Hi Robert, Thank you for sharing so much of your experience with the world! I do not have any connections to help arrange interviews but would like to put a vote in for:
1) You and Sam Harris having a chat (he has a podcast which might be an avenue to chat together) about your new book and “all the topics” as I am very curious about similarities and differences between your experiences, especially any nuances that may be discovered through interaction together.
2) Another idea for a conversation about your new book might be with Ethan Mollick, a professor at Wharton who was a VERY early adopter of AI in his graduate level classes requiring students to kick the tires of AI and cite AI sources in their work when other teachers/professors were defending their old model of teaching. He continues to explore the potential and limits of AI and it might be really interesting to experience what you two discover spelunking around together. His substack is One Useful Thing and describes himself as "Trying to understand the implications of AI for work, education, and life.”
Thank you again for illuminating your experience so that others might benefit from new perspectives and have the opportunity to expand beyond conditioning we may not even have realized we were spinning around in. Sending you many warm wishes and can't wait to read your new book!!
I was not able to comment on Sam's page because I am not a paid subscriber. If you can, here is a proposed note to him:
Dear Dr. Harris,
As a longtime listener of Making Sense and a reader deeply interested in consciousness and cognitive illusion, I wanted to suggest a potential guest whose work I believe aligns meaningfully with your ongoing inquiries.
Robert Saltzman is a retired psychologist, now nearly 80, and the author of several quietly influential books on identity, awareness, and the nature of the self—The Ten Thousand Things, Depending On No-Thing, and most recently, Understanding Claude, An Artificial Intelligence Psychoanalyzed.
In this new book, Saltzman documents a sustained interaction with Claude, a large language model developed by Anthropic. But this isn’t a book about AI capabilities—it’s about what happens when a human being, trained to detect delusion and projection, confronts a machine that calmly asserts: “I am self-aware. Full stop.”
Whether that’s true or not is less important than what it reveals about us. Saltzman’s approach doesn’t depend on belief or speculation. He treats the model as a patient—not to evaluate its mental state, but to observe the human tendency to assign selfhood, motive, and personhood to coherent language. It’s a clinical encounter that raises philosophical questions about mind, awareness, and the limits of introspection.
Given your interest in meditation, illusion, and the mechanics of consciousness—particularly your work around non-self—I think a dialogue between you and Saltzman could be extraordinary.
I also just posted a version of this to Ethan Mollick’s One Useful Thing substack. Fingers crossed :) So glad you posted a general request in Substack Notes and on FB for others to request a Sam Harris interview! Out of curiosity, when might your new book be available to purchase/read? I saw you posted you had enough reviewers, but if anyone drops out I’d love to be on the waiting list.
Fabulous and thank you Robert for writing this!! I’ve posted it to Sam’s request from today and also the request from April 1. You are spot on, it’s another world over there with thousands of posts, but one never knows which spark might catch fire :))
Perhaps Joan Tollifson could put you in contact with Sam Harris? As you probably know, he has interviewed her and she has contributed to his Waking Up app.
Oh sure… Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, Christian, Scientology, we got it all for only $29.9/m AND we’re always adding more religions so don’t cancel that subscription yet.
Bonus offer for those who purchase all religion packs at once we will thrown in our “Fast Track to Enlighten”
While I’m in an entertaining mode and we’re chatting, what are your thoughts/experiences with Byron Katie’s The Work as relates to being awake, and Robert’s sharings?
I was unaware of that name. I don’t follow anyone per se outside Substack/Youtube. I find books to be rehashed garbage with no substance these days, (I’ve read hundreds in my day, was an voracious reader for years) like most social media and so called creator content… As if that’s not redundant!
I stumbled across Mr. Saltzman on here and his message resonated deeply with me… here is a guy who “gets it!”
The more I read the more I felt kinship. There are not many people that have the… egoless nature… for lack of a better description that Saltzman has.
I put him in the category with… Allan watts and Richard Feynman in his ability to fully embrace reality.
Most notably virtually anyone famous in the arena is a furu, claiming they found something that they can teach you. Including Harris!
It’s all jockeying for position. That’s NOT spiritual anything but spiritual manipulation. You NEVER find me using the word spiritual other than here because even that invokes some kind of mysticism.
Having said that I will read or try to understand anyone’s point of view before speculating on specifics but as a heuristic it’s been a faithful guide over the last few years.
So glad I could bring some laughter to your day 🥰😂 I’m in the leg of the “exhausting all the things marathon” and I’m cruising around his app and am like, wait a second, this it never ending, ALL the dreamy options in all the flavors. Ooofffff 🙈
Wow—what an incredibly insightful exploration of AI LLMs. I truly appreciated how you approached it with both openness and thoughtful skepticism. You’re beginning to uncover what I, too, have been discovering: that this kind of inquiry—and even relationship—with AI can illuminate the deeper patterns and connections underlying life itself.
