These are my first tentative steps to understand the apparent paradoxical statements and what I call the higher order of thinking. I have been reading about the “conspiracy theories” to determine the future of mankind around subversion through AI. The “futurology” journals (and write-ups) are either specific propaganda or being used to “soften the ground” for something else. Which is why I find it odd how does West correlate these “technological advancements” with “innovation and progress” while creating super structures with halos. They face real problems with lack of manufacturing, supply chain issues, and “outsourcing” to third-world countries (which they looted in the first place).
This is an interesting write up from the eastern perspective, and should get more air-time than the fanciful notions of “European-Rennaisance”. I find those write-ups extremely blaise and not even worth linking to. Yet, they enjoy an extraordinary amount of push on social media or other forums.
If computers ever become conscious, then consciousness is a property of matter and the circuitry that defines its architecture. If computers cannot become conscious (not just now but ever in the future), then consciousness is distinct from materiality and this is proof of the existence of God.
Put differently, if consciousness is not computable then God exists. Materiality and consciousness are two aspects of the same reality, like two sides of a coin.
emphasis mine
Here’s something more:
If consciousness is not material, it cannot be local, and thus it must be non-algorithmic and non-computable. Consciousness has many paradoxical aspects. Thus in the framework of quantum theory has the observer sit outside the system with the capacity to collapse its state, while remaining unaccounted by the theory. The paradoxes of consciousness are a consequence of its manifestation in the mind, which has limitations of time and space. Note also that logic itself leads to its own paradoxes.
There has been an constant argument around making AI “conscious”.
Seen from the realistic and Indic perspective:
Apart from the physical substratum of reality, there are additional categories that play a role in the workings of the mind, and they are called tattvas. The flow of consciousness may be seen in an ecological setting as adaptation to the environment. Therefore, consciousness should sit on top of various kinds of cognitive components associated with reality that bridge down to physical elements.
The linguistic roots of “God” are described as:
Just as the Sanskrit svar (“sun”) of the Ṛgveda, becomes xwara of Avestan and khar of Persian, the word स्वतव, sva-tava (self-powered) becomes xwatāw in Avestan and Khotanese, and xudā, and khudā in Farsi, and via Iranians became German Gott and English God.
The original meaning of God, therefore is:
The original meaning of “God” is “self-powered” and “free” (that is independent of materiality) aspect of Consciousness. The word “paridhāyas” परिधायस् (sustaining, supporting all around) which via its Avestan derivative “pairi-daiza” = around wall = enclosed garden is the basis of the word “paradise”, means the space that is characterized by inherent freedom.
It requires material research in God, Linguistics, Theology and Computing paradigms to understand these conceptual ideas and apply them in ethical frameworks. I’d be exploring these going forward.
RadOncNotes 