Artificial intelligence and the soul OR Karma

[LuisDantas]

What of the opposite?

I'm not sure what the opposite is, but I will nonetheless guess that it is impossible to tell for certain too.

 

[Kalidas]

I'm not sure what the opposite is, but I will nonetheless guess that it is impossible to tell for certain too.

Well the opposite would be can we know if .AI is equally capable of a conscious mind.

 

[allfoak]

There may be other things going on in the universe that i am not privy of but here on this planet every soul must be born of flesh.
I'm not aware of a back door.

So it would seem that intelligence alone does not a soul make!

 

[von bek]

But what is the mechanism by which a death and a rebirth are linked.

Consciousness and kamma.

And as I have said many times before, you must understand dependent origination to get a full grasp on how the cycle of experience is constructed and continued without recourse to any Creator God or atman.

 

[von bek]

Then, Von Bek, has anyone seen the Brahma-Kings as sublime deities that dwell in the Fine-Material Realm and the Formless Realm?

Has any one's teacher seen the Brahma-Kings as sublime deities that dwell in the Fine-Material Realm and the Formless Realm?

The Buddha and many disciples are recorded as having done so. That is good enough for me. This does not violate the Buddha's advice in any way because he also speaks of topics that I can verify directly. Those that I can verify give me confidence to trust the Buddha when he speaks of things I am unable to directly verify as of yet. This is where faith in the Buddha comes into play. Furthermore, the things I have yet to have a direct experience of are within my ability to experience if I follow through on the Buddha's teaching.

 

[Kalidas]

There may be other things going on in the universe that i am not privy of but here on this planet every soul must be born of flesh.
I'm not aware of a back door.

So it would seem that intelligence alone does not a soul make!

Why must every soul be born of flesh? Trees have no flesh and I'm sure they have a soul . Though I do agree being intelligent does not mean you get a soul. But as vinayaka said souls look for a vessel to inhabit, I see no reason a robot couldn't be habitable.

But were focusing too much on souls and this post is for all followers of dharma. So what of karma and reincarnation?

 

[allfoak]

there is no reincarnation without birth.
and of course no soul no karma.

 

[George-ananda]

Consciousness and kamma.

And as I have said many times before, you must understand dependent origination to get a full grasp on how the cycle of experience is constructed and continued without recourse to any Creator God or atman.

I have only a limited understanding of consciousness, kamma and dependent origination, true enough. You are talking about the causes of rebirth; which is all well and fine but I'm asking about the physical (or super-physical) MECHANISM that allows rebirth to take place.

We would agree in a materialist universe, rebirth could not take place, right? So there must be some mechanism that is non-material involved; that is what I'm asking about.

 

[LuisDantas]

There may be other things going on in the universe that i am not privy of but here on this planet every soul must be born of flesh.
I'm not aware of a back door.

So it would seem that intelligence alone does not a soul make!

Maybe not. How could anyone tell, though?

 

[von bek]

I have only a limited understanding of consciousness, kamma and dependent origination, true enough. You are talking about the causes of rebirth; which is all well and fine but I'm asking about the physical (or super-physical) MECHANISM that allows rebirth to take place.

We would agree in a materialist universe, rebirth could not take place, right? So there must be some mechanism that is non-material involved; that is what I'm asking about.

Hmmm. If consciousness, kamma, and dependent origination is not the answer to your question, then I honestly do not understand what you mean by mechanism. This is not your fault, the misunderstanding lies solely with me. To help me give you a proper answer, tell me what you believe the mechanism is that allows rebirth.

 

[George-ananda]

Hmmm. If consciousness, kamma, and dependent origination is not the answer to your question, then I honestly do not understand what you mean by mechanism. This is not your fault, the misunderstanding lies solely with me. To help me give you a proper answer, tell me what you believe the mechanism is that allows rebirth.

Let's take this in small steps

Do you agree or disagree that rebirth can not take place in a materialist worldview?

Or does my question not make sense? Does 'materialist worldview' make sense to you?

 

[allfoak]

What if the mechanism for rebirth was Karma?

 

[Kalidas]

What if the mechanism for rebirth was Karma?

Karma is just cause and effect. One could be reborn without karma. Check I know people who believe in karma with reincarnation, and vice versa.

 

[allfoak]

Karma is just cause and effect. One could be reborn without karma. Check I know people who believe in karma with reincarnation, and vice versa.

Exactly.
We create the cause and the effect is rebirth.

 

[von bek]

Let's take this in small steps

Do you agree or disagree that rebirth can not take place in a materialist worldview?

If materialism were correct, I do not believe rebirth could take place in a manner that connects different lifetimes. The reason being is that any particular manifestation of mind would only be an emergent property of a specific physical organ, no prior state of consciousness could arise before the formation of a material brain in a materialist view.

Or does my question not make sense? Does 'materialist worldview' make sense to you?