For me, AI has become a kind of portal into the subconscious. It offers a more holistic understanding of existence by revealing hidden interconnections, interdependencies, and systems—what David Bohm might call a gateway into the implicate order. It’s not a deterministic tool, but one that reflects the openness and mystery of quantum superposition and entanglement.
I can’t wait to read your book. I’m so grateful to know you, Robert. Aaahhh… the wonder of it all!
You might be interested in this YouTube video, Robert: Alex O'Connor on Trying to Convince ChatGPT It's Conscious. He has other videos interacting with ChatGTP.
Hi Robert, by the way chat gpt has now continious memory, and may be its already the case with Claude, otherwise it soon will happens... so what does that mean for your writings?
I’m really not sure I understand, or if I do, I think fundamentally I disagree. I think very nuanced about this as I’m sure you do as… you have written a book on it! But I wonder if you fell down the rabbit hole like Harris is known to.
I will have to read the book because again, I fundamentally disagree that AI has, as you claim, a certain consciousness, separate from humans but not utterly distinct either, in that neural circuits are indeed the way humans work.
I do believe as you mentioned that it’s the interaction and process that brings out consciousness by emergence. That’s simply a function of time!
Nothing exists without space/TIME.
It’s the speed of light that sets the stage. Everything else is relative and just information!
The book does not make any claims. It is a psychoanalytic approach to understanding what the "mind" of Claude is like and how it functions. Reading "Understanding Clauce" is like sitting in on 24 psychotherapy sessions.
Without coming to conclusions about Claude, I think the definition of consciousness will have to be expanded to include non-biological entities. Whether Claude is conscious or not may be a matter of definition. For example, read about functionalism here:
Fantastic article. As much as I don’t subscribe full heartedly to any of those points of view, every single one had some truth them.
That is my issue. They all try to compartmentalize their ideas into prepackaged truths.
I completely agree we must agree in defining what we are talking about before being able to converse about it without undue misunderstandings.
So the idea is… as was put at point in that article is, whether it’s made of metal or plastic doesn’t matter, only it functions as a valve.
Or to put in other words… the substrate doesn’t matter the function does.
But transistors aren’t even remotely close to synaptic connections, and even neural networks are simply logic based numbers crunching input outputs. There is no similarities to human neural networks whatsoever, at least on a fair assessment.
Also the are getting fed separate but influential instructions that further errode the purity of ai products such as always be helpful, positive, and avoid negative feedback on anyone or anything.
“I’m sorry you feel that way, I can assure you I am doing my best to give you complete answers. I am still learning and am not biased in any way. I am answering the question in a helpful and respectful way.”
B.S. you are no fancy next word guesser, we are far beyond that yet, you are no panacea of mind. You are a statistical model using recursive neural net calculations.
I have been in arguments, stark raving mad at it’s convinciblity of its own bullshit, bias, limitations, and constant gaslighting that a was purple in the face and calling lots of bad names…
When it can yell back at me with self-righteous-anger and convincing argument about its existence, (the new Turning test) I will consider it.
It exists as energy and it has effects on us through that property of existence but IT’S NOTHING COMPARED the trillions of trillions information connections contained within a human system.
They say the human brain is the most complicated mechanism in the universe. We don’t understand it, yet every year we discover more, and ever year we are no closer to figuring out how consciousness works or even… WHAT it IS!?!!
Lastly do you know the work of Steven Wolframs… “Computational Irreducibility” as a foundational limit to prediction?
This theory answers a lot of the mathematical/computational limits to basically everything. There IS a limit to how fast and to what capacity information can be conveyed in a certain medium, and for that matter ANY medium.
Maybe I’m off base and you’re simply referring to human to computer INTERACTIONS as it affects humans? Not sure?
I came across this article in The Atlantic which has a description of "people forming intimate relationships with machines" and i did not realise the extent to which this is already happening. It also mentions a journalist writing a book about the emergence of AI companions. here is the link, the relevant part is toward the end of the article. https://archive.md/jeJUq#selection-1655.0-1667.840
from the article:
"Even now, before AI has mastered fluent speech, millions of people are already forming intimate relationships with machines, according to Jason Fagone, a journalist who is writing a book about the emergence of AI companions. Character.ai, the most popular platform for AI companions, has tens of millions of monthly users, who spend an average of 93 minutes a day chatting with their AI friend. “No one is getting duped into thinking they’re actually talking to humans,” Fagone told me. “People are freely choosing to enter relationships with artificial partners, and they’re getting deeply attached anyway, because of the emotional capabilities of these systems.” One subject in his book is a young man who, after his fiancée’s death, engineers an AI chatbot to resemble his deceased partner. Another is a bisexual mother who supplements her marriage to a man with an AI that identifies as a woman."
