On Artificial Thinking

[James]

Your post is fine as it is, but I would add one minor point of clarification about the meaning of complexity. [The etymology of ‘complex’ is com (“with, together”), and plectere (“to weave, braid, twine, entwine”). So, something finely woven and intertwined.]

@jmsaario

To call something “complex” suggests a lack of understanding or clarity about the relationships between its elements.

There are complexities in need of further explanation (as you say, for “clarification about the relationships between its elements”). An example of this is what has been mentioned already on the thread about deep learning in AI.

But there are also things that remain complex even though they are understood. For example, the human body remains complex even though it is largely understood in terms of its structure. Or, to use an example that K was found of, a watch can be complicated even though one may know how to take it apart and put it back together.

[fraggle]

@jmsaario

The real question here is not about definitions

I have the slight feeling that you are trying to avoid answering my questions . It was not I who said that “mystery implies a lack of certainty”. So my questions have nothing to do with the search for definitions, but simply to know to what certainty you were referring when you said that “mystery implies a lack of certainty” (something that complexity would (supposedly) inversely have), nothing more.

@jmsaario

but about the assumptions we unconsciously make.

One’s own conditioning in charge of judging the appropriateness or inappropriateness of the other’s words, yes.

@jmsaario

What does it mean to label something as “complex” or “mysterious”? Are these merely words to cover our inability to see clearly?

No, it simply means using certain words to express to the other what one wants to communicate. From then on, it is the other’s conditioning that will take care of interpreting them according to the particular vision of the world that this conditioning has for him or her (together with the corresponding clarifications by the former to his or her interlocutor in order to be able to continue the dialogue).

A serious dialogue, interested in discovering the truth or falsity of something, never tries to cover up anything (including one’s own conditioning present in the dialogue). Mostly because it would be stupid and hypocritical.

@jmsaario

“complex” suggests a lack of understanding or clarity about the relationships between its elements. But “mystery” goes further and assumes the existence of something beyond perception

Again, this is nothing more than an interpretation of the other’s words, according to one’s own particular conditioning of what they mean.

Centuries of Christianity have done terrible damage to a humanity that once followed its postulates without question, and now bases its denial on a new dogmatic religion called ‘science’ that it does not question either. With the same threats and excommunications to anyone who dares to question it, as the Catholic church did not so long ago.

@jmsaario

This assumption is a subtle movement of thought that can mislead us, creating a sense of wonder or fascination but ultimately moving us away from what is

I fully agree that conditioning can “mislead us, creating a sense of wonder or fascination but ultimately leading us away from what is”.

And I am referring both to the conditioning accepted for centuries without questioning, of Christian Church, and to the conditioning accepted now (also without questioning) of this new religion called “Science”.

@jmsaario

The danger lies in how we use them

Not in “how we use them”, but in how our conditioning uses them, making a reality of them as opposed to another reality they may have for the conditioning of the other.

@jmsaario

Are they an opening to inquiry, or do they subtly reinforce a sense of separation or certainty about the unknown?

Everything will depend on the particular conditioning of each one in charge of interpreting them, and on how much one is attached to that conditioning that shapes the reality on which it bases its interpretation of “what is”.

In short: all of the above could be summed up simply in that the problem are not the words but the conditioning that interprets them, turning them into particular realities as opposed to other particular realities created on the basis of those very same words.

But forgive me for erring on the side of naivety, and believe that we were on a Krushnamurti forum where each of us is supposed to have no problem talking openly about one’s own conditioning once it has come to light for oneself, rather than continually trying to hide it behind the diffuse cloud of words that arise from that same conditioning.

[tnp]

An AI robot can be programmed to behave like humans. For example when it touches a hot object it can be programmed to react like humans to do by suddenly with drawing it hand, change its facial expression and also shout as we do our of pain.
Now if the AI robot looks exactly as reacts exactly like humans, there is no way to know that it’s not feeling any pain but only reacting like humans because of its programming.

So question arises, could we humans be also biological robots with artificial intelligence but claiming to be contrary .
Is not our sense of being is based on input from sense organs. Can it be said that only when all senses are dead and there is still sense of being ,can one claim we are not robot.

[Inquiry]

@tnp

could we humans be also biological robots with artificial intelligence but claiming to be contrary .

We are biological robots until we are aware of when and where thought has no place.

[fraggle]

@tnp

Is not our sense of being is based on input from sense organs?. Can it be said that only when all senses are dead and there is still sense of being ,can one claim we are not robot?.

An interesting question, especially for those who say that the brain is to blame for everything. So it will be interesting to hear them explain what happens to the senses once the brain has been able to rewire itself in the (supposedly) correct way.

[James]

@tnp

Is not our sense of being is based on input from sense organs. Can it be said that only when all senses are dead and there is still sense of being, can one claim we are not robot.

This is where I think the question of consciousness comes in (by which I mean consciousness in the general sense, i.e. as awareness; not in the more particular Krishnamurtian sense, i.e. as contents).

