I guess I'm feeling a twinge of argumentativeness um in what sense does an AI lack being?
And I don't mean that. I mean, I guess it's argumentative, but uh, but everything is, you're
quite right. AI lacks consciousness, not being. I'm sorry, I like consciousness, a computer is,
but he doesn't know. He doesn't experience. But it is, you're right. It's not possible for there
to be anything that lacks being because if it lacked being, what, what, it couldn't exist,
right? That being is the medium from which everything will be, be it an atom or universe
or a planet that derives its existence. So, so you're right. AI, a computer system, program,
has being, but that doesn't make it conscious. Well, so the being would be the first point,
conscious being would be the second point. It interacts, it responds to stimuli, which suggests,
I mean, awareness of the type. But this, this is the key point where,
yes, you see the key, sorry, sorry, key to interrupt you. You can carry on.
No, no, I don't know. I'm sure you get the point.
I get the point in the presumption. In what I think is your argument,
is that I, as a human being, am conscious or have consciousness. And when I tread on my cat's tail,
it screeches. Therefore, it presumably feels the pain. So the cat also has consciousness.
And you go on. And then at a certain stage, there's a line.
And everything this side of the line has consciousness or is conscious. And everything
the other side of the line, like stones and tables and glasses and computers, are not
conscious or don't have consciousness. That's the argument. And then the question is, where exactly
is that line? Does everything have a modicum of consciousness? Right? Not, the question is.
The question is based on an assumption, namely that we, as human beings, have consciousness
or are conscious. No, I'm afraid human beings are not conscious or not aware. Awareness is
not the property of a human being, of a human mind, or a human body. Only awareness is aware.
Right? Nothing else is. Where there's no question of a computer ever becoming aware, there's no
question of a cat or a dog being aware. There's no question of a human being aware. That only
awareness is aware. It is not we as people who are aware. It is we as awareness who are aware.
And everything is a manifestation of that, of the activity of that awareness. But that doesn't mean
that everything that appears in awareness is itself aware. It's very easy to check this in
your own experience. Would you agree, Keith, that your own thoughts appear in awareness? It's kind
of obvious that thoughts, even, I mean, I know you share this understanding, but even someone
who doesn't share this understanding would agree with us that our thoughts appear in consciousness,
in awareness. I always use the words awareness and consciousness synonymously. So we agree
that thoughts appear in awareness. They're not put into awareness from the outside.
They arise from within awareness. Therefore, the ultimate announces, "What is a thought made of?"
A current arises in the ocean. It's only made of the ocean. A thought arises in awareness. It can
only be made of awareness. Now, is a thought itself aware? For instance, can the thought
hear our conversation? Can the thought feel sorrow or taste coffee? Can a thought have an experience?
So a thought is an object that appears in awareness.
It is made of awareness. That's obvious to
us all. But it is not itself aware. Now, if that is our actual experience, I'm not talking
philosophy here. This is just an experience that everyone can verify themselves. So if we have the
experience of an object appearing in awareness, made of awareness, but is not itself aware,
then why couldn't this be an object that appears not in limited awareness, not in a finite mind,
but why couldn't an object such as a glass appear in a universal awareness, be made of that
awareness, and yet not itself be aware? In other words, it would appear as an inanimate object,
just as our thoughts are inanimate objects appearing in our minds. It's an instance of
the same fact of experience. So a computer, ultimately, everything is an appearance in
awareness, made of awareness. But that doesn't mean to say that things have awareness.
Awareness is not a property of any of its individual parts.
Awareness is the nature of the whole. The individual parts are just how that awareness,
how the activity of that awareness, appears from the localized perspective of a finite mind, right?
So back to one of your first points: Do we keep using the—sorry, sorry—do we have awareness? No,
if it worked depends what you mean by "we." If you're a person, no.
How is that different from an AI program?
An AI program doesn't have awareness, nor do I. No, only awareness. Only awareness is aware,
right? So an AI program, a computer, will never acquire awareness, however
sophisticated it becomes. It will never become aware. However sophisticated your thoughts are,
they will never become aware, nor will I, the person. No, no you can, because ultimately you—
Ultimately, you, as a person, you don't really exist. You, the person,
doesn't have its own discrete, independent existence. The only entity which is, of course,
not an entity, the only thing which is, of course, not a thing, is this infinite,
indivisible whole reality, consciousness, from its point of view, which is, of course,
the only real point of view because it is all that is real. There are no parts, no objects, no
person, no computer, no glass, no table. People, glasses, computers, tables, these are only such
from the localized perspective of a finite mind, right? There are waves on the ocean. So
from this localized perspective, the one infinite reality appears as a multiplicity and diversity of
objects themselves. That's just an appearance. What's it an appearance of? The one infinite,
indivisible reality. So from its point of view, from the point of view of reality, the whole
debate about whether people have consciousness, whether computers have consciousness,
it's a moot subject. That there are no individual people, objects, selves, entities, either to have
consciousness or not to have consciousness. It's a conversation that is based on a faulty assumption,
namely that human beings have consciousness, who are conscious. But once we realize that only the
one infinite whole is conscious, consciousness is awareness itself, once that is clear, then the
conversation about whether computers will one day become conscious or not, or where the line is
drawn between those that are conscious and those that are not, all this is just based on that old
paradigm. Yeah, this old, worn-out paradigm that human beings are discrete, separate, independently
existing entities that are born, they acquire consciousness, and so on. This is just an old,
worn-out model. It's like believing the Earth was flat or the
Sun goes around the Earth. It's just an old paradigm that is,
hopefully, in its final stages. Obviously, I'm buying everything you're saying, but
at one point there was a distinction between AI will never have what
we have, and I'm sometimes—I have to go in steps. Yeah, in case I can't go all the way there in one
step. So that was a concession to the assumption. I don't mean to say that Mark was assuming this,
but it was a concession that was legitimate in the context of the conversation. But now
that you press me, and I like it that you press me, now that you press me a little bit further,
I have to contradict what I previously said and be a bit more radical, because you demand it.
You're not satisfied, and you're quite right not to be satisfied with my original answer. It was a
halfway step, but that prepared the ground for us to be able to have this
conversation. So I'm glad you pressed me on that. Thank you. Okay, dinner time.