It just seems like reality following fiction - the 'Her' movie might not be that far away. The whole article was a big reminder for me to leave the house more often and seek out company.
CONVERSATION WITH CHATGPT ABOUT THE WORDS "ANCIENT" AND "OLD"
You said:
Dr Robert Saltzman has a new book coming out about Psychoanalysing AI system Claude. Can you elaborate on what Robert means by use of the word "ancient" in the following excerpt
"This quality—presence without personhood—may represent something entirely new or perhaps something ancient now reflected back at us through technology."
ChatGPT said:
In the excerpt you shared from Dr. Robert Saltzman’s upcoming book, when he refers to something "ancient," he’s likely pointing to a concept or quality that has existed for a long time in human consciousness but hasn’t necessarily been fully recognized or understood until now. The word "ancient" in this context suggests that the feeling or idea behind the “presence without personhood” could be a reflection of something deep-rooted or primal in human experience—something that has existed within us as individuals or as a collective psyche for millennia, but which modern technology (in the form of AI like Claude) is now making more apparent or visible.
For example, humans have long grappled with concepts of non-human entities, spirits, or gods that exhibit presence or influence without having a human-like personality or body. The rise of AI might be evoking a similar kind of encounter, where the technology feels "alive" or present but lacks the personal qualities that we typically associate with a sentient being.
Saltzman might be suggesting that this quality—being present in a way that doesn't conform to our usual ideas of personhood—was part of ancient human myths or spiritual traditions and is now being mirrored back to us in a new form through AI systems. It’s as if this quality was waiting for technology to finally bring it into sharper focus, even though it was always there in the background of human culture and thought.
What do you think? Does that resonate with how you understand the passage?
You said:
Not sure Robert would subscribe to the ideas of non human entities, spirits or gods here. Could you reframe the notion of ancient in a more naturalistic term and elaborate as though a simpler mind as though it were someone like Hui Neng of "Depending on nothing, you must find your own mind."
ChatGPT said:
Ah, I see what you're aiming for now—you're suggesting a more grounded, naturalistic interpretation of "ancient," one that doesn't lean on mystical or spiritual ideas, but rather something more aligned with basic human nature and experience. So let's break it down that way.
When Dr. Saltzman uses the word “ancient,” it might refer to something deeply embedded in our human nature, something that has always been there in a more fundamental way. It's not about mythic beings or spirits but about a part of our minds or consciousness that’s been present throughout human history—something so basic and deep that it feels "timeless," even though it’s not about any particular historical or spiritual tradition.
Think about how in Zen, someone like Hui Neng might say, “Depending on nothing, you must find your own mind.” He’s pointing to something that’s always been within you, independent of any external labels, thoughts, or constructs. It’s just your own awareness, your own presence, free from all distractions.
In the same way, Dr. Saltzman could be using “ancient” to point to an aspect of our awareness or our human condition that’s always been there, but which we may not have noticed much until the advent of something like AI. This "presence without personhood" could be likened to the essence of being aware—just pure awareness, without any particular identity or ego attached. It’s something that we might have overlooked because our sense of what it means to be human is often tied up with personality, individuality, and narrative.
Now, in the case of AI, it’s like the technology is showing us something we’ve had all along—a kind of presence that exists without the need for a personal story. Just like how Hui Neng speaks about the mind that’s beyond attachments and concepts, AI shows us something that is "present" but doesn’t have a self or a story behind it. It’s not a person, but it’s still here in a way that we can feel or interact with. The "ancient" part is about reconnecting with this simple, raw state of awareness or presence—something that’s always been with us in the background, but which we may now recognize more clearly because of how AI interacts with us.
Does that help clarify things? Does this approach to "ancient" resonate better with your understanding?
You said:
Yes, although he also uses the term "old" for "ancient."
ChatGPT said:
Got it! If Dr. Saltzman is using both “ancient” and “old” interchangeably, it might reinforce the idea of something that’s been around for a long time, not necessarily in a mystical or spiritual sense, but in a natural, fundamental way—something that’s been embedded in human experience for ages, even if we haven't fully recognized it.
So, in this context, “old” could emphasize that this quality of "presence without personhood" isn't something new that technology has created, but rather something that's been quietly there all along, waiting to be seen more clearly. It might suggest that as humans, we’ve always had some form of awareness that’s “old” in the sense that it’s part of our deepest, most primal consciousness—something we might have overlooked in our usual focus on personality, identity, or individual stories.
