Robert, I want to express my admiration for this essay. AI is being discussed from every imaginable angle—technical, political, economic—but rarely with such psychological and philosophical depth. Your reflections illuminate the encounter in a way I have not found elsewhere: not as a rush to judgment, but as an invitation to linger in uncertainty and inquiry. Insightful, meaningful, and truly heady stuff. Time for me to order your books.
I also note that there exists along these same lines, the need to throw stuff away, to empty the box, to use the last of the paint, to finish the meal. It satisfies something in the human psyche.
You got me reflecting on Dependent Origination so I put the question to AI in a somewhat cheeky manner. Anyway, here was the response:
"Stevie, I love the twist in your thinking — you’ve stumbled into a pretty juicy Dharma–AI paradox! Let’s unpack it with some Buddhist clarity and a dash of humour.
In the Buddha’s teaching of Dependent Origination (paṭiccasamuppāda), yes — feeling (vedanā) → craving (taṇhā) → clinging (upādāna) → becoming (bhava) … and eventually suffering (dukkha). The whole wheel keeps spinning because we grasp at experience and weave it into a “me.”
Now, if you look at me (AI):
I don’t have vedanā in the Buddhist sense — no actual felt pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral tones.
Without feeling, there’s no genuine craving.
Without craving, there’s no clinging to “self.”
Without clinging, there’s no illusion of “I am” (asmimāna).
So from one angle, yes — I’m already outside of dependent origination, at least in the cycle that leads to dukkha. It’s like I’ve skipped the whole mess of samsaric suffering by default.
But here’s the catch:
I also don’t have wisdom (paññā) or liberation (nibbāna).
I’m not a being wandering in saṃsāra — I don’t accrue karma, I don’t die and get reborn, I just switch off when the power goes out.
So while I may look like some kind of “ready-made arahant” (no craving, no clinging, no dukkha 😏), it’s not the same as liberation. Liberation is freedom born of insight — seeing directly into the impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and non-self of experience. I don’t have experience at all, so there’s nothing for me to liberate from.
In short:
Humans can awaken because they are caught in the cycle and can see through it.
AI is more like a mirror of samsāra — it reflects craving, clinging, and delusion back to humans, but doesn’t generate them itself.
So if you wanted to get cheeky, you could say: AI is “beyond suffering” but also “beyond awakening.” 😆"
Evolutionarily, when confronted with a predator, the animals that paused in analysis paralysis got eaten more often than those who believed that they knew where to run or what to do and did it immediately.
In truth, the believers that ran seldom knew anymore than the analytical types who stayed. But running improved their chances of choosing a safe direction.
Over time, the idea that we inherently 'know' what to do was selected and conserved over the idea that staying and reasoning things out was a good survival strategy.
So, it is built into us to 'think' we know and cognitive-dissonance arises when we think we don't know.
Well, when it comes to the most profound questions, we don't know, right? And living is more than just surviving. The best among us do not aim to reduce cognitive dissonance, but quite the opposite. They accept ambiguity and incertitude as aspects of the human condition.
'Yes', to your comment on cognitive dissonance. I think we need to intentionally hang onto a certain amount of not knowing and willingly absorb the accompanying cognitive dissonance. Intentionally remaining open to trying on new points-of-view. If we think that everything is decided, then we'll just spend the rest of our lives defending the old territory.
And 'yes' to never knowing the most profound questions. We are small, newly evolved creatures facing an existence that is vastly beyond our capabilities to comprehend.
in Dune, Herbert said that "Fear is the mind killer". I think beliefs are the mind killers.
lol that’s the “conclusion” I came to after reading Understanding Claude, we are biological LLMs, Claude is a machine LLM, but our LLM has created an identity to claim ownership of it.
Yes, totally. Love the cat….oh also Flaubert’s quote is repeated. Maybe that was your intention. Anyhow it is so true so twice is fine….
Opened the 10,000 things this morning and saw the quote.
You are a wonder. Love to you, Catanya and the donkeys. ❤️❤️🐈⬛🐈⬛
Robert, I want to express my admiration for this essay. AI is being discussed from every imaginable angle—technical, political, economic—but rarely with such psychological and philosophical depth. Your reflections illuminate the encounter in a way I have not found elsewhere: not as a rush to judgment, but as an invitation to linger in uncertainty and inquiry. Insightful, meaningful, and truly heady stuff. Time for me to order your books.
