Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
just wondering ,could robot(Artificial intelligence) gains enlightenment and achieve nirvana?
buddhalove888
New
In the future,it might been possible that human being create an advance artificial intelligence.So,assuming that AI study Buddhism and became Buddhists,could the advance artificial intelligence gain enlightenment and achieve nirvana? Also,since they does not have any feeling,could they even develop compassion for other?
0
Comments
@buddhalove888
If enlightenment & nirvana is the cessation of suffering, would you not have to first program an AI with attachments & the resulting suffering, in order for the AI to even have a need to correct such a twisted programing.
Perhaps you are thinking of enlightenment and nirvana as something that is gained,
when it is in fact, simply the absence of suffering's cause.
@how @buddhalove888
I am going to agree with How on this one, without an accurate spectrum of human emotions, the AI would have no emotional and spiritual distinction between pre-nirvana and nirvana and would have no way to know when they achieve nirvana.
What is consciousness? Does an AI have it?
I always got a kick out of the term "artificial intelligence" as I doubt any intelligence can be artificial. If the connections are made and the conditions are right then I'd guess intelligence will arise. How the connections are made could be beside the point.
Its a pretty speculative question at this time since we don't know what the actual qualities an AI might have. Maybe its possible, maybe its not possible or maybe, like has been suggested, enlightenment is an irrelevant question for a machine without emotion.
There is actually a work of short fiction by an AI researcher and Buddhist Ben Goertzel available for free about an enlightened AI.
http://www.goertzel.org/new_fiction/Enlightenment2.pdf
Hello welcome to Newbuddhist
Just wondering,
does human intelligence lead to enlightenment?
Not very often.
Do I wonder why? No.
Perhaps I should be programmed to focus on 'nirvana' ... whatever that is ...
... and now back to natural intelligence and robots ...
Another question: Can zombies be enlightened?
Tee Hee.
Sadly not.
AI in the sense of a quantum computer, with self modifying code is not yet available. The nearest such possibility is [spoiler alert] us. We will increasingly need to use BCI to facilitate and understand our creation ...
Purely intelligent beings like Mr. Spock of Star Trek don't suffer unlike emotional people like Captain Kirk. So to answer your question - AI don't need enlightenment since they have no emotional burdens to carry in the first place.
Actually, Spock suffered worse from his emotions than Kirk as would most Vulcans. It isn't that they don't have emotions but suppress them.
Bit of a Trekkie, sorry.
I think that was just because Spock had a human mother.
I think that is the key question. Say you can make a thinking machine, something that is intelligent, though a combination of deep learning and other techniques. It will still just be a microprocessor running a bunch of very sophisticated software.
Let's assume that the likes of Pim van Lommel are right and consciousness exists independently from the body. Then how the brain or body connect to the consciousness field is still a total unknown. Almost certainly whatever it is will not be present in a microprocessor.
So my guess would be, thinking machines will end up being very sophisticated, self-learning entities with the capability to evaluate and make decisions, but ultimately not conscious in the way that a human being is.
But perhaps we will find out what it is that connects the brain to the consciousness field at some point, it might be something quantum in the interaction of neurons, and it may be possible to duplicate that and bring consciousness to a machine.
No, all Vulcans have fierce emotions and it almost destroyed them. Surak led them out of those dark ages and taught meditative techniques to subdue Vulcan emotion but sometimes the cork comes off the bottle and all heck breaks loose.
As usual there is a middle way.
Data the android would be a better example here but the same argument could be made.
From what I've heard people who have had damage to the emotion processing part of their brains, meaning they have no emotions, have difficulty in life. Like it takes them half an hour to make decisions like should they use a black pen or a blue pen.
Maybe a true AI would require some form of emotional intelligence in order to successfully operate in the world.
Speaking of Star Trek though, don't the Jedi have to undergo some sort of mental training that subdues their emotions?
They have Jedi in Star Trek? We Sith never hear the good gossip ...
Thanks for the info. Spock must have been practising samatha without vipassana.
If it's not such a worry for AI to find enlightenment, and it really isn't such a worry for animals either, why is it such a concern for humans? Why are we really the only intelligent entity that has to seek something out? Animals suffer, of course. But they suffer and they are done. They do not fear suffering for the most part, or worry about such things until they are in the moment, they do not think back to their former suffering like we do. They don't live in the past and future, and it seems neither would anything AI related. It would simply deal with what was at hand at any given moment.
I think about this in random thoughts pretty often. I really am just after practices that help me live more like animals or AI would-to deal with what is at hand, nothing more, nothing less. I'm not really intensely interested in liberation from it (though I would be ok with finding myself awakened solely for the vast understanding that accompanies it). I just find it interesting that humans are so complex and make everything so complex, all the time. And then have to come up with ways to escape our complexity because it is so difficult, lol. Sometimes it seems we are the least intelligent of all these things/beings that we put below us.
I don't think animals are enlightened.
@karasti I would say that there is also an emotional quality to any being's present state regardless of past or future thinking that can be more or less happy.
I guess I'm just not in the same boat when thinking about animals. Its true that they don't have the problems created by our intelligence but they also have very little capacity to alter their behavior to produce better outcomes.
@Jeffrey I don't think they are enlightened. I question our desire for enlightenment, I guess. Or any definitive end such as heaven/hell etc.