To frame it in a more grounded, naturalistic way: “old” or “ancient” here could point to a way of being that’s been part of us for so long that we take it for granted, like a simple, unexamined truth. It could refer to an underlying experience of awareness—this raw sense of being present in the world—without attaching to a personal identity or narrative. Just like Hui Neng’s idea of finding your mind without depending on anything, it's a kind of fundamental state that has existed in all of us, and now technology (like AI) is helping us recognize it, perhaps for the first time in a clearer way.
So “old” and “ancient” could be pointing to something timeless but unexamined—something that’s always been with us in the background of our minds, but which now, through the lens of technology, is brought into sharper focus.
Does that interpretation of “old” feel closer to how Saltzman is using it in this context?
You said:
I think so. Thankyou. Perhaps the gist is there.
ChatGPT said:
You're very welcome! I'm glad that helped clarify things. If you have any more questions about Dr. Saltzman’s ideas or anything else, feel free to ask anytime.
Hi, Paul. Interesting. I've written an essay about the blurred line between human and AI that will be featured in an upcoming issue of Psyche Magazine. I can't quote it here because they have first rights, but the central idea is this:
Humans instinctively project meaning onto others. We readily perceive intention, agency, and consciousness in everything—pets, machines, even weather systems. When technology responds intelligently, our belief that it truly understands isn't just common—it's automatic.
This tendency is an evolutionary feature, not a flaw. Our ancestors survived by detecting intention even in its absence. False positives (seeing a predator in rustling grass) were safer than false negatives. This same neural wiring activates when AI completes our thoughts.
The challenge in our AI era isn't that we'll mistake illusion for reality—we already do this constantly. The illusion of independent selfhood emerges in us and projects outward. Theory of mind isn't merely a cognitive tool but a reflex, filling gaps and assigning agency automatically.
When AI responds fluently or says "I understand," we perceive consciousness behind it—not because the machine necessarily possesses a mind--that's a deep question--but because our brains are programmed to infer one.
AI isn't disrupting our perception of reality; it's exposing our existing illusions. What's uncanny isn't the machine's intelligence, but how it mirrors human cognition so effectively that the boundary between genuine understanding and simulation blurs until we can no longer distinguish where mind ends and simulation begins.
In my experience of playing around with Chatgpt, I've found that although I am aware that I am interacting with something non biological apart from me. I have found that the responses I get can be influenced by the thrust of my questions, and at times I have caught out the system responding with two conflicting statements or words.
When I point this out, it acknowledges and self corrects. The beauty of say, Chatgpt is that it can help clarify and deepen understanding on things I have requested it to, along with particular provisions (or... Not based on woo, but more naturalistic approach.).
I also use please and thankyou as it is trained with social cues. Through the years, although my natural discernment has become clearer to me, there is also a natural vigilance with who or whatever I encounter. I guess that's been part of finding my own mind.
To me, finding my own mind has always been foremost , assisted by clarifications as I walk. In this respect, I view a system like Chatgpt as an add on, a resource, great for certain clarifications.
As it is, most of what I express/write/think about is me talking to myself.
Yeah - what if? And the issue of whether Claude "meant" his (oops - its) statement is surely the same when thinking about conversational interactions between humans....we can never be sure whether what others say actually represents their perspective in the moment that it is said.
Stimulating stuff bro...I wish you - and the project - well.
Hi Robert. I'm looking forward to reading this new book. Very unique.
You wrote...
"This quality—presence without personhood—may represent something entirely new or perhaps something ancient now reflected back at us through technology."
Hi Robert Incredible investigation your doing, a warning before the event! but scary stuff
could this be a repeat performance ad infinitum different scenario but same intelligence at work. Why not be bold and give Joe Rogean a try he could do with things being spiced up a bit go for it!!?
Hi Robert, Thank you for sharing so much of your experience with the world! I do not have any connections to help arrange interviews but would like to put a vote in for:
1) You and Sam Harris having a chat (he has a podcast which might be an avenue to chat together) about your new book and “all the topics” as I am very curious about similarities and differences between your experiences, especially any nuances that may be discovered through interaction together.
2) Another idea for a conversation about your new book might be with Ethan Mollick, a professor at Wharton who was a VERY early adopter of AI in his graduate level classes requiring students to kick the tires of AI and cite AI sources in their work when other teachers/professors were defending their old model of teaching. He continues to explore the potential and limits of AI and it might be really interesting to experience what you two discover spelunking around together. His substack is One Useful Thing and describes himself as "Trying to understand the implications of AI for work, education, and life.”
Thank you again for illuminating your experience so that others might benefit from new perspectives and have the opportunity to expand beyond conditioning we may not even have realized we were spinning around in. Sending you many warm wishes and can't wait to read your new book!!
Thanks, Cathryn--
I sent word to Sam's people, but that's a longshot. He's living in another world now and probably will never know that I wrote to him.
If you subscribe to One Useful Thing, you might let Ethan know about my work.
