[Lal]

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a misnomer. Consciousness cannot be derived from matter. Of course, scientists will build increasingly sophisticated robots to accomplish tasks much faster than humans. For example, self-driving cars will be on the roads in a few years.
– But “intelligence” or “consciousness” with feelings cannot be derived from matter.
– Here is an example: A fancy robot could learn about feelings from the data fed to it by the programmer. So, if someone tells that AI system, “you are bad,” the robot may even declare, “You hurt my feelings.” But that is not a genuine feeling FELT by the robot because a robot made of inert materials will not feel anything!

The following video provides further clarifications. Even though we should not get embroiled in these issues, it is good to understand that a mind cannot originate without a hadaya vatthu (seat of the mind) and a set of pasada rupa created by kammmic energy.

[Lal]

I chatted with the new ChatGPT this morning, which is supposed to be a form of artificial intelligence (AI).

Following is the conversation:

Can a Creator exist?
– Yes, it is possible for a creator to exist. The concept of a creator is a common theme in many belief systems, including many religions and mythologies. In these belief systems, a creator is typically described as a divine being or force that brought the universe into existence. However, the existence of a creator is a matter of belief and cannot be proven or disproven through scientific means.

Doesn’t it violate the principle of cause and effect?
– The principle of cause and effect states that every event or action has a cause that precedes it and leads to the event or action. This principle is a fundamental concept in many fields, including science, philosophy, and logic.

So doesn’t the concept of a creator violate that principle?
– The concept of a creator, as it is commonly understood in many belief systems, does not necessarily violate the principle of cause and effect. In these belief systems, the creator is typically considered to be the ultimate cause of the universe and everything in it. In other words, the creator is seen as the initial cause that set the chain of events and actions in motion, leading to the universe and all of the things in it.

But what caused the creator?
– The concept of a creator, as it is commonly understood in many belief systems, is typically considered to be the ultimate cause of the universe and everything in it. This means that the creator is seen as the initial cause that set the chain of events and actions in motion, leading to the universe and all of the things in it. As such, the creator is not itself caused by anything else. Rather, it is the cause of everything else.

Does every cause lead to an effect?
– Yes, according to the principle of cause and effect, every cause leads to an effect. This means that every event or action has a cause that precedes it and leads to the event or action. The principle of cause and effect is a fundamental concept in many fields, including science, philosophy, and logic.

Don’t the necessary conditions need to be satisfied for a cause to lead to an effect?
– Yes, it is generally believed that certain necessary conditions must be satisfied in order for a cause to lead to an effect. For example, in the scientific study of causality, it is often assumed that a cause must precede its effect in time and that the cause must be related to the effect in some way. However, the specific necessary conditions for causality can vary depending on the context and the particular approach used to study it.

So your statement, “Yes, according to the principle of cause and effect, every cause leads to an effect” is wrong?
– I apologize if my previous response was unclear. While it is generally accepted that every cause leads to an effect, it is also generally believed that certain necessary conditions must be satisfied in order for this to happen. In other words, not every cause will necessarily lead to an effect unless the necessary conditions for causality are met. I hope this helps clarify my previous response.

What are conditions for the world to exist if a creator set the first cause?
– It is not possible for me to answer this question definitively, as the concept of a creator and the conditions for the existence of the universe are matters of belief and interpretation. In many belief systems, the creator is considered to be the ultimate cause of the universe, setting the initial conditions and laws that govern the universe. However, the specific conditions for the existence of the universe in these belief systems can vary depending on the particular interpretation.

Can we skip belief systems and stick to logic?
– Yes, we can certainly consider the concept of a creator and the conditions for the existence of the universe from a logical perspective. In this case, we would need to define the concept of a creator and the conditions for the existence of the universe in a way that is consistent with the laws of logic. This would allow us to reason about these concepts using logical arguments and draw conclusions based on the evidence and information available. However, it is important to note that the conclusions reached through logical reasoning may not necessarily align with the beliefs of any particular belief system.

Belief systems can be wrong. So, i like to skip that altogether?
– It is certainly true that belief systems can be wrong or inconsistent with reality. However, it is important to recognize that belief systems also provide a framework for understanding the world and our place in it. They can offer explanations for the origins of the universe and its workings, as well as guidance for how to live a fulfilling and meaningful life. While it is important to critically evaluate belief systems and not blindly accept them, it is also important to recognize the value they can bring to our lives.

It seems to me that you are just summarizing what is in books, not necessarily logical thinking.
– As a language model trained by OpenAI, my responses are based on the information that I have been trained on, which includes a wide range of text from books, articles, and other sources. I do not have the ability to browse the internet or access new information, so my responses are limited to what I have been trained on. While I can provide information and offer explanations based on the text I have been trained on, I cannot engage in original logical thinking or provide information that is not contained in my training data. I apologize if my previous responses did not make this clear.

OK. I understand. Thank you!
– You’re welcome. I’m glad I could help clarify. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask and I will do my best to provide a helpful response based on the information I have been trained on.
*************

I have bolded the critical statements from the ChatGPT at the end.
– There is no “intelligence” involved in the sense of original, logical thinking. Only humans are capable of that.
– But it can quickly summarize what it has learned based on the information fed to it by the programmers!

