Truth and AI

Roger Penrose is a Nobel prizewinning physicist. He has pointed out that “artificial intelligence” can never be conscious. He bases this not on discovery, but on a fundamental law of mathematics; an equivalent to Godels Incompleteness Theorum. No matter how fast machines calculate, they can never become conscious.

What then is consciousness?

For TS Eliot “The point of intersection of the timeless with time, is an occupation for the saint”




























”At the still point of the turning world, there the dance is” TS Eliot, Burnt Norton

“The point of intersection of the timeless With time, is an occupation for the saint” TS Eliot, Dry Salvages

”To be conscious is not to be in time”


“In this flow, mind and matter are not separate substances. Rather, they are different aspects of one whole and unbroken movement.” David Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order

Ai? That’s just it.

Machine Learning: Intelligence Without Consciousness

Machine learning displays intelligence in the sense that it applies reason. It is not, however, truly artificial: it arose naturally as an extension of human thought. Nor is it conscious—and, according to Roger Penrose, it cannot logically become so.

Machine learning is a tool, capable of either empowering or destroying. Yet rationality without feeling or relationship is pure I–It: concrete, isolated, and empty. “I-It” is a term used by Martin Buber to describe one mode of being in the world.

Martin Buber: Meaning Through Relationship

The essence of Martin Buber’s philosophy is that meaning arises through relationship. He distinguishes between two fundamental modes:

  • I–Thou (Ich–Du): an authentic encounter in which each participant remains open to the other.
  • I–It (Ich–Es): an instrumental mode of relating in which the other is reduced to an object or projection.

From I–Thou springs the creative potential of existence: something new emerges in every encounter between the two poles of relationship. Buber calls this process “dialogue”. It begins as an attitude—a choice about how to be and how to exist—and unfolds in the “between” (Buber’s Zwischen), where relationship opens onto new depths and possibilities.

I–It is the opposite. Because it focuses on something concrete and clearly defined, it can feel productive. Yet this apparent clarity reveals the trap: instead of meeting the other, one relates to a projection. In this sense, I–It is fundamentally narcissistic and becomes the essence of loneliness.

Gadamer, Bohm, and Genuine Dialogue

Hans-Georg Gadamer developed Buber’s insight by describing genuine dialogue as a “fusion of horizons”. When conversation gives equal priority to attentive listening and clear expression, perspectives can merge, broaden, and create new understanding.

David Bohm’s work reflects a similar vision. He grounds dialogue in physics, offering both a quantum-mechanical perspective and a connection with Eastern philosophy. Across these approaches, genuine conversation becomes a creative encounter with possibilities that extend beyond either participant’s original viewpoint.

Have a look at..

Martin Buber – “Ich und Du” (I and Thou)

Hans-Georg Gadamer – “Warheit und Methode” (Truth and Method)

David Bohm – “On Dialogue”, “ Wholeness and the Implicate Order”, “The Undivided Universe: an Ontological Interpretation of Quantum Theory”, “The Ending of Time”, “On Creativity”

Sir Roger Penrose – “Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness”, “Consciousness and the Laws of Physics”, “The Emperor’s New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics”

 

 

Have a look at..

Martin Buber – “Ich und Du” (I and Thou)

Hans-Georg Gadamer – “Warheit und Methode” (Truth and Method)

David Bohm – “On Dialogue”, “ Wholeness and the Implicate Order”, “The Undivided Universe: an Ontological Interpretation of Quantum Theory”, “The Ending of Time”, “On Creativity”

Sir Roger Penrose – “Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness”, “Consciousness and the Laws of Physics”, “The Emperor’s New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics”

Let us become conscious of infinity

Humanity is only half conscious, because conscious only of finity. Collectively we are unconscious. Surely, we are in the process of birth into consciousness, together, of infinity.

Now.  Humanity is conscious of itself, himself, herself. Self-conscious. Even that is a marvel,  the “phenomenon” which distinguishes our species.

But, within that -we are generally conscious only of finity. (Death is certain, our ego will cease). Ego does NOT want to be conscious of infinity. (Have you ever experienced the terror of existential angst?)

Yet, in glimpses – “through a glass darkly” – I (and thus surely many of us) have been conscious of infinity as pure love. “All shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well” according to Eliot. I wish for each and all of us that we die to sorrow and are born to joy. Infinity as the “word existing beyond time” as the Book of Common Prayer has it, or the release from the cycle of birth and death as Buddhists and Hindus express it.

Now, being conscious only of finity we are still trapped in the cycle of death and birth. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin describes an approaching Omega Point as a supreme consciousness. Then, being conscious of infinity, we will have arrived. Together.

Here is an extract from the Wikipedia entry on “The Phenomenon of Man” by Teilhard de Chardin. The book is wonderful – floridly French and yet scientifically profound. If you have time it really repays to consider it together with Harari’s “Homo Deus”. We should welcome Artificial Intelligence but struggle to keep learning and knowledge in our common, societal hands….

“Teilhard views evolution as a process that leads to increasing complexity. From the cell to the thinking animal, a process of psychical concentration leads to greater consciousness. The emergence of Homo sapiens marks the beginning of a new age, as the power acquired by consciousness to turn in upon itself raises mankind to a new sphere. Borrowing Huxley’s expression, Teilhard describes humankind as evolution becoming conscious of itself.
In Teilhard’s conception of the evolution of the species, a collective identity begins to develop as trade and the transmission of ideas increases Knowledge accumulates and is transmitted in increasing levels of depth and complexity. This leads to a further augmentation of consciousness and the emergence of a thinking layer that envelops the earth.Teilhard calls the new membrane the “noosphere” (from the Greek “nous”, meaning mind), a term first coined by Vladimir Vernadsky. The noosphere is the collective consciousness of humanity, the networks of thought and emotion in which all are immersed.
The development of science and technology causes an expansion of the human sphere of influence, allowing a person to be simultaneously present in every corner of the world. Teilhard argues that humanity has thus become cosmopolitan, stretching a single organized membrane over the Earth. Teilhard describes the process by which this happens as a “gigantic psychobiological operation, a sort of mega-synthesis, the “super-arrangement” to which all the thinking elements of the earth find themselves today individually and collectively subject”. The rapid expansion of the noosphere requires a new domain of psychical expansion, which “is staring us in the face if we would only raise our heads to look at it”.
In Teilhard’s view, evolution will culminate in the Omega Point, a sort of supreme consciousness. Layers of consciousness will converge in Omega, fusing and consuming them in itself. The concentration of a conscious universe will reassemble in itself all consciousnesses as well as all that we are conscious of. Teilhard emphasizes that each individual facet of consciousness will remain conscious of itself at the end of the process.”