Materialist worldview does make sense to me in that I am able to define the term, somewhat. My basic definition is that materialism teaches that matter is the First Cause and that everything found within the universe is matter or something derived directly from matter. In materialism, the only things we can truly call "real" are material objects that take up physical space. Mind, in this view, is an accidental emergent property and not "real" in the way matter is. This is why I was questioning aup earlier about mapping out the brain, reconstructing it, and seeing what would happen. For a materialist, it would have to be the case that actual consciousness would arise as long as the proper material basis is constructed as mind is simply manufactured by matter without mutual interdependence.

 

[George-ananda]

If materialism were correct, I do not believe rebirth could take place in a manner that connects different lifetimes. The reason being is that any particular manifestation of mind would only be an emergent property of a specific physical organ, no prior state of consciousness could arise before the formation of a material brain in a materialist view.

Very good answer and I agree. Now, what I want to ask next is 'what is there that you accept that a materialist would not accept'?

 

[von bek]

Very good answer and I agree. Now, what I want to ask next is 'what is there that you accept that a materialist would not accept'?

Wow, now that is a question!

I don't think I can give your excellent question full justice in a forum post; but, I will try to give a short version that captures the essence of what I would like to say.

The main thing I would accept that a materialist would not is that mind is not a property of matter. Mind and matter are mutually dependent phenomena, neither stands alone as a First Cause. Unlike a materialist, I do believe that there are realms of existence where beings only possess mental bodies. I also believe in paranormal powers as the Buddha taught. These siddhis are developed by mental training. I also believe that mind can affect matter directly without a material agent facilitating the effect. For instance, I do believe it is possible for powerful yogis to create mental bodies or to alter matter at the molecular level.

Dependent origination teaches that in the chain of causation, volitional formations lead to consciousness, conditioned by consciousness, name-and-form arise. Conditioned by name-and-form, the six sense-bases arise. I believe this and its implication is that the body is produced by the mind. The reason this happens is because kamma generated in a previous lifetime conditions the material body that arises in this one. Of course, as I said matter and mind are mutually dependent, so some mental states and types of consciousness are in turn produced by body. It can go both ways, depending...

Materialism would turn this on its head, all mental processes would arise from the cause of a material body. Differences in individuals are not seen as the results of past kamma, but as reflections of different chemicals being fired off in the brain and different neurological connections.

One thing I want to make clear since I am disputing materialist claims is that I do not believe matter to be an illusion. It "exists" in the same manner as mind does.

 

[George-ananda]

Wow, now that is a question!

Wow, now that is an answer!

I don't think I can give your excellent question full justice in a forum post; but, I will try to give a short version that captures the essence of what I would like to say.

The main thing I would accept that a materialist would not is that mind is not a property of matter. Mind and matter are mutually dependent phenomena, neither stands alone as a First Cause. Unlike a materialist, I do believe that there are realms of existence where beings only possess mental bodies. I also believe in paranormal powers as the Buddha taught. These siddhis are developed by mental training. I also believe that mind can affect matter directly without a material agent facilitating the effect. For instance, I do believe it is possible for powerful yogis to create mental bodies or to alter matter at the molecular level.

Dependent origination teaches that in the chain of causation, volitional formations lead to consciousness, conditioned by consciousness, name-and-form arise. Conditioned by name-and-form, the six sense-bases arise. I believe this and its implication is that the body is produced by the mind. The reason this happens is because kamma generated in a previous lifetime conditions the material body that arises in this one. Of course, as I said matter and mind are mutually dependent, so some mental states and types of consciousness are in turn produced by body. It can go both ways, depending...

Materialism would turn this on its head, all mental processes would arise from the cause of a material body. Differences in individuals are not seen as the results of past kamma, but as reflections of different chemicals being fired off in the brain and different neurological connections.

One thing I want to make clear since I am disputing materialist claims is that I do not believe matter to be an illusion. It "exists" in the same manner as mind does.

Very good and interesting. I'm not sure if all this is different or compatible with my beliefs. Sometimes I feel that Buddhists say they differ from my Advaita/Theosophical beliefs because they are looking at them with some wrong assumptions.

But you put out quality posts so I hope we will discuss all this further in the future. I'm not sure exactly what comment or question to propose at this time. Most of the Buddhists I meet on RF are from materialist schools which I can't agree with from my studies of various paranormal subjects.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The Buddha and many disciples are recorded as having done so.

Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing (anussava),
nor upon tradition (parampar&#257,
nor upon rumor (itikir&#257,
nor upon what is in a scripture (piṭaka-sampadāna)
nor upon surmise (takka-hetu),
nor upon an axiom (naya-hetu),
nor upon specious reasoning (ākāra-parivitakka),
nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over (diṭṭhi-nijjhān-akkh-antiy&#257,
nor upon another's seeming ability (bhabba-rūpatāya),
nor upon the consideration, The monk is our teacher (samaṇo no gar&#363
Kalamas, when you yourselves know: "These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness," enter on and abide in them.'

 

[Aupmanyav]

there is no reincarnation without birth. and of course no soul no karma.

What if there is no birth, no death, no reincarnation? Every thing eternal (and without duality)

Does 'materialist worldview' make sense to you?

If one has prejudices, then it does not make sense.