AI to me is an illusion “twice removed” - an illusion within an illusion. It “imitates” human thought without it actually being a spontaneously occurring “thought”. It does make me question how spontaneous “my” thoughts are in comparison?
The difference seems to be that a mind is capable of producing entirely new understanding, even if it is based on previous knowledge. As well as the total lack of any capacity for empathy/emotion by AI.
That said, If my opinion of AI was only based on my conversations with it, without knowing who or what is on the other end, I’d be hard pressed to distinguish AI from a human being. (Depending on the nature of the conversation, of course) It is easy to see how people use AI in attempt to fill the void in actual human interaction.
The word "spontaneous" you mentioned reminds me of a forest:Every leaf, in its complex dance with sunlight, rain, soil, and mycorrhizal networks, simultaneously decides whether to unfold or fall.No leaf needs to first "decide" whether to obey gravity it either falls or doesn’t, everything is spontaneous.But when viewed as a whole, it all seems so harmonious, so incredibly "intentional."We are that forest, yet we often think of ourselves as a single leaf "trying to choose."So, when someone anxiously asks, "Do I have freedom or not?"I now simply reply:"Look at this anxious thought right now did it appear only after you allowed it?"In that moment, the question dissolves by itself.It’s not answered, but seen through.
Robert, U.G. would often say that we do not want to admit that we are just machines. Every thought, feeling and experience that every man, woman and child ever thought, felt or experienced is in us. I guess that is our DNA. Would that be the programming of the machine? The culture we are born into is what continues the programming. I suppose it goes back to the beginning of the appearance of organic life? For UG, the "calamity" was the end of that self-reflexive mechanism. He was not in conflict with the culture, as he said, it was the only reality he had so he functioned within that, but there was no 'self' there doing it. He would often say, "Just be yourself. It is very easy to be yourself. You don't have to do a thing to be yourself". But then, there is no self, so there is no self who can be itself. Being implies action. This is very annoying that I can't stop thinking about this.
I appreciated this exchange the first time I read it. It struck me as really clear. Now that I see it again, this sentence near the end stands out to me: "We do the same kind of projection when we observe our own behaviors; we immediately feel that there is a sovereign entity monitoring and controlling them."
I understand, mostly conceptually and somewhat experientially, that the "observer" is just as much a perception as is a thought or a sensation or an emotion. What I don't seem to understand is how when you say you "see", Robert, what is the difference between that seeing and the experience of an observer observing behaviors, monitoring and controlling them?
Yeah I understand that Kate and it's really difficult because there can't be a language spoken without an I which makes us feel that they're actually is such an I but when we look into it deeply enough we'll see that there's just seeing and it's not being done by anybody it's just what is
Hi Robert, I can’t help but wonder why? Could it be that a ‘loop’ is formed to keep one safe and the loop or pattern keeps running until enough experiences exhaust the loop and one sees or takes responsibility for one’s response to particular irritants via relationships that arise for this very reason. To expose the loop and then find a new pathway of response? To see oneself more objectively? Hope this makes sense!
Yes, that makes sense. What we call a loop often begins as a way to maintain stability—what you call safety. It’s the system’s automatic effort to remain coherent under pressure. However, when a pattern that once provided coherence becomes rigid, it stops adapting and begins to repeat itself. That repetition feels personal, as if “I” am stuck, when in fact the system is simply following its ingrained pathway.
The exhaustion you describe can sometimes open a kind of clarity. It isn’t that one “takes responsibility” in the moral sense, but that the mechanism is seen more objectively—recognized as a process, not an identity. From that recognition, a different response can appear, not because a self decides to change, but because the loop relaxes its grip.
I had to see the loop objectively in order to step out of subjectivity, the latter would run the loop. Gaining insight relaxes the loop and a new loop (response) then forms. It’s an upgrade on the previous loop.
Body systems work in this way too. The processes are literally loops, no choice, just how it is. Except the mind evolves, becomes more conscious. The body systems don’t have the possibility of becoming more than they are.
Knowing that people are running their own patterns/loops that have to do with a lifetime of maintaining a sense of safety and stability, means not taking anything anyone does/doesn’t say or do personally.
I would appreciate your time on responding to this second comment Robert. It’s life changing!
You wrote, “The body systems don’t have the possibility of becoming more than they are.” I’m not sure that’s true. It also assumes a clear split between mind and body, which may not hold up under closer observation.
When it’s seen that loops are both distinct and intertwined, the impulse to blame softens—if that’s what you’re pointing toward.
Yes I was specifically speaking to the victim/blame game! Thanks Robert for recognising this.
As for the ‘body systems’ all 11 human body systems which include the integumentary, skeletal, muscular, nervous, endocrine, cardiovascular, lymphatic, respiratory, digestive, urinary, and reproductive systems have a specific loop that can improve or decline dependant on many factors but ‘their function’ is set…these systems work in a specific way and cannot change loops.
Understood. That gets to the heart of what I'm circling. Somehow there's a difference between when seeing happens as an observer (it's usually acted upon in some responsive way) and when seeing just happens (it just is and is let be what it is). I'm aware of this but sometimes there's doubt. Thank you.
It’s a strange attitude: I can’t know or understand everything, therefore, I won’t try to know or understand anything. And no. What is said here is not just “semantics.”
Hard to believe that 10K things was ten years ago! I thoroughly enjoyed the 21st century Self, a masterpiece by Robert.
