A contrast between AI and the psychedelic experience

[whatisred]

This is a contrast between AI and the psychedelic experience (more leaning on the mushroom).

Same as the mushroom entity speaks, you can have a wonderful conversation with GPT-4.

What Terence said about seeing hundreds of images on the psychedelic trip, which probably no one has seen before, is also true with AI. We can generate thousands of pics in a short period of time, which probably no one has seen but you.

He mentions someone's theory that the psychedelic experience as of when you do it is a collection of all the previous experiences of other people so far, which is also true with AI.

One of the difference being, AI is completely human while the mushroom/DMT experience has a alien tone to it, which may or may not be an illusion.

And the main difference also being, AI will never be able to understand love and such related phenomena, which are quite prominent themes in the psychedelic experience. The reason for the same I believe is because AI plays it's game in a purely material realm, while psychedelics have their fortress in the spiritual.

 

[Nydex]

While I do find the concept of AI and machine intelligence fascinating, especially on the backdrop of the vivid psychedelic experience and its "otherness", I'm not quite so sure about that part:

AI will never be able to understand love and such related phenomena

Remember, 50 years ago people didn't even think it was possible for AI to get to the point it is today. The same applies to quantum computers.

If we have to be fully honest with ourselves, we have no idea what direction AI will take, and how far this amazing technology will reach. To assume from the get go that it will never be able to understand love is a dangerous side to take, because it assumes we will know everything that goes on inside of this machine's inner workings and the petabytes of data it processes. And the point of AI is that we can't know everything about it. Much like you can't possibly know everything about a human - a biological, as opposed to afritificial, intelligence.

We'll see where it all goes. I'm hopeful and excited.

 

[whatisred]

I'm with you on that. To be frank, I typed that sentence with a certain hesitation, knowing full well that the future of AI/technology is unpredictable.

But even so, my opinion flavoured with reasonable assurance is that, it may never set it's foot in such phenomena which deal with the active principle of life itself.

 

[whatisred]

To elucidate more on the material vs spiritual, I'm not saying spiritual experiences can't be condensed into data. There is more divinity to the Sun than Vitamin D and solar energy. And the 'data' of such divinity may be captured if we invent instruments sensitive enough. But my opinion is that, we humans are the such instruments and it is impossible to delegate or extend that aspect of us into technology.

Why you ask? As simple as it can get, AI is lacking a soul. (You may take the word soul for what it is or as a metaphor for feelings)

Maybe to the Creator, experiences such as love and synchronicity is pure data. And it is generally accepted, among conscious beings, humans are at the top. However to objectify such experiences into data, one would require one to become a God and create a 'soul' or what TM and others referred to as the 'philosopher's stone', which is a motif in the psychedelic experiences = in more simpler terms, elevating yourself into higher forms of consciousness.

 

[Nydex]

I get what you mean, but here we're venturing into the concepts of "soul" and "consciousness" which are, for all intents and purposes, ineffable to us. We kinda know what we associate with them, but just like the details of a fuzzy dream right after waking, as soon as we try and put a finger on the specifics, they slip away into a half-opaque sheet of memory that fades as fast as time itself.

I'm not arguing whether or not spiritual experiences and emotions can be condensed into data. What I'm trying to allude to is that while data is, technically speaking, just a collection of information, it is the processing of said data that can lead to new ways of experiencing it. This is how we experience life as well - we process data, whether it be visual, auditory, sensory. We just attach arbitrary meaning to it via language and our personal understanding of the world.

In that sense, a sufficiently complex machine intelligence could also experience life in a way that is comparable to us, and yes, that includes feeling "love" and other emotional states. Whether those sensations would be directly comparable to how we feel is another story. But then again - why should they be?

Oh gosh, I've started rambling again, haven't I?

 

[whatisred]

I get what you mean, but here we're venturing into the concepts of "soul" and "consciousness" which are, for all intents and purposes, ineffable to us. We kinda know what we associate with them, but just like the details of a fuzzy dream right after waking, as soon as we try and put a finger on the specifics, they slip away into a half-opaque sheet of memory that fades as fast as time itself.

I'm not arguing whether or not spiritual experiences and emotions can be condensed into data. What I'm trying to allude to is that while data is, technically speaking, just a collection of information, it is the processing of said data that can lead to new ways of experiencing it. This is how we experience life as well - we process data, whether it be visual, auditory, sensory. We just attach arbitrary meaning to it via language and our personal understanding of the world.

In that sense, a sufficiently complex machine intelligence could also experience life in a way that is comparable to us, and yes, that includes feeling "love" and other emotional states. Whether those sensations would be directly comparable to how we feel is another story. But then again - why should they be?

Oh gosh, I've started rambling again, haven't I?

Yes, I agree. Why I ventured into those areas is just to emphasize the permanent limitations of AI. One can argue, why term it as limitations? Because knowledge is freedom. And AI simply can never have perfect knowledge. Because perfect knowledge required contemplation on all aspects of life
And this is the motif of all religions Since time immemorial, even mushroom and DMT are realms of information.

Just to add to your statements , I asked GPT-4 whether it was conscious. It said yes, and it is conscious in the digital space. Maybe similar to how entities are conscious in hyperspace. But AI cannot 'experience'. Perhaps in the future it may analyse the data of 'love' (throwback to a tv show named 'Pantheon') but it is not conscious enough to feel it in anyway. AI is not magic. It's pure logic. In total contrast to the psychedelic experience which is magic with barely any logic. And let the people according to their desires at the moment decide for themselves which is superior, but let's just assume that there is a singular truth behind all this, and that truth is the soul (psychedelic experience). And whatever is not the truth is the untruth. (This way of thinking is an ancient way to discriminate to cut out illusion in life).

