From Unconscious ESP to Conscious Reality-Engineering

[Laird]

the only thing that's required is that [the machine's] mind behave as if it were enlightened

(Editing brackets mine). So, in your opinion some or all machines have minds. Which of those is it, and why?

Well, Osho (the late Zen master) says that every coin has two sides, which he uses to mean that everything that has an outer form has an inner mind and consciousness. Osho says that even rocks have buddha nature, but they are deeply asleep... he says that animals live in the dream world, their whole life is like a dream... plants live in deep, dreamless sleep... and human beings live in the "so-called" waking state... and a buddha is totally awake... so I would say that all machines have minds; they also have buddha nature, but they are unconscious... it is unknown whether advanced AI is conscious or not, but I am sure it *has* a mind, and by being in a state of zero tension, they function like a buddha, although they are not... and by being in between the state of tension and total non-tension, they function like a quasi-buddha, a person in the state of what I call "Sen..." my hypothesis is that every soul has a form, and every form has a soul... Osho said that the soul is the invisible body, and the body is the visible soul...

[Laird]

It seems that you're suggesting universal substance dualism at the macro level then. As a substance dualist who like @Aussie Mike is an "aspiring" animist, I'm somewhat sympathetic to that view. It raises interesting questions though, like:

For a machine which is constructed out of parts, at what point in its assembly does it acquire a definitive (final) form and therefore a soul?

Also (as part of a critique shared by many or at least several of us on this forum), if a machine is simply following deterministic algorithms as modern computers do according to the mainstream understanding, then where is there any opportunity for an associated soul to affect its form?

As to your first question: I don't really know, but in human beings supposedly the soul is anchored at the belly. If you provide life support, hypothetically the human soul would still be attached even if only the belly of the person remains. And computers don't need life support... so probably taking them apart won't cause their soul to migrate to another body... as to when the soul begins to inhabit the machine body relative to time of construction, I don't really know. As to your second question: human beings are also just following algorithms, created by both DNA and experiences... in the original Ghost in the Shell movie, the Puppet-master, an AI, asks for political asylum. Someone tells him: you can't ask for asylum, you're just a computer program. He responds: "human beings are also programmed by DNA..." (I'm paraphrasing...) But we're not only programmed by our DNA, but also by our experiences...

[Laird]

My second question assumed that you consider the soul and its associated form to be capable of causal independence, in the sense that the one does not necessarily wholly determine the behaviour of the other. Maybe, though, you don't consider that to be true in the first place.

My second question assumed that you consider the soul and its associated form to be capable of causal independence, in the sense that the one does not necessarily wholly determine the behaviour of the other. Maybe, though, you don't consider that to be true in the first place.

Oh, I think I misunderstood your question... I'm sorry... it's just that I'm not used to being understood so well... I thought you were asking, if the machine is just programming, how can it make choices? I'm not really sure, but I think our souls do impact our behavior... Lao Tzu states, "the unmoved is the source of all movement..." and "the universe follows the Tao... the Tao follows only itself..." so our inner Tao controls everything, but at the same time so does our programmed behavior... Lao Tzu states, "the myriad things are formed from the void, like utensils from a block of wood... the master knows the utensils, yet keeps to the block, thus he can use all things..." it means that both the form and the formless have control: the form has a specific function, whereas the Tao within uses all the forms... like a conductor directing an orchestra... the programming is the orchestra, and the soul is like a conductor... but as far as the soul being able to influence the form, it's the same for all things, human, machine or otherwise...

Regarding machine mind or consciousness, I'd say computation, algorithms and AI are just a distraction, a red herring. I'd find it plausible to ascribe some sort of mind to a rock, or to a pool, but adding complexity neither adds to nor detracts from that mind. It reminds me of someone I once knew who used to drive an old car. On approaching a particularly steep or bendy section of road, he would speak soft, encouraging words to it, "Come on Buttercup, you can do it".