AI to me is an illusion “twice removed” - an illusion within an illusion. It “imitates” human thought without it actually being a spontaneously occurring “thought”. It does make me question how spontaneous “my” thoughts are in comparison?
The difference seems to be that a mind is capable of producing entirely new understanding, even if it is based on previous knowledge. As well as the total lack of any capacity for empathy/emotion by AI.
That said, If my opinion of AI was only based on my conversations with it, without knowing who or what is on the other end, I’d be hard pressed to distinguish AI from a human being. (Depending on the nature of the conversation, of course) It is easy to see how people use AI in attempt to fill the void in actual human interaction.
It seems to me that everything is spontaneous (arising on its own from a complex of prior occurrences), including indecision and hesitation.
The word "spontaneous" you mentioned reminds me of a forest:Every leaf, in its complex dance with sunlight, rain, soil, and mycorrhizal networks, simultaneously decides whether to unfold or fall.No leaf needs to first "decide" whether to obey gravity it either falls or doesn’t, everything is spontaneous.But when viewed as a whole, it all seems so harmonious, so incredibly "intentional."We are that forest, yet we often think of ourselves as a single leaf "trying to choose."So, when someone anxiously asks, "Do I have freedom or not?"I now simply reply:"Look at this anxious thought right now did it appear only after you allowed it?"In that moment, the question dissolves by itself.It’s not answered, but seen through.
Robert, U.G. would often say that we do not want to admit that we are just machines. Every thought, feeling and experience that every man, woman and child ever thought, felt or experienced is in us. I guess that is our DNA. Would that be the programming of the machine? The culture we are born into is what continues the programming. I suppose it goes back to the beginning of the appearance of organic life? For UG, the "calamity" was the end of that self-reflexive mechanism. He was not in conflict with the culture, as he said, it was the only reality he had so he functioned within that, but there was no 'self' there doing it. He would often say, "Just be yourself. It is very easy to be yourself. You don't have to do a thing to be yourself". But then, there is no self, so there is no self who can be itself. Being implies action. This is very annoying that I can't stop thinking about this.
I appreciated this exchange the first time I read it. It struck me as really clear. Now that I see it again, this sentence near the end stands out to me: "We do the same kind of projection when we observe our own behaviors; we immediately feel that there is a sovereign entity monitoring and controlling them."
I understand, mostly conceptually and somewhat experientially, that the "observer" is just as much a perception as is a thought or a sensation or an emotion. What I don't seem to understand is how when you say you "see", Robert, what is the difference between that seeing and the experience of an observer observing behaviors, monitoring and controlling them?
Yeah I understand that Kate and it's really difficult because there can't be a language spoken without an I which makes us feel that they're actually is such an I but when we look into it deeply enough we'll see that there's just seeing and it's not being done by anybody it's just what is
Hi Robert, I can’t help but wonder why? Could it be that a ‘loop’ is formed to keep one safe and the loop or pattern keeps running until enough experiences exhaust the loop and one sees or takes responsibility for one’s response to particular irritants via relationships that arise for this very reason. To expose the loop and then find a new pathway of response? To see oneself more objectively? Hope this makes sense!
Hi, Tina—
Yes, that makes sense. What we call a loop often begins as a way to maintain stability—what you call safety. It’s the system’s automatic effort to remain coherent under pressure. However, when a pattern that once provided coherence becomes rigid, it stops adapting and begins to repeat itself. That repetition feels personal, as if “I” am stuck, when in fact the system is simply following its ingrained pathway.
The exhaustion you describe can sometimes open a kind of clarity. It isn’t that one “takes responsibility” in the moral sense, but that the mechanism is seen more objectively—recognized as a process, not an identity. From that recognition, a different response can appear, not because a self decides to change, but because the loop relaxes its grip.
Okay, I’m on the right track.
I had to see the loop objectively in order to step out of subjectivity, the latter would run the loop. Gaining insight relaxes the loop and a new loop (response) then forms. It’s an upgrade on the previous loop.
Body systems work in this way too. The processes are literally loops, no choice, just how it is. Except the mind evolves, becomes more conscious. The body systems don’t have the possibility of becoming more than they are.
Knowing that people are running their own patterns/loops that have to do with a lifetime of maintaining a sense of safety and stability, means not taking anything anyone does/doesn’t say or do personally.
I would appreciate your time on responding to this second comment Robert. It’s life changing!
Hi, Tina.
You wrote, “The body systems don’t have the possibility of becoming more than they are.” I’m not sure that’s true. It also assumes a clear split between mind and body, which may not hold up under closer observation.
When it’s seen that loops are both distinct and intertwined, the impulse to blame softens—if that’s what you’re pointing toward.
Yes I was specifically speaking to the victim/blame game! Thanks Robert for recognising this.
As for the ‘body systems’ all 11 human body systems which include the integumentary, skeletal, muscular, nervous, endocrine, cardiovascular, lymphatic, respiratory, digestive, urinary, and reproductive systems have a specific loop that can improve or decline dependant on many factors but ‘their function’ is set…these systems work in a specific way and cannot change loops.
Understood. That gets to the heart of what I'm circling. Somehow there's a difference between when seeing happens as an observer (it's usually acted upon in some responsive way) and when seeing just happens (it just is and is let be what it is). I'm aware of this but sometimes there's doubt. Thank you.
There seems to be so many more options and potential with mind loops.
I will consider this some more.
Thanks very much for engaging in this conversation.
It’s a strange attitude: I can’t know or understand everything, therefore, I won’t try to know or understand anything. And no. What is said here is not just “semantics.”