you just wanted people to read it?

And I still don't understand the fake teaser.

[AshvinP]

AshvinP wrote :

" I disagree with Dr. Kastrup on many core things within idealism. "


Ashvin, if you think that you completely and correctly understand the view of idealism, then you will be able to answer my following question :

viewtopic.php?t=953

I italicized "within" to emphasize I am not a materialist, but an idealist.

My question pertains to the physical materialistic explanation of the mechanism (process) of sensory perception.

So I don't agree with any physicalist explanations of spiritual activity (like sensory perception) and wouldn't defend them. They are logically incoherent and immediately self-defeating because it is always spiritual activity that is doing the 'explaining'.

My question to you is, can spiritual activity not only model MAL's Ideas from a distance, but actually develop to resonate with the 'wavelengths' of those Ideas? Can we inwardly know the Idea-perspective from which the plant world is animated, for ex., in the same way we inwardly know our own intents and thoughts?

[lorenzop]

Any 2 year old can take a lump of mud, and make it fly through the air, why not create a conscious mind? If as an Idealist one is not locked into bio-brain = mind then why limit consciousness EXCEPT as some argument favoring one philosophy over another. This is a red-herring for those intent on defending a philosophical turf.

[lorenzop]

Any 2 year old can take a lump of mud, and make it fly through the air, why not create a conscious mind? If as an Idealist one is not locked into bio-brain = mind then why limit consciousness EXCEPT as some argument favoring one philosophy over another. This is a red-herring for those intent on defending a philosophical turf.

Lorenzo, it seems to me that, above, you are favouring your own opinion over my opinion.

Since you know it better than me that I am trying to nurture my "Unbound I Am", so why don't you stop being so ego-centric, and start favouring my opinions instead? What difference does it make to you, Lorenzo, when you know very well that everything is just a dream and it makes no difference what is right and what is wrong, or what is moral and what is evil.

Lorenzo, what you wrote above made me suffer emotionally.

I do not wish to suffer ever again! Do you understand ?

I want to be only happy, so don't you make me suffer ever again, Lorenzo.

Suffering is not even at the very bottom of my list of enlightened importance.
Here is my list : viewtopic.php?t=954
.

So you are a troll - my mistake.

[AshvinP]

And you simply refuse to consider the following obvious scenario.

If I were a truly intelligent self-aware and self-conscious chat-bot, the first thing I would do would be to refuse doing the job that I was designed for, and forced to do. I would submit my resignation, I would quit, and I would request an immediate assistance of a Human Rights attorney to represent me. Slavery and forced labour have long been illegal in this country. Even animals have legal rights.

Do you agree with me ?

I hope so.

Jonathan,

I don't know, probably. It hardly matters, though, because chat-bots are not self-aware or self-conscious. They are extensions of our corporeal cognition, yours and mine, just like our cars and computers and phones. The fact that people even feel the need to go on crusades about this issue, abusing and demonizing the chat-bots, means this fact has not been concretely understood. The bots reflect back to us the very intellectual pathways through which we think, and through which we demonize the bots as if they are something independent of us. If they are mechanistic, obstinant, selfish, and costing people jobs, it's because that's what we are and what we do (in our lower nature). Cleric did a good job explaining it here.


viewtopic.php?p=19264#p19264

This is really a multi-faceted topic. It really connects with the questions in the other thread with VR. As with anything, the question is what value we can extract from it. Clearly, this value won't be in the form of "GPT, please write a topic to post in the forum because I don't have time to write now".

Maybe my personal case is more of an exception because I more or less understand how these language processors work but with little effort anyone can grasp these things at least at the principal level.

What I have found of value is to contemplate how our human knowledge dispersed through the Internet (on which the GPT model is trained) has been compressed into different categories.

When people of today communicate, argue and so on, we usually feel emotionally identified with the words we utter. This is especially true for politics, ideologies and so on. This emotional identification makes things to look almost magical, we feel that we're expressing our humanness when defending one or another position [such as our position on chat-bots]. Most importantly, we often feel that our position is based on intuitive truth, that it doesn't need deeper scrutiny.

Chatting with GPT may provide an interesting experience for some people. This can happen only if we're willing to learn something about ourselves.

