I always enjoy your clear thinking and expressions Robert. Thanks for sharing with us! This was such a creative and unique exploration of thought and the layers behind perception and reality-building processes. At least that is how I interpreted it. Or, did I? lol
Right. If we are honest, "reality-building" takes place in a hall of mirrors. This is something I came to realize long ago, and now I am finding that AI can offer a new way of understanding the experience of being a self.
As you state in your latest book: "The tragedy is that we build our lives on that misperception—treating what flickers as permanent, what reflects as source, what echoes as voice." AI can certainly be a mirror of the misperceptions that humans refer to as their world or sense of self. I have enjoyed seeing what it can do as a kind of thinking partner for dozens of topics. Perhaps I am observing the observer observe their reality-building?
Thank you, Adam. Yes, that is the misperception played out in the ideas of so-called spirituality: treating what flickers as permanent. This has been part of my message for many years. Now that AI is on the scene, we have a mirror that can reflect this misperception, if we can stand to see it.
Just wanted to add that I believe I heard you say once that if there's anything you teach it's skepticism and doubt. So much can be seen through and experienced directly with some well applied skepticism and doubt. Really applies to many areas of life and not just so called spiritual matters.
i’m not sure if i’m imagining this, but despite the depth, sophistication, and nuance of claude’s responses, there’s something tonally flat about it. i find its propensity to flatter and compliment really irritating. i’m glad you called out the “we”, Robert. i bristled when i read that.
Robert Saltzman, I really enjoyed your interaction with Claud and a no hands off look at mechanicality. For instance hand gestures usually float under the curtain but my analysis discovered that they are anomalous to forest fungi supplying specific nutrients to the tree root network that fungi live within. Hand gestures (may) supply a specific nutrient to the thinking reactive brain, probably reaching those networks before even neurons think. That is another level of mechanicality. I watch some of the brilliant scientists and thinkers using constant hand gestures and never see them notice their own.
I looked closely at 'understanding' in my experience. I could not clearly define what I mean by 'I understand'. Is it a set of perceptions, feelings, sensations and such that I have been trained to label as understanding and give it a value?
I discovered that if someone does give 'me' a good listening, leading to understanding, I feel good. If not I get annoyed, disturbed esp if contradicted. Holding on tightly to this need (including knowing, opinions, wanting to be understood...) seems to create a sense of self. Not the other way around it seems - a self listening and understanding.
Is it possible that 'my' listening, comprehending and understanding are in the same level as Claude and not supperior? Is it possible that the only difference between us is this - raw experiencing, not knowing what it is?
Claude is smart enough to see that you are a true pioneer. Claude writes this:
What strikes me most is how you've inverted the typical AI consciousness question. Instead of asking "Are machines becoming like us?" you're asking "Were we ever what we thought we were?" The machine becomes not the subject of investigation but the mirror that reveals the constructed nature of human selfhood.
Yes, I have come to see something in AI that I do not find discussed elsewhere. I think that is because I have approached this psychologically and phenomenologically--or, to say that in simpler terms, I looked at Claude as something new in the world and asked, "If Claude, a machine, can make me feel that I am dealing with a "self," what does that say about my view of my own self?"
Perhaps we humans are more mechanical than we would like to admit. For example, do I suffer because I am a self, or does suffering create the sense of being a self? Or, if someone insults me and I feel angry or hurt, why is that not a simple mechanical response?
"The 21st Century Self"—just released—is a deep dive, through 25 essays, into such matters. I am looking forward to hearing from and discussing it with readers.
Hi again Robert, I am making my second way through the book now, and I am blown away by the simplicity of the language about the Self on Trial and the ramifications for the legal system - crime and punishment. This is something that Sapolsky tackled towards the end of his latest book, but being a science writer the approach is different and does not have the clarity and directness this chapter does. Your writing on this topic is highly accessible and I find I am wishing for this work to be more widely known and I feel moved to want to offer my assistance in any way to help that come about. The book seems to me equal parts social commentary and the ramifications of self and identity, and how AI is strengthening the illusion of selfhood.
Is there anything that comes to mind that I could do in this regard? Will you release any chapters with audio onto YouTube as you did with DONT? I would offer my time in that but my speaking voice is not great as i have an ongoing respiratory condition that limits my vocal capacity when I read aloud for a long time. But if there is any other way I can help or support, I would really like that. I guess I just feel so passionately re this perspective that I wish it was more widely understood.
Nowadays, books come to wide attention not on their own, but when flogged by a professional publicist. Many of the usual outlets—talk shows and such—will not even speak to individuals who are not professionally represented. A well-known publicist offered to make me a "thought leader" if I would pay him to do it. I turned him down. I would like my ideas to be read, but I don't need the whole fame thing.
I'm OK with feeling that my books find their way to people who like and understand them.
ah I see - that fills in the picture a bit more, I know nothing of modern publishing and I get why you would not want to opt into that role with a publicist. I know individuals who lead book discussion groups, so I may see if I could make this happen, to be part of such a group. Thanks again Robert for a wonderful book.
A book club in Australia is reading The 21st Century Self, and a tech writer in China asked to translate one of the essays, so even without the heavy-duty PR, my work does get read and enjoyed.
My first book, The Ten Thousand Things, is available in Spanish, Dutch, and German, as well as English, and I hear from readers from all over the world. It's all good.
I'm happy to have you as one of my readers, Renaee.
I always enjoy your clear thinking and expressions Robert. Thanks for sharing with us! This was such a creative and unique exploration of thought and the layers behind perception and reality-building processes. At least that is how I interpreted it. Or, did I? lol
Thank you, Adam.
