Psience Quest Interview No. 4: Rudolf Smit and Titus Rivas

Here is a book presentation Rudolf Smit and I gave about The Self Does Not Die for the Parapsychology Foundation, thanks to Carlos Alvarado and Nancy Zingrone: 

https://youtu.be/tr9FS6a3ODw

Yeah, that was quite an event. First of all, the trouble we had to go through before a proper connection could be established. And then of course the exchanges. Quite satisfactory, really!

However, what I still don't like is the very small video picture at the upper right.

Anyway, the response was quite good!

Smithy

Here is a book presentation Rudolf Smit and I gave about The Self Does Not Die for the Parapsychology Foundation, thanks to Carlos Alvarado and Nancy Zingrone: 

https://youtu.be/tr9FS6a3ODw

Titus, while I'm still trying to formulate a short description of my own non-monisitic - trinitarian, to be precise - idealism (not mush time for that, because of hard situation in my workplace and the beginning of learning the third language - German) to post it here and thus reactivate the discussion, I want to ask you a question.

We agree about the existence of consciousness, as well as selfhood and personhood, in humans and animals. In the previous thread mentioning you as an interviewee, there was an interesting discussion, involving Laird, about (the possibility of) plant consciousness or even plant intelligence. So, I want to ask you, Titus: what do you think about robots and AI? Can they be conscious, be selves and persons, possess free will? What do you think?

Alex Tsakiris posted Bernardo's article on the subject, I think it's brilliant:  Bernardo Kastrup "artificial INTELLIGENCE—an objectively measurable property that can unquestionably be engineered—is often conflated with artificial CONSCIOUSNESS... whereas a computer may effectively emulate the information processing that occurs in a human brain, this does not mean that the calculations performed by the computer will be accompanied by private inner experience. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/obs...l-follies/

Titus, while I'm still trying to formulate a short description of my own non-monisitic - trinitarian, to be precise - idealism (not mush time for that, because of hard situation in my workplace and the beginning of learning the third language - German) to post it here and thus reactivate the discussion, I want to ask you a question.

We agree about the existence of consciousness, as well as selfhood and personhood, in humans and animals. In the previous thread mentioning you as an interviewee, there was an interesting discussion, involving Laird, about (the possibility of) plant consciousness or even plant intelligence. So, I want to ask you, Titus: what do you think about robots and AI? Can they be conscious, be selves and persons, possess free will? What do you think?

I think, Vortex, that a robotic brain could, in principle, be suitable for the (re)incarnation of a personal spirit. However, I don't think this will happen any time soon and I can imagine it won't be very attractive in the near future, because of all kinds of imperfections of an artificial body. On the other hand, I do believe most if not all of our body parts can one day be replaced by artificial ones and that in the distant future artificial bodies may be functionally superior and more pleasant to be in than natural bodies. 

Obviously, I don't believe in the hard AI-project, because it is functionalist and thereby materialist. It claims our consciousness and personality are not an intrinsic part of who we are as non-physical agents, but the product of purely computational processes in our brains. If we reject materialism and physicalism, we must also reject this claim of hard AI. 

I don't even believe that human organisms or animal organisms in the physical sense are conscious, because what is conscious is the non-physical experient incarnated into the organism, not the organism itself as a biological system. My brain or my body as a whole do not constitute a conscious subject and neither could a simulation of my brain or my body as a whole become such a conscious subject. So I'm a real substance dualist, not a hylomorphist in the Aristotelian or Thomistic sense. (My position also differs from Bernardo Kastrup's idealist noetic monism, mentioned above by Enrique, because Kastrup posits that our bodies seemingly create temporary separate streams of consciousness within one, divine consciousness. In my own ontology, the separate, personal self and its consciousness precede incarnation, rather than being the temporary result of incarnation.)

So, although I absolutely love films like I, Robot with Will Smith, I don't believe robots themselves can ever attain a physically based consciousness, because there simply is no such thing. Not in animals or humans and therefore not in robots either. Unless we get evidence that in the future some robots turn out to be animated by an incarnated soul, we don't have to take robot rights seriously.

I think, Vortex, that a robotic brain could, in principle, be suitable for the (re)incarnation of a personal spirit. However, I don't think this will happen any time soon and I can imagine it won't be very attractive in the near future, because of all kinds of imperfections of an artificial body. On the other hand, I do believe most if not all of our body parts can one day be replaced by artificial ones and that in the distant future artificial bodies may be functionally superior and more pleasant to be in than natural bodies.

