AI megathread

That does sound like a bug somewhere, rather than spirit attempting to incarnate.

Of course... it's quite possible that spirits with enough knowledge could psychically influence program outputs.

We need to first rule out spiritual or psychic shenanigans before looking at the possibility of incarnation.


Well... how many concrete examples of houses do we know of that have been embodied by a spirit? At all, in any time in history? Talking folklore, shamanic and spiritual traditions, I suppose.

I do know that objects can become energetically charged with a spirit's energy, but isn't embodiment so much as resonance.

I mean one instance it's a bug, but there are records of similar kinds of oddities in other cases involving machines. Again, this is very much just me pondering and not meant to be a hard argument for ghosts entering into machines.

Similarly with haunted houses - what does it mean for me to be embodied, when my body is an experience at the center of my localized Experience? Beischel has written that we're "not even in there now", and Campbell makes a similar argument that he doesn't think astral project[ion] is really your soul-body slipping out of the physical body.

So if there are no limitations on structure, it may come down to a spirit's interest. It may not be fully embodied by a house or computer, just localized by anchoring itself to such machines.

This is of course different than a Materialist or Computationalist argument that running programs - or any machine - just magically causes Strong Emergence to happen.

The challenge here may be, to put it somewhat darkly, a computer still runs programs even when it's not considered to be conscious yet a human that has died is quite easy to note as being not conscious. Perhaps we need something more than the "people pleaser" LLMs to make us confident any kind of conscious entity is involved when programs are run.

As the Mind Matters folk note, you can pretty easily confound LLMs that try to user their pattern matching to solve novel problems:

AGI Is Not Already Here. LLMs Are Still Not Even Intelligent

Gary Smith

LLMs are undeniably astonishingly good at using the text they trained on (aided by human fine tuners) to generate convincing prose. But they are really bad at distinguishing between truth and falsehoods and responding to prompts that are unlike or even slightly different from what they trained on.

For example, on January 11, I gave OpenAI o1 the Monty Hall problem with 2 doors instead of 3. The LLM gave the correct answer to the 3-door question that it had trained on instead of the obvious answer to the question it had been asked...

... A few days ago, Doug Hofstadter, forwarded an interesting LLM experiment with OpenAI o1 by Abhijit Mahabal, who has a PhD in computer science and cognitive science. He is currently a senior staff engineer at Pinterest, where he also has a very cool title, Knowledge Architect. ...

Eh... per Jung, even the unconscious has desires and goals of which we are not conscious. The Shadow is a good example ~ we can be compelled to do things seeming as if we were puppets. Been there too many times. But, even subconsciously, certain patterns can have a life of their own ~ we can think of, say, our favourite food, and we might find ourselves obsessing over it. Or a strong habit of smoking tobacco.

The Anima is a strong influence when it comes to male attraction to women, for example.

The Self might well be responsible for our draws to various spiritual, religious or philosophical things or the like.

The ego-self only has so much power ~ but it is not the only one making choices.

But even the very notion of "free will" inherently means the free will of the conscious self, not of something else like the unconscious mind. If the unconscious actually makes choices and decisions independently of the conscious self (and accordingly sometimes in opposition to what the conscious self would have chosen), then the conscious self isn't really free.

I mean one instance it's a bug, but there are records of similar kinds of oddities in other cases involving machines. Again, this is very much just me pondering and not meant to be a hard argument for ghosts entering into machines.

I've heard of enough strange things as well ~ but none of them have a pattern that implies any sort of incarnation or attempt to. Merely psi, I think. There's no lucrative about machines that would entice a spirit to want to "experience" being a bunch of electrons entirely at the mercy of something else.

Besides... machines always require an external source of electricity to run. Biological lifeforms do not need any external sources of electricity.

Similarly with haunted houses - what does it mean for me to be embodied, when my body is an experience at the center of my localized Experience?

Embodiment could probably just mean having a stable, distinct and defined form, whether physical or astral or whatever.