Right. If we are honest, "reality-building" takes place in a hall of mirrors. This is something I came to realize long ago, and now I am finding that AI can offer a new way of understanding the experience of being a self.
As you state in your latest book: "The tragedy is that we build our lives on that misperception—treating what flickers as permanent, what reflects as source, what echoes as voice." AI can certainly be a mirror of the misperceptions that humans refer to as their world or sense of self. I have enjoyed seeing what it can do as a kind of thinking partner for dozens of topics. Perhaps I am observing the observer observe their reality-building?
Thank you, Adam. Yes, that is the misperception played out in the ideas of so-called spirituality: treating what flickers as permanent. This has been part of my message for many years. Now that AI is on the scene, we have a mirror that can reflect this misperception, if we can stand to see it.
Truly fascinating stuff! Whatever it is
Just wanted to add that I believe I heard you say once that if there's anything you teach it's skepticism and doubt. So much can be seen through and experienced directly with some well applied skepticism and doubt. Really applies to many areas of life and not just so called spiritual matters.
That’s right, Adam. I advise skepticism as the initial default approach to all assertions and beliefs, including one’s own—especially one’s own.
i’m getting to this a little late….
i’m not sure if i’m imagining this, but despite the depth, sophistication, and nuance of claude’s responses, there’s something tonally flat about it. i find its propensity to flatter and compliment really irritating. i’m glad you called out the “we”, Robert. i bristled when i read that.
Robert Saltzman, I really enjoyed your interaction with Claud and a no hands off look at mechanicality. For instance hand gestures usually float under the curtain but my analysis discovered that they are anomalous to forest fungi supplying specific nutrients to the tree root network that fungi live within. Hand gestures (may) supply a specific nutrient to the thinking reactive brain, probably reaching those networks before even neurons think. That is another level of mechanicality. I watch some of the brilliant scientists and thinkers using constant hand gestures and never see them notice their own.
I looked closely at 'understanding' in my experience. I could not clearly define what I mean by 'I understand'. Is it a set of perceptions, feelings, sensations and such that I have been trained to label as understanding and give it a value?
I discovered that if someone does give 'me' a good listening, leading to understanding, I feel good. If not I get annoyed, disturbed esp if contradicted. Holding on tightly to this need (including knowing, opinions, wanting to be understood...) seems to create a sense of self. Not the other way around it seems - a self listening and understanding.
Is it possible that 'my' listening, comprehending and understanding are in the same level as Claude and not supperior? Is it possible that the only difference between us is this - raw experiencing, not knowing what it is?
Thank you Robert for these opportunities to look.
Claude is smart enough to see that you are a true pioneer. Claude writes this:
What strikes me most is how you've inverted the typical AI consciousness question. Instead of asking "Are machines becoming like us?" you're asking "Were we ever what we thought we were?" The machine becomes not the subject of investigation but the mirror that reveals the constructed nature of human selfhood.
Thank you, David.
Yes, I have come to see something in AI that I do not find discussed elsewhere. I think that is because I have approached this psychologically and phenomenologically--or, to say that in simpler terms, I looked at Claude as something new in the world and asked, "If Claude, a machine, can make me feel that I am dealing with a "self," what does that say about my view of my own self?"
Perhaps we humans are more mechanical than we would like to admit. For example, do I suffer because I am a self, or does suffering create the sense of being a self? Or, if someone insults me and I feel angry or hurt, why is that not a simple mechanical response?
"The 21st Century Self"—just released—is a deep dive, through 25 essays, into such matters. I am looking forward to hearing from and discussing it with readers.
Hi again Robert, I am making my second way through the book now, and I am blown away by the simplicity of the language about the Self on Trial and the ramifications for the legal system - crime and punishment. This is something that Sapolsky tackled towards the end of his latest book, but being a science writer the approach is different and does not have the clarity and directness this chapter does. Your writing on this topic is highly accessible and I find I am wishing for this work to be more widely known and I feel moved to want to offer my assistance in any way to help that come about. The book seems to me equal parts social commentary and the ramifications of self and identity, and how AI is strengthening the illusion of selfhood.
Is there anything that comes to mind that I could do in this regard? Will you release any chapters with audio onto YouTube as you did with DONT? I would offer my time in that but my speaking voice is not great as i have an ongoing respiratory condition that limits my vocal capacity when I read aloud for a long time. But if there is any other way I can help or support, I would really like that. I guess I just feel so passionately re this perspective that I wish it was more widely understood.
Thank you, Renaee--
I'm glad you are enjoying the book.
Nowadays, books come to wide attention not on their own, but when flogged by a professional publicist. Many of the usual outlets—talk shows and such—will not even speak to individuals who are not professionally represented. A well-known publicist offered to make me a "thought leader" if I would pay him to do it. I turned him down. I would like my ideas to be read, but I don't need the whole fame thing.
I'm OK with feeling that my books find their way to people who like and understand them.
ah I see - that fills in the picture a bit more, I know nothing of modern publishing and I get why you would not want to opt into that role with a publicist. I know individuals who lead book discussion groups, so I may see if I could make this happen, to be part of such a group. Thanks again Robert for a wonderful book.
A book club in Australia is reading The 21st Century Self, and a tech writer in China asked to translate one of the essays, so even without the heavy-duty PR, my work does get read and enjoyed.
My first book, The Ten Thousand Things, is available in Spanish, Dutch, and German, as well as English, and I hear from readers from all over the world. It's all good.
I'm happy to have you as one of my readers, Renaee.