- This topic has 11 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 5 months ago by Brett.
November 10, 2019 at 4:48 am #25482
I thought everyone would appreciate this article:
Science as we know it can’t explain consciousness – but a revolution is coming
Interestingly, the revolution they talk about came some 2500 years ago, dhammacakka has been turning for a long time, I just hope it could reach many more people within the predicted 5000 year life of Buddha Sasana.
November 10, 2019 at 4:28 pm #25489
This hypothesis says that the mind arises out of matter. It is captured clearly in the following paragraph from the article:
“This means that mind is matter, and that even elementary particles exhibit incredibly basic forms of consciousness. Before you write that off, consider this. Consciousness can vary in complexity. We have good reason to think that the conscious experiences of a horse are much less complex than those of a human being, and that the conscious experiences of a rabbit are less sophisticated than those of a horse. As organisms become simpler, there may be a point where consciousness suddenly switches off – but it’s also possible that it just fades but never disappears completely, meaning even an electron has a tiny element of consciousness.”
That is complete nonsense.
Matter can NEVER give rise to consciousness. The matter is inert. How can joy and sadness arise in the matter?
– Consciousness in an electron? How do these people come up with such crazy ideas?
This is also why it will NEVER be possible to make a “conscious robot” or any type of artificial intelligence.
– Any machine, no matter how sophisticated, is nothing more than a fancy computer. A computer is as good as its parts and the human designer who programmed it.
If anyone can refute those facts, I would be interested in discussing further.
December 17, 2021 at 11:47 pm #36300
My understanding of the statement, Mind is matter, is that they are both faces of the same coin. I agree that we will not create conscious robots in the sense of being linked to the source of pure consciousness but it is within the reach of science to create a robot activated by an advanced computer that will mimic consciousness and for sure have intellectual capacity far above that of current humans.
November 11, 2019 at 1:11 am #25492
So are the 5 aggregates what science might call ‘consciousness’? Is it viññāṇa (I guess not?) Or is it the “mind” which is not within the 5 aggregates, is it the communication with the gandhabba? So what would be the closest thing in Buddha Dhamma that resembles “consciousness” in science?
This also made me thinking… I read that the gandhabba takes hold of a zygote or merges with it and for this to happen the gati of the gandhabba must be “similar” to that of the father and mother of the future child.
Does Tipitaka mention how this ‘similarity’ is determined? I.e. is the similarity ‘read’ from the genes of the zygote or is it information somehow taken from nāmagotta?
Since the leading principle in Buddha Dhamma is Paticca Sumppada the abstract view would be that the zygote provided the correct conditions for the gandhabba to start a jāti as a human being. So you’re saying that we would be never able to create a “conscious” robot. What if we created a very similar (if not the same) kind of conditions which the zygote provides and ‘trick’ gandhabbas? I know this sounds evil, but it might be what science would be doing sometime in the far future.
November 11, 2019 at 7:52 am #25495
Consciousness ARISE in the mental body (manomaya kaya or gandhabba for humans and animals.)
The gandhabba is the essential part, not the physical body.
– When one gets a human bhava, one gets a corresponding mental body (gandhabba). That can last many thousands of years.
“Bhava and Jāti – States of Existence and Births Therein”
– Within that time gandhabba can be born with a physical human body many times. When one physical body dies, the gandhabba comes out of that dead body and waits for another suitable womb with a compatible zygote.
These concepts are explained in:
“Buddhist Explanations of Conception, Abortion, and Contraception”
“Cloning and Gandhabba”
The key point is that a gandhabba can NEVER be created in a laboratory. A sentient life ALWAYS comes from a pre-existing sentient life.
– Modern science (a laboratory) may be able to create a “zygote-like” entity (which is just the right “chemical composition”) for the gandhabba to start making a new physical body. In fact, cloning is a crude form of that.
– But a gandhabba only comes a previous existing life (in any of the 31 realms.)
– For example when a deva or a brahma dies and if the next birth is as human, then at that instant a “human gandhabba” is created by kammic energy.
November 11, 2019 at 9:01 am #25497
Ok, I understand.
We won’t be able to create a conscious robot because even if we created the body (or whatever bearer) consciousness must always come from gandhabba which we can never create (probably not?).
November 11, 2019 at 9:33 am #25498
“We won’t be able to create a conscious robot because even if we created the body (or whatever bearer) consciousness must always come from gandhabba which we can never create (probably not?).”
Yes. We need to leave out, “probably not.” It can NEVER happen. Sentient life arises ONLY as a kamma vipaka.
Of course, the Paticca Samuppada step, “upadana paccaya bhava” MUST happen too.
– An Arahant may have kammic energies from kamma done in this life or past lives that COULD give rise to another existence (bhava).
– But an Arahant’s mind would NOT go through the “tanha paccaya upadana” step, and thus “upadana paccaya bhava” step.
– That what we will be discussing next in the “Origin of Life” series.
December 16, 2021 at 10:31 pm #36293
2019, now 2021, a bit late but, to further this interesting AI-related thread, isn’t it at least possible that a Gandhabba would want to “incarnate” in an advanced robot? If we create our own reality and therefore our physical bodies out of accumulated Karmic energy, then, as technology advances, people will want (they already do) to live longer and will accept the idea of having technology implanted in their bodies. When this is made possible, then this “new” type” of desires will exist creating the basis for a Gandhabba to experience life within such a robot. So, it would not be AI but rather actual life inhabiting a new type of vehicle, possibly a mix of tissues and technology.
December 17, 2021 at 6:40 am #36295
Brett asked: “isn’t it at least possible that a Gandhabba would want to “incarnate” in an advanced robot?”
No. That is not possible at all.
Gandhabba cannot “merge” with an inert machine.
A gandhabba can merge ONLY with a matching biological entity called a zygote.
– But it is possible to make a zygote outside a womb by using artificial insemination.
See, “Buddhist Explanations of Conception, Abortion, and Contraception” and “Cloning and Gandhabba“
December 17, 2021 at 10:58 pm #36299
Since Gandhabba does, according to your post, incarnate in clones, then it will incarnate in a technologically enhanced human clone. That is exactly where immortality studies are pointing to, a mix of technology and biotech to further human life, a mix of cloning and AI is very much within the realm of the possibilities of science.
December 18, 2021 at 12:26 am #36302
I am not sure what you mean by, “Since Gandhabba does, according to your post, incarnate in clones, then it will incarnate in a technologically enhanced human clone.”
– Do you mean a gandhabba can merge with a BIOLOGICAL clone, prepared with DNA from two people”? Then the answer is YES. That is being done today, as I mentioned in my posts.
– However, if you are talking about a MECHANICAL robot, that can NEVER happen. For example, some people like Ray Kurzweil are predicting that “human consciousness can be downloaded to a machine”. That is NOT possible according to Buddha Dhamma.
– We just have to wait and see whether Kurzweil is right or Buddha Dhamma right.
December 18, 2021 at 3:05 am #36305
Thank you for your answer. Yes, I was thinking of a clone that additionally would be enhanced by AI technology. AI, and I agree with you, is the computational ability to process data, not consciousness per se.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.