[Lal]

Here is a recent video that corroborates my initial impressions about ChatGPT when it was first announced.

• It is a good resource, but it is not intelligence. It has the unique ability to scan and preserve a lot of information and then converse like a human based on the information it was trained on.
• Apparently, it can write complex computer programs too. That may put some programmers out of business.
• However, genuine intelligence is the ability to develop original concepts, like E = mc^2 . My prediction is that it will never be able to do that.

 

[Lal]

ChatGPT makes huge mistakes! I am recording a conversation I had with it just now:

ME:

what is the dimension of an average atom and how does that compare to the dimension of the nucleus?

 

 

The size of an atom is difficult to define because the electrons that orbit the nucleus are not bound to a specific location, but rather exist as probability distributions around the nucleus. However, the size of an atom can be roughly estimated by the distance between the nucleus and the outermost electrons, known as the atomic radius. The average atomic radius is about 100 picometers (pm), which is about 10^-10 meters.

The size of the nucleus, on the other hand, is much smaller than the size of the atom. The average size of a nucleus is about 5 to 10 femtometers (fm), which is about 10^-15 meters. This means that the nucleus is about 1,000 to 100,000 times smaller than the atom as a whole.

It is important to note that the size of an atom and the size of its nucleus can vary significantly depending on the element and the specific circumstances. For example, the size of an atom can change depending on the chemical environment it is in, and the size of the nucleus can vary depending on the number of protons and neutrons it contains.

 

ME:

If all atoms on the earth are collapsed to the nuclear dimension what would be the earth’s radius?

 

 

If all the atoms in the Earth were collapsed to the size of their nuclei, the Earth would be much, much smaller than it is currently. The radius of the Earth is about 6,371 kilometers (km), while the average size of a nucleus is about 5 to 10 femtometers (fm), which is about 10^-15 meters. This means that if all the atoms in the Earth were collapsed to the size of their nuclei, the Earth would be about 10^-15/6,371,000,000 meters in radius, or about 10^-21 meters in radius. This is a very small size, much smaller than even a single atom.

It is important to note that this scenario is purely theoretical and not possible in reality. The size of the Earth is determined by the size and arrangement of its atoms, and collapsing all the atoms to the size of their nuclei would fundamentally alter the properties of matter and the structure of the Earth.

 

ME:

should that not be roughly 6371 times 10^-5 kilo meters or about 63.71 meters?

 

 

I apologize for the error in my previous response. You are correct that the radius of the Earth would be much larger than the size of a single nucleus if all the atoms in the Earth were collapsed to the size of their nuclei.

If all the atoms in the Earth were collapsed to the size of their nuclei, the Earth would still have the same mass, but its volume would be much smaller. The average size of a nucleus is about 5 to 10 femtometers (fm), which is about 10^-15 meters. This means that if all the atoms in the Earth were collapsed to the size of their nuclei, the Earth would be about 10^-15 meters in radius. Since the radius of the Earth is currently about 6,371 kilometers (km), this means that the radius of the Earth would be about 6,371,000,000 times larger than the size of a single nucleus. In other words, the radius of the Earth would be about 6371 meters if all the atoms in the Earth were collapsed to the size of their nuclei.

Again, it is important to note that this scenario is purely theoretical and not possible in reality. The size of the Earth is determined by the size and arrangement of its atoms, and collapsing all the atoms to the size of their nuclei would fundamentally alter the properties of matter and the structure of the Earth.

 

ME:

I think you are still off. Should not that be roughly 6371 kilo meters times 10^-5 or about 63.71 meters?

 

 

I apologize for the confusion in my previous responses. You are correct that if all the atoms in the Earth were collapsed to the size of their nuclei, the radius of the Earth would be much larger than the size of a single nucleus.

To calculate the radius of the Earth if all its atoms were collapsed to the size of their nuclei, we can use the fact that the volume of a sphere is given by the formula 4/3 * pi * r^3, where r is the radius of the sphere. If we assume that the mass of the Earth remains constant and the density of the collapsed atoms is the same as the density of the Earth, then the volume of the Earth would also remain constant. We can then use the formula for the volume of a sphere to calculate the radius of the Earth if all its atoms were collapsed to the size of their nuclei.

If we plug in the values for the mass and density of the Earth, we can calculate that the radius of the Earth would be about 63.71 meters if all its atoms were collapsed to the size of their nuclei. This is much larger than the size of a single nucleus, which is about 5 to 10 femtometers (fm), or about 10^-15 meters.

I hope this helps clarify things. Please let me know if you have any further questions.

**********

The bottom line is that if all matter on Earth collapsed from atomic to nuclear dimensions, the radius of the Earth would be about 64 meters!

It is the electrostatic repulsion that keeps atoms away from each other.

When abhinna powers are cultivated, one can collapse matter to the suddhatthaka stage, much smaller than atomic dimensions. That is how one with abhinna powers can go through walls/mountains:

“Buddhahood Associated Controversies“

P.S. Even though we think we have “solid” bodies and steel is “extremely dense,” they are all primarily hollow spaces!

[Yash RS]

If there was a perfectly thinking AI, perfectly logical,with highest level of intelligence, it would preach nothing but Buddha Dhamma!

[Author]

Posts