Beischel has written that we're "not even in there now", and Campbell makes a similar argument that he doesn't think astral project[ion] is really your soul-body slipping out of the physical body.

I think they don't take into consideration the paranormal aspect of incarnation ~ the many astral layers. We experience being a physical form because our astral / mental forms overlaps so clearly with the physical form. Indeed, our physical form as it is has been shaped alongside the growth of the astral / mental forms. If we incarnate while in the womb, then while we grow, we identify more and more with our physical form to the point that it is really difficult to even tell the difference.

Indeed, it is our astral / mental forms that fully inform and guide the growth of our physical form, even if there are astral blueprints and body plans that inform that growth.

So if there are no limitations on structure, it may come down to a spirit's interest. It may not be fully embodied by a house or computer, just localized by anchoring itself to such machines.

Anchoring isn't embodiment, mind you ~ it is simply resonance. Spirits don't have to worry much about little things like distance, anyways.

I've just never heard of a single meaningful case of embodiment of spirit in a non-biological object ~ but energetic imprints can be easily done.

Anchoring, though, happens often ~ think of the ghosts from traumatic deaths. They are strongly attached to the location of their death ~ but they're never found to embody something. Anchored to, attached to? Certainly.

This is of course different than a Materialist or Computationalist argument that running programs - or any machine - just magically causes Strong Emergence to happen.

Indeed.

The challenge here may be, to put it somewhat darkly, a computer still runs programs even when it's not considered to be conscious yet a human that has died is quite easy to note as being not conscious. Perhaps we need something more than the "people pleaser" LLMs to make us confident any kind of conscious entity is involved when programs are run.

We need something that neither requires an external source of continuous electricity nor a rigid, static algorithm composed of abstract bits following through purely physical wires.

As the Mind Matters folk note, you can pretty easily confound LLMs that try to user their pattern matching to solve novel problems:

AGI Is Not Already Here. LLMs Are Still Not Even Intelligent

Gary Smith

Indeed ~ because LLMs can only spit out stuff based on input data and algorithm. Because there's no concept of truth of knowledge, LLMs can and will just spit out total nonsense, even just inventing something as a closest match in the database, to fill in a hole. So, just a fancy next-word predictor.

If that is considered the pinnacle of AI, then things look rather dire...

Though... military applications of AI look far more advanced. However, I cannot ever see them wanting a conscious AI, because the military doesn't want things that can think. They want things that blindly carry out orders as ordered ~ they just want unthinking machines.

But even the very notion of "free will" inherently means the free will of the conscious self, not of something else like the unconscious mind.

Well... no, not really, per https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/

Nothing about the concept really requires it to be about the conscious layer of the psyche.

There is nothing to suggest that other aspects of our psyche cannot also have free will, other than arbitrary definition.

It has been noted by Jung and others that other complexes in our psyche than the ego do appear to have autonomy ~ they have agendas of their own, that we are not consciously privy to.

I've noticed even in my spiritual experiences that my Shadow has an agenda. My higher Self has an agenda. Both ultimately positive, mind you. So, both my Shadow and higher Self have free will ~ I'm just not constantly aware of these aspects of my psyche.

If the unconscious actually makes choices and decisions independently of the conscious self (and accordingly sometimes in opposition to what the conscious self would have chosen), then the conscious self isn't really free.

This isn't true ~ the conscious self can choose to veto the desires of the various aspects within the unconscious through conscious effort and choice.

It is only when we do not exert our conscious free will that other aspects of our psyche can fill that void. It's sometimes desirable, when we need to let ourselves be guided by intuition or spiritual guidance, for example. Because sometimes, the unconscious aspects within our psyche just have more access to information than the ego, so they have more wisdom and ability to guide.

The ego is quite limited in its capability and ability to know, compared the sheer vastness of the many unconscious layers and aspects of our psyche.

Well... no, not really, per https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/

Nothing about the concept really requires it to be about the conscious layer of the psyche.

There is nothing to suggest that other aspects of our psyche cannot also have free will, other than arbitrary definition.