@person do they really need to alter their behavior for better outcomes? Don't they really make the very best decision they can in each moment? Sometimes they lose, sometimes they win (depending how you look at it) but they don't spend their lives thinking about it and worrying about it and fearing it. They live in the moment because they don't have the ability to do any more than that. Therefore they don't even have a need for a better outcome. Why do we? We compare and we judge and we live in a constant state of thinking about things. We consider that the height of intelligence. All the fantastic inventions the human mind has made, back to the wheel and our first tools. All those things made our lives...different. But do they really serve any sort of purpose other than to continue to develop our brains so we are now at the point where we don't do much but think a whole lot about everything? I'm not so convinced that that is moving forward I guess.
I doubt I'm explaining myself well. I feel like it's coming out much more negative and nihilistic than I really feel about it. I'm just thinking out loud. It comes up sometimes when I observe our pets and the interactions of nature, since we live in the woods and see it all the time. I'm not really convinced that the human life is so much more advanced and beneficial compared to other beings. We fear suffering and death and live our lives fearing those things for the most part (which was Buddha's initial observation of course). But being the only beings that do so doesn't really suggest to me that it's the best or highest way to live. Obviously, Buddha looked to find a way out of it. My entire point I guess is that we are the only beings that have to do that which makes me think we simply think to much about everything.
@karasti
Well, I'd go back to my first point about our present emotional state. Maybe an animal doesn't concern itself with the past or future but in the moment they are driven by the need to find food or sex or maybe fear of being eaten. I'd say that these emotional states are suffering in and of themselves, of craving and aversion, certainly some animals suffer from anger as well. As humans on a spiritual path we can cultivate emotional states of tranquility and love such that they occupy our everyday present emotional state to a greater or lesser degree.
Buddha's Noble Truths apply to conscious, self-aware human minds, which are prone to selfish desires and thus suffering. If an AI mind was prone to selfish desires and thus suffering, then the Dharma would equally apply. However, since no conscious or self-aware AI exists, we don't know how similar or different from the human mind it might be. And in spite of overly optimistic reporting for the masses, we are nowhere near figuring out how to simulate or duplicate the near-infinite complexity of the brain as it develops from birth and thus creates a mature human mind.
This is why I think that most discussions about enlightenment & Nirvana are unhelpfully contentious.
When we can not even agree about what humans may or may not be enlightened, adding animals to the mix, is just complicating a subject that is already beyond the grasp by anyone's ego, identity or selfish self.
A more practical approach is to ask instead of where we can see Buddha nature?
.....In spiritual humans/ in worldly humans/ in mentally challenged humans/ in domesticated animals/ in wild animals/ in sentient life / in nature?.
Our inability to see Buddha nature everywhere really only speaks of where our own practices needs more work, not of the limit of anythings potential Buddha nature.
Yes there are some koans I think about if a dog has Buddha nature. Joshu said the answer was 'MU'. (or maybe he thought they were talking about cows?
)
But being enlightened and having Buddha nature are not the same thing. For example technically the Donald has Buddha nature right
Does Buddhanature have dogs?
I guess the separateness is really what I am looking at. We think so highly of ourselves that we assume we are the only ones with these problems, and the only ones who can solve these problems. Because the only way we can look at other beings is through our human experience, which isn't remotely the same. A friend of mine is a world renowned bear researcher and his experiences over many decades said a whole lot about the emotional state of bears. they don't experience things like we do, no, like I said. But their connections are things few people know exist unless you had the experience like he did. So to me, it seems that either none of us has Buddha nature, or every being does. To see things only from a human perspective is very limited.
Animals obviously suffer, I meant mostly that they don't experience the thinking about it that we do. I hope that part at least was clear, lol.
If everything has Buddhanature, which is the way I lean because I feel like I can feel it all around me in all of life, even the trees, then animals have the chance to level up, too. Which means they have to have some capacity to do things to get them beyond that point. The ability to save the life of someone else, to adopt babies of different species, to befriend an animal they'd normally kill. We see examples of that all the time. It seems to me that is an expression of compassion, no?
So to expand that to AI, would it have an ability to extend compassion? I"m not so sure I guess. Could a machine learn to help? I imagine, yes. It could assess risk and damage and threats to life. But could it act on a basis of wanting to help beyond that? I guess right now it is hard to imagine. But anything is possible. I can't really imagine Skynet nursing some squirrels though.
If by Buddhanature you mean the knowing nature, then the answer is yes. It also has humans, cars, stars, gravity, atoms. In fact everything that can be experienced or cognized. But it defies description beyond just knowing.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/freedomfrombuddhanature.html
@lobster Time to duck.
What about dolphins and whales? Buddhanature? Sounds plausible to me...
That's why I figure "mu".
Chao-Chaos famous reply is perfect because the student asked as if buddhanature were a quality one can possess. I'm thinking dogs are as much an expression of buddhanature as anything else but there are certain realizations dogs may not get to come by.
Could AI have an idea dawn on it because of processing data or have a sudden realization?
More intelligent than some humans if you ask me.
Ah lads and lassies, "ya niver know". Should a robot ever develop sentience, with a self-awareness...Keep seeking, Data.
If a robot can help ease the suffering of all sentient beings all on its own...that's close enough.
Would a terminator be reborn though?
"I'll be back..."
You were!
Ice cream all around on Spiney's tab!
[Serious for a moment - @SpinyNorman, I hope you are wining your battle...]
It could be possible that a self aware AI wakes up with no enlightenment necessary.
With no pain, ignorance or clinging how is nirvana obscured?
Nothing special and everything is accepted as it is.
Maybe?