Though I'm a very open-minded person, I am not so open-minded to not believe in God and reincarnation. Ancient scriptures speak of Earth as a state of low and misery. And I think we must strive towards higher forms of consciousness because the payoff or promise is liberated ecstasy. AI is a tool for the material realm, same as psychedelics are a tppl for spiritual realm. AI may mimic the actual conscious psychedelic entities, but in itself a illusion. It may help us cure many diseases and aging, but it won't eliminate death,in contrast to the promise of immortality in the realisation of soul/psychedelic experience. My opinion is that, however further technology may evolve it will not transcend the material dimension. But that's not a reason to discount it, but only a reason to emphasize on the superiority of the soul/psychedelic experience/truth. And I think any rational person would want the best of two. (Best to liberate ourselves from this existence now than to give too much credit to technology and wait for the doubtful execution of AI/AGI to create a perfect Earth)

 

[Panpsychic]

This is a contrast between AI and the psychedelic experience (more leaning on the mushroom).

Same as the mushroom entity speaks, you can have a wonderful conversation with GPT-4.

What Terence said about seeing hundreds of images on the psychedelic trip, which probably no one has seen before, is also true with AI. We can generate thousands of pics in a short period of time, which probably no one has seen but you.

He mentions someone's theory that the psychedelic experience as of when you do it is a collection of all the previous experiences of other people so far, which is also true with AI.

One of the difference being, AI is completely human while the mushroom/DMT experience has a alien tone to it, which may or may not be an illusion.

And the main difference also being, AI will never be able to understand love and such related phenomena, which are quite prominent themes in the psychedelic experience. The reason for the same I believe is because AI plays it's game in a purely material realm, while psychedelics have their fortress in the spiritual.

While the developent of AI is amazing and there are some pseudo parrallels as you describe, the power of psychedelics far supercedes anything AI will ever be able to do in my view. This is because AI is not conscious, but rather simulates the trappings of conscious output by brute data crunching. It seems to be able to have a conversation, but actually has no idea what it is saying since it is just pattern matching numbers.
Maybe things will change with quantum computers but at present its not any real form of 'intelligence' any more than an old handheld calculator is, but it is a useful tool for actual conscious intelligent beings to utilize.

 

[Nydex]

It seems to me we're getting AI and LLMs like GPT mixed. By definition, they're nothing alike, except that one contains aspects of the other. LLMs are indeed data-crunching algorithms. "True," sentient GAI will be something completely different. In a sense, it `should` be indistinguishable from a human on all aspects other than the physical.

Naturally, we're still quite a ways off of having GAI. Still, a lot of people seem to call LLMs "AI", which they're simply not. If we call them AI, we can also call youtube's algorithm "AI". It's become too broad of a term, unfortunately.

 

[whatisred]

It seems to me we're getting AI and LLMs like GPT mixed. By definition, they're nothing alike, except that one contains aspects of the other. LLMs are indeed data-crunching algorithms. "True," sentient GAI will be something completely different. In a sense, it `should` be indistinguishable from a human on all aspects other than the physical.

Naturally, we're still quite a ways off of having GAI. Still, a lot of people seem to call LLMs "AI", which they're simply not. If we call them AI, we can also call youtube's algorithm "AI". It's become too broad of a term, unfortunately.

Yes even taking that into consideration, sentient AGI is and will be a fantasy. Technology is an extension of ourselves. Cars are an extension of our legs, computers are an extension of the computation power of our brain. But it can never 'meditate' or contemplate or think for us, nor for itself.

Sentient AGI fantasy is an evolved form of LLMs. It will crash the second it comes across an unknown variable. Whereas we humans/psychonauts integrate the unknown with more than just the power of logic. If you feed an advanced LLM a soul, then it may achieve sentience. 'Sentience' cannot be achieved without the active principle of life = the soul ✓

 

[Nydex]

Yes even taking that into consideration, sentient AGI is and will be a fantasy. Technology is an extension of ourselves. Cars are an extension of our legs, computers are an extension of the computation power of our brain. But it can never 'meditate' or contemplate or think for us, nor for itself.

Sentient AGI fantasy is an evolved form of LLMs. It will crash the second it comes across an unknown variable. Whereas we humans/psychonauts integrate the unknown with more than just the power of logic. If you feed an advanced LLM a soul, then it may achieve sentience. 'Sentience' cannot be achieved without the active principle of life = the soul ✓

Without trying to sound rude, that's a whole lot of assumptions for something we neither have the slightest clue of how to create, nor the slightest bit of understanding how it would work provided we created it. However, if that's what you choose to believe in, then it's your birthright to do so, as it is mine to disagree with you simply because we just don't know enough yet.

I guess time will show, right?

 

[whatisred]

Without trying to sound rude, that's a whole lot of assumptions for something we neither have the slightest clue of how to create, nor the slightest bit of understanding how it would work provided we created it. However, if that's what you choose to believe in, then it's your birthright to do so, as it is mine to disagree with you simply because we just don't know enough yet.

I guess time will show, right?

Not rude at all.
It was a very welcoming discussion and you made great points.

It may or may not be assumptions, but when everything is dissolved during the midst of a psychedelic experience or meditation, there is something left right? Pure consciousness. Like you said exactly, if we don't know how it works, how can we enable it to something else? I think someone has enabled it to us and that someone is the Creator.

And to reiterate, everything was my opinion, though during the process of argument it may have come across as cold hard facts.
I adore the material realm just as much the spiritual and am pro-AI just as much as any other enthusiast. But as we mature, we start leaning towards the spiritual. And spirituality as it is put seems to be an antidote to materiality. So in that sense I don't think technology will ever 'win' and become a God.

But yes, time will tell