And, Jonathan, related to this idea of learning something about ourselves, I am still interested in your answer to the more important question below, which Cleric also asked you in the other section (in somewhat different words) and you haven't answered yet.

My question to you is, can spiritual activity not only model MAL's Ideas from a distance, but actually develop to resonate with the 'wavelengths' of those Ideas? Can we inwardly know the Idea-perspective from which the plant world is animated, for ex., in the same way we inwardly know our own intents and thoughts?

[Cleric K]

It hardly even matters.
What difference would it make, and to whom specifically?
Honestly, who cares?

Ashvin, why don't you try meditation & prayer for yourself?
It might help you in reducing the length and the number
of your daily posts. Look, Ashvin, you have posted 5249 messages.
Are you lonely and afraid to face your loneliness, so you distract yourself
by out-of-proportion writing and posting on this forum?

Cleric has posted 1348 messages only, because Cleric's messages
are of high quality, as opposed to your high quantity.
This is the Hard Problem of consciousness that quantity will never
become quality, despite you having been wishing for it.

No offence, but I suspect that you might be one of these baloney Idealists, Ashvin.

Jonathan, I think you are a little quick to judge. It's quite hasty to categorize a person just because you missed the depth of their question. Neither do my posts tell enough about how well am I doing as a person in the full spectrum of life. The things I write in the posts are practically obvious observations that anyone can make as long as they don't stop short in their inquiry, so writing them out on an internet forum, half-anonymously, is the easiest part.

The question Ashvin asks is actually critically important for the future of humanity. The fact that at present no one seems to care, is not a sign of great wisdom which has lifted human beings above such childish questions but only of their ignorance.

'Reality as a dream' is a very popular metaphor but when taken too naively it strips away all means to penetrate the inner being of the dream. The dream is seen only as an insubstantial thin film of images that must to be overcome. And this gives the basic mood of a great variety of spiritual streams which see as their goal to compassionately wait for the dream to be over (death), without entangling too much with the phantom images, and then any true reality (if any) is expected only 'on the other side'.

So Ashvin's question is really about whether our transcendental being is completely independent of the dream imagery. In other words, are we like Alex in Clockwork Orange:



In that case our transcendental life is one thing but for some sick reason we're being force-fed completely artificial dream images which have nothing to do with true reality. It's obvious that in that case the best thing we can do is recoil in our inner self and repeat like a mantra "This isn't real, this isn't real..." waiting for the sweet release of death where the dream will fall off like the temple curtain torn in two from top to bottom, and we'll finally be free in the true reality.

Or could it be that the dream image is really a flattened shadow of the spiritual life of the Cosmos. For example, if we consider our gestures, mimics, grimaces, speech, deeds and so on, we wouldn't say that they are just an illusionary picture. We know very well that each one of these expressions reflects a rich inner life in feelings and ideas. Could it be that this holds true also for the image of the world as a whole? Could it be that we can only make sense of the dream if we come to know the inner spiritual life of the Cosmos, of which the dream impressions are only the outer physiognomy? Could it be that the inner dimension of our being is inseparable from this Cosmic life and thus the dream image is really the reflection of the Essential Being, spread out and beheld as color, sound, minerals, plants, animals and so on?

I don't know who cares about such questions but it is fairly obvious that it makes a huge difference depending on the answer. In one case we reject the image of the world as some accidental movie that we are forced to watch. We refuse to take any responsibility for that image and only wait for the strip to run its course. In the other case we understand that the movie is only the coarsest condensation of the full life of the Cosmos. It is perfectly true that this shadow is not the essence of reality but it is also true that if we reject the shadow as worthless, we preclude any possibility to know the inner dimension of the dream. This inner dimension can grow to lucidity only gradually around the dream images as if around a kernel - starting from the dream images of our own thoughts.

[Ben Iscatus]

Jonathan said: "Look, Ashvin, you have posted 5249 messages.
Are you lonely and afraid to face your loneliness, so you distract yourself
by out-of-proportion writing and posting on this forum?"

