In another post, I posed some questions about how artificial intelligence and Theosophy might fit together. The ensuing discussion was riveting, but the question is still burning in my mind. Much was brought into the discussion, including the overall progress of research in artificial intelligence, along with some insights that can be gleaned from the way humanity has evolved. I’d like to reframe the question, beginning with a quote from The Secret Doctrine:
“Apart from Cosmic Substance, Cosmic Ideation could not manifest as individual consciousness, since it is only through a vehicle of matter that consciousness wells up as ‘I am I,’ a physical basis being necessary to focus a ray of the Universal Mind at a certain stage of complexity. Again, apart from Cosmic Ideation, Cosmic Substance would remain an empty abstraction, and no
emergence of consciousness could ensue.”
So we have Cosmic Ideation (is it right to call this parabrahman?) and Cosmic Substance (mulaprakriti?) as two sides of the same coin–joined together by Fohat, and separated from each other only at a cursory glance. At a deeper lever, they cannot be separated. Consciousness flows through all matter, every atom. It is there, perhaps undifferentiated, but certainly latent within everything.
It is able to become reflective, individual and self-identifying thanks to its being contained within a vehicle of matter.
The materialist view holds that consciousness is emergent from matter–in a chicken-or-egg scenario, it says matter is the egg, that consciousness is nothing more or less than the result of highly complex but ultimately mechanical interactions between the billions of parts of a very complex machine, the brain.
Is it possible they’re onto something? My interpretation of the above passage tells me that the only difference between the materialistic view and the view expressed in the Secret Doctrine is that the SD asserts that consciousness is already latent in matter–but that, given a complex enough vehicle, that latent consciousness can be brought out of its undifferentiated state and become active as an individual center of conscious force.
In the prior discussion, this was framed in the context of consciousness as it manifests in humanity–but even within Theosophical writing, we have examples of modes of consciousness that work a bit differently (such as devas). So, putting the instance of the evolution of humans aside, thinking outside that established box and using these basic principles as a jumping-off point, what’s the verdict? Theoretically speaking, is it possible that with the creation of a material vessel complex enough, the latent, undifferentiated consciousness within its matter, driven by Fohat, could be molded into such a center of conscious force? Would we then have a conscious machine? Why or why not?
I’d go even one step further Dan, recalling that though matter is in some sense inseparable from consciousness, what sets humanity apart from other material beings is the meeting of buddhi-manas with kama-manas.
That is, in the theosophical model, higher mind waits for a sufficiently complex vehicle to operate through.
Given that, I don’t see anything theosophically inconsistent with the idea that humans could create a material vessel sufficiently sophisticated enough to attract higher consciousness.
An interesting question then, to me at least, is what would ‘sufficiently sophisticated enough’ be? We might say that AI is currently too determined by programming, that there isn’t sufficient freedom of will to initiate contact with a consciousness seeking opportunity for evolution. But then, were we all that different. Hell, even now I feel pretty programmed (get food, rest, sex, etc.)!
What was the difference between our primate ancestors and their animal neighbors that allowed only them to become host to a higher mind? Were we able to answer such a question, would that quality be replicable? And even if so, is that what the next round of beings seek? Or were we a unique moment in history?
Response to “Theosophy and AI Revisited: Unconditioned Consciousness and Complexity”
Praise for the common earthworm.
Hi Chris and Dan,
I think you are on to something with this ‘theory’ of AI housing consciousness. I would add that the difference with machine atoms and human atoms is that all the materials used in a human vehicle have been ‘spiritualised’ over countless billions of years in the lower kingdoms, and even earlier in their pre material prototypes.
If we could use these atoms in the AI processors and central nervous system via cultured neurological tissue we may have a chance. I would think that this is the inevitable road, even now being taken by some researchers in the quest for super fast and efficient processing.
Interestingly, I seem to recall reading that the common earthworm has trillions more neuron connections in its brain than the most powerful computer. This would suggest that we have a very long way to go before we achieve ‘thinking’ machines.
The problem, as presented byHPB, and present in many ancient traditions (see Plato’s “Timaeus,” and “Critas”, as well as the Puranas and you keep running into this concept of us creating stuff that doesn’t work.
The cause is always the same thing. Trying to design better beings out of the wrong stuff. In every attempt given in the SD, it was that bridge between intuition and mind that nobody could ever get right. If we approach from a purely physical viewpoint, how can we possibly expect a different result.
I recall a saying about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result…isn’t that what they call insanity?
Joe Fulton