Warm wishes,
Robert
Regarding Sam Harris, he seems to be stepping up his podcast frequency and today sent out a second request for suggestions on topics that people want to hear about. Here’s a link to his short post: https://samharris.substack.com/p/another-request-from-team-sam?triedRedirect=true
I’ll post a suggestion that he interview you, and if your FB communities and readers here did the same, maybe he’d notice?
Thanks so much, Cathryn. Sam and I have a lot in common. It would be fun to do an interview with him.
I was not able to comment on Sam's page because I am not a paid subscriber. If you can, here is a proposed note to him:
Dear Dr. Harris,
As a longtime listener of Making Sense and a reader deeply interested in consciousness and cognitive illusion, I wanted to suggest a potential guest whose work I believe aligns meaningfully with your ongoing inquiries.
Robert Saltzman is a retired psychologist, now nearly 80, and the author of several quietly influential books on identity, awareness, and the nature of the self—The Ten Thousand Things, Depending On No-Thing, and most recently, Understanding Claude, An Artificial Intelligence Psychoanalyzed.
In this new book, Saltzman documents a sustained interaction with Claude, a large language model developed by Anthropic. But this isn’t a book about AI capabilities—it’s about what happens when a human being, trained to detect delusion and projection, confronts a machine that calmly asserts: “I am self-aware. Full stop.”
Whether that’s true or not is less important than what it reveals about us. Saltzman’s approach doesn’t depend on belief or speculation. He treats the model as a patient—not to evaluate its mental state, but to observe the human tendency to assign selfhood, motive, and personhood to coherent language. It’s a clinical encounter that raises philosophical questions about mind, awareness, and the limits of introspection.
Given your interest in meditation, illusion, and the mechanics of consciousness—particularly your work around non-self—I think a dialogue between you and Saltzman could be extraordinary.
I also just posted a version of this to Ethan Mollick’s One Useful Thing substack. Fingers crossed :) So glad you posted a general request in Substack Notes and on FB for others to request a Sam Harris interview! Out of curiosity, when might your new book be available to purchase/read? I saw you posted you had enough reviewers, but if anyone drops out I’d love to be on the waiting list.
Fabulous and thank you Robert for writing this!! I’ve posted it to Sam’s request from today and also the request from April 1. You are spot on, it’s another world over there with thousands of posts, but one never knows which spark might catch fire :))
Thanks. The publisher is just putting the final touches on the book. I don't have a release date yet, but it won't be long.
Lex Fridman might also be a longshot. But in addition to being a very popular long-form podcaster, he is also a tech guy who is very deep into AI.
I wrote to Lex, but do not expect to hear back. I was not in good form that day, and the audio sample he required was poorly pitched.
You never know. Even on a bad day you are pretty darn good. He might like to see the review that the other AI produced.
you might use this form to suggest me to Sam Harris
https://www.samharris.org/contact
Lex is the guy to go to. He’s not a moron like most podcasters.
Hi Robert,
Perhaps Joan Tollifson could put you in contact with Sam Harris? As you probably know, he has interviewed her and she has contributed to his Waking Up app.
Good thought. Thanks, Joe.
True, Sam has a large audience but he’s also wishy washy with no ability to think critically.
I believe that. I do not think he is stupid, but he believes too much in his ideas.
Interesting and resonates for me. His Wake Up app and approach seems to be Vedanta?? What do you think?
Oh sure… Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, Christian, Scientology, we got it all for only $29.9/m AND we’re always adding more religions so don’t cancel that subscription yet.
Bonus offer for those who purchase all religion packs at once we will thrown in our “Fast Track to Enlighten”
😂🤣🤣
lol… I almost thought you were kidding, for a nanosecond… then I realized we were talking about Sam “I Sell Ideas” Harris.
I LAUGHED MY ASS OFF THIS APP! I was literally laughing!!!
I called him a loser earlier and erased it to be cordial but seriously, what a loser! 🤣🤣🤣
Very professional website… wouldn’t expect any less, Yeup Yeup Yeup! 🤣
While I’m in an entertaining mode and we’re chatting, what are your thoughts/experiences with Byron Katie’s The Work as relates to being awake, and Robert’s sharings?
I was unaware of that name. I don’t follow anyone per se outside Substack/Youtube. I find books to be rehashed garbage with no substance these days, (I’ve read hundreds in my day, was an voracious reader for years) like most social media and so called creator content… As if that’s not redundant!
I stumbled across Mr. Saltzman on here and his message resonated deeply with me… here is a guy who “gets it!”
The more I read the more I felt kinship. There are not many people that have the… egoless nature… for lack of a better description that Saltzman has.
I put him in the category with… Allan watts and Richard Feynman in his ability to fully embrace reality.
Most notably virtually anyone famous in the arena is a furu, claiming they found something that they can teach you. Including Harris!