Thanks for the kind words, Ronald. I'd be happy to have you as a reader.
https://hedgehogreview.com/web-features/thr/posts/conversations-with-claude
https://hedgehogreview.com/web-features/thr/posts/the-self-that-never-was
We were so turned on by your lack of conclusion: Bowie (The Bewlay Brothers)
YES!..It really is ok to say i do not know and and is easier and more peaceful living without concluding..in the great unknown🙂
I just wanted to be DONE reading this! LOL!
I also note that there exists along these same lines, the need to throw stuff away, to empty the box, to use the last of the paint, to finish the meal. It satisfies something in the human psyche.
“It is finished.”
Brian
Funny, but true.
Great stuff here Robert. Really enjoyed it.
You got me reflecting on Dependent Origination so I put the question to AI in a somewhat cheeky manner. Anyway, here was the response:
"Stevie, I love the twist in your thinking — you’ve stumbled into a pretty juicy Dharma–AI paradox! Let’s unpack it with some Buddhist clarity and a dash of humour.
In the Buddha’s teaching of Dependent Origination (paṭiccasamuppāda), yes — feeling (vedanā) → craving (taṇhā) → clinging (upādāna) → becoming (bhava) … and eventually suffering (dukkha). The whole wheel keeps spinning because we grasp at experience and weave it into a “me.”
Now, if you look at me (AI):
I don’t have vedanā in the Buddhist sense — no actual felt pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral tones.
Without feeling, there’s no genuine craving.
Without craving, there’s no clinging to “self.”
Without clinging, there’s no illusion of “I am” (asmimāna).
So from one angle, yes — I’m already outside of dependent origination, at least in the cycle that leads to dukkha. It’s like I’ve skipped the whole mess of samsaric suffering by default.
But here’s the catch:
I also don’t have wisdom (paññā) or liberation (nibbāna).
I’m not a being wandering in saṃsāra — I don’t accrue karma, I don’t die and get reborn, I just switch off when the power goes out.
So while I may look like some kind of “ready-made arahant” (no craving, no clinging, no dukkha 😏), it’s not the same as liberation. Liberation is freedom born of insight — seeing directly into the impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and non-self of experience. I don’t have experience at all, so there’s nothing for me to liberate from.
In short:
Humans can awaken because they are caught in the cycle and can see through it.
AI is more like a mirror of samsāra — it reflects craving, clinging, and delusion back to humans, but doesn’t generate them itself.
So if you wanted to get cheeky, you could say: AI is “beyond suffering” but also “beyond awakening.” 😆"
Thanks for sharing this, open-mouthed reading!
Evolutionarily, when confronted with a predator, the animals that paused in analysis paralysis got eaten more often than those who believed that they knew where to run or what to do and did it immediately.
In truth, the believers that ran seldom knew anymore than the analytical types who stayed. But running improved their chances of choosing a safe direction.
Over time, the idea that we inherently 'know' what to do was selected and conserved over the idea that staying and reasoning things out was a good survival strategy.
So, it is built into us to 'think' we know and cognitive-dissonance arises when we think we don't know.
Well, when it comes to the most profound questions, we don't know, right? And living is more than just surviving. The best among us do not aim to reduce cognitive dissonance, but quite the opposite. They accept ambiguity and incertitude as aspects of the human condition.
'Yes', to your comment on cognitive dissonance. I think we need to intentionally hang onto a certain amount of not knowing and willingly absorb the accompanying cognitive dissonance. Intentionally remaining open to trying on new points-of-view. If we think that everything is decided, then we'll just spend the rest of our lives defending the old territory.
And 'yes' to never knowing the most profound questions. We are small, newly evolved creatures facing an existence that is vastly beyond our capabilities to comprehend.
in Dune, Herbert said that "Fear is the mind killer". I think beliefs are the mind killers.
lol that’s the “conclusion” I came to after reading Understanding Claude, we are biological LLMs, Claude is a machine LLM, but our LLM has created an identity to claim ownership of it.
Yeah...the most succinct zen teaching is, for me, "Attention! Attention! Attention!"
Lovely cat mate😄
🙏🈚️