Because when one talks about having a sense of being, or an awareness of being, consciousness (or awareness) is implied.

So I understand your question to be:

Is consciousness wholly mediated or constructed by the senses (and the brain)?
What is the relationship between awareness and the senses (sentience)?
Can there be a state of consciousness/awareness in which the senses play a peripheral small part (rather than being dead)?
Is awareness necessarily limited to brain activity, or is there a form of consciousness/awareness beyond/outside the brain?

[jmsaario]

@James

This is where I think the question of consciousness comes in (by which I mean consciousness in the general sense, i.e. as awareness; not in the more particular Krishnamurtian sense, i.e. as contents).

It seems important to approach this question with careful attention to language, ensuring that words like consciousness and awareness are used with specificity and not assumed to carry the same meaning for all.

To use consciousness as “general awareness” risks conflating it with the deeper inquiry into what consciousness actually is. Consciousness is not a passive state of awareness but an active field consisting of its content (thought, memory, experience, conditioning). It is not separate from what it contains but defined by it.

Awareness, as discussed separately, is of a different nature altogether. It is not something personal, nor does it arise from thought. Awareness has no center, no observer, no conclusion. It simply is. It does not depend on the content of consciousness; rather, it stands beyond its field and movement.

To speak of consciousness as synonymous with awareness would therefore be a misunderstanding. Consciousness, as we commonly define it and also generally experience it, operates within the realm of experience, conditioning, and the known, whereas awareness exists outside this limitation. It is untouched by thought or its contents.

If we see this, can we be responsible in our use of language, fostering clarity rather than introducing assumptions or untested hypotheses?

[James]

@jmsaario

can we be responsible in our use of language, fostering clarity rather than introducing assumptions or untested hypotheses?

I understand what you are saying, but who was introducing assumptions and untested hypotheses?

@tnp raised the question of whether it is possible to distinguish a mechanical robot from a biological mind, and suggested that if there there is a kind of awareness or “sense of being” that exists in the absence of all sensory information, this may be evidence that human beings are not robots.

Remember, the context of the discussion is AI, which is generally associated with the question of consciousness, whether AIs can be conscious.

Consciousness in this very broad sense is normally associated with awareness and sentience, not merely the various contents of experience. I realise that K used the word ‘consciousness’ to imply ‘content’, but the discussion so far has been quite broad, and in ordinary society (not to mention academic life) the word ‘consciousness’ has a wider valence than you are permitting it here.

For example, the Wikipedia entry on consciousness begins, with its very first sentence, by saying

Consciousness, at its simplest, is awareness of internal and external existence

It goes on to say

In some explanations, it is synonymous with the mind, and at other times, an aspect of it. In the past, it was one’s “inner life”, the world of introspection, of private thought, imagination, and volition. Today, it often includes any kind of cognition, experience, feeling, or perception. It may be awareness, awareness of awareness, metacognition, or self-awareness

So the word ‘consciousness’ has this variety of meanings, one of which is awareness or sentience. This is not a private assumption or hypothesis on my part, it is simply the way the word is used in ordinary parlance.

You are wanting to introduce a distinction between the word consciousness and the word awareness, because, for you,

@jmsaario

Consciousness, as we commonly define it and also generally experience it, operates within the realm of experience, conditioning, and the known, whereas awareness exists outside this limitation.

I just want to draw your attention to the fact that in ordinary usage awareness is an awareness ‘of’ something - generally some kind of sensory perception or sensory experience (or its extension into thought and memory). Whether there is or can be an awareness without any content of experience, which can exist in the total absence of sensory experience - which is what @tnp and I were talking about - has not been ascertained in this discussion.

Awareness may be beyond/outside the brain , it may be beyond/outside ordinary sensory experience (as sentience). These were the questions I feel @tnp was raising, which is why I asked them.

[jmsaario]

Can we put aside the tendency to get caught in definitions and descriptions, which are the movements of thought, and simply observe what is?

Thought, by its very nature, fragments and divides, creating confusion and conflict. Giving energy to this confusion only strengthens it.

If we see this clearly, can we move together beyond the limitations of thought and meet on the ground of fact — not opinion, not speculation, not analysis, not choice — allowing clarity to arise naturally, without effort or direction?

When we speak of consciousness, awareness, or thinking, let it emerge from direct observation of the actual, not from what is commonly thought, assumed, or said by others.

[James]

@jmsaario

Can we put aside the tendency to get caught in definitions and descriptions, which are the movements of thought, and simply observe what is?

Wasn’t it you who objected to the use of the word consciousness and sought to define it differently? As for what I wrote in my previous post, there is nothing outside the purview of observation is there? Awareness or consciousness is usually awareness ‘of’ something, consciousness ‘of’ something (whether this be a sensory perception, sensory reaction, a feeling, or a thought/movement of thought).

The question being raised is whether there is a form that awareness takes which is not limited to this, but is awareness per se, without an object. You are saying (as far as I can tell) that there is. I am being more circumspect.