Interesting ideas!

This is assuming that we would make the choice for such a functionally "superior" and "more pleasant" bodily experience. Both terms are quite vague. How do we, from a Soul perspective, choose what best represents these ideas for our chosen goals? We chose our current incarnations because they were functionally superior for the task we had chosen to incarnate for, whatever that may be. As far as "pleasant" goes... it may be pleasant for our Soul to experience this lifetime, happiness, pain and all, but likely not anywhere near as much for the ego-tool we-as-Soul puppeteer. Our ego suffers because it cannot, by its very nature as a limited construct, know nor understand the greater picture that we-as-Soul can.

Interesting ideas!

This is assuming that we would make the choice for such a functionally "superior" and "more pleasant" bodily experience. Both terms are quite vague. How do we, from a Soul perspective, choose what best represents these ideas for our chosen goals? We chose our current incarnations because they were functionally superior for the task we had chosen to incarnate for, whatever that may be. As far as "pleasant" goes... it may be pleasant for our Soul to experience this lifetime, happiness, pain and all, but likely not anywhere near as much for the ego-tool we-as-Soul puppeteer. Our ego suffers because it cannot, by its very nature as a limited construct, know nor understand the greater picture that we-as-Soul can.

Well, in own my world view, the Advaita-like concept of dichotomy between a lower ego and a higher, divine Self simply has no place, Valmar. I respect your opinion though.

Well, in own my world view, the Advaita-like concept of dichotomy between a lower ego and a higher, divine Self simply has no place, Valmar. I respect your opinion though.

That's not quite my perspective. Maybe I described it improperly... I'll try to clarify:

I don't see the ego as lower or less divine than our Self, rather merely a compartmentalized perspective blinded to the greater whole of our Self. Our whole Self is not blind to the ego, though. It's like a one-way dissociation, of sorts.

Only the ego perceives a separation between "lower" and "higher" ~ to our Self, there is only the whole. This is why our Self-as-Soul can appear as Other to our ego. During a few meditations, I've experienced my full Self as Other, and in multiple forms. Because my ego could not comprehend any other way.

I hope this helps.

That's not quite my perspective. Maybe I described it improperly... I'll try to clarify:

I don't see the ego as lower or less divine than our Self, rather merely a compartmentalized perspective blinded to the greater whole of our Self. Our whole Self is not blind to the ego, though. It's like a one-way dissociation, of sorts.

Only the ego perceives a separation between "lower" and "higher" ~ to our Self, there is only the whole. This is why our Self-as-Soul can appear as Other to our ego. During a few meditations, I've experienced my full Self as Other, and in multiple forms. Because my ego could not comprehend any other way.

I hope this helps.

Thanks for the clarification, Valmar, but to me this still sounds too much like Advaita Vedanta. In my philosophy there is no such thing as an ego with its own consciousness. There is only the everyday self with a lot of potential for growth that may be held back by limiting ideas about itself. My subconscious mind may project images of a higher self et cetera onto my consciousness, but there is only one self (one experient) per person. 

According to Advaita Vedanta and similar schools of thought there really is only one divine or transpersonal Self in each of us, and a false self or personal ego that does not realize this. Spiritual enlightenment would mean to let go of this false identity.  No problem, but this is not what I believe. 

So let's just agree to disagree about this.

[Laird]

Here is a book presentation Rudolf Smit and I gave about The Self Does Not Die for the Parapsychology Foundation, thanks to Carlos Alvarado and Nancy Zingrone: 

https://youtu.be/tr9FS6a3ODw

I've just watched/listened to this - it was a good presentation although unfortunately due to the audio quality I had difficulty making out a lot of what Rudolf Smit said. In any case, it was nice to put voices to your written words.

You mentioned in there that an Italian translation was in progress - where are things at with that translation at this point in time? (I ask just out of curiosity - I don't have any particular Italian readers in mind).

I've just watched/listened to this - it was a good presentation although unfortunately due to the audio quality I had difficulty making out a lot of what Rudolf Smit said. In any case, it was nice to put voices to your written words.

You mentioned in there that an Italian translation was in progress - where are things at with that translation at this point in time? (I ask just out of curiosity - I don't have any particular Italian readers in mind).

We have no idea, Laird. The Italian translation is ready to be published - I've seen the manuscript - but they first want to publish one or more other books. So we'll have to wait and see,