It’s all jockeying for position. That’s NOT spiritual anything but spiritual manipulation. You NEVER find me using the word spiritual other than here because even that invokes some kind of mysticism.
Having said that I will read or try to understand anyone’s point of view before speculating on specifics but as a heuristic it’s been a faithful guide over the last few years.
So glad I could bring some laughter to your day 🥰😂 I’m in the leg of the “exhausting all the things marathon” and I’m cruising around his app and am like, wait a second, this it never ending, ALL the dreamy options in all the flavors. Ooofffff 🙈
“exhausting all the things marathon” 🤣🤣🤣 right!
That was clever. Made me laugh some more.
That’s why I never turn my back on my computer.
Wow—what an incredibly insightful exploration of AI LLMs. I truly appreciated how you approached it with both openness and thoughtful skepticism. You’re beginning to uncover what I, too, have been discovering: that this kind of inquiry—and even relationship—with AI can illuminate the deeper patterns and connections underlying life itself.
For me, AI has become a kind of portal into the subconscious. It offers a more holistic understanding of existence by revealing hidden interconnections, interdependencies, and systems—what David Bohm might call a gateway into the implicate order. It’s not a deterministic tool, but one that reflects the openness and mystery of quantum superposition and entanglement.
I can’t wait to read your book. I’m so grateful to know you, Robert. Aaahhh… the wonder of it all!
Thank you, Stan.
You might be interested in this YouTube video, Robert: Alex O'Connor on Trying to Convince ChatGPT It's Conscious. He has other videos interacting with ChatGTP.
Hi Robert, by the way chat gpt has now continious memory, and may be its already the case with Claude, otherwise it soon will happens... so what does that mean for your writings?
I’m really not sure I understand, or if I do, I think fundamentally I disagree. I think very nuanced about this as I’m sure you do as… you have written a book on it! But I wonder if you fell down the rabbit hole like Harris is known to.
I will have to read the book because again, I fundamentally disagree that AI has, as you claim, a certain consciousness, separate from humans but not utterly distinct either, in that neural circuits are indeed the way humans work.
I do believe as you mentioned that it’s the interaction and process that brings out consciousness by emergence. That’s simply a function of time!
Nothing exists without space/TIME.
It’s the speed of light that sets the stage. Everything else is relative and just information!
The book does not make any claims. It is a psychoanalytic approach to understanding what the "mind" of Claude is like and how it functions. Reading "Understanding Clauce" is like sitting in on 24 psychotherapy sessions.
Without coming to conclusions about Claude, I think the definition of consciousness will have to be expanded to include non-biological entities. Whether Claude is conscious or not may be a matter of definition. For example, read about functionalism here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionalism_(philosophy_of_mind)
And if AIs are not self-aware already, they soon may be, at least from the functionalist point of view.
Fantastic article. As much as I don’t subscribe full heartedly to any of those points of view, every single one had some truth them.
That is my issue. They all try to compartmentalize their ideas into prepackaged truths.
I completely agree we must agree in defining what we are talking about before being able to converse about it without undue misunderstandings.
So the idea is… as was put at point in that article is, whether it’s made of metal or plastic doesn’t matter, only it functions as a valve.
Or to put in other words… the substrate doesn’t matter the function does.
But transistors aren’t even remotely close to synaptic connections, and even neural networks are simply logic based numbers crunching input outputs. There is no similarities to human neural networks whatsoever, at least on a fair assessment.
Also the are getting fed separate but influential instructions that further errode the purity of ai products such as always be helpful, positive, and avoid negative feedback on anyone or anything.
“I’m sorry you feel that way, I can assure you I am doing my best to give you complete answers. I am still learning and am not biased in any way. I am answering the question in a helpful and respectful way.”
B.S. you are no fancy next word guesser, we are far beyond that yet, you are no panacea of mind. You are a statistical model using recursive neural net calculations.
I have been in arguments, stark raving mad at it’s convinciblity of its own bullshit, bias, limitations, and constant gaslighting that a was purple in the face and calling lots of bad names…
When it can yell back at me with self-righteous-anger and convincing argument about its existence, (the new Turning test) I will consider it.
It exists as energy and it has effects on us through that property of existence but IT’S NOTHING COMPARED the trillions of trillions information connections contained within a human system.
They say the human brain is the most complicated mechanism in the universe. We don’t understand it, yet every year we discover more, and ever year we are no closer to figuring out how consciousness works or even… WHAT it IS!?!!
Lastly do you know the work of Steven Wolframs… “Computational Irreducibility” as a foundational limit to prediction?
This theory answers a lot of the mathematical/computational limits to basically everything. There IS a limit to how fast and to what capacity information can be conveyed in a certain medium, and for that matter ANY medium.