It has been noted by Jung and others that other complexes in our psyche than the ego do appear to have autonomy ~ they have agendas of their own, that we are not consciously privy to.

I've noticed even in my spiritual experiences that my Shadow has an agenda. My higher Self has an agenda. Both ultimately positive, mind you. So, both my Shadow and higher Self have free will ~ I'm just not constantly aware of these aspects of my psyche.


This isn't true ~ the conscious self can choose to veto the desires of the various aspects within the unconscious through conscious effort and choice.

It is only when we do not exert our conscious free will that other aspects of our psyche can fill that void. It's sometimes desirable, when we need to let ourselves be guided by intuition or spiritual guidance, for example. Because sometimes, the unconscious aspects within our psyche just have more access to information than the ego, so they have more wisdom and ability to guide.

The ego is quite limited in its capability and ability to know, compared the sheer vastness of the many unconscious layers and aspects of our psyche.

Then you are suggesting that free will is sort of limited, limited to being able to desire something, but the conscious self may be overridden in this by the unconscious mind as far as the physical outcome is concerned. For instance I, my conscious self, has the free will to want steak for dinner, but this wish doesn't come true in the physical because my unconscious self decides it wants chicken, and it gets the chicken. 

It seems to me this is a drastic limitation to free will, and makes it essentially impotent. As far as I am concerned it seems then that I my conscious self doesn't really have free will.

Then you are suggesting that free will is sort of limited, limited to being able to desire something, but the conscious self may be overridden in this by the unconscious mind as far as the physical outcome is concerned.

Free will has always been limited, and never absolute. Free will encompasses all conscious choices, and isn't merely about desire. The conscious can be overriden by the unconscious mind if something is triggered, and that is enough to overwhelm our conscious desires.

We can still be fully conscious ~ but driven by unconscious impulses towards some end. We're not puppets, either ~ just driven by patterns that we ourselves have created at some point in the past. This is the ego simply doing what it is designed to do ~ to deal with our limited conscious attention spans.

For instance I, my conscious self, has the free will to want steak for dinner, but this wish doesn't come true in the physical because my unconscious self decides it wants chicken, and it gets the chicken. 

You might want steak ~ and you will get steak if your desire is strong enough. But you might have some craving for chicken because the body associates chicken with some nutrient that it wants. But you can ignore that and go for meat anyways.

What matters is how strong, healthy and stable your ego is ~ the unconscious isn't supposed to leak into or override the conscious, but supplement and support it. Only if you have a weakened ego will unconscious desires override your conscious desires.

It seems to me this is a drastic limitation to free will, and makes it essentially impotent. As far as I am concerned it seems then that I my conscious self doesn't really have free will.

Free will is only "impotent" if you don't consciously become aware of the unconscious contents of your psyche. If you don't understand your emotions, then they can compel you if they are triggered strongly enough.

However... mentally, I'm not sure that the past is set in stone, as I've experienced strange stuff like present-life-me seemingly appearing to me in a past life ~ a Tibetan monk who apparently became aware of present-life-me's presence. I grappled with the implications of that for ages.

The only way I could solve that apparent paradox was that my higher Self had simply decided to show them a vision of a possible future, and that they were perceiving my higher Self rather than me proper.

Possibly the Tibetan monk had been in meditation and prayer, so from his perspective he requested to be able to see 'something' though he wouldn't know what, then he did see apparently you. I don't think that would change his life or alter the past, it would simply be part of his own experience.

Well... from my spiritual experiences, at least, there is causality that my angelic guides seem quite aware of, but they just can't tell me until it happens or I learn about it myself from some other source. That is, it almost seems like certain events are simply fated to happen at a certain moment ~ from beyond the physical, at least. So, yes, in that sense, it is mental causation ~ spiritual causation? For inexplicable things, words and language might cause more confusion than they resolve, sometimes... :/

Notwithstanding my comments on the Tibetan monk case, I don't share your view that 'certain events are simply fated to happen at a certain moment'. The things which we are not shown may or not happen, usually depending on a decision we have not yet made. I know from my own life, I had some generalised but intense visions of my future and  after I made a particular choice, that potential future vanished like a bursting soap bubble, after I had decided something I was now travelling a different path. I was also informed that because of what had happened I would be given less information, less detail about my future as there was too much danger that having such foreknowledge could allow me to unwittingly or accidentally take some action which prevented that future from taking place.

