The connection between artistic expression and "spiritual beings" is also odd. What if they were just playing some songs around a fire? What if the flutes were for emulating bird songs? Maybe it was a kid's toy. The presence of artistic expression need not require some complex or even simplistic spiritualism, only a kind of basic aesthetics, a desire for creative expression.
Yes, true, my bad. I have a history of not understanding what the word "spiritual" means (I think I've read every possible explanation over the years, I still don't get it), so I usually tend to find a proxy for it when I'm reasoning about something. In this case I was using "intelligent" as my proxy.
I'm a committed atheist but find it hard to think of a better word than spiritual to describe the wonder I have about the universe. I find the scientific explanations more beautiful than the religious but that doesn't make them less spiritual. I doubt the decision to learn to play the flute was based in logic.
How will we know if it is actually worrying, or if it's just regurgitating our own worries like a VHS tape of the famous Bladerunner or Hamlet soliloquies?
When it can provide its own answer, it will have already been smart for a long time.
I keep finding the Münchhausen Trilemma popping up whenever the possibilities of AI consciousness are discussed, more specifically I keep seeing circular and dogmatic arguments against it.
I only see "cogito ergo sum" or "there is a thought now" when I myself bring up those quotes.
Having an A-level in philosophy at mere grade E, I'm almost certainly less qualified than ChatGPT to discuss it, of course…
Can we please operationalize “spiritual?” It’s obviously important.
Can something that is not conscious be spiritual? I doubt it. So sentience is at least required. Can something that is not empathic be spiritual? I doubt it. So, I’d propose that “spiritual” at least requires consciousness and empathy. Then it seems to require some other transcendent aspect which often involves the dissolution of the ego. So, it requires an ego to be dissolved.
Yes, a few objections, or at least requests for clarification.
You propose that necessary conditions for "spiritual" are "consciousness" and "empathy". These phenomenon are regularly seen in trees, and also in most motive forms of multicellular life.
You then propose that sufficient conditions would additionally include existence of an ego AND its dissolution.
If ego is the thing that gets in the way of spiritual, then wouldn't beings that don't have ego be inherently spiritual?
And for those beings that have an ego, given that the ego is made from the non-ego, how do you distinguish between when they are spiritual and when not? I've found that my self is often less aware of my spiritual aspect than I would like, but I'm also very seldom aware of how I coordinate my heartbeat or how I breath or digest food.
How do I know that I'm not enlightened? And just because I "know" this, does it make it true? Does it matter more if I believe in God or if God believes in me? What is this barrier between me and enlightenment? isn't the ego just as much an expression of "spirit" as the heartbeat?
> You propose that necessary conditions for "spiritual" are "consciousness" and "empathy". These phenomenon are regularly seen in trees, and also in most motive forms of multicellular life.