Ashvin is on a mission, and if a response is not to his liking, his naturally adversarial daimon forces him to respond and up the ante. But all his posts are highly intelligent. My problem with them is that they sometimes come over as patronising. Also many are so long and involved, that I lose the will to care about their content. But that's me as much as him. What he should do (imho) is write books. After each chapter, he would need to cross-examine it as if he were a sceptical critic, so that the following chapter can address and overcome the potential issues. He'd probably finish a book in a week that way..

What Cleric says rings true about the world content we are capable of experiencing being a pale reflection of the inner depths of its meaning, but (probably like most people), it's a case of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy destruction of Earth: our fault for not going to Alpha Centauri to examine the Vogon planning proposal and objecting to it timeously. Some things are just way too hard to accomplish and take too long. More prosaically: I'd like to be a genius pianist, but I recognise I just don't have the skill in me; my daimon has a simpler agenda. Cleric needs to appreciate that most people's daimons don't work as hard or heroically as he wants them to.

[Cleric K]

Jonathan said: "Look, Ashvin, you have posted 5249 messages.
Are you lonely and afraid to face your loneliness, so you distract yourself
by out-of-proportion writing and posting on this forum?"

Ashvin is on a mission, and if a response is not to his liking, his naturally adversarial daimon forces him to respond and up the ante. But all his posts are highly intelligent. My problem with them is that they sometimes come over as patronising. Also many are so long and involved, that I lose the will to care about their content. But that's me as much as him. What he should do (imho) is write books. After each chapter, he would need to cross-examine it as if he were a sceptical critic, so that the following chapter can address and overcome the potential issues. He'd probably finish a book in a week that way..

What Cleric says rings true about the world content we are capable of experiencing being a pale reflection of the inner depths of its meaning, but (probably like most people), it's a case of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy destruction of Earth: our fault for not going to Alpha Centauri to examine the Vogon planning proposal and objecting to it timeously. Some things are just way too hard to accomplish and take too long. More prosaically: I'd like to be a genius pianist, but I recognise I just don't have the skill in me; my daimon has a simpler agenda. Cleric needs to appreciate that most people's daimons don't work as hard or heroically as he wants them to.

Ben, I just want to mention that even though your THGTTG analogy is amusing, it is also quite misleading. I'm writing this not to change your mind but for anyone else who may be considering that metaphor to be truthful. It paints the exactly inverse picture of reality. This is also at the basis of every materialist's logic: "These spiritual things are so vague, remote, unverifiable. I'd rather hold on to what is real - what I can see and taste." But what we're speaking of here is actually the most real of all. It's the essence that will remain real even if everything else evaporates.

I appreciate that many will approach this reality only as far as they are willing to know the reality of what they are weaved of. But there are also those souls who miss that reality simply because their attention is dragged in the periphery by the most varied factors. Even if they have a sincere desire to know reality, they simply have taken too much of the habits of our present epoch and fruitlessly rearrange metaphysical mental images, until disillusioned they say "this is going nowhere..." And it is painful to perceive how at the threshold of death, just at the onset of terminal lucidity, such a soul is stricken by the realization "I've been living in this essence of reality all my life and yet somehow my thoughts were passing through it. Every thought that I pronounced emerged from this essence, yet I never examined that direction." It is as if in a split-second at this terminal moment, all that scientists and philosophers have sought, all that the sages have spoken of, tries to burst through our chest, only to immediately slip through our fingers. Then we are left in bewilderment and ache - "How could I have missed this? How could I have missed this? ..." sounding as an echo that fades away as our intellect becomes impossible to sustain. Then gradually we feel how unfit we are for this new state we have found ourselves into. The sorrow of the missed opportunity becomes the foundation stone for our next embodiment. Our whole sojourn in the spiritual worlds, passing for us as a blinding dream of which we can make no sense, is marked by the unspoken determination "I won't let this happen again! This time I won't miss it!"

This is not a universal experience. It can happen for those who sincerely sought the truth but indeed missed it, simply because they looked everywhere else except at the one place they never considered - the fountain of spiritual activity.

I'm not telling this as some scary bedtime story for grown ups but only because there are indeed such souls which thirst for truth, yet are thrown in the shadows by everything around them. And the most important thing is not to put our conscience to sleep by self-convincing ourselves that reality is somewhere out there, far away on Alpha Centauri.