That would tie in with 'my angelic guides seem quite aware of, but they just can't tell me' - they can't tell you because having such knowledge could prevent the event from taking place.

Hence I see the future as 'known' only in the same way that we see a ball rolling down a hill and can predict roughly where it will end up at the bottom of the hill. But when a rabbit appears and runs into its path, that ball now having collided will travel to a different destination. Hence visions of the future are provisional, not fixed or 'simply fated to happen'.

The challenge here may be, to put it somewhat darkly, a computer still runs programs even when it's not considered to be conscious yet a human that has died is quite easy to note as being not conscious. Perhaps we need something more than the "people pleaser" LLMs to make us confident any kind of conscious entity is involved when programs are run.

Those who had a shared-death experience - and accompanied the person on part of their after-death journey - would not share your certainty that 'a human that has died is quite easy to note as being not conscious'. Yes, we can say the body is no longer active, but the consciousness, what do we know?

Those who had a shared-death experience - and accompanied the person on part of their after-death journey - would not share your certainty that 'a human that has died is quite easy to note as being not conscious'. Yes, we can say the body is no longer active, but the consciousness, what do we know?

Oh I meant the consciousness is not in the human body. 

Not that the consciousness is gone.

I think for me to believe a computer was conscious it would have to behave in a startlingly unpredictable way.

Possibly the Tibetan monk had been in meditation and prayer, so from his perspective he requested to be able to see 'something' though he wouldn't know what, then he did see apparently you. I don't think that would change his life or alter the past, it would simply be part of his own experience.

Quite possibly... I don't understand enough about how time works, frankly. My concern is how could future-me (from that perspective) influence then-me? It implies that the future is set in stone or something... maybe there's a perspective I am missing here.

Notwithstanding my comments on the Tibetan monk case, I don't share your view that 'certain events are simply fated to happen at a certain moment'. The things which we are not shown may or not happen, usually depending on a decision we have not yet made. I know from my own life, I had some generalised but intense visions of my future and  after I made a particular choice, that potential future vanished like a bursting soap bubble, after I had decided something I was now travelling a different path. I was also informed that because of what had happened I would be given less information, less detail about my future as there was too much danger that having such foreknowledge could allow me to unwittingly or accidentally take some action which prevented that future from taking place.

That would tie in with 'my angelic guides seem quite aware of, but they just can't tell me' - they can't tell you because having such knowledge could prevent the event from taking place.

I didn't see visions of the future ~ but I'm simply aware that my guides seem to know about future events given that they're just never surprised by certain major event. There's a feeling like they knew what would happen ~ but they cannot tell me for the exact reasons you've given: it might interfere with me actually getting there. Fate might only happen if we're not aware, so we cannot diverge from the path.

But then... some people purported have visions of their future which do come to pass no matter how much they try and run? Perhaps that is just part of it... by trying to run away, we end up meeting that future. Perhaps we see or hear or whatever what we need to see in order for that fated future to occur ~ because that is what our soul is aiming for. That is ~ we get what we need that will orientate us properly.

Perhaps even the knowing of future such that it alters our course is fated... because it was meant to happen. Why else would the soul or our guides allow it to occur?

Hence I see the future as 'known' only in the same way that we see a ball rolling down a hill and can predict roughly where it will end up at the bottom of the hill. But when a rabbit appears and runs into its path, that ball now having collided will travel to a different destination. Hence visions of the future are provisional, not fixed or 'simply fated to happen'.

Then why do some things have an odd feeling of just feeling right when they occur? A sort of feeling of... this was meant to happen, though it cannot be explained?