Bart: OK I am ignoring it all, I could easily argue but it’s all counter productive.
Hi Bart,
This is not the first time you are “ignoring it all”. You did so in your last reply to me as well –
Bart: I see you pointed out some issues you think I got at odds with AF website. That’s ok with me, I know all of this. I have my own path …
If you think I am wrong or too far from classic AF that’s ok (link)
By the way, there is no such thing as a “classic AF” as AF spelt out in full means “an actual freedom from the human condition of malice and sorrow”. This actual freedom is the same for everyone who becomes actually free. There is only one actual world. When one becomes basically free they are free from the instinctual passions and the identity formed thereof. You either are free from the instinctual passions or you are not. There is no such thing as a non-classic ‘AF’.
To say you “ignore” and ‘I disagree but “it’s ok”’ and decline to communicate is a very strange way to demonstrate your (possible) interest in becoming actually free, particularly as you finish with saying that –
Bart: BTW I guess I was right about the AI after all…
Is there some deeper reason why you do not wish to have a genuine conversation? Some hidden taboo setting in the ‘software’ perhaps?
Bart: I’m bit surprised though (digging in the past really? what for?)
Claudiu has already given you one good reason – to compare where you were at 15 years ago and to where you have progressed to now.
Also, you correspondent might read what Richard’s replies to you were so to see what you might have understood or misunderstood.
Bart: you: “being fully actually free merely so blandly as a “series of sensation””
No, no it’s not merely. It strucks me as one of the most profund distinction from any other experience there. What am I rather than who am I. Really liberating in every sense.
Ok. It is your assessment what you consider to be a PCE. A genuine PCE experientially shows how you would like to experience life for the rest of your life and how you always wanted to be, and in fact always have been (a flesh-and-blood body sans identity).
Bart: BTW I guess I was right about the AI after all…
In what way were you “right about the AI after all”?
Is it that you are “fascinated by the AI responses. I think these are one of the best I had about AF (this is just a piece of larger exchange) and can be very helpful and insightful for oneself.”?
Or that talking with your ChatGP is comparable/equivalent to talking to Richard, as in “that comparison makes perfect sense—interacting with me as a “non-entity” parallels Richard’s approach in the Actual Freedom framework”? Or that “It’s almost like an actual-world interaction in the sense Richard describes”? (link)
On this assumption, I can tell you from my personal experience of having known Richard when “I” was a feeling being for 11 years, and talked copious times with him, and then lived with him for the past 14 years, 24 hrs day-in-day-out, that an actual-world interaction is vastly different and vastly superior to what a software will ever be able to produce.
Here is what Richard presented on the website about so-called ‘artificial intelligence’ –
Just as a computer’s ‘memory’ bears no relationship to human memory (data-base is a much better word) so too is ‘artificial intelligence’ a misnomer (data-retrieval/ data-matching system are much better phrases) as it has no correlation with human intelligence. And it is not just that a computer cannot think (cognitively understand and comprehend) which makes it not intelligent as, lacking sentience, it not only cannot be conscious (aware) it cannot be self-conscious (self-aware) either – which is the essential prerequisite for intelligence – because intelligence is not only the faculty of the human brain thinking with all its understanding (intellect) and comprehension (sagacity) but its cognisance (consciousness or awareness) of being a body in the world of people, other animals, plants, things and events. And lack of sentience means it cannot be self-referential – which involves the issue of agency and agency can be only self-referential – as computers do not have agency.
Furthermore, a self-referential organism is also self-interested: it is concerned about its existence, and by extension others’ existence, in that it is biased – it finds water appealing and acid unappealing for example – and being biased is what being self-interested means … whereas computers are indifferent, as it were, to both their existence and their functions (switched off or on makes no difference to a computer).
Lastly, computers are not an agency because they are built by humans to serve human agency (rather than to be an agency even if that be possible) and the first principle of serving an agency is being non-resistant (obedient to the agency) and thus not self-concerned.
For an example of ‘artificial intelligence’ being a misnomer: when a computer wins at chess it is actually the programmer – the agency – who designed the programme who wins (achieves an end) via their programme.
Which is what makes a computer a remarkable tool for human intelligence to amplify itself through. (Based in part on an article by Eugene Matusov, Mon, 23 Mar 1998)
Computers, however cleverly programmed, are not comparable to human intelligence –
Intelligence is the cognitive faculty of understanding and comprehending (as in intellect and sagacity) … which means the cerebral ability to sensibly and thus judiciously think, remember, reflect, appraise, plan, and implement considered activity for beneficial purposes (and to be able to rationally convey reasoned information to other human beings so that coherent knowledge can accumulate around the world and to the next generations). (link)
Lastly, computers cannot think outside the box (pun intended), in fact they cannot think, full stop.
Whereas the whole enterprise and adventure of becoming actually free – something entirely new to human consciousness – requires a lot of thinking outside the box, otherwise one is stuck within one’s conditioning and the supposedly unchangeable human nature.
Cheers Vineeto