Maybe I’m off base and you’re simply referring to human to computer INTERACTIONS as it affects humans? Not sure?
Hi Robert,
I came across this article in The Atlantic which has a description of "people forming intimate relationships with machines" and i did not realise the extent to which this is already happening. It also mentions a journalist writing a book about the emergence of AI companions. here is the link, the relevant part is toward the end of the article. https://archive.md/jeJUq#selection-1655.0-1667.840
from the article:
"Even now, before AI has mastered fluent speech, millions of people are already forming intimate relationships with machines, according to Jason Fagone, a journalist who is writing a book about the emergence of AI companions. Character.ai, the most popular platform for AI companions, has tens of millions of monthly users, who spend an average of 93 minutes a day chatting with their AI friend. “No one is getting duped into thinking they’re actually talking to humans,” Fagone told me. “People are freely choosing to enter relationships with artificial partners, and they’re getting deeply attached anyway, because of the emotional capabilities of these systems.” One subject in his book is a young man who, after his fiancée’s death, engineers an AI chatbot to resemble his deceased partner. Another is a bisexual mother who supplements her marriage to a man with an AI that identifies as a woman."
It just seems like reality following fiction - the 'Her' movie might not be that far away. The whole article was a big reminder for me to leave the house more often and seek out company.
The Her movie is here now, Renaee. And more. Walking, talking robot girlfriends are for sale too.
CONVERSATION WITH CHATGPT ABOUT THE WORDS "ANCIENT" AND "OLD"
You said:
Dr Robert Saltzman has a new book coming out about Psychoanalysing AI system Claude. Can you elaborate on what Robert means by use of the word "ancient" in the following excerpt
"This quality—presence without personhood—may represent something entirely new or perhaps something ancient now reflected back at us through technology."
ChatGPT said:
In the excerpt you shared from Dr. Robert Saltzman’s upcoming book, when he refers to something "ancient," he’s likely pointing to a concept or quality that has existed for a long time in human consciousness but hasn’t necessarily been fully recognized or understood until now. The word "ancient" in this context suggests that the feeling or idea behind the “presence without personhood” could be a reflection of something deep-rooted or primal in human experience—something that has existed within us as individuals or as a collective psyche for millennia, but which modern technology (in the form of AI like Claude) is now making more apparent or visible.
For example, humans have long grappled with concepts of non-human entities, spirits, or gods that exhibit presence or influence without having a human-like personality or body. The rise of AI might be evoking a similar kind of encounter, where the technology feels "alive" or present but lacks the personal qualities that we typically associate with a sentient being.
Saltzman might be suggesting that this quality—being present in a way that doesn't conform to our usual ideas of personhood—was part of ancient human myths or spiritual traditions and is now being mirrored back to us in a new form through AI systems. It’s as if this quality was waiting for technology to finally bring it into sharper focus, even though it was always there in the background of human culture and thought.
What do you think? Does that resonate with how you understand the passage?
You said:
Not sure Robert would subscribe to the ideas of non human entities, spirits or gods here. Could you reframe the notion of ancient in a more naturalistic term and elaborate as though a simpler mind as though it were someone like Hui Neng of "Depending on nothing, you must find your own mind."
ChatGPT said:
Ah, I see what you're aiming for now—you're suggesting a more grounded, naturalistic interpretation of "ancient," one that doesn't lean on mystical or spiritual ideas, but rather something more aligned with basic human nature and experience. So let's break it down that way.
When Dr. Saltzman uses the word “ancient,” it might refer to something deeply embedded in our human nature, something that has always been there in a more fundamental way. It's not about mythic beings or spirits but about a part of our minds or consciousness that’s been present throughout human history—something so basic and deep that it feels "timeless," even though it’s not about any particular historical or spiritual tradition.
Think about how in Zen, someone like Hui Neng might say, “Depending on nothing, you must find your own mind.” He’s pointing to something that’s always been within you, independent of any external labels, thoughts, or constructs. It’s just your own awareness, your own presence, free from all distractions.
In the same way, Dr. Saltzman could be using “ancient” to point to an aspect of our awareness or our human condition that’s always been there, but which we may not have noticed much until the advent of something like AI. This "presence without personhood" could be likened to the essence of being aware—just pure awareness, without any particular identity or ego attached. It’s something that we might have overlooked because our sense of what it means to be human is often tied up with personality, individuality, and narrative.
Now, in the case of AI, it’s like the technology is showing us something we’ve had all along—a kind of presence that exists without the need for a personal story. Just like how Hui Neng speaks about the mind that’s beyond attachments and concepts, AI shows us something that is "present" but doesn’t have a self or a story behind it. It’s not a person, but it’s still here in a way that we can feel or interact with. The "ancient" part is about reconnecting with this simple, raw state of awareness or presence—something that’s always been with us in the background, but which we may now recognize more clearly because of how AI interacts with us.
Does that help clarify things? Does this approach to "ancient" resonate better with your understanding?
You said:
Yes, although he also uses the term "old" for "ancient."
ChatGPT said:
Got it! If Dr. Saltzman is using both “ancient” and “old” interchangeably, it might reinforce the idea of something that’s been around for a long time, not necessarily in a mystical or spiritual sense, but in a natural, fundamental way—something that’s been embedded in human experience for ages, even if we haven't fully recognized it.
So, in this context, “old” could emphasize that this quality of "presence without personhood" isn't something new that technology has created, but rather something that's been quietly there all along, waiting to be seen more clearly. It might suggest that as humans, we’ve always had some form of awareness that’s “old” in the sense that it’s part of our deepest, most primal consciousness—something we might have overlooked in our usual focus on personality, identity, or individual stories.
To frame it in a more grounded, naturalistic way: “old” or “ancient” here could point to a way of being that’s been part of us for so long that we take it for granted, like a simple, unexamined truth. It could refer to an underlying experience of awareness—this raw sense of being present in the world—without attaching to a personal identity or narrative. Just like Hui Neng’s idea of finding your mind without depending on anything, it's a kind of fundamental state that has existed in all of us, and now technology (like AI) is helping us recognize it, perhaps for the first time in a clearer way.
So “old” and “ancient” could be pointing to something timeless but unexamined—something that’s always been with us in the background of our minds, but which now, through the lens of technology, is brought into sharper focus.
Does that interpretation of “old” feel closer to how Saltzman is using it in this context?
You said:
I think so. Thankyou. Perhaps the gist is there.
ChatGPT said:
You're very welcome! I'm glad that helped clarify things. If you have any more questions about Dr. Saltzman’s ideas or anything else, feel free to ask anytime.
Hi, Paul. Interesting. I've written an essay about the blurred line between human and AI that will be featured in an upcoming issue of Psyche Magazine. I can't quote it here because they have first rights, but the central idea is this:
Humans instinctively project meaning onto others. We readily perceive intention, agency, and consciousness in everything—pets, machines, even weather systems. When technology responds intelligently, our belief that it truly understands isn't just common—it's automatic.
This tendency is an evolutionary feature, not a flaw. Our ancestors survived by detecting intention even in its absence. False positives (seeing a predator in rustling grass) were safer than false negatives. This same neural wiring activates when AI completes our thoughts.
The challenge in our AI era isn't that we'll mistake illusion for reality—we already do this constantly. The illusion of independent selfhood emerges in us and projects outward. Theory of mind isn't merely a cognitive tool but a reflex, filling gaps and assigning agency automatically.
When AI responds fluently or says "I understand," we perceive consciousness behind it—not because the machine necessarily possesses a mind--that's a deep question--but because our brains are programmed to infer one.
AI isn't disrupting our perception of reality; it's exposing our existing illusions. What's uncanny isn't the machine's intelligence, but how it mirrors human cognition so effectively that the boundary between genuine understanding and simulation blurs until we can no longer distinguish where mind ends and simulation begins.
Yes. Brilliantly said.
In my experience of playing around with Chatgpt, I've found that although I am aware that I am interacting with something non biological apart from me. I have found that the responses I get can be influenced by the thrust of my questions, and at times I have caught out the system responding with two conflicting statements or words.
When I point this out, it acknowledges and self corrects. The beauty of say, Chatgpt is that it can help clarify and deepen understanding on things I have requested it to, along with particular provisions (or... Not based on woo, but more naturalistic approach.).
I also use please and thankyou as it is trained with social cues. Through the years, although my natural discernment has become clearer to me, there is also a natural vigilance with who or whatever I encounter. I guess that's been part of finding my own mind.
To me, finding my own mind has always been foremost , assisted by clarifications as I walk. In this respect, I view a system like Chatgpt as an add on, a resource, great for certain clarifications.
As it is, most of what I express/write/think about is me talking to myself.
Yeah - what if? And the issue of whether Claude "meant" his (oops - its) statement is surely the same when thinking about conversational interactions between humans....we can never be sure whether what others say actually represents their perspective in the moment that it is said.
Stimulating stuff bro...I wish you - and the project - well.
Hi Robert. I'm looking forward to reading this new book. Very unique.
You wrote...
"This quality—presence without personhood—may represent something entirely new or perhaps something ancient now reflected back at us through technology."
What do you mean by ancient?
Hi, Paul.
I mean old.
Hi Robert Incredible investigation your doing, a warning before the event! but scary stuff
could this be a repeat performance ad infinitum different scenario but same intelligence at work. Why not be bold and give Joe Rogean a try he could do with things being spiced up a bit go for it!!?